I i A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY AND LITERATURE TO THE END OF THE SIXTH CENTURY A.D., WITH AN ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL SECTS AND HERESIES EDITED BY HENRY WAGE, D.D. DEAN OF CANTERBURY AND WILLIAM C. PIERCY, M.A. DEAN AND CHAPLAIN OF WHITELANDS COLLEGE, S.W. IN ONE VOLUME BOSTON LITTLE, BROWN AND COMPANY 191 1 PRINTED BY HAZELL, WATSON AND VINEY, LU., LONDON AND AYLESBURY, iNGLAND. PREFACE This volume is designed to render to a wider circle, alike of clergy and of laity, the service which, as is generally admitted, has been rendered to the learned v.'orld by The Dictionary of Christian Biography. Literature, Sects, and Doctrines, published under the editorship of Dr. Wace and the late Dr. Wm. Smith, about twenty years ago, in four large volumes. That work covered the whole of the first eight centuries of the Christian era, and was planned on a very comprehensive scale. It aimed at giving an account, not merely of names of importance, but of all names, however small, con- cerned in the Christian literature of those eight centuries ; and to illustrate its extent and minuteness, it may be enough to mention that no fewer than 596 Johns are recorded in due order in its columns. The surviving Editor may be pardoned for expressing his satisfaction that the work is now recognized, abroad as well as at home, as a valuable work of reference, being constantly quoted alike in the great Protestant Cyclopaedia of Herzog, in its third edition now happily complete, and in the Patrology of the learned Roman Catholic Professor at Munich, Dr. Bardenhewer. To the generous band of great English scholars to whose unstinted labours the chief excellences of that work are due, and too many of whom have now passed away, it is, or it would have been, a welcome satisfaction to find it described in the Patrology of that scholar as "very useful, relatively complete and generally reliable." * But that work was mainly adapted to the use of men of learning, and was unsuited, both by its size and expense, and by the very wideness of its range, for the use of ordinary readers, or even for the clergy in general. In the first place, the last two centuries of the period which it covered, although of immense interest in the history of the Church, as including the origins of the Teutonic civilization of Europe, have not an equal interest with the first six as exhibiting primitive Christianity in its purer forms. With the one important exception of John of Damascus, the Fathers of the Church, so called, alike in East and West, fall within the first six centuries, and in the West the series is closed by St. Gregory the Great, who died in the year 604. English divines accordingly, since the days of Bp. Jewel, have, like Bp. Cosin, appealed to the first six centuries of the Church as exhibiting, in doctrine as well as in practice, subject to Holy Scripture, the standards of primitive Christianity. Those six centuries, consequently, have a special interest for all Christian students, and part- • Edition of 1908, published in English at Freiburg im Breisgau, and at St. Louis, Mo., U.S.A., translated from the second German edition by Dr. T. J. Shahan, Professor of Church History in the Catholic University of America, p. ir. 235337 vi PREFACE icularly for those of our own Church, and deserve accordingly some special treatment. It was thought, therefore, that a Dictionary of Christian Biography which confined itself to this formative and authoritative period of the Church's history would be of special interest and service, not only to the clergy, but also to the Christian laity and to students for Holy Orders. But the limitation of such a work to this period at once disembarrassed our pages of the mass of Teutonic, and sometimes almost pagan, names with which, after the settlement of the barbarians in Europe, we were over- whelmed ; and thus of itself rendered it possible to bring the work into much narrower compass. Moreover, a mass of insignificant names, which the principles of scholarly completeness obliged us to introduce into the larger Dictionary, were not needed for the wider circle now in contemplation. They were useful and necessary for purposes of learned reference, but they cast no light on the course and meaning of Church history for ordinary readers. We have had to exercise a discretion (which may sometimes seem to have been arbitrary) in selecting, for instance, from the 596 Johns just mentioned those which were the most valuable for such readers as we had in view ; and for the manner in which we have exercised that discretion we must trust ourselves to the indulgent judgment of our readers. The publisher gave us generous limits ; but it seemed to him and to ourselves indispensable for the general usefulness of the Dictionary that it should be restricted to one volume ; and we were thus, with respect to the minor names, obliged to omit many which, though of some interest, seemed to be such as could be best dispensed with. By omissions of this nature we have secured an object Avhich will, we are sure, be felt to be of inestimable value. We have been able to retain, with no material abbreviation, the admirable articles on the great characters of early Church history and literature which were contributed, with an unselfish devotion which can never be sufficiently acknowledged, by the great scholars who have been the glory of the last generation or two of English Church scholarship, and some of whom are happily still among us. To mention only some of the great contributors who have passed away, such articles as those of Bp. Westcott on Clement of Alexandria and Origen, Bp. Lightfoot on Eusebius, Archbp. Benson on St. Cyprian, Dr. Bright on St. Athanasius and kindred subjects. Dr. Salmon on varied subjects of the first importance, Bp. Stubbs on early English history, and some by the learned Professor Lipsius of Jena, have a permanent value, as the ap- preciations of great characters and moments of Church history and literature by scholars and divines who have never been surpassed, and will hardly be equalled again, in English sacred learning. We deemed it one of the greatest services which such a work as this could render that it should make ac- cessible to the wide circle in question these unique masterpieces of patristic and historical study. It has therefore been one of our first objects to avoid, as far as possible, any abbreviation of the body of these articles. We have occasionally ventured on slight verbal condensation in secondary passages, and we have omitted some purely technical discussions of textual points and of editions. But in the main the reader is here placed in possession, within the compass of a moderate volume, of what will probably be allowed to be at once the most valuable and the most interesting series of monographs. PREFACE vii on the chief characters and incidents of early Church history, ever con- tributed to a single undertaking by a band of Christian scholars. We feel it no more than a duty to pay this tribute of gratitude and admira- tion to the great divines, to whose devotion and learning all that is per- manently valuable in these pages is due. and we are confident that their monographs, thus rendered generally available, will prove a permanent possession of the highest value to English students of Church history. We must further offer the expression of our cordial gratitude to several living scholars, who have contributed new articles of similar importance to the present volume, in place of some in the original edition which the lapse of time or other circumstances had rendered less valuable than the rest. In particular, our warmest thanks are due to Dr. Robertson, the present Bp. of Exeter, who has substituted for the sketch of St. Augustine contributed to the original edition by an eminent French scholar, M. de Pressense, a study of that great Father, similar in its thoroughness to the other great monographs just mentioned. W^e arc also deeply indebted to the generosity of Chancellor Lias for fresh studies of such important subjects as Arius and Monophysitism ; and a valuable account of the Nes- torian Church has been very kindly contributed by the Rev. W. A. Wigram, who, as head of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Assyrian Mission, possesses unique qualifications for dealing with the subject. We have to thank also the eminent learning of Dr. A. J. Mason for an article on Gaudentius of Brescia, who was unaccountably omitted from the larger work, and whose name has of late acquired new interest. The gratitude of the Editors, is also specially due to Dr. Knowling and Dr. Gee, of Durham University, for their assistance in some cases in which articles required to be supplemented or corrected by the most recent learning. In all cases where the writers of the original articles are still living they were afforded the opportunity, if they desired it, of revising their work and bringing it up to date, and of checking the condensations : though the Editors and not the writers must take the responsibility for the latter and also, in most cases, for bibliographical additions. The Editors desire gratefully to record their appreciation of the assistance thus readily and kindly rendered by most of the original writers who are still spared to us. and, as an example, we are glad to thank the Rev. E. B. Birks for his very thorough revision of his article on the Epistle to Diognetus. Cross-references are inserted, where needed, on the principle adopted in Murray's Illustrated Bible Dictionary (to which this is intended to be a companion volume in size, appearance, and price) — namely, the name of the article to which a cross-reference is intended is printed in capitals within brackets, but without the brackets when it occurs in the ordinary course of the text. In the headings of articles the numbers in brackets after names which are common to more than one person are retained as in the large edition, to facilitate reference to that edition when desired, and also to indicate that there were other persons of the same name. It was not consistent with the limits of the work to retain in all cases the minute bibliography sometimes furnished in the larger edition. But, Yiii PREFACE on the other hand, an endeavour has been made to give references, at the end of articles, to recent publications of importance on each subject ; and in this endeavour the Editors must express their great indebtedness to the valuable Patrology of Professor Bardenhewer, already referred to, and to the admirable third edition of Herzog and Hauck's Protestant Cyclopaedia, and occasionally to the parallel Roman Catholic Cyclopaedia of Wetzer and Welte, edited by Cardinal Hergenrother. It may be permissible, in referring to these auxiliary sources, to express a deep satisfaction at the increasing co-operation, in friendly learning, of Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars, and to indulge the hope that it is an earnest of the gradual growth of a better understanding between those two great schools of thought and life. The Editors cannot conclude without paying a final tribute of honour and gratitude to the generous and devoted scholar whose accurate labours were indispensable to the original work, as is acknowledged often in its Pre- faces, and who rendered invaluable assistance in the first stage of the pre- paration of the present volume — the Rev. Charles Hole, late Lecturer for many years in Ecclesiastical History in King's College, London. Dr. Wace hoped to have had the happiness of having his own name associated with that of his old teacher, friend, and colleague on the title-page of this volume, and he laments that death has deprived him of this privilege. He cannot, however, sufficiently express his sense of obligation to his colleague, Mr. Piercy, for the ability, skill, and generous labour without which the pro- duction of the work would have been impossible. LIST OF WRITERS Initials A.H.D.A. The Right Hon. A. H. Dyke Acland. LL.D. Hon. Fellow of Balliol College, 0.\ford. M.F.A. The late Ri:v. M. F. .\rgles, M.A. Formerly Principal of St. Stephen's House, O.xford. C.J.B. Rev. C. J. Ball, M..\. Lecturer in Assyriology, Oxford; Rector of Blechingdon. J.B— y. The late Rev. J. Barmbv, B.D. Formerly Principal of Bishop Hatfield's Hall, Durham, and Rector of Pilkington. S.A.B. S. A. Bennett, Esq., B..\. Of Lincoln's Inn. E.W.B. The late Most Rev. E. W. Benson, D.D. Formerly .Archbishop of Canterbury. E.B.B. Rev. E. B. Birks, M..\.. Vicar of Kellington ; formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. C.W.B. The late Rev. C. W. Boase, ^LA. Formerly Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford. W.B. The late Rev. Canon W. Bright, D.D. Formerly Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Oxford. T.R.B. The late Right Hon. T. R. Buchanan, M.A., M.P. Fellow of .A.11 Souls' College, Oxford. D.B. The late Rev. D. Butler, U.A. Formerly Rector of Thwing, Yorkshire. J.G.C. The lite Rev. ]. G. Cazenove, D.D. Formerly Provost of Cumbrae College, N.B. M.B.C. Rev. M. B. Cowell, M.A. Vicar of Ash Bocking. F.D. F. H. Blackburne Daniel, Esq. Of Lincoln's Inn. G.W.D. The Ven. G. W. Daniell, M.A. .'Vrchdeacon of Kiugston-on-Thamcs. T.W.D. The late Rev. T. W. Davids. Upton. L.D. Rev. L. Davidson, M..A. Rector of Stanton St. John, Oxford. J.LL.D. Rev. J. Ll. Davies, D.Litt. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. CD. Rev. C. Deedes, M.A. Prebendary of Chichester. W.P.D, The late Rev. W. P. Dickson, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, Glasgow. E.S.Ff. The late Rev. E. S. Ffoulkes, M..\. Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford, and Vicar of St. Mary's. A.P.F. The late Right Rev. A. P. Forbes, D.C.L. Formerly Bishop of Brechin. W.H.F. The Very Rev. and Hon. W. H. Fremantle, D.D. Dean of Ripon. J.M.F. The late Rev. J. M. Fuller, M.A. Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. ix X LIST OF WRITERS INITIAI^ J.G. Rev. J. Gammack. M.A. Rector of St. James's, Hartford, Connecticut, U.S.A. H.G. Rev. H. Gee, D.D. Master of University College, Durham. C.G. The Right Rev. C. Gore, D.D. Bishop of Birmingham. J.Gw. Rev. J. Gwvnn, D.D., D.C.L. Regius Professor of Divinity, T.C.D. A.W.H. The late Rev. A. W. Haddan, B.D. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford. T.R.H. The late Rev. T. R. Halcomb, .M.A. Formerly Fellow of Lincoln College, Oxford. C.H. The late Rev. C. Hole, B.A. Formerly Rector of Loxbear, and Lecturer in Ecclesiastical History in King's College, London. H.S.H. Rev. Canon H. ScoTr Holland, D.D. Regius Professor of Divinity, Oxford. H. The late Rev. F. J. A. Hort, D.D. Formerly Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. D.R.J. The late Rev. D. R. Jo.-es. Oxford. R.J.K. Rev. Canon R. J. Knowling, D.D. Professor of Divinity, Durham. j.j.L. Rev. Chancellor J. J. Lias, M.A. Chancellor of Llandafi Cathedral. L. The Right Rev. J. B. Lightfoot, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Durham. R.A.L. The late R. A. Lipsius, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, University of Jena. W.L. Rev. W. Lock, D.D. Ireland Professor of Exegesis, Oxford ; Warden of Keble College. J.H.L. The late Rev. J. H. Lupton, M.A. Formerly Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. G.F.M. The late Rev. G. F. Maclear, D.D. Formerly Warden of St. Augustine's College, Canterbury. A.C.M. A. C. Madam, Esq., M.A. Senior Student of Christ Church, Oxford. S.M. The late Rev. S. Mansel, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. A.J.M. Rev. A. J. Mason, D.D. Master of Pembro'ice College, Cambridge, and Canon of Canterbury. W.M. The late Rev. W. Milligan, D.D. Formerly Professor of Divinity, Aberdeen. G.H.M. The late Rev. G. H. Moberly, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. T.D.C.M. The late Rev. T. D. C. Morse. Formerly Rector of Drayton, Nuneaton. H.G.C.M. The Right Rev. H. G. C. Moule, D.D. Bishop of Durham. J.R.M. J. R. Mozley, Esq., M.A. Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. F.P. The Right Rev. F, Paget, D.D. Bishop of Oxford. H.W.P. The late Rev. H. W. Phillott, M.A. Formerly Rector of Staunton-on-Wye. W.C.P. Rev. W. C. Piercy, M.A. Dean and Chaplain of Whitelands College, S.W. E.H.P. The late Rev. E. H. Plujiftre, D.D. Formerly Dean of Wells. P.O. The late Rev. P. Onslow, B.A. Formerly Rector of Upper Sapey. J.R. The late Rev. Canon J. Raine, M.A. Formerly Fellow of Durham University. LIST OF WRITERS xi Initials H.R.R. The Kite Rev. H. R. Reynolds, I>.D. Formerly Principal of Cheshunt College. A.R. The Right Rev. A. Robertson, D.D. Bishop of Exeter. G.S. The late Rev. G. Salmon, D.D. Formerlv Regius Professor of Divinitv and Provost of Trinity College, Dublin. P.S. The late Rev. P. Schaff. Bible House, New York. W.M.S. The Ven. W. M. Sinclair, D.D. Formerly Archdeacon of London. I.G.S. Rev. I. G. Smith, LL.D. Formerly Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. R.P.S. The late Verv Rev. R. P. Smith, D.D. Formerly Dean of Canterbury. G.T.S. The late Rev. G. T. Stokes, .M.A. Formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Trinity College, Dublin. S. The late Right Rev. W. Stubbs, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Oxford. E.S.T. The Right Rev. E. S. Talbot, D.D. Bishop of Winchester. R.St.J.T. The late Rev. R. St. J. Tyrvvhitt. Formerly Student of Christchurch, Oxford. E.V. The late Rev. Canon E. Venables. Formerly Precentor of Lincoln Cathedral. K.W. The Very Rev. H. Wage, D.D. Dean of Canterbury. M..\.\V. Mrs. Humfrhy Ward. Stocks House, Tring. H.W.W. The Ven. H. W. Watkins, D.D. Prof, of Hebrew, Durham University, and Archdeacon of Durham. W. or B.F.W. The late Right Rev. B. F. Westcott, D.D. Formerly Bishop of Durham. W..\.W. Rev. W. A. Wigram, M.A. Archbishop of Canterbury's Mission to Assyria. H.A.W. Rev. H. A. Wilson, M.A. Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. J.W. The Right Rev. J. Wordsworth, D.D. Bishop of Salisbury. E.M.Y. The late Rev. E. M. Young, M.A. Formerly Headmaster of Sherborne School. DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY Abercius ('AifV*'"'- "Aoiipvio?, Wov^pKio^, etc. ; I. at. Avircius, or Avercius ; on the form and origin, see Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd -r.i, pp. 26S, 3Q4, and Zahn, art. " Aver- -." Rcalencvclopddie fiir protest. Theol. und ■.'che. Hauck). The Life of the saint, de- . ibed as bp. of Hierapolis in Phrygia in tlie u-ae of M. Aurelius and L. Verus, as given by Svmeon Metaphrastes and in the Bollandist Ada Sanctorum, Oct. 22. is full of worthless 1 fantastic tales. But the epitaph which .\cts incorporate, placed, according to the : ly, on the altar brought from Rome by the ueiiion whom the saint had driven out of the emperor's daughter, is of great value, and the discovery of some of the actual fragments of the inscription may well be called " a romance of archaeology." For this redis- covery our thanks are due to the rich labours of Prof. Ramsay. The fact that Abercius was described as bp. of Hierapolis at the time mentioned above had contributed to hesitation as to the genuineness of the epitaph. But Ramsay (Bulletin de correspondance hel- lenique, Juillet 1882) pointed out that Hiera- polis had been frequently confounded with Hieropolis ; and he also published in the same journal a metrical and early Christian epitaph of a certain Alexander (.\.d. 216), discovered at Hieropolis, and evidently copied from the epitaph of Abercius, as given in his Life. As to the copying, there can be no doubt, for the third line of the epitaph of Alexander, son of Antonius, will not scan, owing to the substi- tution of his name for that of Abercius (Light- foot, Apost. Fathers^, i. p. 479 ; Headlam in Authority and Archaeology, pp. 307 ff., 1899). Ramsay's attention being drawn to the earlier epitaph, he collected various topographical notices in the Life of the saint, which pointed to Hieropolis, near Synnada (not Hierapolis on the Maeander), and he further established the case for the former by finding, in 1883, in the bath-room at some hot springs near Hieropolis, a small portion of the epitaph of Abercius himself on the fragment of an altar- shaped tomb ; the hot springs in their posi- tion near the city exactly correspond with the position of the hot springs described in the Life. We have thus fortunately a three- fold help in reconstructing the text of the whole epitaph — (i) the text in the Life; (2) the rediscovered fragments in the stone ; (3) the epitaph on the tomb of Alexander. There is much to be said for the identifica- tion of Abercius with the Avircius Marcellus (Eua. H. E. V. 16) to whom the extracts of ABERCIUS the anonymous writer against Montanus are dedicated. We cannot be sure as to the date of these extracts, but there is reason to place them towards the close of the reign of Commodus, 180-192, and the epitaph of Abercius must at least have been earlier than 216, the date of the epitaph of Alexander. But the writer of the extracts addresses the person to whom he dedicates his work as a person of authority, although he does not style him a bishop (but see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 483), who had urged him a very long time ago to write on the subject. Avircius Marcellus might therefore have well flourished in the reign of M. Aurelius, and might have visited Rome at the time men- tioned in the legend, a.d. 163. Further, in the extracts mention is made by the writer of one Zoticus of Otrous, his " fellow-presby- ter," and Otrous was in the neighbourhood of this Hieropolis (for the identification, see further Lightfoot and Zahn, u.s. ; Headlam, U.S. ; Ramsay, Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), p. 394). Against the attempt of Ficker to prove that the epitaph was heathen, Sitzungsberichte d. Bert. Akad. 1895, pp. 87-112, and that of Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, xii. 4b, p. 21, to class it as partly heathen and partly Christian, see Zahn, u.s., and further in Neue Kirchliche Zeilschrift, 1895, pp. 863-886 ; also the criticism of Ramsay, quoted by Headlam, U.S. Both external and internal evidence are in favour of a Christian origin, and we have in this epitaph what Ramsay describes, C. R. E. pp. 437 ff., as " a testimony, brief, clear, emphatic, of the truth for which Avir- cius had contended — the one great figure on the Catholic side produced by the Phrygian church during this period," a man whose wide experience of men and cities might in itself have well marked him out as such a champion. The faithful, i.e. the sacred writings, the Sacraments of Holy Baptism and Holy Communion, the miraculous birth of our Lord (the most probable reference of irapOifos d7»'7;). His omnipresent and omni- scient energy, the fellowship of the members of the church, not only in Rome but else- where — all these (together with the mixed cup, wine and water ; the prayer for the departed ; the symbolic IX9TIS, one of its earliest instances) have a place in the picture of early Christian usage and belief gained from this one epitaph ; however widely Aber- cius travelled, to the far East or West, the same picture, he assures us, met his gaze. We thus recover an instructive and enduring monument of Christian life in the 2nd cent., all the more remarkable because it is pre- 1 2 abgAr sented to us, not in any systematic form, but as the natural and simple expression of a pure and devout soul. For full literature, see Zahn, M.S. ; for the development of the legend from the facts mentioned in the epitaph, and for the reconstruction of the text by Light- foot and Ramsay, see three articles by the latter in Expositor, ix. (3rd ser.), also Ram- say's Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, ii. 722. In addition to literature above, cf. art. by Lightfoot in Expositor, i. (3rd ser.), pp. 3 ff. ; and Farrar, Lives of the Fathers, i. pp. 10 ff. Prof. V. Bartlet discusses Harnack's hypo- thesis in the Critical Review, April 1896, and regards it as at present holding the field ; though he finds Harnack's elimination of any reference to Paul the Apostle in the inscrip- tion quite unintelhgible. Even Schmiedel (Encycl. Bibl. ii. 1778) refers unhesitatingly to the inscription as Christian. See further Dr. Swete's art. /. T. S. July 1907, p. 502, on Avircius and prayers for the departed. The following is a translation of the epitaph : " Citizen of a chosen city I have made this (tomb) in my lifetime, that I may have here before the eyes of men (ijjai'epux; v. I. xaipo.) a resting-place for my body — Avircius by name, a disciple of the pure Shepherd, who on the mountains and plains feedeth the flocks of His sheep, who hath eyes large and be- holding all things. For He was my Teacher, teaching me {SLSa.(jK(oi>, so Ramsay, omitted by Zahn) the faithful writings ; who sent me to Rome to behold the King Oao-iAJjai', so Ramsay, but I,ightfoot /3a(riA»)ai', Zahn, 0j.(TiAii di'a^pijTai), and to see the Qvieen in golden robes and golden sandals, and there, too, I saw a people bearing a shining seal (a reference to Bap- tism). And I saw the plain of Syria and all its cities, even Nisibis, having crossed the Euphrates, and everywhere I had fellow-worshippers (rrwoixiieti.^ , so Ivightfoot and Ramsay ; cmi'oSiiTjr, Zahn, referring to Paul). With Paul in my hands / followed (i.e. the writings of Paul, Ramsay ; but I,ightfoot and Di Rossi apparently ' with Paul as my comrade ' ; whilst Zahn conjectures cVoxor, or rather en' 6xco>' instead of ctto^dji'), while Faith everywhere led the way, and everywhere placed before me food, the Fish from the fountain, mighty, pure, which a spotless Virgin grasped (Ramsay refers to the Virgin Mary, but see also Lightfoot and Farrar). And this she {i.e. Faith) gave to the friends to eat continually, having excellent wine, giving the mixed cup with bread. These words, I, Avircius, standing by, bade to be thus written ; I was in fact in my seventy- second year. On seeing this let every one who thinks with him {i.e. who is also an anti-Montanist, so Ramsay ; I,ightfoot and Farrar simply ' fellow- Christian ') pray for him {i.e. Avircius). But no one shall place another in my tomb, but if so, he shall pay 2000 gold pieces to the Romans, and 1000 gold pieces to my excellent fatherland Hierapolis " (so Ramsay, vide Expositor, ix. 3rd ser. p. 271, for a justification of this reading). [r.j.k.] Abgar. [Thaddaeus.] Acacius (2), bp. of Caesarea, from a personal defect known as 6 fj.oi'6(pda\fios. the pupil and biographer of Eusebius the church historian. He succeeded his master as bishop, a.d. 340 (Socr. H. E. ii. 4 ; Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He is chiefly known to us as the bitter and uncom- promising adversary of Cyril of Jerusalem, and as the leader of an intriguing band of ambitious prelates. The events of his life show Acacius to have been a man of great intellectual abiHty but unscrupulous. After the death of Eusebius of Nicomedia, c. 342, he became the head of the courtly Arian party, and is thought by some to be the person styled ACACIUS by Greg. Naz. {Orat. xxi. 21) " the tongue of the Arians," George of Cappadocia being " the hand." He assisted in consecrating Cyril, a.d. 351, and in accordance with the 7th Nicene Canon claimed a right of priority for the metro- political see of Caesarea over that of Jeru- salem. This Cyril refused to yield. Acacius^ supported by the Palestinian bishops, deposed Cyril on frivolous grounds, and expelled him from Jerusalem, a.d. 358. [Cyril of Jeru- salem.] (Soz. iv. 23 ; Theod. ii. 26.) Acacius attended the council of Antioch, A.D. 341 (Soz. iii. 5), when in the presence of the emperor Cons'tantius " the Golden Basil- ica " was dedicated by a band of ninety bishops, and he subscribed the ambiguous creeds then drawn up from which the term Homoousion and all mention of " substance " were carefully excluded. With other bishops of the Eusebian party he was deposed at the council of Sardica, a.d. 347. They refused to submit to the sentence, and withdrew to Philippopolis, where they held a council of their own, deposing their deposers, including Pope Julius and Hosius of Cordova (Theod. ii. 26 ; Socr. ii. 16 ; Soz. iii. 14 ; Labb. Cone. ii. 625-699). According to Jerome {Vir. III. 98), his influence with the emperor Constan- tius was considerable enough to nominate Felix (the antipope) to the see of Rome at the fall of Liberius, a.d. 357. Acacius took a leading place among the intriguing prelates, who succeeded in spHtting into two the oecumenical council which Constantius had proposed to summon, and thus nullifying its authority. While the Western bishops were assembling at Rimini, a.d. 359, he and his brethren of the East gathered at Seleucia, where he headed a tiurbulent party, called after him Acacians. After the majority had confirmed the semi-Arian creed of Antioch (" Creed of the Dedication "), Acacius brought forward a Confession (preserved by Athan- asius, de Synod, § 29 ; Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. iv. 22) rejecting the terms Homoousion and Ho- moiousion " as aUen from Scripture," and anathematizing the term " Anomoeon," but distinctly confessing the " likeness " of the Son to the Father. This formula the semi- Arian majority rejected, and becoming ex- asperated by the disingenuousness of Acacius, who interpreted the " likeness of the Son to the Father " as " likeness in will alone," ofioiov Kara ttjv ^ov\-r)<nv ^bvov, and refused to be judged by his own published writings (Socr. and Soz. I.e.), they proceeded to de- pose him and his adherents. Acacius and the other deposed prelates flew to Con- stantinople and laid their complaints before the emperor. The adroit Acacius soon gained the ear of the weak Constantius, and finding that the favour he had shown to the bold blasphemies of Aetius had to some de- gree compromised him with his royal patron, he had no scruple in throwing over his former friend. A new council was speedily called at Constantinople, of which Acacius was the soul (Philostorg. iv. 12). Mainly through his intrigues the Council was brought to accept the Confession of Rimini, by which, in Jerome's strong words, " the whole world groaned and wondered to find itself Arian " {Dial. adv. Luc. 19). To complete their triumph, he and ACACIUS Eudoxius of Antioch. then bp. of Con- stantinople, put forth tluir whole influence to bring the edicts of the Nici-iie council, and all mention of the Honioousioa, into disuse and oblivion (Soz. iv. 26). On his return to the East in 361 Acacius and his party consecrated new bishops to the vacant sees, iMeletius being placed in the see of Antioch. When the imperial throne was filled by the orthodox Jovian, Acacius with his friends found it con- venient to change their views, and in 363 they voluntarily accepted the Nicene Symbol (Socr. iii. 25). On the accession of the Arian Valens in 364 Acacius once more went over to the more powerful side, making common cause with the Arian Eudoxius (Socr. iv. 2). But he found no favour with the council of Macedonian bishops at Lampsacus, and his deposition at Selcucia was confirmed. Accord- ing to Baronius, he died a.d. 366. Acacius enriched with parchments the library at Caesarea founded by Pamphilus (Hieron. Ep. ad. Marcellam, 141). He wrote on Ecclesiastes, six books of (^^V/"^•ra (ifTi'inaTa and other treatises ; a considerable fragment of his 'AvriXoyia against Marccllus of Ancyra is preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. 72, 6-9). His Life of Eusebius Pamphili has unhappily perished. See Fabricius, H. G. vii. p. 336, ix. pp. 254, 256 (ed. Harless) ; Tillemont, Mem. eccl. vi. {passim) ; Rivington (Luke), Dublin Review, 1894, i. 358-380; Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i. [e.v.] Acacius (4), bp. of Beroea, in Syria, c. a.d. 379-436. He was apparently a Syrian by birth, and in his early youth adopted the ascetic life in the monastery of (lindarus near Antioch, then governed by Asterius (Theod. Vit. Patr. c. 2). Not much is known with certainty of this period of his life. He ap- pears, however, to have been prominent as a champion of the orthodox faith against the Arians, from whom he suffered (Baluz. Nov. Collect. Cone. p. 746), and it is specially men- tioned that he did great service in bringing the hermit Julianus Sabbas from his retire- ment to Antioch to confront this party, who had falsely claimed his support (Theod. Vil. Patr. 2, H. E. iv. 24). We find him in Rome, probably as a deputy from the churches of Syria when the Apolliiiarian heresy was treated before pope Uamasus (Baluz. Cone. 763). After the return of Eusebius of Saraosata from exile, A.D. 378, Acacius was consecrated to the see of Beroea (the modern Aleppo) by that prelate (Theod. H. E. v. 4). As bishop he did not relax the strictness of his asceticism, and like Ambrose (August. Confess, vi. 3), throwing the doors of his house open to every comer, he invited all the world to witness the purity and simplicity of his life (Soz. H. E. vii. 28). He attended the council of Con- stantinople in 381 (Theod. v. 8). The same year, on the death of Meletius, taking a pro- minent part in the consecration of Flavian to the bishopric of Antioch [Flavianus], thus perpetuating the Eustathian schism, he in- curred displeasure both in East and West, and was cut off from communion with the church of Rome (Soz. vii. 11). The council of Capua at the close of 391 or 392 received Acacius again into communion, together with the prelates of Flavian's party (Ambros. Ep. ACACIOS 3 9 ; Labb. Cone. ii. 1072) ; while Flavian him- self, through the exertions of .Xcacius, received letters of communion not only from Rome, but also from Theophilus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops. The whole merit of this success was ascribed by the bishops of the East to " their father " Acacius (Socr. vi. ; Soz. viii. 3 ; Theod. v. 23 ; Labb. Cone. iii. p. 391 ; Tallad. p. 39). Acacius was one of the most implacable of the enemies of Chry- sosTOM. He bore part in the infamous " Synod of the Oak," a.d. 403 ; took the lead in the Synod of 404, after Chrysostom's return from exile ; and joined in urging Arcadius to depose him (Pallad. p. 82). He added acts of open violence to his urgency with the timid emperor, until he had gained his end in the final expulsion of the saint, June 20, 404. Nor was his hostility even now satiated. .\cacius sent to Rome one Patronus, with letters accusing Chrysostom of being the author of the conflagration of his own church. The pope treated the accusation with deserved contempt, and Acacius was a second time sus- pended from communion with Rome (Pallad. (). 35), which he did not regain till 414, and then chiefly through Alexander of Antioch. The letter sent to the pope by Acacius, with those of Alexander, was received with haughty condescension, and an answer was returned re- admitting the aged prelate on his complying with certain conditions [Cone. ii. 1266-8). His communion with Alexander was fully restored, and we find the two prelates uniting in ordain- ing Diogenes, a " bigamus " (Theod. Ep. no). Acacius's enmity to Chrysostom's memory seems however to have been imquenched ; and on the succession of Theodotus of Antioch, a.d. 421, he took the opportunity of writing to .'Mticus of Constantinople to apologize for the new bishop's having, in defiance of his better judgment, yielded to popular clamour and placed Chrysostom's name on the diptychs (Theod. V. 34 ; Niceph. xiv. 26, 27). On the rise of the Ncstorian controversy Acacius endeavoured to act the part of a peacemaker, for which his age of more than 100 years, and the popular reverence which had gained for him the title of ' ' the father and master of all bishops," well qualified him. With the view of healing the breach between Cyril of Alex- andria and Nestorius, he wrote a pacificatory reply to a violent letter of the former (a.d. 430). In the general council which followed at Ephesus, a.d. 431, he entrusted his proxy to Paul of Emesa. The influence of the aged Acacius was powerful at court. Theodosius wrote to him in most reverential terms be- seeching him to give his endeavours and prayers for the restoration of unity to the distracted church. Acacius was also ap- pealed to by Pope Sixtus III. for the same object (Baluz. Cone. pp. 721, 754, 757 ; Labb. Cone. iii. 1087). Acacius disapproved of Cyril's anathemas of Nestorius, which appeared to him to savour of ApoUinarianism ; but he spent his last days in promoting peace between the rival parties, taking part in the synod held at the emperor's instance in his own city of Beroea, a.d. 432, by John of Antioch, and doing all in his power, both by personal in- fluence and by letters to Cyril and to the 4 ACACIUS Roman bp. Coelestinus to bring about an agreement. He ultimately succeeded in establishing friendly communion between John and Cyril. He saw the peace of the church re-established, and died full of days and honour, aged, it is said, more than no years, a.d. 436. Three letters are still extant out of the large number that he wrote, especially on the Nestorian controversy : two to Alexander of Hierapolis, Baluzius, Nov. Collect. Concil. c. xli. p. 746, c. Iv. p. 757 ; and one to Cyril, ib. c. xxii. p. 440 ; Labbe, Cone. vol. iii. p. 382 (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 417 ; Tillemont, Metn. eccl. vol.-xiv. ; Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii.)- [e.v.] AcaciUS (7), patriarch of Constantinople, A.D. 471-489. Acacius was originally at the head of an orphanage at Constantinople, which he administered with conspicuous suc- cess (Suidas, s.v. 'AvdKios). His abihties at- tracted the notice of the emperor Leo, over whom he obtained great influence by the arts of an accomplished courtier (Suidas, I.e.). On the death of Gennadius (471) he was chosen bp. of Constantinople, and soon found him- self involved in controversies, which lasted throughout his patriarchate, and ended in a schism of thirty-five years' duration be- tween the churches of the East and West. On the one side he laboured to restore unity to Eastern Christendom, which was distracted by the varieties of opinion to which the Euty- chian debates had given rise ; and on the other to aggrandize the authority of his see by asserting its independence of Rome, and extending its influence over Alexandria and Antioch. In both respects he appears to have acted more in the spirit of a statesman than of a theologian ; and in this relation the personal traits of liberaUty, courtliness, and ostentation, noticed by Suidas [I.e.), are not without importance. The first important measures of Acacius carried with them enthusiastic popular support and earned for him the praise of pope Sim- plicius. In conjunction with a Stylite monk, Daniel, he placed himself at the head of the opposition to the emperor Basiliscus, who, after usurping the empire of the East, had issued an encyclic letter in condemnation of the council of Chalcedon, and taken Timo- theus Aelurus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, under his protection, a.d. 476. The resistance was completely successful. In the meantime Zeno, the fugitive emperor, reclaimed the throne which he had lost ; and Basiliscus, after abject and vain concessions to the ecclesiastical power, was given up to him (as it is said) by Acacius, after he had taken sanctuary in his church, a.d. 477 (Evagr. H. E. iii. 4 ff. ; Theod. Lect. i. 30 ff. ; Theophan. Chron. pp. 104 ff. ; Procop. B. V. i. 7, p. 195). At this period the relations between Zeno, Acacius, and Simplicius appear to have been amicable, if not cordial. They were agreed on the necessity of taking vigorous measures to affirm the decrees of the council of Chalce- don, and for a time acted in concert (Simplic. Epp. 5, 6). Before long a serious difference arose, when Acacius, in 479, consecrated a bishop of Antioch (Theophan. Chron. p. no), and thus exceeded the proper limits of his jurisdiction. However, Simplicius admitted ACACIUS the appointment on the plea of necessity, while he protested against the precedent (Simplic. Epp. 14, 15). Three years later (482), on the death of the patriarch of Ale.x- andria, the appointment of his successor gave occasion to a graver dispute. The Mono- physites chose Petrus Mongus as patriarch, who had already been conspicuous among them ; on the other side the Catholics put forward Johannes Talaia. Both aspirants lay open to grave objections. Mongus was, or at least had been, unorthodox ; Talaia was bound by a solemn promise to the Emperor not to seek or (as it appears) accept the patriarchate (Liberat. c. 17 ; Evagr. H. E. iii. 12). Talaia at once sought and obtained the support of Simplicius, and slighted Acacius. Mongus represented to Acacius that he was able, if confirmed in his post, to heal the divisions by which the Alexandrine church was rent. Acacius and Zeno readily listened to the promises of Mongus, and in spite of the vehement opposition of Simplicius, received the envoys whom he sent to discuss the terms of reunion. Shortly afterwards the Henoticon (An Instrument of Union) was drawn up, in which the creed of Nicaea, as completed at Constantinople, was affirmed to be the one necessary and final definition of faith ; and though an anathema was pro- nounced against Eutyches, no express judg- ment was pronounced upon the doctrine of the two Natures (Evagr. H. E. iii. 14). Mongus accepted the Henoticon, and was confirmed in his see. Talaia retired to Rome (482-483), and Simplicius wrote again to Acacius, charging him in the strongest language to check the progress of heresy elsewhere and at Alexandria (Simplic. Epp. 18, 19). The letters were without effect, and Simplicius died soon after- wards. His successor, Felix III. (II.), es- poused the cause of Talaia with zeal, and despatched two bishops, Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople with letters to Zeno and Acacius, demanding that the latter should repair to Rome to answer the charges brought against him by Talaia (Felix, Epp. i, 2). The mission utterly failed. Vitalis and Misenus were induced to communicate publicly with Acacius and the representatives of Mongus, and returned dishonoured to Italy (484). On their arrival at Rome a synod was held. They were themselves deposed and excom- municated ; a new anathema was issued against Mongus, and Acacius was irrevocably excommunicated for his connexion with Mongus, for exceeding the limits of his juris- diction, and for refusing to answer at Rome the accusations of Talaia (Evagr. H. E. iii. 21 ; Felix, Ep. 6) ; but no direct heretical opinion was proved or urged against him. Felix communicated the sentence to Acacius, and at the same time wrote to Zeno, and to the church at Constantinople, charging every one, under pain of excommunication, to separate from the deposed patriarch {Epp. 9, 10, 12). Once again the envoy of the pope was seduced from his allegiance, and on his return to Rome fell under ecclesiastical cen- sure (Felix, Ep. n). For the rest, the threats of Felix produced no practical effect. The Eastern Christians, with very few exceptions, remained in communion with Acacius ; Talaia ACEPHALI .-irkiiowlcdged the hopelessness of his cause bv accepting the bishopric of Nola ; and Z<-no and Acacius took active measures to obtain the general acceptance of the Henoti- ( >ii. Under these circumstances the con- demnation of Acacius, which had been made III the name of the Pope, was repeated in the name of the council of Chalcedon, and the s. hism was complete * (485)- Acacius took 11 ' heed of the sentence up to his death in 480, which was followed by that of Mongus in 1 i->. and of Zeno in 401- Fravitas (Flavitas, I Livianus), his successor, during a very short patriarchate, entered on negotiations with 1-. lix, which led to no result. The policy of Ai acius broke down when he was no longer al'lc to animate it. In the course of a few \ ,ars all for which he had laboured was un- d 'uc. The Henoticon failed to restore unity t ' the Fast, and in 519 the emperor Justin -ubinitted to pope Hormisdas, and the con- il.nination of Acacius was recognized by the (. "ustantinopolitan church. Tillemont has given a detailed history of the whole controversy, up to the death of Fravitas, in his Memoires, vol. xvi., but with a natural bias towards the Roman side. The original documents, exclusive of the histories of Evagrius, Theophanes, and Liberatus, are for the most part collected in the 58th volume of Migne's Palrologia. See also Hefele, Koiiz. Gesch. Bd. ii. ["'.] Acephali (from d and K€(pa\ri, those without a head or leader) is a term applied : — (i) To the bishops of the oecumenical council of Ephesus in 431, who refused to follow either St. Cvril or John of Antioch— the leaders of the two parties in the Nestorian controversy. (2) To a radical branch of Monophysites, who rejected not only the oecumenical council of Chalcedon in 451, but also the Henoticon of the emperor Zeno, issued in 482 to the Chris- tians of Egypt, to unite the orthodox and the Monophvsites. Peter Mongus, the Monophy- site patriarch of Alexandria, subscribed this compromise [Ac.\cius (7)] ; for this reason many of his party, especially among the monks, separated from him, and were called Acephali. They were condemned, under Jus- tinian, by a synod of Constantinople, 536, as schismatics, who sinned against the churches, the pope, and the emperor. Cf. Mansi, Cone. torn. viii. p. 891 sqq. ; Harduin, Cone. torn, ii. 1203 sqq. ; W'alch, Ketzerhistorie, vol. vii. ; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii. pp. 549. 744. (3) To the clerici vagi, i.e. clergy- men belonging to no diocese (as in Isid. Hispal. de Offic. Eccl., the so-called Egbert's Excerpts, 160, and repeatedly in Carlovingian Councils: see Du Cange) \D. C. A. art. Vagi Clerici]. (4) It is said to be used sometimes for avroKicpaXoi. [D. C. A. art. AUTOCF.PHALl.] [r.S.] Adamantius (1). [Origen.] AeriUS, 'Ae>05, founder of the heretical sect of the Aerians, c. 355, still living when Epiphanius wrote against heresies, 374-376. He was the early friend and fellow-disciple of EusTATHiis OF Sebaste in Pontus. While • This appears to be the best explanation of the "double excommunication" of Acacius. Cf. Tillemont, .Memoires, xvi. n. sj, pp. 764 f . AETIUS 5 they were living an ascetic life together, the bishopric of Sebaste became vacant. Each of the friends was a candidate for the office. The choice fell on Eustathius. This was never forgiven by .\erius. l-.ustathius endea- voured to soften' his friend's disappointment by at once ordaining .-Verius presbyter, and setting him over the hospital established at Sebaste (^(voSox^^on, or TrTwxorpo^fi'oi'). Hut all his attempts were fruitless. Aerius threw up his charge, deserted the hospital, and openly published grave accusations against his bishop. The rupture with Eustathius widened into a rupture with the church. Aerius and his numerous followers openly separated from their fellow-Christians, and professed dnoTa^ia, or the renimciation of all worldlv goods. They were consequently denied not only admission to the churches, but even access to the towns and villages, and they were compelled to sojourn in the fields, or in caves and ravines, and hold their re- ligious assemblies in the open air exposed to the severity of Armenian winters. Our knowledge of Aerius is from Epiphanius {Haer. 75). Augustine, de Haeresibus, c. 53, merelv epitomises Epiphanius. Aerius went so fearlessly to the root of much that the church was beginning to cling to, that we cannot feel much surprise at the vehemence of Epiphanius with regard to his teaching. Epiphanius asserts that he went beyond Arius in his impieties, specifying four counts, (i) The first, with which the name of Aerius has been chiefly identified in modern times, is the assertion of the equality of bishops and presbyters, fiia rd^is, fx-a Tifiri. tii> d^iu>fj.a. (2) Aerius also ridiculed the observance of Easter as a relic of Jewish superstition. (3) Prayers and offerings for the dead he regarded as pernicious. If they availed for the de- parted, no one need trouble himself to live holily : he would only have to provide, by bribes or otherwise, a multitude of prayers and offerings for him, and his salvation was secure. (4) All set fasts he condemned. A Christian man should fast when he felt it to be for his soul's good : appointed days of fasting were relics of Jewish bondage. Philaster, whose unconfirmed authority is very small, con- founds the Aerians with the Encratites, and asserts that thev practised abstinence from food and rejected marriage (Philast. Haer. 72). Consult Schrockh, Christliche Kirch. Gesch. vol. vi. pp. 226-234 ; Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. iii. pp. 221 seq. ; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 461-563 (Clark's trans.) ; Herzog. Real- encycl. vol. i. 165 ; Tillemont, Hist. eccl. vol. ix. pp. 87 seq. [e. v.] AetiUS ('AMos), the founder and head of the strictest sect of Arianism, upon whom, on account of the boldness of his reasonings on the nature of (iod, was affixed the surname of " the ungodly," d^fos (Soz. iii. 15)- He was the first to carry out the doctrines of Arius to their legitimate issue, and in opposi- tion both to Homoousians and Homoiousians maintained that the Son was unlike, dvdpLoios, the Father, from which his followers took the name of Anomoeans. They were also known as Eunomians, from his amanuensis Euno- Mius, the principal apologist of the party ; and 6 AETIUS as Heterusiasts and Exukontians, as affirming that the Son was e^ erepas ovaias from the Father, and created e^ ovk 6vtuv. The events of his singularly vagrant and chequered career are related from very differ- ent points of view by the Eunomian Philos- torgius, and the orthodox writers Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Gregory Nyssen. We must regard Aetius as a bold and unprin- cipled adventurer, endowed with an indomit- able love of disputation, which led him into incessant arguments on the nature of the God- head, the person of our Lord, and other trans- cendental subjects, not only with the orthodox but with the less pronounced Arians. He was born at Antioch. His father, dying insolvent, left Aetius, then a child, and his mother in extreme destitution (Philost. H. E. iii. 15 ; cf. Valesius's notes; Suidas, sub. voc. "AeVios). According to Gregory Nyssen, he became the slave of a woman named Ampelis ; and having obtained his freedom in some disgraceful manner, became a travelling tinker, and after- wards a goldsmith. Having been convicted of substituting copper for gold in an ornament entrusted to him for repair, he gave up his trade, and attaching himself to an itinerant quack, picked up some knowledge of medicine. He met with a ready dupe in an Armenian, whose large fees placed Aetius above the reach of want. He now began to take rank as a regular and recognized practitioner at Antioch (Greg. Nys. adv. Etinom. lib. i. vol. ii. p. 293). Philostorgius merely tells us that he devoted himself to the study of philosophy and dia- lectics, and became the pupil of Paulinus the Arian bishop, recently removed from Tyre to Antioch, c. 323 (Philost. iii. 15). Aetius at- tached himself to the Aristotelian form of philosophy, and with him, Milman remarks {Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 443), the strife between Aristotelianism and Platonism among theologians seems to have begun. His chief study was the Categories of Aristotle, the scope of \yhich, according to Socrates {H. E. ii. 33), he entirely misconceived, dra\\-ing from them soph- istical arguments repudiating the prevailing Platonic mode of argument used by Origen and Clemens Alex. On the death of Paulinus his protector, c. 324, he was banished to Anazar- bus in Cilicia, where he gained his livelihood by his trade. Here his dialectic skill charmed a grammarian, who instructed him more fully, receiving repayment by his menial services. Aetius tried his polemic powers against his benefactor, whom he put to public shame by the confutation of his interpretation of Scrip- ture. On the ignominious dismissal which natu- rally followed, Athanasius, the Arian bishop of the place, opened his doors to the outcast, and read the Gospels with him. Aetius also read St. Paul's Epistles at Tarsus with Antonius, who, like Athanasius, was a disciple of Lucian, Arius's master. On Antonius's elevation to the episcopate, Aetius returned to Antioch, where he studied the prophets, particularly Ezekiel, with Leontius, afterwards bishop of that see, also a pupil of Lucian. A storm of unpopularity soon drove him from Antioch to Cilicia ; but having been defeated in argument by one of the Borborian Gnostics, he betook himself to Alexandria, where he soon recovered his character as an invincible AETIUS adversary by vanquishing the Manichean leader Aphthonius. Aphthonius, according to Philostorgius {H. E. iii. 15), only survived his defeat seven days. Here Aetius took up his former professions, studying medicine and working as a goldsmith. On the return of St. Athanasius to Alex- andria in 349, Aetius retired to Antioch, of which his former teacher Leontius was now bishop. By him Aetius was ordained deacon, c. 350 (Philost. iii. 17 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 35 ; Athan. de Synod. § 38, Oxf. trans, p. 137 ; Suidas, S.V.). His ordination was protested against by Flavian and Diodorus, and he was inhibited from the exercise of his ministry (Theod. H. E. ii. 24). Epiphanius errone- ously asserts that he was admitted to the diaconate by George of Cappadocia, the in- truding bp. of Alexandria (Epiph. Haeres. Ixxvi. i). Aetius now developed more fully his Anomoean tenets, and he exerted all his influence to induce the Arian party to refuse communion with the orthodox. He also be- gan to withdraw himself from the less pro- nounced Arians (Socr. H. E. ii. 359). This schism in the .\rian party was still further developed at the first council of Sirmium, A.D. 351, where he attacked the respectable semi-Arian (Homoiousian) bishops, Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste (Philost. H. E. iii. 16), reducing them to silence. Exas- perated by his discomfiture, Basil denounced Aetius to Gallus. His hfe was spared at the intercession of bp. Leontius ; and being subsequently introduced to Gallus by Theo- philus Blemmys, he was sent by him to his brother JuUan to win him back from the paganism into which he was lapsing. Gallus also appointed him his religious teacher (Philost. H. E. iii. 27 ; Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 294). The fall of Gallus in 354 caused a change in the fortunes of Aetius, who returned to Alex- andria in 356 to support the waning cause of Arianism. The see of Athanasius was then occupied by George of Cappadocia, under whom Aetius served as a deacon, and when nominated to the episcopate by two Arian bishops, Serras and Secundus, he refused to be consecrated by them on the ground that they had held communion with the Homoousian party (Philost. iii. 19). Here he was joined by his renowned pupil and secretary Eunomius (Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 299 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 22 ; Philost. H. E. iii. 20). Greater troubles were now at hand for Aetius. Basil of AncvTa de- nounced him to the civil power for his supposed complicity in the treasonable designs of Gallus, and he was banished to Pepuza in Phrygia. The influence of Ursacius and Valens procured his recall ; but he was soon driven again into exile. The hard irreverence of Aetius, and the determination with which he pushed con- clusions from the principles of Arius, shocked the more religious among the Arian party, and forced the bishops to use all measures to crush him. His doctrines were also becoming alarm- ingly prevalent. " Nearly the whole of Antioch had suffered from the shipwreck of Aetius, and there was danger lest the whole (once more) should be submerged " (Letter of George, bp. of Laodicea, ap. Soz. H. E. vL 13). A synod was therefore appointed for Nicomedia in Bithynia. A violent earthquake AFRICANUS, JULIUS and the intrigues of tlie court brouglit about its division into two synods. Tlie West met at Ariminum ; the East at Seleucia in Isauria, A.D. 359. The hitter separated without any definite conchision. "The Arians, senii-Arians, and Anomoeans, mingled in tumultuous strife, and hurled anathemas at one another " (Mil- man, Hist. Christ, iii. c. 8). Whatever triumph was gained rested with the opponents of the Aetians, who appealed to the emperor and the court, and a second general council was sum- moned to meet at Constantinople (Athan. lie Synod. § 10, 12). Of this council Acacius was the leading spirit, but a spUt occurred among the Anomoean followers of Aetius. The party triumphed, but its founder was sent into banishment, first to Mopsuestia, then to Am- blada in Pisidia. Here he gained the good- will of the savage inhabitants by his prayers having, as they supposed, averted a pestilence (Theod. ii. 23 ; Soz. iv. 23, 24 ; Philost. iv. 12 ; Greg. Nys. u.s. p. 301). The death of Constantius, a.d. 361, put an end to Aetius's exile. Julian recalled all the banished bishops and invited Aetius to his court {Ep. Juliani, 31, p. 52, ed. Boisson ; Soz. V. 5), and at the instance of Eudoxius (Philost. iz. 4) presented him with an estate in the is- land of Lesbos. The ecclesiastical censure was taken ofif Aetius by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch (ib. vii. 5), who, with the bishop of his party, compiled a defence of his doctrines (ib. viii.'2). According to Epiphanius (Haer. U.S.), he was consecrated bishop at Constanti- nople, though not to any particular see ; and he and Eunomius consecrated bishops for his own party (Philost. viii. 2). On the death of Jovian, a.d. 364, Valens shewed special favour to Eudoxius, between whom and Aetius and Eunomius a schism had arisen. Aetius in dis- gust retired to his farm in Lesbos {ib. ix. 4). The revolt of Procopius once more en- dangered his hfe. He was accused to the governor, whom Procopius had placed in the island, of favouring the cause of Valens, A.D. 365-366 (ib. ix. 6). Aetius returned to Constantinople. He was the author of several letters to Constantius and others, filled with subtle disquisition on the nature of the Deity (Socr. ii. 35), and of 300 heretical proposi- tions, of which Epiphanius has preserved 47 (Haer. Ixxvi. § 10), with a refutation of each. Hefelo, Konz. Gesch. Bd. i. [k.v.] Afrlcanus, Julius ('A(ppiKav6s), a Christian writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent. A great part of his life was passed at Emmaus in Palestine — not, however, the Emmaus of St. Luke (xxiv. 16), as assumed by the ancient authorities (Soz. H. E.v. 21 ; Hieron. in libra de Locis Hebraicis, s.v. '¥J^J.fJ.aovs, ii. p. 439 ; et in Epitaph. Paulae. iv. p. 673) ; but, as Reland has shewn in his Palaeslina, pp. 427, 758 (see also Smith's Diet, of Geogr. s.v. Emmaus), the Emmaus in the plain (i Mace. iii. 40), 22 Roman miles ( = 176 stadia) from Jerusalem. He may have been born a.d. 170 or a little earlier, and died a.d. 240 or a little later. There seems to be no ancient authority for dating his death a.d. 232. Africanus ranks with Clement and Origen as among the most learned of the ante-Nicene fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 35 ; Hieron. Ep. ad .Magnum, 83, vol. iv. p. 656). His great work, AFRICANUS. JULIUS 7 a comparatt\e view of sacred and profane his- tory from the creation of the world, demanded extensive reading ; and the fragments that remain refer to the works of a considerable number of historical writers. His only work now extant in a cotniilete state is his letter to Origen referred to by many authors (Eus. H. E. vi. 31 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 63 ; Photius, Cod. 34 ; Suidas, s.v. 'A</>ptvoi'6t ; Niceph. Call. H. E. V. 21, and others). The correspondence originated in a discussion between Origen and a certain Bassus, at which .\fricanus was pre- sent, and in which Origen appealed to the au- thority of that part of the Book of Daniel which contains the story of Susanna. Africanus afterwards wrote a short letter to Origen urg- ing several objections to the authenticity of this part of the book ; among others, that the style is different from that of the genuine book, that this section is not in the book as received by the Jews, and that it contains a play on Gk. words which shews that, unlike other O.T. books, it was originally written in Gk. and not in Heb. Origen replied at greater length. That Africanus had any intimate knowledge of Heb. must not be regarded as proved by this letter. The date of the corre- spondence is limited by the facts that Origen writes from Nicomedia, having previously visited Palestine, and refers to his labours in a comparison of the Gk. and Heb. text, indi- cating that he had already published the Hexapla. These conditions are best satisfied by a date c. 238. Not less celebrated is the letter of Africanus to Aristides on the discrepancy in our Saviour's genealogies as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. A considerable portion of this has been preserved by Eusebius (H. E. i. 7), and Routh (Ret. Sac. ii. 228) has jniblished this together with a fragment not previously edited. A compressed version of the letter is given also in Eusebii ad Stephanum, Quaest. iv. (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vol. i.). Africanus begins by rejecting a previous explanation that the gene- alogies are fictitious lists, designed to establish our Lord's claim to be both king and priest by tracingHisdesccntin one Gospel from Solomon, in the other from Nathan, who was assumed to be Nathan the prophet. Africanus argues the necessity of maintaining the literal truth of the Gospel narrative, and against drawing dog- matic consequences from any statements not founded on historical fact. He then gives his own explanation, founded on the levirate law of the Jews, and professing to be traditionally derived from the Desposyni (or descendants of the kindred of our Lord), who dwelt near the villages of Nazareth and Cochaba. According to this view Matthew gives the natural, Luke the legal, descent of our Lord. Matthan, it is said, of the house of Solomon, and Melchi of the house of Nathan, married the same woman, whose name is given as Estha. Heli the son of Melchi (the names Matthat and Levi found in our present copies of St. Luke are omitted by Africanus) having died childless, his uterine brother Jacob, Matthan's son, took his wife and raised up seed to him ; so that the offspring Joseph was legally Heli's son as stated by St. Luke, but naturally Jacob's son as stated by St. Matthew. For a critical examination and defence of this solution, which is adopted by St. 8 AFRICANUS, JULIUS Augustine {Retract, lib. ii. c. vii.), see Mill, On the Mythical Interpretation of the Gospels, p. 201. The great work of Africanus was his " accu- rately laboured" (Eus. H. E. vi. 31) treatise on chronology, in five books. As a whole it is lost, but we can form a good idea of its general character from the still remaining Chronicon of Eusebius, which was based upon it, and which undoubtedly incorporates much of it. Euse- bius himself, p. 132, mentions Africanus among his authorities for Jewish history, subsequent to O.T. times. Several fragments of the work of Africanus can be identified by express quota- tions, either by Eusebius in his Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelii, or by other writers, in particular bv Georgius Syncellus in his Chrono- graphia. These have been collected by Gal- landi {Bibl. Vet. Pat. vol. ii.), and more fully by Routh {Rel. Sac. vol. ii.). Christian Apologists had been forced to en- gage in chronological discussions, to remove the heathen contempt of Christianity as a noveltv, bv demonstrating the great antiquity of the Jewish svstem, out of which the Chris- tian sprang. Thus Tatian {Or. ad Graec. c. 39), Theophilus of Antioch {ad. Autol. iii. 21), Clement of Alexandria {Stromata, i. 21), dis- cuss the question of the antiquity of Moses, and, following Josephus {cont. Apion. i. 16), arrive at the conclusion that Moses was a con- temporary of Inachus, and that the Exodus took place 393 years before the coming of Danaus to Argos. Africanus set himself to make a complete synopsis of sacred and pro- fane history from the Creation, and to establish a synchronism between the two. He concludes that Moses and Ogyges were contemporaries. He thinks a connexion between the Ogygian deluge and the plagues of Egypt likely ; and confirms his conclusions by deducing from Polemo, Apion, and Ptolemaeus Mendesius, that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, whose son, Phoroneus, reigned at Argos in the time of Ogyges. Africanus follows the LXX : he counts 2262 years to the Deluge ; he does not recognize the second Cainan ; he places the Exodus A.M. 3707. In computing the years of the Judges he is blamed by Eusebius for lengthening the chronology by adding, without authority, 30 years for the elders after Joshua, 40 for anarchy after Samson, and 25 years of peace. He thus makes 740 years between the Exodus and Solomon. Our Lord's birth he places A.M. 5500, and two years before our common computation of Anno Domini. But he allows only one year for our Lord's public ministry, and thus dates the Crucifixion a.m. 5531. He calculates the commencement of the 70 weeks from the 20th year of Artaxerxes : from this to the death of our Lord he counts only 475 years, contending that the 70 weeks of Daniel are to be understood as 490 lunar years of 354 days each, equivalent to 475 Julian years. Another interesting passage in the xport^d is one in which he treats of the darkness at the Crucifixion, and shews, in opposition to the Syrian historian Thallus, that it was miracu- lous, and that an eclipse of the sun could not have taken place at the full moon. Lastly, we may notice his statement that there were still in his time remains of Jacob's terebinth at Shechem, Gen. xxxv. 4, held in honour ; and AGAPETUS that Jacob's tent had been preserved in Edessa until struck by lightning in the reign of the emperor Antoninus (Elagabalus ?). Africanus probably had personally visited Edessa, whose king, Abgarus, he elsewhere mentions. The work in all probability concluded with the Doxology, which St. Basil has cited (de Spir. Sanct. § 73, iii. 61) in justification of the form of doxology crvv 'Ayiw llvev/jiaTc. It remains to speak of another work, the Kea-Toi, expressly ascribed to Africanus by Euse- bius {H. E. vi. 31), Photius (i.e.), Suidas {I.e.), and Syncellus (p. 359), perhaps (as ScaUger suggests) quoting the Chronica of Eusebius. According to this authority, the work consisted of nine books ; and it is probably owing to errors of transcribers that we now find Photius enumerating 14 and Suidas 24. The work seems to have received the fanciful name of Cesti, or variegated girdles, from the miscella- neous character of its contents, which em- braced the subjects of geography, natural his- tory, medicine, agriculture, the art of war, etc. The portions that remain have suffered muti- lation and addition by different copyists. The external evidence for ascribing the Cesti and Chronology to the same author is too strong to be easily set aside, and is not without some in- ternal confirmation. Thus the author of the Cesti was better acquainted with Syria than with Libya ; for he mentions the abundance of a certain kind of serpent in Syria, and gives its Syrian name {Vet. Math. p. 290), but when he gives a Libyan word {Geopon. p. 226) he does so on second-hand testimony. And he was a Christian, for he asserts {Geopon. p. 178) that wine may be kept from spoiling by writing on the vessels " the divine words, Taste and see that the Lord is gracious." The unlikelihood of Africanus having written such a work be- comes less if we look upon him not as an eccle- siastic, but as a Christian philosopher, pursuing his former studies after his conversion, and entering in his note-books many things more in accordance with the spirit of his own age than with that of ours. Cf. Harnack on J uUus Africanus Sextus in Herzog, 3rd ed. The last edition of the Chronographv is in Gelzer, Sex. Jul. Afr. (2 vols. Leipzig, 1880-1898) ; see also Spitta (Halle, 1877) on the letter to Aristides, Harnack, Lit. i. 507-513 and ii. i, pp. 124 sqq. [G.S.] Agapetus, bp. of Rome, was, we are told, a Roman by birth, the son of Gordianus a priest (Anast. quoted by Chnton, Fasti Romani, p. 763 ; Jaffe, Regesta Pontificum, p. 73). He was already an old man when, six days after the death of Johannes II., he was elected pope in June 535. He began by formally reversing an act of Bonifacius II., one of his own imme- diate predecessors, fulminating anathemas against the deceased antipope Dioscorus, a.d. 530 (Anast. vol. i. p. 100). We next find him entering Constantinople on Feb. 19, 536 (Chnt. F. R. p. 765), sent thither by Theodahad to avert, if possible, the war with which he was threatened by the em- peror Justinian in revenge for the murder of his queen Amalasontha : and we are told that he succeeded in the objects of his mission (Anast. vol. i. p. 102), which must refer to other objects, for he certainly failed to avert AGATHA the war ; Justinian had already incurred such expense as to be unwilling to turn back (I.ib- erat. quoted by Baronius, Aunales KccUsi- astici, vii. p. 314), and as a matter of fact Bcli- sarius took Rome within the year. In 535 Anthimus, who was suspected of Monothelit- isra, had been appointed patriarch of Constan- tinople by the influence of Theodora. Agape- tus, on his first arrival, refused to receive An- thimus unless he could prove himself orthodox, and then only as bp. of Trebizond. for he was averse to the practice of translating bishops. At the same time he boldly accused Justinian himself of Monophysitism ; who was fain to satisfy him by signing a " libellus fidei " and professing himself a true Catholic. But the emperor insisted upon his communicating with .\nthimus, and even threatened him with expulsion from the city if he refused. Agapetus repUed with spirit that he thought he was visit- ing an orthodox prince, and not a second Dio- cletian. Then the emperor confronted him with Anthimus, who was easily convicted by Agapetus. Anthimus was formally deposed, and Mennas substituted ; and this was done without a council, by the single authority of the pope Agapetus ; j ustinian of course allow- ing it, in spite of the remonstrances of Theo- dora (Anast. vol. i. p. 102 ; Theophanes, Chronogr. p. 184). Agapetus followed up his victory by denouncing the other heretics who had collected at Constantinople under the patronage of Theodora. He received petitions against them from the Eastern bishops, and from the " monks " in Constantinople, as the Archimandrite coenobites were beginning to be called (Baronius, vii. p. 322). He died on April 21, 536 (Clint. F. R. p. 765)- His body was taken to Rome and buried in St. Peter's basilica, Sept. 17. Five of his letters remain : (i) July 18, 535, to Caesarius, bp. of Aries, about a dispute of the latter with bp. Con- tumeiiosus (Mansi, viii. p. 856). (2) Same date, to same, " De augendis alimoniis pauperum " {ib. 855). (3) Sept. 9, 535, Reply to a letter from African bishops to his pre- decessor Johannes (ib. 848). (4) Same date, reply to Reparatus, bp. of Carthage, who had congratulated him on his accession {tb. 850). (5) March 13, 536, to Peter, bp. of Jerusalem, announcing the deposition of Anthimus and consecration of jSIennas {ib. 921). Hefele, Konz. Gesch. Bd. ii. [g.h.m.] Agatha, a virgin martyred at Catana in Sicily under Decius, Feb. 5, 251, according to her Acta ; but under Diocletian according to the Martyrol. and Aldhelm (de Virgin. 22) ; men- tioned by Pope Damasus a.d. 366 (Carm. v.), and by Venantius Fortunatus c. 580 ; inserted in the Canon of the Mass by Gregory the Great according to Aldhelm (u.s., and see also S. Greg. M. Dial. iii. 30) ; and commemorated in a homily by Methodius, c. 900. Her name is in the Carthag. Calendar of c. 450 ; in Ruinart, p. 695 ; and in the black-letter calendar in our Prayer-book. Churches at Rome were dedi- cated to her by pojie Synimachus c. 500 ; by Ricimer a.d. 460, enriched with her relics by Gregory the Great ; and by Gregory II. in 726. She is the patroness of \ialta (Butler's Lu'W of Saints). See also the homily against Peril 0/ Idolatry, p. iii. [a.w.h.] A^es, M. a virgin, 12 or 13 years old, be- AGNOETAE 9 headed at Rome under Diocletian, celebrated by Ambrose (de Offic. i. 41 ; de Virg. ad Mar- cell, i. 2), Jerome (£^. 97 ad dcmetriad.), Augustine (Serin. 273, 286, and 354), Sulp. Sever. (Dial. ii. 14), Prudentius (irepi ^Te((>dvu)v, xiv.), Venant. Fortunatus (Poem. vii. iii. 35), Aldhelm (de Virgin.) ; and by her Acta in Syriac in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 148 seq. ; besides .4cta falsely attributed to St. Ambrose, a doubtful homily of St. Maxim. Taurin., and some verses questionably assigned to pope Damasus. Her name is in the Carthag. Cal. of c. 450, Jan. 21 ; in Ruinart, p. 695. A church at Rome, in her honour, said to have been built under Constantine the Great, was repaired by Pope Honorius, a.d. 625-638, and another was built at Rome by Innocent X. (.\ssomani, .4ct. Mart. ii. 134, I55)- Sec also Act. SS. Jan. 21, on which <lay her name stands in the black- letter calendar of our Prayer-book. Baeda and Usuanl place it on Jan. '23 ; the Menolog. and MeiKica "ii July 5. [a.w.ii.] Agnoetae (from ayvo^u, to be ignorant of), a name applied to two sects who denied the omniscience either of God the Father, or of God the Son in His state of humiliation. I. The first were a sect of the Arians, and called from Eunomius and Theophronius " Eu- nomio-Theophronians " (Socr. H. R. v. 24). Their leader, Theophronius, of Cappadocia, who flourished about 370, maintained that God knew things past by memory and things future only by uncertain prescience. Sozomen (H. E. vii. 17) writes of him : " Having given some attention to the writings of Aristotle, he composed an appendix to them, entitled Exercises of the Mind. But he afterwards en- gaged in many unprofitable disputations, and soon ceased to confine himself to the doctrines of his master. [Eunomu's.] Under the assump- tion of being deeply versed in the terms of Scripture, he attempted to prove that though God is acquainted with the piresent, the past, and the future, his knowledge on these subjects is not the same in degree, and is subiect to some kind of mutation. As this hypothesis appeared positively absurd to the Eunomians, they excommunicated him from their church ; and he constituted himself the leader of a new sect, called after his own name, ' Theophronians.' " II. Better known are the Agnoetae or The- mistiani, in the Monophysite controversy in 6th cent. Themistius, deacon of Alexandria, representing a small branch of the Monophy- site Severians, taught, after the death of Severus, that the human soul (not the Divine nature) of Christ was like us in all things, even in the limitation of knowledge, and was ignor- ant of many things, especially the day of judg- ment, which the Father alone knew (Mark xiii. 32, cf. John xi. 34). Most Monophysitcs rejected this view, as inconsistent with their theory of one nature in Christ, which implied also a unity of knowledge, and they called the follow- ers of Themistius Agnoetae. The orthodox, who might from the Chalcedonian dogma of the two natures in Christ have inferred two kinds of knowledge, a perfect Divine and an imperfect human admitting of growth (Luke ii. 52), nevertheless rejected the view of the Agnoetae, as making too wide a rupture be- tween the two natures, and generally under- stood the famous passage in Mark of the official 10 ALARIC ALARIC ignoraace only, inasmuch as Christ did not i charge that the calamities of the empire were choose to reveal to His disciples the day of judgment, and thus appeared ignorant for a wise purpose (.■car' o'lKovo.u^av). His inquiry concerning Lazarus was explained from refer- ence to the Jews and the intention to increase the effect of the miracle. Euloeius, Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote against the Agnoetae a treatise on the absolute knowledge of Christ, of which Photius has preserved large extracts. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, anathema- tized Themistius. Agnoetism was revived by the Adoptionists in the 8th cent. Felix of Urgel maintained the limitation of the know- ledge of Christ according to His human nature, and appealed to Mark xiii. 32. Gallandi, Dibl. Pair. xii. p. 634 ; Mansi, Cone. xi. 502 ; Leont. Byz. de SecHs, Actio X. c. iii. ; Photius, Cod. 230 (ed. Bekk. p. 284) ; Baronius, Annal. ad A.D. 535; Walch. Hist, der Ketzereien, viii. 644-684 ; Baur. Lehre v. der Dreieinigkeit, etc., ii. pp. 87 ff; Dorner, Entwicklungsgeschichte, etc., ii. pp. 172 f ; cf. D. C. B. (4 vol. ed.) art. Person of Christ. [p-S-] Alaric (Teut. prob. = Athalaric, noble ruler), general and king (398) of the Goths, the most civihzed and merciful of the barbarian chiefs who ravaged the Roman Empire. Alaric first appears among the Gothic army who assisted Theodosius in opposing Eugenius, 394. He led the revolt of his nation against Arcadius, ravaged the provinces south of the Danube, and invaded Greece 395- Athens capitulated, and afterwards Corinth, Argos, and Sparta. Under the title of Master-General of Eastern Illvricum, 398. he became the ally of Arcadius and secretlv planned the invasion of Italv. In the winter of 402 he crossed the Alps, was defeated by Stilicho at Pollentia on Easter Day 403, and driven from Italy. In 404 he exchanged the prefecture of Eastern for that of Western Illyricum, and the service of Ar- cadius for that of Honorius, and, after the in- cursion and annihilation of Radagaisus and his Sclavonian hordes in 405, he was sub- sidized for his supposed services to the empire by the pavment of 4,000 pounds of gold. Stihcho's ruin and death in 408, the subsequent massacre of the Goths settled in Italy, and Honorius's impoUtic refusal of Alaric's equit- able terms, caused the second invasion of Italy, and the first siege of Rome, which ended in a capitulation. At the second siege in 409, preceded by the capture of Ostia, the city was surrendered unconditionally, and Alaric set up Attains as emperor, in opposition to Honorius, who remained at Ravenna. At the close of the third siege, in 410 (Aug. 24), the city was in the hands of the Goths for six days, during three of which the sack was continued. Alaric died at Consentia late in 410. The effect of Alaric's conquests on the cause of Christianity, and on the spiritual position of Rome in Western Christendom, is well traced by Dean Milman {Lat. Christ, i. iio- 140). Alaric and his Goths had embraced Christianity probablv from the teaching of Umias, the Arian bishop, who died in 388 (Mosheim, ed. Stubbs, i. 233). This age wit- nessed the last efforts of Paganism to assert itself as the ancient and national rehgion, and Rome was its last stronghold. Pagans and Christians had retorted upon each other the due to the desertion of the old or new system of faith respectively, and the truth or falsehood of either was generally staked upon the issue. The almost miraculous discomfiture of the heathen Radagaisus by Stihcho, in spite of his vow to sacrifice the noblest senators of Rome on the altars of the gods which deUghted in human blood, was accepted as an ill omen by those at Rome who hoped for a pubhc restora- tion of Paganism (Gibbon, iv. 47-49, ed. Smith ; Milman, Lat. Christ, i. 122). Rome, impreg- nable while Stilicho, her Christian defender, lived, could submit only to the approach of Alaric, " a Christian and a soldier, the leader of a discipUned army, who understood the laws of war, and respected the sanctity of treaties." In the first siege of Rome both pagan and Christian historians relate the strange proposal to relieve the city by the magical arts of some Etruscan diviners, who were believed to have power to call down lightning from heaven, and direct it against Alaric's camp. That pope Innocent assented to this public ceremony rests only on the au- thority of the heathen Zosimus (v. 41). It is questioned whether this idolatrous rite actu- ally took place. Alaric perhaps imagined that he was furthering the Divine purpose in be- sieging Rome. Sozomen {Hist. Eccl. ix. c. 7) mentions as a current story that a certain monk, on urging the king, then on his march through Italy, to spare the city, received the reply that he was not acting of his own accord, but that some one was persistently forcing him on and urging him to sack Rome. The shock felt through the world at the news of the capture of Rome in Alaric's third siege, 410, was disproportioned to the real magnitude of the calamity : contrast the ex- aggerated language of St. Jerome, Ep. ad Prin- cipiam, with Orosius, 1. vii. c. 39, and St. Augustine, de Civ. Dei, ii. 2 (a work written be- tween 413 and 426 with the express object of refuting the Pagan arguments from the sack of Rome), and his tract, de Excidio Urbis (0pp. t. vi. 622-628, ed. Bened.). The book in which Zosimus related the fall of Rome has been lost, so that we have to gather information from Christian sources ; but it is plain that the de- struction and loss was chiefly on the side of Paganism, and that Httle escaped which did not shelter itself under the protection of Chris- tianity. " The heathens fled to the churches, the only places of refuge. . . . There alone rapacity and lust and cruelty were arrested and stood abashed" (Milman, p. 133). The pro- perty of the churches and the persons of Chris- tian virgins were generally respected. The pagan inhabitants of Rome were scattered over Africa, Egypt, Syria, and the East, and were encountered alike by St. Jerome at Bethlehem and by St. Augustine at Carthage. Innocent I. was absent at Ravenna during the siege of Rome. On his return heathen temples were converted into Christian churches ; " with Paganism expired the venerable titles of the religion, the great High Priests and Flamens, the Auspices and Augurs. On the pontifical throne sat the bp. of Rome, who would soon possess the substance of the imperial power" lib. p. 139). Alaric was also instrumental in driving Paganism from Greece. Zosimus (v. 7) ALBANUS asserts that on his approach to Athens its walls were seen to be guarded by Minerva and Achilles, (iibbon says that " the invasion of the Goths, instead of vindicating the honour, ( oiitributed, at least accidentally, to extirpate the last remains of Pagaiiisin " (vol. iv. p. 37). The conquests of .-Marie, though achieved at an age when the Church boasted many eminent saints and writers, afford far fewer materials for the niartyrologist and hagiologist than those of Attila. Alaric, though an Arian, is nowhere recorded to have persecuted the Catholics whom war had placed in his power. Jornandes and Isidore of Seville, Gothic his- torians, and Orosius, a Spanish Catholic, are equally silent on this point. The following facts of personal history have been preserved. In the sack of Kome Marcella, an aged matron, was thrown on the ground and cruelly beaten (Micron. Fp. ad Priticify.) ; a nameless lady, who persistently repelled her capturer, was ( oudueted by him to the sanctiiary of the Vati- can ; and an aged virgin, to whose charge some sacred vessels had been entrusted, through her bold constancy preserved them intact. At the plunder of Nola in Campania, St. Paulinus its bishop is said to have prayed, " Lord, let me not suffer torture either for gold or silver, since Thou knowest where are all my riches" (Fleury,£cc/. Hist. ed. Newman, bk. xxii.c. 21). Proba,' widow of the prefect Petronius, retired to Africa with her daughter Laeta and her granddaughter Demetrias (Hicron. E{y. cxxx. t. i. p. 969, ed. Vallars.), and spent her large fortune in relieving the captives and exiles. (See Tillemont, Mem. trclrs. t. xiii. pp. 620- 635.) \'aluable contributions to the history of Alaric not already mentioned are Sigonius, 0pp. t. i. par. I, pp. 347 sqq. ed. Argellati ; Aschbach, Gesch. der Westgothen. [c.d.] Albanus, M. The protomartyr of Britain was martyred probably at Verulamium, and according to either the " conjecture " or the " knowledge " (conjicimus or cognoscititus) of Gildas, in the time of Diocletian, and if so, a.d. 304, but according to another legend, which, however, still speaks of Diocletian, in 286 (Attgln-Sax. Chron., Lib. Landav.). Eusebius (//.£. viii. 1 3, and (/<■ .Urtr/. Pa/afet/. xiii. 10, 11), Lactantius {de Mart. Persecut. xv. xvi.), and Sozomen (i. 6) deny that there was any perse- cution during the time of Constantius in " the Gauls," which term included Britain. Possibly, however, Constantius may have been com- pelled to allow one or two martyrdoms. It is certain that 125 years after the latest date assigned to Alban's martyrdom, 144 after the earliest, viz. a.d. 429 (Prosper, Chron.), Ger- manus visited his relics in Britain, presumably at \'erulamium (Constant, in V. S. Germani, written a.d. 473-492). Gildas mentions him in 560 (his statement, however, about the persecution is of no value, being simply a transference of Euscbius's words to Britain, to which Eusebius himself says they did not apply), and Venantius Fortunatus {Poem. viii. 'y- 155) c. 580. Bede, in 731, copies Constan- tius and certain Acta otherwise unknown. And the subsequent foundation of Offa in 793 only serves to identify the place with the tradition. The British Life discovered by the St. Albans monk Unwona in the loth cent., according to Matthew Paris, in VV. Abb. ALBOIN S. Alhan., is apparently a myth ; and the Life by William of St. Albans (12th cent.) is of the ordinary nature and value of lives of the kind and date. But the testimony of Germanus, in Constantius's Life of him, seems sufficient proof that a tradition of the martyrdom of somebody named Albanus existed at Veru- lamium a century and something more after the supposed date of that martyrdom. His martvrdom with manv fabulous details is re- lated in Bede (i. 7). ' \V. Bright, Chapters of Earlv Ch. Hist. (1897), p. 6. [a.w.h.] Albion, king of the Langobardi, or Lom- bards, and founder of the kingdom subject to that people in Italy, was the son of that Audoin under whom the Lombards emerge from ob- scurity to occupy Pannonia, invited by the Emperor of Constantinople, in accordance with the usual Byzantine policy, as a check to the Gepidae. In the wars with the latter nation Albf>in first appears. The confused accounts of them which Procoi>ius preserves exhibit the tribe and their prince as rude and ferocious barbarians, and Alboin was a fit leader of such a tribe (Paul. Diac. i. 27, ii. 28). That he was personally a Christian, though an Arian, is proved by a letter from a Gallic bishop to his first wife, a Gallic princess, which deplores, not his heathenism, but his heresy (Sirmond. Cone. Gall. i.). Succeed- ing his father, Alboin accomplished, by the aid of the Avars, the destruction of the Gepidae (see Gibbon, c. xlv.). The conquest of Italy followed. Alboin's invading army wms hetero- geneous. Besides 20,000 Saxons accompanied by their families, who recrossed the Alps after the conquest, Muratori has deduced {Aniich. It. i. diss, i) from Italian topography the pre- sence of the Bavarians, and Paul. (ii. 26) adds distinctly the names of several other tribes. The number of the army is unknown, but was considerable, as it was a migration of the whole tribe, and it largely changed the character and arrangements of population in Italy. Alboin left Pannonia in April 568 ; the passes were unguarded, and he learnt from his own success the need of securing his rear and the frontier of his future kingdom, and entrusted the defence and government of \'enetia Prima, his first con- quest, to Gisulf his nephew, with the title of duke and the command of those whom he should himself select among the most eminent of the " Farae " or nobles (Paul. ii. ix.). From this point the conquest was rapid. In Liguria (the western half of north Italy), Genoa, with some cities of the Riviera, alone escaped. Pavia held out for three years : perhaps its siege was not very vigorously pressed, for we know that a great part of Alboin's force was de- tached in flying squadrons which ravaged the country southwards all through Tuscany and Aemilia, to so great a distance that Paul men- tions Rome and Ravenna as almost the only places which escaped. The death of Alboin followed the fall of Pavia. The story of his death is like that of his early hfe in the picture which it gives of a thoroughly barbaric society, where the skull of an enemy is used as a drinking-cup, and the men hold their banquets apart from the women (Gibbon, c. 45). Paul, avouches that the cup was to be seen in his own day. The chief authority for the life of Alboin, Paulus Diaconus. lived towards the 12 ALEXANDER end of the 8th cent., in the last days of the Lombard monarchy. [e.s.t.] Alexander, St., archbp. of Alexandria, ap- pears to have come to that see in 313, after the short episcopate of Achillas. He was an elderly man, of a kindly and attractive disposi- tion ; " gentle and quiet," as Rufinus says (i. i), but also capable of acting with vigour and persistency. Accusations were laid against him by the malcontent Meletian faction, " be- fore the emperor," Constantine (Athan. Apol. c. Ar. II ; ad Ep. Ae^. 23), but appar- ently without result. He was involved in a controversy with one Crescentius as to the proper time for keeping Easter (Epiph. Haer. 70, 9). But in 319 he was called upon to con- front a far more formidable adversary. [Arius.] Arius was the parish priest, as he may be de- scribed, of the church of BaukaUs, the oldest and the most important of the churches of Alexandria, situated " in the head of the mer- cantile part of the city " (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 116), a man whose personal abilities enhanced the influence of his official position ; he had been a possible successor at the last vacancy of the " Evangehcal Throne," and may have consequently entertained unfriendly feelings towards its actual occupant. But it would be unreasonable to ascribe his opinions to private resentment. Doubtless the habits of his mind (Bright, Hist. Ch. p. 11) prepared him to adopt and carry out to their consequences, with a peculiar boldness of logic, such views as he now began to disseminate in Alexandrian society: that the Son of God could not be co-eternal with His Father ; that He must be regarded as external to the Divine essence, and only a crea- ture. The bishop tried at first to check this heresy by remonstrance at an interview, but with no real success. Agitation increasing, Alexander summoned a conference of hisclergy; free discussion was allowed ; and, according to Sozomen, Alexander seemed to waver between the Arian and anti-Arian positions. Ulti- mately he asserted in strong terms the co- equality of the Son ; whereupon Arius criti- cized his language as savouring of the Sabellian error [Sabellius] which had " confounded the Persons." The movement increased, and Alexander himself was charged with irresolu- tion or even with some inclination towards the new errors. It was then, apparently, that CoUuthus, one of the city presbyters, went so far as to separate from his bishop's communion, and, on the plea of the necessities of the crisis, " ordained " some of his followers as clergy. (See Valesius on Theod. i. 4, and Neale, i. 116). Alexander's next step was to write to Arius and his supporters, including two bishops, five priests, and six deacons, exhorting them to re- nounce their " impiety " ; and the majority of the clergy of Alexandria and the Mareotis, at his request, subscribed his letter. The ex- hortation failing, the archbishop brought the case formally before the synod of his suffragans, who numbered nearly 100. The Arians were summoned to appear : they stated their opinions ; the Son, they held, was not eternal, but was created by the impersonal " Word," or Wisdom of the Father ; foreign, therefore, to the Father's essence, imperfectly cognizant of Him, and, in fact, called into existence to be His instrument in the creation of man. " And ALEXANDER can He then," asked one of the bishops, " change from good to evil, as Satan did ? " They did not shrink from answering, " Since He is a creature, such a change is not impos- sible " ; and the council instantly pronounced them to be " anathema." Such was the ex- comm)mication of Arius, apparently in 320. It was as far as possible from arresting the great movement of rationalistic thought (for this, in truth, was the character of Arianism) which had now so determinedly set in. The new opinions became extraordinarily popular ; Alexandrian society was flooded with colloquial irreverence. But Arius ere long found that he could not maintain his position in the city when under the ban of the archbishop ; it may be that Alexander had power actually to banish him ; and he repaired to Palestine, where, as he expected, he found that his representations of the case made a favourable impression on several bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea. Some wrote in his favour to Alexander, who, on his part, was most indefatigable in writing to various bishops in order to prevent them from being deceived by Arius ; Epiphanius tells us that seventy such letters were preserved in his time {Haer. 69. 4). Of these, some were suffi- ciently effectual in Palestine to constrain Arius to seek an abode at Nicomedia. He had se- cured the support of the bishop of the city, the able but unprincipled Eusebius (Theod. i. 5 ; Athan. de Syn. 17) ; and he now wrote (Athan. de Syn. 16) in the name of " the presbyters and deacons" who had been excommunicated, to Alexander, giving a statement of their views, and professing that they had been learned from Alexander himself ; the fact being, probably, as Mohler thinks, that Alexander had formerly used vague language in an anti-Sabellian direction. Eusebius now repeatedly urged Alexander to readmit Arius to communion ; and the other bishops of Bithynia, in synod (Soz. i. 15), authorized their chief to send cir- cular letters in his favour to various prelates. A Cilician bishop, Athanasius of Anazarbus, wrote to Alexander, openly declaring that Christ was " one of the hundred sheep " ; George, an Alexandrian presbyter, then stay- ing at Antioch, had the boldness to write to his bishop to the effect that the Son once " was not," just as Isaiah " was not," before he was born to Amoz (Athan. de Syn. 17), for which he was deposed by Alexander from the priest- hood. Arius now returned into Palestine, and three bishops of that country, one of whom was Eusebius of Caesarea, permitted him to hold religious assemblies within their dioceses. This permission naturally gave great offence to Alexander. He had hitherto written only to individual bishops, but he now * drew up (per- haps with the help of his secretary and " arch- deacon," Athanasius) his famous encyclic to all his fellow-ministers, i.e. to the whole Chris- tian episcopate, giving an account of the opinions for which the Egyptian synod had ex- communicated the original Arians, adducing Scriptural texts in refutation, and warning his brethren against the intrigues of Eusebius (Socr. i. 6). This letter, which he caused his • A comparatively late date for this encyclic ap- pears necessary, on account of its allusions to Euse- bius. {See'Sea\e, Hist. Alex. i. i2y.) Some identify the encvclic with the Tome. ALEXANDER rlergy to sign, probably preceiled the " Tome " or confession of faith which lie referred to as having been signed by some bishops, when he wrote to Alexander. b|>. of Byzantinm, the long and elabor.iti- Icttir preserved by Theod. i. 4 ; in which, while using some language which in strictness must be called inaccurate, he gives an exposition of texts which became watchwords of the orthodox in the struggle (A.D. 323). Another correspondent now appears on the scene. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had a strong influence over the emperor Constantine, persuaded the latter to write, or to adopt and sign, a letter to Alexander and Arius, in which the controversy was treated as a logomachy (Eus. Vil. Con. ii. 64 seq. ; Socr. i. 7). The im- perial epistle was entrusted to a prelate of very high position. Hosius of Cordova, who can have had but little sympathy with the tone assumed by the Emperor. Thee ouncilhcUl at Alexandria on his arrival decided onv point very unc(]ui vo- cally : the ordinations performed by Collutlnis were pronounced absolutely null (Athan. Apul. 76). Peace was impossible on the basis of in- differentism, and Constantine summoned a gen- eral assemblv of bishops to meet at Nicaea, in June 325. [D. C. A., art. Nicaea, Council of.] The Arians were condemned, and the Nicene Creed, in its original form, was drawn up. The story told by Epiphanius, of severities used by Alexander towards the Meletians [Meletius], and of a consequent petition ad- dressed by them to Constantine, appears to be one of several misstatements which he adopted from some Meletian sources. Athanasius tells us expressly that Alexander died within five months after the reception of the Meletians into church communion in the council of Nicaea (Apol. c. Ari. 59), and this, if strictly reckoned from the close of the council, would place his death in Jan. 326. It cannot be dated later than April 18 in that year. See further, Athanasius. Athanasius mentions a circumstance of Alex- ander's local administration which furnished a precedent, on one occasion, f<.)r himself. Alex- ander was building the church of St. Theonas at Alexandria, on a larger scale than any of the existing churches, and used it, for convenience' sake, before it was completed (Ap. ad Const. 15). He is also said by tradition to have never read the Gospels in a sitting posture, and to have never eaten on fast days while the sun was in the sky (BoUand. Act. SS., Feb. 26). Two short fragments of a letter addressed by him to a bishop named Aeglon, against the Arians, are quoted in the works of Maximus the Confessor (in the Monothelite controversy), vol. ii. p. 132. A trans, of his extant writings isin the Ante-Xicene Lib. (T. &T. Clark), [w.b.] Alexander, St., bp. of Byzantium, as the city was then called (Theod. Hist. i. 19) for about 23 years, his consecration being vari- ously dated from a.d. 313 to 317. He was al- ready 73 years old at the time (Socr. Hist. ii. 6 ; Soz. Hist. iii. 3). He is highly praised by Gregory of Nazianzurn {Or. 27), and by Epi- phanius {adv. Haer. Ixix. 10). Theodoret calls him an "apostolic" bishop {Hist. i. 3, cf Phil. 12). In the commencement of the Arian troubles the co-operation of Alexander was specially requested by his namesake of Alex- ALEXANDER 13 andria (Theod. i. 4) ; and he was present at the council of Nicaea (Soz. ii. 29). When Constantine, induced by the Eusebians (Athan. Kp. ad Si-rap.; Kutiniis, Hist, i.), and deceiv('d by the equivocations of Arius (Socr. i. 37), commanded that Arins should be received to communion, Alexander, though threatened by the Eusebians with deposition and banish- ment, persisted in his refusal to admit the archheretic to communion, and shut himself up in the church of Irene for prayer in this extremity. Alexander did not long survive Arius (Socr. ii. 6 ; Theod. i. 19). On his death- bed he is said to have designated Paulus as his successor, and warned his clergy against the S]>eciousness of Macedonius. [i.o.s.] Alexander, bp. of Hierapolis Euphratensis and metropolitan in the patriarchate of Anti- och ; the uncompromising opponent of Cyril of .Mexaiuiria, and the resolute advocate of Ncstorius in the controversies that followed the council of h:phesus, a.d. 431. His dignity as metropolitan gave him a leading place in the opposition of which the patriarch John of An- tioch was the head, and his influence was con- firmed by personal character. He may have commenced his episcopate as early as a.d. 404, when with uncompromising zeal he erased from the diptychs of one of his churches the name of J ulian, a man famous for sanctity, but accused of Apollinarianism (Baluz. Nov. Coll. Cone. p. 867). Alexander arrived at the council of Ephesus in company with his brother metropolitan Alexander of .'Vpameaon or about June 20, 431. ,\s soon as the Alexanders discovered Cyril's intention to open the council before John of Antioch's arrival they, on June 21, united with the other bishops of the East in signing a formal act demanding delay (Labbe, Concil. iii. 552, 660, 662 ; Baluz. 697, 699). The council heeded them not, opened their sittings the next day, June 22, and soon did the work for which they had been summoned, the condem- nation of Nestorius. When John at last arrived, June 27, Alexander joined in the counter-council held by him and the prelates of his party in his inn, and signed the acts which cancelled the proceedings of the former council, deposing Cyril and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, and declaring Cyril's anathemas here- tical. As a necessary consequence Alexander was included in the sentence against John, and cut off from communion with Cyril's party (Labbe, iii. 764 ; Baluz. 507). Later he joined the council held by John at Tarsus, which pro- nounced a fresh sentence of deposition on Cyril (Baluz. 840, 843, 874) ; also that at An- tioch in the middle of December, ratifying the former acts and declaring adherence to the Nicene faith. A meeting was held at Antioch early in 432, attended by Alexander, when six alternative articles were drawn up, one of which it was hoped Cyril would accept, and so afford a basis of reconciliation {ib. 764). One de- clared a resolution to be content with the Nicene Creed and to reject all the documents that had caused the controversy. Another council was summoned at Beroea. Four more articles were added to the six, and the whole were despatched to Cyril. Cyril was well con- tent to express his adherence to the Nicene I Creed, but felt it unreasonable that he should 14 ALEXANDER be required to abandon all he had written on the Nestorian controversy ( Labbe, iii. 114,1151, 1 157, iv. 666 ; Baluz. 786). Cyril's reply was accepted by Acacius and John of Antioch, and other bishops now sincerely anxious for peace, but not by Alexander or Theodoret (Baluz. 757, 782). The former renewed his charge of ApoUinarianism and refused to sign the deposition of Nestorius {ib. 762-763). This defection of Acacius of Beroea and John of Antioch was received with indignant sorrow by Alexander. It was the first breach in the hitherto compact opposition, and led to its gradual dissolution, leaving Alexander almost without supporters. In a vehement letter to Andrew of Samosata, he bitterly complained of Acacius's fickleness and protested that he would rather fly to the desert, resign his bishopric, and cut off his right hand than recog- nize Cyril as a Catholic until he had recanted his errors {ib. 764-763). The month of April, 433, saw the reconciliation of John and the majority of the Oriental bishops with Cyril fully established (Labbe, iv. 659 ; Cyril, Ep. 31, 42, 44). Alexander was informed of this in a private letter from John, beseeching him no longer to hinder the peace of the church. Alexander's indignation now knew no bounds. He wrote in furious terms to Andrew and Theodoret (Baluz. 799, 800). His language became more and more extravagant, " exile, violent death, the beasts, the fire, the preci- pice, were to be chosen before communion with a heretic " (ib. 768, 775, 799, 800, 809, 810), and he even "made a vow to avoid the sight, hearing, or even the remembrance of all who in their hearts turned back again to Egypt" {ib. 865). Alexander's contumacy had been regarded as depriving him of his func- tions as metropolitan. John, as patriarch, stepped in, a.d. 434, and ordained bishops in the Euphratensian province. This act, of very doubtful legality, excited serious displeasure, and was appealed against by Alexander and six of his suffragans (ib. 831-833, 865) The end was now near at hand. Pulcheria and Theodosius had been carefully informed of the obstinate refusal of Alexander and the few left to support him to communicate with those whose orthodoxy had been recognized by the church. John had obtained imperial rescripts decreeing the expulsion and banishment of all bishops who still refused to communicate with him {ib. 876). This rescript was executed in the case of other recusants ; Alexander still remained. John expressed great unwilling- ness to take any steps towards the deprivation of his former friend. He commissioned Theo- doret to use his influence with him. But Theo- doret had again to report the impossibility of softening his inflexibility. John now, a.d. 435, felt he could not offer any further resist- ance to the imperial decrees. But no compul- sion was needed : Alexander obeyed the order with calmness, and even with joy at laying aside the burdens and anxieties of the episco- pate. He went forth in utter poverty, not taking with him a single penny of his episcopal revenue, or a book or paper belonging to the church. His sole outfit consisted of some neces- sary documents, and the funds contributed by friends for the hire of vehicles (ib. 868, 881, 882). The banishment of their beloved and AL06IANS revered bishop overwhelmed the people of Hierapolis with grief. Fear of the civil au- thorities deterred them from any open mani- festation, but they closed the churches, shut themselves up in their houses, and wept in pri- vate. In exile at the mines of Phamuthin in Egypt, Alexander died, sternly adhering to his anathemas of Cyril to the last (Tillemont, Mem. Eccli's. xiv. XV. ; Labbe, Concil. vol. iii. ; Baluz. Nov. Collect.) [e-v.] Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, was an early friend and fellow scholar of Origen at Alex- andria, where they studied together under Pantaenus and Clemens Alex. (Ens. H. E. vi. 14). He was bishop of a city in Cappadocia {ib. vi. 11) ; or, according to Valesius {Not. ad Euseb.) and Tillemont {Mem. eccl. iii. p. 183), of Flaviopolis in Cilicia. He became a confessor in the persecution of Severus, a.d. 204, and was thrown into prison, where he con- tinued some years. He was still a prisoner at the commencement of Caracalla's reign, a.d. 211, when he sent a letter by the hand of Cle- mens to congratulate the church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades as their bishop in the room of Serapion (Ens. vi. 11). The next year he was released from prison, and, in fulfil- ment of a vow, visited Jerusalem, where he was chosen coadjutor to the aged bp. Narcissus. This being the first occasion of the translation of a bishop, as well as of the appointment of a coadjutor bishop, and in apparent violation of the canons of the church, it was deemed essential to obtain the sanction of the whole episcopate of Palestine. A synod was sum- moned at Jerusalem, and the assembled bish- ops gave their unanimous consent to the step, A.D. 213 (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. ; Vales. Not. in Euseb. vi. 1 1 ; Socr. vii. 36 ; Bingham, Ori- gines, bk. ii. § 4). On the death of Narcissus, Alexander succeeded as sole bishop. His chief claim to celebrity rests on the library he formed at Jerusalem, and on the boldness with which he supported Origen against his bishop, Demetrius of Alexandria. [Origen.] The friendship of Alexander and Origen was warm and lasting ; and the latter bears testimony to the remarkable gentleness and sweetness of character manifested in all Alexander's public instructions (Orig. Homil. I. in Lib. Reg. No. i). Alexander was again thrown into prison at Caesarea in the Decian persecution, where he died a.d. 251 (Eus. H. E. vi. 46 ; Hieron. Script. Eccl.). Eusebius has preserved some fragments of Alexander's letters : to the An- tinoites, H. E. vi. 11, to the church of Antioch, ib. ; to Origen, H. E. vi. 14, and to Demetrius, H. E. vi. 19. These have been pubUshed by Galland, Biblioth. Vet. Patrum, vol. ii. pp. 201 seq. Clemens Alex, dedicated his Canon Ecclesiasticus to him (Eus. vi. 13). [e.v.] Alexander I., bp. of Rome, is stated by all the authorities to have been the successor of Evaristus. Eusebius {H. E. iv. 4) makes him succeed in a.d. 109, in his Chronicle, a.d. hi (f. 89). He assigns him in both works a reign of ten years. He has been confused with a martyr of the same name, who is mentioned in a fragment of an inscription. [g.h.m.] Alogians, or Alogi (from d privative and Ao'705, deniers of the Logos, or at least of the strongest witness for the Logos ; not from dXoyoi, unreasonable), a heretical sect of dis- AMBROSlAStEli puted existence in the latter half of 2nd cent. (c. 170). Epiphaiiius invented the term (Haeres. 1. i, adv. Al. c. 3), to characterize their rejection of the Divine Word preached by John (fVft ovv t6i> AtJ^OJ- ov d^xoi-rai tov wapa 'luidwov KfKr)pi'yiJ.evov, 'Woyoi \-\7j<>i/(roi'rat). He traces their origin to Theodotus of Byzan- tium (Hiur. liv. c. i). According to his re- presentation they denied, in ardent opposition to the Gnosticism of Cerinthus on the one hand, and to the Montanists on the other, that Jesus Christ was the eternal Logos, as taught in John i. 1-14 ; and rejected the Fourth Gospel and the Apocalypse as productions of Cerinthus.* Heiaichen supposes that the Alogi rejected only the Apocalypse and not the Fourth Gospel; but this is directly con- I tradicted by Hpiphanius (1. c. 3 ; cf. Haer. 1. iv. i). That they attributed these books to Cerinthus, the Docetist and enemy of St. J ohn, shows their utter want of critical judfiment. They tried to refute the Gospel of St. John by the Synoptic Gospels, but with very poor arguments. In oppcisition to the Montanists, ; thev also denied the continuance of the spiritual gifts in the church. It is not clear from Epiphanius whether the Alogi rejected only St. John's doctrines of the Logos, or also the divinity of Christ in any form. He calls ; them in his violent way (1. c. 3) aWorpioi ■KavTairaaiv rod KJjpvyfi.aTOi tj}s a\i}6ela^ : and says of their heresy {Haer. liv. c. i) that it denied the Gospel of St. John and the God- < Word taught therein {rbv ev avn^ iv apxn 6vTa ■ debv Xdyov). Yet he clearly distinguishes them from the Ebionites ; and their opposition to Cerinthus implies that they believed in the real humanity of Christ. Dorner {Hist, of Christology, i. p. 503, German ed.l thinks it I probable that they allowed no distinctions in i the Godhead, and thought that the divinity I of the Father dwelt in the man Jesus. But this would identify them with the Patripas- sians. Lardner {Works, iv. 190, viii. 627) ■ doubts the existence of this sect, because of ' the absence of other data, and the tendency of , Epiphanius to multiply and exaggerate here- 1 sies. But the testimony of Epiphanius is I essentially sustained by Irenaeus, who men- j tions persons who rejected both the Gospel 1 of St. John and the prophetic Spirit {simul et I evangelium et propheticum repellunt Spiritum : j adv. Haer. iii. c. 11, § 9). Epiphanius, Haer. 50, and esp. 54 ; M. Merkel, Historisch-kritische Aufkldrung der I Streitigkeit der Aloger iiber die Apokalypsis '■ ( Frank f. and Leipz. 1782); F. A. Heinichen, j de Alogis, Theodotianis atque Arlemonilis (Leipz. 1829); Neander, Kirchengesch. i. ii. pp. 906, 1003 ; Dorner, op. cit. vol. ii. pp. 500- 503; Harnack, Literatur, ii. i ; Zahn, Neutest. Kanon. i. 220, ii. 967. [v.s.] Ambrosiaster, or Pseudo-Ambrosliis, a name generally employed to denote the un- Imown author of the Commentaria in xiii • This, it may be remarked, is an argument against the criticism of the Tubingen school, which would bring the composition of the Gospel of .St. John down to the middle of the 2nd cent. ; for Cerinthus %vas a contemporary of the apostle. Had the Alogi had any idea of the recent origin of St. John, they would have made much account of it. AMBROSIASTER 15 Episiolas beati Paiili, f>irnurlv ascribed to St. .•\mbrose and usually printed along with his works. The commentary itself contains no definite indication of its authorship. An in- cidental remark, however, on i Tim. iii. 15, " Ecclesia . . . cujus hodie rector est Dania- sus," shows that it was written during the pontificate of Damasus (366-384). It has been suggested that this clause may be an interpolation ; but such an interpolation seems dillicult to account for. Other marks, negative and positive, \wi\\\. to the same period. The text used is not the Vulgate, but a prior form of the Latin version. The ecclesiastical authors to whom he refers — Tertullian, Cyprian, Victorinus — belong to an earlier date. Among the heresies which he mentions he applies himself more especially to those of the 4th cent. — e.g. those of Arius, Novatian, I'hotinus — while the absence of allusion to later forms of error points the same way. He speaks of the Marcionites as on the verge of extinction (" quamvis pene defecer- int," in Ep. ad Timoth. I. iv. i). The date thus indicated would be the latter half of the 4th cent. ; although, in that case, it is certainly somewhat surprising that Jerome in his treatise de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis should not mention any other Latin comment- ator on the Pauline Epistles than Victorinus. It was the generally received opinion in the Middle Ages that our author was Ambrose, bp. of Milan ; but this belief, which Erasmus was among the first to question, is now universally admitted to rest on no sufficient grounds, though opinions differ much as to the probable author. From certain expressions which ap- pear favourable to Pelagianism the work has been assigned by some to J ulian of Aeclanum ; but, as Richard Simon has naively remarked, " if the writer does not always appear ortho- dox to those who profess to follow the doctrine of St. Augustine, it must be taken into account that he wrote before that Father had pub- lished his opinions." The expressions in question were probably employed without re- ference to the Pelagian controversy, and previous to its emergence, and are, moreover, accompanied by others entirely incompatible with a Pelagian authorship {e.g. the statement in Ep. ad Rom. v. 12, " Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa "). The only positive statement as to the authoiship is contained in the following pas- sage of Augustine, Contra duas Episiolas Pelagianorum, lib. iv. c. 7 : " Nam et sic sanctus Hilarius intellexit quod scriptum est, in quo omnes peccaverunt : ait enim, ' In quo, id est in Adam omnes peccaverunt.' Delude addidit : ' Manifestum est in Adam omnes peccasse quasi in massa ; ipse enim per peccatum corruptus, quos genuit omnes nati sunt sub peccato.' Haec scribens Hilarius sine ambiguitate commonuit, quomodo in- telligendum esset, in quo omnes peccaverunt." As the words cited are found in this com- mentary, it may be reasonably assumed that the statement applies to it, and that Augustine reckoned Hilarius its author. Of the persons of that name, Augustine elsewhere mentions only Hilarius the Sardinian, deacon of the Roman church, sent by pope Liberius in 354 to the emperor Constantius after the synod 16 AMBROSim of Aries. By many modern scholars Hilary the deacon has been accepted as the author of the work. But Petavius and others have objected that Augustine was not likely to apply the epithet sancttis to one whom he must have known to be guilty of schism. There can be little doubt that, whoever was the author, the work no longer retains its original form. The well-meaning zeal of copvists appears to have freely inserted com- ments from various sources, such as Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, the commentary which is printed at the end of the works of Jerome and is usually ascribed to Pelagius. These circumstances sufficiently account for the various forms of the text in MSS., and for the discrepancies and inequalities of treatment in several parts. There is, moreover, a marked attinity be- tween this commentarv and certain portions of the Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti usually printed with the works of St. Augus- tine. The similarity of ideas and, in various cases, identity of language can only be explained by supposing either that they have had a common author, or that the writer of the one work has borrowed largely from the other. The note of time in the Quaestiones — 300 years after the destruction of Jerusalem— and some references to contemporary events suit the period of Damasus, and have induced many to ascribe this work also to Hilary the deacon. But the authorship of both remains uncertain, and probably the Quaestiones was composed subsequently to the commentary. The commentary on the Pauline Epistles, notwithstanding its inequalities of treatment, is of great value, and is well characterized by Sixtus Senensis as " brief in words, but weighty in matter " ; and, although the writer is frequently controversial, he speedily returns to the proper work of exegesis. In conse- quence of his use of the old Latin version and frequent reference to various readings, his work affords important materials for textual criticism. The commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which accompanies the others in some editions, but is omitted by the Benedic- tine editors, is a compilation from various Patristic sources, principally from Chrysostom. Cf. H. B. Swete, Theod. Mops. Comm. (1880), vol. i. p. Ixxviii., vol. ii. p. 351. The commentary was issued separately at Cologne in 1530 and 1532. Cf. A Study of A mbrosiaster bv A. Souter (Camb. Univ. Press) ; Text and Studies, vol. vii. No. 4. [w.p.d.] AmbrosiUS (1) {'Afx^poaios) of Alexandria, a deacon according to Jerome {de Vir. III. 56), the disciple and friend of Origen, died c. 250. It is not certain whether Ambrose was a Christian by birth ; but he was of a noble and wealthv family (Orig. Exhort, ad. Mart. 14 f. 49 ; Hieron. I.e.), and probably occupied some office under the Imperial Government (Epiph. Haer. 64, 3: cf. Orig. tb. c. 36). Endowed with an active and critical mind, he at first neglected the simple teaching of the Gospel for the more philosophic systems of heresy (Orig. in Johann. torn. v.). Hov/ever, when he met Origen he recognized his true teacher, and embraced the orthodox faith (Epiph. I.e.). From that time to his death AMBROSIUS Ambrose devoted his whole energy to en- couraging his great master in his labours on Holy Scripture, and used his fortune to further them (Eus. H. E. vi. 23). M Ambrose left no writings of his own except some letters, but it is evident that he exer- cised a powerful influence upon Origen, who called him his " taskmaster," epyodiwKTTjs {in Johann. tom. v.), and it may have been through his zeal in "collation" (Orig. Ep. 1.) that Origen undertook his critical labours. Through mistaken devotion, Ambrose indiscreetly per- mitted the publication of some unrevised treatises of Origen which were intended only for his own use (Hieron. Ep. 84, 10). [b.f.w.] AmbrosiUS (2), " a chief man of Greece," and a " senator," " who became a Christian," and, according to the title of the Syriac trans- lation, wrote the "Address to the Greeks" (.V670S Trpbs"E\\rivas), which is published with the works of Justin Martyr (Cureton, Spicil. Syr. pp. xi. 61). There is no other trace of this tradition, nor ground for identifying him with Ambrose of Alexandria. [b.f.w.] AmbrosiUS, St., bp. of Milan (a.d. 374-397). The chief materials for his Ufe are his own works, which include an important collection of letters. Another source is a Life by Paulinus, his notarius or secretary, who had been with him at his death and \vrote at the suggestion of St. Augustine. This Life is full of prodigies, and adds hardly anything to what we learn from the works. The letters have been reduced to a chronological order with great care by the Benedictine editors of St. Ambrose, who have also digested the various particulars into a useful biography. Ambrose's father, who bore the same name, was a Roman of the highest rank, and at the time of St. Ambrose's birth was prefect of the Galliae, a province which included Britain and Spain, and constituted one of the four great praetorian prefectures of the empire. The onlv datum for determining the year of Ambrose's birth is a passage in one of his letters in which he happens to mention that he is fifty-three years old, and at the same time contrasts the quiet of Campania with the com- motions by which he was himself surrounded (Ep. hx. 3). There are two periods to which this description would apply, a.d. 387 or 393. If we assume, as seems most probable, that Ambrose was fifty-three years old in 393, we shall place his birth in 340. After receiving a liberal education at Rome, Ambrose devoted himself to the profession of the law, which was then the usual path to the highest civil offices (see Gibbon, c. xvii.). He practised at the court of the praetorian prefect of Italv, Probus, who appointed him " con- sular" * magistrate of the provinces of Liguria and Aemilia. He made an admirable magistrate, and became known to the people of Milan, where he held his court, as a high- minded, conscientious, and religious man. Whilst he was discharging his office, Auxen- tius, whom the Arian partv had foisted into the see of Milan, died. The Catholic partv had now grown stronger, and a vehement strife » The empire was divided into 116 provinces, of which 3 were governed by pro-consuls, 37 by consulars, 5 by correctors, and 71 by president (Gibbon, U.S.). AMBROSIOS arose as to the appointment of a successor i to Auxentius. The consular came down to j the church to keep the peace and was ad- i dressing tlie people in his character as a civil ; magistrate, when a cry (which tradition I asserts to have been that of a child) was , heard, " Ambrose for bishop ! " In a moment it struck the whole multitude as a solution in which both parties might acquiesce without the sense of defeat, and a unanimous shout i arose, " We will have Ambrose for bishop ! " : It was a singular choice, even for those rougher and more tumultuous times, for Ambrose was not yet so much as baptized. But he was an earnest Christian in his belief, and had only been kept from seeking baptism by a religious awe, of which there were then many examples. Such an one naturally shrank from being made bishop. With undoubted sincerity, he resisted this popular nomination. He was, he savs, raplus a tribunalibus ad sacerdotium de Officiis, i. 4). He was baptized, passed summarily through the intermediate eccle- siastical stages, and on the eighth day was consecrated bp. of Milan. This was in the year 374 (a year after the death of Athan- asius, and before the death of Valentinian I.), Ambrose being thirty-four years of age. The vox populi was never more thoroughly justified. The foundation of his excellence was laid in a singular and unsullied purity of character. In the see of Milan Ambrose had found precisely his place, and he laboured I indefatigably as its bishop for twenty-three : years till his death. I One of his first cares after his ordination was . to divest himself of the charge of private j property. As a member of a wealthy family ! he appears to have possessed both money and 1 lands. What he did not give away to the poor ' or the church or reserve as an income for his I sister, he placed entirely under the manage- I ment of a dearly loved brother named Satyrus. I He was thus free to devote his whole energies ' to the work of his calling. His writings ' enable us to follow him in both his ordinary and his extraordinary occupations. He was wont to '• celebrate the sacrifice" every day (Ep. XX. 15). Every Lord's Day he preached in the Basilica. His extant works consist mainly of addresses and expositions which had ; been first spoken in the church and were after- wards revised for publication. They bear traces of this mode of composition in their simplicity and naturalness, and also in their popular character and undigested form. Ambrose had to begin, as he ingenuously de- clares, to learn and to teach at the same time (de Officiis, lib. i. cap. i. 4). In doctrine he followed reverently what was of best repute in the church in his time, carefully guarding his own and his people's orthodoxy from all heresy, and urging, but with wholesome, if not always consistent, qualifications, the ascetic religious perfection which the best Christians were then pursuing. The sacred books, for which he had a profound reverence, were to him — what pastoral and didactic theology has always tended to make them — verbal mater- ials fur edification, which was to be extracted from them by any and every kind of inter- pretation to which their letter could be subjected. His writings, therefore, or ser- AMBROSIUS 17 j mons, are chiefly of interest with reference to the history and character of tiicir author ; but I they are lively and ingenuous, full of good practical advice, and interspersed with gnomic I sentences of much felicity. One of the secrets of Ambrose's influence I over the people was his admission of them into all his interests and cares. He had nothing private from the congregation in the Basilica. The sister Marcellina and the brothers Satyrus and Ambrose (this was the order of their ages) were united together by a remarkable affec- tion. The three loved one another too de- votedly to think of marrying. Marcellina became early a consecrated virgin, but con- tinued to feel the keenest and tenderest concern in her brothers' lives. When Ambrose became a bishop, Satyrus appears to have given up an important appointment in order to come and live with his brother and take every secular care off his hands. These domestic virtues of Marcellina and Satyrus we learn from sermons of Ambrose. His dis- courses on virginity became famous, and attracted virgins from distant parts to receive I consecration at his hands. These discourses, in the third year after his ordination, he [ digested into three books, de Virginibus, \ which were addressed in their new form to his \ sister, and which contain, besides much praise 1 of Marcellina, the address made to her at her '. consecration by the bp. of Rome. A year or two later occurred the death of Satyrus, in the flower of his age. In the depth of his grief Ambrose pronounced a funeral discourse upon his brother {de Exccssu Salyri), which was followed seven days after by a sermon ' upon the hope of a future life (de Fide Res.). The bp. of Milan, exercising the authority of a patriarchate, and presiding over a city which j was frequently the residence of the emperor, j was a great dignitary. But we cannot fail to recognize the high reputation which Ambrose had won for himself personally and in a sur- prisingly short period, when we observe the deference paid to him by the emperors of his time. He was certainly fortunate in the sovereigns with whom he had to do. The youths Gratian and Valentinian II., and the great Theodosius, were singularly virtuous and religious princes. Gratian was a boy of six- teen when the death of his father placed him I on the throne, and in the year 377, the third of Ambrose's episcopate, he was two years older. In that year he was preparing to go ! to the assistance of his uncle Valens against the barbarian invaders by whom he was hard pressed ; and desiring to be fortified against the arguments of the Arians whom Valens was favouring at Constantinople, he wrote to Ambrose, and asked him to furnish him with a controversial treatise in support of the ortho- dox faith. Ambrose complied with the pious youth's request by writing two books de Fide. ' In the following year Gratian wrote a letter, preserved with those of Ambrose, in which he requests another copy of that work, together with an additional argument upon the divinity of the Holy Spirit. In this letter he calls Ambrose parens. Ambrose amplified his ! former treatise by adding three books to the j two he had already composed. This work de I Fide was reckoned an important defence of the 2 18 AMBROSIUS orthodox faith. The work de Spiritu Sancto, in three books, was written in the year 381. The successes of the Goths which attended the defeat and death of Valens were the occasion of frightful calamities to the empire. From Illyricum and Thrace, especially, an immense number of captives were carried off by the barbarians, in ransoming whom the whole available resources of the church were exhausted by Ambrose ; and when everything else had been taken, he did not scruple to break up and sell the sacramental vessels. He himself relates this fact with pride (de Off. lib. ii. 136, 138). We now see Ambrose zealous in the general affairs of the church, and the leading ecclesiastic of his time. Pre- siding in the council of Aquileia, 381, he questioned the two Arianizing prelates who were put on their trial before it. Several letters addressed to the emperor at this time in the name of the council of Aquileia or of the Italian episcopate on the general government of the church are preserved amongst Am- brose's letters {Epp. ix.-xii.). When Acholius died— the bp. of Thessalonica by whom Theo- dosius had been baptized— his death was formally announced to Ambrose by the clergy and people of his diocese ; and we have two letters in reply, one written to the church and the other to Anysius the new bishop. The next two letters of the collection (xvii., xviii.) are addressed to the emperor Valen- tinian, after the death of Gratian, to exhort him not to comply with a request of Symma- chus, prefect of the city, that he would replace the altar of Victory in the Senate House, and restore the funds for certain heathen cere- monies. Ambrose, whose influence was in- voked by the bp. of Rome, protested strongly against any such concessions to paganism ; and Victory, as it was said, favoured in the result her enemy more than her champion. The struggle between Ambrose and Justina, the mother of Valentinian II., which after- wards reached such a height at Milan, had been begun with a preliminary trial of strength about the appointment of a bishop at Sirmium. But when the usurpation of Maximus occurred (a.d. 383), and had been stained by the violent death of Gratian, Justina in her alarm had recourse to the great Cathohc bishop, and persuaded him to go on an embassy to Max- imus, to beg him to leave Italy untouched. Maximus had Theodosius to deal with behind the boy-emperor and his mother ; and his first act, when Gaul had fallen into his hands, was to send to Theodosius and propose to him, instead of war, the partition of the empire. Theodosius was constrained by motives of pohcy to assent to the proposal ; and Ambrose had the comfort of returning to Milan with the announcement that the new emperor would refrain from passing the boundary of the Alps. Allusions are made to this embassy in a letter of Ambrose {Ep. xxiv. 7) in which he reports the less successful issue of a later appeal to Maximus. One of the chief glories of Ambrose is that St. Augustine ascribed to him his conver- sion, and sought Christian baptism at his hands. The circumstances of his intercourse with St. Ambrose (a.d. 383-387) are related by St. Augustine in his Confessions. He AMBROSIUS tells us of the singularly eminent position of St. Ambrose (vi. 3), of his reputation for eloquence (vi. 13), of the difficulty of getting an opportunity of conversing with him on account of his many engagements, and his habit of reading to himself when company vyas present (v. 3), and of his method of expounding the Old Testament by finding under the letter a spiritual or mystical sense (vi. 4). It was during this period, in the years 385-6, that Ambrose defended the churches of Milan so stoutly against the intrusion of Arian wor- ship. Justina, who patronized the languishing Arian party, was bent on obtaining one of the churches at Milan for the use of her friends. Ambrose was not likely to make the con- cession. How in this matter he resisted the violent efforts of Justina, and the authority of her son (at this time fifteen years of age), is described at length by Ambrose himself in letters to his sister Marcellina and to Valen- tinian, and in a sermon preached at the crisis of the struggle {Epp. xx. xxi., and the Sermo de Basilicis Tradendis which follows them). There appear to have been two churches at Milan, the one without, the other within, the walls. The former, as of less importance, was first asked for. This being refused, some persons of the court came to Ambrose, and begged him to concede — probably for partial use only — the newer and larger basilica, and to exert his influence to prevent any popular disturbance. For it is important to observe that throughout the struggle the people were on the Catholic side. Ambrose replied loftily that the temple of God could not be sur- rendered by His priest. The next day, which was Sunday, as Ambrose was officiating in the principal basilica, news came that poUce- agents had been sent from the palace, who were hanging on the Portian basiUca the cur- tains which marked a building as claimed for the imperial treasury. A part of the multitude hastened thither ; Ambrose remained to per- form Mass. Then he heard that the people had seized on a certain Arian presbyter, whom they met on the way. Ambrose began to pray with bitter tears that the cause of the church might not be stained with blood ; and sent presbyters and deacons, who succeeded in rescuing the prisoner unhurt. Justina, in her irritation, treated the rich men of the city as responsible for a tiunult, and threw many of them into prison. The imperial authority was being dangerously strained. PoUtic offi- cials came to Ambrose and entreated him to give way to the sovereign rights of the em- peror ; Ambrose rephed that the emperor had no rights over what belonged to God. A body of troops was sent to take possession of the basilica, and there was great fear of blood being shed ; but after mutual appeals between their officers and Ambrose, the soldiers with- drew, and Ambrose remained all day in the chinrch. At night he went home, and on coming out the next morning he found that the church (the Portian) was surrounded by soldiers. But the soldiers were in awe of Ambrose, and, learning that he had threatened them with excommunication, they began to crowd in, protesting that they came to pray and not to fight. Ambrose took the lesson for the day as the subject of a sermon, and AMBROSIUS whilst he was preaching he was told that the imperial curtains were taken down. The (emperor was worsted by the bishop, and was « naturally angry. He sent a secretary to reproach .\mbrose, and ask if he meant to make himself a tyrant. Soldiers continued to surround the church, and .\inbrose remained there singing psalms with the faithful. The next day the soldiers were withdrawn, and the merchants who had been imprisoned were released. The struggle was over ; but Ambrose heard that the emperor had said bitterly to the soldiers, " If .\mbrose orders \ 11, you will give me up in chains." He rt cords another saying, which drew from him a retort of characteristic felicity. The court chamberlain sent him a message : " Whilst I am aUve, shall you despise Valentinian ? 1 will take off your head." Ambrose answered : •• May God grant you to fulfil what you threaten ; for then my fate will be that of a bishop, your act will be that of a eunuch." In the course of the following year the attempts of the .\riaii party, and of the em- peror as at this time governed by that party, ' were renewed. Ambrose was asked to hold a discussion with Auxentius, an Arian bishop, before chosen judges in the presence of the court, or else to withdraw from Milan. He I consulted such bishops and presbyters as were ; within reach, and in their name uTote a letter : to the emperor {Ep. xxi.), declining the dis- I cussion. An alarm was spread amongst the I people that he was going to be taken away I from Milan, and for some days, by night and I by day, he was surrounded and watched by j an immense concourse of his friends. He I preached them a sermon (de Basilicis Traden- dis), assuring them of his steadfastness, and I encouraging them to confidence, and at the ! same time gave them hymns composed by ' himself to sing — hymns in honour of the Trinity — by which their fervour was greatly stimulated. Again the court party found themselves worsted, and gave way. The singing of hymns, by which this re- markable occupation of the basilica was char- acterized, is described by St. Augustine as extremely moving (Conf. vi. 7), and is said by him to have been an imitation of Eastern customs, and to have been followed generally I throughout the church. PauUnus also ob- ' serves that at this time " antiphons, hymns, ' and vigils began to be performed in the I church of Milan, and had spread thence I amongst all the churches of the West " {Vita, 1 13). The reputation of St. Ambrose as a I composer of hymns was such that many cer- I tainly not his have been attributed to him, I and amongst them the Te Deum. The Bene- i dictine edition gives twelve hymns, which ] there is some good authority for ascribing to I Ambrose, the best known of which are those I beginning Aeterne rerum conditor, Deus creator I omnium. Veni redemptor gentium, and lux I beata Trinitas. They have a brightness and : felicity which have reasonably made them j favourites in the church to the present day. I We must take into account the state of j mind brought about in the bishop and his I flock by that protracted vigil in the basilica, I when we read of the miracles into which their triumph over heresy blazed forth. We have AMBROSIUS 10 a narrative from St. Ambrose's own pen, in a letter to Marcellina (Ep. xxii.), of the wonder- ful disco\ery of the remains of two niartyrs, and of the cures wrought by them. \ basilica was to be dedicated, and Ambrose was longing to find some relics of martyrs. \ presage suddenly struck him. (This " presagium " is called a vision by St. .Augustine, Conf. Ix. 7, de Civ. Dei, xxii. 8.) He caused the ground to be opened in the church that was ronse- crated by the remains of St. Felix and St. Nabor. Two bodies were found, of wonderful size (ut prisca uetas ferebal), the heads severed from the shoulders, the tomb stained with blood. This discovery, so precious to a church " barren of martyrs," was welcomed with the wildest enthusiasm. Old men began to remember that they had heard formerly the names of these martyrs — Gervasius and Pro- tasius — and had read the title on their grave. Miracles crowded thick upon one another. They were mostly cures of demoniacs, and of sickly persons ; but one blind man received his sight. Ambrose himself, for once, eagerly and positively affirms the roaUty of the cure ; and Augustine, who generally held that the age of miracles was past, also bears witness to the common acceptance of the fact at Milan. Gibbon has some excuse for his note, " I should recommend this miracle to our divines, if it did not prove the worship of relics, as well as the Nicene Creed." The Arians, as we learn from Ambrose and Pauhnub, made light of the healing of demoniacs, and were sceptical about the blind man's history. The martyrs' bones were carried into the " Ambrosian " Basilica (now the church of St. Ambrogio), and deposited beneath the altar in a place which Ambrose had designed for his own remains. The memory of this conflict did not restrain Justina and her son from asking help shortly after of Ambrose. It was evident that Maximus was preparing to invade Italy ; and as Ambrose had apparently been successful in his former embassy, he was charged with another conciliatory appeal to the same ruler. The magnanimous bishop consented to go, but he was unfavourably received, and having given great offence by abstaining from com- munion with the bishops who were about Maximus, he was summarily ordered to return home. He reports the failure of his mission in a letter to Valentinian {Ep. xxiv.). It is worthy of remark that the punishment of heresy by death was so hateful to .\mbrose that he declined communion with bishops who had been accompUces in it ("qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem petebant," ib. 12). These bishops had prevailed on Maximus to put to death Priscillian — the first time that heresy was so punished. [Priscillianus.] Maximus was not diverted from his project. He crossed the Alps, and justina, with her son, fled to Theodosius. It was not long before the vigour and ability of Theodosius triumphed over Maximus, who perished in the conflict he had provoked. Ambrose, who withdrew from Milan when Maximus came to occupy it, appears to have been near Theodosius in the j hour of victory, and used his influence with him in favour of moderation and clemency, j which the emperor, according to his usual ; habit, displayed in an eminent degree {Ep. xl. 20 AMBROSIUS 32). But Ambrose unhappily prevailed upon Theodosius to abandon a course which his stricter sense of his duty as a ruler had prompted him to take. In some obscure place in the East the Christians had been guilty of outrages, from which it had often been their lot to suffer. With the support of their bishop, they had demolished a Jewish synagogue and a meeting-house of certain Gnostic heretics. Theodosius, hearing of this violence, had ordered that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue at his own expense, and that the rioters, who were chiefly monks, should be punished at the discretion of the local gover- nor. This order naturally affronted the party spirit of the Christians. Ambrose could not bear that his fejlow-believers should be thus humiliated. He wrote a letter to the em- peror (who was at Milan, Ambrose being for the moment at Aquileia), entreating him most earnestly to revoke the order. With much that Ambrose says we can sympathize ; but he lays down a principle fruitful in disastrous issues : Cedat oportet censura (the functions of the civil ruler) devotioni (Ep. xl. 11). Shortly after, he had the opportunity of preaching be- fore the emperor at Milan. In a letter to his sister he gives the sermon at length, with its conclusion, addressed directly to the emperor, and begging of him the pardon of those who had been caught in a sin. When he came down from the ptilpit, Theodosius said to him, De nobis proposuisti. " Only with a view to your advantage," replied Ambrose. "In truth," continued the emperor, " the order that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue was too hard. But that is amended. The monks commit many crimes." Then he re- mained silent for a while. At last Ambrose said, " Enable me to offer the sacrifice for thee with a clear conscience." The emperor sat down and nodded, but Ambrose would not be satisfied without extracting a solemn engage- ment that no further proceedings should be taken in the matter. After this he went up to the altar ; " but I should not have gone," adds Ambrose, " unless he had given me his full promise " (Ep. xli. 28). About two years later (a.d. 390) the lament- able massacre at Thessalonica gave occasion for a very grand act of spiritual discipline. The commander of the garrison at Thessalonica and several of his officers had been brutally murdered by a mob in that city. The indigna- tion of the emperor was extreme ; and after appearing to yield to gentler counsels, he sent orders, which were executed by an indis- criminate slaughter of at least 7,000 persons in Thessalonica. Ambrose protested against this in the name of God and of the church. He had always acted on the principle that " nothing was more dangerous before God or base amongst men than for a priest not to speak out his convictions freely," and his lofty disinterestedness {non pro meis commodis faciebam, Ep. Ivii. 4) gave him great power over a religious and magnanimous mind like that of Theodosius. Ambrose now wrote him a letter (Ep. li.), which Gibbon most unjustly calls " a miserable rhapsody on a noble subject," but which most readers will feel to be worthy of its high purpose. With many protestations of respect and sympathy AMBROSIUS Ambrose urges his Emperor to a genuine repentance for the dreadful deed to which in an access of passion he had given his sanction. He intimates that he could not celebrate the Eucharist in the presence of one so stained with blood, (iibbon represents the behaviour of Ambrose as marked by a prelatical pomposity, of which there is no trace whatever in the only documents ou which we can rely. In his own letter the ■ bishop is most considerate and tender, though evidently resolute. He and Paulinus record simply that the emperor performed public penance, stripping himself of his royal insignia, and praying for pardon with groans and tears ; and that he never passed a day afterwards without grieving for his error (Paulinus, 24; Amb. de Ob. Theod. 34). In the course of the following year (391), Theodosius having returned to the East, the weak authority of Valentinian II. was over- thrown by Arbogastes and his puppet Eugenius, and the unfortunate youth perished by the same fate as his brother. He was in Gaul at the time of his death, and Ambrose was at that moment crossing the Alps to visit him there, partly by the desire of the Italian magistrates, who wished Valentinian to return to Italy, and partly at the request of the emperor himself, who was anxious to be baptized by him. In the next year (392) a funeral oration was delivered at Milan by Ambrose {de Obitu Valentimani), in which he praises the piety as well as the many virtues of the departed. It appears that under the influence of Theodosius, Valentinian had learnt to regard Ambrose with the same reverence as his brother had done before him (Letter to Theodosius, Ep. liii. 2). He had died unbaptized ; but Ambrose assures his sorrowing sisters that his desire was equivalent to the act of baptism, and that he had been washed in his pietv as the martyrs in their blood (de Ob. Val. 51-53)- Eugenius held the sovereign power in the West for two or three years, and made friendly overtures to the great Italian prelate. But Ambrose for a time returned no answer ; and when Eugenius came to Milan, he retired from that city. Shortly after this withdrawal, he wrote a respectful letter to Eugenius, explain- ing that the reason why he had refused to hold intercourse with him was that he had given permission, though himself a Christian, that the altar of Victory should be restored — the boon which Svmmachus had begged for in vain being yielded to the power of Arbogastes. When the military genius and vigour of Theodosius had gained one more brilUant triumph by the rapid overthrow of Arbogastes and Eugenius, Ambrose, who had returned to Milan (Aug. a.d. 394), received there a letter from Theodosius requesting him to offer a public thanksgiving for his victory. Ambrose replies (Ep. Ixi.) with enthusiastic congratula- tions. But the happiness thus secured did not last long. In the following year the great Theo- dosius died at Milan (Jan. 395). asking for i Ambrose with his last breath (de Obiiu Theod. I 35V The bishop had the satisfaction of paying j a cordial tribute to his memory in the funeral oration he delivered over his remains. Ambrose himself had only two more years AMBROSIUS -1 live. The time was filled with busy labours >f expositi'in, correspondence, and episcopal lucrnnieut ; and, according to Paulinus, with aril uis prodigies. Unhappily this biographer polls with his childish miracles what is still a ■ •luhinp account of the good bishop's death. t hcrame known that his strength was failing, mil the count Stilicho, saying that the death t such a man threatened death to Italy itself, luiiiccd a number of the chief men of the itv to go to him, and entreat him to pray to ..h1 that his life might be spared. Ambrose .-plied, " I have not so lived amongst you, liU I should be ashamed to live ; and I do 1 t fear to die. because we have a good rd." • For some hours before his death If l.iv with his hands crossed, praying ; as 'aulinus could see by the movement of his ips. though he heard no voice. When the .ist moment was at hand, Honoratus, the >p. of Vercellac, who was lying down in mother room, thought he heard himself thrice .ilicd, and came to .\mbrose, and offered um the Bodv of the Lord ; immediately after .-(■civing which he breathed his last breath — I man, Paulinus says well, who for the fear f ("fiul had never feared to speak the truth ■ kings or any powers. He died on Good riilav night, 307, and was buried in the \nibrosian Basilica, in the presence of a iniltitude of every rank and age, including ■\rn lews and pagans. Bv the weight of his character St. Ambrose ■ rjave a powerful support to the tendencies '■ l.vhich he favoured. He held without mis- ' Idvings that the church was the organ of God • In the world, and that secular government had - iihe choice of being either hostile or subser- >' Ivient to the Divine authority ruling in the • bhurch. To passages already quoted which "^ Express this conviction may be added a remark ■- Let fall by Ambrose at the council of Aquileia, K [' Sacerdotes de laicis judicare debent, non H Baici de sacerdotibus " (Gesta Cone. Aqu. 51). He was of strict Athanasian orthodoxy as '■• against heresy of every colour. His views of - the work of Christ in the Incarnation, the ■ iPassion, and the Resurrection, have in a ■~ marked degree the broad and universal ''■ jcharacter which belongs to the higher pat- ; fistic theology on this subject. (For example, peaking of the resurrection of Christ, he says, Resurrexit in eo mundus, resurrexit in eo oelum, resurrexit in eo terra," de Fide Res. 02.) With reeard to religion and religious ractices, he is emphatic in insisting that the .'orship of the heart is all-important (" Deo nim vellc pro facto est," de Fide Res. 115 ; Deus non sanguine sed pietate placatur," b. qS ; " Non pecuniam Deus sed fidem uaerit," de Poen. ii. ix.) ; but at the same time is language concerning the two Sacraments s often undeniably that of materializing theo- |logy. .\ttempts have been made, chiefly on this ccount, to call in question the Ambrosian li: |authorship of the treatises de Mysteriis and t \de Sacramentis ; but their expressions are ir lsuppf)rted by others to be found in undoubted ! |works of Ambrose. He praises his brother ;; jSat\Tus for having tied a portion of the conse- 1' i • St. Augustine was wont to express his peculiar fi- jadmiration of this saying, with its elimata ac lihrata iverba (Possidius, l^it. Aug. c. xxvii.). AMBROSIUS 21 crated elements in a napkin round his neck when he was shipwrecked, and adds, th.it having found the benefit of " the heavenly mystery " in this form, he was eager to recei\o it into his luotith — " (piam majus putabat fusum in viscera, quod tantum sibi tectum orario profuisset ! " {de Exc. Sal. 43, .}6). Ho argues for the daily reception of the Kutharist from the prayer, Give us this day our daily bread {de Sacr. v. 25). His frequent strong recommendations of virginity arc based, not on a theory of self-denial, but rather on one of detachment from the cares of the world and the troubles inseparable from matrimony and parentage. According to him. marriage is the more painful state, as well as the less favourable to spiritual devotion. Neverthe- less, he did not expect or desire a large number to embrace the life which he so highly eulo- gized. ■' Dicet aliquis : Ergo dissuades nuptias ? ego vero suadeo, ct eos damno qui dissuadere consuerunt. . . . Paucarum quippe hoc munus [virginity] est, illud omnium " {de Virginihtts, I. vii.). He and his sister used to press Satyrus to marry, but Satyrus put it of! through family affection — " nc a fratribus divellerctur " {de Exc. Sal. §§ 53, 59). Fast- ing is commended, not as self-torture pleasing to God, but as the means of making the bodv more wholesome and stronger. A keen sense of the restraints and temptations and annoy- ances which reside in the flesh is expressed in Ambrose's remarkable language concerning death. It is a great point with him that death is altogether to be desired. He argues this point very fully in the address de Fide ResurrecHonis and' in the essay de Bono Mortis. There are three kinds of death, he says — the death of sin, death to sin, and the death of the body {de B. M. § 3). This last is the emancipation of the soul from the body. He appeals to the arguments of philosophers and to the analogies of nature, as well as to Scripture, to shew not only that such a deliver- ance may be hoped for, but that it must be a thing to be desired by all. The terrors of the future state almost entirely disappear. He admits now and then that punishment must be looked for by the wicked ; but he affirms that even to the wicked death is a gain {de B. M. § 28). There are two reasons why the foolish fear death : one because they regard it .as destruction ; " altera, quod poenas reformi- dent, poetarum scilicet fabulis territi, latratus Cerberi, et Cocyti fluminis tristem voraginem, etc., etc. Haec plena sunt fabularum, nee tamen negaverim poenas esse post mortem " {ib. 33). " Qui infidcles sunt, descendunt in infernum viventes ; etsi nobiscum videntur vivere sed in inferno stmt " (ih. 56). The see of Milan was in no way dependent upon that of Rome ; but Ambrose always delighted to pay respect to the bp. of Rome, as representing more than any other the unity of the church. His feeling towards Rome is expressed in the apology with which he defends the custom of washing the feet in baptism — a custom which prevailed at Milan but not at Rome. " In omnibus cupio scqui Ecclesiam Romanam ; sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus ; ideo quod alibi rectius servatur, et nos rectius custodimus. Ipsum sequimur apostolum Petrum, ... qui 22 AMBROSIUS sacredos fuit Ecclesiae Romanae " {de Sacra- mentis, III. §§ 5, 6). As a writer, St. Ambrose left a multitude of works behind him, which show competent learning, a famihar acquaintance with Plato, Cicero, Vergil, and other classics, and much intellectual liveliness and industry. Their want of originality did not hinder them from obtaining for their author, through their popular and practical quaUties, a distinguished reputation as a sound and edifying teacher. He is often mentioned with respect by his contemporaries, St. Jerome and St. Augustine (see especially the latter, de Doctrind Chris- tiana, iv. 46, 48, 50). He came to be joined with them and Gregory the Great as one of the four Latin doctors of the church. His writings mav be classified under three heads, as (i) Expository, (2) Doctrinal or Didactic, and (3) Occasional. (i) The first class contains a long list of expositions, delivered first as sermons, of many books of Scripture. They begin with the Hexaemeron, or commentary on the Creation. Of this work St. Jerome says, " Nuper S. Ambrosius sic Hexaemeron illius [Origenus] compilavit, ut magis Hippolyti sententias Basiliique sequeretur" [Ep. 41). It is in a great part a literal translation from St. Basil. St. Augustine was interested by the method of interpretation in which Ambrose followed Basil, Origen, and Philo Judaeus, finding a spiritual or mystical meaning latent under the natural or historical. The Hexae- meron (6 books) is followed by de Paradiso, de Cain et Abel (2), de Noe et Area, de Abraham (2), de Isaac et Animd, de Bono Mortis, de Ftiga Saeculi, de Jacob et Beatd Vita (2), de Joseph Patriarchd, de Benediction- ibus Patriarcharum. de Elid et Jejunio, de Nabuthe Jezraelita, de Tobid, de Interpella- tione Job et David (4^, Apologia Prophetae David, Apol. altera ib.. Enarrationes in Psalmos (12), Expositio in Ps. cxviii., Expositio Evang. secundum Lucam (10). (2I The second class contains de Officiis Ministrorum (3 books), de Virginibus (3), de Viduis, de Virginitate, Exhortatio Virginitatis, de Lapsu Virginis Consecratae, de Mysteriis, de Sacramentis (6), de Poenitentid (2), de Fide (5), de Spiritu Sancto (3), de Incarna- tionis Dominicae Sacramento. Of these the books de Officiis, addressed to the clergy (imitated from Cicero), and those de Fide, mentioned above, are the most important. (3) The occasional writings, which are biographically the most valuable, are the dis- courses de Excessu Fratris sui Satvri (2), de Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, de Obitu Theo- dosii Oratio, and the Epistles, ninety-one in nimiber, with the Gesta ConcHii Aquileiensis inserted amongst them. Various ecclesiastical writings have been attributed to .\mbrose, which critical exami- nation has determined to be spurious. [Am- BROSIASTER.] Most of these are given in the Benedictine edition ; in that of Migne there is an additional appendix, containing some other compositions which have borne Am- brose's name, but are either manifestly spurious or have no sufficient title to be considered genuine. Some of his genuine works appear to have been lost, especially AMMONIUS one, mentioned with high praise by St. Augustine (Ep. xxxi. 8), against those who alleged that our Lord had learnt from Plato. Of the connexion of St. Ambrose with the liturgical arrangement which bears his name, we know nothing more than what has been quoted above from Paulinus. [See D. C. A., arts. Liturgies ; Ambrosian Music] There are three principal editions of Am- brose's works — that of Erasmus, the Roman, and the Benedictine. Erasmus's ed. was pub. at Basle, by Froben, in 1527. He divided the works into four tomes, with the titles, (i) Ethica, (2) Polemica, (3) Orationes, Epistolae. et Condones, (4) Explanationes Vet. et Novi Testatnenti. The great Roman edition was the work of many years' labour, undertaken by the desire of popes Pius IV. and Pius V., and begun by a monk who afterwards became pope with the name of Sixtus V. It was pub. in 5 vols, at Rome, in the years 1580-1-2-5. This edition superseded all others, until the publication of the excellent work of the Bene- dictines (du Frische and Le Nourry) at Paris, A.D. 1686 and 1690. A small revised ed. of the de Officiis and the Hexaemeron has been printed in the Bibliotheca Pat. Eccl. Latin. Selecta (Tauchnitz, Leip?.). Some of his works are reprinted in the Vienna Corpus Ser. Eccl. \ Lat. ; and in the loth vol. of the Nic. and Post- j Nic. Fathers are English trans, of select works. j An elaborate Life of St. Ambrose by Baronius, I extracted from his Annales, is prefixed to the I Roman edition ; but improved upon by the more critical investigations of the Benedictine ' editors, who have laid the basis for all sub- ' sequent Lives. (Cf. Th. Forshaw, A mbrose, Bp. i of Milan, 1884 ; a Life by the due de Broglie \ in Les Saiiits, 1899 (Paris). A cheap popular , Life by R. Thornton is pub. by S.P.C.K. in.j their Fathers for Eng. Readers.) [j.ll.d.] Ammon (or Amon), St., the founder of the celebrated settlement of coenobites and her- mits on and near Mons Nitria (Ruf. de Mon. 30) ; he Is often styled the " father of Egyp- tian monasticism." He was contemporary with St. Anthony, and filled the same place in Lower Egypt as Anthony in the Thebaid. Being left an orphan by his parents, wealthy people near Alexandria, he was forced by his uncle to marry. But on the wedding day he persuaded his bride to take a vow of celibacy, and for eighteen years they lived together as brother and sister : afterwards with her con- sent he withdrew to Nitria, and from that time only visited his wife twice a year (Pall. Hist. Laiis. 8). A great multitude of zealous dis- ciples soon gathered round him ; so that Palladius not many years later found about five thousand monks, some living quite alone, some with one or more companions ; while six hundred " advanced in hoUness " (reXe ot) dwelt apart from the rest in more complete isolation (ib.). Several miracles are related of Ammon (Socr. Hist. iv. 23 ; Soz. Hist. i. 14 ; Niceph. Hist. viii. 41). [i.g.s.] AmmoniUS, a disciple of Pambo, and one oi the most celebrated of the monks of Nitria. Being of unusual stature, he and his brothers DioscoRUS, Eusebius, and Euthymius were I called the Tall Brothers (Soz. Hist. viii. 12). I Ammonius himself was distinguished by the I epithet wapwr-qi (Niceph. Hist. xi. 37), in AMMONIUS SACCAS consequence of having cut off one of his ears to escape being made a bisliop (Pall. Hist. Liius. 12). In his youth he accompanied St. Athanasius to Rome (Socr. Hist. iv. 23 ; Tall. I.:). He was a learned man, and could n peat, it is said, the O. and N. T. by heart, ,1^ well as passages from Origen and other lathers (Pall. 12). He was banished to Dio- ( Mi'sarea in the persecution under Valens {ib. 117). After being for some time iiigh in favour with Theopliilus of Alexanilria, he and his brothers were accused by him of Origenism. Sozoraen (viii. 12) and Nicephorus (xiii. 10) ascribe the accusation to personal animosity >n the part of Theophilus. Socrates (vi. 7) xplains the accusation as an attempt to divert trim himself the odium which he had incurred as an Origenist. Jerome considers the ac- cusation merited (£/'. ad Alex.). Driven from Egypt, the brothers took refuge first in Pales- tine (Niceph. xiii. ii) and afterwards at Con- stantinople, where they were well received by Chrysostom (viii. 13). There they were protected also by the favour of the Empress Eudoxia (Soz. viii. 13), and even satisfied Epiphanius of Salamis, who came to Constan- tinople at the instigation of Theophilus to convict them of heresy (viii. 15). At the sj'nod "ad Quercum," held on the arrival of Theophilus, they were persuaded to submit to him, Ammonius being ill at the time. He died shortly afterwards. Perhaps this Ammonius is the author of the Instittitioiies Ascelicat', of which 22 chapters are extant (Lambec. Biblioth. Viiidob. iv. 155). [i.g.s.] Ammonius Saccas. Next to nothing is known of this philosopher. That he obtained his name of Saccas (= craKKocpopos) from having been a porter in his youth is affirmed by Suidas (under Origenes) and Ammianus Mar- cellinus (xxii. 528). He was a native of Alexandria ; Porph>Ty asserts that he was bom of Christian parents, and returned to the heathen religion. Eusebius (H. E. vi. 19, 7) denies this, but perhaps confounds him with another Ammonius, the author of a Diatessaron, still extant. That the founder of the Alexandrian school of philosophy (for such Ammonius Saccas was) should have been at the same time a Christian, though not impossible, seems hardly likely. Moreover, the Ammonius of Eusebius wrote books ; whereas, according to both Longinus and Porph\Ty, Ammonius Saccas wrote none. Plotinus is said to have been most strongly impressed with his first hearing of Ammonius, and to have cried out, " This is the man I was looking for!" [tjvtov i'^riTovv), after which he remained his constant friend till the death of the elder philosopher. Among other disciples of Ammonius were Herennius, the celebrated Longiiius, Heracles the Christian, Olympius, Antonius, a heathen called Origen, and also the famous Christian of that name. It is possible, however, that the Christians, Origen and Heracles, may have been the disciples of that Ammonius whom Eusebius confounds with Ammonius Saccas, and who was himself a Christian ; but this cannot be certainly known. We may guess sf>mething concerning the philosophy of Ammonius Saccas from the fact that Plotinus was his pupil. Hierocles {ap. Photjus) affirms that his aim was to AMPHILOCHIUS 23 reconcile the pliilosoiihies of Plato and Aris- totle, hence he appears to have combined mysticism and eclecticism. Nemesius, a bishop and a neo-Platonist of the close of the 4th cent., cites two passages, one of which he declares to contain the views of Numenius and Ammonius, the other he attributes to Ammonius alone. They concern the nature of the soul and its relation to the Ixxly ; but they appear to have been merely the tradi- tional views of Ammonius, not any actual ritten words of his. The life and philosofihy of Ammonius have been discussed by Vache- rot. Hist, de I'Ecole d'Alex. i. 342; Jules Simon. Hist, de V Ecole d' Alex. i. 204 ; Dehaut in his historical essay on the life and teaching of our philosopher; and Zeller in his Pliilo- sophie dcr Gttcchciu who also mentions other writers on .Vniinoiiius. [j.r.m.] Amphiiochius (1), archbp. of Iconium. Of this great Catholic leader, who was regarded by his contemporaries as the foremost man in the Eastern church after his friends Basil of Caesarca and Gregory of Nazianzus, very scanty information remains. The works ascribed to him are mostly spurious ; and the Life (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxix. p. 14) is a later fiction. Various references to the writings of Basil and Gregory contain nearly all that is known of him and his family. Amphiiochius appears to have been a first cousin of Gregory Nazianzen. The language of Basil (Ep. 161) might imply that he was born and Uved in Basil's own town Caesarea. Gregory ex- presses regret that he did not see much of Amphiiochius during his earlier years (Ep. 13). Their intimate friendship commenced at a later date. Amphiiochius, like many other eminent Christian fathers, was educated for the bar. The letters of his cousin imply that he carried on his profession at Constantinople. It is not improbable that trouble in regard to money matters about 369 weaned Amphi- iochius from his worldly pursuits and turned his thoughts inward. He had abandoned his profession, and was then living in retirement at Ozizala, devoting himself apparently to religious exercises and to the care of his aged father. His cousin Gregory appears to have been mainly instrumental in bringing about this change. At least he says with honest pride, that " together with the pure Thecla" * he has " sent Amphiiochius to God " (Op. ii. p. 1068). And now his closer friendship with Basil and Gregory begins. Ozizala was situ- ated not far from Nazianzus, for Gregory's correspondence implies that they were near neighbours. A letter of Basil, apparently belonging to this period, is in the name of one Heraclidas, who, hke Amphiiochius, had re- nounced the profession of the bar and devoted himself to a religious life. Heraclidas, lodged in a large hospital (TrrwxoT-po^eioi') recently erected by Basil near Caesarea, and enjoying the constant instructions of the bishop, urges Amphiiochius to obtain leave from his father to visit Caesarea and profit by the teaching and example of the same instructor (Ep. 150). This letter was written in the year 372 or 373 (see Gander's Basil. Op. iii. p. cxxxiv.). The • This seems to be the same Thecla with whom Gregory elsewhere corresponds, and not the monas- tery of St. Thecla, whither Gregory retired. 24 AMPHILOCHIUS invitation to Caesarea appears to have been promptly accepted, and was fraught with immediate consequences. It does not appear that at that time Amphilochius was even ordained ; yet at the very beginning of the year 374 we find him occupying the important see of Iconium. Amphilochius can hardly have been then more than about 35 years of age. A few months before Faustinus, bp. of Iconium, had died, and the Iconians applied to the bp. of Caesarea to recommend them a successor (Basil. Ep. 138). It is impossible not to connect this apphcation to Basil with the ultimate appointment of Amphilochius. From this time forward till his death, about five years afterwards, Basil holds close inter- coiu:se with Amphilochius, receiving from him frequent visits. The first took place soon after his consecration, about Easter 374, and was somewhat protracted, his ministrations on this occasion making a deep impression on the people of Caesarea (Ep. 163, 176). It was probably in another visit in 374 (see Garnier, Op. iii. p. cxl.) that Amphilochius urged Basil to clear up all doubt as to his doctrine of the Holy Spirit by writing a treatise on the subject. This was the occasion of Basil's extant work, de Spiritu Sancto (see § i), which, when completed, was dedicated to the petitioner himself and sent to him engrossed on vellum [Ep. 231). During this and the following year Basil likewise ad- dresses to Amphilochius his three Canonical Letters (Ep. 188, 199, 217), to solve some questions relating to ecclesiastical order, which the bp. of Iconium had propounded to him. At this same period also we find Amphilochius arranging the ecclesiastical affairs of Isauria (Ep. 190), Lycaonia (Ep. 200), and Lycia (Ep. 218), under the direction of Basil. He is also invited by Basil to assist in the adminis- tration of his own diocese of Caesarea, which has become too great a burden for him, prostrated as he now is by a succession of maladies (Ep. 200, 201). The affectionate confidence which the great man reposes in his younger friend is a powerful testimony to the character and influence of Amphilochius. After the death of Basil, the slender thread by which we trace the career of Amphilochius is taken up in the correspondence of Gregory. Gregory writes with equal affection and esteem, and with more tenderness than Basil. He has been ill, and he speaks of Amphilochius as having helped to work his cure. Sleeping and waking, he has him ever in his mind. He mentions the many letters which he has received from Amphilochius (/xvpLOLKis ypdrpuiv), and which have called forth harmonies from his soul, as the plectrum strikes music out of the lyre (Ep. 171). The last of Gregory's letters to Amphilochius (Ep. 184) seems to have been written about the year 383. Not long before (a.d. 381) Amphilochius had been present with his friend at the council of Con- stantinople, and had subscribed to the creed there sanctioned, as chief pastor of the Lycaonian church, at the head of twelve other bishops (Labb. Cone. ii. p. 1135, ed. Coleti). At this council a metropoHtan authority was confirmed to, rather than conferred on, his see of Iconium ; for we find it occupying this position even before his election to the AMPHILOCHIUS episcopate. During this sojourn at Constanti- nople he signs his name as first witness to Gregory's will (Greg. Op. ii. p. 204), in which the testator leaves directions to restore to his most reverend son the bp. Amphilochius the purchase-money of an estate at Canotala (ib. p. 203). It was probably on this occasion also that Amphilochius fell in with Jerome and read to him a book which he had written on the Holy Spirit (Hieron. de Vir. 111. 133) as Jerome is known to have paid a visit to Gregory Nazianzen at this time (Hieron. Op. xi. 65 seq., ed. Vallarsi). About two years later must be placed the well-known incident in which the zeal of Amphilochius against the Arians appears (Theod. H. E. v. 16).* Obtaining an audience of Theodosius, he saluted the emperor him- self with the usual marks of respect, but paid no attention to his son Arcadius, who had recently (fewtrri) been created Augustus and was present at the interview. Theodosius, indignant at this sUght, demanded an ex- planation. " Sire," said the bishop, " any disrespect shewn to your son arouses your displeasure. Be assured, therefore, that the Lord of the universe abhorreth those who are ungrateful towards His Son, their Saviour and Benefactor." The emperor, adds Theo- doret, immediately issued an edict prohibiting the meetings of the heretics. As Arcadius was created Augustus in the beginning of the year 383 (Clinton, Fast. Rom. i. p. 504), and as Theodosius issued his edict against the Eunomians, Arians, Macedonians, and Apol- linarians in Sept. of that year (ib. p. 507), the date is accurately ascertained (see Tillem. Mim. eccl. vi. pp. 627 seq., 802). In 383 also we find Amphilochius taking energetic measures against heretics of a different stamp. He presided over a synod of 25 bishops assembled at Sida in Pamphylia, in which the Messalians were condemned, and his energy seems to have instigated the reUgious crusade which led to the extirpation of this heresy (Photius, Bibl. 52 ; Theod. E. H. iv. 10; cf. Labb. Cone. ii. 1209, ed. Coleti). The date of Amphilochius's death is un- certain. When J erome wrote the work quoted above, he was still hving (a.d. 392) ; and two years later (a.d. 394) his name occurs among the bishops present at a synod held at Constantinople, when the new basilica of St. Peter and St. Paul was dedicated (Labb. Cone. ii. 1378, ed. Coleti). On the other hand, he is not mentioned in connexion with the troubles of St. Chrysostom (a.d. 403 seq.) ; and it is a fairly safe assumption that he was no longer living. Despite the martyrologies, he probably died in middle life. His day is Nov. 23 in both Greek and Latin calendars. The works ascribed to Amphilochius (/a/H6^ ad Seleucum, Homilies, etc.) seem to be mostly spurious, with the exception of an Epistola Synodiea (Migne, p. 94), on the Macedonian heresy. Its object is to explain why the Niceiie fathers did not dwell on the doctrine of the Spirit, and to justify the ordinary form • Sozomen (vii. 6) tells the story, but without the name of the bishop. He describes him as "an old man, a priest of an obscure city, simple and in- experienced in affairs." This description is as unlike Amphilochius as it could possibly be, AMPHILOCHIUS of the doxology. It is entitled 'A.a0'7ox'v Ba<Ti\eiot in one MS., but was certainly not written by Basil, who indeed is mentioned in it. Of his ability as a theologian and a writer the extant fragments arc a wholly inadequate criterion ; but his reputation with his con- temporaries and with the later church leaves very little ground for doubt. His contem- porary Jerome, an eminently competent judge, speaks of the Cappadorian triad, Basil, Gre- gory, and .A.mphilochius, as writers " who cram [refarciunl\ their books with the lessons and sentences of the philosophers to such an extent that you cannot toll which you ought to admire most in them, their secular erudition or their Scriptural knowledge" {Kf^. 70, i. p. 429). Of his character his intimate friends are the best witnesses. The trust reposed in him by Basil and liregory appears throughout their correspondence. The former more especially praises his love of learning and patient in- vestigation, addressing him as his " brother Amphilochius, his dear friend most honoured of all " (de Spir. Sand. § i) ; while the latter speaks of him as " the blameless high-priest, the loud herald of truth, his pride " {Carm. ii. p. 1068). He seems to have united the genial sympathy which endears the friend, and the administrative energy which constitutes the ruler, with intellectual abilities and acquire- ments of no mean order. [l.] Amphilochius (2), bp. of Sida in Pamphylia. Like his more famous namesake of Iconium, he appears as an antagonist of the Messalians. He was urged, as one of the Pamphylian metropolitans, to take measures against them ia encyclical letters wxitten by two successive bps. of Constantinople, Atticus and Sisinnius (Phot. Bibl. 52). and seems to have prose- cuted the matter with zeal. He brought for- ward the subject at the council of Ephesus (a.d. 431) in conjunction with Valerianus ; and in consequence of their representations the council confirmed the decrees of former synods against these heretics (Labbe, Cone. ii'i. 1331 seq., ed. Coleti). At this same council we find him assenting to Cyril's letter, and subscribing in very strong language to the condemnation and deposition of Nes- torius {ib. pp. 1012, 1046, 1077, 1133). His conduct, later, was marked by great vacilla- tion, if not insincerity. It is sometimes stated that he was present at the " Robbers' Synod " (a.d. 449), and there committed himself to the policy of Dioscorus and the heresy of Eutyc.hes (Le Quien, Oriens Christ, i. 998) ; but his name does not appear in the list of bishops assembled there (Labbe, Cone. iv. 889 seq.). At the council of Chalcedon, how- ever (a.d. 451), he shewed great tenderness for Dioscorus, and here his career of tergiver- sation began. He tried to defer the second citation of Dioscorus (iv, 1260) ; and when after three citations Dioscorus did not appear, he consented to his condemnation, though with evident reluctance (iv. 1310, 1337). At a later session, too, he subscribed his assent to the epistle of pope Leo (iv. 1358, 1366 ; and we find his name also appended to the canons of the council (iv. 1715). Thus he committed himself fully to the principles of this council, and to the reversal of the proceedings of ANASTASIUS I. 25 Latrocinium. But a few years later (a.d. 458), when the emperor Leo wrote to the bishops to elicit their o|iiiii()ns, Amphilochius stated, in reply, that, while he disapproved the appointment of Timotheus Aelurus, he did not acknowledge the auth<iritv of the council of Chalcedon (Hvagr. H. E. ii. loK Yet, as if this were not enough, we are told that he shortly afterwards assented and subscribed to its decrees (Eulogius in I'hot. Bibl. 230). [1..] Anastasia. [Chrvsogonus.] Anastasius (I), a presbyter of Antioch, the conhdeiitial friend and ouusellor of Nestorius, the archbp. of Constantinople. Tlieophanes styles him the " sviu ellus," or courulential secretary of Nestorius, who never took anv step without consulting him and being guided by his opinions. Nestorius having com- menced a persecution against the Ouarto- decimans of Asia in 428, two presbyters, Antonius and Jacobus, were dispatched to carry his designs into effect. They were furnished with letters commendatory from Anastasius and Photius, bearing witness to the soundness of their faith. The two emissaries of the archbp. of Constantinople did not restrict themselves to their ostensible object, to set the Asiatics right as to the keeping of Easter, but endeavoured to tamper with their faith. At Philadelphia they persuaded some simple-minded clergy to sign a creed of doubt- ful orthodoxy, attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia. This was strongly ojiposed by Charisius, the oeconomus of the church, who charged Jacobus with unsoundness in the faith. His opposition aroused the indignation of Anastasius and Photius, who dispatched fresh letters, reasserting the orthodoxy of Jacobus, and requiring the deprivation of Charisius (Labbe, Cone. iiL 1202 seq. ; Socr. vii. 29). It was in a sermon preached by Anastasius at Constantinople that the fatal words were uttered that destroyed the peace of the church for so many years. " Let no one call Mary QiorbKos. She was but a human being. It is impossible for God to be born of a human being." These words, eagerly caught up by the enemies of Nestorius, caused much excite- ment among clergy and laity, which was greatly increased when the archbishop by supporting and defending Anastasius adopted the language as his own (Socr. H. E. vii. 32 ; Evagr. H. E. i. 2). [Nestorius.] In 430, when Cyril had sent a deputation to Constan- tinople with an address to the emperor, An- astasius seems to have attempted to bring about an accommodation between him and Nestorius (Cyril, Ep. viii. ; Mercator, vol. ii. p. 49). We find him after the deposition of Nestorius still maintaining his cause and ani- mating his party at Constantinople (Lupus, Ep. 144)- Tillemont identifies him with the Anastasius who in 434 wrote to Helladius, bp. of Tarsus, when he and the Oriental bishops were refusing to recognize Proclus as bp. of Constantinople, bearing witness to his orthodoxy, and urging them to receive him into communion (Baluz. § 144). [E.V.] Anastasius I., bp. of Rome, was consecrated A.D. 398 (" Honorio IV. et Eutychiano coss." 26 ANASTASIUS II. Prosp. Aq. Chron.), and died in April, 402 (Anast. Bibl. vol. i. p. 62). According to Anastasius Bibliothecarius, he put an end to an unseemly strife between the priests and deacons of his church, by enacting that priests as well as deacons should stand bowed (" curvi starent ") at the reading of the Gospels. Jer- ome calls him a " vir insignis," taken from the evil to come, i.e. dying before the sack of Rome by Goths, a.d. 410. One letter by Anastasius is extant. Rufinus wrote to him shortly after his consecration (not later than A.D. 400, Constant. Epp. Pont. Rom. p. 714) to defend himself against the charge of com- plicity in the heresy ascribed to Origen. Anastasius replied (see Constant. I.e.) in a tone which, dealing leniently with Rufinus, explicitly condemned Origen. Nine other letters are referred to : — (1-5) To Paulinus, bp. of Nola (Paul. Nol. Ep. 20). (6) To Anysius. bp. of Thessalonica, giving him jurisdiction over Illyria ; referred to by Innocent I., in his first letter (Constant.). (7) To Johannes, bp. of Jerusalem. (8) To African bishops who had sent him an embassy to complain of the low state of their clergy. (9) Contra Rufinum, an epistle sent ad Orientem (Hieron. Apol. lib. 3)- [G.H.M.] Anastasius II., bp. of Rome, succeeded Gelasius I. in Nov. 496 (Clinton's Fasti Romani, pp. 536, 713). The month after his accession Clovis was baptized, and the new Pope wrote congratulating him on his conver- sion. Anastasius has left a name of ill-odour in the Western church ; attributable to his having taken a different hue from his pre- decessors with regard to the Eastern church. Felix III. had excommunicated Acacius of Constantinople, professedly on account of his communicating with heretics, but really be- cause Zeno's Henoticon, which he had sanc- tioned, gave the church of Constantinople a primacy in the East which the see of Rome could not tolerate. Gelasius I. had followed closely in the steps of FeUx. But Anastasius, in the year of his accession, sent two bishops, Germanus of Capua and Cresconius of Todi, (Baronius) to Constantinople, with a proposal that Acacius's name, instead of being expunged from the roll of patriarchs of Constantinople as Gelasius had proposed, should be left upon the diptychs, and no more be said upon the subject. This proposal, in the very spirit of the Henoticon, gave lasting offence to the Western church, and it excites no surprise that he was charged with communicating secretly with Photinus, a deacon of Thessa- lonica who held with Acacius ; and of wishing to heal the breach between the East and West — for so it seems best to interpret the words of Anastasius Bibliothecarius — " voluit revo- care Acacium " (vol. i. p. 83). Anastasius died in Nov. 498. He was still remembered as the traitor who would have reversed the excommunication of Acacius ; and Dante finds him suffering in hell the punishment of one whom " Fotino " seduced from the right way (Dante, Inf. xi. 8, 9). Two epistles by him are extant : one in- forming the emperor Anastasius of his acces- sion (Mansi, viii. p. 188) ; the other to Clovis as above Ub. p. 193). [g.h.m.] Anastasius Sinaita ('AfacrTdo-ios i,LvaLT-qi). ANATOLIUS Three of this name are mentioned by eccle- siastical writers, among whom some confusion exists. Two were patriarchs of Antioch, and it has been reasonably questioned whether they were ever monks of Mount Sinai, and whether the title " Sinaita " has not been given to them from a confusion with the one who really was so, and who falls outside our period (see Smith's D. C. B. in loc). (1) Bp. of Antioch, succeeded Domnus III. A.D. 559 (Clinton, Fasti Romani). He is praised by Evagrius (H. E. iv. 40) for his theological learning, strictness of life, and well-balanced character. He resolutely op- posed Justinian's edict in favour of the Aphthartodocetae, and encouraged the mon- astic bodies of Syria against it, a.d. 563 (Evagr. iv. 39, 40). Justinian threatened him with deposition and exile, but his death in 565 hindered his design, which was carried into effect by his nephew Justin II., a.d. 570. Fresh charges were brought against Anastasius of profuse expenditure of the funds of his see, and of intemperate language and action in reference to the consecration of John, bp. of Alexandria, by John, bp. of Constantinople, in the Ufetime of the previous bp. Eutychius (Evagr. V. i ; Valesius's notes, ib. ; Theoph. Chron. ; CUnton, Fast. Rom.). He was suc- ceeded by Gregory, on whose death, in the middle of 593 (Clinton), he was restored to his episcopate. This was chiefly due to the in- fluence of Gregory the Great with the emperor Maurice and his son Theodosius (Evagr. vi. 24; Greg. Mag. Ep. i. 25, 27, Ind. ix.). Gregory wrote him a congratulatory letter on his return to Antioch (Ep. iv. 37 ; Ind. xiv.) ; and several epistles of his are preserved relating to the claim the bp. of Constantinople was then making to the title of " universal bishop " (Ep. iv. 36, Ind. xiii. ; vi. 24, 31, Ind. xv.). Anastasius defended the orthodox view of the Procession of the Holy Ghost (Baron. Annul. Eccl. 593^, and died at the close of 598 (Clinton, Fast. Rom.). Five sermons, " de Orthodoxa Fide," and five others, printed in a Latin version by Migne and others, are ascribed by some to this Anastasius. Oudin, Dupin, and others refer them more probably to a later Anastasius. For a catalogue and description of the works assigned to him, either existing or lost, see Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. pp. 332-336, and Migne. (2) Followed the preceding as bp. of An- tioch in the beginning of 599. A letter of Gregory the Great to him (Ep. vii. 48, Ind. ii.) acknowledges one announcing his appointment and declaring his adherence to the orthodox faith. Gregory had written to him before 597 (Ep. vii. 3, Ind. i.), exhorting hira to con- stancy under the persecutions of heretics. He translated Gregory's de Curd Pastorali into Greek (ib. x. 22, Ind. v.). His death occurred in an insurrection of the Jews, Sept. 610 (CUnton, F. R.). Nicephorus (H. E. xviii. 44) confounds him with (1). [e.v.] Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, 449 a.d., through the influence of Dioscorus of Alex- andria with Theodosius II., after the deposi- tion of Flavian by the " Robber Council," having previously been the " apocrisiarius " or representative of Dioscorus at Constantinople (Zon. Ann. iii.). After his consecration, being ANATOLroS under suspicion of Eiitychianisin (Leo, Epp. ad. Theod. 33 ad Pulch. 35), he publicly con- j demned the heresies both of Eutyches aiul | Nestorius, signing the letters of Cyril against Nestorius and of Leo against Eutyches (Leo, Epp. 40, 41, 48). In conjunction with Leo of Rome, according to Zonaras (Ann. iii.), he requested the emperor Marcian to summon a general council against Dioscorus and the Eutychians ; but the imperial letter directing Anatolius to make preparations for the council at Chalcedou speaks only of Leo (Labbe, Cone. Max. Tom. iv.). In this council Anatolius presided in conjunction with the Roman legates (Labbe, Cone. Max. iv. ; Evagr. H. E. ii. 4. iS ; Niceph. H. E. xv. 18). By the ; famous 28th canon, passed at the conclusion ■ of the council, equal dignity was ascribed to j Constantinople with Rome (Labbe, iv. 796 ; Evagr. ii. 18). Hence arose the controversy between Anatolius and the Roman pontiff. Leo complained to Marcian (Ep. 54) and to Pulcheria {Ep. 53) that Anatolius had out- stepped his jurisdiction, by consecrating Maximus to the see of .Antioch ; and he re- monstrated with Anatolius [Ep. 53). After the council of Chalcedon some Egyptian bishops wrote to Anatolius, earnestly asking his assistance against Tiinotheus, who was usurping the episcopal throne at Alexandria (Labbe, Cone. Max. iv. iii. 23, p. 897). Ana- tolius wrote strongly to the emperor Leo against Timotheus (Labbe, iii. 26, p. 903). The circular of the emperor requesting the advice of Anatolius on the turbulent state of Alexandria is given by Evagrius (//. E. ii. 9), and by Nicephorus (H. E. xv. 18). The crowning of Leo on his accession by Anatolius is said (Gibbon, iii. 313) to be the first instance of the kind on record (Theoph. Chron. 93 Par.). [i.G.S.] Anatolius, bp. of Laodicea in Syria Prima (Bus. H. E. vii. 32). He had been famous at Alexandria for proficiency in the liberal arts, while his reputation for practical wisdom was so great that when the suburb of Brucheium was besieged by the Romans during the revolt of Aemilianus, a.d. 262. the command of the place was assigned to him. Provisions having failed, and his proposition of making terms with the besiegers having been indignantly rejected, Anatolius obtained leave to relieve the garrison of all idle mouths, and by a clever deception marched out all the Christians, and the greater part of the rest, many disguised as women. Having passed over to Palestine, he was ordained by Theotecnus, bp. of Caesarea, as bishop-coadjutor, with the right of suc- cession. But going to Antioch to attend the synod against Paul of Samosata, on his way through Laodicea, whicii had just lost its bishop, his old friend Eusebius, he was de- tained and made bishop in his room, a.d. 269. Eusebius speaks of him as not having written much, but enough to show at once his eloquence and manifold learning. He specially mentions a work on the Paschal question, published in a Latin version by Bucherius {Doct. Temp., Antv. 1634). Some fragments of his mathematical works were pub. at Paris, 1543, and by Fabricius [Bibl. Grace, iii. 462 ; Hieron. Sc. Eccl. c. 73). For ANDREAS SAMOSATENSIS 27 an Eng. trans, of his extant works see Ante- Xieene Lib. (T. \- T. Cl.irkK [e.v.] -Ancyra, Seven Martyrs of, female victims of Dii)cletian's persecution, 304. They were unmarried, about 70 years old, and notable for piety and good works. When the perse- cution was determined upon, Theotecnus, a magician, a philosopher and pervert from Christianity, was dispatched as governor to C.alatia to root out Christianity. Among the earliest victims were the seven virgins, Tecusa, Alexandra, Faina, Claudia, Euphrasia, Matrona, Julitta. Theotecnus called upon them to offer incense, and upon their refusal condenuKHl them to the public brothel, from which tliey escaptxl scatheless on account of their age, and by the ingenuity of Tecusa their leader. He then ordered them to officiate as priestesses of Diana and Minerva in washing their statues according to the annual custom of Ancyra. They were accordingly carried naked through the streets to a neighbouring lake, where garlands and white garments were offered them in which to fulfd his commands. Upon their refusal Theotecnus ordered them to be drowned in the lake, with heavy stones tied round their necks lest their bodies should be recovered and buried by their fellow- Christians. Many legends have gathered round the story. The acts of the seven virgins and of St. Theodotus (a tavern-keeper of Ancyra mart>Ted for rescuing and burying the bodies) are recorded in Gk. in a Vatican MS., purporting to have been written by an eye-witness named Nilus. They are foimd in Gk. and Lat. in Boll. Acta SS. May 18 ; cf. also Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p. 336 ; Ceillier, iii. 13. [G.T.S.] Andreas of Caesarea. [Arethas.] I Andreas Samosatensis, bp. of Samosata at i the time of the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. Sickness prevented bis attending the council (Labbe, Cone. iii. 506), but he took a leading part in the controversies between Cyril and the Oriental bishops that succeeded it. With- I out identifying himself with the erroneous j teaching ascribed to Nestorius, he shewed ' himself his zealous defender, and remained j firm to him when his cause had been deserted ' bv almost all. For his zeal in the defence of [ an heresiarch he is styled by Anastasius Sinaita h dpdKWP. The reputation of Andreas for learning and controversial skill caused John of Antioch to select him, together with his ' attached friend Thcodoret, to answer Cyril's anathemas against Nestorius (Labbe, iii. 1150 ; Liberatus, c. iv. p. 16). Cyril replied and wrote in defence of his anathemas, which called forth a second treatise from Andreas [(Labbe, iii. 827). In 433 Andreas accom- panied Alexander and Thcodoret to the council summoned at Antioch by Aristolaus the tribune, in compliance with the commands of Theodosius, to consult how the breach with Cyril might be healed (ib. 764). On the amicable reception by Acacius and John of Cyril's letter written in answer to the rescript of this council, Andreas fully sympathized with his aged metropolitan Alexander's dis- tress and indignation. Andreas deplored the recognition of Cyril's orthodoxy by so many ! bishops, and desired to bury himself in some I solitude where he might weep (ib. 784, 785, 28 ANICETUS 796, 797)- This was before he had see Cyril's letter. On perusing Cyril's own state- ment his opinions changed. What Cyril had written was orthodox. No prejudice against him ought to prevent his acknowledging it. The peace of the church was superior to all private feelings. His alteration of sentiments exasperated Alexander, who refused to see or speak to his former friend {ib. 810, 811). Andreas deeply felt this alienation of one he so much venerated, but it could not lead him to retrace his steps. He used his utmost en- deavours in vain to persuade Alexander to attend the council at Zeugma, which acknow- ledged the orthodoxy of Cyril's letter {ib. 805). His death must have occurred before 451, when Rufinus was bp. of Samosata. Theo- doret speaks of Andreas with much affection and esteem, praising his humihty and readi- ness to help the distressed (Theod. Ep. xxiv. p. 918). His own letters give us a high idea of his sound, practical wisdom, readiness to con- fess an error, and firmness in maintaining what he believed right. [k.v.] Anicetus, bp. of Rome, stated in Eusebius's History (iv. 11) and by Irenaeus {Adv. omn. Haer. iii. 3, 3) to have succeeded Pius. As to the date of his pontificate, see Lightfoot's elaborate discussion in Apost. Fathers (part i. vol. i. pp. 201-345). As Polycarp visited him at Rome, and as Polycarp's death has been fixed by recent criticism in 155, Lightfoot says that "the latest possible date for the accession of Anicetus is 154," and if he sat for eleven years, as is said, his death would be in 165. Anastasius Bibliothecarius singles him out as the pope who prescribed the tonsure for the clergy (Anast. vol. i. p. 13); and a forged letter upon this subject is given by Isidorus Mercator (Constant, p. 75)- But the single re- liable fact recorded of him has reference to the early Paschal controversy (Eus. H. E. iv. 24). He, like his four predecessors, did not allow the Jewish or Quartodeciman usage within their own church, but communicated as freely as before with other churches which did allow it. Polycarp visited Rome, hoping to per- suade Anicetus to adopt the Quartodeciman practice. But Anicetus was firm, even against the age and saintliness of Polycarp. As a mark of personal respect, he allowed him to celebrate the Eucharist in Rome ; but they parted without agreement, though with mutual cordiality. We are told that Anicetus was buried in the Calixtine cemetery on April 20. [G.H.M.] Anomoeans (from dro/xotos. dissimilar), one of the appellations of the radical Arians who, in opposition to the Athanasian or Nicene doctrine of the consubstantiality (buooiKria) and the semi-Arian view of the likeness {opLoiovaia) of the Son to the Father, taught that the Son was dissimilar, and of a different substance {eTepoovcnos). [Arianism.] [p.s.] AnonomastUS (Iren. 56 : cf. 54). [Valen- TiNUS ; Epiphanes.] [h.] Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, a contemporary of St. Basil bp. of Caesarea in Cappodocia (Basil. Ep. 58). In 372 he joined in sub- scribing a circular letter addressed by the Oriental bishops to those of Italy and Gaul {Ep. 92). But dissensions broke out between ANTHROPOMORPHITAE them, (i) When the civil province of Cap- padocia was divided and Tyana became the capital of the second division, Anthimus, in- sisting that the ecclesiastical arrangements should follow the civil, claimed metropolitan rights over several of Basil's suffragans. Herein he was assisted by the disaffection which prevailed in Basil's province. He was even bold enough to attack Basil on a journey, and plunder a train of mules laden with sup- plies of money and provisions for the bp. of Caesarea. Basil, thinking to establish an invincible outpost against his aggressive an- tagonist, consecrated his friend Gregory bp. of Sasima, a town not far from Tyana and one over which Anthimus claimed metropolitan rights. So long as Gregory remained there, he staunchly resisted alike the enticements and the menaces of Anthimus ; but he soon resigned the see which he had unwillingly occupied. [Gregory Nazianzen.] A peace was patched up between Basil and Anthimus, apparently by the intercession of Gregory. This happened in the year 372 (Greg. Naz. Or. xHii. i. pp. 813 seq. ; Ep. 47, 48, 49, 50, ii. pp. 42 seq. ; Carm. ii. pp. 696 seq.). (2) A certain Faustus had applied to Basil to con- secrate him to an Armenian see ; but as he did not produce the proper authority, the consecration was deferred. Faustus imme- diately applied to Anthimus, who at once compUed with his request, thus setting canonical rules at defiance (Basil, Ep. 120, 121, 122). A reconciliation, however, seems to have been effected, as Basil afterwards spoke of Anthimus in very friendly terms {Ep. 210, rbv bfj.b^vxov 7]/j.C:v). Except in connexion with Basil and Gregory, nothing is known of this prelate. (See Tillemont, Mem. eccl. ix. pp. 174 seq., 196 seq.; Gamier, Vit. Bas. Op. iii. pp. cxi. seq., pp. cxxiii. seq.) [l.] Anthropolatrae (AvUpuwdXaTpai), a nick- name given by the Apollinarians (c. a.d. 371) to the Cathohcs, on the assumption that the union of " perfect God " with " perfect Man " necessarily involved two Persons in Christ, and therefore that the Catholic exposition of the doctrine implied the worship of a man : an inference assumed to be avoided by the special Apollinarian dogma. See Apollin- aris (the Younger). The nickname in ques- tion is mentioned by St. Greg. Naz. Orat. Ii., who retorts that in truth, if any one is to be called by a name of the kind, the Apollinarian ought to be called " aapKoXaTpr^s." [a.w.h.] Anthropomorphitae {A nthropomorphism), {di'ffpojTroi, man, and t-wprpi), form). Terms applied to those who ascribe to God human shape and form. We must distinguish two kinds of anthropomorphism, a doctrinal and a symbolical. The former is heretical, the latter Scriptural, and necessarily arises from the imperfection of human language and human knowledge of God. The one takes the Scripture passages which speak of God's arm, hand, eye, ear, mouth, etc., hterally ; the other understands and uses them figuratively. Anthropomorphism is always connected with anthropopathism (from dvUpuTros and irdOoi, passion), which ascribes to God human pas- sions and affections, such as wrath, anger, envy, jealousy, pity, repentance. The latter, however, does not necessarily imply the ; 1 ANTIDIKOMARIANITAE f riner. All forms of idolatry, especially tl'.ose of Greece and Rome, are essentially uithropomorphic and anthropopathic. The 1 i>sical divinities are in character siniply ilied men and women. The Christian, vish, and Mohammedan religions teach It God is a Spirit, and thus elevate him >ve the reach of materialistic and sensual nceptions and representations. But within ■ Christian church anthropomorphism ap- . ared from time to time as an isolated opinion ; ; as the tenet of a party. Tertullian is often . (i.irged with it, because he ascribed to God a bodv {Adv. Prax. c. 7 : " (Juis enim nega- bit, Deum corpus esse, etsi Deus spiritus est ? Spiritus enim corpus sui generis in effigie "). But he probablv identified corporeality with substantiality, and hence he maintained that everything real had a body of some kind (tie Carne Chr. c. 11 : " Omne quod est, corpus est sui generis, nihil est incorporale, nisi quod non est "). The pseudo-Clementine Homilies (xvii. 2 seq.) teach that God, in order to be an object of love, must be the highest beauty, and consequently have a body, since there is no beautv without form ; nor could we pray to a God Who was mere spirit. (Cf. Baur, Vorlesungen iiber die Dogmettgeschichte, vol. i. p. 412.) In the middle of the 4th cent. Audius, or Audaeus, of Syria, a bold censor of the luxury and vices of the clergy, and an ; irregularlv consecrated bishop, founded a strictly ascetic sect, which were called A udians or Anthropomorphites, and maintained them- selves, in spite of repeated persecution, till the close of the 5th cent. He started from a literal interpretation of Gen. i. 28, and reasoned from the natiu-e of man to the nature of God, Whose image he was (Epiphanius, Haer. 70 ; Theod. H. E. iv. 9 ; Walch, Kel- \ serhistorie, iii. 300). During the Origenistic 1 controversies towards the end of the 4th cent., ' anthropomorphism was held independently by many Egyptian monks in the Scetic desert, who, with Pachomius at their head, were the most violent opponents of the spiritualistic theology of Origen, and were likewise called Anthropomorphites ; they felt the need of material conceptions in their prayers and ascetic exercises. Theophilus of Alexandria, formerly an admirer of Origen, became his bitter opponent, and expelled the Origenists from Egypt, but nevertheless he rejected the Anthropomorphism of the anti-Origenistic monks (Ep. Pastr. for 399). In the present century Anthropomorphism has been revived by the Mormons, who conceive God as an intelligent material being, with body, mem- bers, and passions, and unable to occupy two distinct places at once. [p-S.] Antidlkomarianitae ( XfTibiKoixapiavirai = Adversaries of Mary : Epiph. Haer. Ixxxix.). The name given to those in Arabia in the latter part of the 4th cent, who (in opposition to the KoXXi'piSidi'iSes) maintained the novel supposi- tion advanced at that time by Bonosus of Sadica, and by Helvidius, that " our Lord's brethren " were children borne by the Blessed Virgin to Joseph after our Lord's birth. The controversy arose out of the then prevailing reverence for virginity, which in its extreme form had led certain women, originally from Thrace, but dwelling in Arabia, to celebrate ANTONINUS, PIUS 29 an idolatrous festival in honour of the Virgin, bv taking certain cakes (>io\\vpibf%) about in chariots, and then solenuilyolTcring thorn to her and consuming them, in imitation of the Lord's Supper, or (more probablv) of the pagan wor- ship of Ceres. The reaction from this super- stition led to the existence of the sect spoken of in this article, which, contemporaneously with the controversy carried on by St. Jerome and by others against Helvidius and Bonosus, the literary supporters of the hypothesis, was led to endeavour to cut away all pretence for the CoUyridian superstition by adopting their view and so denying its very groundwork. The controversy itself is discussed in Smith's D. B. (4 vols. 1893) under Brothers and James, and in Murray's Illus. B. D. (1908) under James. For its literary history, see under Helvidius, HiLRONVMUS. ' [A.W.H.] Antiochus (l),bp. of Ptolemais, c. a.d. 401. To displav his oratorical powers in a wider field he left Ptolemais and settled at Con- stantinople, where his fine voice and appro- priate action, together with the eloquent and perspicuous character of his discourses, soon attracted large auditories, by whom, Uke his great contemporary John, he was surnamed " The Golden-mouthed." Having amassed considerable wealth, he returned to his de- serted see, where he employed his leisure in composing a long treatise " against avarice." He took a zealous part in the proceedings against Chrysostom, and is reckoned by Pall- adius among his bitterest enemies. He died in the reign of Arcadius, before a.d. 408, and, according to Nicejihorus, his end, like that of all the enemies of Chrysostom, was miserable. A homilv on The Cure of the Blind Man is also mentioned. With the exception of a \ sentence quoted by Theodoret, Dial. 2, and a ! longer fragment given in the Catena on St. ' John, xix. p. 443, his works have perished (Socr. vi. II ; Soz. viii. 10 ; Niceph. xiii. 26; (;ennadius in Catalog. ; Pallad. Dialog, p. 49 ; Fabr. Bibl. Gk. ix. 259)- [e-v-I Antipopes, claimants to the popedom in opposition to the lawful popes. There were seven such during the first six centuries, some owing their elevation to the existence of con- flicting parties at Rome, others intruded into the see bv the civil power. A fuller account of them, with the authorities, is given under their respective names — viz. Novatianus ; Felix; Ursinls (or Ursicinus) ; Eulalius ; Laurentius; Dioscorus; Vigilius. [J. B-Y.] Antoninus, Pius, emperor, a.d. 138- 161. The character of this prince as loving righteous- ' ness and mercy, choosing rather, in his own noble words, " to save the life of one citizen than to slay a thousand foes," shewed itself, as in other things, so also in his treatment of the Christians of the empire. Hackian had checked the tendency to persecution by im- posing severe penalties on false accusers (Just. Mart. Apol. i. c. 68). In some way or other, Antoninus was led to adopt a policy which was even more favourable to them (Xiphilin. Epit. Dion. Cass, i, 70, p. ii73)- Melito, writing his Apologia to Marcus Aure- lius (Hus. H. E. iv. 26), speaks of edicts which Antoninus had issued, forbidding any new and violent measures against the Christians. A 30 ANTONIUS more memorable proof of his tolerance is found, if the document be genuine, in the decree addressed to the general assembly of the proconsular province of Asia, at a time when the Christian church was exposed to outrages of all kinds {irpos to kolvov ttis 'Acr/as). It speaks in admiring terms of the innocence of the Christians, declares the charges against them to be unproved, bids men admire the steadfastness and faith with which they met the earthquakes and other calamities that drove others to despair, ascribes the perse- cution to the jealousy which men felt against those who were truer worshippers of God than themselves. Unfortunately, however, the weight of both textual and internal evidence preponderates against the genuine- ness of the edict as it stands, but some modern authorities are disposed to regard it as an interpolated form of a real edict of similar character. See, e.g., Renan, L'Eglise Chretienne, p. 302. In any case it is natural to connect the more lenient policy, which there is no doubt that Antoninus adopted, with the memorable Apologia which Justin addressed to him. Confining ourselves to its bearing on the charac- ter of the emperor, we note (ij that there had been at least the threat of persecution even unto death (c. 68) ; (2) that it is wTitten throughout in a tone of manifest respect as to men not unworthy of the epithets that were attached to their names (" Pius " to Anto- ninus, " philosopher " to Verissimus and Lucius) ; (3) that the mere fact of the dedi- cation and, apparently, presentation of such an address implies a tolerance which had not been often found in preceding emperors ; (4) that even the forged document, if it be such, shews a certain verisimilitude in the ascription of such a document to him. See Champagny, Les Antonines (Paris), and Aube, Hist, des Persecut. (Paris, 1875). pp. 297-341. [e.h.p.] Antonius, St. (Abbas), termed by Athan- asius " the founder of asceticism " and his life a "model for monks" (Praef. Vit. St. Ant.). We have a tolerably complete, but probably interpolated, biography of him by Athanasius, derived in part from his o\vn recollections, in part from others who had known him, as well as frequent mention of him by the ecclesiastical historians ; and we shall here treat Anthony as a historic char- acter, despite the recent assumption that he is "a myth" (see, e.g., Gwatkin's Arian Con- troversv, 1891, and cf. F. W. Farrar, Contemp. Rev. 1SS7, pp. 617-627). Anthony was bom c. a.d. 250 at Coma, on the borders of Upper Egypt (Soz. Hist. i. 13). By his parents, who were wealthy Christians, he was trained in pious habits (Athan. Vit. St. Ant. ; Aug. de Doct. in Prol). Six months after the death of his parents, being then 18 years of age, he chanced to hear in church the words " If thou wilt be perfect," etc., and re- solved to obey the precept literally, reserving only a small portion for his sister. Returning into the church he heard, " Take no thought for the morrow." On this he resolved to commend her to the care of some devout woman, and gave away all his property to the poor (Athan. cf. Soz. i. 13). At that time cells of Anchorites [fiovaaT-rfpLa) ANTONIUS were very rare in Egypt, and none far from the habitations of men. Anthony retired by degrees farther and farther from his native village, fixing his abode first in a tomb, afterwards in a ruined castle near the Nile. Here he remained some 20 years, shut up for months at a time with only bread and water (the bread of the country is said to be good for keeping), and issuing forth only to instruct the multitudes who flocked to see and hear him ; at other times communication was pre- vented by a huge stone at the entrance. During the persecution of Maximinus (a.d. 311), in which their bishop had fallen, he went to comfort the Christians of Alexandria ; and though the presence of monks at these trials was forbidden as encouraging the martyrs in their disobedience to the emperor's edict, he persisted in appearing in court. When the storm had ceased he withdrew, though now an old man, to a more complete isolation than ever, near the Red Sea ; and here, to save his disciples the trouble of bringing him food, he made a small field of wheat, which he culti- vated with his own hands, working also at making mats. From time to time he re- visited his former disciples in the Thebaid, always, however, declining to preside over a convent. About a.d. 335 he revisited Alex- andria, at the urgent request of Athanasius, to preach against the Arians (Theod. Hist. iv. 27), and there was followed by crowds as " the man of God." But he soon returned to the congenial seclusion of his cell, and there died, at the great age of 105, in the presence of the two disciples, Amathas and ^Iacarius, who had ministered to his wants during the last 15 years. To them he bequeathed his hair-shirt ; and the rest of his worldly goods, liis two woollen tunics and the rough cloak on which he slept, to bp. Serapion and St. Athanasius (Athan. Vit. St. Ant.). The fame of Anthony spread rapidly through Christendom ; and the effect of his example in inducing Christians, especially in the East, to embrace the monastic Ufe is described by his biographers as incalculable. In the next century he began to be venerated as a saint by the Greek church, and in the I ninth by the Latin. St. Jerome says he was the author of seven Epistles to certain Eastern monasteries, which have been translated from the Egyptian into the Greek (Hieron. de Script. 88), but whether these are the same as those now extant in Latin is doubtful (cf. Erdinger's ed. of them (Innsbruck, 1871). Though by all accounts far from being a learned man (Soz. Hist. i. 13 ; Niceph. Hist. vii. 40 ; Athan. Vit. St. Ant.), his dis- courses are evidence that he was not alto- gether illiterate. His influence was great at the court of the emperor. Constantine the Great and his sons wTote to him as a father (Athan.), and when Athanasius was contending with the Meletians, Anthony wTote from his cell to the emperor in behalf of his friend (Soz. ii. 31). His austerities were great ; as a rule he fasted till sunset, and sometimes for four days together. Of sleep he was equally sparing. His coarse rough shirt is said to have lasted him for a lifetime ; and his only ablutions seem to have been involuntary in wading occasionally through a river. Yet APHRAAT e lived to an unusual age, robust, and in full ession of his faculties to the last. He not morose to others ; only to iieretics he austere and repulsive, refusins to hold y intercourse with them even for a moment. e was careful always, though so universally vered, not to arrogate to himself priestly ctions, shewing, even in his old age, a marked and studious deference even to the youngest deacons. Anthony was evidently a man, not merely of strong determination, but of ability, and the discourses, if indeed they are his, which his disciples record as adtircssed to themselves and to the pagan philosophers who disputed with him, shew that if he read Uttle he thought much. He met objections against the tloc- trines of the Incarnation and the Resurrection as mysterious by the retort that the pagan mythology, whether in its grossness as appre- hended by the vulgar or as the mystical system of philosophers, was equally above reason. From their dialectical subtleties he appealed to facts, to a Christian's contempt of death and triumph over temptation ; and con- trasted the decay of pagan oracles and magic with the growth of Christianity in spite of persecutions. He taught that prayer to be Cxfect must be ecstatic (Cass. Coll. ix. 31). Lngled with sound and practical advice are strange stories of his visions, in which he describes himself as engaged continually in deadly conflict with evil spirits. Beyond these encounters and powers of exorcism it is not clear how far and in what manner Anthony believed himself able to work miracles. It would indeed be strange if so lonely an existence did not breed many in- voluntary and unconscious illusions ; still more Strange if those whose eyes were dazzled by the almost more than human self-abnegation of the great eremite had not exaggerated this aspect of his story. Among the many in whom the marvellous experiences of Anthony awoke a longing to renounce the world was Augustine himself (Aug. Conf. viii. 6, 12). A. Verger, Vie de St. Antoine le Grand (Tours, 1898). [i.G.s.] Aphraat {.iphrahat, Farhad, " the Sage of Persia"). Little is known of the life of this writer, who was the principal theologian of the Persian {i.e. Eastern or Ncstorian) church in the 4th cent. He was born late in the 3rd cent., and was certainly a monk, and probably a bishop of his church. Tradition says that he resided at the monastery of Mar Mattai, near Mosul, and was bishop in that province. Either at his baptism or consecration he adopted the name Jacob ( ^SCVxri^j ) in addition to his own, and for this reason his works have sometimes been attributed to better-known namesakes. In the year 344 he presided over a council of the church of his province (Adiabene), and the synodal letter is included in his works {Homily xiv.). Sapor's persecution was then raging in the country, but is known to have been, for local reasons, less severe in this district than elsewhere. The time and man- ner of his death are not known. Works. — These consist of a collection of 22 Homilies, written at the request of a friend (a APHTHARTODOCETAE 31 monk) to give an exposition of the Christian faith. Their importance consists in the picture that they give of the current teaching of an independent church, already organized under its own primate, outside the Roman empire. The language is Syriac, the quota- tions from the O.T. are taken from the Peshitta, but in the N.T. he quotes the dospels from the Diatessaron. Some of his inter- pretations (e.g. Horn. XV.) shew signs of Jewish or " Talmudical " teaching. Doctrine. — As a theologian, Aphraat is strikingly independent and remote from the controversies of his day in the Roman empire. Writing 20 years after the council of Nicaea, he expresses himself in a way impossible for any one who had heard of the Arian contro- versy, whatever his s\ini)atliies in it ; with him we are back in the indcfmitencss of an earlier age, when an orthodox writer might use on one page the language of psilanthropism (Horn, xvii.) and on another confess both the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (vi. 11.). This is consistent with the fact that the " church of the East " was so isolated that it was never asked to accept the Nicene Creed till the year 410 ; and apparently used, till that date, the formula that Aphraat gives (Horn. i.). See Nestorian Church. A curious feature in Aphraat's teaching is the use of expressions that jjlainly suggest that he regarded the Holy Spirit as the female element in the Godhead (xviii. 10). It is a thought strange to us, but not necessarily unorthodox, and natural to a mind of Semitic cast, that used a word for " spirit " that is feminine ; its absence from Greek and Latin theology may account in part for the enthrone- ment of another figure as Queen of Heaven. Aphraat's whole teaching has the ascetic cast natural to a 4th-cent. Oriental monk. The celibates (xviii.) are emphatically the aristo- cracy of the church, the professors of the higher life, who alone can attain to true communion with God. Any one who doubts his own capacity for the keeping of a vow of virginity, which apparently was often taken at the time of baptism, is advised to marry before that rite, a fall subsequent to it being a heinous sin (vii. 10). Nevertheless, all are warned that open abandonment of the reso- lution and avowed marriage is better than secret incontinence. Broadly, Aphraat shews us the existence of an independent Oriental theology, which, however, was not allowed to develop on its own lines, but was assimilated to Greek standards a few generations later. This was a distinct loss to the fullness of Christian thought, and a misfortune to the Syriac church itself, in that it soon shewed itself unable to think on Greek lines, so that schisms resulted that endure to this day. Parisot, Patrol. Syriac. Aphraatis Demonstrationes ; Labourt. Christiamsme dans Vempire perse ; Burkitt, Earlv Eastern Christianity, [w.a.w.] Aphthartodocetae (from dtptiapros, incor- ruptible, and ooK^ij}, to think), a sect of the MoNOPHvsiTES, which arose in the 6th cent. They were also called Phantasiastae, because they appeared to acknowledge only a seeming body of Christ, and to border on Docetism ; and Julianists, from their leader Julian, bp. of 32 APION Halicarnassus, and his contemporary Xenajas of Hierapolis. They argued, from the com- mingling (avyxvffis) of the two natures of Christ, that the body of our Lord, from the very beginning, became partaker of the in- corruptibiUty of the Logos, and was subject to corruptibihty merely Kar' oiKovofxiav. They appealed in proof especially to Christ's walking on the sea during His earthly Hfe. Their opponents among the Monophysites, the Severians (from Severus, patriarch of Anti- och), maintained that the body of Christ before the Resurrection was corruptible, and were hence called Phihartolatrae {<^i>9apTo\dTpai. from <pdapT6s and \drpela), or Corrupticolae, i.e. Worshippers of the Corruptible. Both parties admitted the incorruptibility of Christ's body after the Resurrection. The word (pOopd was generally taken in the sense of corruptibility, but sometimes in the sense of mere frailty. This whole question is rather one of scholastic subtlety, though not wholly idle, and may be solved in this way : that the body of Christ, before the Resurrection, was similar in its constitution to the body of Adam before the Fall, containing the germ or possibiHty of immortality and incorruptibility, but subject to the influence of the elements, and was actually put to death by external violence, but through the indwelling power of the sinless Spirit was preserved from corruption and raised again to an imperishable life, when — to use an ingenious distinction of St. Augustine — the immortalitas minor became immortalitas major, or the posse nan mori a nan posse mori. The Aphthartodocetae were subdivided into Ktistolalrae, or, from their founder, Gaianitae, who taught that the body of Christ was created {KTiarbv). and Aktistetae, who asserted that the body of Christ, although in itself created, yet by its union with the eternal Logos became increate, and therefore incorruptible. The most consistent Monophysite in this direction was the rhetorician Stephanus Niobes (about 550), who declared that every attempt to distinguish between the divine and the human in Christ was improper and useless, since they had become absolutely one in him. An abbot of Edessa, Bar Sudaili, extended this principle even to the creation, which he thought would at last be wholly absorbed in God. Cf. the dissertations of Gieseler, Monophysi- tarum variae de Christi Persona Opiniones, 1835 and 1838 ; the remarks of Dorner, History of Christology, \i. 159 ff. (German ed.) ; Ebrard, Church and Doctrine History, i. 268 ; and Schaff, Church History, iii. 766 ff. [p.s.] Apion. The name is properly Egyptian (see Procop. Pers. i. 8 ; Ross. Itlscr. fasc. 2, p. 62) and derived from the god Apis, after the analogy of Anubion, Serapion, etc. (1) The son of Poseidonius (Justin (?) Coh, ad Gent. § 9 ; Africanus in Eus. Pr. Ev. x. 10. p. 490), a grammarian of Alexandria in the 1st cent. His literary triumphs and critical labours on Homer do not fall within our scope, but his conflict with Jews and Jewish Chris- tians entitles him to a place here. (i) His hostility to Judaism was deep, per- sistent, and unscrupulous (Joseph, c. A p. ii. 1-13 ; Clem. Horn. iv. 24, v. 2, irdw 'lovdaiovi 5i' dTrex^eiay 'ixovra, v. 27, 29, 6 dX67ws /jLiauv APOLINARIS rb 'lovSaiuv k.t.X. ; Clem. Strom, i. 21), as the direct extracts preserved by Josephus from his writings clearly prove. These at- tacks were contained in two works especially : in his Egyptian History (MyvirTLaKo.), and in a separate treatise Against the Jews (Kara. 'lov5a'LWv ^'i^\o%, Justin. (?) I.e. ; Africanus, I.e.). Josephus exposes the ignorance, men- dacity, and self-contradictions of Apion. (ii) It is not surprising that the spent wave of this antagonism should have overflowed on Judaic Christianity. Whether Apion actually came in contact with any members of the new brotherhood is more than questionable. His early date (for he flourished in the reigns of Tiberius, Caius, and Claudius) renders this improbable. But in the writings of the Petro- Clementine cycle he holds a prominent place as an antagonist of the Gospel. In the Clementine Homilies he appears in company with Anubion and Athenodorus among the satellites of Simon Magus, the arch-enemy of St. Peter and St. Peter's faith. The Clementine Recognitions contain nothing corresponding to the disputes of Clement and Apion in the 4th, 5th, and 6th books of the Homilies ; but at the close of this work (x. 52), as at the close of the Homilies, he is introduced as a sub- sidiary character in the plot. See the treatises on these writings by Schliemann, Uhlhorn, Hilgenfeld, Lehmann, and others. (2) A Christian author about the end of 2nd cent., who wrote on the Hexaemeron (Eus. H. E. V. 27 ; Hieron. Vir. III. 49). [l.] Apolinaris, or Apolinarius Claudius. Atto- XLudpios : so spelt in the most ancient Gk. MSS. ; Latin writers generally use the form Apollinaris), bp. of Hierapolis, in Phrygia A.D. 171 and onwards (Eus. Chron.) ; one of the most active and esteemed Christian writers of the day, he is praised by Photius for his style (Phot. Cod. 14). Jerome enumer- ates him among the ecclesiastical writers who were acquainted with heathen literature, and who made use of this knowledge in the refuta- tion of heresy (Ep. ad Magnum, iv. 83, p. 656. Cf. Theod. Haer. Fab. Compend. iii. 2). Only a few fragments of his works have been preserved. Eusebius [H. E. iv. 27) gives the following list of those which had fallen into his hands ; and his list is repeated by St. Jerome (de Vir. III. c. 26) and Nicephorus (H. E. iv. 11). (i) An apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius, probably written after a.d. 174, since it is likely that it contained the reference to the miracle of the Thundering Legion else- where quoted by Eusebius from Apolinaris (H. E. V. 5). (2) Five books Trp6s "EWr/cas, written according to Nicephorus in the form of a dialogue. (3) Two books ire pi d\T]0€ias. (4) Two books 7rp6s 'lovSaiovs : these are not mentioned by St. Jerome, and the refer- ence to them is absent from some copies of Eusebius. (3) Writings against the Phry- gian heresy, published when Montanus was first propounding his heresy ; i.e. according to the C/jyonjcoH of Eusebius, c. 172. These writ- ings, which were probably in the form of letters, are appealed to by Serapion, bp. of Antioch (Eus. H. E. V. 19) ; and Eusebius elsewhere (v. 16) describes Apolinaris as raised up as a strong and irresistible weapon against Mon- APOUNARIS APOLLINARIS THE ELDER 33 tanisin. The situation of liis see sufficiently ,(' counts for the prominent part taken by Apolinaris in this controvorsv. We are told ' li>ed by an anonynaous writer who probably te at the end of the gth cent. (Auctor, ■ ,lli Synodici apud Labbe et Cossart, i. 599) it Apolinaris on this occasion assembled uty-six other bishops in council, and ex- amunicated Montanus and Maximilla, as 11 as the shoemaker Theodotus. Besides works mentioned by Eusebius, who does ; i^ive his list as a complete one, Theodoret :.i!-r. Fab. a. 21) mentions (6) that Apolinaris te against the Encratites of the school of . rrus (7rp6s rous ^(ovrjpiavoui 'KyKparirai). I'hotius (Cod. 14) mentions having read linaris's work wpHi EWTjj'ai Kai irfpi "'fi'aj Kai TTfpi evctSfiat. (8) In the pre- . c to the Alexandrian Chronicle a work Tfp* Tov irdffxo- is attributed to Apolinaris, ■■■ from which two extracts are furnished '' which have given rise to much contro- '- versy; the main point bein^ whether (if the '?: fragments are genuine) Apolinaris wrote fc lon the side of the practice of the Roman I hurch, or on that of the (Juartodeciraans of '..1 >iinor. In support of the former v^iew .rged the similarity of the language of these laments with that of Clement of Alexandria ''■ and of Hippolytus, who advocated the VVest- ^E em practice ; and also the fact that Apolin- ''- arts is not claimed as a Quartodeciman by E-: Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus, in his letter to Victor of Rome. On the other side it is urged It, that Apolinaris speaks of his antagonists as 1,^ 1" some who raise contention through ignor- cc lance," language which would rather convey vp {the impression that Apolinaris was writing i; [against the opinions of some small sect than IL .that he was combating the belief of the whole t, jchurch of Asia Minor to which he belonged; k: land it is further urged that if Apolinaris had iti I been the first to defend in the East the prac- tice which ultimately prevailed, it is incredible that neither Eusebius nor any early writer mentions this early champion of the Catholic practice. Socrates the historian (H. E. iii. 7) names Apolinaris, together with Irenaeus, Clement, and Serapion, as holding the doctrine that our Lord when He became man had a human soul (l.w^i'xov tov ivavdpijjiryjaavTa). Apolinaris had been set down as a Chiliast on St. Jerome's authority (de Vir. III. c. 18), but Routh (Rel. Sac. i. 174) has given good reason for thinking that the ApoUinaris intended is the younger ApoUinaris, of Laodicea ; since Jerome speaks of Irenaeus and ApoUinaris as the first and the last of the Greek Millenarians (lib. xi. Comm. in Ezech. c 36, iii. 952), and also states that ApoUi- naris answered Dionysius of Alexandria (Prooem. in Ub. xviii. Comm. Esaiae iii. 478). The Martyrologies commemorate the death of ApoUinaris on Feb. 7. Of the year or of the place and manner of his death nothing is known; but that it was before the end of the 2nd cent, may be inferred from the lan- guage in which he is described in the letter of Serapion written about that time (KXai'Sioc 'AroXtfopiou ToiJ naKapiwraTov yevofitvov iv le/MT^Xet T^j 'Affias iiriaKbirov). [g.s.] ApoUlnarianism, ApoUinarians, Apolli- narists. [.VrouiiSAKis tmk Vouncer.] ApoUinaris, St. and Mart., first bp. or arclibp. of Ravenna, pcrliaps fron\ 50-7.S. .According to the Life written by .\gneUus in 9th cent. (Lihcr Ponli/icalis, ap. .Muratori, Rer. It. Scrif^l. ii. part i.), St. .ApoUinaris was a native of Antioch, well instructed in Clk. and Lat. literature, who followed St. Peter to Rome, and was sent by him to Ravenna. On his way he healed the son of Irenaeus who was blind, and did other miracles. At Rav- enna he baptized in the river Bidens, and raised the daughter of the patrician Rufus to life ; imprisoned by the heathen near the capitol, he was there fed by angels. After- wards, being expelled from the city, he preached in Dalmatia, Pannonia, Thrace, and Corinth. After three years he returned, suffered new persecutions, and did new mir- acles, destroying a statue and temple of .\pollo by his prayers. He was martyred under Vespasian, after an episcopate of over 28 years. Other lives, such as that in the Ada Sanc- torum, are more full of miracles, but do not add anything else of importance. The day of his death is agreed upon as July 23 ; the year may have been 78. From a sermon of St. Peter Chrysologus in 5th cent. (No. 128, pp. 552 seq. ed. Migne), it appears that St. -•VpoUinaris was the only bp. of Ravenna who suffered martyrdom, and that he, strictly speaking, can only be called a confessor. He did not die, it would seem, a violent death, though it may have been hastened by the persecutions he underwent. Probably, like his successor Aderitus, he died in the port- town Classis, where he was buried. A new church, still existing, was built about the same time as that of St. Vitale, and into this his body was translated by St. Maximianus c. 552. The mosaic over the apse seems to realize the words of St. Peter Chrysologus {U.S.), " Ecce vivit, ecce ut bonus pastor suo medius assistit in grege." As early as 575 it was the custom to take solemn oaths upon his reUcs (St. Greg. Magn. Ep. vi. 61). His body was taken to Ravenna in 15 15 for safety, but restored in 1655 (see authorities in Acta Sanctor. for July 23). This most interesting basiUca, with the vacant monas- tery adjoining, is now the only remnant of the town of Classis. [j-w.] ApoUinaris (or, according to Greek ortho- graphy, Apollinarius) the Elder, of Alex- andria, was born about the beginning of the 4th cent. After teaching grammar for some time at Berytus in Phoenicea, he removed, A.D. 335, to Laodicea, of which church he was made presbyter. Here he married and had a son, afterwards the bp. of Laodicea. [Apqlunaris the Ygu.vger.] Both father and son were on intimate terms with the heathen sophists Libanius and Epiphanius of Petra, frequenting the lecture-room of the latter, on which account they were admonished and, upon their venturing to sit out the recitation of a hymn to Bacchus, excommuni- cated by Theodotus, bp. of Laodicea, but restored upon their subsequent repentance (Socr. Eccl. Hist. iii. 16 ; Soz. vi. 25). The elder ApoUinaris is chiefly noted for 34 APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER his literary labours. When the edict of J ulian, A.D. 362, forbade the Christians to read Greek literature, he undertook with the aid of his son to supply the void by reconstructing the Scriptures on the classical models. Thus the whole BibUcal history down to Saul's accession was turned into 24 books of Homeric hexameters, each superscribed, like those of the Iliad, by a letter of the alphabet. Lyrics, tragedies, and comedies, after the manner of Pindar, Euripides, and Menander, followed. Even the Gospels and Epistles were adapted to the form of Socratic disputation. Two works alone remain as samples of their in- domitable zeal: a tragedy entitled Christus Pattens, in 2601 lines, which has been edited among the works of Gregory Nazianzen ; and a version of the Psalms, in Homeric hexa- meters. The most that can be said of this Psalter is that it is better than the tragedy, and that as a whole it fully bears out the reputation of the poet (Basil. Ep. 273, 406) that he was never at a loss for an expression. Socrates, who is more trustworthy than Sozo- men (v. 18), ascribes the O.T. poems to the father (iii. 16), and adds that the son as the greater rhetorician devoted his energies to converting the Gospels and Epistles into Platonic dialogues. He likewise mentions a treatise on grammar compiled by the elder Apollinaris, XP"^''""""*V tvttu}. For different opinions as to the authorship of father and son, cf. Vossius, de Hist. Graec. ii. 18 ; de Poet. Graec. c. g ; Duport, Praef. ad Metaph. Psalm. (Lond. 1674). The Metaphrasis Psahnorum was pubUshed at Paris 1552 ; by Sylburg, at Heidelberg, 1596 ; and subsequently in various collections of the Fathers. The latest edition is that in Migne's Patr. Gk. xxiii. [e.m.y.] Apollinaris the Younger, bp. of Laodicea flourished in the latter half of the 4th cent., and was at first highly esteemed, even by Athanasius and Basil, for his classical culture piety, and adhesion to the Nicene Creed during the Arian controversv, until he intro- duced a Christological heresy which is called after him, and which in some respects pre- pared the way for Monophysitism. He assisted his father in rewriting the Christian Scriptures in imitation of the style of Homer, Menander, etc., mentioned in the preceding article. He also wrote in defence of Christian- ity against J uUan and Porphyry ; of orthodoxy against the Manicheans, Arians, Marcellus, Eunomius, and other heretics ; Biblical com- mentaries, and other works, of which only fragments remain. Jerome enjoyed his in- struction, A.D. 374. He did not secede from the communion of the church and begin to form a sect of his own till 375. He died about 392. After his death his followers, who were not numerous, were divided into two parties the Polemians and Valentinians. His doctrine was condemned by a synod of Alexandria (not naming him), by two synods at Rome under Damasus (377 and 378), and by the second oecumenical council (381). Imperial decrees prohibited the pubUc worship of the Apollinarists (388, 397, 428), until during the 5th cent, they were absorbed partly by the orthodox, partly by the Monophysites. But the peculiar Christology of ApoHinaris has APOLLINARIS THE YOUNGER reappeared from time to time, in a modified shape, as an isolated theological opinion. Apollinaris was the first to apply the results of the Nicene controversy to Christology pro- per, and to call the attention of the church to the psychical and pneumatic element in the humanity of Christ ; but in his zeal for the true deity of Christ, and fear of a double personality, he fell into the error of a partial denial of His true Humanity. Adopting the psychological trichotomy of Plato (aOi/xa, \pvxv, TTvev/xa), for which he quoted I. Thess. v. 23 and Gal. v. 17, he attributed to Christ a human body ((rw/xa) and a human soul (the ^'vxv S.'^oyos, the anima animans which man has in common with the animal), but not a rational spirit (foPs, trvev/xa. \pvxv XoyiKrj, anima rationalis), and put in the place of the latter the divine Logos. In opposition to the idea of a mere connexion of the Logos with the man Jesus, he wished to secure an organic unity of the two, and so a true incarnation ; but he sought this at the expense of the most important constituent of man. He reached only a ^eo's (xapKocpopos, as Nestorianism only an 8.v6pwKos 6eo(p6pos, instead of the proper Oedvdpwiros. He appealed to the fact that the Scripture says, " the Word was made flesh "— not spirit ; " God was manifest in the fl_esh," etc. To which Gregory Nazianzen justly replied that in these passages the term adp^ was used by synecdoche for the whole human nature. In this way Apollinaris estabUshed so close a connexion of the Logos with human flesh, that all the divine attributes were trans- ferred to the human nature, and all the human attributes to the divine, and the two merged in one nature in Christ. Hence he could speak of a crucifixion of the Logos, and a worship of His flesh. He made Christ a middle being between God and man, in Whom, as it were, one part divine and two parts human were fused in the unity of a new nature. He even ventured to adduce created analogies of mixtures in nature. Christ, said he, is oCre dudpiowos oXos, ovre deos, dWd deov koI d.vdpuTrov pii^ii. On the other hand, he re- garded the orthodox view of a union of full humanity with a full divinity in one person — of two wholes in one whole — as an absurdity, in a similar category with the mythological figure of the Minotaur. But the Apolhnarian idea of the union of the Logos with a trun- cated human nature might be itself more justly compared with this monster. Starting from the Nicene homoousion as to the Logos, but denying the completeness of Christ's humanity, he met Arianism half-way, which likewise put the divine Logos in the place of the human spirit in Christ. But he strongly asserted Christ's unchangeableness, while Arians taught His changeableness (rpfTrroTTjs). The faith of the church revolted against such a mutilated and stunted humanity of Christ, which necessarily involved also a merely partial redemption. The incarna- tion is an assumption of the entire human nature, sin only excluded. The ivadpKuai.'s is ivavdpih-n-Qji^. To be a full and complete Redeemer, Christ must be a perfect man (TeXe£Oj &vdp(,}ivos'). The spirit or rational soul is the most important element in man. APOLLONIUS 111' siMt of iiitelligcmc and freedom, and I .lis redemption as well as the soul and the ).il\- ; for sin has corrupted all the faculties. Athanasius, the two t".rej,'ories, Basil, and Ipiplianius combated the ApolUnarian error, )Ut were unpreparctl to answer duly its aain point, that two intesjral persons cannot urni one person. The liter orthodox doc- riiu' surmounted this ditSculty by teaching lie impersonality of the hunian nature of hrist, and by making the personality of lirist to reside wholly in the Logos. .VpoUinarianism opened the long line of hristological controversies, which resulted in he Chalcedonian symbol. luERATUKE. — Of the Writings of Apollt- .^. TTtpl ffipKibiTfUS. Trffi 7r/(TTfws, TTtpi avaard- scird \-60d\eio»'. and other polemical and _ lical works and epistles, only fragments ■mam in the answers of Gregory of Nyssa and ■ "hoodoret, in Leontius Byzant. in the Catenae, | lui in .\ngelo Mai's i^ova Bihlioiheca Patrum, . vii. (Rom. 1834) pt. ii. pp. 82-91. ast ApoUinaris are directed Athanasius's .<.i Apollinariutn, or rather Trfpi aapKwaews i\vplov ij.u.CJi' 'I. \. {Opera, ed. Bencd. tom. . I't. ii. pp. 921-953). written about 372 \ith.>ut naming ApoUinaris; Gregory of syssa, A670S, dfTipprjTiKos Trpbs ra 'Airo\- .napiov, first edited by Zaccagni, Rom. 1698, iiid then by Gallandi, .Bji)/. Vet. Patr. vi. 517- ,77 ; Basilius M., Ep. 263 (Opera, ed. Ben. t. ii. pt. ii. 391 sqq.) ; Epiph. Haer. Ixxvii. ; rheod. Fabulae Haer. iv. 8, v. 9. Of the ater literature, cf. especially Petavius, de In- \artuitione Verbi, i. c. 6 ; Dorner, History of Zhristology, i. 974-1080; Neander, History, • 334-33^ ; Schaff, History of the Christian Church, iii. 708-714 ; Harnack, Dogmengesch. I1909), ii. 324-334 ; Thomasius, Dogmengesch. I1889), 314 f. ; Schwaue, Dogmengesch. (1895), 1:77-283; G. Voisin, L'ApoUinarisme (Paris, I901). [P.S.] I ApoUontus, M. [CoMMODus.] I Apollonius of Ephesus, so called on the loubtful authority of the writer of Prae- iestinatus, ed. by Sirmond, who styles him bp. !)f Ephesus, but the silence of Eusebius and jill other earlier testimony makes it difficult to lay much stress on this statement. He wrote II work in five books against the Cataphrygian hr Montanist heresy. Fragments of the first hree books are extant in Eusebius (H. E. 18), and contain much that is curious nd valuable with regard to the lives and haracters of Montanus, the prophetesses riscilla and Maximilla, and their followers. erome also devotes an article to Apollonius. 'if. Illust. c. 50, in which he calls him durip Woyifiurraro^, the author of a fj-iya Kal Trlaijixou Ttvxos, and quotes him as stating hat .Montanus and his prophetesses hanged Ihcmselves. The book professes to be written \o years after the commencement of Mon- lauus's pretensions to prophesy. Taking for I he rise of .M<-)ntanism the date given in the '•r'>>i»co« of Eusebius (a.d. 172), this would ibout A.D. 210 for the date of this work. liius mentions also that Apollonius cites Revelation of St. John, that he relates the iiMiig to life of a dead man at Ephesus by lir same John, and that he makes mention APOLLONIUS 35 of the tradition quoted also by Clement of Alexandria (Strom, vi. 5 sub finem) from the Apocryphal "Preaching of I'eter " that our Lord commanded His apostles not to leave Jerusalem for twelve years after His ascension. This wi^)rk of Apollonius was thought suffi- ciently important by TertuUian to demand an answer ; bk. vii. of his lost work, de Ecstasi, was devoted to a refutation of his assertions (Hii-ron. de Vir. III. c. 50). Tille- mont. Hist. Eccl. ii. 426; Bi)nwetsch. Gcsch. dcs Montanismus (Erlanger, 1881). [e.v.] Apollonius of Tyana. The life of this philosopher is related by Philostratus, but the entire fabulousness of his story is obvious. The prodigies, anachronisms, and geographical blunders, and entire absence of other authority are fatal to it (see H. Conybeare in the Guard- ian, June 21, 1893, anci Ai)nlloii. Apology, Acts, etc. Loud. 1894). Philostratus indeed claims the authority of " the records of cities and temples, and Apollonius's epistles to the Eleans, Dclphians, Indians, and Egyptians " ; but the cities and temples are nameless. What, then, can we really be said to know of Apollonius of Tyana ? That he was born at Tyana and educated at Acgae, that he professed Pythagoreanism, and that he was celebrated in his day for what were considered magical arts, are the only facts that rest on altogether unexceptionable authority. The account of his opposition to the Stoic Euphrates may perhaps also be taken as authentic. His reputation as a magician is confirmed by the double authority of Moera- genes and Lucian (Pseudomantis, c. 5). Yet there are also reasons for believing that he was more than a mere magician, and even a philosopher of some considerable insight. Eusebius (Pracp. Ev. p. 1506) quotes a pas- sage from his book On Sacrifices (with the reservation " Apollonius is said to write as follows "), which if really his is certainly re- markable. All later authorities base their accounts on the Life by Philostratus ; except Origen, who quotes Mocragenes. Hierocles mentions Maximus of Aegae and Damis, but probably only knew of them through Philos- tratus. We now come to the collection of letters still extant which are attributed to Apollonius. Prof. Jowett (in the D. of G. and K. Biogr.) thinks that part may be genuine ; but Kayser and Zeller reject them summarily, and most writers on .Apollonius barely mention them. Zeller even says that they are obviously composed to suit the Life by Philostratus. We do not think that this opinion can be held by any one who attentively compares the letters with the biography ; and we think it probable that the letters, whether genuine or not, were composed before the work of Philostratus, and hence form our earliest and best authority respecting Apollonius. The question arises, Had Philostratus in the biography any idea of attacking Christianity by setting up a rival to Christ ? Hierocles, at the end of the 3rd cent., was the first person who actually applied the work of Philostratus to this purpose, as is said expressly by Euse- bius, who replied to him. The Deists of the i8th cent., both in France and England, used them thus: but whereas Hierocles would admit the miracles both of Christ and of Apollonius, 36 APOLLONIUS Voltaire and Lord Herbert had an equal dis- belief in both. Naturally, none of these writers held that Philostratus wrote in direct imitation of the Gospels, as it would have marred their point to do so. But equally naturally the orthodox writers, beginning with Huet, bp. of Avranches, and coming down through Paley to our own day, have considered Philostratus a direct though con- cealed antagonist of Christianity. This view has been opposed in Germany by Meiners, Neander, Buhle, and Jacobs, and in England by Watson [Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1867). Baur took an intermediate view in his Apollonius von Tyana unci Christus, Tlibingen, 1832), which in its main outline will we think com- mend itself as by far the most probable ac- count. According to this view Philostratus wrote with no strictly polemical reference to Christianity, but, in the eclectic spirit of his time, strove to accommodate Christianity to the heathen religion. We are disposed to believe, without attributing to Philostratus any formal design of opposing or assimilating Christianity, that he was strongly influenced by its ideas and history. The central aim of his biography is to set forth, not merely wise precepts in the abstract, but an example of supreme wisdom for humanity to imitate. It is not imphed by this that Philostratus considered Apollonius as entirely and necessarily unique among men ; but it is implied that he considered him as more than a mere teacher of doctrine, as a pattern to men in his own person, as one in whom wisdom and truth were incorporate. He wished men to honour Apollonius himself, and not merely to study or believe certain truths delivered by Apollonius. This cannot, we think, be doubted by any one who reflects on the whole tone of the book. Apollonius is called " divine " ; his disciples stand in an altogether different relation to him from that in which the disciples of Socrates stand to Socrates ; they do not argue with him as equals with an equal ; they follow him, listen to him, are rebuked by him. His miracles, again, do not result from his being in posses- sion of any secret communicable to other men, but arise from his own nature and wisdom. Such a character must remind us, however different in some respects, of the Christ of the Gospels. But was any character like this, or approaching to this, drawn by any heathen writer before Christ ? We think not. Philo- sophy and magic, the search after knowledge and the search after power, were familiar to men who had never heard of Christianity ; but this ideal is different from either, and from both of them united. Those who affirm that Philostratus never thought of the Christian history in his work, say that he intended Apollonius as a rival to Pythagoras. But by whom was Pythagoras portrayed as this super- human ideal ? Not certainly by any writer of the centuries before Christ. Even Plutarch (Numa, c. viii.) does not set him up as an ideal exemplar. Is it possible that the age of Caracalla and Severus, so eclectic, so tradi- tional, so unoriginal, can of its own mere motion have gone off into this new and un- heard-of line? — unheard of, that is, unless, as we must, we suppose it to have been borrowed APOSTOLIC FATHERS from Christianity. The Christians were not then by any means an unknown sect ; so well known were they that Alexander Severus (with a singular parallelism to the supposed conduct of Philostratus) placed Christ with Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius himself, among his household gods. Secondly, the resemblance to the Gospel histories is in par- ticular instances very broad indeed. Tlie miraculous birth of Proteus, and the circum- stances attending it; the healing of demoni- acal possessions (was the idea of such posses- sions in any way familiar to the Greeks ?) ; the raising of the dead ; the appearance of Apollonius to two of his disciples after his deUverance from Domitian ; his ascent to heaven, and appearance after his death, — these are points of similarity that cannot be evaded : and, taken together with the central idea of the book, they seem to imply that Philostratus consciously borrowed from the Gospels. It should be noticed that the very striking resemblances between the biography of Apollonius and the Gospels are resem- blances in externals ; the inner spirit is entirely different : in the one we find the self-contained philosophic spirit, striking even amid all the rhetoric and tawdry marvels with which Philostratus has dressed it ; in the other, the spirit of the insufhciency of self. Those who wish to examine the whole question respecting Apollonius should consult Baur, op. cit. ; Kayser's Philostratus ; Zeller's Philosophie der Griechen ; and the writers noticed above. [j.r.m.] Apostolic Fathers. Definition of the Term.— The adjective Apostolicus (ano<TTo\LKb%) is used to denote either morally or doctrinally accordance with the Apostles', or historically connexion with the Apostles. In this latter' sense it is especially applied to churches founded directly by Apostles, or to persons associated with and taught by Apostles. The former are Apostolicae ecclesiae ; the latter Apostolici viri, or Apostolici simply. See especially Tertull. de Praescr. 32, " ut primus ille episcopus aliquem ex apostolis vel apos- tolicis viris, qui tamen cum apostolis persever- avit, habuerit auctorem et antecessorem. Hoc enim modo ecclesiae apostolicae census sues deferunt sicut Smyrnaeorum ecclesia Poly- carpum ab Joanne coUocatum refert, sicut Romanonmi Clementem a Petro ordinatum itidem," with the whole context. Cf. also de Praescr. 20, 21 ; adv. Marc. i. 21, v. 2 ; de Carn. Chr. 2 ; de Pudic. 21. Hence among the Evangelists, while St. Matthew and St.^ John are Apostoli, St. Mark and St. Luke are. Apostolici {adv. Marc. iv. 2). In accordance with this usage the term Apostolic Fathers is confined to those who are known, or may reasonably be presumed, to have associated' with and derived their teaching directly from some Apostle. In its widest range it will include Barnabas, Hernias, Clemens, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and the writer of the epistle to Diognetus. Some of these fail to satisfy the conditions which alone entitle to a place among the works of the Apostolic Fathers. Thus the " Shepherd" of Hermas has been placed in this category, because it was sup- posed to have been written by the person oi, this name mentioned by St. Paul (Rom. xvi. APOSTOLIC FATHERS 14; stH' Ori,i;iMi aJ loc. Of>. iv. 6S3) ; hut a more authentic tradition ascribes it to the trother of Pius, who was bp. of Rome a little t >re the middle of Jiid cent. {Canon. Murat. 58, ed. Tregelles ; sec pseudo-Tertull. /tn. adv. Marc. iii. 294, in TcrtuU. Of>. ii. .'. ed. Oehlcr). Thus again the claim of i.'ias to be considered an Apostolic Father ;s on the supposition that he was a disciple 1 St. John the Evangelist, as Irenaous .ipparently imagines (Haer. v. 33, § 4) ; but I Eusebius says that Irenaeus was mistaken, and that the teacher of Papias was not the Apostle St. John, but the presbyter of the same name (H. E. iii. 30). Again, there is some uncertainty about the Epistle to Diogneius. Its claim is founded on an ex- pression which occurs in § 11, and which has been interpreted literally as implying that the writer was a personal disciple of one or other of the Apostles. But in the first place the context shews that tliis literal interpreta- tion is out of place, and the passage must be explained as follows : " I do not make any i strange statements nor indulge in unreason- able questionings, but having learnt my lessons from the .\postles (lit. having become a disciple of Ajiostlcs), I stand forward as a teacher of the nations " ; and secondly, this is no part of the Ep. to Diognettts proper (§§ i-io), but belongs to a later writing, which has been accidentally attached to the Epistle, owing to the loss of some leaves in the MS. This latter fact is conclusive. If therefore the Epistle has any title to a place among the Apostolic Fathers, it must be established by internal evidence ; and though the internal character suggests an early date, perhaps as early as about a.d. 117 (see Westcott, Canon, P- 79), ypt there is no hint of any historical connexion between the writer' and the Apostles. Lastly, the so-called Ep. of Bar- nabas occupies an unique position. If the writer had been the companion of St. Paul who bore that name, then ho would more properly be styled, not an " apostolic man," as he is designated by Clement of Alexandria {Strom, ii. 20, p. 489, 6 aTroaroXinds IJaprd/iasX but an " apostle," as the same Clement else- where styles him {Strom, ii. 6, p. 445 ; ii. 7, f>. 447), in accordance with St. Luke's language Acts xiv. 14). But if the writer be not the Apostle Barnabas, then we have no evidence of any personal relations with the Apostles, though such is not impossible, as the Epistle must have been written at some date between the age of Vespasian and that of Nerva. Three names remain, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, about which there is no reasonable ground for hesitation. All the genuine writings of these three Apostolic Fathers arc epistolary in form, modelled more or less after the pattern of the Canonical Ei)istles, especially those of St. Paul, and called forth by pressing temporary needs. In no case is any literary motive prominent. A famous teacher writes in the name of the c )mmunity over which he pre- sides to quell the dissensions of a distant but friendly church. An aged disciple on his way to martyrdom pours out a few parting words of exhortation to the Christian brother- hoods with whom he is brought in contact i APOSTOLIC FATHERS .•^7 during his journey. .\ bishop of a loading church, having occasion to send a parrel to another brotherhood at a distance, takes the opjiortunity of writing, in answer to their solicitations, a few plain words of advice and instruction. Such is the simple account of the letters of Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp respectively. The same forna is preserved in the Ep. of Barnabas and the letter to Diognctus. But the spirit is somewhat different. They are rather treatises clothed in an epistolary dress, the aim of the one being polemical, of the other apologetic. Herein they resemble Hebrews more than the ICpp. of St. Paul. " The Apostolic Fathers," says de Prcs- sense, " are not great writers,' but great characters" {Trois Premiers Si^cles, ii. 384). Their stylo is loose ; there is a want of ar- rangement in the topics, and an absence of system in their teaching. On the one hand they present a marked contrast to the depth and clearness of conception with which the several N.T. writers place before us different aspects of the Gospel, and by which their title to a special inspiration is established. On the other, they lack the scientific spirit which distinguished the Fathers of the 4th and 5th cents., and which enabled them to formulate the doctrines of the faith as a bulwark against unbridled speculation. But though they are deficient in distinctness of conrejition and power of exposition, "this inferiority" to the later Fathers " is amply compensated by a certain naivete and simplicity which forms the charm of their letters. If they have not the precision of the scientific spirit, they are free from its narrowness." There is a breadth of moral sympathy, an earnest sense of per- sonal responsibility, a fervour of Christian devotion, which is the noblest testimony to the influence of the Gospel on characters obviously very diverse, and which will always command for their writings a resiic<t to which their literary merits could lay no claim. The gentleness and serenity of Clement, whose whole spirit is absorbed in contemplating the harmonies of nature and of grace ; the fiery zeal of Ignatius, in whom the one over- mastering desire of mart>Tdom has crushed all human passion ; the unbroken constancy of Polycarp, whose protracted life is spent in maintaining the faith once delivered to the saints, — these are lessons which can never become antiquated or lose their value. Their Relation to the Apostolic Teaching and to the Canonical Scriptures. — Of the respective provinces of the Apostolic Fathers, we may say that Clement co-ordinates the different elements of Christian teaching as left by the Apostles ; and Ignatius consolidates the structure of ecclesiastical polity, as sketched out by them ; while for Polycarp, whose active career was just begiiming as theirs ended, and who lived on f(jr more than half a century after their deaths, was reserved the task of handing down unimpaired to a later generation the Apostolic doctrine and order thus co-ordinated and cons(jlidated by his elder contemporaries — a task for which he was eminently fitted by his passive and receptive character. The writings of these three Fathers lie well 38 APOSTOLIC FATHERS within the main stream of Catholic teaching. They are the proper link between the Canon- ical Scriptures and the church Fathers of the succeeding ages. They recognize all the different elements of the Apostolic teaching, though combining them in different propor- tions. " They prove that Christianity was Catholic from the very first, uniting a variety of forms in one faith. They shew that the great facts of the Gospel narrative, and the substance of the Apostolic letters, formed the basis and moulded the expression of the common creed " (Westcott, Canon, p. 55). But when we turn to the other writings for which a place among the Apostolic Fathers has been claimed, the case is different. Though the writers are all apparently within the pale of the church, yet there is a tendency to that one-sided exaggeration — either in the direc- tion of Judaisms or the opposite — which stands on the very verge of heresy. In the Ep. of Barnabas and in the letter to Diognetus, the repulsion from Judaism is so violent, that one step further would have carried the writers into Gnostic or Marcionite dualism. On the other hand, in the Shepherd of Hermas, and possibly in the Expositions of Papias (for in this instance the inferences drawn from a few scanty fragments must be precarious), the sympathy with the Old Dis- pensation is unduly strong, and the distinctive features of the Gospel are darkened by the shadow of the Law thus projected upon them. In Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, both extremes are avoided. For the relation of these \vriters to the Canonical Scriptures the reader is referred to the thorough investigation in Westcott's Hist, of the Canon, pp. 19-55. It will be sufficient here to state the more important results: (i) The Apostolic Fathers do not, as a rule, quote by name the canonical writings of the N.T. But (2), though (with exceptions) the books of the N.T. are not quoted by name, fragments of most of the canonical Epistles lie embedded in the writings of these Fathers, whose language is thoroughly leavened with the Apostolic diction. In like manner the facts of the Gospel history are referred to, and the words of our Lord given, though for the most part not as direct quotations. For (3) there is no decisive evidence that these Fathers recognized a Canon of the N.T., as a distinctly defined body of writings ; though Barnabas once introduces our Lord's words as recorded in Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14, with the usual formula of Scriptural citation, " As it is written (ws y^ypatrTaL)." But (4), on the other hand, they assign a special and pre- eminent authority to the Apostles which they distinctly disclaim for themselves. This is the case with Clement (§§ 5, 7) and Ignatius (Rom. 4), speaking of St. Peter and St. Paul ; and with Polycarp f§ 3), speaking of St. Paul — the only Apostles that are mentioned by name in these writings. (5) Lastly, though the language of the Canonical Gospels is frequently not quoted word for word, yet there is no distinct allusion to any apocryphal narrative. [l.] The standard work on the Apostolic Fathers is by the writer of the above article, the late bp. Lightfoot. His work on the AQUILA principal subject, in five 8vo volumes, in- cludes Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp. But after his death a single vol. was pub. containing re- vised texts of all the Apostolic Fathers, with short introductions and Eng. translations. Apostolici, one of the names adopted by an ascetic sect in Phrygia, Cihcia, and Pamphylia. Their leading principle seems to have been the rejection of private property. They are also said to have resembled Tatian, the Encratites, and the " Cathari " (Novatian- ists), in that they refused to admit offenders to communion, and condemned marriage. They appealed chiefly to the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and of Thomas. They entitled them- selves Apotactiri, i.e. " Renuntiants." What i little is recorded about them, beyond the name, . we owe to Epiphanius (Haer. Ixi. 506-513), who apparently knew them only by vague oral report. Their place in his treatise would i naturally assign them to the 3rd cent. ; and i they evidently had not ceased to exist in the 4th. " Encratites, Saccophori, and Apotac- tites," described together as " an offshoot of ' the Marcionites," are associated with Nova- tianists by Basil in a letter answering queries from Amphilochius of Iconium (cxcix. can. 47 ; cf. clxxxviii. can. i), written in 375, when Epiphanius had begun and not completed his work. A law of Theodosius against the Manicheans in 381 (Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 7 ; cf. II an. 383) alleges that some of these lieretics endeavoured to evade the existing severe legislation by calling themselves " Encratites, Apotactites, Hydroparastatae, or Saccophori." Any true historical connexion, however, between the Apostolici and either the Mar- cionists or the Manicheans is highly improb- able, [h.] Apphianus, or Appianus, or Amphianus, M., a son of rich parents at " Pagae " (pro- bably Araxas) in Lycia, educated in the schools of Berytus, who being not twenty years old interrupted the governor at Caesarea when sacrificing, by an exhortation to desist from idolatry, and was, after horrible tortures — e.g. by his feet being wrapped in a tunica molesla of flax steeped in oil and set on fire — finally martyred by drowning, April 11, 306 (Eus. de Mart. Palaest. iv. ; Syriac Acta, in Assemani, Act. Mart. ii. 189 seq.). [a.w.h.] Aquila (\'^Kv\as), the author of a translation of the O.T. into Greek, which was held in much esteem by the Jews and was reproduced by Origen in the third column of the Hexapla, seems to have belonged to the earlier half of 2nd cent. Little is known regarding his per- sonal history beyond the fact that he was, like the Aquila associated with St. Paul, a native of Pontus, and probably, according to the more definite tradition, of Sinope. We learn also from Irenaeus, in whom we find the earliest mention of him (adv. Haer. iii. 24), that he was a proselyte to the Jewish faith — a statement confirmed by Eusebius (Demonst. Evang. vii. i : irpoariXvTOi oe b 'AkvXus i)v ov (pvacL 'lovoaTo^), Jerome (Ep. ad Painmach. 0pp. iv. 2, p. 255), and other Fathers, as well as by the Jerusalem Talmud (Megill. f. 71, c. 3 ; Kiddush. f. 59, c. i, where there can be little doubt that the Akilas referred to is to be identified with Aquila). ARCHELAUS ■III thi< rircmnstancc he is frequently called V.iuila the proselyte." The object of Aqiiila was to furnish a inslation on which the Jews could relv as more accurate rendering of the Hebrew h,m that of the Septuapint, which not onlv \,\s in many instances loose and incorrect r Mn the first, but had also in the course f four centuries undergone change and eruption. With this view he made his crsion strictly literal, striving to provide a ;rcek equivalent for everv Hebrew word iiul particle, in frequent disregard of the ules of grammar and of idiom, and with the •esult of often rendering his meaning hardly ntelligible to those who were not acquainted vith Hebrew (as in Job xxx. i, Kal i'vi> '~i^\a<Tav iir' (noi Sp^x^^^ '^"p' «V^ '^^^^ vntpai Ps. xlix. 21, vir^\a^es tcro/xfi'o^ fcrofiai 5uoi6s croi ■■- rxlix. 6, Kal ^iAxaipa a-rondrwv if x^P'^'-" Ii'\ He carefully endeavoured even to re- luce Hebrew etymologies in Greek, and for ; lat purpose freely c<->ined new forms (as in !'*. xxi. i.^. SwdcTTaiBaa-av SieS-nfJ-aTtaavrd fte Ts. cxviii. lo, fi^i dyvorj,uaTl<Tris n(). Origen accordingly characterizes him as Sov\(v(x'v ry ESpaiKV Xe'tft {P.p. ad Afric). and the frag- ments of the version which have been preserved amplv bear out the truth of the description. But the excessively literal character of the work, while impairing its value as a translation * -r those who were not Jews, renders it all more valuable as a witness to the state :he Hebrew text from which it was made. .'.i to the nature and value of the version, see Smith's D. B. iii. 1622.) Several scholars of eminence have recently maintained that Aquila is to be identified not onlv with the Akilas of the Talmud, but also with Onkelos, whose name is associ- ated with the well-known Targum on the Pentateuch ; holding that the latter is merely an altered form of the name, and that the. Chaldee version came to receive what is now its ordinary designation from its being drawn up on the model, or after the manner, of that of Aquila. The arguments in support of this view, which appear to have great weight, are set forth with much clearness and force bv Mr. Deutsch in his article on " Versions, Ancient, (Targum)," in Smith's D. B. iii. 1642-1645. The fragments of the version of Aquila — first collected by Morinus for the Sixtine edition of the Septuagint, Rome, 1587, and subsequently bvDrusius, in his Veierum interp. Grace, in V. T. Fra^menta. Arnb. 1622 — are more fully gi%-en in the edition of the Hexapla by Montfaucon, Paris 1714, audits abridgment by Bahrdt, 1769-1770. A most complete and valuable edition is that bv Mr. Frederick Field: Oxf. 1867-1870 (see Field, HeraHa [1875], xvi-xxvii). The chief questions con- nected with Aquila are discussed bv Mont- faucon, and by Hody (de Bibliorum Textihus Originalibus, Oxf. 1705). rw.p.n.l Arohelaus. supposed bp. of Carchar (perhaps Carrhof Harrom in Mesopotamia). A work is attributed to him called Acta Disputalionis Archel. Ep. Mesop. et Manetis haeresiarcJwe. It is extant in a Latin translation from a Greek text, but some think the Greek is derived from a Syriac original. The author ARETHAS 39 was i>robably (cf. Phot. Cod. 85) a certain Hegemonius. The disputation and Archelaus himself seem to be fictitious ; but the work affords valuable information respecting the Manichean system (cf. Bardcnhewer, 1008, pp. 208-260). [h.w.I Arethas, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadoria, and Andreas, an earlier archbp. of the same see, are so intimately associated as commentators on the Book of Revelation, and so little known otherwise, that thev may most fitly be noticed together. We have no direct in- formation regarding either, beyond the bare fact of their common connexion with the see of Caesarea. The dates at which they flour- ished can only be inferred approximately, and somewhat vaguely, from incidental notices of persons or of events in their writings. The question has been most fully discussed by Rettig (Die Zeugui'ise des .A ndreas und Arethas . . . in the Theol. Studicn und Kritiken for i'*^.^!. PP- 734 seq.) ; and his conclusions have been very generally accepted. He has shewn by enumerating the succession of bishops in Caesarea that the last 30 or 40 years of the 5th cent, may be assigned to Andreas and .\rethas ; and the absence of any reference to later events favours the belief that the work was prepared towards the close of the 5th. or in the earlier part of the 6th, cent. The commentary of Andreas on the .\po- calypse (entitled 'YjppL-r^vda fi's ttjc ' \voKa\x<\piv^ seems to have been the earliest systematic exposition of the book in the Greek church. The statement of R. Simon, Fabricius, Rosen- miiller, and others, that the work belongs to the class of Catenae, is not borne out either by its form or by the language of the Preface, which simply means that he made use of the materials which he found in the early writers whom he names, and occasionally quoted their expressions (irap' Siv 7]/j.fh woWas Xa^ovres d(popfjids . ■ . Kaflujs Iv TL<n tottois xPVCf^^ ToiTwv irapedifMeOa). He wrote, in compliance with the urgent request of persons who had a greater opinion of his judgment than he had himself, " to unfold the meaning of the Apo- calypse, and to make the suitable application of its predictions to the times that followed it " [dyaTTTV^ai tt)v . . . 'ATroKd\i'^Lv. Kal ro?? HfTo, rrjv ai'Trjs lirTaaiav xpovoi's ((papfioaai to, ■n-po(p-i)T€\<dhTa). His method rests on the distinction of a threefold sense in Scripture — the literal or outward historical (rh ypd/x/xa Kal T) Kar at<jdr)<nv laropia), the tropological or moral (17 Tpo-no\oyia (^ aiffOrjT&f inl to. votjto. 6dr]you(Ta rbv dvayifwcrKovra), and the mystical or speculative (17 tuv nfWovrwu Kal ii\l/T)\o- Wpajr dvayuyr) Kal Oeupia) ; the expositor of the Revelation is chiefly concerned with the latter. He divided the text into twenty-four \6yoi corresponding to the four-and-twenty elders, and 72 Kf<pd\aia, according to the threefold distinction of body, soul, and spirit (24x3 = 72). The exposition contains not a little that is of value, but it is full of the fanciful interpretations to which the method gave rise. The paucity of MSS. of the Apo- calypse renders the text which accompanies the commentary of great importance to criticism ; and Bengel was of opinion that the 40 ARINTHAEUS work of Andreas, by directing fresh attention to the book, contributed in no small degree to its more frequent use and transcription. An interesting passage in the Preface, where the writer mentions Papias among the other Fathers whose testimony to the inspiration of the book rendered it superfluous to enlarge on that point, has been much discussed. The work of Arethas, again, professes to be a compilation. It is no mere reproduction of the work of his predecessor, although it incor- porates a large portion of the contents of that work, occasionally abridging or modifying the language of Andreas, and often specifying with more precision the sources of his quotations. But it contains much derived from other soiurces, or contributed by Arethas himself. The commentary of Andreas was first printed in the form of an imperfect and in- accurate Latin version by Peltanus in 1574. The Greek text was first edited by Sylburg from a collation of three MSS. in 1596, along with a reprint of the Latin version. It has been several times reissued in connexion with the works of Chrysostom. The Greek text of Arethas is presented in its fullest and best form by Cramer (in his Catenae Gk. Patrum in N. T., bxf. 1840) ; whose valuable additions, furnished chiefly by the Codex Baroccianus, exhibit the text in' a shape so different from that previously printed as to make the latter often appear a mere abridgment. [w.p.d.] Arinthaeus, a general under Valens, with whom St. Basil corresponds, and from whom he seeks protection for a friend in difficulty {Ep. 179). On his death Basil wTites a letter of consolation to his widow, in which he dwells on his remarkable endowments, his striking personal beauty and strength, as well as his lofty character and renown. Like many others in that age, Arinthaeus, though a devout Christian and a protector of the Church, deferred his baptism till at the point of death {Ep. 269). He was consul in the year 372, and must have died before Basil (a-d. 379)- If the story told by Theodoret {H. E. iv. 30) be true, that he was present and seconded the rebuke administered to Valens by the general Trajan in 378 for his persecu- tion of the Catholics, his death cannot have preceded his friend's by many months. For his mihtary achievements see Tillemont, Empereurs, v. 100. [l.] Aristides, of Athens ; mentioned by Euse- bius as having presented to the emperor Hadrian an Apology for the Christians (Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 3). Jerome also (de Vir. III. c. 20, and Ep. 83, ad Magnum) mentions him as an Athenian philosopher and a disciple of Christ ; and says that his Apology, containing the principles of the faith, was well known. But it was lost until, in 1878, the Mechitarists published part of an Armenian translation, the genuineness of which was vindicated by Har- nack in Texte und Untersuch. i. i, 2. But in 1 89 1 J. Rendel Harris and J. .\rmitage Robin- son (now Dean of Westminster) published in Texts and Studies, I. i., a complete Syrian translation from the Codex Sinait. Svr. 16, and shewed that the greater part of the Apology was found in Greek in the legend of Barlaam and Josaphat. These texts have been carefully discussed, especially by Seeberg ARISTO PELLAEUS (in Zahn's Forschungen, V. p. 159, and in an edition published at Erlangen 1894), and it is not yet agreed whether the Syrian or the Greek represents the original. It seems clear that the Apology was presented, not to Hadrian, but to Antoninus Pius. The main subject of the Apology, which, in the legend, is supposed ; to be addressed by Barlaam to Josaphat, is ! that the Christians alone possess the true knowledge of God. The emperor is invited [ to consider the conceptions of God among the various races of mankind, Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians ; it is then shewn how the Christians express their belief in their Uves, and an attractive sketch of Christian life is given. The Apology has points of con- ; tact with the Preaching of Peter, with the Shepherd, with the Didache, with Justin Marti.T, and particularly with the Ep. to Diognetus. Mention is made of the Incarna- tion of the Son of God through a Hebrew maiden and of Christ's return to judgment. The Apology is thus of an interesting and ' original character. Two other fragments exist in Armenian which are ascribed to Aristides, a homily on the cry of the Robber and the answer of the Crucified, and a passage from " a letter to all philosophers," but their genuineness is doubtful, and F. C. Conybeare, in the Guardian, 1894 (July 18), has she\\-n that in the 5th and 7th cent's, literary frauds were often connected with the name of Aris- tides and other names of old Christian literature. [n.w.] Aristion, one of the " elders " from whom Papias professed to have derived traditional information (Eus. H. E. iii. 39), and described by him as a personal follower of our Lord. Beyond this, there is no trustworthy infor- mation about him. The Roman Martyrology (p. 102, Ven. 1630), apparently referring to the description just quoted, states on the author- , ity of Papias that he was one of the seventy- two disciples of Christ. It commemorates his ; mart\Tdom at Salamis in Cyprus on Feb. 22, the same day as that of Papias at Pergamus. Cotelerius conjectures that he may be the Aristo who is given as the first bp. of Smyrna {A post. Const, vii. 45 ; Harnack, Altchr. Lit. i. 64; ConyhczTe, in Expositor, i8g:i). [g.s.] Aristo Pellaeus, the supposed author of a lost dialogue between Papiscus and Jason, quoted, without his name, by Origen {cont. CelsHs, iv. 52) and referred to by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iv. c. 6, pp. 145, 146) ; by Moses ! Chorenensis, in a history of Armenia (bk. ii. c. 57) ; and by Maximus, in his notes on the work de Mystica Theol., ascribed to Dionysius the Areopagite (c. i. p. 17, ed. Corderii) in these words, " I have also read the expression ' seven heavens ' in the dialogue of Papiscus and Jason, composed by Aristo of Pella, which Clemens of Alexandria in the 6th book of his Hypot\-poses says was written by St. Luke." This testimony is the only one con- necting the name of Aristo with the dialogue, and though doubt has been thrown on its trustworthiness by its strange assertion that Clement attributed the work to St. Luke, Maximus is far less likely to be in error when simply giving the name of an author than when repeating another's words. Jason, a i Jewish Christian, argues so conclusively that ARIUS the Messianic prophecies arc fullilleil in our id that his opponent, the J e\v Papiscus, begs he baptized. We cannot fix the date of this dialogue, , ept that it must have been written before time of Celsus, i.e. before the middle of . 2nd cent. ; and, if .\risto be its author, w. see from Eusebius (I.e.) that he lived after ilif destruction of Jerusalem. It is referred t ' in a pseudo-Cyprianic Ep. Hartd. 0/>/». ( \pr. iii. p. 119. If Maximus's information be correct, Clement's belief that St. Luke was the writer of the Dialogue shews at least that it must have been commonly assigned to a \ rry early date (Rmith, Rel. Sac. i. cii-ioq ; ll.irnack,' .-!//. Chr. Lit. i. 92 95-97). [s.M.] Arius ( Aptios) the heresiarch was born in Africa — the locality is disputed — in a.d. 256. l:i his early days he was a pupil of Lucian of Aiitioch, a celebrated Christian teacher, and a martyr for the faith. By some Arius is said ti have derived his heresy from Lucian (see l.iciAN-rs, 12). This statement is made in a letter written by Alexander, bp. of Alex- I andria. to bp. Alexander of Constantinople. The object of the letter is to complain of ! the errors .\rius was then diffusing. The , writer says of Lucian that he lived for many years out of communion with three : bishops (Theod. Eccl. Hist. i. 4). But the ' charge is somewhat vague in itself; it is un- \ supported by other authority, and Alexander's ' language, like that of most controversialists in past days, is not a little violent. Moreover, Lucian is not stated, even by Alexander him- self, to have fallen into the heresy afterwards promulgated by Arius, but is accused generally — rather ad invidiam, it would seem — of heretical tendencies. The question of the exact nature of the relation between the Father ' and the Son had been raised some 50 years before the Nicene controversy arose. Biit the discussion of it at that time had been in- I sufficient and unsatisfying. So far as the I earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favour of the opinions afterwards held bv Arius. But so unsatisfactory was that settlement that the reopening of the question sooner or later was practically unavoidable, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alex- andria. The reason of the deposition of Paul of Samosata in a.d. 269 was his agreement with those who had used the word ofiooi'ffiot to express the relation of the Father and the Son. The expression was at I that time thought to have a Sabellian ten- j dency, though, as events shewed, this was on account of its scope not having been satis- factorily defined. In the discussion which I then arose on the question, Dionysius, bp. of I Alexandria, had used much the same language I as Arius afterwards held, and a c )rrcsp()iulence I is extant in wliich Dionysius of Rome blames I his brother of Alexandria for using such lan- guage. Dionysius of Alexandria withdrew, , or perhaps rather explained (see .-Vthan. de I Decret. Syn. Nic. c. 25), the expressions com- Clained of, and posterity has been inclined to lame him for vacillation. Whether this accu- ( sation be just or not, it is quite clear that the position in which a question of such supreme importance was left by the action of Dionysius ARIUS 41 could only postpone the controversy, and that its resumption was therefore only a question of time. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had ex- pressed its disapproval of the word o^oovaiotin one sense. The bp. (.Alexander) of Alexandria (c. 320) undertook its defence in another. The character of Arius has been severely assailed by his opponents. Alexander, bp. of .Alexandria, in a letter to Alexander of Con- j stantinople, describes it in very unfavourable j terms. But in those days it was customary , to mingle personal attacks with religious con- troversies. Arius appears to have been a man of ascetic character, pure morals, and decided convictions. It has been stated that his action was largely the result of jealousy on account of his having been a candidate for the patriarchal throne of Alexandria, when Alexander was elected to it. But the best early authorities arc doubtful on the point. He had no doubt a disproportionate number of female supporters, but there seems no ground for the insinuation of Alexander of Alexandria, in the above-mentioned letter, that these women were of loose morals. There appears, however, more foundation for the charge that -Arius allowed the songs or odes contained in the book called Thalcia — which he wrote after his first condenmation, in order to popularize his doctrine — to be set to tunes which had gross and infamous associa- tions. Nor can he be acquitted of something like a personal canvass of the Christian popu- lation in and around Alexandria in order to further his views. The patriarch of Alexandria has also been the subject of adverse criticism for his action against his subordinate. He too, like his pre- decessor Dionysius, has been charged with vacillation in his treatment of Arius. Yet it is difficult to see how he could have acted otherwise than he did. The question, as we have seen, had been left unsettled two gener- ations previously, or, if in any sense it could be said to have been settled, it had been settled in favour of the opponents of the Homoousion. Therefore Alexander allowed the contro\ersy to go on until he felt that it was becoming dangerous to the peace of the church. Then he called a council of bishops (about 100 in number), and sought their advice. They de- cided against Arius. Alexander then delayed no longer. He acted with resolution as well as promptitude, deposed Arius from his office, and repelled both him and his supporters from communion. Then he wrote (the letters are extant) to Alexander of Constantinople and Eusebius of Nicomcdia (where the emperor was then residing), detailing the errors into which Arius had fallen, and complaining of the danger to the Christian church arising from his heresy. It is clear, from Arius's own letter (also extant) to Eusebius of Nicomcdia, that Alexander's charges against Arius were in no way unfair. The question, as the event has shewn, was a vital one, and plainly called for an authoritative decision. Arius taught : (i) that the Logos and the Father were not of the same oiVi'a (essence) ; (2) that the Son was a created being (Krtfffia or Troirj/xa) ; and (3) that though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them 42 ARIUS and before all time, there was — Arius refused to use such terms as XP^^°^ or aiwv — when He did not exist. The subsequent controversy shews that the absence of the words xp^^os or alcbv was a mere evasion, and that when de- fending himself he argued in just the same manner as though he had used those words. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had an °-PXV (beginning) ; yet not only Athanasius, but Origen before him, had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning, and that, to use Corner's words {Person of Christ, ii. 115), "the generation of the Son is an eternally completed, and yet an eternally continued, act " ; i.e. the Father has, from all eternity, been communicating His Being to the Son, and is doing so still. Arius was obviously perplexed by this doc- trine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who, like himself (see above), had studied under Lucian, in the words, deiyevvri^ ecrriv ; dyevvTjToyevrji icrrlv. It is unquestionably to be lamented that so much stress should have been laid in the contro- versy on words which, when used, not popu- larly, but in metaphysical discussions, had a tendency to confound the eternal generation of the Son with the purely physical process of the generation of men and animals. The latter is a single act, performed at a definite moment in time. The former is a mysterious, eternal pr'^cess, for ever going on. Had the defenders of the Nicene doctrine made more general use of the terra communication of Being, or Essence, they would have made it clearer that they were referring to a continual and unchangeable relation between the First and Second Persons in the Trinity, which bore a very slight analogy indeed to the process which calls inferior creatures into existence. Moreover, Arius contended that the Son was unchangeable (ctrpeTrros). But what he thus gave with the one hand he appears to have taken away with the other. For so far as we can understand his language — on a subject which even Athanasius seems to have admitted to have been bevond his power thoroughlv to comprehend — he taught that the Logos was changeable in Essence, but not in Will. The best authorities consider that he was driven to this concession by the force of circumstances. [See art. Arius, Followers of.] He was doubtless confirmed in his attitude by his fear of falling into Sabellianism [Sabellius], which practically represented the Logos as a sensuous emanation of the Godhead for the purpose of carrying out the work of salvation, or else as a purely subjective human concep- tion of certain aspects of the Divine Being — not as an eternal distinction subsisting objec- tively in the Godhead itself. Arius, while opposing the Sabellian view, was unable to see that his own view had a dangerous ten- dency to bring back Gnosticism, with its long catalogue of aeons. Macedgnics, who had to a certain extent imbibed the opinions of Arius, certainly regarded the Son and the Spirit in much the same light in which the Gnostic teachers regarded their aeons. Yet Arius undoubtedly derived some support from the dangerous language of Origen, who had ventured to represent the Logos as a ARIUS bfvrepo^ (or Sevrepiiuv) Oeoi. Origen (see his de Principiis, I. ii. 6, 12) had also made use of expressions which favoured Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance tothe Father, and that He owed His existence to the Father's will. But it is not sufficiently remembered that the speculations of Origen should be regarded as pioneer work in theology, and that they were often hazarded in order to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why, in the Arian, as well as other controversies, the great authority of Origen is so frequently invoked b}' both sides. The Christian church had by this time become so powerful a force in the Roman world that Constantine, now sole emperor, found himself unable to keep aloof from the controversy. He was the less able to do so in that he had himself been brought up under Christian influences. [Constantine.1 He therefore sent the venerable Hosius, bp. of Cordova, a man who had suffered cruelly on behalf of his faith, on a mission to Egypt, with instructions to put an end, if possible, to the controversy. But as it continued to rage, Constantine took a step hitherto unprece- dented in Roman history. Republican Rome of course had her free institutions, and the Christian church had been accustomed to determine matters of faith and practice in her local assemblies. But anything like a council of delegates, summoned from all parts of the empire, had been hitherto unknown. Such an assembly Constantine determined to call together. All the secular dioceses into which the empire had been for some time divided, Britain only excepted, sent one or more representatives to the council. The majority of the bishops came from the East, but there was, nevertheless, an imposing display of men of various races and languages. Sylvester of Rome, himself too aged to be present, sent two presbyters as his delegates. The object of the council, it must be remembered, was not to pronounce what the church ought to believe, but to ascertain as far as possible what had been taught from the beginning. It was indeed a remarkable gathering. There was not only as good a representation of race and nationality as was possible under the circumstances, but the ability and intellect of the church were also well represented. There was Eusebius of Nicomedia, the astute poli- tician and man of the world. There was also the renowned Eusebius of Caesarea, a sound theologian, and perhaps the most well-in- formed, careful, impartial, and trustworthy ecclesiastical historian the church has ever possessed. Alexander, patriarch of Alexan- dria, was also a man of mark. And, young as he was, the great Athanasius was already a host in himself, from his clearness of insight into the deepest mysteries of our religion. And beside these there were men present who manifested the power of faith — the brave " confessors," as they were called, whose faces and limbs bore evident traces of the sufferings they had undergone for their Master. Nor could any one object that it was a packed assembly. The emperor did his best to secure an honest selection and an honest decision. The council met (325) at Nicaea, in Bithynia, ARIUS ,T t<Mvii (if soino importance, on the Soa of Marmora, near Constaiitiuople. The munberof I'ishops present is variously stated at from 250 to 318. But the latter number, as typified by the number of Abraham's servants when he rescued Lot, was generally accepted before the council of Constantinople. No Acts of the council are extant. In the writings of two men .'t note who were present, Athanasius, then a vcmng deacon of about 28 years old, and the already celebrated and learned Eusebius of Caesarea, we have accounts of what hap- pened. Moreover, well-informed and honest, if sometimes more or less inaccurate, historians h.jve studied and handed down documents of i;reat value, bearing on the proceedings. Constantine himself was present at the I council. At first he refused to take part in ' its deUbcrations, or even to take a seat until invited. But he afterwards departed from that humble attitude, if some of our author- ities are to be trusted, and when he found difficulties arising, did his best to remove them liy joining in the discussions. At the outset he administered a well-merited rebuke to the bishops for the spirit in which many of them had come to the council. Producing a num- ber of recriminatory letters from those who were present, he called for a brazier, and burnt them all before the assembly, begging the bishops to lay aside their personal animosities, and to devote themselves whole-heartedly to setting forth the truth. The question next arose, in what form the universal belief of the church from the beginning should be ex- pressed. This, of course, was the crux of the whole situation. Hitherto particular churches had their own forms of creed (ttiVtis) for use at baptisms and in catechetical instruction. There was no substantial difference between them, consisting as they did of a confession of faith in the Trinity, as well as a summary of the main facts recorded in the gospels. But now a dogmatic formula for Christendom had to be drawn up, a task full of difficulty and even of danger. Some few of the bishops, we learn, apparently under the leadership of Eusebius of Nicomedia, presented a document so frankly Arian that it was at once torn to pieces by those present, and Arius was ex- communicated by all but Theonas and Secundus. Then, as it seems, the famous scholar and ecclesiastical historian Eusebius of Caesarea intervened, and produced a Pales- 1 tinian Creed, which he said he had received from " the bishops before him." He adds that " no one present could gainsay " the orthodoxy of this creed. This statement must, however, be taken with some limita- tions. The Palestinian Creed could only, if accepted, have been accepted as a basis for discussion. It was not ultimately adopted in the shape in which it was propounded, but underwent considerable alteration. The sen- tence ytvvr^OivTo. tK Tov narpos fiovoyevij was made definitely TovrfaTiv (k t^j oi'cri'as tov Harpot. Further on, the words bfj-oouaiov tu> Warpl were added after the words " be- gotten, not made." And the word ivavdpijnrr)- ffavTa, which means rather more than " made man," and implies an intimate association of the Godhead with the Manhood, was added ARIUS 43 after "was Incarnate" (i.e. n\M\v flesh — ; (xapKuO^vTa—a phrase which was felt to be insutVicient and even misleading by itself). The anathema which was also added embraces I those who deny that the Son and the Father were of one ovala or vir6eTa<m, as well as I those who say that there was a time when the Son did not exist, or that He was created from nothing, or that He was liable to change or alteration. At this stage of the controversy the words otV/a (essence) and virdaraais (substance) were used as synonymous. It will be seen [art. Arius, Followers of] that Basil and the Gregories afterwards wrung from Athanasius a concession on this point. Athanasius had warmly attacked Arius for asserting that there were three hypostases in the Trinity. But at the later date it was agreed that the word otVi'a might be used to denote what was common to all three Persons, and i'Tr6(7ra(Tis to denote the distinctions (which wc call Per- sons) between them. For the present, however, any distinction between ovala. and virdnraan was considered heretical. The council then broke up, after having addressed a letter to the churches in and around .Mexandria. Constantine issued a circular letter to the same eflfect. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus were de- posed and banished, while three other bishops, who had displayed leanings toward Arius, namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea itself, and Maris of Chalcedon, a city on the Asiatic shore opposite Constantinople, were unwilling signatories of the document, but affixed their signatures in deference to the emperor's wishes. Eusebius of Caesarea de- scribes himself, in a letter to some Arians who had accused him of tergiversation, as having demurred to the changes in the creed which he had himself presented, but as having finally accepted them in the interests of peace (Theod. H. E. i. 12, from Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic). That the apparent unanimity of the coimcil (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being the only dissentients) covered a considerable amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. Doubts of the wisdom of employing a term which had been rejected at an important council as savouring of Sabellianism weighed on the minds of many who had submitted. Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by many later writers as having coquetted with Arianism. But his moderate attitude through- out the period which followed proves that his objections to the decision, which he allowed his love of peace to overrule, were more owing to the dread of possible consequences than to the decision in itself. Though a man of ability, learning, and honesty, he was timorous withal, and desirous to stand well with the powers that be. And his allusion to the pro- ceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned shews that his apprehensions were not alto- gether unreasonable. For he remarks how it was elicited after considerable discussion at the council that the term ofxoovaLOv was not intended to signify that the Son formed an actual portion [fxipos] of the Father. That would have been Sabellianism pure and simple, a danger against which it was necessary to guard. And much of the dissension to which the adoption of the creed of Nicaea led was 44 ARIUS due to this very natural apprehension. But Eusebius emphatically condemned the lan- guage of Arius, and there is no reason whatever to suspect his sincerity in so doing. On the other hand, Athanasius was convinced— and the event proves that he was right — that un- less the Essence of the Son was definitely understood to be the same as that of the Father, it would inevitably follow that the Sc>n would at best be no more than the highest of a series of Gnostic aeons. As to Eusebius of Nicomedia, it is clear that Constantine found some reason to suspect his sincerity, as well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon after included them in the sentence pro- nounced on Arius. Philostorgius says that Secundus and Theonas predicted that this would happen when they themselves had been sentenced to banishment. Possibly expressions fell from them in the heat of argument which led Constantine to the conclusion that their submission was not genuine. It must be confessed that the Nicene settle- ment, though necessary in itself and satis- factory in the end, was at least premature. The controversy recommenced as soon as the decrees were promulgated. When Alexander died at Alexandria in 327, the election of Athanasius in his place was only secured in the face of violent opposition from the Arianizing faction. Soon after, Eusebius of Nicomedia was reinstated in his see, after having written a diplomatic letter to the emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, after having made a somewhat disingenuous recantation. So astute a politician as the Nicomedian Eusebius was not long before he regained his influence with the emperor, and then began a series of intrigues which led to a complete reversal of the position of the contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, one of the staunchest adherents of Athana- sius, was the first victim. The question of heterodoxy was skilfully kept in the back- ground, and a number of false and odious personal charges were trumped up against him by men and women of abandoned lives. If Theodoret is to be trusted, one of the women aforesaid, when seized by a serious illness, retracted her accusation in a remark- ably sensational manner. But the other his- torians (Socrates and Sozomen) are reticent about the nature of the charges, and only tell us that Eustathius had been unfortunate enough to get involved in a controversy with Eusebius PamphiU (of Caesarea). Eusta- thius was at once ejected from his see, and was regarded by the emperor as having been the cause of the riot his expulsion excited among the people, with whom Eustathius was a favourite. Marcellus of Ancyra was the next victim. He had all along been the friend and champion of Athanasius. But unfor- tunately he was not at home in the thorny paths of metaph^'sical theology, and found it impossible to defend the Nicene decisions without falling into Sabellianism. There was no need, therefore, for the Arianizers to bring personal charges against him. Accordingly few, if any such, were brought. He was charged, and quite fairly, with Sabellianism. On this point Eusebius Pamphili came safely to ARIUS the front, and wrote strongly against Marcellus, while the latter sturdily defended himself. The actual condemnation of Marcellus was deferred till 336, and in the meantime Eusebius of Nicomedia had commenced proceedings against the only rival he really dreaded, Athanasius himself. He had, as we have seen, contrived the restoration of Arius to the emperor's favour by inducing the latter to write an insincere retractation, and when the emperor, deceived by this manoeuvre, laid his commands on Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion, Athanasius, naturally, pleaded reasons of conscience against doing so. Then the storm burst forth in all its fulness. The accusations of treason against the emperor and the insinuations that the patriarch wished to set up an empire of his own against or above the supreme authority of the divine Augustus had certainly some effect on the mind of Constantine. Charges were made of sacrilege, tyranny, magic, mutilation, murder, of immorality (as some allege), and, worst of all in the emperor's eyes, of raising funds for treasonable objects. They were in- vestigated (if the scenes of violence and passion which took place can be termed an investiga- tion) at a synod of 150 bishops at Tyre (335). The triumphant vindication of himself by Athanasius at that council, the dramatic scenes with which that vindication, according to some historians, was accompanied, and the equally dramatic appeal from his accusers to Constantine himself in the streets of Con- stantinople (which all the accounts describe as having taken place), belong rather to the history of Athanasius than of Arius. [Athan- asius.] Suffice it to say that the bold and decisive action, backed by innocence, of the great archbishop only succeeded in deferring his fall. The synod of Tj're had already issued a condemnation while he was on his way to Constantinople in order to appeal to the emperor. The emperor, for the moment, was struck and touched by the appeal and by the commanding personality of Athan- asius. But Eusebius proved ultimately to be master of the situation. With consummate dexterity the wily tactician, with the aid of Theognis and Maris, his old associates, as well as of the arch-intriguers Ursacius and Valens, of whom we shall hear so much in the next article, contrived that the old charges of ecclesiastical offences should be dropped, and that fresh charges of interference with the secular affairs of the empire should be sub- stituted for them. Accordingly, Athanasius was now charged with detaining the corn which was ordered to be sent from Egypt to Constantinople. The artifice succeeded. Con- stantine was weary of the strife. His only object had been the settlement of the question. The shape which that settlement took was to him a secondary matter. He had, as he him- self tells us (see his letters to Alexander and Arius in the Life of Constantine by Eusebius Pamphili), a strong objection to idle and word- splitting discussions, private or public, and considered them unnecessary and unprofitable. The measures he had been persuaded to take at Nicaea had not produced the effect which he had expected from them. So, like other despots in a similar position, he turned fiercely ABtCS ■ ■n those who had induced him to adopt tlu-iii. riiat it was Atliaiiasiiis wlio had advocated the iiRMSiires whidi had so palpably failed needed no deiuonstratiou. So he was exiled to Trier ( rrcves), after a number of leading; bishops had been assembled at Constantinople to try him, and Alexander of Constantinople was ■ ■rdered to receive Arius back into church ..>minunion. But Ciod had otherwise or- dained. Alexander was in dire perplexity. He dared not disobey the command, neither dare he obey it. In his extremity lie asked the prayers of the orthodox that either he or Arius might be removed from the world before the latter was admitted to communion. The praver was, we must admit, a strange one. But even tiibbon records the incident as a fact, though he makes it the occasion for one of his characteristic gibes at Christianity and Christ- ians. Meanwhile, as the historian Socrates tells us, Arius was ordered to appear before the emperor, and asked whether he was willing to sign the Nicene decrees. He replied, without hesitation, that he was ready to do so. Asked whether he would confirm his signature by an oath, he agreed to do this also. This last fact Socrates declares {H. E. i. 38) that he had verified by an inspection of the imperial archives. The very day before the one ap- pointed for his readmission to communion, Arius died suddenly, and in a most remark- able manner. Whether his death can be described as a miracle or not may be dis- puted. It seems preferable to attribute it to natural causes. But that the event was one of the numerous occasions in history when we are compelled to recognize a Divine inter- position can hardly be doubted. The extra- ordinary occurrence made a vast impression throughout Christendom. The heresiarch had only been able to obtain the decree for readmission to communion by a feigned adherence to the Nicene symbol. His posi- tion was, therefore, in the eyes of Christendom one of gross and palpable deception — nothing less than an act of glaring and defiant impiety. Socrates tells us that in his time, a century afterwards, the place where he died was still pointed out. Athanasius himself describes the incident (d^ Morte Arii). There are there- fore few facts in history more fully attested. The tragic death of Arius, followed as it was a year later by that of Constantine himself, led to a temporary lull in the controversy. The sequel will be found in the next article. Bibliography. — (i) Ancient. The writings of Athanasius generally, especially his de In- carnatioue Verbi Dei and de Decretis Synodi Nicenae; the Vita Constantini of Eusebius Pamphili; and the ecclesiastical histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Of these the first is the best, though the documents cited at length by Theodoret are valuable. English translations of these authors, save of quite recent date, are by no means implicitly to be trusted, especially as to metaphysical terms. The ecclesiastical history of Philo- storgius, which would give us the Arian point of view, is unfortunately only known to us through a hostile epitome by Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in 9th cent. (2) Of comparatively modern works the church histories of Neander and Gieseler ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 45 cont.iin very valuable informalii>ii, as does also Dorners learned and impartial treatise On the Person of Christ. Bp. Martenscn's History of Christian Doginatics is also valuable ; Ciibboii's Decline and Fall is useful in giving us the secular view of the period. Bp. Kaye's Council of Xicaca will be found worth reading. De Broglie's L'Eglise et I'Emf^ire romain au IV' sic-cle is full of information. Newman's .irians of the Fourth Century is marred by some prejudices and prept)Ssessions. Dean Stanley's acct)unt of the Nicene council in his Eastern Church will be found more picturesque than accurate. Prof. Gwatkin's Studies of Arian^ ism is, as its title implies, rather a series of sketches than a detailed history, but contains a vast amount of original research, illuminated by flashes of insight into the char- acters and motives of the principal actors in the controversy, and gives an exhaustive bib liography. His Arian Controversy is a brief summary for popular use. There is a valuable article in Texts and Studies, vol. vii. (1901), by Mr. Bethune Baker on "The Meaning of Homo- ousios in the Constantinopolitan Creed." His Introduction to the Early Hist, of Christian Doctrine (1903) will be found useful, as will the art. " Arianism" in Hastings's Encyd. of Re- ligion and Ethics, i. (1908). Harnack, Wj's/. 0/ Dogma (Hng. trans. 1894-1899), gives the modern C.erman view. [j-J-L.] Arius, Followers of. After the deaths of Arius and Constantine we enter on a tangled web of controversy which lasted from a.d. 336 to 381, when the question was finally decided by the acceptance of the Nicene Creed at the council of Constantinople. This period of confusion is due to the change of conditions under which the contest was carried on. For a time the division of the empire between three Augusti contributed an additional ele- ment of uncertainty to the conflict. Yet when the deaths of the j-ounger Constantine and his brother Constans left the whole empire for eleven years in the hands of Constantius, matters were scarcely less involved. Con- stantius, though by no means devoid of ability, as his success in maintaining his un- divided authority against such rebellions as those of Magnentius and Vetranio proves, was far inferior to his father in clearness of vision and breadth of aim. The great Constantine himself was not altogether inaccessible to flattery and family influences. His sister Constantia is credited with having prevailed upon him to allow Eusebius of Nicomedia and Arius to return from exile. But her influence was still more strongly felt in the next reign, and after the death of the astute and able Eusebius of Nicomedia, mere intriguers, such as Ursacius and Valens, and even the worth- less eunuchs about the court, were able to persuade the emperor into unreasonable and tortuous courses, of which jealousy of the great Athanasius formed in reality the secret motive. Amid all the distractions of the time, three main stages may be marked in the progress of the controversy. The first con- sisted of the six years between the death of Constantine and the council of Sardica (343)- During this period the attitude of all the various parties save those who adhered to the Nicene symbol is most perplexing, and 46 ARiUS, FOLLOWERS OF the changes of opinion most bewildering. Court intrigue occupies a prominent place in the history. Yet it gradually became clear, as far as tlie march of opinion was concerned, that the West was irrevocably attached to the views of Athanasius, while in the East opinion was divided and variable, and the court influence grew more decisive on the progress of events in proportion as the power of Constantius increased. The second period was that between the councils of Sardica and Ariminum (Rimini, in Italy) in 359, during which opinion was gradually setthng down into three distinct forms, which may be roughly de- scribed as the orthodox, the semi-Arian, and the Arian view. The last period, that between 359 and 3S1, is that during which Homoean- ism and Anomoeanism (see below) became gradually discredited, while Homoiousians and orthodox approximated by degrees, until the final victory of the Nicene symbol at Con- stantinople. The ferment of opinion may be gauged by the fact that the historian Socrates gives no less than ten forms of creed — eleven if we count that presented at Nicaea by Euse- bius of Caesarea — which were produced at various councils in hope of settling the con- troversy. But the Nicenes remained firmly attached to the creed of Nicaea, while their opponents were divided into three groups — the Anomoeans, or Arians proper, who taught the unlikeness of the nature of the Son to that of the Father ; the Homoeans, who believed the Son's nature to bear only a general resem- blance to that of the Father; and the Homoi- ousians, who believed in the similarity (but not the identity) of the essence of the Son to that of the Father. These last are also called semi-Arians. The first important step in the history of the controversy after the death of Arius was the return of Athanasius to his diocese (337) permitted by Constantine II., in whose division of the empire Egypt lay. But he was not suffered to remain long un- molested. In 340 Constantine II. died, and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the ablest of Athan- asius's antagonists, contrived to get himself removed to Constantinople after the death of the bishop, Alexander. His proximity to the emperor secured to him the leading influence in affairs ecclesiastical. The orthodox party had elected Paul as their bishop, but Eusebius contrived to get this election annulled, and to secure the vacant post for himself. He " left no stone unturned," as the historian Socrates puts it, to overthrow one whom he had long regarded as a rival. A council was assembled at Antioch (33S-339), in which the old charges were revived against Athanasius, and which confirmed his sentence of deposi- tion from his see. Athanasius was expelled in the spring of 339 ; and after a third Eusebius (afterwards bp. of Emesa), a man of principle and character, had declined to take his place, one Gregory was appointed, who speedily became unpopular in consequence of his violence and cruelty. Eusebius Paraphili of Caesarea, who would undoubtedly, had he survived, have been a moderating force, died about this time, and was succeeded hy Acacius, who played a prominent part in the sub- sequent proceedings, but lacked the special ARlUS, FOLLOWERS OF knowledge of Church history, as well as the experience and judgment, of his celebrated predecessor. Athanasius fled to Rome, and thus brought its bishop Julius on the scene. Julius acted with spirit and discretion. He summoned a synod of 50 bishops of the West, who annulled the deposition of Athanasius, and acquitted him of all the charges against him. He further trans- mitted to Antioch a strong remonstrance against the inconsistency and unfairness of the proceedings at the council held there. The Eastern bishops, however, were not to be deterred from their course by his representa- tions. At the council held at the dedication (encaenia) of a church at Antioch in 341, the sentence on Athanasius was confirmed, and after the rejection of a creed of distinctly Arian tendencies, a new creed, either com- posed by Lucian the Martyr or by his disciple Asterius, was brought forward as a substitute for the symbol of Nicaea. It rejected the expression bixoovcriov, but it as emphatically rejected Arianism by declaring the Son to be unchangeable and unalterable, and by adding that He was " the Image of the essence, the power, the will, and the glory of the Father." But Eusebius had not thrown over the symbol of Nicaea for such a halting sub- stitute as this. On the other hand, Athan- asius did not fail to point out that the language of the creed of Lucian was not more that of Scripture than was the language of the creed of Nicaea. The court party, whose object was simply to produce a formula which would, as they thought, meet. the emperor's views by putting a stop to controversy, endeavoured to force another creed on the council, but in vain. This additional creed was a compromise pure and simple, enshrining no truth, although in form corresponding as nearly to the Nicene formula as possible. Its supporters then put the document into the hands of Constans, emperor of the West, who had demanded the assembling of another general council. The West had been roused by the proceedings at Antioch, and Constantius, now engaged in a war with Persia, dared not refuse. The able leader of the dissentients, however, Eusebius of Nicomedia, was now dead, and the leader- ship had fallen into the hands of Ursacius and Valens, who were mere opportunists. To their dismay and that of their party, it was settled that the council should be held at Sardica, in Dacia, just within the limits of the Western empire. Thither, in 343, the de- puties repaired. But the courtiers perceived that there was no chance whatever of forcing their views upon a phalanx consisting, as it is now thought, of about 100 Western bishops devoted to the decisions of Nicaea. So they left Sardica in haste, and betook themselves to Philippopolis, a city just across the Eastern border. There, after declaring that the de- crees of one council cannot be revised by another, they began inconsistently to revise the decrees of former councils, and to hurl charges against the venerated Fathers of the West, Hosius and Juhus. The Westerns at Sardica, meanwhile, had once more acquitted Athanasius and his alhes, and had rejected the Eastern formulae, as leaning to the Gnostic doctrine of successive emanations from the ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP source of all being. Tho proceedings at Fhiiippopulis and the outrageous conduct of Stephen, then patriarch of Antioch, gave offence even in the East, and the decision of : the Western bishops to hold no communion I with their Eastern brethren while the existing state of things lasted produced a reaction. j Another council was held at Antioch, and a ' new and more conciliatory creed, usually I called naKfidcTTixoi, from its exceeding length, ! was substituted for the Lucianic document. As Constans pressed for the restoration of Athanasius, and Constantius had the war with Persia still on hand, the latter gave way, the more readily because Gregory the intruder was now dead (345). Constantius summoned Athanasius to his presence, and after a friendly interview dismissed him, and wrote three letters, one to the bishops and clergy in Egypt, one to the laity, and one to the governors of provinces, explaining that it was his will that Athanasius should be allowed to return in peace to his flock. But when he demanded of Athanasius that he should allow the use of one church to the Arians in Alex- andria, the latter preferred a request in his turn that the same thing should be done in cities where the Arians were in possession — a request which Constantius did not deem it prudent to grant. Athanasius therefore, unfettered by conditions, returned (346) to Alexandria, and the people, wearied of Arian violence and cruelty, received him with the warmest demonstrations of joy. j Peace was thus restored for the moment, but it endured only so long as Constantius was occupied with foreign war and intestine strife. It is noteworthy that the restless intriguers, Ursacius and Valens, found it prudent just at present to repair to Rome and make friends with Julius and the West. Socrates {H. E. ii. 37) remarks on their dis- position to identify themselves with the 1 strongest side. But permanent peace was I impossible until the questions at issue had ; been fully threshed out. As soon as Constans (350) was dead, and Magnentius, the usurper, defeated and slain (353), the strife recom- ! menced. For ten years Athanasius had , remained undisturbed at Alexandria, but I premonitory signs of the eruption which I was soon to burst forth had long been dis- 1 cernible. On the one hand the Easterns were beginning to substitute the semi- Arian doctrine ' of the likeness {o/xoioixnos) of the Son to the I Father for the vaguer conception of the ■ more moderate Arians of the earlier period. : On the other hand, the wnlikeness of the ' Son to the Father was more boldly and de- fiantly pressed by the holders of that doctrine, and by degrees a sect, which almost reducecl I Christ to the level of a mere man, appeared ' on the scene. The chief exponents of this ! doctrine were Aetius and Euzoius. The i Anomoeans now began to separate themselves ! more definitely from the orthodox. All this was not without its effect on Constantius, whose sole object, like that of most poli- ticians, was to avoid dissensions. When the tide turned, Ursacius and Valens were ready, as usual, with suggestions. But he could not at once take the steps they urged. New wars confronted him, and the attitude of the West ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP 47 was decidedly disijuii tiiij;. Tlu> Western church had found a ntw champion in Hilaryof Poictiers (HilariusPictavensis), wlu)se ability, learning, and high character were recognized by his own contemiioraries. Con- stantius shewed his sense of his abilities by exiling liini, as well as l.iberius, bp. of Rome, who had succeeded Julius (355). Early in 356 the imperial troops burst into the cathedral at Alexandria to seize Athanasius, who was at prayer with his flock. It was night, and Athanasius almost miraculously escaped in the tumult, and remained secreted for some time. From his undiscovered re- treat he issued numerous letters and treatises, by which he kept up the courage of his adherents. His Arian successor, one George, did not venture to set foot in Alexandria till a year after the departure of Athanasius, and his atrocious cruelties soon made him hated as well as feared by the populace. Meanwhile the court intriguers resumed their activity. Sirmium, in Slavonia, between the Save and the Drave, now takes the place of Antioch in the matter of creed-making. A creed had already been issued thence in 351 against Sabellianism. In the latter part of 357 the emperor was in residence there, and Ursacius and Valens naturally took the oppor- tunity of renewing their mischievous activity. A second creed was promulgated there, in which the difference between the Father and the Son was strongly insisted upon ; the Father and the Son were declared to be two Persons {wpdauwa), and the use of the words ovala and inroffTacis, as applied to God's nature, was condemned, as not warranted by Scripture. The intriguers no doubt imag- ined that, as the supporters of the Nicene formula were in exile, they could give no further trouble, and that the line of least resistance would be to come to an arrangement with the Arian (Anomocan) party. But events proved them utterly wrong. The re- sult was just the opposite : to convert the moderates into a distinctly semi-Arian party, laying especial stress on the likeness of tlie Son's essence (biJ^oiovaiov) to that of the Father, instead of minimizing the likeness, as the Homoeans had done. The Homoiousians thus began to lean to the orthodox side, while the Homoeans inclined more and more to those who denied even the likeness of the Son's essence to that of the Father. Hilary now (359) intervened with his de Synodis, in which he reviewed the action of previous councils, and defended the Nicene Creed, yet in such a way as he thought best calculated to win back the semi-Arians (or Homoiousians) to the orthodox camp. This treatise marks the stage in the controversy in which semi- Arianism began definitely to separate itself from its doubtful allies, and to draw towards union with the orthodox party. Hilary, it may be added, admits the force of scmie semi- Arian objections to the word bfxoovauiv, and suggests certain express limitations of its meaning. Two other creeds of considerable length, one of them provided with innumerable anathemas, were draw^n up at Sirmium. The last of these, commonly known as the dated creed (359), was ridiculed by .•\tlianasius for 48 ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OF its pompous opening, and for its assumption that the Catholic faith had, at the date given, been proclaimed for the first time. It is clear, he adds, from their own confession, that theirs is a new faith, not the old one. We now enter upon the last stage of the con- troversy. It is marked by the first attempt to make a distinction between ovaia and inroaraais — terms which had hitherto been regarded as svnonymous — and to use the former as in- dicating the nature which is common to beings of the same order, while the latter was used to express the diversities between these pos- sessors of a common nature. The word ouj-ia was used to indicate the Divine Nature, while VTroj-TaaLS was henceforth used by the Greeks of the Persons in the Trinity. (It should, however, be observed that substantia remained the Latin equivalent of ovaia.) The first to press this use of language was Basil of Ancyra, at a council he had called to protest against the proceedings at Sirmium. He defends the new use of the word vwdcTTaais in an able minute he issued, criticizing the proceedings at Sirmium, by pointing out that a word was needed — and it must be neither ovcria nor apxv — to denote the underlying and definitely existing {virapxova-as) distinctions {idLOTjjras) of the Persons (irpocruj- TTWv) ; and he acutely remarks that if ocaia was a term not to be found in Scripture, the Godhead was indicated there by the words 6 wf. In the end, this new and more careful use of words completely revolutionized the situa- tion. Henceforth the semi- Arians as a body not only laboured for an understanding with the orthodox, but also drew still more markedly apart from the Homoeans and Anomoeans. The calling of a new council in the same year at Rimini (Ariminum) in Italy brought these new tendencies very plainly to light. Constantius, finding it impossible to lay down a common basis for action between the East and the West, commanded the Eastern bishops to meet at Seleucia in Cilicia, a mountain fortress near the sea. Sozomen tells us that the reason for calling this council was the growing influence of Anomoeanism through the in- fluence of Aetius. The Western bishops, who numbered more than 200, had no scruples in the matter. They boldly deposed Ursacius and Valens, who had been sent to bring them to submission, and as boldly reaffirmed the Nicene symbol, and they sent a deputation of 20 bishops to the emperor to defend their action. He was, however, (or pretended to be) too busy to see them. The Easterns were still inclined to hesitate. The semi- Arian majority desired to accept the Nicene Creed, with the omission of the obnoxious ofj.oova-Lov. The Homoeans, under the leader- ship of Acacius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, condemned the expressions 6iJ.ooi'taiov and ofxaLouffiov , but anathematized the expression a.v6/j.oiov. " The Acacian [Homoean] party " (Socr. H. E. ii. 40) "affirmed that the Son was like the Father as respected His will only, and not in His substance or essence." And they tendered yet another creed in accordance with these views, which the council rejected, and deposed those who had tendered it. ARIUS, FOLLOWERS OP Among those who were present at this council were men so diverse as the hated tyrant George of Alexandria, and Hilary of Poictiers, still exiled from his diocese. Meanwhile, Ur- sacius and Valens were engaged in the con- genial task of endeavouring to persuade the deputies from Ariminum to sign yet another creed at Nike in Thrace, in the hope, if some authorities are to be trusted, of making the world believe, from the similarity of names, that it was the renowned document promul- gated at the Nicene council. But this was surely an impossibility. The Nicene symbol was far too well known to the Christian world. .\thanasius now intervened from his retreat, and wrote his famous treatise de Synodis, in which he reviewed the creeds and acts of the various councils. But he assumed no non-possumus attitude. He had even seemed inclined, for a moment, to admit the ortho- doxy of the expression 6/j.oio6cnoy. But in this treatise he points out (c. 41) that though brass is like gold, tin like iron, and the dog like the wolf, yet they are of different natures, and no one could call the wolf the offspring of the dog. Nevertheless, he still endeavours to bridge over the gulf between himself and the semi-Arians. These two councils were the final turning- point of the controversy. It had clearly appeared that, whenever the Nicene defini- tions had been rejected, Anomoeanism, which was Arianism in a more definite philosophical shape, came once more to the front, and this fact was increasingly seen to point to the Nicene symbol as the only safe way out of the difiiculty. Henceforth the secular authority might retard, but it could not prevent, the victory of Athanasius and his followers. From this moment (see Socr. H. E. ii. 22) the Western churches definitely renounced com- munion with those of the East. The episode of Meletius of Antioch (not to be confounded with Meletius of Egypt^ shewed plainly which way events were tending. He had been elected patriarch of Antioch by the Homoean party. But in his inaugural speech he frankly confessed his Nicene leanings, and when a busy archdeacon rushed up and closed his mouth, he continued by gestures to affirm what he had previously affirmed by his voice. Meletius was promptly banished, but before the year (361) was over Constantius was dead. The action of his successor Julian, who had renounced Christianity, gave a still further impulse to the policy of conciliation. As between heathenism and Christianity, impar- tiality cannot certainly be predicated of him. But he was impartial enough in his hostility to Christians of all shades of opinion. This threw them, for the time, into one another's arms. True, when the external pressure was removed, the suspicions and jealousies, as is commonly the case, broke out afresh. But none the less had an impulse been given towards union which henceforth never ceased to be felt. The oppressor George had been expelled from Alexandria by a rising of the populace as early as 358. In 361, on his return to Alexandria, he was seized and murdered by his exasperated flock. The edict of Julian (361) permitting the return of the exiles left the way open to Athanasius to rejoin AMUS, FOLLOWERS OF his i>.-'>j)k-. He at ouce (362) sumiiionod a council, ill which Maccdonianism [Mackdo- Niusj, ail oflshoot from Arianisin which applied the same line of argument to the Holy Spirit which had previously been applied to the Son, was condemned as well as Arianisin. But Athanasius was wise and liberal enough to make overtures to the semi-Arians. Three men almost worthv to stand on a level with Athanasius himself had appeared among the Eastern bishops — men who were capable of negotiating on equal terms with that great and prescient theologian. These were Basil, afterwards bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, his brother Gregory, bp. of Nyssa, and the brilliant orator, poet, and thinker Grkgory OF Nazianzus, who was the intimate friend of both. These men had some opinions in common with the less extreme members of the semi-.Arian party, and were therefore quite ready to resume tlie work of conciliation which, as we have seen, had been attempted by Basil of Ancyra. .Athanasius, on his part, was ready to accept the distinction mentioned above between oi'tjia and iV6(JTa(riy, which had not been recognized at Nicaea. Before the death of Jovian {364), Aoacius of Caesarea, who cannot be acquitted of being an unworthy intriguer or at best a time-server, came for- ward to make his peace by accepting the Nicene formula. On the death of Jovian the empire was divided between Valentinian and Valens, the former taking the West, the latter the East, under his charge. Valen- tinian, as a man unacquainted with theology, was naturally influenced by the general opinion in the West, which had remained decisively Xicene. Valens as naturally fell under the influence of the Eastern bishops, and the time was not yet ripe for their accept- ance of the Xicene decision. The .Anomoeans were still a powerful party, and so deter- mined were they to enforce their views that they persecuted not only the orthodox but the semi-.\rians and Macedonians. When the semi-Arians, with the permission of Valen- tinian, held a council at Lampsacus in 364, its decisions were set aside by Valens, whose hand had already been heavy on the Homo- ousians, and who now exiled the semi-Arian bishops. Four years later he dealt equally harshly with the Macedonians, who were terrified into imploring the help of the ortho- dox West, and endeavoured to secure it by promising Liberius that they would receive the Nicene Creed. But the latter replied in a letter in which he declared that the faith depended on the acceptance of the words hypostasis (in the sense in which it is used in the Nicene formula) and homoousios. On the other hand, the dissensions which broke out between Eudoxius, patriarch of Antioch and afterwards of Constantinople and his Arian (or .\nomoean) allies, drove both him and Valens into the arms of the Homoeans, in whose possession most of the churches were. But the affairs of the empire fell into confusion in the incompetent hands of Valens, and the influence of the Arian and Homoean parties was steadily waning. Athanasius died •D 373, after a noteworthy attempt to cast his shield over his faithful supporter and friend Marcellus. The result was that Marcellus was ARNOBIUS 49 acquitted, but hisschonl disajipoarcd witli him (he died in 371), and the way lay clear for the conciliatory action of the three great Eastern leaders already mentioned. There was no theologian in Christendom who could withstand them. Among their opponents no concert reigned, but only confusion ; their ascendancy was founded on court intrigue and imperial violence. Sozomon (//. /•". vi. 6) tells us how Valentinian, while he stedfastly clung to orthodoxy, studiously refrained from har- assing those opposed to it, and notes with disapproval the different course taken by Valens. The cause of genuine, practical Christianity sufTered seriously under these divisions, intrigues, and acts of violence, and men of earnest and even indifferent minds were longing for peace. When Theodosius suc- ceeded Valens in 379 (Valentinian was already dead) there was no force strong enough among the heretical factions to resist the coalition between the semi-Arians and the Nicenes. The West was united in support of the latter, the strength and patience of the divided East were exhausted. A council of 150 bishops — all Easterns — assembled at Constantinople, and the weary 56 years of conflict and confusion terminated in the acceptance of the symbol * which, in the East and West, is repeated whenever Christians who profess the Catholic faith meet for communion with one another and their Lord. Arianism had no moral strength with which to resist persecution. But it still lingered among the Goths for some centuries. They were not an educated race, and Ulphilas, who converted them to Christianity, was a missionary rather than a theologian. And so it came to pass in the end that, so far as this vital doctrine of the Christian faith is concerned, " they all escaped safe to land." The bibliography of this period is much the same as has been given in art. Arius, only that the Life of Constantinc, by Euscbius Pam- phili, is of course no longer available. The de Synodis of Athanasius passes in review the various councils and their creeds, from the Encaenia at Antioch to the councils of Ariminum and Seleucia. Various mono- graphs connected with the history of this period will be found mentioned by Prof. Gvvatkin in his Studies of Arianism, if the student wishes to go more deeply into the subject than is possible here. fj.j.L.] Arnobius, an eminent Latin apologist for Christianity. The records of his life are meagre and somewhat uncertain ; consisting in a few brief notices by St. Jerome, and another by Trithemius, aided by his own few incidental allusions to himself. The outbreak of the last great persecution (303-313) found Arnobius a professor of rhetoric at Sicca, in Africa. His reputation was high, and his pupils numerous and distinguished ; among them was Lactantius. Arnobius was a sincere pagan ; versed in schemes of philosophy ; but none the less an unhesitating and even abject idolator. He was, moreover, active as a lecturer in attacks upon Christianity. The sight, however, of • It ends, however, as far as the council of Nicaea is concerned, with the words, "And I believe in the Holy Ghost." 60 ARNOBIUS the martyrdoms which followed the edict of Nicomedia appears speedily to have touched him ; and a dream or vision (says St. Jerome) warned him to submit to Christ. He pre- sented himself to the church at Sicca ; but "they were afraid of him," and demanded from their late enemy some hostage for sincerity. The result was the composition of the Disputations against the Pagans ; whether in their present form or not. He was there- upon baptized, and (according to Trithemius) attained the rank of presbyter. Of his sub- sequent history we know nothing. Some doubt attaches to the exact date of the con- version of Arnobius and publication of his treatise. On the whole the evidence points to some date between 303 and 313 (Hieron. de Scr. Eccl. c. 79 ; id. in Chronicon Eusebii ; Trithemius, de Scr. Eccl. p. 10 a). The title of Arnobius's work usually appears as Disputationes adversus Gentes ; occasion- ally, adv. Nationes. It is divided into seven books of unequal length. The first two are devoted to the defence of Christianity, the remainder to the exposure of paganism. Of God, he speaks in the noblest and fullest language of adoration. His existence is assumed (i. 33) as a postulate in the argument. He is the First Cause ; the Father and Lord of things ; foundation of all ; author of only good ; unborn ; omnipresent ; infinite, incor- poreal ; passionless ; shrouded in light ; to be known only as the Ineffable (see especially 1. 31). Arnobius hesitates, however, over the details of creation ; thinking apparently that alike the human soul and the lower animals — insects and reptiles — are the work of some intermediate creator (ii. 36, 47). Of the Lord Jesus Christ he uses the most glowing language. As a man He is the supreme philosopher and teacher, both of nature and religion. But He is also God : " Deus re cert a : Deus, homo tamen natus ; Deus interiorum potentiarum ; Deus sublimis ; radice ex intima ; ab incognitis regnis ; sospitator, ab omnium principe missus " ; His pontificium is to give salvation to the soul ; He is the only path to light ; His followers alone are saved ; He is stronger than fate. Some doubt may, perhaps, be thrown over the extent of these ascriptions of deity bv the vague language with which Arnobius speaks of the gods (see below). But with everv de- duction they are magnificent, and at least lie in the direction of the fullest orthodoxy. The allusions to the incarnation, life, and death of the Redeemer are numerous. Ihe first is somewhat vaguely described as the assump- tion of a man to the self, the God ; its motive was the presentation of the God to human senses, and the general performance of Christ's mission. His resurrection and the subsequent appearances are insisted upon ; it is asserted (apparently) that He still appears to the faithful. To the Second Advent there is at most only a doubtful allusion (i. 39). (See generally, i. 36, 6.5 ; ii. 60.) On the origin of the Soul he is far more speculative than is his wont. Its sin im- perfection, and inborn infirmity (he holds) forbid the belief that it comes direct from the Supreme Cause. It cannot for the like reasons be immortal [i.e. absolutely and per se) ■ it ARNOBIUS outlives the body, but depends wholly on the gift of God for eternal duration. After death there awaits the evil a second death, a Gehenna of unquenchable fire, in which gradually they are consumed and annihilated (see especially ii. 15-54). The resurrection of the flesh is emphatically asserted, but in somewhat obscure terms (ii. 13). Of the existence of gods he speaks with much ambiguity. The actual objects of heathen worship he concludes from the nature of their mythology and ritual to be real but evil beings. But he nowhere denies that there exist also dii boni ; only he views them (if existent) as mere reflexes of the Supreme Nature, and as in no sense distinct objects of worship and prayer. In worshipping the Supreme (he argues), we worship by implica- tion — if to be worshipped they are — such gods as are gods indeed. On the nature and efficacy of prayer he uses perplexing language. His belief appar- ently is that in the present life all externals are fixed by an immovable destiny (vii. 10) ; that prayer is useful only as a means of divine communion ; but he yet describes the prayers of the Christian church as petitions for peace and pardon for all classes of mankind ; the emperor, the magistrate, the armies, etc. (iv. 36). Prayer is regarded as (in some sense not specified) efficacious for the dead (I.e.). Arnobius asserts the " freedom of the will " ; God calls man " non vi sed gratia " (ii. 64). In the latter books his arguments against heathen sacrifices are so managed as logically to exclude altogether the sacrifices both of the Jewish temple and of the Cross. Of idol- worship and incense he speaks in terms which prove that he can have known nothing of images, or incense, or a local presence, in the conventicula of the Christians. Of the Holy Scriptures Arnobius appears to have known very little. He makes some acute remarks (i. 58) on the rude style of the evangelists, but only one text (I. Cor. iii. 19) is quoted verbatim ; and even this is introduced as illud vulgatum (ii. 6). He records apocryphal miracles as evangelical (i. 46, 53) ; he knows nothing of any promise of temporal happiness (ii. 76) ; he confuses the Pharisees with the Sadducees (iii. 12). Of the O.T. he was apparently quite ignorant. In one passage (iii. 10) he even seems to speak of it with dis- respect ; though the passage has been ex- plained of the Rabbinical books. In many places he shews by implication a total ignor- ance of the national election and the ritual; of the Jews (to whom he scarcely alludes at all), and of the Scriptural prophecies andl chronology. These phenomena are, of course,, in great measure accounted for by the allegedi circumstances of the composition of the- work. They render more remarkable the- faintness of the tinge of Gnosticism in its pages. Obviously the authority of Arnobius; on points of Christian doctrine is reduced almost ad nihilum by these indications ; and we can hardly wonder that in the 5th cent. his treatise was banished by pope Gelasius to the index of apocryphal works. Critical opinions on the merits of Arnobius have been very various. St. Jerome's verdict varies between praises of his libri luculentissimi ARNOBIUS, JUNIOR and censure of his defects as iiine-qiialis, tiinniis, con/usus, in style, method, and doctrine. Dr. Woodham (in liis edition of Tertullian's j Apologv, preliminary Kssays, ed. 1S30) pro- tests against the obscurity and neglect which have attended his name ; holds that his " peculiar position anil character invest his sentiments and reasoning with very singular , interest and value " ; pronounces him to he in some respects *' the keenest of tiie apolo- gists," and to be remarkably apposite to the popular arguments of modern times (pp. 21, 29, 52. 53)- To the whole of tliis verdict we subscribe. Arnobius presents as a maii a mind and ; character combinins; mucii ardour with much I common sense. His sincerity is eminently j manifest. He has apprehended to a degree ■ nowhere and never common tiie great fact of human ignorance. As a writer, he appears as the practised and facile, but not very fanciful, rhetorician of his time and country ; and is even a master and model of that peculiar style of a declining age which consists in a , subtle n\cdium between the dictions of poetry and of prose. As a storehouse of old I.atinity and of allusions to points of antiquity — to heathen mythology and ceremonial ; to law, educa- tion, and amusements — his work is of the ! greatest interest and importance. ! The following editions of Arnobius may be mentioned: — 1816, Leipz., J. C. Orellius (ex- cellent for a full and learned commentary) ; Halle, 1844, ed. G. F. Hildebrand; Paris, I 1844, Migne's Patr. Lat. ; Reifferscheid, ! Vienna, 1875 [Corpus Script. Ecd. Lat. iv.). I For an Eng. trans, see Ante-Nicene Lib. \ (T.&. T.Clark). [h.c.g.m.1 I Arnobius, Junior, a presbyter, or possibly I bp., of Gaul ; presumed, from internal evid- ! ence of his writings, to have lived at least as ; late as a.d. 460. I The only external notices seem to be those I of Venerable Bede, who praises his Com- j mentary on the Psalms, and of Alcuin, who I favourably alludes to his Altercation with I Serapion in a letter addressed to Flavius ! Merius, and in the sixth book of his treatise ' Contra Felicem Urgelitanum. The internal ! evidence is based upon the Commentarittm in j Psalmos, the Notes on some passages of the I Gospels, and the Altercatio cum Serapione. j The Commentary and Altercation may botli I be found in the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima i (torn, viii.), Lyons, 1677 ; but the contents j render it very difficult to believe that the ] same person was author of both. I The Commentary on the Psalms is avowed by its author, who dedicates it to Leontius, j bp. of .\rles, and to Rusticus, bp. of Narbonne. ' The comments are devout, practical, and ' pointed, but brief and uncritical, interpreting , everything as referring to Christ and the church. They are, however, accused of a semi- Pelagian tendency ; and a very learned 'TOter, whose Hist. Eccl. appeared c. 1686, \ Natalis Alexander, invites special attention : to remarks of .Arnobius upon Pss. 1. ciii. cviii. . and cxxvi. (in the Heb. ; in A.V., li. civ. etc.). But Nat. Alexander was a Jansenist ; I and anti- Jansenist writers, such as the Bollan- : dists, might maintain that the majority were ARSACIUS 51 capable of an orthodox iulerprelati"n. It must, however, be allowed that the author of the Commentary is anti-.\ugustinian ; as on Ps. cviii. (cix.) 16, 17, he speaks of the heresy, " quae dicit Deum aliquos praedestinasse ad benedictionem. alios ad maledictioiiem." The Altercatio cum Sernpinne is a dialogue, represented as having been held between .Arnobius and Serapion. Serapion by turns plays the part of a Sabellian, an Arian, and a Pelagian, and is gradually driven from each position. Considerable learning is displayed and a clear apprehension of the points at issue, combined with much real ingenuity <if argument. The circumstance of Arnobius being the chief speaker does not of course prove that the authorship is his, any more than the position of Socrates in certain of the Platonic dialogues would prove that Socrates wrote them. Moreover, just as we cannot make Socrates responsible for all that Plato lias put into his mouth, so neither can Arnobius junior be justly credited with the tenets here ascribed to him by some unknown author. Both the style and tone of tlie Altercation seem different from that of the Commentary ; and though there is in both works a con- sentient rejection of the errors condemned in the first four general councils, yet it is hardly possible that an author of semi- Pelagian leanings, who had stigmatized predestinarian doctrine as a heresy, should declare, as Arno- bius is made to do' towards the conclusion of the Altercatio cum Serapione, that he " accepts and defends the dicta of St. Augustine con- cerning Pelagianism, as if they were the most hallowed writings of the Apostles." The Notes on some passages of the Gospels, which seem really to belong to Arnobius junior, are given in the edition of his works by Laurence de la Barre (Paris, 1639). But for a new view of the authorship of these works see G. Morin in Revue Benedictine { 1903). He thinks that the author of the Adnotationes, the Altercatio, andthe Predestinatusis -prohsibly an Illyrian, who lived in Rome. Of the events of our author's life we are wholly ignorant. [j.g.c] Arsacius, the intruding archbp. of Con- stantinople, after the violent expulsion of Chrysostom (a.d. 404). He was the brother of Nectarius, Chrysostom's predecessor, and had served as archpresbvter \mder Chrysostom (Photius C. 59). In earlier life his brother had selected him for the bishopric of Tarsus, and had attributed his refusal to an ambitious design of becoming his successor at Constanti- nople. On this, Palladius asserts, he swore voluntarilv tiiat he would never accept the see of Constantinople (Pallad. c. xi.). After he had passed his 8oth year, the success of the base intrigue of Eudoxia and Theophilus against Chrysostom opened an unexpected way for his elevation to the archiepiscopal throne. Eudoxia and the party now trium- phant wanted for their new archbishop a facile tool, under whose authority they might shelter the violence of their proceedings. Such an instrument they had in Arsacius. Moreover, his hostility to Chrysostom had been sufficiently testified at the synod of the Oak, when he appeared as a witness against him and vehemently pressed his condemna- 52 ARSENiUS tion. He was consecrated archbishop on June 27, 404. Chrysostom, on hearing of it, denounced him " as a spiritual adulterer, and a wolf in sheep's clothing " {Ep. cxxv.). The diocese soon made it plain that they regarded the new archbishop as an intruder. The churches once so thronged became empty ; with the exception of a few officials, the de- pendants of the court party, and the expect- ants of royal favour, the people of Constanti- nople refused to attend any religious assembly at which he might be expected to be present. Deserting the sacred edifices, they gathered in the outskirts of the city, and in the open air. Arsacius appealed to the emperor Arcadius, by whose orders, or rather those of Eudoxia, soldiers were sent to disperse the suburban assembhes. Those who had taken a leading part in them were apprehended and tortured, and a fierce persecution commenced of the adherents of Chrysostom. [Olympias (2)]. We learn from Sozomen (H. E. viii. 23) that Arsacius was not personally responsible for these cruel deeds ; but he lacked strength of character to offer any decided opposition to the proceedings of his clergy. They did what they pleased, and Arsacius bore the blame. His position became intolerable. In vain all the bishops and clergy who, embracing Chrysostom's cause, had refused to recognize him were driven out of the East (Nov. 18, 404). This only spread the evil more widely. The whole Western episcopate refused to acknowledge him, and pope Innocent, who had warmly espoused Chrysostom's interests, wrote to the clergy and laity of Constantinople strongly condemning the intrusion of Arsacius, and exhorting them to persevere in their adhesion to their true archbishop (Soz. H. E. vi. 22, 26). It is no cause for surprise that Arsacius's episcopate was a brief one, and that a feeble character worn out by old age should have soon given way before a storm of opposition so universal. He died Nov. 11, 405 (Socr. H. E. vi. 19 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 23, 26 ; Phot. C. 59 ; Pallad. Dial. c. xi. ; Chrys. Ep. cxxv.). [E.V.] Arsenius, called "the Great," one of the most famous of the monks of Egypt. He was of high Roman family ; born probably in 354. He was deeply read in Greek literature. About 383, Theodosius the Great being de- sirous of finding a suitable instructor for his sons Arcadius and Honorius, the elder of whom was then about six years old, Arsenius was recommended to him, it is said, by the Roman bishop, and in this way came into the service of the best of the Christian Caesars. The time that Arsenius spent at the court came to an end when he was forty years old, in 394. A thoughtful and high-souled Roman Christian living under the ascendancy of Rufinus might not unnaturally be impelled towards monastic seclusion by sheer disgust and despair as to the prospects of so-called Christian society. He gave up his charge, in obedience, as he said, to a voice which bade him " fly from men, if he would be safe." Arsenius, arriving at the monastic wilder- ness of Scetis, begged the clergy there to put him in the way of salvation by making him a monk. They took him to abbot John Colobus (the Dwarfish), who in^■ited them to a meal : ARTEMON, ARTEMONITES Arsenius was kept standing while they sat ; a biscuit was flung at him, which he ate in a kneeling posture. " He will make a monk," said John; and Arsenius stayed with him until he had learned enough of the monastic life from John's teaching, and then established himself as a hermit in Scetis, where he con- tinued forty years. His love of solitude became intense ; the inward voice had seemed to bid him " be silent, be quiet," if he would keep innocency. One visitor he even drove away with stones ; he discouraged the visits of Theophilus the archbp. ; and when a high- born Roman lady visited him during one of his occasional sojourns outside the desert, her request to be remembered in his prayers was met by the brusque expression of a hope that he might be able to forget her. Whenever he came into a church he hid himself behind a pillar ; he even shrank at times from his brother hermits, remarking that the ten thousands of angels had but one will, but men had many. But with all his sternness, which was coup'led with more than the usual mon- astic austerities, Arsenius could be cordial, and even tender. His humility was worthy of a follower of Anthony. He was heard to cry aloud in his cell, " Forsake me not, God ! I have done no good in Thv sight, but, in Thy goodness, grant me to make a begin- ning." A very famous saying of his referred to faults of the tongue : " Often have I been sorry for having spoken — never for having been silent." The Exhortation to Monks, ascribed to him (Combefis, Gr. Patr. Auc- tarium, i. 301 ; Galland, Biblioth. vii. 427), exhibits the results of deep spiritual experi- ence. It warns the monk not to forget that his great work is not the cleansing of the outer life, but of the inner man : spiritual sins, iiot carnal only, have to be conquered ; many a good action has, through the tempter's sublety, become the door to unexpected evil ; many who have thought their battle with sin accomphshed have relapsed through the perilous hearing of other men's sin : " we must keep guard all round." In 434 Arsenius left Scetis, driven forth by an irruption of the Mazici. He stayed at Troe, near Memphis, until 444 ; then spent three years at the little island (not the city) of Canopus ; returned to Troe for the two remaining years of his long monastic Ufe. The Greek church honours him as " our Father, Arsenius the Great," on May 8 ; the Latin, on Julv 19. [vv.b.] Artemon, Artemonites, belong to that class of ante-Nicene Monarchians, or Anti- trinitarians, who saw in Christ a mere man filled with divine power. Of Artemon, or Artemas, we know very httle. He taught in Rome at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd cent., and was excommunicated by pope Zephyrinus (202-217), who, as we learn from the Philosophumena of Hippolytus, favoured the opposite error of Patripassianism. He declared the doctrine of the divinity of Christ to be an innovation dating from the time of ZephjTinus, the successor of Victor, and a relapse into heathen polytheism. He asserted that Christ was a mere man, but born of a virgin, and superior in virtue to the prophets. The Artemonites were charged ASTERroS with placing Euclid above Christ, ami ab.m- donitig the Scriptures for dialectics and mathe- matics. This indicates a critical or sceptical turn of mind. The views of .\rtemon wore afterwards more fully developed bv Paul of Samosata, who is sometimes counteil with the Arteraonites. The sources of our fragmentary infonnation are Eusebius, Hist. Keel. v. 28 ; Epiphanius, Haer. Ixv. 1,4; Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 4 ; Photius. Bihlioth. 48. Cf. Schleier- macher's essay on the Sabellian and Athanasian conceptions of the Trinity (M'or/!5, vol. ii.), and Domer's Entwicklungs^eschichte dcr L. v. d. Person Christi, 2nd e'd. i. 50S ff. [p.s.] Asterlus (1), a bp. of Arabia (called bp. of Petra, Tomwi ad .Aniioch. § lo). He accom- panied the Eusebians to the council of Sar- dica, but separated himself from them along with bp. Arius or Macarius (who by some confusion is also called bp. of Petra), com- plaining of the violent treatment to which the deputies had been subjected, with the view of driving them into supporting the Eusebian faction (Theod. ii. 8). The Eusebians soon had their revenge, and the two bishops were banished to Upper Libya, where they endured much suffering (.\than. Hist. Arian. § iS ; .Apol. § 48). On the promulgation of the edict of Julian, recalling all the banished bishops, Asterius returned, and (a.d. 362) took part in the important council summoned by the newly restored Athanasius at Alex- andria, for the purpose of promoting union between the orthodox and those who, without embracing the errors of Arius, had held communion with the Arian party. One of the chief subjects that came before this synod was the unhappy schism at Antioch between the Eustathians and the Meletians. [Luci- FERUS (1); Meletius; Paulinus (6).] On the singular fact that the name of Asterius, to- gether with that of Eusebius of Vercelli, is found among those to whom this letter is addressed, as well as among those by whom it was written, of which it is difficult to give a satisfactory explanation, cf. Tillemont, Mem. viii. p. 707; Baronius, Ann. sub. ann. 362, S219. [E.V.] Asterias (2), bp. of Amasea in Pontus, a contemporary of St. Chrysostom. He him- self tells us that his teacher was a certain Scythian (i.e. Goth), who, having been sold in his youth to a citizen of Antioch, a school- master, had made marvellous progress under his owner's instructions, and won himself a great name among Greeks and Romans (Phot. Bibl. 271, p. 1500). Beyond this not a single incident in his life is recorded. His date, how- ever, is fixed by allusions to contemporary events in his Homilies. He speaks of the apostasy of Julian as having happened within his memory (.Aster. Or. 3, p. 56, ed. Combefis) ; and in his sermon on the Festival of the Calends [Or. 4, p. 76) he mentions the consulate and fall of Eutropius as an event of the pre- ceding year. This sermon therefore must have been delivered on New Year's Day, 400. Elsewhere he spoke of himself as a man of very advanced age (Phot. Amphil. 125 [312]). The extant works of Asterius consist almost solely of sermons or homilies. Of these we possess twenty-two perfect ; twelve on various subjects included in the edition of Combefis ATHANASIUS .53 (Paris, i(.4S) ; eight on the Psalms, .>f which one is fouiul among the works of St. Chrysos- tom, and the renaaining seven wore published by Cotelier, Mou. Eccl. Grace, ii. (Pans, 1688) ; and two again on other subjects, which arc published among the works of Gregory Nyssen, but must be assigned to Asterius on the authority of Photius. Besides these Photius (Bibl. 271) gives extracts from several others. In addition to these homilies, a Life of his predecessor, St. Basil of Amasea, printed in the .ic'.a Sanctorum, April 26, is ascribed to him. A complete collection of his works will be found in Migne's Patr. Gk. xl. ; a complete list in Fabric. Bibl. Gk. ix. 513 seq. ed. Harlcs. An account of their contents is given by Tillemont, x. 400 seq. Asterius was a student of Demosthenes (Or. II, p. 207), and himself no mean orator. His best sermons (for they are somewhat uneven) display no inconsiderable skill in rhetoric, great power of expression, and great earnest- ness of moral conviction ; and some passages are even strikingly eloquent. His orthodoxy was unquestioned. Photius (Amphil. I.e.) contrasts him with his Arian namesake, as stanch in the faith, devoting himself to the care of his flock, and setting an example of a virtuous and godly life. His authority was quoted with great respect in later ages, more especially during the Iconoclastic controversy at the second council of Nicaea, when with a play on his name he was referred to as "a bright star (astrum) illumining the minds of all" (Labbe, Cone. viii. 1385, 1387, ed. Coleti). Bardenhewer (1008) refers to a Svllogehistoriea on Asterius by V. de Buck in Acta SS. Oct. (Paris, 1883), xiii. 330-332. [l.] Athanasius, St., archbp. of Alexandria. The life of Athanasius divides itself naturally into seven sections, respectively terminated by (i) his consecration; (2) his first exile; (3) his second exile ; (4) his second return ; (5) his third exile ; (6) his fourth exile ; (7) his death. (i) He was born at Alexandria, and had but scanty private means (Apol. c. Ar. 51 ; Socr. iv. 13). We must date his birth c. 296 ; not earlier, because he had no personal remem- brance of the persecution under Maximian in 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), and w^ as comparatively a yoimg man when consecrated bishop, soon after the Nicene council ; not later, because he received some theological instruction from persons who suffered in the persecution under Maximian II. in 311 (de Incarn. 56), and the first two of his treatises appear to have been written before 319. There can be no reason to doubt that Athanasius became an inmate of bp. Alexander's house, as his companion and secretary (Soz. ii. 17). The position involved great advan- tages. The place held by Alexander as " successor of St. Mark," and occupant of " the Evangelical throne," was second in the Christian hierarchy : we may call the bps. of Alexandria in the 4th cent., for conveni- ence' sake, archbishops or patriarchs, al- though the former name was then very rarely applied to them, and the latter not at all, and they were frequently designated, though not in contradistinction to all other prelates, by the title of Papas (pope), or " dear father." 54 ATHANASIUS Their ]io\ver throughout the churches of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis was, by ancient custom, which the Nicene council afterwards confirmed, almost monarchical, extending over about a hundred bishops, who revered their judgments as the decisions of the see of Rome were revered in Italv. One experience of a different kind, most fruitful in its con- sequences, was Athanasius's acquaintance with the great hermit Anthony. He tells us, in his Life of Anlhnnv, that he often saw him ; and although that reading of the conclusion of the preface, which makes him say that " he himself for some time attended on him, and poured water on his hands," may be con- sidered doubtful, yet we know that he was afterwards spoken of as " the ascetic," and that when, years later, he took shelter in the cells of the monks of Egypt, he found himself perfectly at home. He contracted an admir- ation for monasticism, which will not surprise those who remember that the spiritual inten- sity of the Christian life had found a most emphatic, though a one-sided expression, in the lives of men who fled, like Anthony, from a society at once tainted and brutalized beyond all modern conception. [Antonius.] TThe two essays of Athanasius, Against the Gentiles and On the Incarnation, which form one complete work addressed to a convert from heathenism, cannot be dated later than the end of 318 ; for they make no reference to the Arian controversy which broke out in 319. Dorner, in his work On the Person of Christ, has given a resume of their argument on the threefold subject of God, man, and the Incar- nate Word ; and Mohler calls the book on the Incarnation " the first attempt that had been made to present Christianity and the chief circumstances of the Ufe of Jesus Christ under a scientific aspect. By the sure tact of his noble and Christian nature, everything is referred to the Person of the Redeemer : everything rests upon Him : He appears throughout." The young author seems to have been ordained deacon about this time, and placed in the position of chief among the Alexandrian deacons. Among the clergy who joined the archbishop in calling on Arlus to retract, and who afterwards assented to his deposition, was the young archdeacon of Alexandria (see the Benedictine Athanasius, i. 396 seq.). In this spirit he attended Alex- ander to the Nicene council in 325. In that assembly he is represented by Gregory of Nazianzum {Orat. 21) as " foremost among those who were in attendance on bishops," and as " doing his utmost to stay the plague." His writings may assure us of the argument which he would maintain : that the real Divinity of the Saviour was (i) as- serted in many places of Scripture, (ii) involved in the notion of His unique Sonship, (iii) re- quired by the Divine economy of redemption, and (iv) attested by the immemorial conscious- ness of the church. And although, as he himself informs us, the council would willingly have confined themselves to purely Scriptural terms {de Deer. 19) if their legitimate sense could have been bond fide admitted ; although too he was far from imagining that any form or expression of human thought would adequately represent a Divine mystery ; yet ATHANASIUS his convictions went thoroughly with the adoption of the term " Homoousion " or " co- essential," explained, as it was, in a sense which made it simply equivalent to " truly Son of God," and proposed as a test of adher- ence to the Scriptural Christology. And if we are to understand his mind at the close of the council, we must say that he regarded its proceedings as something done, in fact, " for the rightful honour of Jesus." Nothing was to him more certain than that Jesus was, in tlie full force of the words, God Incarnate ; that Arianism was essentially a denial, and the " Homoousion " the now authenticated symbol, of His claim on men's absolute devotion ; and that it was infinitely worth while to go through any amount of work or suffering in defence of such a truth, and in the cause of such a Master. More work was near at hand, and suffering was not far off. A solemn and touching in- cident of Alexander's last moments is con- nected with the history of Athanasius, who was then absent from Alexandria. The dying man, while his clergy stood around him, called for Athanasius. One of those present, also bearing that name, answered, but was not noticed by the archbishop, who again repeated the name, and added, " You think to escape — but it cannot be." Some time appears to have elapsed between his death and the assembling of the Egyptian bishops to con- secrate a successor. An encyclical letter of these same Egyptian prelates proclaimed to all Christendom, some years later, that a majority of them had elected Athanasius in the presence, and amid the applause, of the whole Alexandrian laity, who for nights and days persevered in demanding him as " the good, pious, ascetic Christian," who would prove a " genuine bishop," and prayed aloud to Christ for the fulfilment of their desire (Apol. c. Ar. 6). It was granted ; and then, in the words of Gregory, " by the suffrages of the whole people, and not by those vile methods, afterwards prevalent, of force and bloodshed, but in a manner apostolic and spiritual, was Athanasius elevated to the throne of Mark," some time after the begin- ning of May in 326, and very probably on June 8. (2) From his Consecration (326) to his First Exile (336). — At the outset of his archiepisco- pate is to be placed the organization of the church in Ethiopia or Abyssinia by his con- secration of Frumentius as bp. of Axum. [Edesius.] Another event of these com- paratively quiet times was Athanasius's visitation of the Thebaid, a region where much trouble was being caused by the Arians, and by the Meletians, who resisted his earnest efforts to repress their separatist tendency. Now began the troubles from which the Arians never suffered Athanasius to rest till the last hour of his life. It was probably in 330 that he had his first severe experience of their hatred. After the Nicene council, Constantine had become a zealot for ortho- doxy, and Eusebius of Nicomedia had been exiled. But Eusebius had procured his recall by orthodox professions ; it may have been by his means that Arius himself was recalled, perhaps in Nov. 330. Eusebius now entered ATHANASIUS iiit" a league with the Meletiaiis of Egypt, of uhmn a bishop named John Arcaph was the h. .1(1. " He bought them," says Athanasius, • l>v large promises, and arranged that they should help him on any emergency " by that m.ii-hincry of false accusation which they had .ilroady employed against three archbishops. Tlie charges were not to be theological : to .ittack Athanasius's teaching would be to (Itclare against the Nicene doctrine, and this was a step on which Eusebius could not \<iiture. He began by writing to Athanasius in behalf of .\rius, and urging that, as a man \vl\ose opinions had been seriously niisrepre- >. iited, he ought in justice to be received to I liurch communion. Athanasius's answer shows the ground on which he took his stand. "It cannot be right to admit persons to com- iniuiinn who invented a heresy contrary to t'i>- truth, and were anathematized by the imenical council." It is probable that Fleury thinks, though Tillemont and . iiuier date it much later) we should refer to I ins period the visit of Anthony to Alexandria [Vtt. Ant. 69), when he confounded the Arians' ' report that he " agreed with them." This would be a great support to Athanasius. But Eusebius had recourse to Coustantine, who thereupon wrote, commanding Athanasius to admit into the church " all who desired it," I on pain of being removed from his see by sheer I State power. This gave him an opportunity I of laying before Constantine his own views of j his duty. " There could be no fellowship," he wrote, " between the Catholic church of i Christ and the heresy that was fighting against Him." Not long afterwards, in compliance with instructions from Eusebius, three Mele- tians, Ision, Eudaemon, and Callinicus, ap- peared before the emperor at Nicomedia with ! a charge against Athanasius that he had assumed the powers of the government by taxing Egypt to provide linen vestments for the church of Alexandria. But two of Athanasius's priests, happening to be at court, at once refuted this calumny ; and 1 Constantine wrote to Athanasius, condemning ; his accusers, and summoning him to Nicome- ' dia. Eusebius, however, persuaded the ac- j cusers to meet him on his arrival with a bolder I charge : "he had sent a purse of gold to 1 Philumenus, a rebel." This, being easily i overthrown, was at once followed up by the j famous story of the broken chalice. A certain j Isch\Tas, a layman pretending to the character of a presbyter, officiated at a little hamlet 1 called " the Peace of Sacontarurum," in the ; Mareotis ; Athanasius, being informed of this ' while on a visitation tour, sent a priest named I Macarius, with the actual pastor of the dis- i trict, to summon Ischyras before him, but ' found him ill. Isch^Tas, on recovering, . attached himself to the Meletians, who, re- , solving to use him as a tool, made him declare j that Macarius had found him in church I " ofifering the oblations," had thrown down I the holy table, broken the chalice, and burnt I the church books ; of which sacrilege Athan- I asius was to share the responsibilitv. But Athanasius was able to prove before Constan- tine at Nicomedia, early in 332, that, point by point, it was a falsehood. About mid-Lent he returned home with a letter from Constantine ATHANASIUS 55 reprobating his enemies .iiul praising him as " a man of God " ; whereupon Ischyras came to him, asking to be received into the church, and piteously protesting that the Meletians had set him on to assert a falsehood. But he was not admitted to conmiunion ; and the story was ere long revived in an aggravated form — Athanasius himself being now called the perpetrator of the outrage (Apol. 62, 6.1, 2S. 74. 17, 63, 68). A darker ]ilot followed. John Arcaph per- suaded a Meletian bishop, named Arsenius, to go into hiding. A rumour was then spread that he had been murdered, and dismembered for purposes of magic, by Athanasius, in proof of which the Meletians exhibited a dead man's hand (Apol. 63, 42 ; Socr. i. 27 ; Soz. ii. 25 ; Theod. i. 30). The emperor was persuaded to think it a case for inquiry. Athanasius received a summons to appear at Antiorh and stand his trial. At first ho disdained to take any steps, but afterwards sent a deacon to search for the missing Arseiuus. The deacon ascertained that Arsenius was concealed in a monastery at Ptemencyrcis, on the eastern side of the Nile. Before he could arrive there the superior sent off Arsenius, but was himself arrested by the deacon, and obliged to confess " that Arsenius was alive." At Tyre Arsenius was discovered. Constantine stopped the proceedings at Antioch on hearing of this exposure, and sent Athanasius a letter, to be read frequently in public, in which the Meletians were warned that any fresh offences would be dealt with by the emperor in person, and according to the civil law (Apol. 9, 68). The slandered archbishop had now a breathing-time. Arcaph himself " came into the church," announced to Constantine his reconciliation with Athanasius, and received a gracious reply ; while Arsenius sent to his " blessed pope " a formal renunciation of schism, and a promise of canonical obedience {Apol. 66, 17, 70, 69, 8, 27). But the faction had not repented. Eusebius persuaded Constantine that such grave scand- als as the recent charges ought to be examined in a council ; and that Caesarea would be the fitting place. There a council met in 334 (see Tillemont, Ath. a. 15 ; cf. Festal. Epp. index, for a.d. 334). Athanasius, expecting no justice from a synod held under such circumstances, persisted, Sozomen says (ii. 25), " for thirty months " in his refusal to attend. Being at last peremptorily ordered by Con- stantine to attend a council which was to meet at Tyre, he obeyed, in the summer of 335, and was attended by about fifty of his suffragans. Athanasius saw at once that his enemies were dominant ; the presiding bishop, Flacillus of Antioch, was one of an Arian succession. Some of the charges Athanasius at once confuted ; as to others he demanded time. Incredible as it may seem, the dead man's hand was again exhibited. Athanasius led forward a man with downcast face, closely muffled ; then, bidding him raise his head, looked round and asked, " Is not this Ar- senius ? " The identity was undeniable. He drew from behind the cloak first one hand, and then, after a pause, the other ; and remarked with triumphant irony, " I suppose no one thinks that God has given to any man 56 ATHANASIUS more hands than two." The case of the broken chalice now remained ; it was resolved to send a commission of inquiry to the Mare- otis. Ischvras accompanied the commis- sioners, as " a sharer in lodging, board, and wine-cup " ; they opened their court in the Mareotis. It appeared in evidence that no books had been burned, and that Isch>Tas had been too ill to officiate on the day of the alleged sacrilege. An inquiry of such an ex parte character called forth indignant protests from the Alexandrian and Mareotic clergy, one of the documents bearing the date Sept. 7, 335. The commissioners, disregarding remonstrance, returned to Tyre (Apol. 27, 73-76, 17, 15). Athanasius, regarding the proceedings of the council of Tyre as akeady vitiated {Apol. 82), resolved, without waiting for the judgment of such an assembly, " to make a bold and dangerous experiment, whether the throne was inaccessible to the voice of truth." Attended bv five of his suffragans, he took the first vessel for Constantinople, and suddenly presented himself in the middle of the road when the emperor was riding into the city. Constantine, on learning who he \yas, and what was his errand, tried to pass him by in silence ; but Athanasius firmly stood his ground. "Either summon a lawful council, or give me opportunity of meeting my accusers in your presence." The request was con- ceded. The bishops of the council, after receiving their commissioners' report, had by a majority condemned Athanasius, and then pronounced Arius orthodox on the ground of a doctrinal statement made five years earlier, when they were startled by an imperial letter expressing suspicion of their motives, and summoning them to Constantinople. Many of them, in alarm, fled homewards ; but the two Eusebii, Theognis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius repaired to court, and, saying nothing of " the chalice," or the report of the commission, presented a new charge, like the former quasi-political ones — that Athanasius had talked of distressing Constantinople by preventing the sailing of Alexandrian corn- ships. " How could I, a private person, and poor, do anything of the kind ? " asked Athanasius. Eusebius of Nicomedia answered by affirming with an oath that Athanasius was rich and powerful, and able to do any- thing. The emperor cut short Athanasius's defence with a show of indignation ; and, perhaps not from real beUef in the charge, but by way of getting rid of the case and silencing the archbishop's enemies in his own interest, banished him to the distant city of Trier or Treves, the seat of government of his eldest son Constantine, who received the exile with much kindness, in Feb. 336. (3) Frofn his First Exile {336) to his Second (340). — His life at Treves, including nearly two years and a half, was an interval of rest, much needed and doubtless invigorating, between the storms of the past and those of the future. He had now to " stand and wait " — a new experience for him. He was " abundantly suppUed with all necessaries " (Constantine II. in Apol. 87) ; he had the friendship of Maxi- min, the orthodox bp. of Treves, afterwards canonized ; he had with him some Egyptian ATHANASIUS " brethren," and kept up a correspondriu e with his friends at home, although at the risk of having his letters seized. For more than a year Constantine's death produced no change in Athanasius's position ; but at length, on June 17, 338, Constantine II., who in the partition of the empire had a certain precedency over his brothers Con- stantius and Constans, the sovereigns of the East and of Italy, wrote from Treves to the Catholics of Alexandria, announcing that he had resolved, in fulfilment of an intention of his father, to send back Athanasius, of whose character he expressed high admiration (Apol. 87). In this he appears to have presumed his brother's consent, and to have then taken Athanasius with him to Viminacium, an important town of Moesia Superior, on the high-road to Constantinople. Here the three emperors had a meeting, and all concurred in ' the restoration of Athanasius, who, after pass- ing through Constantinople, saw Constantius j a second time, at a farther point on his homeward journey, at Caesarea in Cappadocia (Apol. ad Const. 5 ; Hist. Ar. 8). His arrival at Alexandria, in Nov. 338, was hailed by popular rejoicing : the churches resounded with thanksgivings, and the clergy " thought it the happiest day of their Hves." But his enemies bestirred themselves, and " did not shrink from long journeys " in order to press on the emperors new charges against him — that he had misappropriated the corn granted by the late emperor for charitable purposes in Egypt and Libya, and that the day of his re- turn had been signalized by bloodshed. Con- stantius wrote to him in anger, assuming the truth of the former charge ; but Athanasius was successful in disproving both. However, Constantius— who was so soon to be " his scourge and torment " (Hooker, v. 42, 2) — fell more and more under the influence of his great enemy Eusebius, now transferred from Nico- media to the see of Constantinople, which had been forcibly vacated by the second expulsion of the orthodox Paul. The Eusebians now resumed a project which had been found im- practicable, while Constantine lived ; this was i to place on " the Evangelical throne " an I Arian named Pistus, who had been a priest I under Alexander, had been deposed by him for adhering to Arius, and had been conse- crated, as it seems [Apol. 24), by a notorious Arian bishop named Secundus. It was argued that Athanasius had offended against all eccle- siastical principles by resuming his see in defiance of the Tyrian'sentence, and by virtue of mere secular authority. The charge did not come well from a party which had leaned so much on the court and the State ; but it must be allowed that Athanasius's return had given some colour to the objection, although he doubtless held that the assembly at Tyre had forfeited all moral right to be respected as a council. By way of harassing Athanasius, the Eusebians, apparently about this time, made Isch>Tas a bishop, after obtaining an order in the name of the emperor that a church should be built for him — an oider which failed to procure him a congregation {Apol. 12, 85). The Eusebians now applied to the West in behalf of their nominee Pistus. Three clergy appeared as their envoys before Julius, bp. of ATHANASIUS Kninr ; on the othor liaiui, Atli.iii.isius mmiI to Rome presbyters to state his rase, and an iiicvclir — the invaluable ilocunient which has inrnished us with so niiich inforniatii>n — from the holv svnod assembled at Alexandria ont t Egypt, thebais, Libya, and Pentapolis," :uposed, says Atlianasius, of nearly loo !■ Kites. At Rome his envoys gave such - ulcnce respecting Pistus as to cause the - iiior of the Eusebian envoys to decamp by insht in spite of an indisposition. His coni- panions asked Julius to convoke a council, and to act, if he pleased, as judge. He aicordingly invited both parties to a council, I > be held where Athanasius should choose, rhus matters stood about the end of 339. Early in 340 a new announcement disquieted the Alexandrian church. It was notified in a formal edict of the prefect that not Pistus, but a Cappadocian named Gregory, was com- ing from the court to be installed as bishop {Encycl. 2). This, says Athanasius, was con- sidered an unheard-of wrong. The churches were more thronged than ever ; the people, in great excitement, and with passionate out- .ries, called the magistrates and the whole city tii witness that this attack on their legitimate bishop proceeded from the mere wantonness of Arian hatred. Ciregory, they knew, was an Arian, and therefore acceptable to the Euse- bian party : he was a fellow-countryman of Philagrius. Philagrius attacked the church • f St. (Juirinus, and encouraged a mob of the west townspeople and of savage peasants to ■ rpetrate atrocious cruelties and profana- u ms. Athanasius was residing in the pre- . incts of the church of St. Theonas : he knew that he was specially aimed at, and, in hope of preventing further outrage, he withdrew from the city to a place of concealment in the neighbourhood, where lie busied himself in preparing an encyclic to give an account of these horrors. This was on March 19. Four days later Gregory is said to have " entered the city as bishop." Athanasius, after hastily completing and dispatching his encyclic, sailed for Rome in the Easter season of 340, some weeks after Constantine II. had been slain during his invasion of Italy. (4) From his Second Exile (^40) to his Second Return (346). — After Julius had welcomed Athanasius, he sent two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus, in the early summer of 340, to repeat his invitation to the Eusebian prelates, to fix definitely the next December as the time of the proposed council, and Rome as the place. Athanasius received much kindness from the emperor's aunt. Entropion, and from many others {Ap. ad Const. 417 ; cf. Fest. Ep. 13). He had with him two Egyptian monks. Their presence in the city, and Athanasius's enthusiasm for Anthony and other types of monastic saintliness, made a strong impression on the Roman church society, and abated the prejudices there exist- ing against the very name of monk, and the disgust at a rude and strange exterior. In fact, Athanasius's three years (340-343) at Rome had two great historic results, "(a) The Latin church, which became his "scholar" as well as his " loyal partisan," was confirmed by the spell of his master-mind " in its adhesion to orthodoxy, although it did not ATHANASIUS 57 iiubihc fioiu liiiu the theological spirit"; and (/>) when Gibbon says that " .Vthanasius intro- duced into Rome the knowledge and practice of the monastic life," he records the origination of a vast European movement, and represents the great Alexandrian exile as the spiritual ancestor of Benedict, of Bernard, and of the countless founders and reformers of " re- ligious " communities in the West. Meantime Elpidius and Philoxenus had discharged their errand. The liusebians at Antioch, finding that .Athanasius was at Rome, and that the council to which they were invited would be a free ecclesiastical assembly, detained the Roman legates beyond the time specified, and then dismissed them with the excuse that Constantius was occupied with his Persian war. At the same time they stimulated Philagrius and Gregory to new severities. Orthodox bishops were scourged and imprisoned ; Potammon never recovered from his stripes ; Sarapammon, another confessor-bishop, was exiled {Hist. Ar. 12). The letters of Alexandrians to Athanasius, consolatory as proofs of their affection, gave mournful accounts of torture and robbery, of hatred towards himself shewn in persecution of his aunt, of countenance shewn to Gregory by the " duke " Balacius ; and some of these troubles were in his mind when, early in 341, he wrote " from Rome " his Festal Letter for the year. That year had begun without any such settlement of his case as had been hoped for at Rome. December had passed, and no council could be held, for the Eusebians had not arrived. January came, and at last the legates returned, the unwilling bearers of a letter so offensive that Juhus "resolved to keep it to himself, in the hope that some Eusebians" would even yet arrive (Apol. 24) and render the public reading of it unneces- sary. No one came. On the contrary, the Eusebians resolved to take advantage of the approaching dedication of a new cathedral at Antioch, " the Golden Church," in order to hold a council there. Accordingly, ninety- seven bishops, many of whom were rather negatively than positively heterodox, as- sembled on this occasion, apparently in Aug. 341. Constantius was present. The sentence passed against Athanasius at Tyre was af- firmed ; several canons were passed ; and three creeds were framed, in language partly vague and general, partly all but reaching the Nicene standard (cf. Newman, Arians, c. 4, s. I ; cf. Athan. Treatises, i. 105 seq.). This business necessarily lasted some time ; and no information as to this council had reached Rome when, in Nov. 341, Athanasius having now been waiting at Rome for eighteen months (Apol. 29), Julius assembled the long- delayed council, consisting of more than fifty bishops, in the church of the presbyter Vito. Athanasius's case was fully examined ; Ath- anasius was formally i)ronounced innocent ; his right to brotherly treatment and church communion — admitted from the first by the Roman bishop — was solemnly recognized by the Italian council. The year 342 is not eventful in his history. Constans had shewn himself friendly to Athanasius, who at his request had sent him from Alexandria some bound copies of the Scriptures [A p. ad Const. 4). 58 ATHANASIUS Narcissus, Maris, and two other prelates ap- peared before Constans at Treves, spoke in support of the decisions against Athanasius, and presented a creed which might, at first sight, appear all but to confess the " Homo- ousion." But Constans, doubtless swayed by bp. Maxiinin, who would not admit the Eastern envoys to communion, dismissed them from his presence (Athan. de Syn. 25 ; Soz. iii. 10 ; Hil. Fragm. iii. 27). Athanasius remained at Rome until the summer of 343, when, " in the fourth year" from his arrival, he received a letter from Constans, bv which he was ordered to meet him at Milai'i (Ap. ad Const. 3, 4)- Surprised at the summons, he inquired as to its probable cause, and learned that some bishops had been urging Constans to propose to Constan- tius the assembling of a new council, at which East and West might be represented. On arriving at the great capital of Northern Italy, which was to be so memorably associated with the struggle between the church and Arianism, he was admitted, with Protasius, bp. of Milan, behind the veil of the audience-chamber, and received with " much kindness " by Constans, who told him that he had already written to his brother, " requesting that a council might be held." Athanasius left Milan immediately afterwards, being desired by Constans to come into Gaul, in order to meet Hosius, the ven- erated bp. of Cordova, and accompany him to the council, which both sovereigns had now agreed to assemble on the frontier line of their empires, at the Moesian city of Sardica. And there, about the end of 343, some 170 prelates met, a small majority being Westerns. It soon appeared that united action was impossible. The majority, ignoring the councils of TjTe and Antioch, and treating the whole case as open, could not but regard Athanasius as innocent, or, at least, as not yet proved guilty ; and he " joined them in celebrating the Divine mysteries " (Hil. Fragm. iii. 14). The Eusebian minority, on reaching Sardica, had simply announced their arrival, and then shut themselves up in the , lodgings provided for them at the palace, and refused to join their brethren until the persons ' whom they denounced as convicted men should be deprived of seats in the council. The answer was, that the council was pre- pared to go into all the cases which could be submitted to it : each party would be free to implead the other. The Eusebian bishops, although urged to confront their adversaries, withdrew from Sardica and established them- selves as a council at Philippopolis within the Eastern empire, renewed the sentences against Athanasius, put forth new ones against Julius, Hosius, and others, drew up an encyclic, and [ adopted a creed (Apol. 36, 45, 48 ; Hist. Ar. 15, 16, 44 ; Hil. de Syji. 34 ; Fragm. 3). The pre- lates at Sardica proceeded with their inquiry, recognized the innocence of Athanasius, and excommunicated eleven Eusebian bishops, as men who " separated the Son from the Father, and so merited separation from the Catholic church." They enacted several canons, in- cluding the famous one providing for a reference, in certain circumstances, to " Julius, bp. of Rome," in " honour of Peter's mem- ory," so that he might make arrangements ATHANASIUS for the rehearing of a prelate's cause. It need hardly be added that they would have no creed but the Nicene. They wrote letters of sympathy to the suffragans of Athanasius and the churchmen of Alexandria, urging the faithful " to contend earnestly for the sound faith and the innocence of Athanasius." The bold line taken at Sardica provoked the advisers of Constantius to fresh severities ; and the Alexandrian magistrates received orders to behead Athanasius, or certain of his clergy expressly named, if they should conn; near the city. Athanasius, still kept under the emperor's ban, had gone from Sardica to Naissus, and thence, at the invitation of Constans, to Aquileia. There, in company with the bp. Fortunatian, he was admitted to more than one audience ; and whenever Constans mentioned Constantius, he replied in terms respectful towards the latter. Con- stans peremptorily, and even with a threat of civil war, urged his brother to reinstate Athanasius (Socr. ii. 22). The death of Gre- gory, about Feb. 345 {Hist. Ar. 21), gave Constantius an occasion for yielding the point. He therefore wrote to Athanasius, affecting to be solicitous of the Western emperor's assent to an act of his own free clemency. He wrote two other letters {Apol. 51 ; Hist. Ar. 22), and employed six " counts " to write encour- agingly to the exile ; and Athanasius, after receiving these letters at Aquileia, made up his mind, at last, to act on those assurances ; but not until Constantius could tell Constans that he had been " expecting Athanasius for a year." Invited by Constans to Treves, Athanasius made a diversion on his journey in order to see Rome again ; it was some six years since he had been cordially welcomed by JuUus, who now poured forth his generous heart in a letter of congratulation for the Alexandrian church, one of the most beautiful documents in the whole Athanasian series. Julius dwelt on the well-tried worth of Athan- asius, on his own happiness in gaining such a friend, on the steady faith which the Alex- andrians had exhibited, on the rapture with which they would celebrate his return ; and concluded by invoking for his " beloved brethren" the blessings " which eye had not seen, nor ear heard." * Athanasius travelled northward about midsummer ; visited Con- stans, passed through Hadrianople {Hist. Ar. 18), proceeded to Antioch, and saw Constan- tius for the third time {Ap. ad Const. 5). The reception was gracious : the emperor valued himself on his impassive demeanour (Ammian. xvi. 10). Athjmasius, without viUfying his enemies, firmly desired leave to confront them {Ap. ad Const. I.e. ; Hist. Ar. 22, 44). " No," said Constantius, " God knows, I will never again credit such accusations ; and all records of past charges shall be erased." This latter promise he at once fulfilled, by orders sent to the authorities in Egypt ; and he ^\Tote letters in favour of the' archbishop to the clergy of Egypt and the laity of Alexandria. One thing he asked, that Athanasius would allow the Alexandrian Arians a single church. Athanasius promptly replied that he would do so, if a church might be granted at Antioch to * Apol. 55. Socrates (ii. 23) inserts eulogistic phrases which Athanasius's text does not give. ATHANASIUS the " Eustathiau " Ixuly. which held aloof from the crypto- Ariaii bp. Lcontiiis, and whose services, held in a house, lie had been attend- ing. The emperor would have agreed to this, but his advisers stood in the way.* From Antioch Athanasius proceeded to Jerusalem, where an orthodox council met to do him honour, and to congratulate his church. And now lie had but to return home and enjoy the welcome which that church was eager to give. This he did, acconling to the Festal Index, on Oct. 21 (Paophi 24), 3.tC. We see in Gregory Nazianzen's panegyric a picture of the vast mass of population, dis- tributed into its several classes, and streaming latth, " like another Nile," to meet him at some distance from Alexandria ; the faces gazing from every eminence at the well-known team, the ears strained to catch his accents, the voices rising in emulous plaudits, the hands clapping, the air fragrant with incense, the city festal with banquets and blazing with illuminations — all that made this return of Athanasius in aftor-times the standard for any -pltMuiid popul.ir display. (5) From his Si-cotul Return (346) to his Third ;:..nV^ (^36).— His 19th Festal Letter, for 347. begins with a thanksgiving for having been " brought from distant lands." The Egyptian prelates, in council, received the decrees of Sardica. More than 400 bishops of different countries, including Britain, were now in communion with Athanasius ; he had a mul- titude of their " letters of peace " to answer. Many persons in Egypt who had sided with the Arians came by night to him with their excuses : it was a time " of deep and wondrous peace" (Hist. At. 25), which lasted for a few years. Valens and Ursacius had already, it seems, anathematized Arianism before a council at Milan ; but they deemed it ex- pedient to do more. In 347 they appeared at Rome, and presented to Julius a humble apologetic letter, having already written in a different strain to Athanasius, announcing that they were " at peace with him." t He believed at the time that they were sincere ; thev afterwards ascribed their act to fear of Con'stans (Hist. Ar. 29). This motive, if it existed, was ere long removed ; the revolt of Magnentius brought Constans to an ignomini- ous death at the foot of the P>Tenees, in Feb. 350. This tragedy was a severe shock to Athanasius. He received, indeed, letters from Constantius, assuring him of continued favour, and encouraging him to pursue his episcopal work. The .-Mexandrian authorities were also commanded to suppress any " plot- ting against Athanasius." Thereupon in pre- sence of high state officers, including the • See Socr. ii. 23, Soz. iii. 20. They were called after bp. Eustathius (Hist. Ar. 4), deposed by Arians in 330. For Leontius, see de Fuua, 26 ; Theod. ii. 24 ; Hooker, v. 42, 9. Many of the orthodox continued to worship in his churches (<•.?. Flavian and Diodore). Constantius's absolute dependence on his advisers is scornfully noted in Hisl. Ar. 69, 70. t See Newman's note, Hist. Tracts, p. 86 (.-ipol. 19): cf. Apol. 2; Hisl. Ar. 26, 44. As Westerns, they naturally treated the bp. of Rome with much greater deference than the bp. of Ale.xandria ; and even in their statement to Julius they betray their distrust of Athanasius. That they should retract, from motives of policy, was for them no unnatural course : cf. Hil. Fragm. i. 20. ATHANASIUS 59 bearers of these letters, .Vthanasiiis desired his people, assembled in church, *' to pray for the safety of the most religious Constantius .\iigustus." The response was at once made, " C) Christ, help Constantius ! " (Ap. ad Const. 9, 10, 23; Hist. Ar. 24, 51). He had leisure for writing On the Nicinc Definition of Faith * and On the Opinions of Dionysius, his great predecessor in the 3rd cent., whose language, employed in controversy with Sabellianism, had been unfairly quoted in support of Arianism. t fDiONVSius.] He also brought out, at this time, what is called his Apology Of^ainst the Arians, although he afterwards made additions to it.t It may have been about this time that he chose the blind scholar Didymus, already renowned for vast and varied learning, to preside over the " Catechetical School." [Didymus.] When Magnentius sent envoys to Constantius, one of them visited Alexandria ; and Athanasius, in speaking to him of Constans, burst into tears. He at first had some apprehension of danger froni Magnentius ; but it was soon evident that his real danger was from the Arianizing ad\iscrs of Constantius. Valens and Ursacius, having now recanted their re- cantation, were ready to wea\e new plots ; and Liberius, the new bp. of Rome, was plied with letters against him, which were out- weighed, in the judgment of a Roman synod, by an encyclic of eighty Egyptian prelates ; and Rome remained faithful to his cause. (See Liberius's letter to Constantius, Hil. Fragm. 5. Another letter, in which Liberius is made to say that he had put Athanasius out of his communion for refusing to come to Rome when summoned, is justly regarded as a forgery.) This was in 352 ; and Athanasius, in May 353, thought it well to send 5 bishops (Soz. iv. 9, and Fragm. Maff.), one being his friend Serapion of Thmuis, and 3 presbyters, to disabuse Constantius of bad impressions as to his conduct. Five days later, May 23, Montanus, a " silcntiary " or palace chamber- lain, arrived with an imperial letter for- bidding him to send envoys, but granting a request for himself to go to Milan. Athanasius, detecting an attempt to decoy him, replied that as he had never made such a request, he could not think it right to use a permission granted under a misconception ; but that if the emperor sent him a definite order, he would set forth at once (Ap. ad Const. 19-21). Montanus departed ; and the next news that Athanasius received from Europe was such as to make him forget all personal danger. The Western usurper had been finally overthrown in August ; and Constantius, having gone to Aries for the • In this treatise he guards the Catholic sense of the title " Son," gives some account of the council's proceedings, and defends the language adopted by it, adducing ante-Xicene authorities. (He upholds Origen's orthodoxy.) t He urged that Dionysius had been speaking simply of Christ's Manhood (see I,iddon's Bamp. l.tcl. p. 425). : In the Hollandist I.ife (Act. .SS., May 2), the Apology acainst Arians is called the Syllogus, or collection of documents, etc., framed about 342, and afterwards appended to the Arian History "ad Monachos." The old name of Second Apology is, at all events, clearly misapplied. 60 ATHANASIUS wiater, was induced by the Arians to hold there, instead of at Aquileia, the council which Liberius and many Italian bishops had re- quested him to assemble.* The event was disastrous : Vincent, the Roman legate, was induced to join with other prelates in con- demning Athanasius ; but Paulinus of Treves had inherited Maximin's steadfastness, and preferred exile to the betrayal of a just cause. In the Lent of 354 the Alexandrian churches were so crowded that some persons suffered severely, and the people lu-ged Athanasius to allow the Easter services to be held in a large church which was still unfinished, called the Caesarean. The case was pecuUar {Ap. ad Const. 15 ; Epiph. Haer. 69, 2) : the church was being built on ground belonging to the emperor ; to use it prematurely, without his leave, might be deemed a civil offence ; to use it before dedication, an ecclesiastical im- propriety. Athanasius tried to persuade the people to put up with the existing inconveni- ence : they answered, they would rather keep Easter in the open country. Under these circumstances he gave way. The Arianizers were habitually courtiers, and ready, on occasion, to be formahsts likewise ; and this using of the undedicated imperial church was one of several charges now urged at court against their adversary, and dealt with in his Apology to Constantius ; the others being that he had stimulated Constans to quarrel with his brother, had corresponded with Magnen- tius, and that he had not come to Italy on receiving the letter brought by Montanus. A letter which Athanasius wrote before the Easter of this year, or perhaps of 355, is par- ticularly interesting ; he seeks to recall Dracontius, a monk who had been elected to a bishopric, and had weakly fled from his new duties. The earnestness, good sense, and affectionateness of this letter are very charac- teristic of Athanasius. He dwells repeatedly on the parable of the Talents, reminds Dra- contius of solemn obligations, and warns him against imagining the monastic life to be the one sphere of Christian self-denial. f The calm contemplation of fast-approaching trials, which would make a severe demand on Christian men's endurance, shews a "discern- ment " of the " signs " of 354-5 in Athanasius. For, in the spring of 355, he would hear of the success of Constantius in terrorizing the great majority of a large council at Milan, which had been summoned at the urgent desire of Liberius. A few faithful men, such as Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Caliaris, Dionysius of Milan, after a momentary weak- ness, and Maximus of Naples, who was suffer- ing at the time from illness, alone refused to condemn Athanasius {Hist. Ar. 32-34^ ; and in standing out against the incurable tyran- nousness of Caesarism, as thus exhibited, must have felt themselves to be contending both for civil justice and for Nicene orthodoxy. That some coup d'etat was meditated against Athanasius must have been evident, not only • See Uberius's letter to Hosius in Hil. Fragm. 6 The spurious letter referred to above (as to which see de Broglie, VEgLet I'Emp. 2me part. i. 233) begins Studens paci," and forms Fr. 4. t " I know of bishops who do, and of monks who do not, fast." ATHANASIUS from the emperor's passionate eagerness to have him condemned, and from the really brutal persecution which began to rage throughout the empire against those who adhered to his communion (Hist. Ar. 31), but from the appearance at Alexandria, in July or Aug. 355, of an imperial notary, named Diogenes, who, though he brought no express orders, and had no interview with Athanasius, used every effort to get him out of the city. Failing in this, he departed in Dec. ; and on Jan. 5, 356, Syrianus, a general, with another notary named Hilarius, entered Alexandria. The Arian party exulted in their approaching triumph ; Athanasius asked SyTianus if he had brought any letter from the Emperor. He said he had not. The archbishop referred him to the guarantee of security which he had himself received ; and the presbyters, the laity, and the majority of all the inhabitants supported him in demanding that no change should be made without a new imperial letter — the rather that they themselves were pre- paring to send a deputation to Constantius. The prefect of Egypt and the provost of Alexandria were present at this interview ; and Syrianus, at last, promised " by the hfe of the emperor" that he would comply with the demand. This was on Jan. 18 ; and for more than three weeks all was quiet. But about midnight on Thursday, Feb. 8, when Athanasius was at a night-long vigil service in St. Theonas's church, preparatory to the Friday service, Syrianus, with Hilarius, and Gorgonius, the head of the poUce force, beset the church with a large body of soldiers. " I sat down," says Athanasius, " on my throne " (which would be at the extreme end of the church), " and desired the deacnn to read the Psalm " (our 136th), " and the people to respond. For His mercy endureth for ever,_ and then all to depart home." This majestic " act of faith " was hardly finished, when the doors were forced, and the soldiers rushed in with a fierce shout, clashing their arms, discharging their arrows, and brandishing their swords in the light of the church lamps. Some of the people in the nave had already departed, others were trampled down or mortally injured ; others cried to the arch- bishop to escape. " I said I would not do so until they had all got away safe. So I stood up, and called for prayer, and desired all to go out before me . . . and when the greater part had gone, the monks who were there, and certain of the clergy, came up to me and carried me away." And then, he adds, he passed through the mass of his enemies un- observed, thanking God that he had been able to secure in the first instance his people's safety, and afterwards his own. As on a former occasion, he deemed it his duty to accept an opportunity of escape, especially when the sacrifice of his life would have been ruinous to the cause of the church in Egypt (see Augustine, Ep. 228, 10) ; and he there- fore concealed himself in the country, " hiding himself," as the Arian History, c. 48, employs the prophet's words, " for a little moment, until the indignation should be overpast." (6) From his Third to his Fourth Exile (356- 362). — On leaving Alexandria, Athanasius at first thought of appealing in person to Con- ATHANASIUS ' iiitiiis, who could not, he tried to hope, have !■ tioued the late outrage. But he was dt-- I i-d by the news of one woe following upon ther (.-f^. ad Const. 27, iq). Bishops of West who had refused to disown him were icriuK under tyranny, or had been hurried t>) exile. Among the latter class was the ^i: l\oman bishop himself, who had manfully Pi spumed both gifts and menaces (Theod. ii. 16); 1:; ind Hosius, on addressing to Constantius a lUMistrance full of pathetic dignity, had been ii for to be detained at Sirmium. Then 1 lie news which touched Athanasius more :iosely. It was given out that one George, ; ,a Cappadocian of ev'il reputation and ruthless d ;temper, was coming to supersede him ; and ; jthat a vague creed, purporting to be simply Scriptural, but in fact ignoring tiie Nicene it: doctrine, was to be proposed for his suffragans' 1;' 'acceptance. This last report set him at once |, ;to work on a Letter to the Egyptian and Libyan Bishops. But he had soon to hear of a - repetition of the sacrileges and brutalities of 1 "the days of Gregory. As before. Lent was ,, 'the time chosen for the arrival of the usurper. (Easter brought an increase of trouble in the f [persecution of prelates, clergy, virgins, widows, I the poor, and even ordinary Catholic house- I holders. On the evening of the Sunday after Pentecost, when " the brethren " had met for worship, apart from the Ariaus, in the pre- cincts of a cemetery, a military commander, named Sebastian, a fierce-tempered Mani- 'chean, whose sympathies went with George, came to the spot with more than 3000 soldiers, , and found some virgins and others still in prayer after the general congregation had ' broken up. On their refusal to embrace Arianism, he caused them to be stripped, and beaten or wounded with such severity that ' some died from the effects, and their corpses were kept without burial. This was followed i by the banishment of sixteen bishops, doubt- less for rejecting the new-made creed ; more : than thirty fled, others were scared into ' an apparent conformity, and the vacated I churches were given over to men whose moral , disqualifications for any religious office were compensated by their profession of Arianism. Tragical as were these tidings, Athanasius still clung to his purpose of presenting himself '. before Constantius, until he learned that one ■ imperial letter had denounced him as a fugitive ' criminal who richly merited death, and an- I other had e.xhorted the two Ethiopian sove- reigns to send Frumentius to Alexandria, that j George might instruct him in the knowledge I of " the supreme God." I Then it was that .Athanasius, accepting the Sosition of a proscribed man who must needs ve as a fugitive, " turned back again," as he ; says, " towards the desert," and sought for I welcome and shelter amid the innumerable ; monastic cells. Anthony had died at the be- ginning of the year, desiring that a worn-out sheepskin cloak (the monk's usual upper dress), which when new had been the gift of .-Kthan- asius, might be returned to him (Vit. Ant. 91). As Athanasius appears to have made secret : visits to Alexandria, he probably spent some time among the recluses of Lower Egypt, but he also doubtless visited what Villemain calls " the pathless solitudes which surround Upper ATHANASIUS CI Egypt, and the monasteries and liermitages of the Thebaid." A veil of mystery was thus drawn over his life ; and the interest was heightened by the romantic incidents naturally following from the Government's attempts to track and seize him. When comparatively undisturbed, he would still be full of activities, ecclesiastical and theological. Athanasius made those six years of seclusion available for literary work of the most substantial kind, both controversial and historical. The books which he now began to pour forth were appar- ently Nvritten in cottages or caves, where he sat, like any monk, on a mat of palm-leaves, with a bundle of papyrus beside him, amid the intense light and stillness of the desert (Kings- ley's Hermits, p. 130, 19). He finished his .Apology to Constantius, a work which he had for some time in hand, and which he still hoped to be able, in better days, to deliver in the emperor's presence. He met the taunts of " cowardice " directed against him by the Arians with an Apology for his Flight. To the same period belong the Letter to the Monks, with the Arian History (not now extant as a whole), which it introduces (and as to which it is difficult to resist the impres- sion that part of it, at least, was written under Athanasius's supervision, by some friend or secretary) ; a Letter to Serapion, bp. of Thmuis, giving an account of the death of Arius, the details of which he had learned from his presbyter Macarius, while he himself was re- sident at Treves ; and, above all, the great Orations or Discourses against the Arians. These last have been described by Montfaucon as " the sources whence arguments have been borrowed by all who have since written in behalf of the Divinity of the Word." The first discourse is occupied with an exposition of the greatness of the question at issue ; with proofs of the Son's eternity and uncreateduess, with discussion of objections, and with com- ments on texts alleged in support of Arianism [i.e. Phil. ii. 9, 10 ; Ps. xlv. 7, 8 ; Heb i. 4). The second, written after some interval, pur- sues this line of comment, especially on a text much urged by Arians in the LXX version (Prov. viii. 22). The third explains texts in the Gospels, and in so doing sets forth the Christ of the church, as uniting in Himself true Godhead and true Manhood; and it then passes to the consideration of another Arian statement, that the Sonship was a result of God's mere will. Differing from other writers. Dr. Newman considers the fourth Discourse to be an undigested collection of notes or memo- randa on several heresies, principally that which was imputed to his friend Marcellus, and to persons connected with him — an imputation which Athanasius, about 360, began to think not undeserved. It may be thought by some who have no bias against the theology of the Discourses that his tender- ness towards an old associate is in striking contrast with the exuberance of objurgation bestowed on the Arian " madmen " and " foes of Christ." But not to urge that the 4th cent, had no established rules of controversial poHteness, and that the acerbity of Greek disputation and the personalities of Roman society had often too much influence on the tone of Christian argument, one must remem- 62 ATHANASIUS ber that Athanasius is not attacking all members of tlie Arian communion, but repre- sentatives of it who had been conspicuous, not for heterodoxy alone, but for secularity in its worst form, for unscrupulousness, and for violence. He followed up his Discourses by four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, of which the second briefly repeated the teaching of the Discourses, while the others were directed against a theory then reported to him by Serapion as springing up, and afterwards known as Macedonianism ; which, abandon- ing the Arian position in regard to the Son, strove with singular inconsistency to retain it in regard to the Spirit. Athanasius met this error by contending for " a Trinity real and undivided," in which the Spirit was included with the Father and the Son. The general aspect of church affairs was very unhopeful. At Constantinople an Arian persecution had again set in. But the defec- tion of Hosius in 357, and Liberius in 358, after hard pressure and cruel usage, from the steadfastness which Athanasius had so much admired, must have wounded him to the heart. Yet he speaks of them with character- istic and most generous tenderness, and with full recognition of the trials under which they had given way (Hist. Ar. 45, 41 ; Apol. 89 ; de Fugii, 5). In 350 the general body of Western bishops, at the council of Ariminum, were partly harassed and partly cheated into adopting an equivocal but really Arian con- fession, which was also adopted at the begin- ning of 360 by the legates of the Eastern council of Seleucia. An account of the earlier proceedings of these two councils was drawn up, in the form of a letter, by Athanasius, who, on the ground of a few words in the opening of this Letter on the Councils of Ari- minum and Seleucia, has been thought by Tillemont and Gibbon to have been present at any rate at the latter place. The treatise is remarkable for his considerateness towards those of the semi-Arians whose objections to the Nicene Creed were rather verbal than real, while the second creed of Sirmium had driven them into open hostility to the Arians properly so-called, which they had expressed in their council of Ancyrain 358. Athanasius, then expressly naming their leader, Basil of Ancyra, welcomes them as brothers who mean essentially what churchmen mean. He will not for the present urge the Horaoousion upon them. He is sure that in time thev will accept it, as securing that doctrine of Christ's essential Sonship which their own svmbol " Homoiousion " could not adequately guard [de Syn. 41). But while exhibiting this large- minded patience and forbearance he is careful to contrast the long series of Arian creeds with the one invariable standard of the orthodox : the only refuge from restless variations will be found in a frank adoption of the creed of Nicaea [ib. 32 ; cf. ad Afros, 9). On Nov. 30 the accession of Julian was formally proclaimed at Alexandria. The Pagans, in high exultation, thought that their time was come for taking vengeance on the Arian bishop, whom they had once before tumultuously expelled for oppressive and violent conduct. They rose in irresistible force, threw George into prison, and on Dec. ATHANASIUS 24 barbarously murdered him. The Arians set up one Lucius in his place ; but Julian, as if to shew his supercilious contempt for the disputes of " Galileans," or his detestation of the memory of Constantius, permitted all the bishops whom his predecessor had exiled to return ; and Athanasius, taking advantage of this edict, reappeared in Alexandria, to the joy of his people, Feb. 22, 362. One of his first acts was to hold a council at Alexandria for the settlement of several pressing questions, {a} Many bishops deeply regretted their concessions at Ariminum in 359 : how were they to be treated ? (b) It had become urgently necessary to give some advice to Paulinus and his flock at Antioch, with a view to healing the existing schism there, (c) A dispute which had arisen as to the word " hypostasis " had to be settled. (4) A correct view as to the Incarnation and the Person of Christ had to be established. The work before the council was that of harmoniz- ing and reconciling. A synodal letter, or "Tome," addressed "to the Antiochenes " {i.e. to Paulinus and his flock), and composed by Athanasius, is one of the noblest documents that ever emanated from a council. But it came too late to establish peace at Antioch. Lucifer of Caliaris had taken upon him to consecrate Paulinus as the legitimate bp. of Antioch, and so perpetuated the division which his wiser brethren had hoped to heal. The pagans of Alexandria had been rebuked by Julian for the murder of George, but he lent a ready ear to their denunciations of Athanasius as a man whose influence would destroy their religion. Julian assured them that he had never intended Athanasius to resume " what is called the episcopal throne " ; and peremptorily commanded him to leave Alexandria ; the imperial edict was communi- cated to Athanasius on Oct. 23 ( = Paophi 27, Fest. Ind., Fragm. Maff.). The faithful gathered around him weeping. " Be of good heart," he said ; " it is but a cloud ; it will soon pass." He instantly embarked to go up the Nile. But Julian's implied orders were not forgotten ; some Government agents pursued his vessel. They met a boat coming down the river, and asked for news of Athan- asius. " He is not far off," was the reply. The boat was his own — he himself, perhaps, the speaker (Theod. iii. 9). His facilities of information had given him warning of the peril, and his presence of mind had baffled it. He sailed on towards Alexandria, but con- cealed himself at Chaereu, the first station from the capital, then proceeded to Memphis, where he wrote his Festal Letter for 363, and then made his way to the Thebaid. (7) From his Fourth Exile to his Death (362-373). It was probably about this time, shortly before Easter, 363, that Athanasius was met, while approaching Hermopolis, by Theodore of Tabenne, the banks of the Nile being thronged by bishops, clergy, and monks. Night apparently favoured this demonstra- tion ; Athanasius, having disembarked, mounted an ass which Theodore led, and pur- sued his way amid a vast body of monks bearing lanterns and torches, and chanting psalms. He stayed some time at Hermopohs and Antinoe, for the purpose of preaching ; ATHANASIUS ...II prDcecdcd soutlnvarils t«> Tabcnno. At iii.l-.iitiimor, according to anotlu-r narrative, f was at Antinoe, apprehensive oi being iiiested and put to death, when Theodore iiid another abbot named Tanmion came to .v liim, and i>orsuaded him to embark with .111 in Theodore's closely covered boat, in r to conceal himself in Tabenne. Athan- . was in praver, agitated by the prospect : i.irt\Tdom, when Theodore, according to .u storv, assured him that Julian had at that , nv hour been slain in his Persian war. The i.iv of Julian's death was June 26, 363. "The cloud had passed," and Athanasius (turned by night to Alexandria. After his trrival, which was kept secret, he received a ■ r from the new emperor Jovian, desiring t> resume his functions, and to draw up •.cment of the Catholic faith. .Vthauasius ,1 ^.iice assembled a council, and framed a SNTiodal letter, in which the Nicene Creed was prabodied, its Scripturalness asserted, and the |;n"eat majoritv of Churches (including the British) referred to as professing it : Arianism ivas condemned, semi-Arianism pronounced inadequate, the Homoousion explained as •expressive of Christ's real Sonship, the co- Jequality of the Holy Spirit maintained in terms which partly anticipate the language :>f the Creed of Constantinople. On Sept. 5 ^Athanasius sailed to Antioch, bearing this letter. He was most graciously received, while the rival bp. Lucius and his companions were rebuffed with some humour and some |impatience by the blunt soldier-prince, who, ihowever, during his brief reign, shewed him- !f;elf as tolerant as he was orthodox. The [general prospects of the church must now have seemed brighter than at any time since 330. Llberius was known to have made a full declaration of orthodoxy ; and many IWestern bishops, responding to the appeals of lEusebius and Hilary of Poictiers, had eagerly jrenounced the Arim'inian Creed and professed ithe Nicene. But the local troubles of Antioch Kvere distressing ; and Athanasius, seeing no |<)ther solution, recognized their bishop Paulinus |as the true head of the Antiochene church, on |his appending to his signature of the Tome a ifull and orthodox declaration, which, accord- ling to Epiphanius (Haer. 77, 20), Athanasius Ihimself had framed. Having written his Festal Letter for 364 |at Antioch, Athanasius reached home, appar- lently, on Feb. 13, a few days before Jovian's [death. Valentinian L succeeded, and soon (afterwards assigned the Hast to his brother iValens. The Alexandrian church was not at Ifirst a sufferer by this change of monarchs ; [and 364-365 may be the probable date for the jpublication of the Life of Anthony, which i.-Vthanasius addressed " to the monks abroad," \t.e. those in Italy and Gaul. But, ere long, ihis troubles to some extent reappeared. Ac- jcording to the Egyptian documents, it was Ithe spring of 365 when Valens issued an order 'for the expulsion of all bishops who, having .been expelled under Constantius, had been 'recalled under Julian, and thereby announced that he meant to follow the Arian policv of iConstantius. On May 5 this order reached jAlexandria, and caused a popular ferment, lOnly quieted on J une 8 by the prefect's pro- ATHANASIUS fi.-l mise to refer the case of Athanasius tn the emperor. H we may combine his statement with Sozomen's (wlm, however, i>laces these events in a subsequent year), we should suj)- pose that the prefect was but biding his time ; and on the night of Oct. 5, Athanasius, having doubtless been forewarned, left his abode in the precinct of St. Dionysius's church, and took refuge in a country house near the New River. For four months the archbishop's concealment lasted, until an imperial notary came to the country house with a great multi- tude, and led .\thanasius back into his church, Feb. I (Mechir 7), 366. His quiet was not again seriously disturbed, and Athanasius was free to ilevote himself to his proper work, whether of writing or of administration. His Festal Letter for 367 contained a list of the books of Scripture which, so far as regards the New Testament, agrees precisely with our own (see, too, de Deer. 18). The canonical books are described as " the fountains of salvation, through which alone " (a mode of speaking very usual with Athanasius) " is the teaching of religion transmitted" ; a second class of books is mentioned, as "read" in church for religious edification ; the name " apocryphal " is reserved for a third class to which heretics have assigned a fictitious dig- nity (VVestcott, On the Canon, pp. 487, 520). To this period has been assigned the comment on doctrinal texts which is called a treatise On the Incarnation and against the Arians ; but its entire genuineness may be reasonably doubted. In or about 369 he held a council at Alexandria, in order to receive letters from a Roman council held under Damasus, the successor of Liberius, and also from other Western prelates, excommunicating Ursacius and Valens, and enforcing the authority of the Nicene Creed. Hereupon Athanasius, in a synodal letter addressed To the Africans, i.e. to those of the Carthaginian territory, con- trasts the " ten or more " synodical formulas of Arianism with the Nicene Creed, gives some account of its formation, and exposes the futile attempt of its present adversaries to claim authority for the later, as distinct from the earlier, proceedings of the Ariminian council. It appears that on Sept. 22, 369, Athanasius, who had in May 368 begun to rebuild the Caesarean church, laid the foundations of another church, afterwards called by his own name (Fest. Jnd.). We find him excommimicating a cruel and licen- tious governor in Libya, and signifying the act by circular letters. One of these was sent to Basil, who had just become exarch, or archbp., of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and had received, perhaps at that time, from Athan- asius, a formal notification of the proceedings of the council of 362 (Ep. 204). Basil immedi- ately announced to his own people the sentence pronounced in Egypt ; the strong sense oi church unity made such a step both regular and natural, and he wrote to assure Athan- asius that the offender would be regarded by the faithful at Caesarea as utterly alien from Christian fellowship (Ep. 60). This led to a correspondence, carried on actively in 371. Basil, who had troubles of all kinds weighing upon his spirit, sought aid in regard to one of them — the unhappy schism of Antioch [Ep. 64 ATHANASIUS 66). He wanted Athanasius to promote the recogaition by the Westerns of Meletius as rightful bp. of Antioch, and to induce Paulinus to negotiate. In the autumn Basil wrote again (Ep. 69), and the tone which he adopts towards Athanasius is very remarkable. He calls him the foremost person (literally, the summit) of the whole church, the man of " truly grand and apostohc soul, who from boyhood had been an athlete in the cause of religion " — " a spiritual father," whom he longed earnestly to see, and whose conversa- tion would amply compensate for all the sufferings of a lifetime {Ep. 69, 80, 82). But although Athanasius consented to act as a medium between Basil and the Westerns {Ep. 90), he could not take any direct part in favour of Meletius, whose rival's position he had unequivocally recognized. Nothing came of the appUcation. Athanasius was far from tolerating, in these latter years of his life, any theories which seemed definitely heterodox respecting what may be called the human side of the Incar- nation. If, in his Letter to Adelphius, he condemned a certain class of Arians, and vindicated against their cavils the adoration paid to Christ's Manhood, that is, to His one Person Incarnate ; if, in his Letter to Maximus, he denomiced those who spoke of the man Christ as simply a saint with whom the Word had become associated ; he was also, in his Letter to Eptctetus, bp. of Corinth — a tract called forth by a communication from Epictetus — most earnest against some who, while " glorying in the Nicene confession, represented Christ's body as not truly human, but formed out of the essence of Godhead. This was, in fact, the second proposition of the heresy called Apollinarian ; the first being that which had attracted the attention of the coimcil of 362, and had been disclaimed by those whom the council could examine — as to the non-existence, in Christ, of a rational soul, the Word being supposed to supply its place. These views had grown out of an unbalanced eagerness to exalt the Saviour's dignity : but the great upholders of Nicene faith saw that they were incompatible with His Manhood and His Headship, that they virtually brought back Docetism, and that one of them, at any rate, involved a debased con- ception of Deity. In the next year, 372, he combated both these propositions with " the keenness and richness of thought which dis- tinguish his writings generally " (see Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 162 ; Praef. ed. Benson, ii. 7) in two books entitled Against Apollinaris. These books are remarkable for the masterly distinctness with which the one Christ is set forth as " perfect God and perfect Man " 'i. iG) : if words occur in ii. 10 which seem at first sight to favour MonotheUtism, the context shews their mean- ing to be that the Divine will in Christ was dominant over the human ; if in the next chapter the phrase " God suffered through the flesh " is called unscriptural, the whole argument shews that he is contending against the passibihty of the Saviour's Godhead. Inexact as might be some of his phrases, the general purport of his teaching on this great subject is unmistakable ; it is, as he says in ATHANASIUS Oral. iii. 41, that Christ was " very (iod ii the flesh, and very Flesh in the Word." Ii truth, these later treatises, like the grea Discourses, exclude by anticipation both th forms of heresy, in reference to the Person an( Natures of Christ, which troubled the churcl in the next three centuries (see especially i II, ii. 10). Athanasius, in the fruits of hi work, was " in truth the Immortal" {Christ Rememhr. xxxvii. 206I : he was continuall; " planting trees under which men of a late: age might sit." It might indeed be said tha he " waxed old in his work " (Ecclus. xi. 20) But the time of work for him came to ar end in the spring of 373. The discussion; about the year of his death may be considerec as practically closed ; the Festal Index although its chronology is sometimes faulty may be considered as confirming the date 373. given in the Maffeian Fragment, sup ported by other ancient authorities, anc accepted by various writers. The exact day we may believe, was Thursday, May 2, 01 which day of the month Athanasius is vener ated in the Western church. He had sat or the Alexandrian throne, as his great successoi Cyril says in a letter to the monks of Egypt " forty-six complete years " ; had he lived t few weeks longer, the years of his episcopatt would have been forty-seven. Having recom- mended Peter, one of his presbyters, foj election in his place, he died tranquilly in hiv I own house, " after many struggles," as Rufinus. ! says (ii. 3), " and after his endiurance had woE' ' many a crown," amid troubles which Tille- mont ventures to call a continual martyrdom Such was the career of Athanasius the Great, as he began to be called in the next generation. Four points, perhaps, oughl- especially to dwell in our remembrance : {a] the deep religiousness which illuminated al! his studies and controversies by a sense of his relations as a Christian to his Redeemer ; (6) the persistency, so remarkable in one whose natural temperament was acutely sensitive; (c) the combination of gifts, " firmness with: discretion and discrimination," as Newman' expresses it, which enabled him, while never turning aside from his great object, to be, as Gregory Nazianzen applies the apostolic phrase, " all things to all men " ; and in close connexion with this, {d) the affectionate- ness which made him so tender as a friend, and so active as a peacemaker — which won for him such enthusiastic loyalty, and endowed the great theologian and church ruler with the powers peculiar to a truly lovable man. That he was not flawless, that his words could be somewhat too sharp in controversy, or some- what unreal in addressing a despot, that he was not always charitable in his interpretation of his adversaries' conduct, or that his casu- istry, on one occasion, seems to have lacked the healthy severity of St. Augustine's — this may be, and has been, admitted ; but it is not extravagant to pronounce his name the greatest in the church's post-apostolic history. In 1698 appeared the great Benedictine ed. of his works, enriched by the Life from the pen of Montfaucon, who in 1707 published, in one of the volumes of his Nova Patrum et Scriptorum Graecormn Collectio, additional remains collected by his industry. The work Athanasius fi\ the " Titles of the Psahns " was edited by ,sic. Aiit'iielli at Rome, in 1746 ; and in 1777 : |ppi"ar«<i at I'ailiia an cd. in 4 vols, fol., coni- • iiiiiig the lal)oiir» of previous editors. A few English translations of some of itii.iiiasius's works had appeared before the ubliiation of any part of the " Library of I he Fatliers." But the volume of Historictil II ["racls oi SI. Athana^iiiis. and the two volumes J jif Treatises in Cotitroversv u-ilh the Arians. .ublished in that series at O.xford in 1843- S44, under Dr. Newman's editorship, must ivhatever exceptions may be taken to a few assages in the notes) be always ranked among jhe richest treasures of Knglish Patristic .terature. These translations have been re- ; printed and revised in what is now the best lollection in English of Athanasius's chief |.orks, with a very valuable introduction, life, ,nd illustrative notes by Dr. A. Robertson, |ip. of Exeter, in the I'ost-Xiceiie Fitthcrs, ed. ^>y Dr. Schaff and Dr. Wace. The Orations [gainst Arius, with an account of the life of [kthanasius by W. Bright, are pub. by the I'larendon Press, as also his Historical Writings [ccording to the Benedictine text, with intro. IV W. Bri-^ht. A cheap popular Life of ithanasius by R. W. Bush is pub. by S.P.C.K. .1 their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; and a cheap rans. of the Orations in " A. and M. Theol. .ib." (C.riltith). [w.b.] , Athanasius (l), bp. of Anagastus in Cilicia ieeunda and metropolitan, a disciple of St. Lucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. iii. 15), jeckoned by .\rius, in his letter to Eusebius J\icom., among the bishops who coincided yith him in doctrine (Theod. H. E. i. 5). The jeat .\thanasius {de Synod, p. 886) accuses iiim of having, previous to the council of |Sicaea, written blasphemies equal to those of jVrius, of which he gives a specimen. He is l-aid by Le (Juien, on the authority of the Lib. Synod. Graec. to have supported Arius at the touncil of Xicaea. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. is) tells us that when Aetius was expelled from (lis master's house, after his unlucky victory n argument, Athanasius received him and [ead the Gospels with him. [e.v.] I Athanasius (2), an Arian bp. who succeeded j^hilip in the see of Scythopolis, c. 372. He is i:harged by Epiphanius with pushing his Arian ,enets to the most audacious impiety, asserting I hat the Son and Holy Spirit were creatures, and iiad nothing in common with the Divine nature 'Epiph. Haer. Ixxiii. c. 37, p. 885). [k.v.] 1 Athanasius (3), bp. of Perrha, a see dependent tn the Syrian Hierapolis; present at the council >l Ephesus, 431, supporting Cyril of Alex- ;indria. Grave accusations, brought against ,um by his clergy, led him to resign his see. Through the intervention on his behalf of ;-*roclus of Constantinople and Cyril of Alex- mdria, Domnus II., patriarch of Antioch, ummoned a council to consider the matter. Athanasius, refusing to appear, was unani- .nously condemned by default and deposed .rom his bishopric, to which Sabinianus was |onsecrated. After " the Robber Synod " )f Ephesus, A.D. 449, had made Dioscorus of Alexandria the temporary ruler of the Eastern |-hurch, Sabinianus was in his turn deposed, ind Athanasius reinstated at Perrha. Sabini- juius appealed to the council of Chalcedon, ATHENAGORAS (;.') A.D. 451, where both he and his rival signed as bp. of Perrii.i. His c.ise w.is tuilv heard, anil it was determined that the original charges against him should be investigateil by Maximus at .\ntioch. We are in complete ignorance of the issue of this investigation. (Labbe, Cone, , iv. 717-754 ; Libcratus Diac. in lireviario. i Labbe, v. 762 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 479 ; Christ. Lupus, ii.) [k.v.] Athanasius (4), bp. of Ancyra in N. Galatia (a.d. 360-360). His father, who bore the same name, was a man of high family and great learning, and had held important offices in the State (iOvuyv Kai jrtiXfwc aox°-^ 5ifiiOvvavTo%) ; but was reputed harsh and unfatherly to his children. This rumour, reaching St. Basil's ears, led him to write a friendly remonstrance, and hence arose a correspondence of which one letter is preserved (£/>. 24). Tiie son .\thanasius was raised to the see of Ancyra by the .\rian Acacius of Cacsarea, through whose influence his jiredccessor Basilius had been deposed at a synod held at Constantinople A.D. 360 (Soz. iv. 25 ; Philost. v. i). But not- withstanding this inauspicious beginning, he gave unquestionable proofs of his orthodoxy by taking an active part in tlie Synod of Tyana (a.d. 367), at which the Nicene symbol was accepted (Soz. vi. 12). J3y St. Basil he is commended as " a bulwark of orthodoxy " (Ep. 25), and Gregory Nyssen praises him as " valuing the truth above everything " (c. Eunom. i. ii. 292). Owing to some misunder- standing, however, Athanasius had spoken in very severe terms of St. Basil, misled, as Basil conjectures, by the fact that some heretical writings had been fathered upon him ; and the bp. of Caesarea sends an affectionate letter of remonstrance (Ep. 25), in which he speaks of .\thanasius in the highest terms. At his death Basil writes a letter of condolence to the church of .Ancyra, on the loss of one who was truly " a pillar and foundation of the church " (Ep. 29). This seems to have happened a.d. 368 or 369 (see Garnicr, Basil. Op. iii. p. ixxvii. seq.). [l.] Athenagoras.— I. Life.— There is scarcely one catalogue of the ancient writers of the church wherein we find mention of Athen- agoras or his works. He is not noticed by Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, or Suidas. But in a fragment of the book of Methodius, bp. of Tyre (3rd cent.), de Resurrectione Anim- arum against Origen, there is an unmistakable quotation from the Apology (c. 24, p. 27 b) with the name of Athenagoras appended. This fragment is given by Epiphanius (Haer. 64, c. 21) and Photius (Cod. 224, 234). Scanty as this information is, it yet assures us of the existence of the Apology in the 3rd cent, and its ascription to Athenagoras. Much more is told us by Phihppus Sidetes, deacon of Chry- sostom (5th cent.), in a fragment preserved by Nicephorus Callistus (Dodwell, Diss, in Irenaeum, 429) to this effect : " Athenagoras was the first head of the school at Alexandria, flourishing in the times of Hadrian and An- toninus, to whom also he addressed his Apol- ogy for the Christians ; a man who embrac ed Christianity while wearing the garb of a philosopher, and presiding over the academic school. He, before Celsus, was bent on writing against the Cliristians ; and, studying 66 ATHENAGORAS the divine Scriptures in order to carry on the contest with the greater accuracy, was thus himself caught by the all-holy Spirit, so that, like the great Paul, from a persecutor he became a teacher of the faith which he persecuted." Philippus says, continues Nice- phorus, " that Clemens, the writer of the Stromata, was his pupil, and Pantaenus the pupil of Clemens." But Phihppus's statement about Pantaenus is not true, according to Clemens and Eusebius ; his character as an historian is severely criticized, and his book pronounced valueless bv Socrates Scholasticus (Hist. Eccl. vii. 27) and'Photius (Cod. 35, p. 7, Bekker) ; and his assertion that the Apology was addressed to Hadrian and Antoninus is contradicted by its very inscription. Never- theless, as he was a pupil of Rhodon (head of the school in the reign of Theodosius the Great) he may be supposed to have had some facts as the groundwork of what he has said. The only other source of information about Athenag'oras is the inscription of his Apology with such internal evidence as may be gath- ered from his works themselves. The inscrip- tion runs thus : " The embassy (irpeulSeia) of Athenagoras of Athens, a Christian philoso- pher, concerning Christians, to the emperors Marcus Aurelius, Antoninus, and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci, Sarmatici, and, greatest of all, philosophers." Without at present considering the pecuhar difficulties involved in this inscription (of which below), we learn from it in general that Athenagoras was an Athenian and a philosopher, which character and profession he evidently retained after his conversion. His connexion with Athens (probably his birth there) and pro- fession of philosophy are thus substantiated ; and the manner in which he became converted to Christianity may very well have been as described by Philippus, whose account that he was head of the Academics is probably but an exaggeration of the fact that he had be- longed to that sect. That he was ever leader of the Catechetical school of Alexandria cannot be definitely proved. In the Commentatio of Clarisse, § 8, is the acute conjecture that the treatise de Resurrectione was written at Alexandria rather than Athens, from c. 12, p. 52 A, where the builder of a house is repre- sented as making stalls for his camels ; and on a supposed Alexandrian tinge in the philo- sophy of Athenagoras vide Brucker (Hist. Crit. Philosophiae, iii. 405 seq.). Of his death nothing is known, the idea that he was martyred apparently arising from a confusion between him and Athenogenes. That the Apology was really intended to be seen and read by the emperors is obvious ; how it reached them is less clear ; we are hardly entitled to assert that it was in anv formal or pubUc manner delivered to them by Athen- agoras himself, an idea which may be due to the title it bears, of Upea^eia, or " Embassy." Upea^da, however, according to Stephanus (Thesaur. Ling. Graec. iii. col. 543), is occasion- ally used for an apology, intercession, or deprecation. II. Genuine Works. — These are, (i) the Apology ; (2) the Treatise on the Resurrection of the Dead. (i) Apology. Genuineness.— The testimonies ATHENAGORAS to this work are the inscription which it bears, and the quotation by Methodius given above. Some indeed have supposed that when Jerome speaks of an apology delivered by Justin Martyr to Marcus Antoninus Verus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, he refers (since these ob- tained the empire after Justin's death) to the Apology of Athenagoras and attributes it to Justin ; but it appears that he intends Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (Mosheim, Disseit. ad Hist. Eccles. pertinent, i. 279), to whoia Justin's Lesser Apology was given (vid. Pn- legomena to Maranus's Justin, pt. iii. c. 8, § 4, pp. 93 sqq.). Attempts to prove the work in question to be that of Justin (vid. Le Moyne, Varia sacra., ii. 171), or of a later author (vid. Semler, Introduction to Baumgarten's Theolog. Sireitigkeiten, ii. 70 note) have alike failed. There is nothing whatever in the writings of Athenagoras unsuitable to their assigned age ; and Athenagoras's name was not sufficiently known to have been selected for the author of a supposititious book. Date. — This is a difficult question ; some have taken the Commodus of the inscription for Lucius Aelius Aurelius Verus (d. 169), son- in-law and brother of Marcus Antoninus. But Lucius Aelius Aurelius Commodus, Antoninus's son and successor, must be intended ; for Verus dropped the name of Commodus after obtaining a share in the government, and could never have been called Sarmaticus ; for Sarmatia was not conquered till after his death. Mommsen, following Tentzel, but without MS. authority, would read Yep/xaviKoh for ' App-evLaKo'is. As little right had Com- modus to the title of " philosopher." Athen- agoras may have only intended to include the son in the honours of the father. At all events, the illustration (at c. 18, p. 17 d) of the Divine government, taken from that of the two emperors, father and son, seems conclusive. We have also allusions to the profound peace of the empire, appropriate only between a.d. 176, when Avidius Crassus's insurrection was crushed, and a.d. 178, when the outbreak of the Marcomannic wars occurred. The Apology cannot well have been of later date than a.d. 177, since in that year arose the fearful persecution of the Christians of Vienne and Lyons, upon the accusations brought by their slaves ; whereas in c. 35, p. 38 B, Athenagoras declares that no slaves of Christians had ever charged their masters with the crimes popularly imputed to them ; nor is there any allusion whatever to this persecution, which would hardly have been passed over in silence. We therefore conclude that the Apology was written be- tween the end of a.d. 176 and that of a.d. 177. Analysis. — The Apology consists of cate- gorical answers to the three charges usually brought against the Christians, of (a) atheism, (b) incest, and (c) cannibaUsm. (a) They wor- ship one God, and can give a reason why. The philosophers have held like views ; Poly- theism and its worship are absurd, modern, and the work of demons. (6^ Incest is most contrary to their pure and even ascetic life. (c) They are even more humane than the heathen, condemning abortion, infanticide, and gladiatorial games as murder. (2) Treatise on the Resurrection Genuine- . ATHENAGORAS nea and Date. — There is no iiidepciideiit external evidence for the aiithorsliip of this work ; but there is uo reason whatever to .iouht that, as its inscription informs us, it •r .m the pen of Athenagoras. It closely s with the .-f/'o/ogy in style and thought, ill that has been said above of the internal !. lice for the genuineness of the former k applies equally to this. That such a luse was in Athenagoras's mind when he wrote the Apology appears from the words near its close, c. 36, p. 39 c, " let the argument upon the Resurrection stand over " ; from which words we may not unfairly gather that the Treatise on the Resurrection shortly fol- lowed the former work. This is the only clue to its date which we possess. From the closing sentences of c. 23 (p. 66 c) it seems that it was intended as a lecture. " VVc have not made it our aim to leave nothing unsaid that our subject contained, but sinnmarily to point out to those who came together what view ought to be taken in regard to the Resurrection " must allude not merely to a few friends who might happen to be present when the book was read, but to a regular audience. From a reference, c. i, p. 41 u, to an occasional mode for arranging his argu- ments, it may be supposed that Athenagoras was in the habit of delivering public lectures upon Christianity. The arrangement, too, and peculiar opening of the treatise decidedly favour the view that it was a lecture, some- what enlarged or moditied for publication. Atialysis. — The work consists of two parts : (i) The removal of the objections (i) that God wants the power {2) or the will to raise the dead, (i) He does not want the power to do it, either through ignorance or weakness — as Athenagoras proves from the works of creation ; defending his positions against the philosophic objections, that the bodies of men after dissolution come to form part of other bodies ; and that things broken cannot be re- stored to their former state. (2) God wants not the will to raise the dead — for it is neither unjust to the raised men, nor to other beings ; nor unworthy of Him — which is shewn from the works of creation, (ii) Arguments for the Resurrection, (i) The final cause of man's creation, to be a perpetual beholder of the Divine wisdom. (2) Man's nature, which requires perpetuity of existence in order to attain the true end of rational life. (3) The necessity of the Divine judgment upon men in body and soul, (a) from the Providence, lb) from the justice of God. (4) The ultimate end of man's being, not attainable on earth. III. Athenagoras as a Writer. — To most of the apologists Athenagoras is decidedly superior. Elegant, free from superfluity of language, forcible in style, he rises occasion- ally into great power of description, and his reasoning is remarkable for clearness and cogency ; e.g. his answer to the heathen argument, that not the idols, but the gods represented, are really honoured. His treat- ment of the Resurrection is for the most part admirable. Even where the defective science of the day led him into error, e.g. in answering the question, apparently so difficult, as to the assimilation of the materials of one human body into another the line taken is one that ATHENAGORAS 67 shews no little thought and ability ; and his whole writings indii .ite a philosophic mind, which amply justifies the title given to him in the inscription of his two works. His style, however, is not unfrequently somewhat obscured by difficult elliptic or parenthetical passages, and anacolutha (for examples of which see the Apology, c. i, p. 2 c ; c. 20, p. 19 B ; c. 22, p. 23 B ; and de Resurr. c. 18, p. 60 d). Among his peculiar words and phrases, Clarisse notices his use of dVdv in the sense of ducere, to think, and rd fiTLavfi.ji(dr)K6Ta 0f(^ for the attributes of God. IV. His Philosophy. — Mosheim represents Athenagoras as having been the first of the Eclectics. It is far more true to say that he shared in the eclecticism which then pervaded all i)hilosophy. That he had been a I'latonist ajipcars, on the whole, from his continual reference to I'lato and the thoroughly Pla- tonic view which on many points pervades his works. We easily recognize this view in his language about matter and the souls, angels, natures sensible and intelligible, and the con- templation of God as the end of man's being ; and also in that referring to the Son of God as the Logos and Creator (except that this is not at all peculiar to Athenagoras), more especially in his caUing the Word " idea (or archetype) and energy " in the work of Creation. He also appears to allude slightly to the doctrine of reminiscences [de Resurr. c. 14, p. 55 a). The Platonism of Athenagoras was modified, however, by the prevailing eclecticism (cf. e.g. the Peripatetic doctrine of the mean, so alien to Plato, Resurr. c. 21, p. 64 b), and still more, of course, by his reception of Christian- ity, which necessitated the abandonment of such views as the unoriginated nature of the soul. With all this agrees excellently so much of Philippus Sidetes's account as connects Athenagoras with the Academics ; whose Platonism was precisely such as is here de- scribed. Allusions to the other philosophers are abundant ; e.g. to Aristotle and the Peri- patetics, Apol. c. 6, p. 7 A ; c. 16, p. 15 D ; to the Stoics, ib. c. 6, p. 7 b ; to the Cyrenaics and Epicureans, Resurr. c. 19, p. 62 b. We see from Apol. c. 7, p. 8 a, that he regarded the Gentile philosophers as possessing some measure of Divine light in their minds, but unable thereby to come to the full know- ledge of God, because this could only be ob- tained by revelation, which they never sought. V. Theology, etc. — Athenagoras's proof of the Divine unity rests on the propositions, expressed or implied, that God is perfect, self- existent, uncompounded ; the Creator, Sus- tainer, and Ruler of the universe. Were there more gods than one, they could not co-exist and co-work as a community of beings similar to each other, in the same sphere ; for things self-existent and eternal cannot be like a number of creatures formed all on one pattern, but must be eternally distinct and unlike. They could not be parts of one whole, for God has no parts. There could be no place for another God in connexion with this universe, for the Creator is over and around His own works. Another God, confined to some other universe of his own, could not concern us ; and so would be but a finite being. The Son of God. — In God, since He is an 68 ATHENAGORAS eternal, rational Mind, there dwelt from eter- nity the " Logos " (" Reason," " Expression," or " Word ") as His Son, and in the Son dwelt the Father. To bring matter into existence, and afterwards give it form and order, the Divine Word " came forth " (i.e. the eternal Son assumed, towards the finite, the office and relation of " the Word " or Mani- festor of God), to be the Archetype and Effectuating Power of creation [Apol. c. lo, p. 10 d). His Incarnation is only indirectly mentioned, in the supposition at c. 21, p. 21 d (ib.), of God assuming flesh according to divine dispensation. The Holy Ghost is said to be the Spirit Who spoke by the prophets, and an Emanation from God [Apol. c. 10, p. 10 d), flowing forth and returning as a rav from the sun. It has hence been much disputed whether Athen- agoras believed the Blessed Spirit to be a distinct Person, or not. His expressions greatly resemble those used by some whom Justin condemns for their denial of the per- sonaUty of the Son : " They say that this virtue is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, as the sunUght on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens " {Dial. c. Tryph. c. 128, p. 338 b). But it must be remembered that the apologists present the actings and offices of the three Blessed Persons of the Godhead in creation, etc., rather than Their eternal subsistence ; and of necessity do this in a form inteUigible to a heathen mind, yet so as not to be confounded with polytheism. It is not doubted that Athenago'ras held the personaUty of the Father, but with " God the Father, and God the Son" [Apol. c. 10, p. 11 a) he joins as third, the Holy Spirit ; so also c. 12, p. 62 d, and again c. 24, p. 26 d. That two Divine Persons and an impersonal emanation should be thus enumerated together by so philosophic a writer as Athenagoras is not conceivable. The angels, too — indubitably personal beings — are mentioned as holding a place after the Trinity, in Christian theology (c. 10) ; and it is worthy of notice that, in the passage cited above from Justin, angels as well as the Word are described by the persons whom that writer is condemning as temporary appearances ; as if it were the Sadducees, or some similar J ewish sect, of which he is speaking. We are, there- fore, decidedly of opinion that the personality of the Holy Spirit is held by Athenagoras ; cf. however, Clarisse. Man he holds to be composed of body and soul, the latter immortal, with spiritual powers of its own {Apol. c. 27, p. 31 a) ; but assigns the rational judgment not to the soul alone, but to the whole compound being, man ; perhaps implying that in the actings and expression of thought both the mind and the bodily organs share. Hence he shews that the soul without the body is imperfect ; that only when embodied can man be justly judged, or render to God perfect service, in a heavenly life. The sin and misery of man are described, in the Platonic manner, as entanglement with matter {Apol. c. 27, p. 30 c), and missing the true aim of his existence (Resurr. c. 25, p. 68 b) ; which is said to be the state of the majority, a prevalence of evil which he con- nects with the influence of the demons, i.e. ATHENAGORAS of fallen angels, or their offspring by human wives, a view common with the apologists. The evil angels he regards as having fallen bv misuse of free will, as did also man ; cf. Apol. c. 25, p. 29 B. Of infants he remarks {Resurr. 614, p- 55 d) that they need no judgment, inasmuch as they have done neither good nor evil. The nature of the scheme of redemption is not treated of by Athenagoras. VI. Was Athenagoras a Montanist ? — This idea was suggested by Tillemont, who founds it upon two points in the opinions of Athen- agoras, his account of prophecy, and his abso- lute condemnation of second marriages. In the Apology, c. 9, p. 9 d, Athenagoras's view of inspiration is thus given : " who " {i.e. the prophets) " rapt in mind out of themselves by the impulse of the Spirit of God, uttered the things with which they were inspired ; the Spirit using them as if a flute player were breathing into his flute." With this has been compared the language of Montanus (Epi- phanius Panar. Haer. 48, c. 4, p. 405), where the prophet is said to be as a lyre, the Spirit like the plectrum. So Tertullian, Against Marcion, c. 22. Yet similar language is found in Justin {Dial. c. Tryph. c. 115, p. 343 a) ; and Athenagoras may only mean that the prophet was carried beyond himself by the Holy Spirit, and that the words uttered were not his own. The severe condemnation ol second marriage, in the works of Athenagoras, is doubtless a point of contact with the Mon- tanists ; but the same view is very common with the Greek Fathers {vid. Hefele's Beitrdge. vol. i. lect. 2). Moreover, of the authority and office of the Paraclete, in the sense attributed, to Montanus, there is no trace in the writings of Athenagoras. VII. Quotations of Scripture, Early Writers etc. — The inspiration of Scripture is strongl) stated by Athenagoras, e.g. Apol. c. 9, p. 9 d. He is seldom careful to quote exactly, so thai it is not always certain what version is em- ployed ; probably the Septuagint throughout From the N.T. he often quotes or borrows phrases, without mentioning whence they come. It is treated as authoritative amongsi Christians ; its maxims being used shewing their discipline and practice {vid. Lardner Credibility ; Clarisse, Athenag. § 55). It has been disputed whether Athenagora: refers to other Christian writers, especially thi Apology of Justin Martyr, which some con sider him to have made the foundation of hi own. Certainly the resemblance betweei them seems too great to be the result o accident alone. Both J ustin and Athenagora urged that Christians were unconvicted o any crime, that the mere name does no deserve punishment, and that they were n( more Atheists than the poets and the philo sophers ; and both, in a similar manner, shev the unworthiness of sacrificial worship. The; give very much the same view of the Christiai way of life ; and both lay great stress 01 chastity, and on the confining of marriage ti its sole end, the begetting of children. Nearl; the same account of the fall of the angels i found in both : the same books are quoted often the same passages ; by both the ver; same phrases are occasionally employed This correspondence is especially seen betweei' ATTICUS the exordium of Justin's first Apoln/iy and that of Athenagoras. Hence Clarisse infers \Comm. in Athenag. § 57) that Athenagoras intended to rearrange and epitomize the work of his predecessor. In the treatise On the Resurrection, c. S, p. 48 c, is an apparent imitation of Tatian, Or. ad Graec. c. 6, p. 146 n. VIII. Editions. — A good ed. of Athenagoras is that of Otto (Jena, 1857) ; its text is based on the three earliest MSS. (viz. the Cod. Paris. CDLI., Cod. Paris. CI.XXIV'., and Cod. Ar- gentoratensis), with which the rest have been collated, some for the first time ; the most recent is bv E. Schwartz. Leipz. i8qi {Texte utid Untersidchungen, iv. 2). There is an Eng. trans, in the Antc-\icene Fathers. IX. Sf>urious ll'or^s. — From a careless ex- pression of desner, in reference to the books of Antoninus, Ilepi rwv ei's eavrSi', a notion arose of the existence, amongst Gesner's books, of a work by Athenagoras with the above title ; an idea which, though wholly erroneous, was entertained by Scultatus, and at one time bv Tentzel. with some others. About the close of the i6th cent, there appeared a French romance, entitled Dn vray et par/ait .imour, purporting to be a work of Athenagoras, trans, by M. Fum6e, Seigneur dc S. Geuillac. Its many anachronisms and whole character prove it, however, the work of some later author, probably Fumee him- self. Certainly no Greek original has ever been produced. The following may be consulted : Clarisse, Comm. in A then. ; Hefele, Beitrdge ; Mohler, Patrol.; I. Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. ; L. Amould, deApol. Athen. (Paris, iSgS). [s.m.] Attlcus, archbp. of Constantinople, suc- ceeding Arsacius in March 406. He died Oct. 10, 426. Born at Scbaste in Armenia, he early embraced a monastic life, and re- ceived his education from some Macedonian monks near that place. Removing to Con- stantinople, he adopted the orthodox faith, was ordained presbyter, and soon became known as a rising man. He proved himself one of Chrysostom's most bitter adversaries. Ifnot. as Palladius asserts (c. xi.), the architect of the whole cabal, he certainly took a very leading part in carrying it into execution. The organization of the s\Tiod of the Oak owed much to his practical skill (Phot. Cod. 59). The expulsion of Chrysostom took place June lo, 404. His successor, the aged Arsacius, died Nov. 5, 405. Four months of intrigue ended in the selection of Atticus. Vigorous measures were at once adopted by Atticus in conjunction with the other members of the triumvirate to which the Eastern church had been subjected, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Porphyry of Antioch, to crush the adherents of Chrysostom. An imperial rescript was obtained imposing the severest penalties on all who dared to reject the communion of the patriarchs. A large number of the bishops of the East persevered in the refusal, and suffered a cruel persecu- tion ; while even the inferi(jr clergy and laity were compelled to keep themselves in conceal- ment, or to fly the country. The small minority of Eastern bishops who for peace's sake deserted Chrysostom's cause were made to f«el the guilt of having once supported it, ATTILA 69 being compelled to l<Mve tlieir sees and take other dioceses in the inh<is]Utable regions of Thrace, where they might be more under Atticus'seve and hand (Socr. vii. 36 ; Niceph. xiii. 30 ; Pallad. c. xx.). Unity seemed hardly nearer when the death of Chrysostom (Sejit. 14, 407) removed the original ground of the schism. A large pro- portion of the Christian population of Con- stantinople still refused communion with the usurper, and continued tti hold their religious assemblies, more numerouslv attended than the churches, in the open air in the suburbs of the city (Niceph. xiv. 23, 27), until Chry- sostom's name took its place on the registers and in the public prayers of the church of Constantinople. Atticus's endeavours were vigorously di- rected to the maintenance and enlargement of the authority of the sec of Constantinople. He obtained a rescript from Theodosius sub- jecting to it the whole of lUyria and the " Provincia Orientalis." This gave great offence to pope H<iniface and tlie emperor Honorius, and the decree was never put into execution. Another rescript declaring his right to decide on and approve of the election of all the bishops of the province was more effectual. Silvanus was named by him bp. of Philippolis, and afterwards removed to Troas. He asserted the right to ordain in Bithynia, and put it in practice at Nicaea, A.n. 425, a year before he died (Socr. vii. 25, 28, 37). He also displayed great vigour in combat- ing and repressing heresy. He wrote to the bishops of Pamphylia and to Amphilochius of Iconium, calling on them to drive out the Messalians (Phot. c. 52). The zeal and energy he displayed against the Pelagians are highly commended by pope Celestine, who goes so far as to style him " a true successor of St. Chrysostom " (Labbe, Cone. iii. 353, 361, 363, 1073 ; cf. S. Prosper, p. 549 ; S. Leo. Ep. cvi. ; Theod. Ep. cv.). His writings were quoted as those of an orthodox teacher by the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (Labbe, iii. 518, iv. 831). Atticus was more an actor than a writer ; and of what he did publish little remains. A treatise On Virginity, combating bv anticipa- tion the errors of Nestorius, addressed to Pulcheria and her sisters, is mentioned by Marcellinus, Chron. sub ann. 416, and Gen- nadius, de Scrip. Eccl. c. 52. Socrates, who is a partial witness, attributes to him a sweet and winning disposition which caused him to be regarded with much affec- tion. Those who thought with him found in him a warm friend and supporter. Towards his theological adversaries he at first shewed great severity, and after they submitted, changed his behaviour and won them bv gentleness (Socr. vii. 41 ; Soz. viii. 27). [i;.v.] Attila, king and general of the Huns. For the facts of his life and his personal and moral characteristics see D. of G. and R. Biogr. It comes within our scope only to note his in- fluence upon Christendom ; though, through- out, it is difficult to separate legend from history. The rapid series of events between the Hunnish attack on the Eastern empire in 441 and the battle of Chalons in 451 has been compared to a deluge of rain which sweeps a 70 ATTILA district and leaves no further trace than the debris which the torrent has washed down. But in Eastern Europe, though Attila's kingdom was dismembered at his death, the great body of the Huns, who had followed him from the wilds of Central Asia, settled per- manently in the wide plains of the Lower Danube ; while, viewed as a special instru- ment of Providence, " a Messiah of grief and ruin," whose mission it was to chastise the sins of Christians, the " scourge (or rather flail) of God " had an abiding influence over Western Christendom, and the virtues and merits of the saints who thwarted him by bold resist- ance or prudent submission shone forth the brighter, the darker became the picture of the oppressor. Portents in sky and earth announced to the inhabitants of Gaul that the year 450 was the opening of a terrible epoch (Idat. Chron. ann. 450). Servatius, bp. of Tongres, visiting Rome to consult St. Peter and St. Paul, was informed that Gaul would be entirely devas- tated by the Huns, but that he himself would die in peace before the devastation came (Paul. Diac. ap. Bouquet, Rec. i. p. 649). Attila, strengthened by an alliance with Gen- seric, king of the Vandals (Jom. Reb. Get. 36), had two pretexts for his attack — his claim to the hand of Honoria, and the vindication of the rights of an elder son of a Frank prince against his brother, whom Aetius had given possession of their paternal territory (Prise. Exc. Leg. p. 40). Theodoric, king of the Goths, whose alliance was sought by both Attila and Valentinian, inclined to the side of order, and the Hun, who now took the role of chastising his rebellious subjects, the Visigoths, marched with five, or perhaps seven, hundred thousand warriors, including many Franks, Burgun- dians, and Thuringians (Sid. Apoll. Paneg. Avit. V. 324), to the banks of the Rhine, which he crossed near Coblenz. He installed him- self at Treves, the Roman metropolis of Gaul, which was pillaged. After one fruitless at- tempt, he entered Metz on Easter Eve, April 8, slaughtered indiscriminately priests and people, except the bishop, and reduced the city to ashes, all the churches perishing except the oratory of St. Stephen (Paul. Diac. ap. Bouquet, Rec. i. p. 650). Rheims. deserted by its inhabitants, was easily reduced, and a Hun struck off the head of its bishop, Nicacius, while he was precenting the words " Quicken me according to Thy word" (Ps. cxix. 25) (Frodoard. Marh'r. Remens. p. 113). Tongres, Arras, Laon, and Saint-Quentin also fell. The inhabitants of Paris had resolved on flight, but the city was saved by the resolution and devotion of St. Genevieve (Genovefa), the maiden of Nanterre who was warned in a vision that Paris would be spared [Act. SS. Boll. Jan. i. 143-147). Attila did not wish to wage war against Christianity, though doubt- less some of his followers we're stimulated by polemical rancour ; he fought against Rome, not its church. Nor did he intend to give up Gaul to indiscriminate pillage ; he hoped to crush the Visigoths first, and then to cope separately with Aetius and the Roman forces. About April 10 he left Metz for Orleans. Anianus (St. Agnan), bp. of Orleans, hastened to Aries to apprise Aetius of their danger, but AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS Orleans was only relieved by the influence of the senator Avitus of Clermont, who secured the help of Theodoric, when the gates had actually been opened to the Huns and pillage was beginning (Vita S. Aniani, in Bouquet, Rec. i. 645). Attila retreated precipitatelv towards Chalons-sur-Marne, in the Campi Catalaunici. Near Troyes he was met by its bishop, Lupus (St. Loup), at whose inter- cession Attila spared the defenceless inhabit- ants of Champagne, carrying Lupus with him as a hostage to the banks of the Rhine. For the subsequent military movements and the battle of Chalons, see Thierry, Hist, d' Attila, pp. 172-188,428-437, and art. "Attila" in the Noiiv. Biog. Gen. In the spring of 452 ; Attila penetrated into Italy by the passes of the Julian Alps (Prosp. Aquit. Chron.), ^ Aetius having sent Valentinian for safety to Rome. Attila received his first check at the walls of Aquileia; but after three months' resistance he observed some storks preparing to leave their nests with their young (Jorn. Reb. Get. 42), and, taking this as a favourable omen, redoubled the vigour of his siege, and a century afterwards Jornandes {ib.) could scarcely trace the ruins of Aquileia. Milan and Pavia were sacked, and probably also Verona, Mantua, Brescia, Bergamo, and Cre- mona. An embassy, sent by the people and senate of Rome, to endeavour to obtain Attila's peaceful evacuation of Italy, met the invaders on the Mincio, near Mantua and Vergil's farm. At its head were two illustrious senators and the eloquent Leo the Great, who had been bp. of Rome since 440. His appear- ance in pontifical robes awoke in Attila some feeling akin to awe, and he retired as before a power superior to his own. Soon after he died from the bursting of a blood-vessel, though not without suspicion of foul play. Cf. Leo I. Undoubtedly the great and distinguishing feature of the war in the eyes of 5th-cent. Christians would be the threefold repulse of Attila, " the scourge of God" ; from Orleans by St. Agnan, from Troj'es by St. Loup, and, above all, from Rome by St. Leo ; so signal a triumph was it of the church's spiritual weapons over the hosts who were held to symbolize the powers of darkness and of Anti- christ. It was the final and conclusive answer to the few heathen who still referred all the misfortunes of the empire to the desertion of the ancient polytheism. For a discussion of the various national legends that have clustered around Attila, " the hammer of the world," see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v. The leading authorities for his life are in Gibbon's Roman Empire (ed. Smith), iv. 191 (notes). See also his Life bv Am. Thierrv, 1855- ' [CD.]' Augustinus, Aurelius. A. Early Life. — §§ i, 2, Name, Materials for biography ; § 3. Early life ; § 4. Manicheism ; § 5. Philosophical period; § 6. Conversion ; § 7. Early Christian life : (a) as layman, (6) as presbyter. B. Episcopate. — § 8. Donatism : (a) Origin, (b) Early history, (c) Augustine and the schism ; § 9. Paganism and the de Civitate Dei; § 10. Pelagianisra : (a) Origin, {b) Zosimus and JuUan, (c) The semi- Pelagians, (d) Doctrinal AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS issues; § ii. AiiKUstiiio and Greek Christendom ; § 12. Augustine and the hierarchy : (a) Church authority and episcopate, {b) EquaHty of episcopate, (c) Rome and the episcopate : Case of Apiarius, (</) Rome and doctrinal authority, {«•) Ultimate authority ; § 13. Death and character. c. Influence. — § 14. Writings; § 13. Asceticism and the "Rule": The Church and property; § 16. Intel- lectual influence : (a) Philosophic Theism, {b) Ecclesiasticism, (c) Pre- destinarianism ; § 17. Bibliography. \. Early Life. — § i. .V<j»i<-. — Orosius, Hist. Pagan. I. 4 ; Prosper, Car. dc Ins^rat. i. 3, ; Chron. ad ann. 430; Claudian Mamert. >tat. Ati. ii. 10; Bede, Vit. St. Ctitlib., r the name as above. The name .•\urelius . a >t given by Possidius, nor is it ever used s;. iby Augustine himself nor by any of his cor- Jit j-cspondents. But the Benedictine editors k [tind it in the earliest MS. titles of his works, tj land it is probably authentic. c § 2. Materials for Bioi^raphy. — These are » [exceptionally ample. For his first thirty- It jthree years we have, in the Confessions, the t most perfect of religious autobiographies (see t below, § 8, ad init.). The word " Confessions " ; includes not only the idea of self-accusation, t {but also that of thanksgiving (see IX. vi. con- . Ifiteor tibi dona tua, and the use of confiteor in E ithe Vulgate Psalter). For his career as a w Christian and a bishop, we possess an admir- r, [ably simple and graphic life by his pupil and {friend Possidius, bp. of Calamis. The writings and correspondence of Augustine himself copiously supplement the narrative. The Benedictine editors have worked up the whole of the material into a very accurate biography in eight books. It fills 513 columns of the Patr. Lat., and leaves little to be added by others. (See below, § 17.) § 3. Birth and Early Years (354-373). — .\ugustine was born at Thagaste in Numidia Proconsular is, on Xov. 13, 354 (for evidence as to this date, see Bencd. Life in Patr. Lat. I. 118). His father Patricius, a jovial, sensual, passionate man, and till near the end of his life a heathen, was one of the curiales of the town, but without large means. His mother Monoica was a Christian by parentage, con- viction, and character. Augustine acknow- ledged (de Vit. Beat. i. 6) that he owed his all to her ; conversely we can trace to her anxious care for her son's spiritual well-being a distinct deepening of her own character (see Conf.W.m.subfin.; IX. viii. ix.). From his mother he received the elements of Christian teaching, and, as he tells us, a devotion to the very name of Jesus Christ which his later spiritual wanderings never wholly e.xtin- I guished, and which forbade him to find satis- faction in any writings which lacked it {Conf. III. iv. 3). As a child he had a severe illness, and demanded baptism. His mother had agreed to allow it ; but when he recovered, in accordance with the then prevailing dread of post-baptismal sin, she put off his baptism to riper years. Augustine was one of several children (we read of his brother Navigius, Conf. IX. xi., de Beat. Vit. i. 6 ; a sister, Ep. an*; nieces, Possid. xxvi. ; nephew Patricius AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 71 and nieces. Serin. 35()'i, see. Honed. Life, I. i. 4). He early shewed signs of pre-eminent ability, and his parents, both of whom enter- tained the ordinary parental ambitions, found means to send him to school at the neigh- bouring town of Madaura. Here, though ho found the study of (Ireek distasteful, he made good progress ; in fact it became clear that he was ripe for the higher schools of Carthage, and he was withdrawn from Madaura. The difficulty of providing the means for his studies at the more expensive and distant capital kept him at home for a year (369-370). He laments bitterly the comjiany he kept and the habits into whicli lie fell at this period. The boyish freak of rnbi)iiig a pear-tree with his companions weighed heavily on his mind in later years (Conf. II. iv. ix.). He tells us, however, with sliame, that in order not to be outdone by his companions he boasted of licentious acts which he had not committed. This may modify our natural inferences from the self-accusing language of the Confessions. At last, aided by their wealthy and benevo- lent neighbour Romanianus, his parents were able to send him to Carthage. Here, at the age of sixteen, Augustine began his " univer- sity " life, as a student of Rhetoric. Again he speaks with an agony of remorse of his life as a student. It is certain that he contracted an irregular union, and in 372 he became the father of a son, Adeodatus. But he remained faithful to his mistress until the very eve of his conversion, and watched over his son's educa- tion and character. Eventually father and son were baptized together (see below, § 6 ; also cf. Conf. VI. xv. 25). We must infer that his life was on the whole above the average level of student life in Carthage. He tells us that the " best set " among them were given to brutal horse-play, directed especially against shy freshmen ; but although he associated with these " eversores," he took no part in their wild doings. In 371 his father had died, but, aided once more by the kindness of Romanianus, Mon- nica was able still to keep her son at Carthage. Ambition for social success, and for a future career at the bar, rather than any deeper motive, led him to pursue his studies with ardour. But in his nineteenth year, while reading Cicero's Hortensius, he became deeply impressed with the supreme value of Wisdom, as contrasted with the vain hopes and fleeting opinions of the world. From this time on- ward he is a restless seeker after Truth {Conf. III. iv.). His first impulse was toward the Scriptures, but their simplicity repelled him ; " they seemed to me to be far inferior to the dignity of Tully." § 4. Manicheism (373-383). — A baffled in- quirer, he was attracted by the Manichean system, which appears to have been actively pushed in Africa at this period. This is not the place for a description of Manicheism. From .\ugustine's many allusions to its tenets, it appears to have been a strange medley of dualism and materialism, asceticism and licence, theosophy and rationalism, free- thought and superstition. What specially attracted Augustine appears to have been the high moral pretensions of the sect, their criti- cism of Scripture difficulties, and their explana- 72 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS tion of the origin of evil by the assumption of an independent evil principle. For nine years (373-382, Conf. IV. L, de Util. Cred. 2) Augustine was an ardent Manichean. He brought over his friends Alypius and Honor- atus, and his patron Romanianus, to the same convictions, and delighted in controversy with Catholics. He remained an " auditor " only. The " electi " were bound to strict continence, and Augustine was increasingly conscious of the chasm between his ideal and his practice. " Make me chaste, but not yet, "was his prayer during this period of his hfe {Conf. VIII. vii.). Augustine completed his studies, and returned to Thagaste as a teacher of grammar. His mother, overwhelmed with horror at his new opinions, refused to receive him at home. At first, therefore, he hved with Romanianus. Monnica's prayers were answered by a con- soling dream {Conf. III. xi.) and a friend, a bishop, himself a convert from Manicheism, whom she entreated to argue with her son, while wisely refusing her request, dismissed her with the words, " It cannot be that the son of those tears of yours should be lost." She accepted the words as a voice from Heaven, and received Augustine into her household. The death of a dear friend — Augustine was a man of warm friendships {Conf. IV. ix.) — moved him to leave Thagaste, and return, as a teacher of Rhetoric, to Carthage. Here he studied zealously, devoting attention to the " liberal arts," astronomy, and other sub- jects, and lived a life of cultivated society and successful literary effort. He tells us of a prize poem which won a crown in the theatre from the proconsul Vindicianus, a wise old phvsician who convinced him (but see Con/. Vli. vi.) of the futility of astrology {Conf. IV. iii. ; this apparently occurred at Carthage). About this time he wrote a work in two or three books, de Pulcro et Apto, which he in- scribed to Hierius, a professor of Rhetoric at Rome, whom he had come to admire by reputation. These books he did not preserve'; they appear to have been his first. Mean- while, he began to be less satisfied with the Manichean view of existence ; these mis- givings were intensified by disillusion in regard to the morals of the electi (de Moribus Man. 68 sqq.). But his Manichean friends urged him to await the arrival at Carthage of Faust- us, a " bishop " of the sect, who enjoved a reputation for brilliant ability and learning, and who could be trusted to resolve all his doubts. But when the great Faustus appeared, Augustine soon discovered him to be a very ordinary person, " of charming manner and pleasant address, who said just what the others used to say, but in a much more agreeable style" {Conf. V. iii. 6). When, after his addresses to the crowd, Augustine laid before him some of his doubts, his mediocritv was transparent. " He knew that he did not know, and was not ashamed to confess the fact . . . and for this I liked him all the better." But he liked the system all the less ; and without formally separating from the Manicheans, he adopted an " academic " suspense of judgment in regard to the opinions he had hitherto adopted ; henceforth he held them provisionallv, pending the discovery of something better {de Vii. Beat. i. 4). AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS § 5. Rome. Philosophy (383-386). — MainU in disgust at the rough and disorderly student; of Carthage {Conf. V. viii.), Augustine now migrated to Rome. With bitter self-reproacl he tells us of the deceit by means of which h( left his mother, who had followed him tc Carthage, behind {Conf. V. viii.). At Rome his host was a Manichean, Alypius and othei Manichean friends surrounded him, and in 3 severe illness he received the greatest kindness from them all. But the students of Rome dis- appointed Augustine. They were less rude, but also less honest, than those of Carthage, especially in the matter of payment of theii fees {Conf. V. xi.). Presently (about the summer of 384) Symmachus, the Praefectus Urbi, was commissioned by the Milanese to find them a professor of Rhetoric. Augustine, by the aid of his Manichean friends, obtained the post, and travelled, at the public expense, to Milan. Here he was attracted by the elo- quence of Ambrose, then at the height of his fame, and soon made his acquaintance. " I began to love him, not at first as a teacher of the truth, which I despaired of finding in Thy Church, but as a fellow-creature who was kind to me." Contemptuous of the subject-matter of his sermons, Augustine listened to them as an interested professional critic. " I cared not to understand what he said, but only to hear how he said it." But it was impossible to keep form and substance wholly apart, and by degrees he began to realize that the case for Catholic Christianity was not wholly beneath discussion. This was especially the case with regard to the O.T., a principal target for Manichean ridicule. The allegorical method of exegesis by which Ambrose explained every difficulty struck away the substratum of literalism upon which Manichean objections were based. " For while I read those Scrip- tures in the letter, I was slain in the spirit." But though one main foundation of his Mani- cheism was thus giving way, the materialistic presuppositions remained. " Had I been able to conceive of a spiritual substance, all their devices would have been broken, but this as yet I found impossible." He remained in a state of suspense ; his philosophic position was that of the " New Academy," one of pure negation. However, pending' further hght, he resumed the position he had occupied in boyhood of a catechumen in the Catholic church {Conf. V. xiv.). Alypius. who was in legal practice, had accompanied him to Milan, and presently their friend Nebridius joined them. Monnica, probably accompanied by his brother Navigius, soon followed her son to Milan {Conf. VI. ix.). The friends appear {Conf. VIII. viii.) to have hired a roomy house and garden. Augustine's worldly prospects seemed excellent, a career of official distinction was opening before him {Conf. \T. xii.) ; his mother, hoping that if would lead to his bap- tism, encouraged him in the selection of a wife. But two years had to pass before the lady was of age {Conf. VI. xiii.). Meanwhile his mis- tress was dismissed {ib. xv.), to his and her great grief, and Augustine took another. Augustine was now thirty vears of age. He had almost wholly shaken off Manicheism, and was, as his mother saw, steadily gravitating towards the Catholic church. His successful AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS and intrrosting work, hniiourable position, and delightful social surroiiiulitigs made his lot outwardly enviable. But he pronounces, and apparently with some truth, that at this I period he touched his lowest moral level (Conf. 1 VI. xvii.. VII. i., VIII. v.). .\t any rate ' ( the contrast between his actual life and his I ! habitual idealism was never more painfully f realized. His ideal was the philosophic life, ' i and but for his matriintMiial plans and his still u five ambition, he would probably have luecl his frii'iuis in foundinR a small philo- j>hir coininunitv with a comnu^n purse and ii.'uschold {Conf.' VI. xiv. ; f. Academ. II. 11. 4, lie Beat. Vit. i. 4, ne in philosophiae i^rciuium celeritcr advolarem, uxoris honor- . isque illecebra detinebar). But his cnthu- j siasm burned low (c. Acad. II. ii. 5), until it I was kindled afresh by his study of the Platonic I philosophy. A friend (apparently Theodorus, who became consul in 309 — see Retr. I. ii. Displicet autem, etc., and Conf. VII. ix. immanissimo typho turgidum) put into his hands (Conf. VII. ix., de Beat. Vit. i. 4) some translations of the nco-Platonist authors, pro- bably by Victorians. The elTect was rapid ) and profound. Much Christian truth he found there, but not inward peace : the 1 eternal Word, but not Christ the Word made I flesh. But his flagging idealism was braced, he was once for all lifted out of materialism, I and his tormenting doubts as to the origin of evil were laid to rest by the conviction that evil has its origin in the will, that evil is but the negation of good, and that good alone has a substantive existence (Conf. VII. vii. xiv.). His first impulse was to give up all earthly ties ("omnesillasancoras," Vit. Beat. ^), resign his professorship, and live for philosophy alone. But this he delayed to do, until, after his conversion, a serious lung-attack gave him what was now a welcome excuse (Conf. IX. ii., of. SoHl. I. i. I ; c. .Acad. I. i. 3 ; de Beat. Vit. i. 4). Meanwhile he read with care the Epistles of St. Paul, in which he found a provision for the disease of sin, which he had vainly sought in the Platonic books. But his life remained unregenerate, and his distress thickened. He then laid his case before Simplicianus, the spiritual adviser, and even- tually the successor, of Ambrose. Simplici- anus described to him the conversion of the aged Victorinus, to whose translation of the Platonists he had owed so much (Conf. VIII. ii.). .\ugustine hinged to follow the example of his pubUc profession of faith, but the flesh still held him back, like a man heavy with drowsiness who sinks back to sleep though he knows that the hour for rising has struck. So he went on with his usual life. § 6. Conversion (386-387). — One day a Christian fellow-townsman, Pontitianus, who held an appointment at court, called to visit Alypius. Observing with pleasure a volume of St. Paul's Epistles, he went on to talk to his friends of the wonderful history of the hermit Anthony, whose ascetic life had begun from hearing in church a passage of the gospel (Matt. xix. 21), on which he had promptly acted ; he then described the spread of the monastic movement, and informed his astonished hearers that even at Milan there was a monastery in existence. As Pontitianus AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 7:^ told his tale, Augustine was lillcd with self- reproach. Conscience shamed him that after ten years of study he was still carrying a burden which men wearied by no research had already cast aside. When Pontitianus had gone, he poured out his incoherent feelings to the astonished .Mypius, and then, followed by his friend, fled into the garden. " Let it be now — let it be now," he said to himself ; but the vanities of his life plucked at his clothes and whispered, " Do you think you can live without us ? " Then again the continence of the monks and virgins confronted him with the question, " Can you not do as these have done ? " Alypius watched him in silence. At last he broke down and, in a torrent of tears, left his friend alone. He threw himself down under a fig-tree, crying passionately, " Lord, how long ? — to-morrow and to-mor- row ! — why not now ? " Suddenly he heard a child's voice from the next house repeating, in a sing-song voice, " Take and read " (loUe, lege). He tried to think whether the words were used in any kind of children's game ; but no, it must be a divine command to open the Bible and read the first verse that he should happen upon. He thought of Anthony and the lesson in church. He ran back to AJypius and opened " the .Apostle " at Kom. xii. 13, 14, " Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof." " No further would I read, nc)r was it necessary." The peace of God was in his heart, and the shadows of doubt melted away. He marked the pas- sage and told Alypius, the friends exchanged confidences, and Alypius applied to himself the words, a little further on, " Him that is weak in the faith receive " (Rom. xv. i). They went in, and filled the heart of Monnica with joy at the news (Conf. VIII. viii.). It was now the beginning of the autumn vaca- tion. Augustine decided to resign his chair before the next term, and meanwhile wrote to Ambrose to announce his desire for baptism. His friend Verecimdus, who was himself on the eve of conversion, lent his country house at Cassiciacum, near Milan, to Augustine and his party ; there they spent the vacation and the months which were to elapse before bap- tism (winter 386-387). At Cassiciacum he spent a restful, happy time with his mother and brother, his son Adeodatus, Alypius, and his two pupils, Licentius and Trygetius, the former a son of his old patron Romanianus. He wrote several short books here, " in a style which, though already enlisted in Thy service, still breathed, in that time of waiting, the pride of the School" (Conf. I.\. iv.). These were the three books contra Acadcmicos, two de Ordine, the de Beata Vita, and two books of Soliloquies ; to this period also belong letters 1-4, of which 3 and 4 are the beginning of his correspondence with Nebridius (Conf. IX. iii.). Ambrose had, in answer to his re- quest for advice, recommended him to read Isaiah. But he found the first chapter so hard that he put it aside till he should be more able to enter into its meaning. The Psalms, however, kindled his heart at this time. To him, as to many in most diverse conditions, 74 AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS they seemed to interpret the depths of his soul and the inmost experiences of his life (Conf. IX. iv.). But Augustine's main in- tellectual interest was still philosophical. Ex- cept when engaged upon the classics with his pupils, or on fine days in country pursuits (" in rebus rusticis ordinandis," c. Acad. I. v. 14 ; cf. II. iv. 10), the time was spent in discussing the philosophy of religion and Ufe. The above- mentioned books, of which those de Ordine are perhaps the most characteristic, are, excepting of course the Soliloquies, in the form of notes of these discussions. The time to give in his name for baptism was approaching, and the party returned to Milan. Augustine was baptized by Ambrose, along with his heart's friend Alypius, and his son Adeodatus. The church music, which Milan, first of all the Western churches, had recently adopted from the East, struck deep into his soul : " The tide of devotion swelled high within me, and the tears ran down, and there was gladness in those tears." § 7. (a) Early Christian Life. Death of Monnica. Return to Africa. Life as a Lay- man (387-391). — While waiting for baptism at Milan, Augustine had written a short book, de Immortaliiate Animae, and the first part, de Gramnititica, of a work on the " Uberal arts " : the latter, though included by Possidius in his list of Augustine's hterary remains, was early lost by him {Retr. I. vi.). After the baptism, Augustine, with Alypius, and Evodius, a fellow-townsman, converted before Augustine himself, who had joined him at Milan, set out for Africa, with the intention of continuing their common life. But at Ostia, Monnica was seized with fever, and died " in the fifty- sixth year of her age, and the thirty-third of mine." Augustine's account of her life and character, and of his conversations with her, shortly before her death, on Eternal Life, forms perhaps the most exquisite and touching part of the Confessions (IX. viii.-xiii.). He prayed for her soul, beheving that what he prayed for was already performed. " Let none have power to drag her away from Thy protection. . . . For she will not answer that she owes nothing, lest she should be confuted and seized by the crafty accuser ; but she will answer that her debt has been forgiven by Him, to Whom none can give back the ransom which He paid on our behalf, though He owed it not." Augustine now remained in Rome till the autumn of 388 (" jam post Maximi tyranni mortem," c. lit. Petit. III. 30, cf. Retr. I. vii.-ix.). Of his life there, the two books de Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae et de Moribus Manichaeorum, the de Qtiantitate Animae, and the first of his three books de Libera A rbitrio, are the monument. From them we gather that he lived with Evodius a life of " abun- dant leisure," entirely given to the studies begun at Cassiciacum. The book on the morals of the Manicheans, founded on his former converse with them at Rome (see above, § 5), was reserved for completion and pubhcation in Africa (xii. 26). At last Augus- tine crossed with Alypius to Carthage [de Civ. XXII. viii.), and returned to Thagaste. A work composed by him here, de Magistro (Conf. IX. vi. ; Retr. I. xii.), is in the form of a dialogue with Adeodatus, and Augustine AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS assures us that the substance of the words was really from the lips of his son at the age of sixteen, i.e. not later than 388. The boy died young, full of piety and promise ; we do not know the date, but he was present at Mon- nica's death (Conf. IX. xi.), and very pro- bably lived to accompany his father to Africa. At Thagaste Augustine and his friends lived on his paternal estate for nearly three years, a quiet, industrious, and prayerful life. Ne- bridius (Ep. 5) condoles with him for having to give so much time to the negotia civium ; but evidently there was plenty of leisure for study. We saw above (§ 6) that Augustine's studies were, up to the present, philosophical rather than Biblical. His ordination found him still but little versed in Scripture (Ep. 213). His continued correspondence with Nebridius (Epp. 5-14) shews the continued predominance of philosophical interest ; the same may be said of the writings of the period, de Genesi adv. Manichaeos, de Musica, de Magistro, de Vera Religione, and parts of the Liber de Diversis Quaestionibus LXXXIIL The de Musica was a portion of the above-named unfinished work on the " liberal arts " : he wrote it at the request of an African bishop. It is inter- esting as giving one side of Augustine's view of secular culture, for which he claims, in the spirit of Plato, that if rightly used, it leads up to God, the underlying Truth of all things. The other works of this period are still per- vaded with the Manichean controversy. This is the origin of the de Vera Religione, one of Augustine's ablest works ; years later (about 414) he refers Evodius to it for the theistic argument (Ep. 162, 2). There is a difference of opinion as to the exact time at which Augustine sold his father's estate, and as to the monastic or lay character of the life at Thagaste. The Benedictine Life (III. ii.-v.), maintaining that Augustine's settlement at Thagaste was strictly monastic, accounts for the fact that he lived on his patrimony by supposing that he did so as a tenant of the purchaser. Of this there is no evidence whatever. The most probable inference from the crucial passage (Serm. 355, 2) combined with the statements of Possidius, is briefly as follows : — Augustine and his friends lived at his home in Thagaste, reaUzing approximately the ideal, formed already at Milan (Conf. VI. xiv.), and partially realized at Cassiciacum, of a common life of study and detachment from worldly cares. The tendency to a mon- astic ideal was there, and as time went on, Augustine determined to sell his property, and find a home more suitable for a monastery. Possibly the importunate demands of his fellow-citizens upon his kindness (see above) made Thagaste itself unsuitable. Hand in hand with the question of the place went the question of recruits. Augustine travelled to different places in search of a suitable site — a\-oiding towns where the see was vacant, for he knew that his growing fame might lead men to think of him. Among other places, he came to Hippo (Bona), where he knew of a young official whom he hoped io enlist for his monastery (" juvenis veni ad istam civitatem, quaerebam ubi constituerem monasterium . . . veni ad istam civitatem propter videndum amicum quern putabam lucrari me posse Deo AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS ut nobiscuin esset in moiuisterin." Tlic tnonasterium is clearly prospective). This was probablv early in .191. Augustine had come to Hippo intending to stay no time, " with nothing but his clothes " ; but as it happened, he entered the church just as \'alerius, the aged bishop, was addressing the people on the necessity of choosing a new presbyter. Valerius, by birth a Greek (Possid. v. "homo natura Graecus "). wanted a fluent Latin preacher. Augustine's reputation had come before him. With one accord the people seized .\ugustiue. and presented him to \ale- rius for ordination. With sincere reluctance and many tears .\ugustine yieklcd ; Hippo became his home, and the Christian ministry his calling. Knowing of his plans. Valerius gave him a wonastt-riiim in the episcopal gardens. He had possibly already sohl his small estate at Thagaste ; if not, he did so now : the proceeds were spent on the poor of that place, and the people of Hippo approved and felt no jealousy (see Ef^. 126', 157*'). I He assembled in his monastery a number of i brethren like-minded, each with nothing of his own and all things common : above all, the common aim, "commune nobis ut esset magnum et uberrinum praedium ipse Deus." (6) Augustine a Presbyter of Hippo (391- 395)- — .\ugustine at the time of his ordi- nation as presbyter (he does not appear to have passed, as .\mbrose had formally done, through the diaconate) was a Christian Platonist. His temper was absolutely Christian, his stock of ideas wholly Platonic He had used the Bible devotionally rather than worked at its theology. Fully conscious of this, he obtained from his bishop a short period of leisure in order to master the mini- mum of Scriptural knowledge necessary for the discharge of his office (Ep. 21). At Easter, 391, he was entrusted with the tradilio symholi. His addresses to the candi- dates for baptism on that occasion are still extant {Serm. 214-216). He was, in fact, soon full of work. His monastery, the first in Africa (see below, § 13), became a training- school for clergy. Possidius tells us of ten bishops who proceeded from it. Among the earliest were Alypius, who in 394 went to Thagaste, and Evodius, to Uzala. Possidius himself became bp. of Calamus, but appears to have spent much of his time at Hippo, which was only some forty miles away. Moreover, the example of the monastic life spread rapidly (Ep. 24, sub fin.) ; before Augustine died, there were at least three monasteries in Hippo alone {Vit. Ben. III. v. 4). Of his life as a presbyter we know few details. He corresponds with Aurclius, the new bp. of Carthage, with a view to putting down the disorderly feasts o\er the tombs of the mart>Ts {Epp. 22, 29 ; Conf. V. ii.). At the end of Aug. 392, he held a public dis- cussion for two days with Fortunatus, a .Manichean presbyter^ the notes of which re- main. Pf)ssidius tells us that as the result Fortunatus left Hippo and never returned. In 393 a general council of .African bishops met at Hippo, and .Augustine preached to them de Fide et Symbolo (one of his best-known shorter works) ; he also mentions {Retr. I. 23) a stay at Carthage which must have been AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 75 of some, length, as it w.is there tli.it lie lieUl his epoch-marking tliscussioiis of diflicnlties in the ICp. to the Romans, and at the re- quest of his friends committed the results to writing (see below, § 10). We know that a council was held at Carthage in 394 : pos- sibly that may have been the occasion of his presence. The Manichean controversy still claimed his energies. In addition to the public discussions already referred to, he WTotc at this time the famous tract tie Utilitate Credendi; another, de Duahus Animabus, a tract against the Manichean Adimantus ; and the imperfect work de Genesi ad Literam, a work which he abandoned, as he felt his novice- hand unequal to the task (Rctr. I. xviii. ; sec below, § 14). A new task, imposed upon him by his oificial responsibilities, was the controversy with the Donatists (sec below, § 8). Early in his presbyterate he wrote to a neighbouring bishop of that sect to remon- strate with him for rebaptizing {Ep. 23). He also composed, for popular use, an acrostic song in refutation of the sect (about 394 : Psalmus contra partem Donati), and a tract, now lost, contra Epistolam Donati. To this period, lastly, belong a group of cxegetical works which shew a rapid advance in the command of Holy Scripture, the fruit of systematic study : an exposition of the Ser- mon on the Mount, a commentary on Gala- tians, some of the Quaestiones LXXXIII. {supra, § ya), and the above-mentioned notes on Romans. He began a continuous commen- tary on the Epistle, but only succeeded in completing the Salutation. The de Mendacio (see Retr. I. xxvii.) was also written at this period, but its issue w^as deferred till about 420, when the contra Mend, was also published {Retr. II. Ix.). Generally speaking, the works of this transition period are remarkable for the supersession of the philosophical form of the older works by Biblical, and to a great extent Pauline, citcgories. The philosophical sub- stratum of Platonism remains, but Augustine is now a Biblical and ecclesiastical theologian. (For a detailed analysis of the ideas distinctive of this and the preceding periods respectively, see the masterly article of Loofs, mentioned at the end of this article, pp. 270-276.) Lastly, it was as a presbyter that he completed his three books de Libera Arbitrio {supra, § 7fl) : they were directed against the Manichean theory of the origin of evil {supra, § 4), and vindicate the moral responsibility of man against the theory of a physical principle of evil. To the position taken up in these books the Pelagians {infra, § 10) appealed, against Augustine's later doctrine of irresistible grace. Augustine has no difficulty in shewing that he had even at this early date refuted them by anticipation. But it was less easy to meet the appeal of the so-called semi- Pelagians (sec below, § 10 d), who were on the side of the church against Pelagius, but demurred to positions taken up by Augustine later in life. Of personal interest is Augustine's correspond- ence with the saintly Paulinus of Nola, to whom he sent the' books on Free Will. Paulinus had heard of the growing fame of Augustine, and sought his acquaintance by letters addressed to Alypius and to Augustine himself {Epp. 24-27, 30-32)- Augustine at this 76 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS period also began to correspond with Jerome (Fp. 28) ; in a letter of about this date he indignantly rejects the theory that the scene at Antioch between SS. Paul and Peter was to be explained patrocinium mendacii sus- cipiendo. B. Episcopate (from 395). — § 8. The Don- atist Controversy, (a) Origin. — Valerius was old and infirm, and had marked out Augustine as his successor. But he daily feared that some other church might elect him as bishop, and that he would therefore be lost to Hippo. So, with the eager consent of his flock, he took a step then almost without precedent, and, unconsciously breaking the letter of the eighth canon of Nicaea, induced Megahus of Calama, the " primae sedis Episcopus," i.e. bishop senior by consecration in Numidia, to consecrate Augustine as his coadjutor with right of succession. Valerius had (Possid. viii.) privately gained the consent of Aurelius, bp. of Carthage ; Megalius made some per- sonal objections, which he subsequently withdrew (references in Vit. Ben. IV. i. 2). Valerius did not long survive the fulfilment of his hopes and prayers ; for nearly thirty-five years Augustine was bp. of Hippo. His episcopate was occupied by grave controver- sies, and productive of monumental works ; but it was not eventful as regards Augustine's personal history. It will be best, therefore, to deal with it, not by annalistic narrative, but by considering in turn the great questions with which Augustine had to deal. We have spoken sufficiently of the Manichean contro- versy. As a bishop (about 397-400) Augustine wrote against these heretics the tracts c. Ep. Fundamenti and de A gone Christiana. The Confessions, written about this time, give an insight into Augustine's personal experiences of Manicheism (see above, §§ 2, 4). About 400 he refuted, in thirty-three short books, a treatise by his old Manichean friend Faustus ; at the end of 404 (Retr. II. viii., cf. Ep. 29) he held a public discussion with a Manichean named Felix, and as a result penned the short tract de Natvra Boni. Somewhat later he was brought into controversy with the Manichean " auditor " Secundianus. Of his reply he says, " omnibus, quae adversus illam pes tern scribere potui, facile praepono." These are writings drawn out by occasional contact with a con- troversy which Augustine had outgrown. It was otherwise with the Donatist struggle, which pressed continually upon him for the first twenty years of his episcopate. As we have seen, it claimed some of his energy already as a presbyter. But it may fairly be called the one great question of his earlier episcopate. According to Possidius, the Donatists were at the time of Augustine's ordination a majority among the Christians of the African provinces ; at Hippo they were a very large majority, and terrorized the Catholics by exclusive dealing (c. Duas Lit. Petil. II. 184). The schism had existed since about 311, when Caecihanus was elected bp. of Carthage. Personal dislike to the election found a pretext for denying its validity. FeUx of Aptunga, his consecrator, was alleged to have been a traditor — i.e. to have given up the sacred books during persecution. This, it was argued, vitiated his power to give valid AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS Orders. For to communicate with an offender is to take part in his offence ; and Felix's offence, ipso facto, cut him off from the church. Like Cyprian, the opponents of Caecilianus denied the validity of any sacra- ment conferred outside the church. These two principles, then, were involved : firstly, the old Cyprianic denial of the validity of sacra- ments conferred by heretical (or schismaticel) hands; secondly, the nullity of sacraments! performed by unworthy ministers: "oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum " (Ps. cxl. 5, Vulg.). The question at issue, then, was really that of the essential nature of the church as a holy society (see Renter, pp. 236 sqq. note 2). The Catholics, in reply, insist on the fact that the church throughout the world is on their side, and that the Donatists are, by their separation, offenders against the bond of charity which maintains the peace and unity of the church : " Una est columba mea, speciosa mea " (Cant. vi. g). (ft) Earlier History of Donatists. — It is not necessary here to detail the phases through which the controversy had passed in the nearly three generations which preceded the episco- pate of Augustine, nor to unravel the intricate charges and counter-charges which encumber the real principles at issue. The principal landmarks in the question were : (i^ The appeal to Constantine, apparently first made by the Donatists, which resulted in the adverse decisions of the councils of Rome (313) and Aries (314). (2) The consecration of Ma- jorinus as bp. of Carthage in opposition to Caecilianus (311). He died in 315, and was succeeded by Donatus, a man of great energy, to whom the schism probably owes its name. (3) Imperial persecution of the Donatists, first by Constantine in 316, and then, after an attempt to bribe the Donatists into submission (340), a ruthless suppression by Constans in 347. This was successful in producing tem- porary submission, but it intensified the feeling of protest ; moreover, the fanatical ferocity of the " Circumcellions," which Constantine's first persecuting edict had evoked, was smouldering in readiness to break out again. (4) Return of the Donatists under Julian. In 361, agreeably to his general policy of the restoration of ecclesiastical exiles, Julian re- pealed his predecessor's measures against the Donatists, and during his short reign they exercised a violent supremacy in Africa. (5) Optatus and Parmenian. Donatus had died in exile, and was now succeeded by Parmeni- anus, an able and comparatively moderate man. With him begins the first phase of the literary debate between Donatists and Catho- lics. The opponent of Parmenianus was Op- tatus of Milevis, who was still living after 384. His work on the Donatist schism is a rich mine of materials for its history. It is to be noted that Parmenianus and Optatus both believe in the visible unity of the church. But Parmenianus, insisting on the holiness of the church, identifies it with the separatist body in Africa, while Optatus insists upon the Catholicity of the church, and upon its Apostolicity as tested by communion with the chair of St. Peter and with the seven churches of the Apocalypse. (6) Disintegration of Donatism. This began to be apparent in the AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS ' ■rrtaiiiau srhisin of Ko^aUis, wliose fol- :- uiuhurrlutl the otlicr Uimatists, and i.itcit the Cireuincellious ; in the iiioder- l>.>ixatism of Tycouius (the author of a vork on exegesis, of which Augustine speaks lighly, dc Doctr. Chr. III. xxx.), who exposed [he inconsistencies of tlie Donatist position, jnd was consequently cxconununicated by Parinenianus ; and lastly, in the formidable Maximianist schism of 303, which resulted in he election of a second Donatist bishop, Maximianus, at Carthage, in opposition to ,\imianus. the successor of Parmeuianus. ijver 100 bishops sided with Maximianus ; a council of 310 Donatist bishops in 394 decided (igainst him. The civil authority was then invoked against the dissidents, who were per- iecuted with the usual severity. I Meanwhile the council of Hippo in 303 isupra, % 7 b) had, by judicious reforms and Souciliatorv provisions, paved the way back 1:0 the church for any Donatists who might be disillusioned by the inward breakdown of ithe sect. But its external position was still inposing. Edicts issued against the Dona- Ilists (since 373. (^od. Theod. XVI. vi.) by Valentiaian and (.'.ratian had had, owing to the Estate of the empire, but little effect. The edict of Theodosius against heretics (392, Cod. Theod. X\'I. V.) was not enforced against them ; in fact, from some time previous to Ithe death of Theodosius in 395 till 398 the imperial writ did not run in the African provinces. (c) A ugustine and Donatism. — When !Stilicho recovered Africa for Honorius from the usurper Gildo, Augustine had been a bishop seven years. He had preached, cor- responded, and written actively against the ; Donatists, who had heard his sermons and |read his tracts in great numbers. Their !leaders had realized that they were now op- jposed by a champion of unexampled power, .and endeavoured to keep their publications 'from falling into his hands. His earliest epis- I copal work, contra Partem Doitati, is lost. But ;in 400 he wrote a reply to an old letter of I Parraenianus, and the seven books de Bapt. ,c. Donat. In 401 and 402 he replied to a j letter of Petilianus, the Donatist bp. of Cirta, I and wrote his letter to the Catholics, de Unitate ^EccUsiae, an important contribution to the 1 controversy. In 403 the Catholic bishops in syaod at Carthage agreed to propose a decisive coaference ; the Donatists declined, and in 404 I the Catholic synod determined to ask for a ' revival of the imperial laws against the schism, i From 405-409 the remedy of force was once ' more tried, with very partial success. In the j latter year the Catholic synod petitioned Honorius to order a conference, and as the j Donatists were now understood to agree, I Marcellinus, a " tribune," was specially com- missioned to arrange for the meeting. At the ! conference Augustine naturally played the j principal part on the Catholic side. Marcel- I linus closed the proceedings by giving judg- ; ment in favour of the Catholics, and in 412 ; this was followed up by an imperial edict of \ drastic severity. During this period Augustine wrote, in I addition to twenty-one extant letters on the I controversy, and four lost works, the following, AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 77 which we btiU have: f. 'ur books contra Cresconium; one dc Viiim liapli-itno, the lire- viculiis (ollationis (a report of the conference mentioned above), and a bcR>k contra Donatis- tas post Collationem. After 412, physical force had to some extent diminished the need for argument. A few more letters — an address to the people at Caesarea (.-Mgiers), a public discussion with Emeritus, on Sept. 20, 418, two books contra Gaiidentium (a Donatist bishop, c. 420) — are the remains of a waning controversy. For a fuller account of the history, and of the contents of some of Augustine's anti-Donatist writings, see art. Do.natism, D. C. B. (4-V0I. ed.). It remains to gather up briefly the import- ance of the controversy in .Augustine's life and thought. So far as Donatism fell before ar- gument, its fall was the work of Augustine. But what was the reflex eifect of the contro- versy upon Augustine himself ? Augustine was the tirst Christian writer who made the church, as such, the subject of systematic thought. But this was not wholly the result of the Donatist crisis. He fought Donatism in part with arguments which had been current for over two generations of the controversy, and which we find less lucidly formulated in Optatus, partly with conceptions which his own personal history and reflections had im- pressed upon his mind before he came into the conflict. The utmost that can justly be said — but that much is important — is that the Donatist conflict crystallized ideas which needed a shock of the kind to bring them into clear shape and form. It was beside the purpose to insist, as Cyprian had done, upon the episcopate, which the Donatists possessed, or upon the unity of the church, which they claimed for themselves. The question at issue went behind these points to the spiritual conditions necessary to the saving efficacy of means of grace. This exists, argued Augustine, only in the Catholic church. The baptism and orders of the Donatists were valid sacra- mentally, but useless spiritually. In a sense, the Holy Spirit operates in schismatical sacra- ments, so that a convert to the Catholic church will not be re-baptized or re-ordained. But it is only in the Catholic church that the Spirit operates, as the Spirit of peace and love. " Non autem habent Dei caritatem qui ecclesiae non diligunt unitatem ; ac per hoc recte intelligitur dici non accipi nisi in Catholica Spiritus Sanctus" (de Bapt. III. xvi.). Augustine formulates with a clearness not found in any previous writer the distinction between what in later times was called the " gratia gratis data," which confers status only (the indelible " character " of a " baptizatus " or a priest), without any necessary change in the moral or spiritual character ; and " gratia gratum faciens," which makes a man not only a mem- ber of the visible church, but a real member of Christ, not merely a priest, but a g(jod priest. This distinction was hardly perceived by Cyprian (see Cypr. Epp. 65-67, esp. 66 : " credere quod indigni . . . sint qui ordinan- tur quid aUud est quam contendere quod non a Deo. . . . sacerdotes ejus in ecdesia con- stituantur ? "), who regarded a deposed bishop as a mere layman with but " the empty name and shadow " of priesthood. The recognition 78 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS of the validity of Donatist orders and sacra- ments was imposed upon Augustine by the settled judgment of the Catholic church, especially of the council of Aries, in 314 (Can. xiii., cf. viii., rejecting the Cyprianic view). But he clearlv found it difficult to grasp habitually the distinction between the " Spiritus Sanctus," the agent m every " valid " sacrament ( = " gratia gratis data "), and the " Spirilns cariiatis," which makes the sacrament a means of grace (" gratum faciens ") to the Catholic recipient. His fre- quent denials that " the Holy Spirit " could be possessed outside the visible unity of the church relate really to the latter, though there are passages which seem to extend to the former. But on the whole his mind is clear. He distinguishes sharply between Office and Person ; between the sacramental act and its benefit to the soul. The former can exist outside the CathoUc church, the latter onlv within it. In this respect Augus- tine is an uncompromising assertor of Cyprian's axiom, extra ecclesiam nulla saliis. But it must be observed that he subordinates the institutional to the spiritual conception of the church. The Donatists are wrong, because they have broken the bond of caritas which unites the CathoUc society. It is this, and not the mere fact, necessary though it be, of the episcopal succession, that unites CathoUcs with the Apostolic churches and through them by an " inconcussa series " with the Apostles themselves. (See below, § 16, 6, c ; also Gore, The Church and the Ministry, latter part of c. iii. ; Hatch, Organization, v. ; Renter, pp. 231-283, an able and thorough discussion.) §9. Augustine and the Heathen. Philosophy of Historv. — Augustine tells us {de Civ. Dei, XVIII. liii. 2) of an oracle current among the heathen, that the Christian religion would last 365 years, and then come to an end. He reckons that this time expired in the year 399. As a matter of fact, the year in question was marked by a widespread destruction of pagan temples throughout the Roman world (Vit. Bened. IV. xvi.). In this year apparently the counts Gaudentius and Jovius arrived in Africa to execute an imperial decree for the dismantling of the temples. At Carthage the splendid temple of Dea Coelestis, which had been closed, as it seems, since the law of 391 (Cod. Th. XVI. X. 10), and was already over- grown with weeds and bushes, was taken possession of by the Christians. But in 421 it was razed to the ground (Prosper, de Praed. III. xxxviii.). In some places images were hidden to preserve them from destruction. Heathen customs, as we gather from a sermon of Augustine {Serm. 62, 4), were still secretly observed even by some Christians. A council at Carthage in 401 petitioned the emperor to abolish public feasts and games which were, in spite of a previous imperial prohibition (Cod. Th. ib. 17), occasions of heathenish observances. The destruction of a statue of Hercules at Colonia Suffectana (? Sufetula) was the cause of a riot in which sixty Christians lost their lives (Ep. 50). In 407-408 a sweep- ing law, confiscating temples and ordering the destruction of altars, images, etc., was issued (Cod. Th. ib. 19, rf. Vit. Bened. VI. iv. 2, V. 3). Its promulgation was attended by most AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS serious riots at Calama, where the church wa; repeatedly wrecked by the heathen (Ep. 90 91, 103, 104). The murder of Stilicho (Sept 408), and the rumours that the laws agains' the heathen and the Donatists passed during his life lapsed with his death, caused a furthei widespread outburst of heathen violence ir Africa (cf. Cod. Th. App. Sirm. XIV.; Aug. Ep. q7). A stringent law, passed apparentl} at the instance of the provincial council at Carthage, of which Augustine was not a member, ordered rigorous penalties against all the offenders, and against conniving of- ficials. Alarmed by the state of the empire, the ministers of Honorius appear to have relaxed for a time the rigour of the laws against paganism and heresy alike, but at the urgent request of the African bishops they were again strictly enforced. On the whole, Augustine's tone and attitude towards the pagans is dignified and conciUatory {Epp. 133, etc.), but he shares in the general responsibiUty for persecution which must be allotted to the churchmen of this degenerate age. In 408 and 409 the Goths, under Alaric, had laid siege to Rome, and after long and fruitless negotiations, the city was taken and sacked on Aug. 24, 410. The sack of Rome, in its direct effects, was but an incident in the pro- found abasement of the empire in the miser- able reign of Honorius. But the downfall of the " Eternal Citv " struck awe into the minds- of men who failed to appreciate the material ^ and moral exhaustion which the disaster 1 merely symboUzed. Augustine's friend Mar- cellinus, the imperial officer who had been in charge of the conference with the Donatists,. introduced him to a distinguished (" illustris ") official, Volusianus, who was kept back from the Christian faith by difficulties relating to the Old Testament, the Incarnation, and the in- compatibility of some principles of the Gospel with civil life and the public good (Epp. 135- 138, cf. 132). The last-named question natur- ally connected itself with the prevalent heathen explanation of the fall of Rome, as due to the desertion of the old gods and the progress of Christianity. Augustine, unable at the time to discuss this question except in passing (Ep. 138I. 9-i6. cf. i3,&), presently began a more thorough consideration of it. This is his famous treatise de Civitate Dei, begun about the end of 412, and not com- pleted until 426. The first two books are addressed to Marcellinus, who was put to death, Sept. 13, 413 ; with a third book, they were published before 415. In this year, about Lent, he wrote two more (Ep. 169') In 416-417, when he was advising Orosius to write his Historia adversus Paganos, Augustine had published ten books, and was at work on the eleventh. By 420 he had published four- teen ; the eighteenth was finished " nearly thirty years " after the consulate of Theodorus (399), i.e. hardly earlier than 426. The work then was continued amid interruptions, and the plan widened out from a refutation of the heathen calumny (Retr. II. xliii.) to a compre- hensive explanation of the course of human affairs — a religious philosophy of history. The problem was one of terrible actuality. The ancient world and its civilization were in real truth breaking up, and the end of Rome' AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS TO seemed like a giving way of tlio solid earth ^ is dependent for it on the f/V/Vu.'i /ct;ivi<i (XIX. beneath men's feet. Lesser men were moved 17, of. "per jura reguiii pt)ssidentur posses- itn write : Orosius, mentioned above, in 417, siones," in Joh. Tr. VI. if,) ; practically f<ir all and Salvian. whose hirid indictment of the ' civil purposes the churchn\an must obey the isins of the Christian world (<le Guhcrnatioiie law. Diit, on the other liand. the ciij/ai- /frrfdrt \Dei) was penned in 431, four years before the cannot attain its chief good, the pax Ifrrena, |sack of Rome by C.aiserie. But it was I unless heavenly motives are brought to bear ; I Augustine who brought the jtroblem under a { for the social boml of carilas, for the elemen- i single master-idea. This idea (which occurs tary requisite of justitia, it is dependent upon lalreadv in de Catech. Rud., written as early 1 the civitas Dei. I as A.D. 400) is that of the two civitatcs, which, I The destiny of the civilas terrena, therefore, (after a refutation of paganism as useless when at the Judgment thi^ two are finally |alike in this world (I.-V.) ami in the ne.xt ' separated, is the destruction of its social .(VI.-X.), are treated of constructively in the bond ; it will cease to be a civitas at all. r remainder of the work, in respect of their { There is, then, if we look at things in their I origin (X1.-.\IV.), history (X\'.-XVII1.), and eternal aspect, only one civilas, and, applying , destiny (XI.X.-XXII.). The work would I have gained by condensation, but as it stands, I with all the marks of discontinuous produc- i tion, it is a priceless legacy of Augustine's , most characteristic thoughts (on Kp. 102, I which illustrates the de Civ., and was written j about 4oq, see below, § i6a). By the word ' civilas, commonly rendered " city," Augustine i means rather a bond of union, or citizenship 1 (cf. Philipp. iii. 20 Gk., "duo quaedam genera [ humanae societatalis " XIV. i., the " civitas " takes visible form in the shape of a government, but its essential character is in the spirit that , animates it). There are then two, and only I two, civilales, the one heavenly, the other I earthly. The civitas terrena began with the I fall of the angels, was continued by that of 1 man, in the history of the Cainites, of Babel, and of the great world-empires. The civitas t Dei began with Creation ; its earthly realiza- the ideal to the empirical, the state {ijiia g(K)d, i.e. if Christian) is in the church. Optatus had said (de Schism. III. 3) " Ecclesia in Impcrio." Augustine reverses this relation : " I)t)minus jugo suo in gremio ecclesiae toto orbe diffuso omnia terrena regna subjecit." The state is in the church, and is bound to carry out the church's aims. The subject of " Church and State " was not the theme of the book, and it is not easy to extract from it a strictly consis- tent theory of their relations (see Renter, pji. 125-150, 380-392). But these relations were the question of the future, and in the de Civitate Augustine laid the theoretical founda- tion for the medieval system (see also below, § 16 ad fin.). The modifying ideas alluded to above were not forgotten, but their asser- tion was the work of the opponents of the medieval hierocracy ; and Dante, de Mon- archia, is practically a reversal of the charac- ; tion is traceable in the history of the Sethites, teristic doctrine of the de Civitate Dei, after ' of Noah, Abraham, Israel, of Christ, and of His that doctrine, tested by being put into prac- i people. The one is rooted in love of God, tice, has been found to lead to unchristian I usque ad contemptutn sui ; the other in love of results. One unchristian corollary of Augus- ; self, usque ad contemptum Dei. The chief good tine's doctrine was the persecution of heretics i of the one is the/)a;r cot;/^s/ts (XIX. 13), that of as a duty of the Christian state. In his earlier the other, the pax terrena. The great empires ! are, in their genesis, the .State is per se iremota I justitia), " latrocinium magnum " (IV. 4). j So that, looked upon in the abstract, since there are but two civitates, the state is the I civilas diaboli, the church the civitas Dei days Augustine disapproved of this (contr. Ep. Man. 1-3 ; Ep. 23, 7; 93, 2, 5, etc.) ; but the stress of the Donatist controversy changed his mind ; in the interest of the doubtful, the weak, the generations to come, he found a sanction for persecution in St. But this conclusion is not, thus baldly j Luke xiv. 23 : Cogite intrare. stated, that of .A.ugustine. To begin with, his § 10. The Pelagian Controversy (412-430). — I conception of the church (see §§ 8, 16, b, c) \ Augustine, in his first days as a Christian, held I is not consistent. Does he mean the visible ! the common view that, while the grace of God I church, the communio externa, or the cow- is necessary to the salvation of man, the first I munio sanctorum, the number of those pre- step, the act of faith, by which man gains I destined to life, to which not all belong who I access to grace, is the act of man, and not I are members of the visible church, and to j itself the gift of God (de Praed. III. 7). This I which some belong who are not ? Augustine's 1 view is manifest in the Expos. Propos. in Rom. I language on this point is not always uniform. 13-18, 55, etc., and traceable in de Quaest. 1 But at the time when he wrote the de Civitate, I LXX.\III., qu. 68 and 83). He came to see I the predestinarian idea was growing upon him, that faith itself is the gift of (iod, and that I and the two civitates tend to coincide with the very first step to Godward must be of I the predestined on the one hand, and, on God's doing, not of our own. This conviction I the other, the rest of mankind. Again, the was not due to reaction against Pelagianism ; visible church, even apart from its merely on the contrary, Pelagius himself was roused j nommal members, is but part of a larger whole, j but the empirical shadow of a transcendent I reality, the civitas superna, which includes ; angels as well as redeemed humanity (XI. 7). I And in its earthly visible existence the church borrows the form of the earthly state (XV. 2). ; A^ain, historically, the two civitates are j mingled together and interpenetrate. More to contradiction by Augustine's language in his Confessions : "Dominedaquod jubes" (see de Don. Persev. 53). Augustine's change of mind was directly and wholly due to his study of St. Paul (see above, § 76) ; partly his wrestling with the difficulties of the Ep. to the Romans; but especially his reflection on St. Paul's question (I. Cor. iv. 7), " What over, the church needs the pax terrena, and | hast thou that thou hast not received ? " AUGUSTiNUS, AURELIUS 80 coupled with Rom. ix. i6. The change may be assigned to the year 396, when, in the first book, he wrote as a bishop {de Divers. Quaest. ad Simplic. I.), as he says (Retr. II. i. i), " to solve this question, we laboured in the cause of the freedom of the human will, but the grace of God won the day " (of. de Don. Pers. 52, plenius sapere coepi). To Simplicianus he says, I. ii. 13 : " If it is in man's own power not to obey the call, it would be equally correct to say, 'Therefore it is not of God that sheweth mercy, but of man that runs and wills,' because the mercy of Him that calls does not suffice, unless the obedience of him who is called results. . . . God shews mercy on no man in vain ; but on whom He has mercy, him He calls in such sort as He knows to be fitted for him [congritere], so that He does not reject him that calleth." Here we have the essential of the " Augustinian " doctrine of grace, the distinction of the vocatio congrua and vocatio nan congrua (" Illi enim electi qui congruenter vocati"), formulated more than fifteen years before the Pelagian controversy began (see also Loofs, pp. 279-280, who shews in detail that Augustine's whole later position is virtually contained in rfe Div. Quaest. ad Sim- plician.). For the details of this controversy, see the church histories; D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), S.V.; Bright, Introd. to Anti-Pelagian Treatises, and other authorities. (A lucid summary in Gibson, XXXIX. Articles, art. ix.) It will suf&ce here to mention the main outlines. (a) 410-417. — Pelagius, offended at a pas- sage in Augustine's Confessions (see above), began at Rome (405-409^ to express his dis- approval of such an insistence upon Divine grace as should undermine human responsi- bility. Before the siege of Rome {supra, § 9) he left with his friend Coelestius for Africa ; there Pelagius left Coelestius, and went to Palestine. Coelestius sought ordination at Carthage, and thus attracted additional atten- tion to his doctrines. A council of bishops in 412 condemned him ; he went away to Ephesus, and there he was ordained. Subse- quently he went to Constantinople and (417) to Rome. Meanwhile, opposed by Jerome in Palestine, Pelagius was found not guilty of heresy by John, bp. of Jerusalem, and by councils at Jerusalem and Diospolis (415). He dispatched to Rome (417) a confession of faith to be submitted to Innocentius : it arrived after that bishop's death. Coelestius shortly afterwards (still in 417) arrived at Rome, and submitted his confession of faith to the new bp. Zosimus. Augustine appears to have been partly aware of the opinions of Pelagius before his arrival in Africa (see de Gest. Pel. 46 ; also probably through Paulinus of Nola, see deGrat. Christi, 38), but he appears to have attached little importance to them at the time ; and the arrival of Pelagius found him in the very thick of other questions (see above, §§ 8, 9). He alludes to the Pelagian doctrines (without any mention of names) in preaching {Serm. 170, 174, 175), but took no part in the proceedings at Carthage in 412. But his friend MarcelUnus {supra, § 9) pressed him for his opinion upon the questions there discussed, and his first anti- Pelagian writings (a.d. 412, de Pecc. Meritis et Remiss, lib. III., AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS and de Spiritu et Litera) were addressed to him. In 415 he wrote de Natura et Gratia, and probably the tract, in the form of a letter to Eutropius and Paulus, de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, in refutation of the propositions of Coelestius in 412 ; in 417 he wrote de Gestis Pelagii, a discussion of the proceedings in Palestine above referred to. Augustine and the African bishops, who had been represented in Palestine not only by Jerome, but by Orosius, fresh from Hippo, were naturally dismayed at what had happened there. They knew that Pelagius and Coelestius were likely to address themselves to Rome, where they had a strong following {Ep. lyy, 2). Accord- ingly councils at Carthage and at Milevis, at ! the latter of which Augustine was present, J wrote to urge Innocentius to support them against the " alleged " decision of the Pales- tinian councils, cither bv reclaiming the heretics or by adding the authority of his see to their condemnation. A letter carefully explaining the doctrinal issue was also sent by Aurelius of Carthage, Augustine, Alypius, Possidius, and Evodius (see above, §§ 6, 7). Augustine certainly drew up the latter two {Epp. 176, 177), and his inspiration is also manifest in the Carthaginian letter. Innocent, unable to conceal his satisfaction at so important an appeal to his authority (he assumes that the African bishops, though they do not refer to them, are not unacquainted with the " in- siituta patrum," which direct that nothing shall be done in any province of the church without reference to the Apostolic See; Epp. i8r', 182- ; see below, § 12, c), responded cordially with a prompt condemnation of Pelagianism, root and branch. Augustine was triumphant. Ihe unfortunate j^roceedings of Diospolis were more than neutralized. Preach- ing on Sunday, Sept. 23, 417, he says : " Jam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam, inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est ; utinam ali- quando finiatur error " (Seym. 131). But the author of the rescripta was already dead six months before, and there was need of another council. The cause was not " finished " yet. {b) Zosimus. Julian (418-430). — Zosimus, the new bp. of Rome (see D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. S.V.), was favourably impressed with the confessions of faith submitted by Pelagius and Coelestius, as well as by their deference to his authority. He pronounced them ortho- dox, and twice wrote indignantly to Aurefius and the Africans for their hasty condemnation of the accused in their absence. He adds that he has admonished Coelestius and others to abstain from curious and unedifying questions. But the original accusers of Pelagius were unmoved. After some correspondence with Zosimus they held a plenary council at Car- thage (May 418), in which they passed nine dogmatic canons condemning the characteristic Pelagian theses. Meanwhile, Aurelius had been taking more practical steps. A rescript in the emperor's name (Honorius was here, as in the Donatist question, the passive instru« ment of his advisers, probably count Valerius, whose ear Aiurelius gained — " secuta est de- mentia nostra judicium sanctitatis tuae," Honorius wTites in 419) ordered the banish- ment of Pelagius, Coelestius, and all their AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS iher-'iUs. Zosiimis at once came round to le side of the Africans. In a circular letter racloria'* he condemned Coelestius and I lat,'ianism alike, and required all the bishops t his jurisiliction to signify their adhesion. has ended the official support i>f PelaKius in ic West. (On Augustine's view of Zosimus, I Kcuter, pp. 312-322, and below, § 12 d. Ill the whole question, see Clarnier in Marti !cic<U. o/'/>. I. p. IQ.) Zosimus appears to .i.e imperfectly grasped the points at issue, ad in this case', as in that of Apiarius in the ime year iinfra, § 12, c), and in that of the letropolitan rights of Aries, he appears to ave been in a greater hurry to assert the laims of his see than to ascertain the merits f the question in debate. The most able advocate of Pelagianism now ppears in the person of Julian, bp. of Ecla- um in Southern Italy. He refused to sign he trattoria, accused Zosinius of changing his ■ont under imperial pressure '"jussionis terr tc erculsos," c. Duas Efyp. Pclag. ii. 3), and ap- ealed to a general council. This ajipeal came o nothing (ib. iv. 34). Julian was deposed •y Zosimus, banished by the (Government, and tick refuge in the East. He is said to have ound a friend in Theodore of Mopsuestia. it any rate, in 431 the Westerns secured the ondemnation of Pelagianism (without speci- (Cation of its tenets) along with Nestorianism t the council of Ephesus, on the ground of he kindred nature of the two heresies. This .'as not without substantial reason. The two leresies rest upon the same fundamental idea •f the benefit which the redemptive work of !hrist brings to man — viz. moral improvement , )y perfect teaching and example, rather than ! .tonement for an inherently guilty race (" ut 'el sero redamaremus eum," Julian in Op. mpert. I. xciv.). Augustine continued to write .gainst Pelagianism. In 418 he wrote two )ooks, de Gratia Chrisli et de Peccalo Originali ; ' n the two following years the two books de [ S'uptiis et Concupiscentia, and four de Anima iusque Origine. These works bore on the ransmixsion of original sin, and the difficult toUateral question of the origin of the soul, I vhether by direct creation or ex traduce. Tertullian had roundly maintained tradux j mimae, tradux peccati. Pelagius denied both. \ugustine cannot decide the question ; he lalf leans to creation, but his theory appears :o require the other alternative (see below, i 15). JuUan attacked the de Nuptiis hotly. Augustine's four books, contra Duas Epp. Pela- 'janorum (420) are in reply to Julian on this i Is well as on the historical questions ; they A-ere followed by six books contra Julianum j about 421). Julian replied with vigour, and j ■Xugustine at the time of his death had only inished six books of a rejoinder which he in- ;ended to be complete (Opus Imperfectum). I (c) The semi- Pelagians (from about 42 0). — In the combat with Pelagianism, Augustine iannot be said to have changed his views supra, § 10, sub init.) ; but he stated, with i ncreasing clearness and sharper consistency, jpinions which he had gathered from his study <f St. Paul long before the combat began. These opinions were new to most churchmen, although reaction from the paradoxes of Pelagius, and Augustine's immense authority 1 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 81 throughout the Latin church, gained them widespread acceptance. But there were, especially in monastic circles, grave misgivings as to their soundness. The three points to which most seriinis objection was felt were the doctrines of the total depravity of fallen man, of irresistible grace, and of absolute predestination, not on the ground of foreseen merit. The Christian, as taught by Augustine, I received instruction, baptism, th(^ subsequent \ beneficia gratiae which went to build up the Christian life and train the soul for its eternal j home. But the success or failure, the per- manent value of the whole process, de|ieniled ; upon the crowning hene/icium gratiae, tlie Donum Perseverantiae, which even at the very moment of death decides whether the soul departs in Christ or falls from Him. This I awful gift, which alone decides between the saved and the lost, may be withheld from many who have lived as good and sincere Christians : it may be granted to those whose lives have been far from Christ. Its giving or withholding depends upon the Divine pre- destination only ; tiod's foreknowledge of those who will " persevere " is but His own foreknowledge of what He Himself will give or withhold. Only the foreknown in this sense are called with vocatio congrua. If these doctrines were true, if free will was by itself entirely powerless to accept the Divine call or to reject the vocatio congrua, if man's sal- vation at bottom depended simply and solely upon the Divine predestination, what appeal was possible to the conscience of the wicked {correptio) ? Was not preaching deprived of its raison d'etre ? This was the view of John Cassian, the father of Western monachism, and of Vincent and other monks of Lerins on the southern coast of Gaul. These " semi- Pelagians," who may with equal justice be called " senii- Augustinians," were not a sect outside the church, but a party of dissentient Catholics. Excepting the above-mentioned points and certain obvious corollaries, such as the doctrine of " particular " redemption, they accepted the entire Augustiuian position. The contro- versy, which is in reality insoluble, lasted long after Augustine's death. Temporarily laid to rest at Orange (where a modified Augustinian- ism was adopted by a small council in 529), it burst out again in the Gottschalk troubles in the 9th cent., it ranged the Scotists against the Thomists in the 13th, the Arminians against the Calvinists, the Jesuits against the Jansenists in the 17th. Intellectually it is a case of an " antinomy," in which from obvious trutlis we are led by irresistible logic to incompatible conclusions. Morally, our crux is to insist on human responsibility while excluding human merit. The religious instinct of deep and genuine self-accusation is not easy to combine with the unreserved acknowledg- ment that we have no power of ourselves to help ourselves. We must, with Cassian, ap- peal to free will from the pulpit, but Augustine is with us in the secret sanctuary of prayer. Augustine's attention was drawn to these difficulties by Hilary and Prosper of Aquitaine, the latter tlie most active, and indeed bitter, opponent of the Ingrati, as he calls Cassian and his friends. The works de Gratia et Libera G 82 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS Arbitrio and de Correptione et Gratia (426-427) relate to the moral issues of the question, while the de Praedest. Sanctorum and de Dono Per- severantiae (428, 9) are in direct controversy with the " brethren " of Southern Gaul. (d) The Doctrinal Issues. — Pelagianism split upon the rock of infant baptism. Had this practice not become general by the time when Pelagius arose, Augustine would have had to combat him by arguments which churchmen at large would have found difficulty in follow- ing. As it was, to the question, " Why " — if Adam's sin directly affected himself only, and extended to his descendants 7ion propagine sed exemplo — " why, then, are infants bap- tized ? " Pelagius had no satisfactory reply. His answer, that the unbaptized infant is excluded, not from eternal life, but only from the kingdom of heaven, was a relic of Alillen- iarism with which the Eastern church had even less sympathy than the West. Pelagius allowed that man can do no good thing without the grace of God. But his conception of grace was loose and shallow ; practically it went back to the general providence of God, which supplies our temporal and spiritual wants alike. His assertion that a sinless life was not only possible, but was actually lived by many of the holy men of the Bible, was in direct conflict with the promptings of a deep religious sense {de Nat. et Grat. xxxvi. 42). His conception of the beneficium Christi {supra, b, c) was shallow and unsatisfying. Pelagius was an ardent churchman, a strict ascetic, and a behever in sacramental grace. The earher church had reflected but little on the questions raised by him. " Unde factum est ut de gratia Dei quid sentirent breviter ac transeuntes attingerent." Free will equipped with sacraments, the Christian religion a " New Law," predestination founded upon prescience, fairly represent the implicit pre- Augustinian view of the Christian life and its relation to the mystery of Divine election. Augustine pressed Pelagius with the impHca- tions of sacramental grace. H free will is as complete as Pelagius believed, sacraments are in reality superfluous as means of grace. If sacramental grace is as real as Pelagius admitted it to be, then man depends for his salvation not upon his own free will, but upon the gift of God. Augustine, assuming the church doctrine of sacramental grace, gave it a deeper meaning and a wider context, and brought it into close relation with the almost forgotten Pauline categories of sin, faith, justi- fication, and the gratia Christi (see Reuter, pp. 40-45). It was formerly thought (by Baur and others) that Augustine's antagonism to Pelagius was dictated by his conception of the church and the sacraments, especially of baptism. This we have seen to be incorrect. As a matter of fact, Pelagius was, as the pro- ceedings at Diospolis shew, hard to convict of heresy on merely ecclesiastical grounds. The theological principles which Augustine brought to the analysis of ecclesiastical practice, and to the refutation of Pelagianism, he had learned from St. Paul at first hand. Pelagius appealed to the naive language of churchmen before him, who as Augustine says, " Pela- gianis nondum litigantibus securius loque- bantiur." Augustine shewed that the accord AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS was superficial, and that if Pelagius were right, the church and the positive religion of Christ had only a relative value. Moreover, it was impossible for the Pelagians to argue out their case without exposing themselves to an array of damaging quotations from recognized Fathers of the church (c. Julian. I. II.). And it is impossible to deny that Augustine, in the points at issue with the semi- Pelagians, was following out the strict logical consequences of the elementary truths which Pelagius and Julian denied. He admits frankly, in this as in some other questions, that he had changed his mind, plenius sapere coepi, but he again and again protests that he is merely defending the doctrine which nunquani Ecclesia Christi nan habuit (i.e. predestination, de Don. Persev. xiv. 36, etc.). This is certainly sincere, but also certainly incorrect, so far as concerns the formal asser- tion of absolute predestination, irresistible grace, and total depravity. And it must further be noted that the doctrine of pre- destination is, logically at least, as subversive of the worth of church and sacraments as is the Pelagian doctrine of human nature (see below, § 16, c). Probably neither Augustine nor the Pelagians were conscious of the full consequences of their position — the naturalism of the one and the transcendentalism of the other were alike tempered by common church teaching. But the ecclesiastical instinct has generally been (in spite of the rapier-thrusts of a Pascal) to seek some illogical via media between the Augustinian and the semi-Pela- gian (itself an illogical) position. Instinct in such a matter is perhaps a safer guide than logic. But it is important to bear in mind that in rejecting Pelagianism the whole church, Augustinian and semi- Pelagian alike, were as one. [Pelagianism.] § II. Augustine and Greek Christendom. — The last sentence may seem questionable so far as the Greek-speaking churches were con- cerned. But we must remember that Coeles- tius found no welcome at Constantinople, that Augustine not only wrote {Ep. 179) to bp. John of Jerusalem to warn him of Pelagius's errors, but also quotes John's arguments as decisive against Pelagianism {Ep. iSG^*", de Gest. Pel. 37 seq., " sanctus Johannes "), and that Pelagianism was formally condemned at the council of Ephesus. But Augustine is somewhat biased in his review of the proceed- ings in Palestine by the assumption, which it never occurred to him to question, of the absolute doctrinal homogeneity of the East and West. Accordingly he explains the acquittal of Pelagius by the difficulty of language, and by the evasive answers of Pelagius, with- ' out allowing for the strangeness to Greek ] theology of the very categories of the question at issue. The catholicity of the church, he argues against the Donatists, is to be tested by communion, not only with the apostolic see of Rome, but with the other apostolic churches, and with Jerusalem, the common source of all (ad Don. Post Collat. xxix. 50 ; de Unit. X. xi. ; Ep. 52''). In Augustine's time the first symptoms of the coming rift between the Greek and Latin churches had i indeed appeared, but few realized their mean- I ing. Augustine certainly did not. He meets AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS the arguments of Julian, who claimed the Greek Fathers for his side, by an appeal to the Greek text of Chrysostom. On the other hand, he does not, even in the de Triuitate (written 400-416 : " juvenis inchoavi senex edidi"), spontaneously build much upon Greek theology. The Nicene Creed, which he accepted of course ex animo, is but seldom re- ferred to in that work ; of the " Constantino- politan " Creed he shews no knowledge. The de Triuitate is Western in the texture of its thought, true to the original sense of the ofiooi'diov, a formula imposed on the Eastern rhuroh at Nicaea bv VVestern influences (see the present writer's Prolegomena to Athanasius ill Nic. Lib. IV. p. xxxii., etc.) in the interest (>/ the Divine Unity. Augustine paves the way, by his insistence on the doctrine of the One Personal God, for the scholastic doctrine "f the Una Res, the specifically Western pro- duct of Trinitarian thetilogy. The same holds i;i>od of Christology. At Chalcedon, Leo's t>>nie, which shews the profound influence of Augustine, carried the day in the teeth of the dominant tone of Greek Christology ; and it is interesting to find Theodoret, who of all Greek churchmen had most reason to welcome the result, quoting Ambrose and Augustine as authorities in his dogmatic Dialogues — an ex- ( eption to the general indifference of the East to Latin theologians. Another exception, due in part to independent controversial reasons, is the protest of Leontius and the " Scythic monks," under Justinian, against the " semi-Pelagianism " of Faustus of Reii ; Leontius shews some knowledge, direct or second-hand, of Augustine (Loofs's Leontius, pp. 231 ff.). Augustine's influence, then, on Greek Christianity has been very slight. But although he has powerfully contributed to the divergence in thought and feeling of Latin Christianity from Greek, he is personally unconscious of any such tendency. Of his ' >wn knowledge of Greek he speaks slightingly ; I'.ibbon (c. xxiii.^s) and others take him -trictly at his word, but Renter (pp. 179, etc.) iiews that we must rate it somewhat more highly than Augustine himself does. § 12. Augustine and the Constitution of the Church. The Roman See. — Augustine's view of the relation of the church to the civil power (see above, § 9) prepared the way for the medieval system. But in Augustine's hands the theory lacked elements indispensable for its practical application. Not only did his conception of the church hover between the transcendental spiritual ideal and the empir- ical, tangible organization, but his conception of the organization of the visible church itself lacked that practical precision without which the church could assert no effective claim to control the secular arm. To the authority of the church he surrendered himself with pas- sionate affection. " I should not believe in the Gospel," he wrote in the early days of his episcopate, " did not the authority of the Catholic church compel me " (c. Ep. Fund. 6, in A.D. 397). But this was the immanent authority which the church by her life, creed, and worship exercised upon his soul, rather than her official decisions. These, again, he AUGUSTINUS. AURELIUS 83 Where was its centre ? What was the final stan- dard of appeal ? To these questions it is hard to obtain from Augustine a definite answer. .\ugustine was not an ecclesiastical statesman. His interest was above all in personal religion, and therefore, in a secondary degree, in doctrine and discipline. Although he takes for granted the Cyprianic view of the episcopal office, he does not insist upon it with special emphasis ; he emphasises, on the other hand, in a marked manner, the universal priesthood of Christians. His insistence on the indelible character of the priestly ordination is not in the interest of " sacerdotalism," but as against the spiritual \'alue of valid but schismatical orders {supra, § 8, c). He accepts the authority of Nicaea (the only strictly general council known to him), but as to the authority of other councils his language is ambiguous. He disallows Julian's appeal to a general council on the ground that " the cause is finished " by " a competent judgment of bishops" (c. Jul. III. 3). But in another passage (supra, § 10, a, fin.) he is understood to say, " the cause is finished " by two African councils, plus " re- scripts from' the apostolic see." What is his real view of the supreme organ of church authority ? {a) The Apostles in their lifetime were the leaders, " principes" (Ps. lxvii.2« Vulg. ; see Enarr. in loc), and " patres '' (Ps. xliv.i^ and Enarr.) ; now that they are gone, we have their f'llii in their place, the bishops, who are principes super omnem terram. The Apostles still live on in the bishops, who are accordingly the vehicle of the supreme author- ity of the church. The Donatist bishops cannot claim this status {Ep. 53^ etc.), because they are out of communion with the apostolic churches. Hence {b) the unity and continuity of the episcopate are essential to its Apostolic rank. In this unity even mali praepositi are authoritative, " non enim sua sunt quae dicunt, sed Dei, qui in cathedra unitatis doctrinam posuit veritatis " {Ep. 1051*'). This is the old Cyprianic doctrine, which Augustine, like Cyprian, finds in the symbolic foundation of the Church upon Peter, who represents the whole body. All bishops are equal ; there is no Episcoptts episcoporum {de Bapt. III. 5, VI. 9, quoting Cyprian). But as Peter repre- sented his coequal colleagues, the Apostles, so his successors in the Roman see represent their co-equal colleagues the bishops (cf. ad Classic, in Ep. 250, ad fin. . . . " .n concilio nostro agere cupio, et si opus fuerit ^ad Sedem Apost. scribere, ut . . . quid sequi debeamus cowwMWj owmmw auctoritate . . . firmetur"). All bishops alike hold the cathedra unitatis, all alike trace their succession to one or other of the Apostles. This is more easily traceable in some cases {i.e. the churches quibus Apos- toli scripserunt) than in others, but most obvious in the Roman see, whose bishops, from the sedes (i.e. episcopate, c. Ep. Fund. 5 ; cf. " primae sedis episcopus," supra, § 8, init.) of Peter himself, have followed onu another in a succession known to all {Psalm c. Donat. sub fin., Ep. 53^). The successio sacerdotum at Rome and the successiones episcoporum generally {de Util. Cred. xvii. accepted with all his heart. But what was the I 35) are, to Augustine, co-ordinate and convert' ultimate organ of the church's authority ? | ible ideas. Even with regard to the authority 84 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS of councils, there is no real finality. Earlier councils are subject to correction by later {de Bapt. II. iii. 4). This is the position of Julius I. (see below, § i6, and the present writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii- fin.). (c) The Episcopate and the Roman See. — The Roman see was ApostoUca sedes, not ex- clusively {c. Faust, xi. X.; de Doct. Christ. II. viii. 12), but conspicuously. This implied a pre-eminence of rank, at any rate over sees not " Apostolic" {Ep. 431, "Rom. ecclesiae, in qua semper Apostolicae Cathedrae vigiiit principa- tus" ; c. Jul. I. iv. 13, prior loco; c. Duas Epp. Pel. I. i. 2 [to pope Bonifatius], " quamvis ipse in ea [sc. communi specula pastorali] praeemineas celsiore fastigio," and ib. i, " qui non alta sapis quamvis altiiis praesideas "). But in none of the passages where this is fully recognized is any definite authority assigned to the " apostolic see." Peter was first of the Apostles, superior to any bishop (even to Cyprian, de Bapt. III. i.-2) ; but he is simply tlie representative of the Apostles, nor does Augustine ascribe to him authority over the others (see Serm. 463c), and the same applies to his estimate of Peter's successors. Augustine's own instinct towards Rome is one of unbounded respect. Towards the end of his life (about 423) he had to remove, for obvious unfitness, Autonius, the bishop of the newly-created see of Fussala, a daughter- church of Hippo {Ep. 209). Antonius, like Apiarius (of whom presently), and possibly encouraged, Uke others {ib.^), by his example, decided to try his fortune at Rome. He obtained from the senior bp. of Numidia a favourable verdict and an introduction to Bonifatius, who was, prima facie, incUned to take up his cause, and wrote to that effect. But Bonifatius died (422), and his successor Coelestinus had to deal with the case. Rumours reached Fussala that he would insist on the restoration of Antonius, and that the Government would support him by miUtary force. Augustine, in fear lest the people of Fussala should go back en masse to the Donatists, writes to Coelestinus to entreat his support. He entreats him by the memory of St. Peter, " who warned the praepositi of Christian peoples not to domineer over their brethren " {ib. 9). The case is an interesting one, but it loses some of its importance in view of the fact that the African church was then still bound by voluntary promise, pending in- quiry into the genuineness of an alleged Nicene canon to that effect, to allow appeals to Rome by bishops. The promise arose out of the famous case of Apiarius. This presbyter was deposed by Augustine's friend and pupil Urbanus, bp. of Sicca, and appealed to Zosi- mus, bp. of Rome. Zosimus had hastily taken his side and ordered his restoration. Urbanus refused, both on the merits of the case, which he knew and Zosimus did not, and also on the ground that Zosimus had no right to interfere. This was the real question at issue. Zosimus first wrote (418), basing his right to interfere on the canons of Nicaea. As the African bishops found no such provision in their copy of the canons, they postponed the matter for further verification of the true text, promising meanwhile {paulisper) to act (without pre- judice) on the assumption that the alleged AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS canon was genuine. In reply, Zosimus sent three legates — Faustinus, bp. of Potentia in Picenum, and the presbyters Philip and Asellus — to Carthage, with written and oral instructions. The written instructions {com- monitorium) comprised four points (Bruns Canones, I. 197) : (i) the right of the Roman See to receive appeals from bishops (see Can. Sard. Lat. 3, 4) ; (2) bishops not to go over the sea to court {i.e. from Africa) " importune " {ib. 8) ; (3) presbyters and deacons excom- municated by their bishop to have an appeal to fiyiitimi episcopi {ib. 17) ; (4) Urbanus to be excommunicated, " or even cited to Rome." I Of these points, (2) betrays the soreness of ! Zosimus at the wav in which AureUus had ! forced his hand {supra, § 10, b) ; (4) hangs I upon (i) ; (3) is necessary in order to bring ; the case of Apiarius, who ivas not a bishop, I somehow under the scope of the pretended 1 Nicene canon relating to (i) ; the case of Apiarius would become a factor in that of Urbanus, which Zosimus would, by stretching the right of receiving appeals to a right of evocatio. claim to deal with under (i). A re- ference to the Sardican canons will shew how flimsv a foundation they offer for the claims founded upon them. But what is important to observe is that Zosimus, like Innocentius {supra, § 10, a), bases his right to interfere simply upon canonical authority. On neither side is there any notion of jiurisdiction inherent in the Roman see prior to ecclesiastical legis- lation. If the alleged canon was genuinely Nicene, it estabUshed the jurisdiction ; if not, the jurisdiction fell to the ground. When Faustinus and his colleagues reached Africa, Zosimus had been succeeded by Boni- fatius. They were received by the plenary council of the African provinces at Carthage (419). Alypius and Augustine were there, and joined in the proceedings (Bruns, pp. j 153 ff.). The council cut short the verbal instructions of Faustinus {ib. p. 197), and in- sisted upon hearing the commonitorium. When it was read, and the canon on episcopal ap- peals was quoted, Alypius undertook the in- vidious duty of pointing out that the Latin and the Greek copies of the Nicene canons accessible at Carthage contained no such I canon. He suggested that both sides should obtain authentic copies from the bps- of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Meanwhile, the copies above referred to should be placed on the minutes ; but the alleged canon should be observed donee integra exem- plaria veniant. Augustine proposed a like action with regard to (3) ; the proposals were unanimously carried, and accepted, though with no good grace, by Faustinus. The council wrote to Bonifatius intimating their action (Bruns, pp. 196 f.), stating how they had dealt with Apiarius, and complaining with dignity and firmness of the insolence of j Faustinus, which, they add, they beheve and hope they will not, under the new Roman bishop, be called upon to suffer. The signa- tures include those of Augustine and Alypius. Six years later (425) an African council (Bruns, p. 200) receive Faustinus once again. Coelestinus, now bp. of Rome, writes that " he has been rejoiced by the coming of Api- arius," and with Faustinus, Apiarius once more AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS reappears at Carthage. But not only did the i culprit finally and ignominiously break down before the council : the replies from the j Eastern churches had come in, with authentic copies of the Nicene canons ; and the canons ; put forward by Zosinius and his successors j were not there! [It must be noted that, al- though C.ratus of Carthage was possibly pre- sent at Sardica in 343 (see Xicene Lib. vol. 4, Athanasius, p. 147), the .African church knew nothing of the canons passed there. They onlv knew Sardica by repute as an " .\rian " synod, and friendly to the Uonatists {Ep. 44'i ; c. Crescon. IV. xliv. 52). The canons of Sardica had not passed into the generally accepted rules of the church.] The council press the ignominious exposure, which makes .» dean sweep of papal jurisdiction in Africa, with a firm but respectful hand. They are ontent to ask Coelestinus to observe the canons, not to receive appellants, not to send legates tanquam a latere, and, above all, not to iiitlict Faustinus upon them any more. The Roman chancery did not learn from this pain- ful experience not to tamper with the canons -ce the present writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iv., S.P.C.K. i8g6), but the in- ■ ident is decisive as to the mind of the African church. Though Renter, in his scrupulous desire to be fair, minimizes the part taken by Augustine in the case (pp. 306 seq.), there is nothing to shew that in this matter he was in other than perfect accord with Aurelius and the .\frican bishops. On the contrary, he says, late in his life, of clergy who merely evade his own rigorous dioces;ui rule : " in- tcrpellet contra me mille concilia, naviget contra me quo voluerit, adjuvabit me Deus ut ubi ego episcopus sum, ille clericus esse non possit." This tone implies that the Apiarius case is now matter of history {Senn. 156'). But Renter is probably right in his view that Augustine's interest in constitutional ques- tions was small compared to his concern for doctrine. (d) The Roman See and the Final Doctrinal Authority. — Augustine shews no jealousy of the power and prestige of the Roman see. On the contrary, he regarded it as, in a special degree, the depository of apostolic tradition. What degree of dogmatic authority did this imply ? The principal data for answering this question are connected with the Pelagian controversy (supra, § 10, a, b). Innocentius certainly reads into the letters of the Africans (Aug. Epp. 175-177, see 181-183) a hyper- Sardican attitude towards his chair of which they were innocent. But it is clear that the .\fricans attach the greatest importance to his approbation of their decision, only they do not treat the doctrinal issue as at ail doubtful i>r subject to papal decision ; on the contrary, in the private letter {Ep. 1773.6-9) which .\ugustine sends to ensure that Innocentius shall not lack full information on the merits of the case, he takes for granted that the eccle- siaslica et apostolica Veritas is already certain. He assumes (with |>robable historical correct- ness) that tlie .\frican church owes its original tradition to Rome {ib.i'>) ; but both have their source ("ex eodem capito") in the .\postolic tradition itself (see Renter, pp. 307-311). Augustine refers to Innocentius's reply in a AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 85 letter to Paulinus of Nola (Ep. 186). Ho treats it not as a doctrinal decision, but as a splendid confirmation of a doctrine already certain (see Renter, p. 311). As a result, the Pelagians have definitely lost their case : " causa finita est." Augustine uses this phrase twice : once (§ 10, a, fin.) with reference to the African councils and the reply of Innocentius ; once (see beginning of this section) in 421 of the condemnation of Pelagianism by the judicium episcoporum. With the latter pas- sage we must compare Ep. i()&^i (written in 418), where the " adjutorium Salvatoris qui suam tuetur ecclesiam " is connected with the " conciliorum episcoporum vigilantia," not with the action of popes Innocentius and Zosimus. At a much later date (426), review- ing the controversy as a whole, he speaks of the whole cause as having been dealt with j conciliis episcopalibus ; the letters of the I Roman bishops are not dignified with separate \ mention (Ep. 214"'). On the whole, these utter- ances are homogeneous. The prominence, if any, assigned to the rcscripta over the concilia in Serm. 131, 10 (supra, § 10, a, fin.) is relative to a passing phase of the question. Its sense is, moreover, wholly altered in the utterance in- vented for Augustine by some Roman Catholic apologists : Roma locuta est, et causa finita est. It occurred to no one in those days to put any bishop, even of an apostolic see, above a council, although there are signs at Rome of a tendency to work the Sardican canons in that direction. Augustine experienced, as we have seen, a signal, and to him especially galling, papal blunder in the action of Zosimus with reference to the Pelagians. The brunt of the correspondence witii Zosimus at this painful crisis apparently fell upon Aurehus and the bishops of his province (.\fri. c. Duas Epp. Pel. II. iii. 5), rather than upon Numidia, Augustine's own province. Augustine, as compared with the African bishops, distinctly minimizes the indictment. Zosimus had pro- nounced the libellus of Coelestius catholic. Augustine explains this favourably, as refer- ring not to his doctrine, but to his profession of submission to correction ; " voluntas emen- dationis, non falsitas dogmatis approbata est." The action of Zosimus was well meant, even if too lenient (lenius actum est. See also de Pecc. Orig. vi. 7, vii. 8). The letter of the Afri, which was stern and menacing in tone (" Constituimus . . . per venerabilem . . . Innocentium . . . prolatam manere sententiam," Prosp. adv. Coll. v. 15) put an end to all hopes of compromise. Zosimus, however (c. Duas Epp., U.S.), " never by a word, in the wliole course of the proceedings," denied original sin. His faith was consistent throughout. Coelestius deceived him for a time, but illam sedem usque ad finem fallere non potuit (de Pecc. Orig. xxi. 24). " The Roman church, where he was so well known, he could not deceive permanently " (ib. viii. 9). But there had been danger. " Supposing — which (lod forbid ! — the Roman church had gone back upon the sentence of Innocentius and ap- proved the dogmata condenmed by iiim, then it would be necessary ratiicr [/w/n<s| to brand the Roman clergy with the note of ' praevari- catio.' " Even in contemplating the repellent possibility that the action of Rome had been 86 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS worse than he will allow, Augustine evidently shrinks from pushing the conclusion to its full consequences to the extent of censuring Zosimus by name. "Rather" he would brand " the Roman clergy " in confuso. But this reserve must not be misconstrued as an anticipation of later Roman infalhbilism ; not even St. Peter was strictly infalhble in August- ine's eves (refs. in Reuter, pp. 326 ff.), much less his successors', none of whom " Petri aposto- latui conferendus est " {de Bapt. VI. ii. 3). (e) Conclusion. — Augustine has no consistent theorv of the ultimate organ of church autho'ritv, whether legislative, disciplinary, or dogmatic. This authority resides in the Epis- copate, its content is the catholica Veritas, and in practical matters the consuetitdo or tradiiio. These are to be interpreted by the bishops acting in concert — especially in councils. The "regional" council is subordinate to the " plenary," the plenary council of the province to that of the whole church {de Bapt. V. xvii., VII., liii. ; Ep. 43, 9 \ de Bapt. II. iii. 4) ; while of the latter, the earher are subject to amendment by later councils. Even, then, with regard to the authority of councils there is no real finality ; Augustine sees, hke Julius of Rome in 340 (see the writer's Roman Claims to Supremacy, iii. ad fin.), no remedy but the revision of earlier councils by later. Clearly we have here no complete system of thought. Augustine falls back on the sensus catholicus, a real and valu- able criterion, but not easv to bring within a logical definition. The church is infalhble, but he cannot point to an absolutely infalhble organ of her authority. By his very vague- ness on this point, Augustine practically paved the way for the future centralization of in- fallible authority in the papacy (on the whole question, see Reuter, pp. 329-355 ; and below, § 16, b). § 13. Death and Character. — Augustine died on Aug 28, 430. Clouds were thickening over his country and church. The Vandals, invited by the error, too late discovered, of August- ine's friend count Bonifatius (see Ep. 220), welcomed by the fierce Moors and the perse- cuted Donatists, had swept Numidia and Africa. Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo alone re- mained untaken (Possid. xxviii.). Bonifatius, routed by Gaiseric, was besieged by him in Hippo itself. Augustine had exhorted all bishops, so long as they had any flocks to minister to, to remain at their posts {Ep. 228 ; Possid. XXX.) ; but many, whose dioceses were swept away, took refuge, like Possidius him- self, at Hippo. Up to the time of his death, during three months of the siege, Augustine was working at his unfinished refutation of Julian. He prayed, so he told his friends at table, that God would either see fit to deliver the city, or fortify His servants to bear His will, or at any rate would take him out of this world to Hiniself. In the third month he was attacked by fever. Now, as on other marked occasions (Possid. xxix.), his prayer was heard. He healed a sick man who came to him as he lay upon his death-bed. He had a copy of the Penitential Psalms written out, and fixed to the wall opposite his bed. For ten days, at his special request, he was left alone, except when the physician came or food was AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS brought. He spent his whole time in prayer, and died in the presence of his praying friends, in a green old age, with hearing, sight, and all his bodily faculties unimpaired. The Sacrifice was offered and he was buried. He left no will, nor any personal property. His books he had given to the church to be kept for ever ; fortunately, they survived when Hippo was destroyed by the Vandals ; his writings, says Possidius, " will for ever keep his character fresh in the minds of his readers, yet not even they will supply, to those who knew him, the place of his voice and his presence. For he was one who fulfilled the word of St. James : ' So speak ye, and so do.' " He had lived 76 years, and nearly 40 in the ranks of the clergy. Till his last illness he had preached regularly. His arbitration was greatly in request, on the part both of churchmen and non-churchmen. He gladly aided all, taking opportunity when he could to speak to them for the good of their souls. For criminals, he would intercede with discrimination and tact, and rarely without success. He attended councils whenever he could, and in these, as in the ordination of bishops and clergy, he was conspicuously conscientious. In dress and furniture he followed a just mean between luxiury and shabbiness ; his table was spare, his diet mainly vegetarian, though meat was there for visitors or for infirmiores. Wine he always drank. His spoons were silver, but his other vessels wood, earthenware, or marble. His hospitality never failed : his meals were , made enjoyable, not by feasting and carousing, : but by reading or conversation. Ill-natured j gossip he sternly repressed. He had this motto conspicuously displayed : Quisquis amat dictis absentem rodere vitam, Hanc mensam indignam noverit esse slbi. He sharply rebuked even bishops for breaches of this excellent rule. He freely spent upon the poor both the income of his see and the alms of the faithful. To ill- natured grumblings about the wealth of his see, he replied that he would gladly resign all the episcopal estates, if the people would support him and his brethren wholly by their ofterings. " Sed nunquam id laici suscipere voluerunt" The whole management of the property of the see was entrusted to the more capable clergy in rotation, subject only to an annual report to himself. He would never increase the estate by purchase, but he accepted bequests. Only he refused them if he thought they entailed hardship upon the natural heirs. He felt but little interest in such affairs — his part was that of Mary, not that of Martha. Even building he left to his clergy, only interfering if the plans seemed extravagant. If the annual accounts shewed a deficit, he would announce to the Christian people that he had nothing left to spend on the poor. Sometimes he would have church plate melted to relieve the poor or ransom prisoners. His clergy lived with him, and no one who joined them was permitted to retain any property of his own. If one of them swore at table, one of the regulation nurnber of cups of wine (these were strictly limited, even for visitors) was cut off by way of fine. Women, even near relatives, were excluded. ; AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 1 1.' never would speak to them solus cum solis. He was prompt in visiting the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and the sick. But he would never visit the feminarum monastc-iia except under ur^'ent necessity. In reganl to death, he was fond of quoting the dying Ambrose, who replied to his friend's entreaty til, it he would ask Cod for a respite of life: " I have not so lived as to be ashamed to remain with you ; but neither do I fear to die, for we have a gracious God." To this artless picture, drawn by Possidius, it seems impertinent to add supplementary touches. Possidius, as Loots has excellently renuirked, shews himself saturated by the consciousness that he is erecting a lasting memorial to a great historical personage. Without doubt Augustine is the most commanding religious personality of the early church. No Christian writer since the apostolic age has bequeathed to us so deep an insight into the working of a character pene- trated with the love of Cod, none has struck deeper into the heart of religion in man. C. Influenck. — §14. Retractations and Other Writings. — Shortiv before his last illness (Possid. xxviii.) he went over all his writings, noting points, especially in the earlier books, which he would wish amended. The result is his two books of Ketraclatioiies, which, from the chronological order, and the mention of the circumstances which elicited the several writings, places the literary history of St. Augustine on an exceptionally sure footing. He enumerates, characterizes, and identifies by the first words, two hundred and thirty- two books. His letters and sermons he mentions collectivelv, but he did not live to reconsider them in detail. Possidius includes most of them in the indiculus of Augustine's works appended to the Life ; but it is not always easy to identify them by the titles he employs. Some of the letters, however, are counted as " books " in the Retractations, while the books de Unitate Ecclesiae, de Bono Vidui- talisad Julianuin, and de Perfectione Justitiae are passed over (being reckoned as letters) in the Retractations. The Sermons are not chrono- logically arranged in the Bened. ed. ; some are duplicate recensions of the same discourse. Augustine preaclied extempore, but with careful preparation {de Cat. Rud. 2, 3) ; his words were taken down by shorthand, or else dictated by himself. On one occasion we read (Possid. xv.) that he abandoned his pre- pared matter and spoke on another subject, with the result of the conversion of a Mani- chean who happened to be present. His homilies (traclatus) on St. John, and on the I "Epistle of John to the Parthians " (i.e. i { John), belong to the ripest period of his theo- j logical power, about 416 ; these and the I somewhat later Enarraliones in Psalmos are I his most important exegetical works. I Many of his works have been already men- I tioned in connexion with the occasion of their ; production. For a full list of other writings, ; see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v., and the art. of • Loots referred to below. But one or two of I special importance must be briefly charac- I terized. He accomplished by 415 the task, ; his first attempt at which liad failed, of a goinincntary on Genesis ad literam [Retr. IL AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 87 xxiv. ; c.f. L xviii., and supra, § 7, b). But even now, he claims to have reached only problematical results. The de Catechizandis Rudibus (c. 400) gives a syllabus of the course for catechumens, with hints as to effective method in their instruction. It is full of wisdom, and suggestive to all engaged in teaching. The de Spirilu et Litera (supra, § 10) was supplemented (c. 413) by the book de Fide et Operibus, in which he deals with the obHgations of the Christian life, insisting that faith cannot save us without charity. Here occurs the often quoted refer- ence to the Lord's Prayer as the quotidiana niedela for sins not demanding public penance (xxvi. 48), nor even fraternal rebuke (correptio, Matt, xviii. 15. cl. Serm. 352). The Kncheiri- dion (c. 421) is Augustine's most complete attempt at a brief summary of Christian doctrine. Nominally it is based on the triple scheme of Fides, Spes, Charitas. But the latter two are very briefly treated at the end ; practically the whole comes under the head of Fides, and is an exposition of the Creed and its corollaries. It should be compared with the much earlier tract de Fide et Symbolo (supra, § 7, b). On the de Trinitate, see above, §11. The last work to be specially mentioned is the de Doctrina Christiana (written in 397 as far as III. xxv.). which contains Augustine's principles of Scriptural exposition, and a dis- cussion of the exegetical " rule " of Tyconius. Bk. iv. (added in 426) is on the method and spirit in which the sense of Scripture should be taught. It supplements the more special "pedagogics" of the de Catech. Rudibus. Of Augustine as a writer, Gibbon says : " His style, though sometimes animated by the eloquence of passion, is usually clouded by false and affected rhetoric." This verdict would gain in justice if the words " usually " and " sometimes " were transposed. August- ine had indeed learned and taught rhetoric to some purpose ; but tried by Aristotle's cri- terion — the revelation of character — Augustine stands far above the category of rhetorical writers. He rarely or never spends words upon mere effect. He is always intent upon bringing home to his hearers or readers things which he feels to be momentously real. He handles subjects of intimate and vital interest to the human spirit. And whether he is right or wrong, his deep feeling cannot fail to kindle the hearts of those who read him. § 15. Asceticism. Estimate of Poverty and Riches. — Among the attractions which Mani- cheism had for Augustine in his youth, the strict continency supposed to prevail among the perfecti (supra, § 4) had been prominent. His whole early experience had led him to regard sexual temptation as the great ordeal of life. Disillusioned with the pertecti, he was fired with the ideals of Catholic monasticism (§ 6), and one of his earliest resolves at the time of his con\ersion was to forswear for ever even lawful marriage. The whole drift of Christian feehng at that period was in this direction. The influence of Ambrose, the horror of representative churchmen at the anti-monastic tenets of Jovinian and Vigil- antius, the low tone even of nominally Christ- ian society in an age of degenerate civilization, all teuded to &x in him the conviction, exem- 88 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS plified in his last letter to count Bonifatius, that practically the one escape from an immoral life was in the vow of monastic continence. He is aware of the difficulties of the questions raised, and endeavours to face them in his books de Bono Conjugali, de Vir- ginitate (401, against Jovinian), and de Contmentia. He is specially anxious not to depreciate marriage ; but in his attempt to explain the transmission of original sin, not merely by the fact " that the human embryo grows from the very first in a soil positively sinful," but by the assumption that the mode of ordinary human generation is inevitably sinful, he fairly lavs himself open to the charge of doing so (de Nupt. U. 15 ; Enchir. xii. 34 ; de Civ. XIV. xvi.-xxi.). The orthodox theologv of original sin has by common consent dropped this element of the Augustinian theory, which shifts the fundamental Christian condemnation of sensuality from the basis of moral insight to that of senii-Manichean duaUsm. But Julian was wrong in setting It down wholly to Augustine's Manichean past. This may at most account for a bias, which neither his subsequent philosophical studies nor the atmosphere of the church were likely to eradicate. Augustine only exaggerates an instinct not dominant, but really present (Matt. xix. 12; I. Cor. vii. i, 26) in the Christian religion from the first, strengthened by the influences of the times, especially that of the Christian Platonism, and by the end of the 4th cent, elevated to unassailable supre- macy. In that cent, the influx of heathen society into the church threatened her dis- tinctive character as a holy society'. The monastic ideal of life, with its corollary of a double standard of Christian morality — baleful as the latter was in its effects — was probably the church's then only possible re- sponse to the challenge of a momentous peril. Augustine introduced monachism into North Africa, and its spread there was rapid. In Hippo it was compulsory for the clergy. At first, Augustine permitted a " secular " clergy, but toward the end of his life the permission was revoked. With celibacy went the com- mon life and the obligation of absolute per- sonal poverty. We saw above (§ 7, a) how Augustine had followed, early in his Christian career, the example of Anthony. He took the communism of Acts iv. 32 as the normal ideal of Christian Ufe (Enarr. in Ps. cxxxi. 5), and his community was modelled upon it (supra, § 13). At the same time, in the book de Opere Monachorum (c. 400), he insists that monks must work, and not idly rely upon the alms of the faithful. He shews an almost prophetic appreciation of monastic abuses (cf. what he says of the Euchites, de Haer. Ivii.). He regards poverty as a consilium (de Bono Conj. xxiii. 30, Ep. 15729), not a prae- ceptmn. Worldly possessions are allowed to the good as well as to the evil, " et a mails habetur et a bonis ; tanto melius habetur quanta minus amatur " (Ep. i532«, cf. de Civ. XVIII. liv.). The Pelagians, who naturally insisted on human effort as a condition of salvation, took a severer view of wealth than did Augustine (Epp. 157, i8632, divites bap- tizatos, sqq.). He combats them on BibUcal grounds : Dives and Lazarus, the rich Abra- AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS ham, the rich young man, the camel and the needle's eye, St. Paul's charge to the rich in this world ; but his treatment of the question is not constructively built on first principles. He perceives that it is the spirit, not the mere fact of riches or poverty that is all-important ; even a rich man may be poor in spirit and ready to suffer not only the loss of all, but mart>Tdom itself, for Christ's sake (see Serm. 50S, 14; Ep. 157,29,34,36, etc.; de Virg. 14). Yet riches — and this is the reflection towards which he gravitates^are, as a matter of ex- perience, a great hindrance ; the rich are as a rule the chief offenders " difficile est ut non plura peccata contrahant " (in Psalm, cxxxii. 4), therefore " abstineamus nos, fratres, a pos- sessione rei privatae . . . fac locum domino " (ib. cxxxi. "^j ; the counsel of poverty is the safe course. Augustine bases this on the temptation to misuse of wealth ; this would tend to place the man who uses his wealth well and wisely, overcoming temptation, in God's service, higher than him who evades the trial. But the drift of church feeling was too strong for this thought to prevail. Augustine and Pelagius were agreed that monks as a class must rank above " secular " Christians ; widely removed as Augustine was from the Pelagian idea of merit, yet practically he often subordinates the importance of the inward to the outward, of character to works. But monks must live, and, as we have seen, August- ine would have them work. To " take no thought for the morrow" means to seek first the Kingdom of God ; not improvidence or laziness, but singleness of aim is the note of the Christian life (in Serm. in Mont. II. 56). Augustine had occasion (Ep. 211) to address a long letter to his nuns, giving directions for the abatement of evils incidental to the com- mon life, and for the regulation of their prayers, food, costume, and other details. This letter, a model of good sense and right- mindedness, is the basis of the " Regula " for monks printed among his works. This Rule is therefore an adaptation of Augustine's actual counsels, but can hardly be from his own hand. It has been much valued by monastic reformers, and was the basis of the rules of St. Norbet, of St. Dominic (i2i6),and of the different communities of "canons regular" and friars which have borne the title of "Augustinian" (from 1244). It will be noticed that Augustine's theory of property is vitiated by the assumption that Acts iv. 32 implies a permanent condemnation of private property. This was even more conspicuously the case with St. Ambrose, who speaks very strongly of the duty of Christians to treat their possessions as the property of the poor. Augustine, in a passage not wholly consistent with some referred to above, speaks similarly of the private propertv of Christians as the common property of all ; to treat it otherwise is damnabilis usurpatio (Ep. 10535). This " Christian communism," it may be re- marked in passing, differs from that of Proud- hon (" la propriete c'est le vol ") as the duty to give differs from the right to take. In one point Augustine takes the opposite view to Ambrose, namely, in the theory of church property. Ambrose, in his resistance to the action of the empress J ustina, who attempted AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS to transfer the church at Milan to the Arian bishop, anticipated the medieval theory of the absolute right of the church to ecclesiastical property, a right with which the emperor, who is intra ecclesiam, may not presume to tamper. This agrees perfectly with principles laid down by Augustine in the de Civitate Dei [supra. § <) : imperium in ecclesia, etc.). But .\ugustine, defending the acti<in of Honorius I or his ministers) in transferring to the t"athoIicsthc church property of the Donatists, strongly maintains that all rights to property are created bythcState. Thechurch'sexternal power and property are hers by indirect Divine right. «•<■. because they are conferred on her bv the ordinatissima potcstas of the sovereign power (Ep. los*. «). " Per jura regum possi- dentur possessiones " (in Joh. Tr. vi. 25) ; the Dnnatist objects to state interference with religion, but " Noli dicere (^)uid niihi et Regi ! I tuid tibi rl possessioni ? " {ih. 13). As one side of Augustine's theory of the church pre- pares the way for the Gregorian system (§ 9), so here we have that conception of Apostolic poverty consistently applied to church pro- perty, which underlies so much medieval reaction against the Gregorian system from Arnold of Brescia onwards. § 16. Intellectual Influence on Christian Posterity. — The diverse influences which met in .Augustine, held together rather than fused into unison by the strength of his superb personality, parted in after-times into often conflicting streams. It has been said with truth (Loots) that three primary elements determine .Augustine's complex realm of ideas : his neoPlatonist philosophical training (supra, § s), his profound I3iblical studies (§§ 7, b, 10, init.), and his position as an officer of the church. In combinations which we can in part analyse, these elements, given the -Augustine of a.d. 387, go to constitute .Augustine as he became — the greatest of the Latin doctors, the pioneer of modern Christi- anity — in his threefold significance for the church of all time. Augustine is (a) the prince of theists, (h) the incomparable type of reasoned devotion to the Catholic church, and (c) the founder of the theology of sin and grace. (a) Theistic Transcendentalism. — The passion of theism was the core of his personal religion. His was an experimental theism, a theism of the heart. The often quoted words, " Tu Domine fecisti nos ad te, et inquietum est cor nostrum donee requiescat in te " (Conf. I. i.), sum up his inmost personal experience. This is, above all, what Augustine found in the Psalms, which were his introduction to the deeper study of Scripture (supra, § 6). " Mihi autem adhaerere Deo bonum est" (Ps. Ixxii. 28, Vulg.) is the immovable centre upon which his whole religion and theology turns. But his theism was also speculative and metaphysical, and intimately bound up with the philosophical framework of his theology. God, though not beyond our apprehension ("ex minima quidem parte, sed tamen sine dubi- tatione," c. Ep. Eund. 5), is beyond our know- ledge ; " ego sum qui sum quae mens potest capere ? " (in Joh. Tr. viii. 8). To be, to be good, to be one, are correlative attributes ; they belong to God alone. All things that AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS SO exist, do so by " participation " of God (in Joh. Tr. xxxix. 8 — the Platonic doctrine of H^Oe^if) ; but by comparison with God they are non-existent (Enarr. in Ps. xxxviii. 22, cxxxiv. 4). Real being is incommutable being, which belongs to God only. Realitv, then, can only be found out of time : " ut ergo et tu sis, transcende tempus " (in Joh. Tr. xxxviii. 10) ; anything nuitablc is not really existent — it is in process, has been, is to be, but is not in ^(■J)I/J : " praesens quaero, nihil stat " (ih.). .Absolute good is therefore the only reality, namely, God. Absolute evil is the non- existent. All created existence, so far as it has reality (" Deus fecit hominem, substanliam [i.e. aliquidesse] fecit," Enarr. in Rs. Ixviii. 5), is good ("in quantum sumus, boni sumus," de Doctr. I. 35). Thcio is no " nalura tenebra- rum," no ei'il substance (Conf. IV. xv. 24). Sin has its roots in the evtl tvill ; it is negative (" non est substantia," Ps. Ixviii. 3, Vulg.); the evil will consists in "inordinate moveri, bona inferiora superioribus praeponendo " (de Gen. ad lit. xi. 17) ; sin is therefore an in- clinatio in nihilum ; yet the sinner " non penitus perit, sed in infimis ordinatur " (Enarr. in Ps. viii. 10) — even Satan, in that he exists, has something of the good, though he is worse than the worst we know. " In quantum mali sumus, in tantuin etiam minus sumus " (de Doctr., u.s.). It is easy to see that this idealism, taken by itself, tends to lower the importance of everything that takes place in time, of everything empirical and historical, in comparison with the trans- cendent being and unchangeable will of God, in which nothing " takes place," but all is eternally, immovably real. In Angtistine this idealism did not stand alone ; but under all his passionate appreciation of the church and the historical elements of Christianity there is in the background, as a limiting influence, the appeal to the view of things sub specie aeterni ; and the drift of his theological re- flection strengthened this element in his view of ultimate problems. From this point of view we can partly under- stand Augustine's famous conception of the universality of the Christian Religion. This he insists on in his letter to Deogratias (Ep. 102) contra Paganos. At all times, he writes, since the world began, the same faith has been revealed to men, at one time more obscurely, at another more plainly, as the circumstances altered ; but what we now call the Christian religion is but the clearest revelation of a religion as old as the world. Never has its of!er of salvation been withheld from those who were worthy of it (see references. Renter, p. 91 n), even though they may not be (like Job, etc.) mentioned in the sacred record. Such men, who followed His commands (however unconsciously), were implicit believers in Christ. The changing (and therefore semi- real) form represents the one constant reality, the saving grace of (iod, revealed through the passion and resurrection of Christ (Ep. iSg'"). (b) Catholic Churchmanship. — Of this we have already spoken (§ H). Augustine was not the first to formulate belief in the Holy Catholic Church ; but no one before him had reflected so deeply, or expressed himself with such inimitable tenderness and devotion, on 90 AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS the church as the nurse and home of the Christian life, and the saving virtue of her means of grace. The church to him is the society of the saints, the Kingdom of God on earth. With the whole drift of contemporary churchmanship, asceticism, miracles, relics, the incipient cultus of saints (he believes in their intercession, but strongly dissuades from " placing our hope " in them : " noli facere " ; if we pray to God alone, we shall be the mnre likely to benefit by their intercession : " non solum tibi non succensebunt ; sed tunc ama- bimt, tunc magis favebunt " : but Augustine is evidently correcting a known tendency to invocation, Serm. 461^), he is in entire sym- pathy. It is unnecessary to multiply examples of what every page of his writings abundantly illustrates. But it must be noted that his interest throughout is in the spiritual life rather than in the external system ; the latter is but the means to the former. Augustine, first of all extant Christian writers, identifies the Kingdom of God (so far as it exists on earth ; its full realization, in common with all Christian antiquity, he reserves for the end) with the Catholic church : but not in respect of its government or organization. It is the Kingdom of Christ in so far as Christ reigns in His saints and they (even on earth, in a sense) reign with Him. From this point of view, we may trace the negative influence of Augustine's idealism {supra, a) upon his view of the church. We saw above (§ 15, e) his inability to complete his theory of church authority by the essential feature of an infalli- ble organ of authority. Councils are authori- tative, but earlier councils are subject to later ones, there is no final expression of absolute positive truth (of course there is relative truth ; the church will never rehabilitate Arianism nor Pelagianism inferiora superioribus prae- ponendo, see above, a). Truth is, ideally, perceived by the reason {de Vtil. Cred. 34) ; infallibility is an ideal attribute of the church, its realization now is subject to the semi-reality which is the condition of all things on earth. She has catholica Veritas, but never as ultimate truth that man can explicitly grasp. To the church, as to the individual,' it may be said, " ut et tu sis, transcende tempus." Ideally, authority is but the "door" to reason; authority is for the babes, the stulti, who are not the type of mature Christian growth. The intelligendi vivacitas is for the paucissimi, the credendi simplicitas is safest for the turba (c. Ep. Fund. 5). But Augustine does not press these thoughts to their full issue. " Alia est ratio verum tacendi, alia verum dicendi neces- sitas . . . ne pejores faciamus eos qui non intelligiint dum volumus eos qui intelligunt facere doctiores " (de Dona Persev. 40). Prac- tically they operate negatively, by leaving in the vague the question of an infallible organ of authority, while the positive conception of the church is left unaffected. In the sphere of transcendent reality, the decrees of councils may be provisional only ; but in practice any authoritative decision is final, even the appeal to a general council (supra, § 10, 6, Julian) may be ignored, " causa finita est " (supra, 15, d). Medieval ecclesiasticism accepted Augustine's homage to the external fabric of the church, and concerned itself little with his metaphy- AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS sical conception of Reality (see references to Gregory VII., in Renter, pp. 499 seq.). (c) Influence of his Doctrine of Grace. — Augustine's conception of the church, little as it was modified in practice by his transcen- dental theory of " Being " taken by itself, was more seriously affected by his predestinariaa doctrine, which his transcendentalism certain- ly tended to reinforce. Augustine had first found salvation in the Catholic church (c. Ep. Fund. 6) in self-surrender to the authority of Christ (c. Acad. III. 43 : " mihi autem cer- tum est nusquam prorsus ab auctoritate Christi discedere," etc.). His whole religious thought, founded upon his experience of the Catholic church, turned upon Christ as its fountain-head and centre (see the passages collected by Renter, pp. 19-25). His whole being, and that of the church, was owing to the grace of Christ (" gratia Dei per Christum, propter Christum," etc.) ; the gratia Christi is the central idea of his theology. We saw- above (§ 10) by what steps he was led, from the inward recognition of the sovereignty of grace in his personal life, to the logical con- clusion that salvation depends upon the Divine will irrespective of merit or of anything which takes place on earth. Membership of the church, a holy life, use of the means of grace, may be indispensable to the pre- destined ; but they are in no sense conditions of predestination, which is absolute. They depend on it, not it on them. Even the historical work of Christ is secondary to the Divine purpose to save some and " pass over " the rest of mankind. Hence, on the one hand, the doctrine of particular redemption (for none perish for whom Christ died, Ep. 169*, while those predestined ad interitum are " non ad vitam aeternam sui sanguinis pretio compar- ati " — in J oh. Tr. xlvii. 11, 4), on the other hand, a tendency to make the atonement not an efficient cause'of redemption but a proof (to the elect) of God's love : " ut ostenderet Deus dilectionem suam," etc. (de Catech. Rud. 4 ; cf. Ep. 177"^^ : " gratia Dei quae revelata est per passionem et resurrectionem Christi "). The number of the predestined is irrevocably fixed, and this certus numerus constitute the church as it will be in the perfect Kingdom of God. The church on earth, viewed as it is in God's sight, in its true " being," consists of the elect and of them alone. The old Catholic axiom extra ecclesiam nulla salus thus acquires a new and unlooked-for meaning: out of the number of the elect there is no salva- tion. This is the Augustinian doctrine of the communion of saints, which stands in contrast with the externa communio or visible church as the invisible reality with the semi-real phenomenon. The distinction is not quite identical with the familiar distinction of wheat and tares, nominal and real Christians ; for even real Christians have no certainty that they are " elect." The donum perseverantiae, which is as absolutely unmerited as that of faith, and is, in fact, the turning-point of the whole predestinarian scheme, may fail them (supra, § 10, c). In that case they are, after all, vessels of wrath ; while again it may be vouchsafed to others who are now but nominal Christians, or not even that. When Augustine identifies the church with the Kingdom of AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS God, it is reallv of the commtmio sanctorum that he is thinking. The logical incompati- bility of the predestinarian and the Catholic view of the church is obvious, and Augustine never effected their reconciliation. The ob- vious reconciliation, upon which he often appears to fall back, is that although the I hurch contains many who are not " elect," it vet contains all the elect. But this is to .i^s'umc that the Divine election is absolutely b niiid to external means, which Augustine il<s not really hold. On the contrary, his . >!u .'ption of the universality of the One Ktli-i.<u of Christ {stif^ra. a. sub fin.) brings in I"b, the Sibyl, and doubtless many others qui secundem Deum vixerunt eique placuer- unt, pertinentes ad spiritalem Hierusalem " ,,/{• ("/;•. Will, xlvii.). Again, there are the \mjustly excommunicated, who have nothing of the character of schismatics : " hos coronat in occulto Pater," etc. {de Vera Rclig. ii. cf. de. Bapt. I. 26, Epp. 78. 3, 250, fragm. ad. fin.). But practically Augustine passes to and fro between the thought of the Humerus prae- destinatorum and that of the visible church without being careful to distinguish them, and he freely applies to the latter the exalted and ideal prcrogativ es which are theoretically proper to the former. To this side of Augustine's teaching applies the remark of Gibbon, that " the rigid system of Christianity which he framed or restored has been entertained with public applause and secret reluctance by the Latin church." In fact, as the ecclesiastical side of Augustine's thought supplied the inspiration for the medi- eval theocracy, so his predestinarian idea of the church furnished the theological founda- II i I tion for most of the medieval counter-move- ipj. ments, especially those of Marsilius, of Wyclif, ,lh and of Hus ; and the Zwinglian idea of an invisible church is little more than an isolation of this doctrine from the Catholic context which surrounded it in Augustine's own theologv. §17. Select Bibliography, (i) History of Pub- lication. — Augustine's Retractationes, coupled with the Indiculus of Possidius, give a prac- tically complete list of his authentic works and of the occasions of their composition and publication. During his lifetime they were widely multiplied in Latin Christendom (Pos- sid. vii.) ; the Emendatiora Exempla, revised by himself, and bequeathed to the church of Hippo, were preserved through the disasters which overtook the town (ib. x\iii.). The history of the study and literary influence of Augustine in after- times must be read in the histories of Christian doctrine. For the nth cent, we have a useful investigation by Mirbt (pupil of Renter), Die Stellung Augustins in der Publizistik des Gregorianischen Kirchen- streits (Leipz. 1888). The history of manu- script transmission may be read in the prefa- tory notes to the several treatises in the Benedictine ed., and in the Prolegomena to the instalments of Augustine's works that have so far been published in the Vienna Corpus Script. Eccles. Latinorum. The list of editif>ns since the first by Amerbach (Basel, 1506) may be found in the' article by Loofs {infra). The standard ed. is that by the Benedictines of St. Maur (see Kukula and Rottmanner in Hist. AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS 01 Phil. Transactions of the Vienna Academy, 1 890- 1 892, .and Tassin, Hist. lit. de la Congreg. de S. Maur., Brux. 1770), completed in 1690. The edition was by several hands, and was attacked fiercely by the opponents of Jansen- ism. This was perhaps inevitable in the at- tempt to make Augustine speak for himself. The principal points of attack were the Preface, by Mabillon, to the Tenth Volume, which its author revised under pressure, and the Index. The latter is a marvel of completeness, and many of its articles are in substance theologi- cal treatises. The Vita, mainly by Vaillant, is largelv indebted to the contemporary work of Tillemont, the thirteenth vol. of whose Memoires, a Life of St. Augustine, in 1075 pp., appeared after his death (1698). The Bened. ed. was reprinted at Venice, 1729-1735. The eleven vols, in folio were replaced in the next reprints (Venice, 1756-1769, Bassano, 1 797- 1 807) by eighteen in quarto. The Paris reprint of Gaume (1836-1839) and that of Migne (in the Patr. Lat., vols. 32-46) return to the arrangement of eleven vols. ; but in Migne some of the vols, are subdivided, and a twelfth of supplementary matter {Patr. Lat. 47) is added. This edition is better printed than many of the series, and is the most convenient for reference. Its text should be superseded by that of the Vienna Corpus ; but at present only a portion of Augustine's works have appeareci in this series {Confessions, de Civ. Dei, Letters, 1-133, Speculum, several exegeti- cal works, anti-Manichean treatises, various anti-Pelagian works, and a vol. containing de Fid. et Symb., the Retractationes, and other works (1900); also the excerpts of Eugippius, an edition important for the light thrown by it on the text of Augustine). (2) Editions of Separate Works. — We have a good edition of the de Civitate Dei, by Dom- bart (Triibner, 1863), and a more recent one of bks. xi. and xii., with intro., literal trans., and notes by Rev. H. Gee (Bell, 5s.), who has also ed. Ln joannis Evang. Tract, xxiv.-xxvii. and Ixvii.-lxxix. (is. bd. each. Bell), with trans, by Canon H. Brt)wn ; a number of smaller tracts, and the de Trinitate in the SS. Patr. Opusc. Selecta, by H. Hurter, S.J. (Inns- bruck, Wagner) ; Anti-Pelagian Treatises, with valuable Introduction by Dr. Bright (Clarendon Press, 1880) ; de Cateehiz. Rud., by Kriiger (in his Quellenschri/ten, 4, Frieburg, 1891) ; Confessions, by Pusey (Oxf. 1838), and Gaume (Paris, 1836, i2mo). The new ed. of Tract, in Joh. Ixvii.-lxxix., by H. F. Stewart (Camb. 1900), has a translation and some admirably digested introductory matter. (3) Translations. — The translations in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, and in Clark's scries (Edin. 1866- 1872), are incorporated and supplied with useful introductory matter in the Post-Nicene Library (ser. i). ed. by Dr. Philip Schaff (Buffalo, 1886-8). Three Anti-Pelagian Treatises, by Woods and John- ston (D. Nutt, 1887). The Confessions, bks. i.-ix., are translated by Dr. Charles Bigg (Methuen, 1897, with a most interesting Intro- duction). The extracts in this article follow this translation. Another ed. by Temple Scott, with intro. by Mrs. Meynell, is pub. by Mowbrav (7s. 6d. net.), and follows Dr. Pusey's trans. Dr. Hutchings trans, and ed. the Con- 92 AUGUSTINUS fessions (Longmans, 2S. 6^.)- Preaching and Teaching ace. to S. Aug. is a new trans, of the de Doct. Christ, bk. iv., and de Rudibus Catech. with 3 intro. essavs by Rev. W. J. V. Baker and C. Bickersteth and a preface by Bp. Gore (Mowbray, 2S. 6d.). (4) Biographies.^n addition to that of Possidius. and those of the Benedictines and Tillemont mentioned above, see Remy Ceillier, Auteitrs Sacres, vols. 11 and 12 ; Acta Sanc- torum ■ .•\ug. vol. 6 ; Poujoulat, Hist, de Saint Aug. (Paris, 1843) ; Bohringer, Aur. Aug. (2 ed., Stuttg. 1878) ; Naville, St. Aug. : Etude sur le developpement de sa pensee, etc. (Geneva, 1872) ; Bindemann, der h. Aug. (3 vols., Berlin, 1844-1S69) ; Harnack, Augus- tin's Confessionem (Giessen, 1888). The greater Church Histories, and works on Chris- tian literature, deal fully with Augustine. A brochure, S. Augustine and African Church Divisions by the Rev. W. J- Sparrow Simpson, was pub. by Longmans in igro. Of articles in Dictionaries, etc., we may mention those of de Pressense, in D. C. B. ('4-vol. ed.'>, which gives a very useful list of the contents of the several vols, of his works in the great Bene- dictine edition, and Loots, in Herzog-Hauck's Real-Encyclopddie (Leipz. 1897), an article worthy of the writer's high reputation, and much used in the present article. (5) Doctrinal and General. — For older litera- ture, see the references to fuller bibliographies at the end. The Augustinische Studien of Hermann Renter (Gotha, 1887), so frequently quoted above, are beyond comparison for thoroughness and impartiality, and indispens- able. The histories of doctrine should be consulted. Harnack's treatment of Augustine (in his Dogmengeschichte, vol. 3) is among the most s>Tnpathetic and powerful portions of that work ; the writer's instinctive apprecia- tion of a great religious personality is nowhere more apparent than here. Loofs's Leitfaden is also most useful. Mozley, The Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination (3rd. ed. 1S83) ; Nourrisson, La Philosophie de St. Augustin (Paris, 1886, 2 vols.) ; Bright, Lessons from the Lives of Three Great Fathers (ed. 2, Oxf. 1891) ; Cunningham, St. Austin (Hulsean Lectures, 1886) ; Bigg, Christian Platonists of Alexandria (Bampton Lectiures, 1886 ; comparison of Aug. with Origen, etc.) ; Robertson, Regnum Dei (Bampton Lectures, No. 5); Dorner, Augustinus (Berlin, 1873); Gibb and Montgomery's ed. of the Confessions in the Camh. Patristic Texts, 1908, a v^aluable critical ed. with Introduction. The above list is a mere selection. For more complete bibliography see Loots («.s.) ; Barden- hewer's Patrology. Dr. Shahan's trans. 1908, pub. by Herder, Freiburg i/B. and St. Louis, Mo. ; Potthast, BibliothecaHist. Medii Aevi{ed. 2, 1896), vol. ii. p. 1187 ; Chevallier, Repertoire des sources historiques ; de Pressense (m.s.) ; Nicene and post-Nicene Libr., ser. i, vol. i. A short popular Life of St. Augustine is pub. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, by S.P.C.K., who also pub. an Eng. trans, of the Treatise on the City of God, by F. R. M. Hitchcock. Cheap trans, of the Confessions and the City of God (2 vols.) are in^. and M. Theol. Lib. (Griffith). [A.R., 1901.] Augustinus, St., archbp. of Canterbury. AUGUSTINUS i The materials for the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury are almost entirely comprised I in the first and second books of Bede's Eccle- , siastical History, with some additional points in Gocelin's Life of St. Augustine, Thorn's j Chronicles of St. Augustine's Abbey ; a few letters of Gregory the Great ; the Lives of 1 Gregory the Great by Paul the Deacon and John the Deacon. His mission to England was due to the circumstance of Gregory the Great, a monk in the monastery of St. Andrew, on the Caelian Mount at Rome, one day passing through the market-place of the city, and noticing three boys exposed for sale who told him they were ; Angles from Deira, a province of King Ella. ' By a playful interpretation of the word he was [ reminded of angels, delivered from u-rath, with songs of hallelujah. Years passed away and i the idea ripened into a mission to Britain I headed by .\ugustine the abbot of St. Andrew's. i In the' summer of a.d. 596 they set out, traversed the north of Italv, and reached the neighboiurhood of Aix, in Provence, and the north of France. They crossed the English Channel and landed at Ebbe's Fleet, in the Isle of Thanet and kingdom of Kent. King Ethelbert received the missionaries in a friendly spirit, either in the open space near Ebbe's Fleet, or, according to another ac- count, under an ancient oak in the middle of the island. To make a deeper impression on the monarch's mind, Augustine came up from the shore in solemn procession, preceded by a verger caixying a large silver cross, and I followed by one bearing aloft on a board, painted and gilded, a representation of the Saviour. Then came the rest of the brethren and the choir, headed by Honorius and the deacon Peter, chanting a solemn litany for the eternal welfare of themselves and the people amongst whom they had come. Ethelbert listened attentively to Augustine's address, delivered through interpreters, and then, in a manner at once politic and courteous, replied that the promises of the strangers were fair, but the tidings they announced were new and full of a meaning he did not understand. He could not give his assent to them and leave the customs of his people, but he pro- mised the strangers kindness and hospitality, together with liberty to celebrate their ser- vices, and undertook that none of his subjects who might be so disposed should be prohibited from espousing their religion. Augustine and his companions again formed a procession, and crossing the ferry to Richborough, advanced to Canterbury, chanting one of the solemn litanies learnt from Gregory, and took up their abode in the Stable-gate, near the present church of St. Alphege. till the king should finally make up his mind. Thus admitted into the city, the mission- aries commended their message by their self- devotion and pure and chaste living. Before long they were allowed to worship in the church of St. Martin, which Ethelbert's Christian queen Bertha, a Gallic princess with bp. Liudhard for her chaplain, had been accustomed to attend, and they were thus encouraged to carry on their labours with renewed zeal. At last Ethelbert avowed him- self ready to accept Christianity, and was bap- AUGUSTINUS tized on Whitsunday, June 2, 597, probably at St. Martin's church. The convcrsir)n of Ihi-ir rhiof was, as is ilUistratcd again and agaiu in tlio history i>f medieval missions, tlie signal for the baptism of the tribe. At tlie next assembly, therefore, of the Witan, the matter was formally referred to the authorities of the kingdom, and they decided to follow the example of Ethelbert. Aicordingly, on Dec. 25, 3()7, upwards of 10,000 received baptism in the waters of the >\vale, at the mouth of the Medway, and thus si-aleil their acceptance of the new faith. Thus successful in the immediate object of the mission, .\ugiistinc rei>aired to France, and was consecrated the first archbp. of Canter- bury by \'irgilius, the metropolitan of Aries. On his return he took up his abode in the uixxien palace of Ethelbert, who retired to Keculver, and this, with an old British or Roman church hard by, became the nucleus of Augustine's cathedral. Another proof of the king's kindness was soon displayed. To the west of Canterbury, and midway between it and the church of St. Martin, was a building, once a British church, but now used as a Sa.xon temple. This Ethelbert, instead of destroy- ing, made over to the archbishop, who dedi- cated it to St. I'ancras, in memory, probably, ■ if the young Roman martyr on the tombs of whose family the monastery on tlie Caelian -Mount at Rome had been built. Round this I building now rose another monastery, at the j head of which Augustine placed one of his companions, Peter, as its first abbot. Before, however, these arrangements were 1 .jmpleted, he sent Peter and Laurence to in- f.irm Gregory of the success of the mission. Gregory was overjoyed at the receipt of the intelligence, and after an interval sent over a reinforcement of fresh labourers for the mis- sion, amongst whom were Mellitus, Paulinus, I and Justus. They brought ecclesiastical vest- ments, sacred vessels, some relics of apostles and martyrs, a present of books, and the pall of a metropolitan for Augustine himself, who was thus made independent of the bishops of France. In a lengthened epistle Gregory sketched out the course which the archbishop was to take in developing his work. London was to be his metropolitan see, and he was to consecrate twelve bishops as suffragans. More- over, whenever Christianity had extended to York, he was to place there also a metropolitan with a like number of bishops under him. As to the British bishops, they were all entrusted to his care, " that the unlearned might be instructed, the weak strengthened by per- suasion, the perverse corrected with author- ity." .Augustine, thereupon, invited the British clergy to a conference on the confines of VVessex, near the Severn, under an oak, long after known as Augustine's oak. Prepared to make considerable concessions, he yet felt that three points did not admit of being sacri- ficed. He proposed that the British church should (i) conform to the Roman usage in the celebration of Easter ; and (2) the rite of baptism ; and (3) that they should aid him in evangelizing the heathen Saxons. The dis- cussi(jn was long and fruitless. At last the archbishop prop<Jsed that an appeal should be made to the Divine judgment. A blind Saxon AUGUSTINUS 93 was introduced, whom the British clergy were unable to cure, .\ugustine supplicated aid from above, and the man, we are told, forth- with recovered his sight. Convinced but unwilling to alter their old customs, the \anquished party proposed another meeting. Seven British bishops met on this occasion, together with Dinoth, abbot pi the great monastery of Bangor in Flint- shire. Before the synod assembled, they pro- posed to ask the advice of an aged hermit whether they ought to change the traditions of tlieir fathers. " Yes," replied the old man, " if the new-comer be a man of God ? " " But how," they asked, " are we to know whether he be a man of God ? " " The Lord hath said," was the reply, " 'Take My yoke upon you and learn of Me, for I am meek and lowly.' Now if this Augustine is meek and lowly, be assured that he beareth the yoke of Christ." " Nay, but how are we to know this ? " they asked again. " If he rises to meet you when ye approach," answered the hermit, " hear and follow him ; but if he despise you, and fails to rise up from his place, let him also be despised by you." The synod met, and Augus- tine remained seated when they approached. It was enough. It was deemed clear that he had not the Spirit of Christ, and no efforts of the archbishop could induce the British clergy to yield to any of his demands. Thereupon .'\ugustine broke up the conference with an angry threat that, if the British clergy would not accept peace with their brethren, they must look for war with their foes, and if they would not proclaim the way of life to the Saxons, they would suffer deadly vengeance at their hands. Thus, unsuccessful, Augus- tine returned to Canterbury, and there relaxed none of his efforts to evangelize the Saxon tribes. As all Kent had espoused the Faith, it was deemed advisable to erect a second bishopric at Rochester. Over it Augustine placed his companion Justus, and Ethelbert caused a cathedral to be built, which was named after St. Andrew, in memory of the monastery dedicated to that Apostle on the Caelian Hill at Rome, whence the missionaries had started. At the same time, through the connexion of the same monarch with the king of Essex, who was his nephew, Christianity found its way into the adjacent kingdom, and the archbishop was able to place Mellitus in the see of London, where Ethelbert built a church, dedicated to St. Paul. This was the limit of Augustine's success. It fell, indeed, far short of Gregory's grand design ; but this had been formed on a very imperfect acquaintance with the condition of the island, the strong natural prejudices of the British Christians, and the relations which subsisted between the different Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. On Mar. 12, 604, (iregory died, and two months afterwards according to some authorities, or a year after according to others, Augustine followed his patron and benefactor, and was buried in the cemetery which he himself had consecrated, beside the Roman road that ran over St. Martin's Hill from Richborough to Canterbury. The most important modern authorities for the life of the first archbp. of Canterbury are Montalambert, Monks of (he West, iii. ; 94 AURELIAN Hook, Archbishops of Canterbury, i. ; Stanley, Memorials of Canterbury, 4th ed. 1865 ; Milman, Hist, of Latin Christianity, ii. 4th ed. 1867 ; A. J. Mason, The Mission of St. Aug. to Eng., 1897; Bp. Browne, Aug. and his Companions, 1S95 ; Gasquet, Missions of St. At4g. ; Bp. Collins, Beginnings of Eng. Chris- tianity. [G.F.M.] Aurelian, a.d. 270-275. The few facts which connect the name of this emperor with the history of the Christian church are as follows: — (i) he is said (Vopiscus, c. 20) to have reproached the Roman senate for not consulting the Sibylline books, as their fathers would have done, at a time of danger and per- plexity. " It would seem," he said, " as if you were holding your meetings in a church of the Christians instead of in the temple of all the gods." The words clearly imply a half-formed suspicion that the decline of the old faith was caused by the progress of the new. The decree of Gallienus recognising Christianity as a religio licita had apparently stimulated church building. (2) Startled by the rapid progress of Christianity, Aurelian is said to have resolved towards the close of his reign on active measures for its repression. The edict of Gallienus was to be rescinded. A thrill of fear pervaded the Christian popula- tion of the empire. The emperor was sur- rounded by counsellors who vurged on him a policy of persecution, but his death hindered the execution of his plans. (3) In the interval we find him connected, singularly enough, with the action of the church in a case of heresy. Paul of Samosata had been chosen as bp. of Antioch in a.d. 260. A synod of bishops including Firmilianus of the Cappado- cian Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and others, had condemned his teaching ; but on receiving promises of amendment had left him in possession of the see. Another (a.d. 270) deposed him, and Domnus was appointed in his place. Paul refused to submit and kept possession of the episcopal residence. Such was the position of affairs at Antioch when Aurelian, having conquered Zenobia, became master of the city. The orthodox bishops appealed to the emperor to settle whose the property was, and he adjudged it to belong to those to whom the bishops in Italv and in Rome had addressed their epistles (Eus. H. E. viii. 27-30). [E.H.P.] Aurelius, Marcus, emperor, a.d. 161- 180. The policy adopted by Marcus Aurelius to- wards the Christian church cannot be separ- ated from the education which led him to embrace Stoicism, and the long training which he had, after he had attracted the notice of Hadrian and been adopted bv Antoninus Pius, in the art of ruling. In the former he had learnt, as he records with thankfulness, from his master Diognetus (Medit. i. 6), the temper of incredulity as to alleged marvels, like those of seers and diviners. Under Hadrian and Antoninus Pius he had acquiesced, at least, in a policy of toleration, checking false accu- sations, requiring from the accusers proof of some other crime than the mere profession of Christianity. It is, therefore, startling to find that he takes his place in the list of persecutors along with Nero and Domitian and Decius. The annals of mart>Tdom place in his reign AURELIUS, MARCUS the deaths of Justin Martyr at Rome (a.d. 166), of Polycarp at Smyrna (a.d. 167), of Blandina and Pothinus and the other sufferers at Lyons (a.d. i77)- The last-named year seems indeed to have witnessed an outburst of popular fury against the new sect, and this could not have been allowed to rage without the emperor's sanction, even if there were no special edicts like those of which Melito speaks (Eus. H. E. iv. 26) directly authoriz- ing new measures of repression. It was ac- cordingly an era of Apologies ; J ustin had led the way under Antoninus Pius, and the second treatise that bears his name was probably written just before his own martyrdom under .\urelius. To the years 177 and 178 are assigned those which were written by Melito, Tatian, Athenagoras, ApoUinaris, and Theo- philus, perhaps also that of Miltiades. The causes of this increased rigour are not difficult to trace, (i) The upward progress of Chris- tianity brought its teachers into rivalry with the Stoic philosophers who up to this time, partly for good and partly for evil, had occu- pied the position of spiritual directors in the families in which there was any effort to rise out of the general debasement. They now found themselves brought into contact with men of a purer morality and a nobler fortitude than their own, and with a strange mysterious power which enabled them to succeed where others failed. Just in proportion, therefore, as the emperor was true to his Stoicism was he likely to be embittered against their rivals. (2) A trace of this bitterness is found in his own Meditations (xi. 3). Just as Epictetus (.\rrian, Epict. iv. 7) had spoken of the " counterfeit apathy " which was the off- spring not of true wisdom, but " of madness or habit like that of the Galileans, " so the emperor contrasts the calm considerate pre- ference of death to life, which he admired, with the " mere obstinacy (Trapdrafis) of the Christians." " The wise man," he says, " should meet death cre.ui'JJs Kal drpaYoj'Sws." The last word has, there seems reason to be- lieve, a special significance. Justin, towards the close of his second Apology, presented to this emperor, had expressed a wish that some one would stand up, as on some lofty rostrum, and " cry out with a tragic voice, Shame, shame on you who ascribe to innocent men the things which ye do openly yourselves. . . . Repent ye, be converted to the ways of purity and wisdom [yiirddiffOe, a-io(ppovia-dTjTe)." If we believe that his acts were in harmony with his words or that what he wrote had come under the emperor's eye, it is natural to see in the words in which the latter speaks so scornfully of the " tragic airs " of the Chris- tians a reference to what had burst so rudely upon his serene tranquillity. (3) The period was one of ever-increasing calamities. The earthquakes which had alarmed Asia under Antoninus were but the prelude to more serious convulsions. The Tiber rose to an unprecedented height and swept away the public granaries. This was followed by a famine, and that by a pestilence, which spread from Egypt and Ethiopia westward. Every- where on the frontiers there were murmurs of insurrection or invasion. The year 166 was long known as the " annus calamitosus," and AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS it was in that year that the persecution broke ..lit and that Justin sulTered. These calami- ties roused the superstition of the great mass of tlie people, and a wild fanaticism succeeded to an epicurean atheism. The gods were wroth, and what had roused their anger but the presence of those who dei\ied them ? • Chrtsiianos ad leones " seemeil the remedy for every disaster. The gods might accept that as a piacular offering. On the other hand, the Christians saw in them signs of the coming judgment, aiid of the end of the world ; ami now in apocalyptic utterances, u.)w in Sibylline books, uttered, half exult- .intly, their preilictions of the impending V >e(cf. TertuU. ad Sca[y. c. 3). All this, of iirse, iiK Teased the irritation against them . the white heat of frenzy (Milman's Hist. „/ Christianity, bk. ii. c. 7). They not only provoked the gods, and refused to join in sacrifices to appease them, but triumphed in their fellow-citizens' miseries. Two apparent exceptions to this policy of repression have to be noticed, (i) One edition of the edict Jr/xb? to KOLvdv r?;? 'Affias, though ascribed by Kusebius (//. E. iv. 13) to Antoninus Pius, purports, as given by him, to come from Aurelius. But the edict is unques- tionably spurious, and merely shows the wish of some Cliristians, at a later stage in the con- flict, to claim the authority of the philosopher in favour of his brethren. (2) There is the decree mentioned by Eusebius (//. E. v. 5) on theauthority of Tertullian (.-1 />()/. c. 5, adScap. C 4, p. 208) and appended to Justin's first Apology, which purports to be addressed to the Senate, informing them how, when he and his army were in danger of perishing for want of water in the country of the Marcomanni, the Christians in his army had prayed to their God, and refreshing rain had fallen for them, and a destroying hail on their enemies, and bidding them therefore to refrain from all accusations against Christians as such, and ordering all who so accused them to be burnt alive. (Cf. Thunderinc; Legion in D. C.B. 4-V0I. ed.) The decree is manifestly spurious. An interesting monograph, M. Aurelius An- toninus als Freund nnd Zeitgenosse des Rabbis Jehudas ben Xasi, by Dr. A. Bodck (Leipz. 1868), may be noticed as maintaining that this emperor is identical with the Antoninus ben I Ahasuerus, who is mentioned in the Talmud I as on terms of intimacy with one of the j leading Jewish teachers of the time. If this I be accepted, it suggests another possible I element in his scorn of Christianity. G. H. I Rendal, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, to Him- I self, Eng. trans, with valuable Intro. (Lond. 1898). [E.H.P.] I Ausonius, Decimus Magnus, a native of ] Bordeaux, was tin- s. .n of Julius Ausonius, a i physician of Cos^ium tlluzus), in Aquitania (Aus. Idyll, ii. 2). His poems, which are I singiilarly communicative as to his private I history, display him to us in riper years both I as student and courtier, professor and prefect, ! poet and consul. At the age of 30 he was I promoted to the chair of rhetoric in his native I city, and not long after was invited to court I by the then Christian emperor V'alentinian I., 1 who appointed him tutor to his son Gratian (Prat/, ad Syagr. 15-26). Ausonius was held AUSONIUS, DECIMUS MAGNUS 9.') I in high regard by the emperor and his sons ; and accomi)anictl the former in his expedition, ; against the Alemanni. It was no doubt i during the residence of the court at Treves at ' this time that he composed his Mosella. From Valentinian he obtained the title of Comes and the oihce. of (Juaestor, and on the accession I of Gratian became successively Prefect of i Latium, Libya, and Gaul, and linally, a.d. 379, was raised to the consulship (Praef. ad Sya^r. 35, etc. ; Epigr. ii. iii., de fast.). After the death of Gratian, a.d. 383, although he seems to have enjoyeii the favour of Theodosius (Praef. ad Theodos.), it is probable that he returned to the neighbourhood of his native city and spent the remainder of his life in studious retirement (Ep. xxiv.). His corre- spondence with Paulinus of Nola evidently belongs to these later years. The date of his death is unknown, but he was certainly alive in A.D. 388, as he rejoices in the victory of Theodosius over the murderer of Gratian at Aquileia {Clar. Urb. vii.). The question of the poet's religion has always been a matter of ilispute. Voss, Cave, Heindrich, Muratori, etc., maintain that he was a pagan, while Jos. Scaliger, Fabricius, Funccius, and later M. Ampere, uphold the contrary view. Without assenting to the extreme opinion of Trithemius, w^ho even makes him out to have held the see of Bor- deaux, we may safely pronounce in favour of his Christianity. The negative view rests purely upon assumptions, such as that a Christian would not have been guilty of the grossness with which some of his poems are stained, nor have been on such intimate terms with prominent heathens (Symmach. Epp. ad .4uso}t. passim), nor have alluded so constantly to pagan rites and mythology without some expression of disbelief. On the other hand, he was not only appointed tutor to the Chris- tian son of a Christian emperor, whom he seems at any rate to have instructed in the Christian doctrine of prayer (Grat. Act. 43) ; but certain of his poems testify distinctly to his Christianity in language that is only to be set aside by assuming the poems themselves to be spurious. Such are (i) the first of his idylls, entitled Versus Paschales, and com- mencing Sancta sahitiferi redeunt solemnia Christi, the genuineness of which is proved by a short prose address to the reader connecting it with the next idyll, the Epicedion, inscribed to his father. (2) The Ephemeris, an account of the author's mode of spending his day, which contains not merely an allusion to the chapel in which his morning devotions were performed (I. 7), but a distinct confession of faith, in the form of a praver to the first two Persons of the Trinity. (3) The letters of the poet to his friend and former pupil St. Paulin- us of Nola, when the latter had forsaken the service of the pagan Muses for the life of a Christian recluse. This correspondence, so far from being evidence that he was a heathen (see Cave, etc.), displays him to us rather as a Christian by conviction, still clinging to the pagan associations of his youth, and incapable of understanding a truth which had revealed itself to his friend, that Christianity was not merely a creed but a life. The letters are a beautiful instance of wounded but not 96 AVrrUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS embittered affection on the one side, and of an attachment ahnost filial tempered by firm religious principle on the other. Paulinus : nowhere chides Ausonius for his paganism ; on the contrary, he assumes his Christianity ; (Paulin. Ep. ii.'iS, 19), and this is still further , confirmed by a casual passage in one of the poet's letters to Paulinus, in which he speaks , of the necessity of returning to Bordeaux in | order to keep Easter (Ep. viii. 9). Ausonius ! was not a Christian in the same sense as 1 Paulinus ; he was one who hovered on the , borderland which separated the new from : the old religion : not ashamed, it is true, to \ pen obscenities beneath the eye and at the challenge of his patron, yet in the quiet of his oratory feehng after the God of the Christians ; convinced apparently of the dogma of the Trinity, yet so little penetrated by its awful mystery as to give it a haphazard place in a string of frivolous triplets composed at the '\ dinner-table (Gryph. Tern. 87) : keenly alive to j natural beauty, and susceptible of the tender- ; est affection, he yet fell short of appreciating in his disciple the more perfect beauty of holiness, and the entire abnegation of self for the love of a divine master. Probably his later Christianity would have disowned his j own youthful productions. i The works of Ausonius comprise : Epigram- I tnalon Liber, a collection of 150 epigrams 1 on all maimer of subjects, political, moral, 1 satirical, amatory ; many of which for terse- , ness and power of sarcasm are only sur- \ passed by those of Martial. Ephemer'is (see j above). Parentalia, a series of tributes to the | memory of those of his family and kindred who had died before him, many of which are full of pathos. The Mosella is a poem in , praise of his favourite river. The Epistolae are, on the whole, the most interesting, be- ' cause the most heartfelt, of the works of Ausonius ; they number 25, addressed to various friends. Those to St. Paulinus of Nola prove that the poet was capable of earnestness when his heart was stirred. 1 The works of Ausonius are published in Migne's Pair. Lat. vol. xix. There is a com- plete ed. by R. Peiper (Leipz. 1886); H. de la V. de Mirmont, Mosella. with trans. (Bor- ' deaux. 1889): also de Mosella (Paris, 1892); Dill. Roman Society (Lond. 1S9S). [e.m.y.] AvitUS, Alcimus Ecdicius, archbp. of Vienne in Xarbonian Gaul ; born about the middle of 5th cent. His father belonged to a familv of senatorial rank. His mother, Audentia, was, in all probability, a sister of M. Maecilius AvitUS, emperor of the West, a.d. 456. The mother of Sidonius Apollinaris the poet, who, in a letter to Alcimus Avitus, speaks of their near relationship and the identity of their youthful pursuits, seems to have been another sister of the same illustrious family (Sidon. Apoll. Ep. iii. I, 61). A student's life at- tracted AvitUS more than did wealth and rank, and at an early age he bestowed his patrimony upon the poor and retired into the seclusion of a monastery close to the walls of his native city. Here he gained so high a reputation for piety and learning that in 490 a.d., upon the death of his father, he was elected to succeed him in the archbishopric. The fame of Avitus rests partly upon his poetry and partly upon AVITUS, ALCIMUS ECDICIUS the important part he was called to play in the controversies of his time. In 499 Vienne was captured by Gundobald, king of the Burgundian5, who was at war with Clovis, king of the Franks ; and Avitus, as metro- politan of S. and E. Gaul, took the lead in a conference between the Catholic and Ariaa bishops held in presence of Gundobald at Sardiniacum near Lyons (Greg. Turon., ii. 34). The king was convinced by the earnest entreaties and powerful reasoning of Avitus, who addressed several extant letters to him, but could never be induced to recant his errors publicly. His successor Sigismund was converted by Avitus from Arianism. Avitus published treatises in confutation of the Xestorian, Eutychian, and Sabellian heresies ; he also wxote against the Pelagian errors of Faustus, abbot of Lerins, and con- verted many Jews who had settled in his diocese (X'enant. Fortun. 1. v. c. 3). From a letter of pope Hormisdas to Avitus [Ep. X.) we gather that he was made vicar apostolic in Gaul by that pontiff ; and in a.d. 517 he presided in this capacity at the council of Epaune (Concilium Epaonense) for the restitution of ecclesiastical discipline in Xar- bonian Gaul. But his influence seems to have extended far beyond the limits of his own diocese, as is shewn by his correspondence with several historical personages at Rome, e.g. Faustus, Symmachus, V'italianus, etc. Fie appears also' to have exerted himself to terminate the dispute between the churches of Rome and Constantinople which arose out of the excommunication of Acacius ; that this was accomplished before his death we gather from his letters (Epp. iii, vii.). Avitus died Feb. 5, 523, and was buried in the monastery of St. Peter and St. Paul at Vienne, where the greater part of his youth had been spent. The extant works of St. Avitus are as follows : A poem in five books on subjects drawn from Genesis and Exodus : de Origine Mttndi ; de Peccato Originali ; de Sententia Dei ; de Diluvio ; de Transitu Maris Rubri, this is dedicated to his brother Apollinaris, and consists of 261 1 hexameter lines. The first three books might almost have suggested the idea of Milton's Paradise Lost, to which they bear a curious and in many points interesting analogy. A collection of 91 letters, several of historical interest, especially that addressed to Clovis {Ep. xli.) upon his baptism. A homily, de Festo Rogationum, from which the religious obser\-ance of Roga- tion days took its origin. [Mamertus.] A second homily representing the Rogation of the third day, which was discovered in the library of the Grande Chartreuse, and first published in 1717 by Dom Marten (Thesaur. Anecd. p. 47). A homily preached on the occasion of the dedication of a church erected by Maximus, bp. of Geneva. Seventy-two short fragments of homilies, sermons, etc The Collatio Episcoporum contra Arianos coram Gundohaldo rege, first published in d'Achery's Spicilegium, 1655 ff. (tom. iii. p. 304, ed. Paris, 1725). These remains contain much that is valuable with reference to the history, doc- trine, and discipline of the church in the 5th cent. The works of Avitus are contained BABYLAS in Migne's Palrologia, vol. lix. Oeiivres, ed. N. Chevallier (Lyons, 1890). [e.m.v.] BARDAISAN 9^ Babylas (1), bp. of Antioch from a.d. 237 or 238 until his mart\Tdom, a.d. 250 or 251, i under Decius, either by death in prison for the I faith (Ens. H. E. vi. 39). or by direct violence \ (St. Chrys. de St. Bab. c. Gentcs. torn, i.) ; other i authorities — Epiphanius (</t-.Uf>is.xviii.). Sozo- inen (v. 19), Thcodoret (H. E. iii. 6) — simply calling him mart>T, while St. Jerome (deScriptt. Eccl. liv. Ixii.) gives both accounts in different resurrection life, and those\)f Helvidius on the places. The Ada of Babylas (Acta SS. Jan. perpetual virginity of the Virgin (§ 3, 4), and 24), place his martyrdoni^under Numerian, by { bv his omission of the Son when speaking of memorated by Gennadius (c. 24), who attri- butes to him several works, only one of which he acknowledges to have read — viz. the Libellus de Fide A pologcticus, to satisfy the bp. of Rome of his ortiiodoxy, who regarded him with suspicion on account of his being a native of a country tainted with heresy. What this country was there is nothing in his Libellus to determine. Bachiarius's profession of faith is thoroughly orthodox in all leading points. Its date is fixed approximately at about the middle of the 5th cent., by his denial of the tenets of Origen regarding the soul and the kconfusion(according to Baronius's conjecture ad ann. 253, § 126) with one Numerius, who was an active officer in the Decian persecution (Tillemont, M. E. iii. 729). The great act of i his life was the compelling the emperor Philip, I when at Antioch shortly after the murder of Gordian, to place himself in the ranks of the penitents, and undergo penance, before he was admitted to church privileges (vot^x^' X<i7os, according to Eus. H. E. vi. 34. but asserted : without qualification by St. Chrysostom, as above, while the V. St. Chrys. in Acta SS. Sept. torn. iv. 439, transfers the story, against all j probability, to Decius, and assigns it as the I cause of St. Babylas's martyrdom). But his , fame has arisen principally from the triumph I of his relics after his death over another i emperor, viz. Julian the Apostate, a.d. 362. The oracle of Apollo at Daphne, it seems, was the procession of the Holy Ghost. This con- fession is an interesting document, and will repay perusal. It was first printed by Mura- tori (Anecd. Latin, ii. 939). He also wrote ad JantMrium Liber de Reparatione Lapsi in behalf of a monk whom Januarius had ex- pelled from the monastery of which he was the head for inmiorality with a nun. He rebukes Januarius and his monks for refusing to receive the monk again on his penitence. Bachiarius has been confused by Cave, Bale, and others with Mochta, a disciple of St. Patrick. Tillemont, xvi. 473-476 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 429. [e.v.] Bardaisan [Bardesanes). A Syrian theo- logian, commonly reckoned among Gnostics. Born at Edessa a.d. 155, and died there a.d. 222-223. His theology as known to us is doubtless a mere fraction of his actual theo- I rendered dumb by the near vicinity of St. logy. His reception of the Pentateuch, which Babylas's tomb and church, to which his body | he seemed to contradict, is expressly attested, had been translated by Gallus, a.d. 351. And j and there is no reason to suppose that he Julian in consequence, when at Antioch, rejected the ordinary faith of Christians as ordered the Christians to remove his shrine founded on the Gospels and the writings of (XApvaKo), or rather (according to Amm. the apostles, except on isolated points. The Marcell. xxii.), to take away all the bodies I more startling peculiarities of which we hear buried in that locality. A crowded procession 1 belong for the most part to an outer region of Christians, accordingly, excited to a pitch ; of speculation, which it may easily have of savage enthusiasm characteristic of the I seemed possible to combine with Christianity, Antiochenes, bore his relics to a church in 1 more especially with the undeveloped Chris- Antioch, the whole city turning out to meet tianity of Syria in the 3rd cent. The local them, and the bearers and their train tumul- colour is everywhere prominent. In passing tuously chanting psalms the whole way, over to the new faith, Bardaisan could not especially those which denounce idolatry. On ; shake off the ancient glamour of the stars, the same night, by a coincidence which Julian or abjure the Semitic love of clothing strove to explain away by referring it to I thoughts in mythological forms. Scarcely Christian malice or to' the neglect of the , anything survives of his writings, for a Dia- heathen priests, the temple of Apollo was | logue concerning Fate, extant in Syriac struck by lightning and burned, with the great ! under the title "Book of the Laws of the idol of Apollo itself. Whereupon Julian in I Countries," is by his disciple Philip. The 56 I revenge both punished the priests and closed Hymns of Ephrem Syrus against Heresies are I the great church at Antioch (Julian Imp. [intended to refute the doctrines of Marcion j Misopog. 0pp. ii. 97 (Paris, 1630) ; St. Chrys, Horn, de St. Bab. c. Gent, and Horn, de St. Bab. ; j Theod. de Cur. Graec. Affect, x. and H. E. iii. 6, 7 ; Socr. iii. 13 ; Soz. v. 19, 20 ; Rufin. x. 35 ; Amm. Marcell. xxii. pp. 225, 226). St. Chrysostom also quotes a lamentable oration of the heathen sophist Libanius upon the event. [ The relics of St. Babylas were subsequently I removed once more to a church built for them on the other side of the Orontes (St. Chrys. Horn, de St. Bab. ; Soz. vii. 10). [a.w.h.] Bachiarius, a monk, early in the 5th cent., author of two short treatises printed in the I Biblioth. Vet. Patr. of Galland, vol. ix. and the ' Patrologia of Migne, vol. xx. He is com- Bardaisan, and Mani, but Ephrem's criticism is harsh and unintelligent. On the whole, whatever might have come to Bardaisan through Valentinianism might as easily have come to him directly from the traditions of his race, and both alternatives are admissible. It is on any supposition a singular fact that the remains of his theology disclose no traces of the deeper thoughts which moved the Gnostic leaders. That he held a doctrinal position intermediate between them and the church is consistent with the circumstances of his life, but is not supported by any internal evidence. On this, as on many other points, we can only deplore our ignorance about a BARNABAS, EPISTLE OB* 98 person of singular interest. — (From H. in D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. ; cf. Bardenhewer, p. 78.) Barnabas, Epistle of.— I- Authenticity.— \s this epistle the production of the Barnabas so often associated with St. Paul ; or has it been falsely connected with his name ? The ques- tion is one of deep interest, bearing on the historical and critical spirit of the early Chris- tian church. It is admitted on all sides that the external evidence is decidedly in favour of the idea that the epistle is authentic. Clement of Alex- andria bears witness to it as the work of " Barnabas the apostle " — " Barnabas who was one of the seventy disciples and the fellow-labourer of Paul " — " Barnabas who also preached the Gospel along with the apostle according to the dispensation of the Gentiles " (Strom, ii. 7, 35 ; ii- 20, 116 ; v. 10, 64. Cf. also ii. 6, 31 ; ii. 15, 67 ; ii- 18, 84 ; V. 8, 52). The same may be said of Origen, who speaks of it as " the Catholic Ep. of Barnabas " (c. Cels. i. 63). Eusebius disputes its canonicity, but is hardly less decided in favour of its authenticity. It is included by him at one time among the disputed, at another among the spurious books ; yet there is no reason to doubt that when, in both pas- sages, he calls it the Ep. of Barnabas, he under- stands not an unknown person of that name but the Barnabas of Scripture (vi. 14, iii. 25). Jerome must be understood to refer to it when he tells us of an Ep. read among the apocry- phal books, and written by Barnabas of Cyprus, who was ordained along with Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles (de Vir. III. c. vi.). In the Stichomelria of Nicephorus, in the 5th cent., it is enumerated among the uncanonical books ; and, at the close of that cent., a similar place is assigned to it by Anastasius Sinaita. Since it is, moreover, found in Codex X attached to the books of N.T., there is no doubt the early Christian church con- sidered it authentic. That she refused to allow its canonicity is little to the purpose. The very fact that many thought it entitled to a place in the canon is a conclusive proof of the opinion that had been formed of its authorship. The early Church drew a line between apostles and companions of apostles ; and, although writ- ings of the latter, such as the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke, and the Ep. to the Hebrews, were received into the canon, the connexion between the writers of these books and one or other of the apostles was believed to be such that the authority of the latter could be transferred to the former. Such a transference would be more difficult in the case of Barnabas, because, although associ- ated at one time with St. Paul in his labours, the two had differed in opinion and separated. It is on internal evidence that many dis- tinguished critics have denied its authenticity. That there is great force in some at least of the arguments adduced by them from this source it is impossible to deny, yet they do not seem so irresistible as to forbid renewed consideration. They have been summed up by Hefele (Patr. Apost. p. 14), and succeeding writers have added little to his statement. Of his eight arguments, five may be at once rejected : The first, that the words of Augus- tine regarding the Apocr3T)ha of Andrew and BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF J ohn, si illorum essent recepta essent ab ecclesia, show that oiu: epistle would have been placed in the canon had it been deemed authentic ; for Andrew and John were apostles, Barnabas was not. The second, that Barnabas had died before the destruction of Jerusalem, while the epistle bears clear marks of not having been written until after that date ; for this idea is no just inference from the texts referred to, Col. iv. 10, I Pet. V. 13, 2 Tim. iii. (iv. ?) 11, and the authority of a monk of the 6th or 9th cent, is not to be relied on. The third, that the apostles chosen by our Lord are described in c. v. as virfp Tracra;' a/xapTlav dvo/j-uirepoi ; for these words are simply intro- duced to magnify the grace of Christ in calling not the righteous but sinners to repentance. It was an undoubted fact that the Saviour had associated with publicans and sinners, and Barnabas may mean no more than that out of that class were the apostles chosen. He may even have had the career of Saul previous to his call to the apostleship mainly in view. The fourth argument of Hefele, that the epistle be- trays in c. X. so much ignorance of the habits of various animals, is not valid ; for natural history was then but little known. The fifth argument of the same writer to be set aside is that Barnabas, who had travelled in Asia Minor, and lived at Antioch in Syria, could not have asserted in c. ix. that the Syrians were circumcised, when we know from Josephus (contr. Ap. i. 22 ; Antiq. viii. 10, 3) that they were not ; for, however frequently this statement has been repeated, Josephus says nothing of the kind. What he says is, that a remark of Herodotus, to the effect that the Syrians who live in Palestine are circum- cised, proves that historian's acquaintance with the Jews, because the Jews were the only inhabitants of Palestine by whom that rite was practised, and it must have been of them, therefore, that he was speaking, and he quotes Herodotus, and without any word of dissent, as saying that the Syrians about the rivers Thermodon and Parthenius, that is in the northern parts of Syria, did submit to circum- cision. He may thus be even said to confirm the statement of our epistle. The three remaining arguments of Hefele are more important. (i) That the many trifling allegories of cc. v.-xi. are unworthy of one who was named the " Son of Consolation." It is true that it is difficult to conceive how such a one could find in the numeral letters of the Greek version of the O.T. an indication of the will of Him Who had given that Testament in Hebrew to His ancient people. Yet, after all, is it not the time rather than the writer that is here in fault ? It is unfair to take as our standard of judgment the principles of interpretation just now prevailing. We must transfer ourselves into the early Christian age, and remember the spirit of interpretation that then prevailed. We must call to mind the allegorical explana- tions of both Jewish and heathen schools, whose influence passed largely into the Christ- ian church. Above all, we must think of the estimation in which the epistle was held for centmries, e.g. by Clement and Origen ; that some would have assigned it a place in the canon ; and that, even by those who denied BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF it that place, it was regarded as a most useful and edifying work. In judging, therefore, of the ability of our author, we must turn from the form to the substance of his argument, from the shell in which he encloses his kernel of truth to that truth itself. When we do so his epistle will appear in no small degree worthy of approbation. It exhibits a high appreciation of many of the cardinal truths of Christianity, of the incarnation and death of Christ, of the practical aims of the Gospel, of the freedom and spirituality of Christian living ; while the general conception of the relation of the N. T. to the Old, although in some respects grievously at fault, enabodies the important principle that the Old is but the shadow of the New, and that " the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." Through- out the epistle there are many sentences of great beauty and warmth of Christian feeling, and the description of the rebuilding of the spiritual temple in c. xvi. is most eloquent. (2) .-Vgainst its aluthenticitv are urged, ne.xt, the numerous mistakes committed by the writer in cc. vii. viii. with regard to the rites and ceremonies of Judaism, mistakes to all appearance inconsistent with the idea that he could be a Jew, a Levite, who had lived long in Jerusalem, and must have been acquainted with the ceremonial institutions of the Jews. It is impossible not to feel the great force of the objection, or even to complain of one who, upon this ground alone, should reject the authorship of Barnabas. Let it only be remenxbered that these mistakes are almost equally inexplicable on the supposition that the author was not Barnabas. If such rites were not actually practised, whence did he learn their supposed existence ? It is out of the question to think that they were a mere fancy of his own. And huw came the great Fathers whose names have been ahready men- tioned, how came the church at large, to value the epistle as it did if in the mention of them we have nothing but absurdity and error ? We are hardly less puzzled to account for such inaccuracies if the writer was an Alexandrian Christian of heathen origin than if he were a Jew and a Levite. {3) The third and last important argument adduced by Hefele is founded upon the unjust notions with regard to Judaism which are presented in our epistle. They are correctly so described. But it is not so clear that they might not have been entertained by one who, educated in the school of St. Paul and ani- mated by a high sense of the spirituality and universality of the Christian faith, would be easily led, in the heat of the Judaic contro- versies of his day, to depreciate a system which was threatening to overthrow the distinctive- ness and power of the Gospel of Christ. To these arguments recent writers have added that the strong anti-Judaistic tendency of the epistle is inconsistent with its ascrip- tion to Barnabas, inasmuch as he erred in too great attachment to the Jewish party (Gal. ii. 13). But the incident thus referred to reveals no such trait in the character of Bar- nabas. His conduct on that occasion was a momentary weakness by which the best may be overtaken ; and it rather shews us that his position on the side of the freer party had BARNABAS, EPISTLE OF 99 been previously a decided one, " insomuch that even Barnabas was carried away by their dissinmlation." The incident may also have made him in time to come ashamed of his weakness, firmer and more determined than before. To sum up the evidence, it seems to the present writer that its balance favours its composition by Barnabas more than critics have been generally willing to allow. The bearing of the external evidence upon this result is unquestionable ; and, where we have such evidence, it is a sound principle that nothing but the strongest internal evidence should be permitted to overcome it. The traditions of the early church with regard to historical facts do not appear to have been so loose as is often alleged. It is difficult also to imagine how a generally accepted and firmly held tradition could arise without some really good foundation. Finally, we are too prone to forget that the substance of Christian truth may be held by others in connexion with misapprehensions, imperfections, misinterpretations, of Scrip- ture, absurd and foolish views, in connexion with which it would be wholly impossible for us to hold it. The authorship of Barnabas is rejected by, among others, Neander, UUman, Hug, Baur, Hefele. Winer, Hilgenfeld, Donald- son, Westcott, Miihler, while it is maintained by Gieseler, Credner, Guericke, Bleek, Mohler, and, though with hesitation, De Wette. [The weighty judgment of bp. Lightfoot must now (1911) be added to the list in favour, and will generally be considered as decisive : see Apost. Fathers, pt. i. vol. ii. pp. 503-512.] II. The Dale of the Epistle. — External evi- dence does not help us here. We are thrown wholly upon the internal. Two limits are allowed by all, the destruction of Jerusalem on the one hand, and the time of Clement of Alexandria on the other — that is, from a.d. 70 to the last years of the 2nd cent. Between these two limits the most various dates have been assigned to it ; the general opinion, how- ever, being that it is not to be placed earlier than towards the close of the ist, nor later than early in the 2nd cent. Most probably it was wxitten only a very few years after the destruction of Jerusalem. III. Object of the Epistle, and Line of Argu- ment pursued in it. — Two points are especially insisted on by the writer : first, that Judaism, in its outward and fleshly form, had never been commended by the Almighty to man, had never been the expression of God's cove- nant ; secondly, that that covenant had never belonged to the Jews at all. In carrying out his argument upon the first point, the writer everywhere proceeds on the idea that the worship which God requires, which alone corresponds to His nature, and which therefore can alone please Him, is spiritual, not a worship of rites and ceremon- ies, of places and seasons, but a worship of the heart and life. It is not by sacrifices and oblations that we approach God, Who will have no offerings thus made by man * (c. ii.) ; it is not by keeping sabbaths that we honour • The reading of Codex X is to be preferred to that of the Latin, ii'a 6 Kni.vo<; . . . ij.r\ avBpM-noiriTov «XD ''1'' '^poCT^opai'. For the sense cf . Matt. xv. 9, BARNABAS, EPISTLE OP 100 Him (c. XV.) ; nor is it in any temple made with hands that He is to be found (c. xvi.). The true helpers of our faith are not such things, but fear, patience, long-suffering, continence ; and the " way of light " is found wholly in the exhibition of moral and spiritual virtues (c. xix.). But how was it possible to reconcile with such an idea the facts of history? Judaism had had, in time past, and still had, an actual existence. Its fasts and sacrifices, its sabbaths and temple, seemed to have been ordained by God Himself. How could it be pleaded that these things were not the ex- pression of God's covenant, were not to be always binding and honoured ? It is to the manner in which such questions are answered that the peculiar interest in our epistle be- longs. They are not answered as they would have been by St. Paul. The Apostle of the Gentiles recognized the value of Judaism and of all the institutions of the law as a great preparatory discipline for the coming of the Messiah, as " a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ." There is nothing of this kind in the argument of Barnabas. Judaism has in it nothing preparatory, nothing disciplinary, in the sense of training men for higher truths. It has two aspects — the one outward and carnal, the other inward and spiritual. The first was never intended by God ; they who satisfy themselves with it are rather deceived by " an evil angel." The second is Christian- ity itself, Christianity before Christ (c. ix. and passim). This view of the matter is made good partly by shewing that, side by side with the institutions of Israel, there were many passages of the Prophets in which God even condemned in strong language the out- ward ceremony, whether sacrifice, or fasting, or circumcision, or the temple worship (cc. ii. iii. ix. xvi.) ; that these things, in their formal meaning, were positively rejected by Him ; and that the most important of them all, circumcision, was fully as much a heathen as a divine rite (c. ix.). This line of argument, however, is not that upon which the wTiter mainly depends. His chief trust is in the -yvusais, that deeper, that typical and alle- gorical, method of interpreting Scripture which proceeded upon the principle that the letter was a mere shell, and had never been intended to be understood literally. By the application of this principle the whole actual history of Israel loses its validity as history, and we see as the true meaning of its facts nothing but Christ, His cross. His covenant, and the spiritual life to which He summons His disciples. It is unnecessary to give illus- trations. What is said of Moses, that he spoke iv TrvfvfxaTt, is evidently to be applied to the whole O. T. The literal meaning is nowhere what was really intended. The Almighty had always had a deeper meaning in what was said' He had been always thinking, not of Judaism, but of Christ and Christianity. The conclusion, therefore, could not be mistaken ; Judaism in its outward and carnal form had never been the expression of God's covenant. To whom, then, does God's covenant belong ? It is indeed a legitimate conclusion from the previous argument that the Jews cannot claim the covenant as theirs. By the importance they always attached, and BARNABAS, EPISTLE OP still attach, to outward rites they prove that they have never entered into the mind of God ; that they are the miserable victims of the wiles of Satan (cc. i%'. ix. xvi.). But the same thing is shewn both by Scripture and by fact — by Scripture, for in the cases of the children of Rebekah, and of the blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh, we learn that the last shall be first and the first last (c. xiii.) ; by fact, for when Moses broke the two tables of stone on his way down from the mount, the covenant which was at that moment about to be bestowed upon Israel was dissolved and trans- I ferred to Christians (c. xiv.). ! This line of argument clearly indicates what was the special object of the epistle, the special danger against which it was designed to guard. It was no mere Judaizing tendency that was threatening the readers for whom it was intended. It was a tendency to lapse into Judaism itself. The argument of those who were endeavouring to seduce them was, " The covenant is ours " (c. iv.).* These men, as appears from the tenor of the whole chapter, must have been Jews, and their statement could have no other meaning than that Juda- ism, as the Jews understood and lived it, was God's covenant, that it was to be preferred to Christianity, and that the observance of its rites and ceremonies was the true divine life to which men ought to be called. Yet Christians were shewing a disposition to listen to such teaching, and many of them were running the serious risk of being shattered against the Jewish law (c. iii.).t With this the errors of a coarsely J udaistic life naturally connected themselves, together with those many sins of the " evil way " in which, when we take the details given of them in c. xx., we can hardly fail to recognize the old features of Pharisaism. In short, those to whom Barnabas writes are in danger of falling away from Christian faith altogether ; or, if not in j actual danger of this, they have to contend j with those who are striving to bring about such a result, who are exalting the ancient oeconomy, boasting of Israel's nearness to i God, and praising the legal offerings and ' fastings of the O.T. as the true way by which the Almighty is to be approached. It is the spirit of a Pharisaic self-righteousness in the strictest sense of the words, not of a Judaizing Christianity, that is before us. Here is at once an explanation of all the most peculiar phenomena of our epistle, of its polemical zeal pointed so directly against Judaism that, as Weizacker has observed, it might seem to * The w? rj&r) SeSiKaiuofieyoi. of c. iv. has led j Hilgenfeld [die A post. Voter, p. 38) to think of those who were turning the grace of God into lasciviousness. ', But the whole passage leads rather to the thought of a proud Judaic self-righteousness, " the temple of the I<ord, the temple of the Lord are we." t 'Iva iJ.Tr) Tvpoa-epxuitJ.eSa m? CTrtjAurai to) eKfii'OiV I'dfiu. So Hilgenfeld reads, Nov. Test, extra Canonem ; but Codex X) "'" M') Trpocrpijtrffw/ieSa I lis €ttl\vtu TO) (Kfiiwi' I'djicj. The passage is ! almost unuitelligible. M'eizacker proposes to read £7rtA.vTw ; and to render by means of 2 Pet. i. 20, which I is utterly untenable. Might we suggest that en-i'AuToi I may here be used in the sense of " set loose," the figure being that of persons or things loosened from their true foundations or securities, and then dashed against a wall, or perhaps against the beach, and thus 1 destroyed ? BARSUMAS be directed as much against Jews as against Judaizers*; of its effort to shew that the whole O. T. citltus had its meaning only in Christ ; of its denial of all value to outward Judaism ; of its aim to prove that the inward meaning of that ancient faith was really Christian ; of its exclusion of Jews, as such, from all part in God's covenant ; and of its dwelling precisely upon those doctrines of the Christian faith which were the greatest stumbling-block to the Jewish mind, and those graces of the Christian life to the importance of which it had most need to be awakened. IV. Authorities for the Text. — These consist of MSS. of the Greek text, of the old Latin version, and of citations in early Christian writings. The MSS. are tolerably numerous, but the fact that, except the Sinaiticus ({<), which deserves separate mention, they all lack exactly the same portion of the epistle, the first five and a half chapters, seems to shew that they had been taken from a common source and cannot be reckoned as independent witnesses. Since the discovery of Codex N bv Tischendorf a new era in the construction of the text has begun. Besides bringing to light the portion previously wanting, valuable readings were suggested by it throughout, and it is now our chief authority for the text. The old Latin version is of high value. The MS. from which it is taken is probably as old as the 8th cent., but the translation itself is supposed by Miiller to have been made from a text older even than that of Codex N- It wants the last 4 chapters of the epistle. Cita- tions in early Christian writings are extensive. Editions and Literature. — Valuable editions are those of Hefele, 1855 (4th ed.) ; Dressel, 1863 ; Hilgenfeld, 1866 ; and Miiller, 1869. Dressel was the first to make use of Codex S, but of all these editors Miiller seems to have constructed his text upon the most thoroughly scientific principles. The literature is very extensive. Notices of the Epistle will be found in the writings of Dorner, Baur, Schweg- ler, Ritschl, Lechler, Reuss, and others. The following monographs are especially worthy of notice : Hefele, Das Sendschreiben des Apostels Barnabas aitfs neue untersucht, iiber- setzt tind erkldrt (Tiibingen, 1840) ; Hilgenfeld in his Die Apostolischen Voter (Halle, 1853) ; Weizacker, Zur Kritik des Barnabasbriefes aus dem Codex Sinaiticus (Tiibingen, 1863) ; J. (i. Miiller's Erkldrung des Barnabasbriefes, Bin Anhan^ zu de Wette's Exegetischem Handbuch xum neuen Testament (Leipz. 1869), contains general prolegomena to the epistle, a critically constructed text, and an elaborate com- mentary, together with careful Excursus on all the most important difficulties. W. Cunningham, A Dissertation on the £/>. of B. (Lond. 1877). A trans, of the epistle is contained in the vol. of the A post. Fathers in the Ante-Xicene Christian Lib. (T. & T. Clark, los. 6d.). The ed. princeps by archbp. Ussher (Oxf. 1642) has been reprinted by the Clar- endon Press with a dissertation by J. H. Backhouse. The best text for English scholars is given in Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, ed. by bp. Banner (Lond. 1S91), pp. 237-242. [w.m.] Barsumas (the Eutychian), an archimand- rite of a Syrian monastery, who warmly • L.c. pp. 5, 15. BASILIDES ICI espoused the cause of Eutyches. When, in 448, Eutyches was denounced before the local synod of Constantinople, Barsumas, who was resident in the city, raised a violent opposition to the Eastern bishops. The next year, 449, at the " Robbers' Synod " of Ephesus, Theo- dosius II. summoned Barsumas as the repre- sentative of the malcontent monastic party, and granted him a seat and vote among the bishops. He was the first monk allowed to act as a judge at a general council. Barsumas brought with him a turbulent band of 1000 monks to coerce the assembly, and took a prominent part in the disorderly proceedings, vociferously expressing his joy on the acquittal of Eutyches and joining in the assault on the aged Flavian by the monks and soldiers. The injuries inflicted were so serious that the venerable patriarch died three days after- wards. When with great effrontery Barsumas presented himself at the council of Chalcedon, 451, an outcry was raised against him as " the murderer of the blessed Flavian." He active- ly propagated Eutychian doctrines in Syria and died 458. His disciple, Samuel, carried Eutychianism into Armenia. He is regarded among the Jacobites as a saint and worker of miracles (Assemani, Bibl. Orient, ii. 4 ; Labbe, iv. 103 seq. ; Liberatus, c. 12 ; Tillemont, XV. ; Schrockh, xvii. 451 seq.). [e.v.] Barsumas (the Nestorian), bp. of Nisibis and metropolitan, 435-489, who, after the suppression of Nestorianism within the em- pire, engaged successfully in its propagation in Eastern Asia, especially in Persia. Ban- ished from Edessa by Rabulas, after his desertion of his former friends, Barsumas proved the chief strength and wisdom of the fugitive church. In 435 he became bp. of Nisibis, where, in conjunction with Maanes, bp. of Hardaschir, he established a theological school of deserved celebrity, over which Narses presided for fifty years. Barsumas had the skill to secure for his church the powerful support of the Persian king Pherozes (Firuz), who ascended the throne in the year 462. He worked upon his enmity to the Roman power to obtain his patronage for a development of doctrine which had been formally condemned by the emperor and his assembled bishops, representing to him that the king of Persia could never securely reckon on the allegiance of his subjects so long as they held the same religious faith with his enemies. Pherozes admitted the force of this argument, and Nestorianism became the only form of Christ- ianity tolerated in Persia. Barsumas died in 489, in which year the emperor Zeno broke up the theological seminary at Edessa on account of its Nestorianism, with the result that it flourished still more at Nisibis. Mis- sionaries went out from it in great multitudes, and Nestorianism became the recognized form of Christianity in Eastern Asia. The Malabar Christians are the lineal descendants of their missions. Assemanni, Bibl. Or, iii. i, 16-70 ; Wigram, Hist, of Assyrian Ch. c. viii. [Nes- torian CiurRCH.] [e-V.] Basilides (Bao-tXeiOT/s), the founder of one of the semi-Christian sects, commonly called Gnostic, which sprang up in the early part of the 2nd cent. I. Biography. — He called himself a disciple i02* BASILIDES of one Glaucias, alleged to be an interpreter (ipp.y)v4a) of St. Peter (Clem. Strom, vii. p. 898). He taught at Alexandria (Iran. p. 100 Mass. ; followed by Eus. H. E. iv. 7 ; Epiph. Haer. xxiv. i, p. 68 c ; cf. xxiii. i, p. 62 b ; Theod. Haer. Fab. i. 2) : Hippolytus {Hacr. vii. 27, p. 244) in general terms mentions Egypt. Indeed Epiphanius enumerates various places in Egypt visited by Basilides ; but subsequently allows it to appear that his knowledge of the districts where Basilidians existed in his own time was his only evidence. If the Alexandrian Gnostic is the Basilides quoted in the Acts of the Disputation of Arche- laus and Mani (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. Sac. v. 196 ; see later, p. 276), he was reported to have preached in Persia. Nothing more is known of his life. According to Epiphanius {62 B, 68 D, 69 a), he had been a fellow-disciple of Menander with Saturnilus at Antioch in Syria; but this is evidently an arbitrary ex- tension of Irenaeus's remarks on the order of doctrines to personal relations. If the view of the doctrines of Basilides taken in this article is correct, they afford no good grounds for supposing him to have had a S\Tian educa- tion. Gnostic ideas derived originally from Syria were sufficiently current at Alexandria, and the foundation of what is distinctive in his thoughts is Greek. Several independent authorities indicate the reign of Hadrian (a.d. 117-138) as the time when Basilides flourished. To prove that the heretical sects were " later than the Catholic church," Clement of Alexandria II. c.) marks out early Christian history into different periods : he assigns Christ's own teaching to the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius ; that of the apostles, of St. Paul at least, ends, he says, in the time of Nero ; whereas " the authors of the sects arose later, about the times of the emperor Hadrian (ko-to} 5^ irepl rovi k.t\. yeydvaffi), and continued quite as late as the age of the elder Antoninus." He gives as ex- amples Basilides, Valentinus, and (if the text is sound) Marcion, taking occasion by the way to throw doubts on the claims set up for the two former as having been instructed by younger contemporaries of St. Peter and St. Paul respectively, by pointing out that about half a century lay between the death of Nero and the accession of Hadrian. Again Eusebius (I.e.) places Saturnilus and Basilides under Hadrian. Yet his language about Carpocrates a few lines further on suggests a doubt whether he had any better evidence than a fallacious inference from their order in Irenaeus. He was acquainted with the refutation of Basilides by Agrippa Castor ; but it is not clear, as is sometimes assumed, that he meant to assign both writers to the same reign. His chronicle (Armenian) at the year 17 of Hadrian (a.d. 133) has the note " The heresiarch Basilides appeared at these times " ; which Jerome, as usual, expresses rather more definitely. A similar statement without the year is repeated by Jerome, de Vir. III. 21, where an old corrupt reading {mortuns for moratus) led some of the earlier critics to suppose they had found a limit for the date of Basilides's death. Theo- doret (I.e.) evidently follows Eusebius. Ear- liest of all, but vaguest, is the testimony of Justin Martyr. Writing in or soon after a.d. BASILIDES f 145, he refers briefly [Ap. i. 26) to the founders of heretical sects, naming first the earliest, Simon and Menander, followers of whom were still aUve ; and then apparently the latest, Marcion, himself still alive. The probable inference that the other great heresiarchs, including Basilides, were by this time dead receives some confirmation from a passage in his Dialogue against Trypho (c. 35), a later but probably not much later book, where the " Marcians," Valentinians, Basilidians, Sat- urnilians, " and others," are enumerated, apparently in inverse chronological order : the growth of distinct and recognized sects implies at least the lapse of some time since the promulgation of their several creeds. It seems therefore impossible to place Basilides later than Hadrian's time ; and, in the ab- sence of any evidence to the contrary, we may trust the Alexandrian Clement's statement that his peculiar teaching began at no earlier date. II. Writings. — According to Agrippa Castor (Eus. H. E. I.e.), Basilides wrote " twenty-four books (jSifiXia) on the Gospel." These are no doubt the Exegetica, from the twenty-third of which Clement gives an extract (Strom, iv. §§ 83 If., pp. 599 f.). The same work is doubt- less intended by the " treatises " (tractatuum), the thirteenth book of which is cited in the Acta Archelai, if the same Basilides is referred to. The authorship of an actual Gospel, of the " apocryphal " class, is likewise attributed to Basilides on plausible grounds. The word " taken in hand" (iwexf^ipriTav) in Luke i. i gives Origen occasion to distinguish between the four evangelists, who wrote by inspiration, and other writers who " took in hand " to produce Gospels. He mentions some of these, and proceeds " Basilides had even the auda- city " (fjSri 5k fT6\/x77(ref , more than ewex^i^pvcc) " to write a Gospel according to Basilides " ; that is, he went beyond other fabricators of Gospels by affixing his own name (Hom. in Luc. i.). This passage is freely translated, though without mention of Origen's name, by Ambrose (Exp. in Luc. i. i) ; and is pro- bably Jerome's authority in an enumeration of the chief apocryphal Gospels (Com. in Matt, praef. t. vii. p. 3) ; for among the six others which he mentions the four named by Origen recur, including that of the Twelve Apostles, otherwise unknown (cf. Hieron. Dial. cont. Pelag. iii. 2, t. ii. p. 782). Yet no trace of a Gospel by Basilides exists elsewhere ; and it seems most probable either that Origen misunderstood the nature of the Exegetica, or that they were sometimes known under the other name (cf. Hilgenfeld, Clem. Rec. u. Hom. 123 ff.). An interesting question remains, in what relation the Exegetica stand to the exposition of doctrine which fills eight long chapters of Hippolytus. Basilides (or the Basilidians), we are told (vii. 27), defined the Gospel as " the knowledge of supermundane things " (17 Tu)v vnepKoa/iiiwv yvujffLs), and the idea of the progress of " the Gospel " through the different orders of beings plays a leading part in the Basilidian doctrine (cc. 25 ff.). But there is not the slightest reason to think that the " Gospel " here spoken of was a substitute for the Gospel in a historical sense, any more BASILIDES than in St. Paul's writings. Indeed several passages (p. 238, 1. 28 ff. ; 239, 42, 58 ; 240, 70 ff. of Miller), with their allusions to Rom. V. 14, viii. 19, 22, 23 ; I. Cor. ii. 13 ; II. Cor. xii. 4 ; Eph. i. 21, iii. 3, 5, 10, prove that the wTiter was throughout thinking of St. Paul's " mystery of the Gospel." Hippolytus states distinctly that the Basilidian account of " all things concerning the Saviour " subsequent to " the birth of Jesus " agreed with that given in " the Gospels." It may therefore be reasonably conjectured that his exposition, if founded on a work of Basilides himself (see § III.), is a summary of the opening book or books of the Exegetica, describing that part of the redemptive process, or of the prepara- tion for it, which was above and antecedent to the phenomenal life of Jesus. The com- ments on the Gospel itself, probably containing much ethical matter, as we may gather from Clement, would have little attraction for Hippolytus. The certain fragments of the Exegetica have been collected by Grabe (Spicil. Pair. ii. 35-43), followed by Massuet and Stieren in their editions of Irenaeus ; but he passes over much in Clement which assuredly has no other origin. A single sentence quoted in Origen's commentary on Romans, and given further on (p. 275), is probably from the same source. In an obscure and brief fragment preserved in a Catena on Job (Venet. 1587, p. 345), Origen imphes the existence of Odes by Basilides and Valentinus. No other \\Titings of Basilides are mentioned. III. Authenticily of the Hippolytean Extracts. — In endeavouring to form a clear conception of the work and doctrine of Basilides, we are met at the outset by a serious difficulty. The different accounts were never easy to harmon- ize, and some of the best critics of the first half of the 19th cent, considered them to refer to two different systems of doctrine. But till 1 85 1 their fragmentary nature suggested that the apparent incongruities might conceivably be due only to the defects of our knowledge, and seemed to invite reconstructive boldness on the part of the historian. The publication of Hippolytus's Refutation of all Heresies in 185 1 placed the whole question on a new footing. Hardly any one has ventured to maintain the possibility of reconciling its ample statements about Basilides with the reports of Irenaeus and Epiphanius. Which account then most deserves our confidence ? Before attempting to answer this question it is well to enumerate the authorities. They are Agrippa Castor as cited by Eusebius, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, the anonymous supplement to Tertullian, de Praescriptione. the Refutation of Hippolytus, Epiphanius, Philaster, and Theodoret, and possibly the Acta Archelai, besides a few scattered notices which may be neglected here. This ample list shrinks, however, into small dimensions at the touch of criticism. Theodoret's chapter is a disguised compilation from previous Greek writers. The researches of Lipsius have proved that Epiphanius followed partly Irenaeus, partly the lost Compendium of Hippolytus, this same work being also the common source of the Latin authors pseudo-Tertullian and Philaster. BASILIDES 103 I Our ultimate authorities therefore are Irenaeus (or the unknown author from whom he took this section of his work), the Compendium of Hippolytus (represented by Epiphanius [part], Philaster, and pseudo-Tertullian), Clement and the Refutation of Hippolytus, together with a short statement by Agrippa Castor, and probably a passing reference and quota- j tion in the Acts of Archelaus. It is now generally allowed that the notices I of Clement afford the surest criterion by which \ to test other authorities. Not only does his whole tone imply exact personal knowledge, but he quotes a long passage directly from the 1 Exegetica. Is then his account, taken as a whole, consistent with other accounts ? And does it agree best with the reports of Irenaeus and Hippolytus in his younger days, or with the elaborate picture drawn by Hippolytus at a later time ? This second question has j received opposite answers from recent critics. I A majority have given the preference to j Hippolytus ; while Hilgenfeld (who three years before, in his earliest book, the treatise On the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions, pp. 125-149, had described the Basilidian system from the then known records, en- deavouring with perverse ingenuity to shew their virtual consistency with each other) has prided himself on not being dazzled by the new authority, whom he holds to be in effect describing not Basilides but a late development of his sect ; and Lipsius takes the same view. It should be observed at the outset that the testimony of Clement is not quite so homogeneous' as is generally assumed. Six times he criticises doctrines of " Basilides " himself ; eight times he employs the ambiguous plural (oi dirb B., oi d/j.'pi rbv B.). Are we to suppose a distinction here, or is the verbal difference accidental ? Both views might be maintained. The quotation from the Exegetica [Strom, iv. pp. 599 f.) is a piece of moral argument on Providence, wholly free from the technical terms of Gnostic mythology. In the succeeding discussion Clement eventually uses plurals (d . . . tls ainCiv \eyoL — ireTrrcoKev r) virddecns oi'TOiS — u)5 j (pdvai, apparently a misreading for wy <f>a<jLv ! — (Ijs avTol \eyov<jLv), which might equally imply that he employs both forms indifferent- ly, or that he distinguishes Basilides from his followers within the limits of a single subject. The other references to " Basilides " are like- wise of a distinctly ethical character, while several of the passages containing the plural name abound in technical language. Yet ! the distinction is not absolute on either side. 1 " Basilides " furnishes the terms " the i Ogdoad," " the election," " supermundane " ; ' while such subjects as the nature of faith, \ the relation of the passions to the animal soul, and the meaning of Christ's saying about eunuchs, occur in the other group, though they remind us rather of Basilides himself. In the last passage, moreover (Strom, iii. pp. 508 ff.), the ambiguous plural (ol a-rrb 15. <t>a<Tl , —\4yov<n—^r)yovvTai — <{)a(rl bis) is applied to a quotation intended to shame by contrast the immoral Basilidians of Clement's own time ; and a similar quotation from Basi- 104 BASILIDES lides's son Isidore immediately follows ; the authors of the two quotations being designated as " the forefathers of their (the late Basili- dians') doctrines." It is hard to believe that mere anonymous disciples, though of an earlier date, would be appealed to in this manner, or would take precedence of the master's own son. On the whole, there can be no reasonable doubt that all the doctrinal statements in Clement concern Basilides himself, when not distinctly otherwise expressed, and depend on direct knowledge of the Exegetica. With good reason therefore they may be assumed as a trustworthy basis for the whole investigation. The most doubtful instances are the passages cited presently on the Baptism and (in the Exc. Theod.) on the descent of the Minister {dicLKOfos), i.e. the Holy Spirit. The range of possible contact between the quotations and reports of Clement and any of the other authorities is not large. His extant writings contain nothing like an attempt to describe the Basilidian System. The Strom- ates, which furnish the quotations from Basil- ides, expressly limit themselves to moral and practical questions (6 ^^t/c6s X670S) ; and reserve for a future work, i.e. the lost Hypotyp- oses, the exposition of the higher doctrine (t^j Kara tt}v eiroirTLKyjv dewplav yvwcrews. — TTjv T(J5 6vTi yvu(TTiKT]v (pvcTcoKoylav) belonging to the department of knowledge which the Stoics called Physics, beginning with the Creation and leading up to Theology proper {Strom, i. p. 324 ; iv. pp. 563 f., 637 ; vi. pp. 735 f., 827 ; vii. 829, 902 ; cf. Bunsen, Anal. Antenic. i. 159 ff.). Now it is precisely to this latter department that the bulk of Gnostic speculation would belong, and especially such theories as Hippolytus ascribes to Basilides ; and moreover Clement distinctly promises that in the course of that loftier investigation he will " set forth in detail the doctrines of the heretics (tG)v irepodo^ciiv), and endeavour to refute them to the best of his power" (iv. § 3, p. 564). We have therefore no right to expect in the Stromates any cosmological or even theological matter respecting Basilides except such as may accidentally adhere to the ethical statements, the subjects treated of in the various books " against all heresies " being formally excluded by Clement. His sphere being thus distinct from theirs, the marked coincidences of language that we do find between him and Hippolytus afford a strong presumption that, if the one account is authentic, the other is so likewise. Within the narrow limits of Clement's information we meet with the phrases " primitive medley and confusion " ((nVy^utT-is), and on the other hand " separation " (differentiation) and restora- tion {(Totpia (})v\oKpivT)TLK-q, airoKaTaaTaTLKT)) ; with a division of the universe into stages (5ia(TTT7/naTa), and prominence given to the sphere of " super-mundane " things ; with an " Ogdoad " and an " Archon " ; all of these terms being conspicuous and essential in the Hippolytean representation. Above all, we hear of the amazement of the Archon on receiving " the utterance of the ministering Spirit " or " Minister " [diaKovos, cf. Eel. Theod. p. 972) as being that fear of the Lord which is called the beginning of wisdom BASILIDES {Strom, ii. p. 448) ; the utterance itself being implied to be a Gospel {evyjyyeXifffjL^vov) ; while Hippolytus describes the same passage as interpreted of the amazement of the Great Archon on receiving " the Gospel," a revela- tion of things unknown, through his Son, who had received it from a " power " within the Holy Spirit (vii. 26). The coincidences are thus proportionately great, and there are no contradictions to balance them : so that it would require strong evidence to rebut the conclusion that Clement and Hippolytus had the same materials before them. Such evi- dence does not exist. The coincidences between Clement and the Irenaean tradition are limited to the widely spread " Ogdoad " and a single disputable use of the word " Archon," and there is no similarity of doctrines to make up for the absence of verbal identity. The only tangible argument against the view that Hippolytus describes the original system of Basilides is its Greek rather than Oriental character, which is assumed to be incom- patible with the fundamental thoughts of a great Gnostic leader. We shall have other opportunities of inquiring how far the evidence supports this wide generalization as to Gnosticism at large. As regards Basilides personally, the only grounds for expecting from him an Oriental type of doctrine are the quotation in the Acts of Archelaus, which will be discussed further on, and the tradition of his connexion with Saturnilus of Antioch, which we have already seen to be founded on a misconception. The fragmentary notices and extracts in Clement, admitted on all hands to be authentic, are steeped in Greek philosophy ; so that the Greek spirit of the Hippolytean representation is in fact an additional evidence for its faithfulness. It may yet be asked. Did Hippolytus con- sult the work of Basilides himself, or did he depend on an intermediate reporter ? His own language, though not absolutely decisive, favours the former alternative. On the one hand it may be urged that he makes no mention of a book, that occasionally he quotes by the words " they say," " according to them," and that his exposition is immediately preceded by the remark, " Let us then see how openly both Basilides and [his son] Isi- dore (B. ofxov Kai'l.) and the whole band of them not merely calumniate Matthias [from whom they professed to have received records of Christ's secret teaching], but also the Saviour Himself " (c. 20). Against these indications may be set the ten places where Basilides is referred to singly, and the very numerous quotations by the words " he says." It is true that Greek usage permits the occasional use of the singular even when no one writer or book is intended. But in this case the most natural translation is borne out by some of the language quoted. The first person sin- gular (drau 5^ \^7w, (p-qah, t6''\\v, ovx oti ijv \iyii3, dXX' 'iva c-qixdviij tovto 6irep ^ovKop,ai du^at, \^yu}, (p-qcxlv, oti. J]v dXws ov8^v • . . . Kai ov Sexopai, (p-qaiv k.t.\.) proves the book in Hippolytus's hands to have been written by an original speculator ; yet this very quotation is immediately followed by a comment on it with the third person plural BASILIDES uliich here at least can mean no more than that Hippolytus held the Basilitlians of his own day responsible for the doctrines of his author. The freshness and power of the whole section, wherever we touch the actual words of the author, strongly conftrni the impression I that he was no other than Basilides himself. . I Thus we are led independently to the conclu- sion suggested by the correspondence with the information of Clement, whom we know to have drawn from the fountain-head, the Exegetica. The fancy that the book used by Hippolytus was itself the Traditions of I Matthias has nothing to recommend it. The whole form is unlike that which analogy would lead us to expect in such a production. If it was quoted as an authcrity in the Exegetica, the language of Hippolytus is justified. Nor is there anything in this inconsistent with the fact vouched for by Clement (Strom, vii. p. 89S) that Basilides claimed to have been taught by Glaucias, an " interpreter " of St. Peter. We shall therefore assume that the eight chapters of Hippolytus (vii. 20-27) represent faithfully though imperfectly the contents of part at least of the Exegetica of Basilides ; and proceed to describe his doctrine on their authority, using likewise the testimony of Clement wherever it is available. I\'. Doctrine. — Basilides asserts the begin- ning of all things to have been pure nothing. He uses every device of language to express absolute nonentity. He will not allow the primitive nothing to be called even " unspeak- able " : that, he says, would be naming it, and it is above every name that is named (20). Nothing then being in existence, " not-being i God " (or Deity, ovk Civ dios : the article is I omitted here) willed to make a not-being world out of not-being things. Once more great pains are taken to obviate the notion that " willing " implied any mental attribute what- ever. Also the world so made was not the ' extended and differentiated world to which we I gave the name, but " a single seed containing ' within itself all the seed-mass of the world," i the aggregate of the seeds of all its forms and ' substances, as the mustard seed contains the ; branches and leaves of the tree, or the pea- hen's egg the brilliant colour of the full-grown , peacock (21). This was the one origin of all , future growths ; their seeds lay stored up by the will of the not-being God' in the single world-seed, as in the new-born babe its future ' teeth and the resemblances to its father which j ' are thereafter to appear. Its own origin too j I from God was not a putting-forth (7rpo/3oXfj), ; as a spider puts forth its web from itself. (By I this assertion, on which Hippolytus dwells I with emphasis, every notion of " emanation " j is expressly repudiated.) Nor was there an j antecedent matter, like the brass or wood wrought by a mortal man. The words " Let there be light, and there was light " convey the whole truth. The light came into being out of nothing but the voice of the Speaker ; I *' and the Speaker was not, and that which I came into being was not." ■ What then was the first stage of growth of | the seed ? It had within itself " a tripartite sonship, in all things consubstantial with the \ aot-being God." Part of the sonship was BASILIDES 105 subtle of substance (XtirTOiifph), part coarse of substance (waxvfi-fp^s), part needing puri- fication [airoKadApcew'i Sfofxevoy). Simulta- neously with the first beginning of the seed the subtle sonship burst through {SU<T<pv^(v) and mounted swiftly up " like a wing or a thought " (Odyss. vii. 36) till it reached the not-being (lod ; " for toward Him for His exceeding beauty and grace (uipato'rTjros) every kind of nature yearns {Sptytrai), each in its own way." The coarse sonship could not mount up of itself, but it took to itself as a wing the Holy Spirit, each bearing up the other with mutual benefit, even as neither a bird can soar without wing, nor a wing without a bird. But when it came near the blessed and unutterable place of the subtle sonship and the not-being God, it could take the Holy Spirit no further, as not being con- substantial or of the same nature with itself. There, then, retaining and emitting downwards the fragrance of the sonship like a vessel that has once held ointment, the Holy Spirit re- mained, as a firmament dividing things above the world from " the world " itself below (22). The third sonship continued still within the heap of the seed-mass. But out of the heap burst forth into being the Great Archon, " the head of the world, a beauty and greatness and power that cannot be uttered." He too raised himself aloft till he reached the firmament which he supposed to be the upward end of all things. Then he became wiser and every way better than all other cosmical things except the sonship left below, which he knew not to be far better than himself. So he turned to create the world in its several parts. But first he " made to himself and begat out of the things below a son far better and wiser than himself," for thus the not-being God had willed from the first ; and smitten with wonder at his son's beauty, he set him at his right hand. " This is what they call the Ogdoad, where the Great Archon is sitting." Then all the heavenly or ethereal creation (apparently included in the Ogdoad), as far down as the moon, was made by the Great Archon, in- spired by his wiser son (23). Again another Archon arose out of the seed-mass, inferior to the first Archon, but superior to all else below except the sonship ; and he likewise made to himself a son wiser than himself, and became the creator and governor of the aerial world. This region is called the Hebdomad. On the other hand, in the heap and seed-mass, constituting our own (the terrestrial) stage, " those things that come to pass come to pass according to nature, as having been previously uttered by Him Who hath planned the fitting time and form and manner of utterance of the thmgs that were to be uttered (dis (pOdaafTa XexO^iVai i/n-6 rod to. fxeWuvra X^yecrOai brt Set Kal ola 8fi Kal (is Set XfXoyiafxerov) : and these things have no one to rule over them, or exer- cise care for them, or create them : for suffi- cient for them is that plan (\oyL(T/j.us) which the not-being One planned when He was making " [the seed-mass] (24). Such is the original cosmogony as conceived by Basilides, and it supplies the base for his view of the Gospel, as well as of the interval before the coming of the Gospel into the 106 BASILIDES world. When the whole world had been finished, and the things above the world, and nothing was lacking, there remained in the seed-mass the third sonship, which had been left behind to do good and receive good in the seed ; and it was needful that the sonship thus left behind should be revealed (Rom. viii. 19) and restored up yonder above the Limit- ary Spirit to join the subtle and imitative .sonship and the not-being One, as it is written, " And the creation itself groaneth together and travaileth together, expecting the revela- tion of the sons of God." Now we the spiritual, he said, are sons left behind here to order and to inform and to correct and to perfect the souls whose nature it is to abide in this stage. Till Moses, then, from Adam sin reigned, as it is written ; for the Great Archon reigned, he whose end reaches to the firma- ment, supposing himself to be God alone, and to have nothing above him, for all things remained guarded in secret silence ; this is the mystery which was not made known to the former generations. But in those times the Great Archon, the Ogdoad, was king and lord, as it appeared, of all things : and more- over, the Hebdomad was king and lord of this stage ; and the Ogdoad is unutterable, but the Hebdomad utterable. This, the Archon of the Hebdomad, is he who spoke to Moses and said, " I am the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and the name of God did I not make known to them " (for so, says Hippolytus, they will have it read), that is, of the unutterable God who is Archon of the Ogdoad. All the prophets, therefore, that were before the Saviour, spoke from that source (eKeWev). This short interpretation of the times before Christ, which has evidently suffered in the process of condensation by Hippolytus, carries us at once to the Gospel itself. " Because therefore it was needful that we the children of God should be revealed, concerning whom the creation groaned and travailed, expecting the revelation, the Gospel came into the world, and passed through every principality and power and lordship, and every name that is named." There was still no downward coming from above, no departure of the ascended son- ship from its place ; but " from below from the formlessness of the heap the powers penetrated {SirjKovcTii') up to the sonship " {i.e. probably throughout the scale the power of each stage penetrated to the stage immediately above), and so thoughts {v or] /.tar a) were caught from above as naphtha catches fire at a distance without contact. Thus the power within the Holy Spirit " conveyed the thoughts of the sonship, as they flowed and drifted (peoura Kal ^epofifva) to the son of the Great Archon" (25) ; and he in turn instructed the Great Archon himself, by whose side he was sitting. Then first the Great Archon learned that he was not God of the universe, but had himself come into being, and had above him yet higher beings ; he discovered with amazement his own past ignorance, and confessed his sin in having magnified himself. This fear of his, said Basilides, was that fear of the Lord which is the beginning of wisdom (wisdom to " separ- ate and discern and perfect and restore," Clem. Strom, ii. 448 f.). From him and the BASILIDES Ogdoad the Gospel had next to pass to the Hebdomad. Its Archon's son received the light from the son of the Great Archon, he became himself enlightened, and declared the Gospel to the Archon of the Hebdomad, and he too feared and confessed, and all that was in the Hebdomad received the light (26). It remained only that the formlessness of our own region should be enlightened, and that the hidden mystery should be revealed to the third sonship left behind in the form- lessness, as to " one born out of due time " {oiovel eKTpLcixaTL, I. Cor. xv. 8). The light came down from the Hebdomad upon Jesus the Son of Mary. That this descent of the light was represented as taking place at the Annunciation, and not merely at the Baptism, is clearly implied in the express reference to the words of the angel in Luke i. 35, " A Holy Spirit shall come upon thee," which are ex- plained to mean " that [? spirit] which passed from the sonship through the Limitary Spirit to the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad till it reached Mary " (the interpretation of the following words, " And a power of the Most High shall overshadow thee," appears to be hopelessly corrupt). On the other hand, when it is described as a result of the descent of the light from the Hebdomad " upon Jesus the Son of Mary," that He " was enlightened, being kindled in union with the light {a-vv- €^a(pO(ls T(^ (pwTi) that shone on Him," the allusion to the traditional light at the Bap- tism can hardly be questioned ; more especi- ally when we read in Clement's Excerpta (p. 972) that the Basilidians interpreted the dove to be " the Minister," i.e. (see pp. 270, 276) the revealing " power " within the Holy Spirit (26). From the Nativity Hippolytus's exposition passes on at once to its purpose in the future and the final consummation. The world holds together as it is now, we learn, until all the sonship that has been left behind, to give benefits to the souls in formlessness and to receive benefits by obtaining distinct form, follows Jesus and mounts up and is purified and becomes most subtle, so that it can mount by itself like the first sonship ; " for it has all its power naturally established in union {avvidT-qpiypiivqv) with the light that shone down from above" (26). When every son- ship has arrived above the Limitary Spirit, " then the creation shall find mercy, for till now it groans and is tormented and awaits the revelation of the sons of God, that all the men of the sonship may ascend from hence " (27). When this has come to pass, God will bring upon the whole world the Great Ignor- ance, that everything may remain according to nature, and that nothing may desire aught that is contrary to nature. Thus all the souls of this stage, whose nature it is to continue immortal in this stage alone, will remain without knowledge of anything higher and better than this, lest they suffer torment by craving for things impossible, like a fish desiring to feed with the sheep on the moun- tains, for such a desire would have been to them destruction. All things are indestruc- tible while they abide in their place, but destructible if they aim at overleaping the bounds of Nature. Thus the Great Ignorance BASILIDES will overtake even the Archon of the Heb- domad, that grief and pain and sighing may depart from him : yea, it will overtake the (ireat Archon of the Ogdoad, and all the creations subject to him, that nothing may in any respect crave for aught that is against I nature or may suflcr pam. " And in this I wise shall be the Restoration, all things accord- 1 ing to nature having been founded in the seed I of the universe in the beginning, and being • restored at their due seasons. And that each thing has its due seasons is sufficiently proved by the Saviour's words, ' My hour is not yet , come,' and by the beholding of the star by I the Magi ; for even He Himself was subject to the ■ genesis ' [nativity] of the periodic return (dTrovarao-Tdo-ttDt, here used in the limited astrological sense, though above as ' restoration ' generally) of stars and hours, as foreordained [irpoXeXoynrnevos : cf. c. 24, s. f. ; X. 14] in the great heap." " He," adds Hippolvtus, evidently meaning our Lord, " is [in the Basilidian view] the inner spiritual man in the natural [psychical] man ; that is, a sonship leaving its soul here, not a mortal soul, but one remaining in its present place according to nature, just as the first sonship up above hath left the Limitary Holy Spirit in a fitting place ; He having at that time been clothed with a soul of His own " (27). These last two remarks, on the subjection to seasons and on the ultimate abandonment of the immortal but earth-bound soul by the ascending sonship or spiritual man, taking place first in the Saviour and then in the other " sons of God," belong in strictness to an earlier part of the scheme ; but they may have been placed here by Basilides himself, to explain the strange consummation of the Great Ignorance. The principle receives perhaps a better illustration from what purports to be an exposition of the Basilidian view of the Gospel, with which Hippolytus concludes his report. " According to them," he says, " the Gospel is the knowledge of things above the world, which knowledge the Great Archon understood not : when then it was shewn to him that there exists the Holy Spirit, that is the Limitary Spirit, and the sonship and a God Who is the author (alrios) of all these things, even the not-being One, he rejoiced at what was told him, and was exceeding glad : this is according to them the Gospel." Here Hippolytus evidently takes too generally the special form under which Basilides represented the Gospel as made known to the Great Archon. Nor, when he proceeds to say that " Jesus according to them was bom in the manner that we have previously mentioned," is it clear that Basilides gave a different account of the Nativity itself from that accepted by the church, because he gave a peculiar interpretation to the angel's words. " After the Nativity already made known," adds Hippolytus, " all incidents concerning the Saviour came to pass according to them [the Basihdiansj as they are described in the Gospels." But all this is only introductory to the setting forth of the primary principle. " These things " (apparently the incidents of our Lord's life) " are come to pass that Jesus might become the first fruits of the sorting of the things confused " (r^j (}>v\oKpi- BASILIDES 107 v{)a(i^% tC>v <ri'7Af«x''M^''wf). For since the world is divided into the Ogdoad and the Hebdomad and this stage in which we dwell, where is the formlessness, " it was necessary that the things confused should be sorted by the divi- sion of Jesus. That therefore suffered which was His botlily part, which was of the form- lessness, and it was restored into the formless- ness; and that rose up which was His psychical part, whicli was of the Hebdomad, and it was restored into the Hebdomad ; and he raised up that which belonged to the summit where sits the Great Archon (rrfs anpuipeiai tou fi. <£.), and it abode beside the Great Archon : and He bore up on high that which was of the Limitary Spirit, and it abode in the Limitary Spirit ; and the third sonship, which had been left behind in [the heap] to give and receive benefits, through Him was purified and mounted up to the blessed sonship, passing through them all." " Thus Jesus is become the first fruits of the sorting ; and the Passion has come to pass for no other purpose than this [reading yeyovev f} vv^p for yiyoviv vir6\ that the things confused might be sorted." For the whole sonship left behind in the formlessness must needs be sorted in the same manner as Jesus Himself hath been sorted. Thus, as Hippolytus remarks a little earlier, the whole theory consists of the confusion of a seed-mass, and' of the sorting and restoration into their proper places of things so confused (27)- Clement's contributions to our knowledge of Basilides refer chiefly, as has been said, to the ethical side of his doctrine. Here " Faith " evidently played a considerable part. In itself it was defined by " them of Basilides " (oi anb B.) as " an assent of the soul to any of the things which do not excite sensation, because they are not present" (Strom, ii. p. 448) ; the phrase being little more than a vague rendering of Heb. xi. i, in philosophical language. From another unfortunately corrupt passage (v. p. 645) it would appear that Basilides accumulated forms of dignity in celebration of faith. But the eulogies were in vain, Clement intimates, because they abstained from setting forth faith as the " rational assent of a soul possessing free will." They left faith a matter of " nature," not of responsible choice. So again, while contrasting the honour shewn by the Basilidians to faith with its disparagement in comparison with " knowledge " by the Valentinians, he accuses them (oi aixcpl rbv B.) of regarding it as " natural," and referring it to " the election " while they apparently con- sidered it to " discover doctrines without demonstration by an intellective apprehen- sion " (to. p.aOrifj.aTa avairohuKTOj% eifpLffKOvaav KaTa\r}\pei vovriKrj). He adds that accord- ing to them (oi d-rro H.) there is at once a faith and an election of special character (ohdav) in each "stage" (Sida-rrj/ta), the mundane faith of every nature follows in accordance with its supermundane election, and for each (? being or stage) the [Divine] gift of his (or its) faith corresponds with his (or its) hope (ii. 433 f.). What " hope " was intended is not explained : probably it is the range of legitimate hope, the limits of faculty accessible to the beings inhabiting 108 BASILIDES this or that " stage." It is hardly likely that Clement would have censured unreservedly what appears here as the leading principle of Basihdes, the Divine resignment of a limited sphere of action to each order of being, and the Divine bestowal of proportionally limited powers of apprehending God upon the several orders, though it is true that Clement himself specially cherished the thought of an upward progress from one height of being to another, as part of the Divine salvation {Strom, vii. p. 835, etc.). Doubtless Basilides pushed elec- tion so far as to sever a portion of mankind from the rest, as alone entitled by Divine decree to receive the higher enlightenment. In this sense it must have been that he called " the election a stranger to the world, as being by nature supermundane " ; while Clement maintained that no man can by nature be a stranger to the world (iv. p. 639). It is hardly necessary to point out how closely the limita- tion of spheres agrees with the doctrine on which the Great Ignorance is founded, and the supermundane election with that of the Third Sonship. The same rigid adhesion to the conception of natural fixity, and inability to accept Christian beliefs, which transcend it, led Basilides (6 P..) to confine the remission of sins to those which are committed involuntarily and in ignorance ; as though, says Clement {Strom, iv. p. 634), it were a man and not God that bestowed the gift. A like fatalistic view of Providence is implied in the language held by Basilides (in the 23rd book of his Exegetica, as quoted by Clement, Strom, iv. pp. 599-603) in reference to the sufferings of Christian martyrs. In this instance we have the benefit of verbal extracts, though unfortunately their sense is in parts obscure. So far as they go, they do not bear out the allegations of Agrippa Castor (ap. Eus. H. E. iv. 7, § 7) that Basilides taught that the partaking of food offered to idols, and the heedless {aTrai)a(})v\aKTu%) abjur- ation of the faith in time of persecution was a thing indifferent ; and of Origen {Com. in Matt. iii. 856 Ru.), that he depreciated the martyrs, and treated lightly the sacrificing to heathen deities. The impression seems to have arisen partly from a misunderstanding of the purpose of his argument, partly from the actual doctrine and practices of later Basili- dians ; but it may also have had some justifi- cation in incidental words which have not been preserved. Basilides is evidently contesting the assumption, probably urged in controversy against his conception of the justice of Provi- dence, that the sufferers in " what are called tribulations " (eV rah Xeyofi^vais OXlxl/fcnv) are to be regarded as innocent, simply because they suffer for their Christianity. He suggests that some are in fact undergoing punishment for previous unknown sins, while " by the goodness of Him Who brings events to pass " {tov TrepidyovTos) they are allowed the comfort of suffering as Christians, " not subject to the rebuke as the adulterer or the murderer " (apparently with reference to i Pet. iii. 17, iv. 15, 16, 19) ; and if there be any who suffers without previous sin, it will not be "by the design of an [adverse] power " (rar iiri^ovXrju Svfdfiews), but as suffers the babe who appears to have committed no sin. The next quota- BASILIDES tion attempts at some length an exposition of this comparison with the babe. The obvious distinction is drawn between sin committed in act (sVep-ycSs) and the capacity for sin (rd d/xaprriTiKdi') ; the infant is said to receive a benefit when it is subjected to suffering, "gaining" many hardships {irAM K^pdaivov diKTKoXa). So it is, he says, with the sufferirg of a perfect man, for his not having sinned must not be set down to himself ; though he has done no evil, he must have willed evil ; " for I will say anything rather than call Pro- vidence (r6 Trpovovu) evil." He did not shrink, Clement says, and the language seems too conclusive, from applying his principle even to the Lord. " If, leaving all these arguments, you go on to press me with certain persons, saying, for instance, ' Such an one sinned therefore, for such an one suffered,' if you will allow me I will say, ' He did not sin, but he is like the suffering babe ' ; but if you force the argument with greater violence, I will say that any man whom you may choose to name 1 is a man, and that God is righteous ; for ' no 11 one,' as it has been said, ' is clear of defile- ij ment ' " {pvrrov). He likewise brought in the 1! notion of sin in a past stage of existence < suffering its penalty here, "the elect soul" ] suffering " honourably {emri^uu^) through '■ martyrdom, and the soul of another kind ■ being cleansed by an appropriate punishment." ' To this doctrine of metempsychosis (raj '. ipawpLaTuifffii) "the Basilidians " {ol dvb B.) are likewise said to have referred the language of the Lord about requital to the third and fourth generations {Exc. Theod. 976) ; Origen states that Basilides himself interpreted Rom. vii. 9 in this sense, " The Apostle said, ' I hved without a law once,' that is, before I came into this body, I lived in such a form of body as was not under a law, that of a beast namely, or a bird " {Com. in Rom. iv. 549, Ru.) ; and elsewhere {Com. in Matt. I.e.) Origen com- plains that he deprived men of a salutary fear by teaching that transmigrations are the only punishments after death. What more Basil- ides taught about Providence as exemplified in martyrdoms is not easily brought together from Clement's rather confused account. He said that one part of what is called the will of God {i.e. evidently His own mind towards lower beings, not what He would have their mind to be) is to love (or rather perhaps be satisfied with, -q^aw-qKivai) all things because all things preserve a relation to the universe {Xbyov diroffih^ovai vpbs rb trav diravra), and another to despise nothing, and a third to hate no single thing (601). In the same spirit pain and fear were described as natural accidents of things {eiri<TvpL^aivfL rots w pdy /.lacnv) , as rust of iron (603). In another sentence (602) Providence seems to be spoken of as set in motion by the Archon ; by which perhaps was meant (see Hipp. c. 24, cited above, p. 272 a) that the Archon was the unconscious agent who carried into execution (within his own " stage ") the long dormant original counsels of the not-being Ciod. The view of the har- mony of the universe just referred to finds expression, with a reminiscence of a famous sentence of Plato {Tim. 31 b), in a saying {Strom, v. p. 690) that Moses " set up one BASILIDES Itcinple of God and an oiily-begotten world " llfiovoyevyj re nixTfiov : cf. I'liit. ii. 423 A, fva ToiTov [t6«' KOJuoi'l (Ivai /.loyoyev)) t(^ Oei^ ^al ayairrjTOv). I We have a curious piece of psychological (theory in the account of the passions attri- |buted to the Basilidians {01 d/x(pi rbv H.). iThey are accustomed, Clement says (Strom. Ai. p. 4S8), to call the passions Appendages |()r/)o<ra/)7-;;uaro'), stating that these are certain (spirits wliich have a substantial existence (/cor oiViaf I'Trapx^'*'). having been appended (or " attached." or " adherent," various kinds of close external contact being expressed by \xpo(rr)prT)i.Uva, cf. M. Aur. xii. 3, with Gataker's mote, and also Tertullian's ceteris apfen- tJicibus, sensibus et affectibus, Adv. Marc. i. 25, jcited by r.ieselcr) to the rational soul in a i certain primitive turmoil and confusion, and I that again other bastard and alien natures I of spirits grow upon these (wpoafirKpvijOai irriih-ais), as of a wolf, an ape, a lion, a goat, ' whose characteristics (t(5tui/xara), becoming per- iceptible in the region of the soul ((pavraio/j.ei'a refi Tr}y ^I'X^"). assimilate the desires of the 'son to the animals; for they imitate the I actions of those whose characteristics they (wear, and not only acquire intimacy (n-potrot- I Kdovvrai) with the impulses and impressions I of the irrational animals, but even imitate I ({"TjXoi/jO the movements and beauties of i plants, because they likewise wear the char- I acteristics of plants appended to them ; and ; [the passions] have also characteristics of I habit [derived from stones], as the hardness t of adamant (cf. p. 487 med.). In the absence I of the context it is impossible to determine I the precise meaning and origin of this singular I theory. It was probably connected with the : doctrine of metempsychosis, which seemed to I find support in Plato's Timaeus 42, 90 f.), and was cherished by some nco- Pythagoreans ' later in the 2nd cent. (cf. Zeller, Philos. d. I Gt. v. 198 f.) ; while the plurality of souls is ' derided by Clement as making the body a ; Trojan horse, with apparent reference (as 1 Saiunaise points out, on Simplic. Epict. 164) I to a similar criticism of Plato in the Theaetetus I (184 d). .\nd again Plutarch (de Co mm. Xot. I 45, p. 1084) ridicules the Stoics (i.e. appar- ' ently Chrysippus) for a " strange and out- I landish " notion that all virtues and vices, ; arts and memories, impressions afid passions ' and impulses and assents (he adds further I down even " acts," ivepyeia^. such as " walk- I ing, dancing, supposing, addressing, reviling ") ■ are not merely " bodies " (of course in the ! familiar Stoic sense) but living creatures or ; animals (^'.iia), crowded apparently round the ; central point within the heart where " the I ruling principle " (t6 ■IjyffxoviKdi') is located : , by this " swarm," he says, of hostile animals j they turn each one of us into " a paddock or I a stable, or a Trojan horse." Such a theory I might seem to Basilides an easy deduction 1 from his fatalistic doctrine of Providence, and I of the consequent immutability of all natures. I The only specimen which we have of the ; practical ethics of Basilides is of a favourable , kind, though grossly misunderstood and mis- '. applied by Epiphanius (i. 211 f.). Reciting the views of difierent heretics on Marriage, BASILIDES 100 Clement [Strom, iii. 508 ff.) mentions first its approval by the V'alentinians, and then gives s|)ecinuMis of the teaching of Basilides (oi dirb B.) and his son Isidore, by way of rebuke to the immorality of the later Basilidians, before proceeding to the sects which favoured licence, and to those which treated marriage as unholy. He first reports the exposition of Matt. xix. II f. (or a similar evangelic passage), in which there is nothing specially to note except the interpretation of the last class of eunuchs as those who remain in celibacy to avoid the distracting cares of providing a livelihood. He goes on to the paraphrase of I. Cor. vii. 9, interposing in the midst an illustrative sen- tence from Isidore, and transcribes the language used about the class above mentioned. " But suppose a young man either poor or (?) de- pressed [var77</)77s seems at least less unlikely than KaTiofeprii], and in accordance with the .-ord [in the Gospel] unwilling to marry, let iiim not separate from his brother ; let him say I have entered into the holy place [rd dyia, probably the communion of the church], nothing can befall me ' ; but if he have a suspicion [? self-distrust, virovolav ?xv\, l*^t him say, ' Brother, lay thy hand on nie, that I may sin not,' and he shall receive help both to mind and to senses (i>or)TT]v koI a.l(jdr)Ti)v) ; let him only have the will to carry out com- pletely what is good, and he shall succeed. But sometimes we say with the lips, ' We will not sin,' while our thoughts are turned towards sinning : such an one abstains by reason of fear from doing what he wills, lest the punish- ment be reckoned to his account. But the estate of mankind has only certain things at once necessary and natural, clothing being necessary and natural, but rd tGiv a((>po5iaiuiv natural, yet not necessary " (cf. Plut. Mor. 989). Although we have no evidence that Basil- ides, like some others, regarded our Lord's Baptism as the time when a Divine being first was joined to Jesus of Nazareth, it seems clear that he attached some unusual significance to the event. " They of Basilides (ol awd B.)," says Clement (Strom, i. 146, p. 408), " cele- brate the day of His Baptism by a preliminary night-service of [Scripture] readings (xpoSia- vvKTfpeuovTes afayi/uifffji) ; and they say that the ' fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar ' (Luke iii. i) is (or means) the fifteenth day of the [Egyptian] month Tybi, while some [make the day] the eleventh of the same month." Again it is briefly stated in the Excerpta (16, p. 972) that the dove of the Baptism is said by the Basilidians [ol airb U. ) to be the Minister (6 budKovos). And the same association is implied in what Clement urges elsewhere (Strom, ii. p. 449) : " If ignorance belongs to the class of good things, why is it brought to an end by amazement [i.e. the amazement of the Archon], and [so] the Minister that they speak of [ai'/roij] is superfluous, and the Pro- clamation, and the Baptism : if ignorance had not previously existed, the Minister would not have descended, nor would amazement have seized the Archon, as they themselves say." This language, taken in conjunction with passages already cited from Hippolytus (c. 26), implies that Basilides regarded the Baptism no BASILIDES BASILIDES as the occasion when Jesus received " the and perceiving that at that time everything Gospel " by a Divine illumination. The sup- was preoccupied, decided to maintain that posed descent of " Christ " for union with I dualism which was likewise in favour with " Jesus," though constantly assumed by I Scythianus," named shortly before (c. 51, Hilgenfeld, is as destitute of ancient attesta- I p. 186) as a contemporary of the Apostles, who tion as it is inconsistent with the tenor of 1 had introduced dualism from a Pythagorean Basilidian doctrine recorded by Clement, to | source. " Finally, as he had no assertion to say nothing of Hippolytus. It has been ar- 1 make of his own, he adopted the sayings of gued from Clement's language by Gieseler (in j others " (the last words are corrupt, but this the Halle A.L.Z. for 1823, i. 836 f. ; cf. K.G. j must be nearly the sense). " And all his i. I. 186), that the Basilidians were the first | books contain things difficult and rugged.' ' to celebrate our Lord's Baptism. The early j The wTiter then cites the beginning of the history of the Epiphany is too obscure to thirteenth book of his treatises (/mrta/Hwm), in allow a definite conclusion on this point ; but ' which it was said that " the saving word " (the the statement about the Basilidian services 1 Gospel) by means of the parable of the rich of the preceding night receives some illustra- ' man and the poor man pointed out the source tion from a passage of Epiphanius, lately : from which nature (or a nature) without a root published from the Venice MS. ii. 483 Dind. : \ and without a place germinated and extended iii. 632 Oehler), in which we hear of the night ; itself over things (rebus supervenientem, unde before the Epiphany as spent in singing and pullulaverit). He breaks off a few words later flute-playing in a heathen temple at Alex- ' and adds that after some 500 lines Basilides andria : so that probably the Basilidian rite , invites his reader to abandon idle and curious was a modification of an old local custom, elaborateness (varietate), and to investigate According to Agrippa Castor (Eus. I.e.) Basil- ; rather the studies and opinions of barbarians ides " in Pythagorean fashion " prescribed a ' on good and evil. Certain of them, Basilides silence of five years to his disciples. The same author, we hear, stated that states, said that there are two beginnings of all things, light and darkness ; and he subjoins Basilides " named as prophets to himself some particulars of doctrine of a Persian cast. Barcabbas and Barcoph, providing himself 1 Only one set of views, however, is mentioned, likewise with certain other [? prophets] who : and the Acts end abruptly here in the two had no existence, and that he bestowed upon | known MSS. of the Latin version in which them barbarous appellations to strike amaze- | alone this part of them is extant, ment into those who have an awe of such ! It is generally assumed that we have here things." The alleged prophecies apparently j unimpeachable evidence for the strict dualism belonged to the apocryphal Zoroastrian of Basilides. It seems certain that the writer literature popular with various Gnostics. I of the Acts held his Basilides responsible for From Hippolytus we hear nothing about j the barbarian opinions quoted, which are these prophecies, which will meet us again clearly dualistic, and he had the whole book presently with reference to Basilides's son before him. Yet his language on this point is Isidore, but he tells us {Haer. vii. 20) that, loose, as if he were not sure of his ground ; according to Basilides and Isidore, Matthias and the quotation which he gives by no means spoke to them mystical doctrines (Xoyovs bears him out : while it is quite conceivable diroKpiKpovs) which he heard in private teach- that he may have had some acquaintance with ing from the Saviour : and in like manner I dualistic Basilidians of a later day, such as Clement {Strom, vii. 900) speaks of the sect of ! certainly existed, and have thus given a vvTong Basilides as boasting that they took to them- i interpretation to genuine words of their selves the glory of Matthias. Origen also ! master (cf. Uhlhorn, 52 f-)- It assuredly {Horn, in Luc. i. t. iii. p. 933) and after him requires considerable straining to draw the Eusebius refer to a " Gospel " of or according i brief interpretation given of the parable to a to Matthias {H. E. iii. 25, 6). The true name Manichean position, and there is nothing to was apparently the Traditions of Matthias : shew that the author of it himself adopted the three interesting and by no means heretical first set of " barbarian " opinions which he re- extracts are given by Clement [Strom, ii. 452 ; I ported. Indeed the description of evil (for evil iii- 523 [copied by Eusebius, H. E. iii. 29. ' doubtless is intended) as a supervenient nature, 4] ; vii. 882). In the last extract the respon- j without root and without place, reads almost sibility laid on " the elect " for the sin of I as if it were directed against Persian doctrine, a neighbour recalls a passage already cited ; and may be fairly interpreted by Basilides's (p. 275 b) from Basilides. j comparison of pain and fear to the rust of It remains only to notice an apparent , iron as natural accidents (f7ricru/x,3a/vet)- The reference to Basilides, which has played a \ identity of the Basilides of the Acts with the considerable part m modern expositions of his Alexandrian has been denied by Gieseler with doctrme. Near the end of the anonymous ' some shew of reason. It is at least strange Acts of the Disputation between Archelaus and that our Basilides should be described simply Mam, wTitten towards the close of the 3rd ; as a " preacher among the Persians," a cent, or a little later, Archelaus disputes the i character in which he is otherwise unknown ; originality of Mani's teaching, on the ground and all the more since he has been previously that It took rise a long time before with " a I mentioned with Marcion and Valentinus as a certam barbarian " (c. 55, in Routh, Rell. , heretic of familiar name (c. 38, p. 138). On Sac. V. 196 ff.). " There was also," he says, the other hand, it has been justly urged that a preacher among the Persians, a certain the two passages are addressed to different Basihdes of great [or ' greater,' antiuqior] | persons. The correspondence is likewise antiquity, not long after the times of our remarkable between the " treatises " in at Apostles, who bemg himself also a crafty man, I least thirteen books, with an interpretation of BASILIDES 6ASILID£S 111 a parable among their contents, and the twenty-four books on the Gospel" mentioned by Agrippa Castor, called Exegelica by Clement. Tlius the evidence for the identity of the two writers may on the whole be treated as preponderating. But the ambiguity of interpretation remains ; and it would be im- possible to rank Basilides confidently among dualists, even if the passage in the Acts stood alone : much more to use it as a stand;xrd by which to force a dualistic interpretation upon other clearer statements of his doctrine. Gnosticism was throughout eclectic, and Basilides superadded an eclecticism of his own. Antecedent Gnosticism, Greek philosophy, and the Christian faith and Scriptures all exercised a powerful and immediate influence over his mind. It is evident at a glance that his system is far removed from any known form of Syrian or original Gnosticism. Like that of Valentinus, it has been remoulded in a (.ireek spirit, but much more completely. Historical records fail us almost entirely as to the per- sonal relations of the great heresiarchs ; yet internal evidence furnishes some indications which it can hardly be rash to trust. Ancient writers usually name Basilides before Valen- tinus ; but there is little doubt that they were at least approximately contemporaries, and it is not unlikely that Valentinus was best known personally from his sojourn at Rome, which was probably (Lipsius, Quellen d. alt. Ketzergeschichte. 256) the last of the recorded stages of his life. There is at all events no serious chronological difficulty in supposing that the Valentinian system was the starting- point from which Basilides proceeded to con- struct by contrast his own theory, and this is the view which a comparison of doctrines suggests. In no point, unless it be the reten- tion of the widely spread term archon, is Basilides nearer than Valentinus to the older Gnosticism, while several leading Gnostic forms or ideas which he discards or even re- pudiates are held fast by Valentinus. Such are descent from above (see a passage at the end of c. 22, and p. 272 b, above), putting forth or pullulation (imperfect renderings of TpoSoXri, see p. 271 b), syzygies of male and female powers, and the deposition of faith to a lower level than knowledge. Further, the unique name given by Basilides to the Holy Spirit, " the Limitary {fxeOopwu) Spirit," to- gether with the place assigned to it, can hardly be anything else than a transformation of the strange Valentinian " Limit " (o/jos), which in like manner divides the Pleroma from the lower world ; though, in conformity with the unifying purpose of Basilides, the Limitary Spirit is conceived as connecting as well as parting the two worlds (cf. Baur in Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, 156 f.). The same softening of oppositions which retain much of their force even with Valentinus shews itself in other instances, as of matter and spirit, creation and redemption, the Jewish age and the Christian age, the earthly and the heavenly elements in the Person of our Lord. The strongest impulse in this direction probably came from Christian ideas and the power of a true though disguised Christian faith. But Greek speculative Stoicism tended likewise to break down the inherited dualism, while at the same time its own inherent limitations brought faith into captivity. An antecedent matter was expressly repudiated, the words of Gen. i. 3 eagerly appropriated, and a Divine counsel represented as foreordaining all future growths and processes ; yet the chaotic nullity out of which the developed universe was to spring was attributed with equal bold- ness to its Maker : Creator and creation were not confused, but they melted away in the distance together. Nature was accepted not only as prescribing the conditions of the lower life, but as practically the supreme and per- manent arbiter of destiny. Thus though faith regained its rights, it remained an energy of the understanding, confined to those who had the requisite inborn capacity ; while the dealings of God with man were shut up within the lines of mechanical justice. The majestic and, so to speak, pathetic view bounded by the large Basilidian horizon was well fitted to inspire dreams of a high and comprehensive theology, but the very fidelity with which Basilides strove to cling to reality must have soon brought to light the incompetence of his teaching to solve any of the great problems. Its true office consisted in supplying one of the indispensable antecedents to the Alexandrian Catholicism which arose two generations later. V. i?<?/i</aho«s.— Notwithstanding the wide and lasting fame of Basilides as a typical heresiarch, no treatise is recorded as written specially in confutation of his teaching except that of Agrippa Castor. He had of course a place in the various works against all heresies ; but, as we have seen, the doctrines described and criticized in several of them belong not to him but to a sect of almost wholly different character. Hippolytus, who in later years became acquainted with the Exegetica, con- tented himself with detecting imaginary plagiarisms from Aristotle (vii. 14-20). Even Origen, who likewise seems to have known the work (if we may judge by the quotation on metempsychosis given at p. 275, and by a complaint of " long-winded fabling," aut Basilidis longam fabulositatem : Com. in Matt. xxiv. 23, p. 864 Ru.), shews in the few casual remarks in his extant writings little real understanding even of Basilides's errors. On the other hand, Clement's candid intelligence enables him to detect the latent flaws of principle in the BasiUdian theory without mocking at such of the superficial details as he has occasion to mention. Hilgenfeld, writing (1848) on the pseudo-Clementine literature, made a singular attempt to shew that in one early recension of the materials of part of the Recognitions Simon was made to utter Basil- idian doctrine, to be refuted by St. Peter, the traces of which had been partly effaced by his becoming the mouthpiece of other Gnostics in later recensions. Ritschl took the same view in the first ed. of his Entstehung d. altkath. Kirche (1850, pp. 169-174) ; but the whole speculation vanishes in his far maturer second ed. of 1857. The theory lacks even plausi- bility. The only resemblances between this part of the Recognitions and either the true or the spurious Basilidianism are common to various forms of religious belief ; and not a single distinctive feature of either Basilidian system occurs in the Recognitions. A brief but 112 BASILIDES sufficient reply is given in Uhlhorn's Mom. u. Recog. d. Clem. Rom. 1854, pp. 286 ff. VI. Isodorus.- — In the passage already noticed (Haer. vii. 20) Hippolytus couples with Basilides " his true child and disciple " Isidore. He is there referring to the use which they made of the Traditions of Matthias ; but in the next sentence he treats them as jointly responsible for the doctrines which he recites. Our only other authority respecting Isidore is Clement (copied by Theodoret), who calls him in like manner " at once son and disciple " of Basilides {Strom, vi. 767). In this place he gives three extracts from the first and second books of Isidore's Expositions ('E|7;77)T{/cd) of the Prophet Parchor. They are all parts of a plea, like so many put forward after the example of Josephus against Apion, that the higher thoughts of heathen philo- sophers and mythologers were derived from a Jewish source. The last reference given is to Pherecydes, who had probably a peculiar interest for Isidore as the earliest promulgator of the doctrine of metempsychosis known to tradition (cf. Zeller, Philos. d. Griechen, i. 55 f. ed. 3I. His allegation that Pherecydes followed the prophecy of Ham" has been perversely urged as a sign that he set up the prophets of a hated race against the prophets of Israel. The truth is rather that the identification of Zoroaster with Ham or Ham's son, whatever may have been its origin, rendered it easy to claim for the apocryphal Zoroastrian books a quasi-biblical sanctity as proceeding from a son of Noah, and that Isidore gladly accepted the theory as evidence for his argument. " The prophets " from whom " some of the philosophers " appro- priated a wisdom not their own can be no other than the Jewish prophets. Again Clement quotes his book On an Adherent Soul (Ilepi irpoaipvovs ^i'l'X'ls) in correction of his preced- ing quotation from Basilides on the passions as "appendages" (Strom, ii. 488). If the eight lines transcribed are a fair sample of the treatise, Isidore would certainly appear to have argued here against his father's teaching. He insists on the unity {fxovo/j.€p-qs) of the soul, and maintains that bad men will find " no common excuse" in the violence of the " appendages " for pleading that their evil acts were involuntary : our duty is, he says, " by overcoming the inferior creation within us {Tjjs eXcLTTovos if rifuv /criVews) through the reasoning faculty (rep Xovtcrrivcfi), to shew ourselves to have the mastery." A third passage from Isidore's Ethics {Strom, iii. 510) is intercalated into his father's argument on I. Cor. vii. 9, to the same purport but in a coarser strain. Its apparent diificulty arises partly from a corrupt reading {avTexoi' iJ.axifJ.ijs yi'vaiKOS, where ya/xerTJi must doubtless be substituted for /uaxi/J-vs. clvt^xov meaning not " resist," which would be djrexf. ^s in the preceding line, but " have recoxirse to ") ; partly from the assumption that the following words orav Si k.t.X. are likewise by Isidore, whereas the sense shews them to be a con- tinuation of the exposition of Basilides himself. Basilides had to all appearance no eminent disciple except his own son. In this respect the contrast between him and Valentinus is BASILIDES remarkable. A succession of brilliant fol- lowers carried forward and developed the Valentinian doctrine. It is a singular testi- mony to the impression created at the outset by Basilides and his system that he remained for centuries one of the eponymi of heresy ; his name is oftener repeated, for instance, in the writings of Origen, than that of any other dreaded of the ante-Nicene church except Marcion, Valentinus, and afterwards Mani. But the original teaching, for all its impressive- ness, had no vitality. The Basilidianism which did survive, and that, as far as the evidence goes, only locally, was, as we have seen, a poor and corrupt remnant, adulterated with the very elements which the founder had strenuously rejected. VII. The Spurious Basilidian System. — In briefly sketching this degenerate Basilidianism it will seldom be needful to distinguish the authorities, which are fundamentally two, Irenaeus (loi f.) and the lost early treatise of Hippolytus ; both having much in common, and both being interwoven together in the report of Epiphanius (pp. 68-75). The other relics of the Hippolytean Compendium are the accounts of Philaster (32), and the supplement to Tertullian (4). At the head of this theology stood the Unbegotten (neuter in Epiph.), the Only Father. From Him was born or put forth Nus, and from Nus Logos, from Logos Phronesis, from Phronesis Sophia and Dyna- mis, from Sophia and Dynamis principalities, powers, and angels. This first set of angels first made the first heaven, and then gave birth to a second set of angels who made a second heaven, and so on till 365 heavens had been made by 365 generations of angels, each heaven being apparently ruled by an Archon to whom a name was given, and these names being used in magic arts. The angels of the lowest or visible heaven made the earth and man. They were the authors of the pro- phecies ; and the Law in particular was given by their Archon, the God of the Jews. He being more petulant and wilful than the other angels {ira/j.u>Ttpov Kai avdabeartpov)^ in his desire to secure empire for his people, pro- voked the rebellion of the other angels and their respective peoples. Then the Unbegotten and Innominable Father, seeing what discord prevailed among men and among angels, and how the Jews were perishing, sent His First- born Nus, Who is Christ, to deliver those Who believed on Him from the power of the makers of the world. " He," the Basilidians said, " is our salvation, even He Who came and revealed to us alone this truth." He accord- ingly appeared on earth and performed mighty works ; but His appearance was only in out- ward show, and He did not really take flesh. It was Simon of C>Tene that was crucified ; for Jesus exchanged forms with him on the way, and then, standing unseen opposite in Simon's form, mocked those who did the deed. But He Himself ascended into heaven, passing through all the powers, till He was restored to the presence of His own Father. The two fullest accounts, those of Irenaeus and Epiphanius, add by way of appendix another particular of the antecedent mythology ; a short notice on the same subject being like- wise inserted parenthetically by Hippolytus BASILIDES (vii. 26, p. 240 : cf. Uhlhorn, D. Basilid. Syst. 63 f.)- The supreme power and source .f being above all principalities and powers .md angels (such is evidently the reference I'f Epiphanius's avrQv : Irenacus substitutes " heavens," which in tliis connexion comes to much the same thing) is Abrasax, the dreek letters of whose name added together as numerals make up 365, the number of the heavens ; whence, they apparently said, the year has 365 days, and the human body 365 members. This supreme Power they called ■'the Cause" and "the First Archetype," while they treated as a last or weakest product .Hysteretim, a \'alentinian term, contrasted with Pleronui) this present world as the work of the last Archon (Epiph. 74 a). It is evident from these particulars that Abrasax was the name of the first of the 365 Archons, and accordingly stood below Sophia and Dynamis and their progenitors ; but his position is not expressly stated, so that the writer of the supplement to Tertullian had some excuse for L<infusing him with " the Supreme God." On these doctrines various precepts are said to have been founded. The most dis- tinctive is the discouragement of martyrdom, which was made to rest on several grounds. To confess the Crucified was called a token "f being still in bondage to the makers of the li>Kly {nay, he that denied the Crucified was pronounced to be free from the dominion of those angels, and to know the economy of the Unbegotten Father) ; but it was condemned especially as a vain and ignorant honour paid not to Christ, Who neither suffered nor was crucified, but to Simon of Cyrene ; and further, a public confession before men was stigmatized as a giving of that which is holy to the dogs and a casting of pearls before swine. This last precept is but one expression of the secrecy which the Basilidians diligently cultivated, following naturally on the supposed possession of a hidden knowledge. They evaded our Lord's words, " Him that denieth Me before men," etc., by pleading, " We are the men, and all others are swine and dogs." He who had learned their lore and known all angels and their powers was said to become invisible and incomprehensible to all angels and powers, even as also Caulacau was (the sentence in which Irenaeus, our sole authority here, first introduces Caulacau, a name not peculiar to the Basilidians, is unfortunately corrupt). And as the Son was unknown to all, so also, the tradition ran, must members of their community be known to none ; but while they know all and pass through the midst of all, remain invisible and unknown to all, observing the maxim, " Do thou know all, but let no one know thee." Accordingly they must be ready to utter denials and un- willing to suffer for the Name, since [to out- ward appearance] they resembled all. It naturally followed that their mysteries were to be carefully guarded, and disclosed to " only one out of 1000 and two out of 10,000." When Philaster (doubtless after Hippolytus) tells us in his first sentence about Basilides that he was " called by many a heresiarch, because he violated the laws of Christian truth by making an outward show and discourse (proponendo et loquendo) concerning the Law BASILIDES 11:1 and the Prophets and the Apostles, but believing otherwise," the reference is probably to this contrast between the outward confor- mity of the sect and their secret doctrines and practices. The Basilidians considered them- selves to be no longer Jews, but to have be- come more than Christians (such seems to be the sense of the obscure phrase \pi<rTiavovi 5k fxr)K(TL yeyev i^ffOai, for the nondum of the translator of Irenaeus can hardly be right). Repudiation of martyrdom was naturally accompanied by indiscriminate use of things offered to idols. Nay, the principle of in- difference is said to have been carried so far as to sanction promiscuous immorality. In this and other respects our accounts may possibly contain exaggerations ; but Clement's already cited complaint of the flagrant de- generacy in his time from the high standard set up by Basilides himself is unsuspicious evidence, and a libertine code of ethics would find an easy justification in such maxims as are imputed to the Basilidians. It is hardly necessary to add that they expected the salvation of the soul alone, insisting on the natural corruptibility of the body. They indulged in magic and invocations, " and all other curious arts." A wrong reading taken from the inferior MSS. of Irenaeus has added the further statement that they used " im- ages " ; and this single spurious word is often cited in corroboration of the popular belief that the numerous ancient gems on which grotesque mythological combinations are accompanied by the mystic name ABPAZASJ were of Basilidian origin. It is shewn in D. C. B. (4-V0I. ed.), art. Abrasax, where Lardner (Hist, of Heretics, ii. 14-28) should have been named with Beausobre, that there is no tangible evidence for attributing any known gems to Basilidianism or any other form of Gnosticism, and that in all probability the Basilidians and the heathen engravers of gems alike borrowed the name from some Semitic mythology. Imperfect and distorted as the picture may be, such was doubtless in substance the creed of Basilidians not half a century after Basilides had written. Were the name absent from the records of his system and theirs, no one would have suspected any relationship be- tween them, much less imagined that they belonged respectively to master and to dis- ciples. Outward mechanism and inward principles are alike full of contrasts ; no attempts of critics to trace correspondences between the mythological personages, and to explain them by supposed condensations or mutilations, have attained even plausibility. Two misunderstandings have been specially misleading. Abrasax, the chief or Archon of the first set of angels, has been confounded with " the Unbegotten Father," and the God of the Jews, the Archon of the lowest heaven, has been assumed to be the only Archon re- cognized by the later Basilidians, though Epiphanius (69 B.C.) distinctly implies that each of the 365 heavens had its Archon. The mere name " Archon " is common to most forms of Gnosticism. So again, because Clement tells us that Righteousness and her daughter Peace abide in substantive being within the Ogdoad, " the Unbegotten Father " 114 BASILIDES and the five grades or forms of creative mind wtiich intervene between Him and the creator- angels are added in to make up an Ogdoad, though none is recorded as acknowledged by the disciples : a combination so arbitrary and so incongruous needs no refutation. On the other hand, those five abstract names have an air of true Basilidian Hellenism, and the two systems possess at least one negative feature in common, the absence of syzygies and of all imagery connected directly with sex. On their ethical side the connexion is discerned with less difficulty. The con- tempt for martyrdom, which was perhaps the most notorious characteristic of the Basil- idians, would find a ready excuse in their master's speculative paradox about martyrs, even if he did not discourage martyrdom himself. The silence of five years which he imposed on novices might easily degenerate into the perilous dissimulation of a secret sect, while their exclusiveness would be nour- ished by his doctrine of the Election ; and the same doctrine might further after a while receive an antinomian interpretation. The nature of the contrast of principle in the theological part of the two creeds suggests how so great a change may have arisen. The system of Basilides was a high-pitched philo- sophical speculation, entirely unfitted to exer- cise popular influence, and transporting its adherents to a region remote from the sym- pathies of men imbued with the old Gnostic phantasies, while it was too artificial a compound to attract heathens or Catholic Christians. The power of mind and character which the remains of his writings disclose might easily gather round him in the first instance a crowd who, though they could enter into portions only of his teaching, might remain detached from other Gnostics, and yet in their theology relapse into " the broad highway of vulgar Gnosticism " (Baur in the Tiibingen Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, pp. 158 f.), and make for themselves out of its elements, whether for- tuitously or by the skill of some now forgotten leader, a new mythological combination. In this manner evolution from below might once more give place to emanation from above, Docetism might again sever heaven and earth, and a loose practical dualism (of the pro- founder speculative dualism of the East there is no trace) might supersede all that Basilides had taught as to the painful processes by which sonship attains its perfection. The composite character of the secondary Basilidianism may be seen at a glance in the combination of the five Greek abstractions preparatory to creation with the Semitic hosts of creative angels bear- ing barbaric names. Basilidianism seems to have stood alone in appropriating Abrasax ; but Caulacau plays a part in more than one system, and the functions of the angels recur in various forms of Gnosticism, and especially in that derived from Saturnilus. Saturnilus likewise affords a parallel in the character assigned to the God of the Jew as an angel, and partly in the reason assigned for the Saviour's mission ; while the Antitactae of Clement recall the resistance to the God of the J ews inculcated by the Basilidians. Other " Basilidian " features appear in the Pistis Sophia, viz. many barbaric names of angels BASILIDES (with 365 Archons, p. 364), and elaborate collocations of heavens, and a numerical image taken from Deut. xxxii. 30 (p. 354). The Basilidian Simon of CyTene is apparently unique. VIII. History of the Basilidian Sect. — There is no evidence that the sect extended itselt beyond Egypt ; but there it survived for a long time. Epiphanius (about 375) mentions tht Prosopite, Athribite, Saite, and " Alexandrio- polite " (read Andropolite) nomes or cantons, and also Alexandria itself, as the places in which it still throve in his time, and which he accordingly inferred to have been visited by Basilides (68 c). All these places lie on the western side of the Delta, between Memphis and the sea. Nearer the end of cent. iv. Jerome often refers to Basilides in connexion with the hybrid Priscillianism of Spain, and the mystic names in which its votaries delighted. According to Sulpicius Severus {Chron. ii. 46) this heresy took its rise in " the East and Egypt " ; but, he adds, it is not easy to say " what the beginnings were out of which it there grew " [quibus ibi initiis coaluerit). He states, however, that it was first brought to Spain by Marcus, a native of Memphis. This fact explains how the name of Basilides and some dregs of his disciples' doctrines or practices found their way to so distant a land as Spain, and at the same time illustrates the probable hybrid origin of the secondary Basil- idianism itself. IX. Litemture.—Basihdes of course occupies a prominent place in every treatise on Gnosti- cism, such a? those of Neander (including the Church History), Baur (the same), Lipsius, and MoUer (Geschichte der Kosmologie in der Christlichen Kirche). Two reviews by Gieseler {Halle A. L. Z. for 1823, pp. 335-338 ; Studien u. Kritiken for 1830, pp. 395fl-) containvaluable matter. The best monograph founded on the whole evidence is that of Uhlhorn [Das Basilidianische System, Gottingen, 1855), with which should be read an essay by Baur (Theol. Jahrb. for 1856, pp. 121-162) ; Jacobi's monograph (Basilidis Philosophi Gnostici Sententius, etc., Berlin 1852) being also good. Able expositions of the view that the true doctrine of Basilides is not represented in the larger work of Hippolytus Against all Heresies will be found in a paper by Hilgenfeld, to which Baur's article in reply is appended (pp. 86-121), with scattered notices in other articles of his (especially in his Zeitschrift for 1862, pp. 452 ff.) ; and in Lipsius's Gnosticis- mus. Three articles by Gundert {Zeitschfift f. d. Luth. Theol. for 1855, 209 ff., and 1856, 37 ff., 443 ff.) are of less importance. The lecture on Basilides in Dr. Manscl's post- humous book on The Gnostic Heresies is able and independent and makes full use of the best German criticisms, but underrates the influence of Stoical conceptions on Basilides, and exaggerates that of Platonism ; and after the example of Baur's Christliche Gnosis in respect of Gnosticism generally, though starting from an opposite point of view, it suffers from an effort to find in Basilides a precursor of Hegel. Cf. Harnack, Gesch. Alt. Chr. Lit. 1893, pp. 157-161 ; Th. Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanon (1888-1889), i. 763-774; J- Kennedy, " Buddhist Gnosticism : the System BASIUSCUS of Basilides " (Lond. 1902, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society). [11.] Basiliscus, martyr, bp. of Comana, martyred with Lucianus at Nicomedia under Maxiinin, A.D. 312 (Pallad. Dial, tie V. St. Chrys. xi., misreading, however, Maxiniian for Maximin). St. Chrysc^stom, when exiled, was received upon his journey in a " mart>Tium," built some five or six miles out of Comana in memory of Basiliscus, and there died and was buried (Theod. H. E. v. 30; Soz. viii. 28; Pallad. as above ; Niceph. xiii. 37). Basiliscus is said to have been shod with iron shoes, red hot, and then beheaded and thrown into the river {.Me)wl. in Baron. May 22). [a.w.h.] Basilius of Ancyra {BaaiXeios, also called Basilas. Socr. ii. 42), a native of Ancyra, cirigiiially a physician (Hieron. de Vir. III. '89 ; Suidas, S.V.), and subsequently bp. of that city, A.D. 336-360, one of the most respectable prelates of the semi-Arian party, whose essen- tial orthodoxy was acknowledged by Athan- asius himself, the differences between them being regarded as those of language only (Athan. de Synod, toni. i. pp. 915, 619, ed. Morell, Paris, 1627). He was a man of learn- ing, of intellectual power, and dialectical skill, and maintained an unwavering consistency which drew upon him the hostility of the shifty Acacians and their time-serving leader. The jealousy of Acacius was also excited by the unbounded influence Basil at one time exercised over the weak mind of Constantius, and his untiring animosity worked Basil's over- throw. On the deposition of Marcellus, the aged bp. of Anc\Ta, by the Eusebian party, on the charge of Sabellianism, at a synod meeting at Constantinople, a.d. 336, Basil was chosen bishop in his room. He enjoyed the see undisturbed for eleven years ; but in 347, the council of Sardica, after the with- drawal of the Eusebians to Philippopolis, reinstated Marcellus, anrl excommunicated Basil as " a wolf who had invaded the fold " (Socr. ii. 20). Three years later, a.d. 350, the Eusebians were again in the ascendant, through the powerful patronage of Constan- tius, and Basil was replaced in his see by the express order of the emperor (Socr. ii. 26). Basil speedily obtained a strong hold over Constantius, who consulted him on all eccle- siastical matters, and did nothing without his cognizance. He and George of Laodicea were now the recognized leaders of the semi- Arian party (Epiph. Haer. Ixxiii. i). The next year, a.d. 351, Basil took the chief part I in the proceedings of the council that met at Sirmium, where Constantius was residing, to depose Photinus the pupil of Marcellus, who was developing his master's views into direct Sabellianism (ib. Ixxi. Ixxiii. ; Socr. ii. 30). j Shortly after this we find him attacking with equal vigour a heresy of an exactly opposite I character, disputing with Aetius, the Ano- moean, in conjunction with Eustathius of Sebaste, another leader of the semi-Arian party. The issue of the controversy is vari- ously reported, according to the proclivities ! of the historians. Philostorgius (H. E. iii. [ 16) asserts that Basil and Eustathius were worsted by their antagonist ; orthodox writers assign them the victory (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. lib. i. pp. 289, 296). Basil's repre- I BASILIUS OF ANCYRA 115 sentations of the abominable character of Aetius's doctrines so exasperated Gallus against him that he issued an order for his execution ; but on having personal inter- course with him pronounced him maligned, and took him as his theological tutor. [Aetius.1 Basil's influence increased, and just before Easter, a.d. 338, when a number of bishops had assembled at Ancyra for the dedication of a new church that Basil had built, Basil received letters from George of Laodicea speaking with great alarm of the spread of Anomoean doctrines, and entreating him to avail himself of the opportunity to obtain a synodical condemnation of Aetius I and Eunomius. Other bishops were accord- ingly summoned, and eighteen anathemas were drawn up. Basil himself, with Eusta- j thius and Eleusius, were deputed to commu- ! nicate these anathemas to Constantius at Sir- I mium. The deputies were received with much i consideration by the emperor, who ratified their synodical decrees and gave his authoritv for their publication. Basil availed himself ! of his influence over Constantius to induce him to summon a general council for the final settlement of the questions that had been so long distracting the church. It was ultimate- I ly decided to divide the council into two, and j Ariminum was selected for the West, and j Seleucia in Isauria for the East. The Eastern council met, Sept. 27, 359. Basil did not i arrive till the third day. He was soon made aware that his influence with the emperor had j been undermined by his Acacian rivals, and that his power was gone. When he reproved : Constantius for unduly favouring them, the emperor bid him hold his peace, and charged I him with being himself the cause of the dis- sensions that were agitating the church (Theod. ii. 27). At another synod convened at Constantinople under the immediate super- intendence of Constantius, Acacius found him- self master of the situation and deposed whom he would. Basil was one of the first to fall. No doctrinal errors were charged against him. He was condemned on frivolous and unproved grounds, together with Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of Sebaste, and other leading pre- lates. Banishment followed deposition. Basil was exiled to Illyria (Soz. iv. 24 ; Philost. v. i). On the accession of Jovian, a.d. 363, he joined the other deposed bishops in petitioning that emperor to expel the Anomoeans and restore the rightful bishops ; but Basil seems to have died in exile (Socr. iii. 25). Athanasius speaks of his having written Trepi TTicrrews (Athan. de Synod, u.s.). Ittigius {de Haer. p. 453) defends him from the charge of Arianism. Jerome identifies him, but un- justly, with the Macedonian party (Tillemont, vol. vi. passim). [e.v.] Basilius of Ancyra, a presbyter who became a martyr under Julian a.d. 362. During the reign of Constantius he had been an uncom- promising opponent of Arianism. He was more than once apprehended by the provin- cial governors, but recovered his liberty. The Arian council under Eudoxius at Constanti- nople in 360 forbade him to hold any eccle- siastical assembly. The zeal of Basil was still further quickened by the attempts of Julian to suppress Christianity. Sozomen tells us Ill BASIL THE GREAT that he visited the whole of the adjacent dis- trict, entreating the Christians everywhere to be constant to the faith and not to pollute themselves with sacrifices to idols (Soz. H. E. V. ii). He was apprehended and put to the torture. On the arrival of Julian at Ancyra, Basil was presented to him, and after having reproached the emperor with his apostasy was further tortured. Basil's constancy remained unshaken, and after a second interview with Julian, in which he treated the emperor with the greatest contumely, he suffered death by red-hot irons on June 29 (Soz. H. E. v. 11 ; Ruinart, Act. Sine. Martyr, pp. 559 seq. ; Tillemont, vii. 375 seq.). [e-v.] Basilius, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, commonly called Basil the Great, the strenuous champion of orthodoxy in the East, the restorer of union to the divided Oriental church, and the promoter of unity between the East and the West, was born at Caesarea (originally called Maraca), the capital of Cap- padocia, towards the end of 329. His parents were members of noble and wealthy families, and Christians by descent. His grandparents on both sides had suffered during the Maxi- minian persecution, his maternal grandfather losing both property and life. Macrina, his paternal grandmother, and her husband, were compelled to leave their home in Pontus, of which country they were natives, and to take refuge among the woods and mountains of that province, where they are reported to have passed seven years (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 319). [Macrina.] His father, whose name was also Basil, was an advocate and teacher of rhetoric whose learning and eloquence had brought him a very large practice. Gregory Xazianzen speaks of this elder Basil in terms of the highest commendation as one who was re- garded by the whole of Pontus as " the common instructor of virtue " {Or. xx. p. 324). The elder Basil and Emmelia had ten children, five of each sex, of whom a daughter, Macrina, was the eldest. Basil the Great was the eldest son ; two others, Gregory Nyssen and Peter, attained the episcopate. Naucra- tius the second son died a layman. Four of the daughters were well and honourably married. Macrina, the eldest, embraced a life of devotion, and exercised a very powerful influence over Basil and the other members of the family. [Macrina, (2).] Basil was indebted for the care of his earliest years to his grandmother Macrina, who brought him up at her country house, not far from Neo- caesarea in the province of Pontus (Bas. Ep. 210, § i). The date of Basil's baptism is uncertain, but, according to the prevalent cus- tom, it was almost certainly deferred until he reached man's estate. For the completion of his education, Basil was sent by his father first to his native city of Caesarea (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 325). From Caesarea he passed to Constantinople (Bas. Epp. 335-359 ; Liban. Vita, p. 15), and thence to Athens, where he studied diuring the years 351-355, chiefly under the Sophists Himerius and Prohaeresius. His acquaintance with his fellow-student and inseparable companion Gregory Nazianzen, previously begun at Caesarea, speedily ripened at Athens into an ardent friendship, which sub- sisted with hardly any interruption through BASIL THE GREAT the greater part of their lives. Athens also afforded Basil the opportunity of familiar intercourse with a fellow-student whose name was destined to become unhappily famous, the nephew of the emperor Constantius, Julian. The future emperor conceived a warm attachment for the young Cappado- cian, with whom — as the latter reminds hiir. when the relations between them had so sadly changed — he not only studied the best models of literature, but also carefully read the sacred Scriptures {Epp. 40, 41 ; Greg. Naz. Orat. iv. adv. Julian, pp. 121 seq.). Basil remained at Athens till the middle or end of 355, when with extreme reluctance he left for his native city. By this time his father was dead. His mother, Emmelia, was residing at the village of Annesi, near Neocaesarea. Basil's Athenian reputation had preceded him, and he was received with much honour by the people of Caesarea, where he consented to settle as a teacher of rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Or. XX. p. 334). He practised the profession of a rhetorician with great celebrity for a consider- able period (Rufin. ii. 9), but the warnings and counsels of Macrina guarded him from the seductions of the world, and eventually in- duced him to abandon it altogether and devote himself to a religious life (Greg. Nys. U.S.). Basil, in a letter to Eustathius of Sebaste, describes himself at this period as one awaked out of a deep sleep, and in the marvellous light of Gospel truth discerning the folly of that wisdom of this world in the study of which nearly all his youth had van- ished. His first care was to reform his life. Finding, by reading the Gospels, that nothing tended so much toward perfection as to sell all that he had and free himself from worldly cares, and feeling himself too weak to stand alone in such an enterprise, he desired earnestly to find some brother who might give him his aid {Ep. 223). No sooner did his determina- tion become known that he was beset by the remonstrances of his friends entreating him, some to continue the profession of rhetoric, some to become an advocate. But his choice was made, and his resolution was inflexible. Basil's baptism may be placed at this epoch. He was probably baptized by Dianius, bp. of Caesarea, by whom not long afterwards he was admitted to the order of reader {d€ Spir. Sancto, c. xxix. 71). Basil's determination in favour of a life of devotion would be strengthened by the death of his next brother, Naucratius, who had embraced the life of a solitary, and about this period was drowned while engaged in works of mercv (Greg. Nys. de Vtt. S. Macr. p. 182). About a.d. 357. when still under thirty, Basil left Caesarea to seek the most celebrated ascetics upon whose life he might model his own; visiting Alex- andria and Upper Egypt, Palestine, Coeles>Tia, and Mesopotamia. He records his admira- tion of the abstinence and endurance of the ascetics whom he met, their mastery over hunger and sleep, their indifference to cold and nakedness, as well as his desire to imitate them {Ep. 223, § 2). The year 358 saw Basil again at Caesarea resolved on the immediate carrying out of his purpose of retiring from the world, finally selecting for his retreat a spot near Neocaesarea, close to BASIL THE GREAT the village of Annesi, where his father's estates lav. and where he had passed his (hildhood under the care of his grandmother Macrina. To Annesi his mother Emmelia and his sister Macrina had retired after the death of the elder Basil, and were living a semi- monastic life. Basil's future home was only divided from Annesi by the river Iris, by which and the gorges of the mountain torrents a tract of level ground was completely in- sulated. A wooded mountain rose behind. There was only one approach to it, and of that he was master. The natural beauties of the spot, with its ravines, precipices, dashing torrents, and waterfalls, the purity of the air and the coolness of the breezes, the abundance of flowers and multitude of singing birds ravished him, and he declared it to be more beautiful than Calypso's island {Ep. 14). His glowing description attracted Gregory for a lengthy visit to study the Scriptures with him (Ep. 9). together with the commentaries of Origen and other early expositors. At this time they also compiled their collection of the " Beauties of Origen," or " Philocalia" (Socr. iv. 26 ; Soz. vi. 17 ; Greg. Naz. Ep. 87). In this secluded spot Basil passed five years, an epoch of no small importance in the history of the church, inasmuch as it saw the origin under Basil's influence of the monastic system in the coenobitic form. Eustathius of Sebaste had already introduced monachism into Asia Minor, but monastic communities were a novelty in the Christian world, and of these Basil is justly considered the founder. His rule, like that of St. Benedict in later times, united active industry with regular devotional exercises, and by the labour of his monks over wide desert tracts, hopeless sterility gave place to golden harvests and abundant vintages. Not the day only but the night also was divided into definite portions, the intervals being filled with prayers, hymns, and alternate psalmody. The day began and closed with a psalm of confession. The food of his monks was limited to one meal a day of bread, water, and herbs, and he allowed sleep only till midnight, when all rose for prayer (Ep. 2, 207). On his retirement to Pontus, Basil devoted all his worldly possessions to the i service of the poor, retaining them, however, in his own hands, and by degrees divesting himself of them as occasion required. His life was one of the most rigid asceticism. He had but one outer and one inner garment ; he slept in a hair shirt, his bed was the ground ; he took little sleep, no bath ; the sun was his fire, his food bread and water, his drink the running stream (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 358 ; Greg. Nys. de Basil, p. 490). The severe bodily austerities he practised emaciated his frame and ruined his already feeble health, sowing the seeds of the maladies to which in later years he was a martyr. His friend describes him as " without a wife, without property, without flesh, and almost without blood" (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. p. 311). Basil's reputation for sanctity collected large numbers about him. He repeatedly made missionary journeys through Pontus ; his preaching result- ing in the founding of many coenobitic in- dustrial communities and monasteries for both sexes, and in the restoration of the purity of the BASIL THE GREAT 117 orthodox faith (Rufin. ix. 9 ; Soz. vi. 17 ; Greg. Nys. de Basil, p. 488). Throughout Pontus and Cappadocia Basil was the means of the erection of numerous hospitals for the poor, houses of refuge for virgins, orphanages, and other homes of beneficence. His monasteries had as their inmates children he had taken charge of, married persons who had mutually agreed to live asunder, slaves with the consent of their masters, and solitaries convinced of the dangt r of living alone (Basil, Rcgulae, 10, 12, 15). After two years thus spent Basil was sum- moned from his solitude in 359 to accompany Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste, who had been delegated by the council cf Seleucia to communicate the conclusions cf that assembly to Constantius at Constanti- nople. Basil seems from his youth and natural timidity to have avoided taking any part in the discussions of the council that followed, 360, in which the Anomoeans were condemned, the more orthodox semi-Arians deposed, and the Acacians triumphed. But when Con- stantius endeavoured to force those present to sign the creed of Ariminum, Basil left the city and returned to Cappadocia (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. pp. 310, 312 ; Philost. iv. 12). Not long after his return George of Laodicea arrived at Caesarea as an emissary of Con- stantius, bringing with him that creed for signature. To Basil's intense grief, bp. Dianius, a gentle, undecided man, who valued peace above orthodoxy, was persuaded to sign. Basil felt it impossible any longer to hold communion with his bishop, and fled to Nazianzus to find consolation in the society of his dear friend Gregory (Ep. 8, 51). He denied with indignation the report that he had anathematized his bishop, and when two years afterwards (362) Dianius was stricken for death and entreated Basil to return and comfort his last hours, he at once went to him, and the aged bishop died in his arms. The choice of Dianius's successor gave ris'-^ to violent dissensions at Caesarea. At last the populace, wearied with the indecision, chose Eusebius, a man of high position and eminent piety, but as yet unbaptized. They forcibly conveyed him to the church where the provincial bishops were assembled, and com- pelled the unwilling prelates first to baptize and then to consecrate him. Eusebius was bp. at Caesarea for 8 years (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. 308, 309). Shortly before the death of Dianius, Julian had ascended the throne (Dec. 11, 361), and desired to surround himself with the associates of his early days (Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 120). Among the first whom he invited was his fellow-student at Athens, Basil. Basil at first held out hopes of accepting his old friend's invitation ; but he delayed his journey, and Julian's declared apostasy soon gave him sufficient cause to relinquish it altogether. The next year Julian displayed his irritation. Receiving intelligence that the people of Caesarea, so far from apostatizing with him and building new pagan temples, had pulled down the onlv one still standing (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. 91, xix. 309 ; Socr. v. 4), he expimsed Caesarea from the catalogue of cities, made it take its old name of Mazaca, imposed heavy payments, compelled the clergy to serve in the 118 BASIL THE GREAT police force, and put to death two young men of high rank who had taken part in the demolition of the temple. Approaching Caesarea, he dispatched a minatory letter to Basil demanding a thousand pounds of gold for the expenses of his Persian expedition, or threatening to rase the city to the ground. Basil, in his dauntless reply, upbraids the em- peror for apostasy against God and the church, the nurse and mother of all, and for his folly in demanding so vast a sum from him, the poorest of the poor. The death of Julian (June 26, 363) delivered Basil from this imminent peril. One of the first acts of bp. Eusebius was to compel the reluctant Basil to be ordained priest, that the bishop might avail himself of Basil's theological knowledge and intellectual powers to compensate for his own deficiencies. At first he employed him very largely. But when he found himself completely eclipsed he became jealous of Basil's popularity and treated him with a marked coldness, amount- ing almost to insolence, which awoke the hostility of the Christians of Caesarea, whose idol Basil was. A schism was imminent, but Basil, refusing to strengthen the heretical party by creating divisions among the ortho- dox, retired with his friend Gregory to Pontus, where he devoted himself to the care of the monasteries he had founded (Greg. Naz. Or. XX. pp. 336, 337 ; Soz. vi. 15). Basil had passed about three years m his Pontic seclusion when, in 365, the blind zeal of the emperor Valens for the spread of Arianism brought him back to Caesarea. As soon as it was known that Valens was ap- proaching that city, the popular voice de- manded the recall of Basil as the only bulwark against the attack on the true faith and its adherents meditated by the emperor. Greg- ory acted the part of a wise mediator, and Basil's return to the bishop was effected (Greg. Naz. Ep. 19, 20, 169 ; Or. xx. p. 339). Treat- ing Eusebius with the honour due to his position and his age, Basil now proved him- self, in the words of Gregory, the staff of his age, the support of his faith ; at home the most faithful of his friends ; abroad the most efficient of his ministers (ib. 340). The first designs of Valens against Caesarea were interrupted by the news of the revolt of Procopius (Amm. Marc. 26, 27). He left Asia to quell the insurrection which threatened his throne. Basil availed himself of the breathing-time thus granted in organizing the resistance of the orthodox against the Euno- mians or Anomoeans, who were actively pro- pagating their pernicious doctrines through Asia Minor ; and in uniting the Cappadocians in loyal devotion to the truth. The year 368 afforded Basil occasion of displaying his large and universal charity. The whole of Cappa- docia was desolated by drought and famine, the visitation pressing specially on Caesarea. Basil devoted his whole energies to helping the poor sufferers. He sold the property he had inherited at the recent death of his mother, and raised a large subscription in the city. He gave his own personal ministrations to the wretched, and while he fed their bodies he was careful to nourish their souls with the bread of life (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 340-342 ; Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. 306). BASIL THE GREAT Eusebius died towards the middle of 370 in Basil's arms (Greg. Naz. Or. xix. 310, XX. 342). Basil persuaded himself, not alto- gether unwarrantably, that the cause of orthodoxy in Asia Minor was involved in his succeeding Eusebius. Disappointed of the assistance anticipated from the younger Gregory, Basil betook himself to his father, the aged bp. of Nazianzus of the same name. The momentous importance of the juncture was more evident to the elder man. Orthodoxy was at stake in Basil's election. " The Holy Spirit must triumph " (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 342). Using his son as his scribe, he dictated a letter to the clergy, monks, magistrates, and people of Caesarea, calling on them to choose Basil ; another to the electing prelates, exhorting them not to allow Basil's weakness of health to counterbalance his marked pre-eminence in spiritual gifts and in learning (Greg. Naz. Ep. 22, 23). No orthodox prelate had at that time a deservedly greater influence than Eusebius of Samosata. Gregory wrote to him and persuaded him to visit Caesarea and undertake the direction of this difficult busi- ness (Bas. Ep. 47). On his arrival, Eusebius found the city divided into two opposite factions. All the best of the people, together with the clergy and the monks, warmly advo- cated Basil's election, which was vigorously opposed by other classes. The influence and tact of Eusebius overcame all obstacles. The people warmly espoused Basil's cause ; the bishops were compelled to give way, and the triumph of the orthodox cause was consum- mated by the arrival of the venerable Gregory, who, on learning that one vote was wanting for the canonical election of Basil, while his son was still hesitating full of scruples and refused to quit Nazianzus, left his bed for a litter, had himself carried to Caesarea at the risk of expiring on the way, and with his own hands consecrated the newly elected prelate, and placed him on his episcopal throne (Greg. Naz. Ep. 29, p. 793, Or. xix. 311, xx. 343). Basil's election filled the orthodox everywhere with joy. Athanasius, the veteran champion of the faith, congratulated Cappadocia on possessing a bishop whom every province might envy (Ath. ad. Pallad. p. 953, ad Joann. et Afit. p. 951). At Constantinople it was received with far different feelings. Valens regarded it as a serious check to his designs for the triumph of Arianism. Basil was not an opponent to be despised. He must be bent to the emperor's will or got rid of. As bp. of Caesarea his power extended far beyond the limits of the city itself. He was metropolitan of Cappadocia, and exarch of Pontus. In the latter capacity his author- ity, more or less defied, extended over more than half Asia Minor, and embraced as many as eleven provinces. Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Tyana, with other metropolitan sees, acknow- ledged him as their ecclesiastical superior. Basil's first disappointment in his episcopate arose from his inability to induce his dear friend (iregory to join him as his coadjutor in the government of his province and exarchate. He consented at last for a while, but soon with- drew. Difficulties soon thickened round the new exarch. The bishops who had opposed his election and refused to take part in his con- BASIL THE GREAT serration, now exchanged their open hostility for secret opposition. While professing out- ward union, they withheld their support in everything. They treated Basil with marked slight and shewed a complete want of sym- pathy in all his plans (Ep. 98). He complains of this to Eusebius of Samosata [Epp. 48, 141, zSz). This disloyal behaviour caused him despondency and repeated attacks of illness. He overcame all his opponents in a few years by firmness and kindness, but their action had greatly increased the difficulties of the com- mencement of his episcopate. Basil had been bishop little more than twelve months when he was brought into open collision with the emperor Valcns, who was traversing Asia Minor with the fixed resolve of exterminating the orthodox faith and establishing Arianism. No part of Basil's history is better known, and in none do we more clearly discern the strength and weak- ness of his character. " The memorable inter- view with St. Basil," writes Dean Milman, " as it is related by the Catholic party, dis- plays, if the weakness, certainly the patience and toleration of the sovereign — if the uncom- promising firmness of the prelate, some of that leaven of pride with which he is taunted by St. Jerome " [Hist, of Christianity, iii. 45). Valens had never relinquished the designs which had been interrupted by the revolt of Procopius, and he was now approaching Caesarea determined to reduce to submission the chief champion of orthodoxy in the East. \ His progress hitherto had been one of uniform victory. The Catholics had everywhere fallen before him. Bithynia had resisted and had 1 become the scene of horrible tragedies. The fickle Galatia had yielded without a struggle. The fate of Cappadocia depended on Basil. His house, as the emperor drew near, was besieged by ladies of rank, high personages of state, even by bishops, who entreated him to bow before the storm and appease the emperor by a temporary submission. Their expostula- tions were rejected with indignant disdain. A band of Arian bishops headed by Euippius, an aged bishop of Galatia and an old friend of Basil's, preceded Valens's arrival with the hope of overawing their opponents by their numbers and unanimity. Basil took the initiative, and with prompt decision separated himself from their communion (Bas. Epp. 68, 128, 244, 251). Members of the emperor's household indulged in the most violent men- aces against the archbishop. One of the most insolent of these was the eunuch Demosthenes, the superintendent of the kitchen. Basil met his threats with quiet irony, and was next confronted by Modestus, the prefect of the Praetorium, commissioned by the emperor to offer Basil the choice between deposition or communion with the Arians. This violent and unscrupulous imperial favourite accosted Basil with the grossest insolence. He refused him the title of bishop ; he threatened confiscation, exile, tortures, death. But such menaces, Basil replied, were powerless on one whose sole wealth was a ragged cloak and a few b<X)ks, to whom the whole earth was a home, or rather a place of pilgrimage, whose feeble body could endure no tortures beyond the first stroke, and to whom death would be a BASIL THE GREAT 119 mercy, as it would the sooner transport him to the God to Whom he lived. Modestus expressed his astonishment at hearing such unusual language (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 351 ; Soz. vi. 16). "That is," replied Basil, " because you have never before fallen in with a true bishop." Modestus, finding his menaces useless, changed his tone. He counselled prudence. Basil should avoid irritating the emperor, and submit to his requirements, as all the other prelates of Asia had done. If he would only yield he promised him the friendship of Valens, and whatever favours he might desire for his friends. Why should he sacrifice all his power for the sake of a few doctrines ? (Theod. iv. 19). But flat- tery had as little power as threats over Basil's iron will. The prefect was at his wit's end. Valens was expected on the morrow. Modes- tus was unwilling to meet the emperor with a report of failure. The aspect of a court of justice with its official state and band of ministers prepared to execute its sentence might inspire awe. But judicial terrors were equally futile (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 315). Modestus, utterly foiled, had to announce to his master that all his attempts to obtain sub- mission had been fruitless. " Violence would be the only course to adopt with one over whom threats and blandishments were equally powerless " (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. p. 350). Such Christian intrepidity was not without effect on the feeble, impressionable mind of Valens. He refused to sanction any harsh measures against the archbishop, and moderated his demands to the admission of Arians to Basil's communion. But here too Basil was equally inflexible. To bring matters to a decided issue, the emperor presented himself in the chief church of Cae- sarea on the Epiphany, a.d. 372, after the service had commenced. He found the church flooded with " a sea" of worshippers whose chanted psalms pealed forth like thunder, uninterrupted by the entrance of the emperor and his train. Basil was at the altar celebrat- ing the Eucharistic sacrifice, standing, accord- ing to the primitive custom, behind the altar with his face to the assembled people, sup- ported on either hand by the semicircle of his attendant clergy. " The imearthly majesty of the scene," the rapt devotion of the arch- bishop, erect like a column before the holy table, the reverent order of the immense throng, " more like that of angels than of men," overpowered the weak and excitable Valens, and he almost fainted away. When the time came for making his offering, and the ministers were hesitating whether they should receive an oblation from the hand of a heretic, his limbs failed him, and but for the aid of one of the clergy he would have fallen. Basil, it would seem, pitying his enemy's weakness, accepted the gift from his trembling hand {ib. p. 351). The next day Valens again visited the church, and listened with reverence to Basil's preaching, and made his offerings, which were not now rejected. The sermon over, Basil admitted the emperor within the sacred veil, and discoursed on the orthodox faith. He was rudely interrupted by the cook Demosthenes, who was guilty of a gross solecism. Basil smiled and said, " We have, it seems, a Demosthenes who cannot speak 120 BASIL THE GREAT Greek; he had better attend to his sauces than meddle with theology." The retort amused the emperor, who retired so well pleased with his theological opponent that he made him a grant of lands for the poor-house Basil was erecting (Theod. iv. 19 ; Greg. Naz. Or. XX. 351 ; Bas. Ep. 94)- The vaollating mind of Valens was always influenced by the latest and most imperious advisers, and when Basil remained firm in his refusal to admit them to his communion, the Arians about the emperor had little difficulty in persuading him that he was compromising the faith by per- mitting Basil to remain, and that his banish- ment was necessary for the peace of the East. The emperor, yielding to their importunity, ordered Basil to leave the city. Basil at once made his simple preparations for departure, ordering one of his attendants to take his tablets and follow him. He was to start at night to avoid the risk of popular disturbance. The chariot was at his door, and his friends, Gregory among them, were bewailing so great a calamity, when his journey was arrested by the sudden and alarming illness of Galates, the only son of Valen and Dominica. The empress attributed her child's danger to the Divine displeasure at the treatment of Basil. The emperor, in abject alarm, sent the chief military officials of the court, Terentius and Arinthaeus, who were known to be his friends, to entreat Basil to come and pray over the sick child. Galates was as yet unbaptized. On receiving a promise that the child should receive that sacrament at the hands of a Catholic bishop and be instructed in the orthodox faith, Basil consented. He prayed over the boy, and the malady was alleviated. On his retiring, the Arians again got round the feeble prince, reminded him of a promise he had made to Eudoxius, by whom he himself had been baptized, and the child received baptism from the hands of an Arian prelate. He grew immediately worse, and died the same night (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 352, 364 ; Theod. iv. 19 ; Socr. iv. 26 ; Soz. iv. 16 ; Eph. Syr. apud Coteler. Monum. Eccl. Graec. iii. 63 ; Rutin, xi. 9). Once more Valens yielded to pressure from the unwearied enemies of Basil. Again Basil's exile was determined on, but the pens with which Valens was preparing to sign the decree refused to write, and split in his agitated hand, and the supposed miracle arrested the execution of the sentence. Valens left Caesarea, and Basil re- mained master of the situation (Theod. iv. 19 ; Ephr. S>T. M.S. p. 65). Before long his old enemy Modestus, attacked by a severe malady, presented himself as a suppliant to Basil, and attributing his cure to the intercessions of the saint, became his fast friend. So great was Basil's influence with the prefect that persons came from a distance to secure his intercession with him. We have as many as six letters from Basil to Modestus in favour of different individuals (Bas. Epp. 104, no, 111,279,280, 281 ; Greg. Naz. Or. xx. pp. 352, 353). The issue of these unsuccessful assaults was to place Basil in a position of inviolability, and to leave him leisure for administering his diocese and exarchate, which much needed his firm and unflinching hand. His visitation disclosed many irregularities which he sternly BASIL THE GREAT repressed. The chorcpiscopi had admitted men to the lower orders who had no intention of proceeding to the priesthood, or even to the diaconate, but merely to gain immunity from military service [Ep. 54). Many of his suffra- gans were guilty of simony in receiving a fee for ordination (Ep. 55). Men were raised to the episcopate from motives of personal in- terest and to gratify private friends (Ep. 290). The perilous custom of unmarried priests having females (ffweiaaKrai, stibintroduc(ae) residing with them as " spiritual sisters " called for reproof (Ep. 55). A fanatic deacon, Glycerins, who had collected a band of pro- fessed virgins, whom he forcibly carried off by night and who wandered about the country dancing and singing to the scandal of the faithful, caused him much trouble (Epp. 169, 170, 171). To heal the fountain-head, Basil made himself as far as possible master of episcopal elections, and steadily refused to admit any he deemed unworthy of the office. So high became the reputation of his clergy that other bishops sent to him for presbyters to become their coadjutors and successors (Ep. 81). Marriage with a deceased wife's sister he denounced as prohibited by the laws both of Scripture and nature (£^. 160). Feeble as was his health, his activity was unceasing. He visited every part of his exarchate, and maintained a constant intercourse by letter with confidential friends, who kept him in- formed of all that passed and were ready to carry out his instructions. He pushed his episcopal activity to the very frontiers of Armenia. In 372 he made an expedition by the express command of Valens, obtained by the urgency of his fast friend count Terentius, to strengthen the episcopate in that country by appointing fresh bishops and infusing fresh life into existing ones (Ep. 99). He was very diligent in preaching, not only at Caesarea and other cities, but in country villages. The details of public worship occupied his atten- tion. Even while a presbyter he arranged forms of prayer (evx^i'v Siard^eis), probably a liturgy, for the church of Caesarea (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 340). He established nocturnal services, in which the psalms were chanted by alternate choirs, which, as a novelty, gave great offence to the clergy of Neocaesarea (Ep. 207). These incessant labours were carried out by one who, naturally of a weak constitu- tion, had so enfeebled himself by austerities that " when called well, he was weaker than persons who are given over " (Ep. 136). His chief malady, a disease of the liver, caused him repeated and protracted sufferings, often hindering him travelling, the least motion bringing on a relapse (Ep. 202). The severity of winter often kept him a prisoner to his house and often even to his room (Ep. 27). A letter from Eusebius of Samosata arrived when he had been 50 days ill of a fever. " He was eager to fly straight to Syria, but he was un- equal to turning in his bed. He hoped for relief from the hot springs " (Ep. 138). He suffered " sickness upon sickness, so that his shell must certainly fail unless God's mercy extricate him from evils beyond man's cure " (Ep. 136). At 45 he calls himself an old man. The next year he had lost all his teeth. Three years before his death all remaining hope o| BASIL THE GREAT life had left him (£/>. io8). Ho died, pre- maturely aged, at 50. Seldom did a spirit of 50 indomitable activity reside in so feeble a frame, and, triumphing over weakness, make It tlio instrument of such vigorous work for Christ and ilis church. In 372 a harassing dispute with Anthimus, bp. of Tvana, touching ecclesiastical juris- diction, led to the chief personal sorrow of Basil's life, the estrangement of the friend of his vouth, Gregory of Nazianzus. The cir- cumstances were these. Towards the close of 371 Valens determined to divide Cappadocia into two provinces. Podandus, a miserable little town at the foot of mount Taurus, was at first named as the chief city of the new province, to which a portion of the executive was to be removecl. The inhabitants of Caesarea entreated Basil to go to Constanti- nople and petition for the rescinding of the edict. His weak health prevented this, but he wrote to Sophronius, a native of Caesarea in a high position at court, and to Aburgius, a man of influence there, begging them to use all their power to alter the emperor's decision. Thev could not prevent the division of the province, but did obtain the substitution of Tyanafor Podandus (£/)^. 74-76). Anthimus thereupon insisted that the ecclesiastical divi- sion should follow the civil, and claimed metropolitan rights over several of Basil's suffragans. Basil appealed to ancient usage in vain. Anthimus called a council of the bishops who had opposed Basil's election and were ready to exalt his rival. By flattery, intimidation, and even the removal of oppo- nents, Anthimus strengthened his faction. Basil's authority was reduced to a nullity in one-half of his province (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 355; EPP- 31. 33; Bas. Ep. 259)- Basil appealed to his friend Gregory, who replied that he would come to his assistance, though Basil wanted him no more than the sea wanted water. He warned Basil that his difficulties were increased by the suspicions created by his intimacy with Eustathius of Sebaste and his friends, whose reputation for orthodoxy was more than doubtful (Greg. Naz. Ep. 25). On Gregory's arrival the two friends started together for the monastery of St. Orestes on mount Taurus, in the second Cappadocia, the property of the see of Caesarea, to collect the produce of the estate. This roused Anthi- mus's indignation, and despite his advanced age, he occupied the defile, through which the pack-mules had to pass, with his armed re- tainers. A serious affray resulted, Gregory fighting bravely in his friend's defence (Greg. Naz. Or. XX. 356; Ep. ^i, Carm. i. 8). Basil erected several new bishoprics as defensive outposts against his rival. One of these was near St. Orestes at Sasima, a wretched little posting-station and frontier custom-house at the junction of three great roads, hot, dry, and dusty, vociferous with the brawls of muleteers, travellers, and excisemen. Here Basil, dis- regarding Gregory's delicate temperament, determined to place him as bishop. Gregory's weaker character bowed to Basil's imn will, and he was most reluctantly consecrated. But Anthimus appointed a rival bishop, and Gregory took the earliest opportunity of escaping from the unwelcome position which BASIL THE GREAT 121 he could only have maintained at the risk of continual conflict, and even bloodshed. [Gregory Nazianzen ; Anthimus.] A peace was ultimately patched up, ajiparently through the intercession of Gregory and the mediation of Eusebius of Samosata and the senate of Tyana. Anthimus was recognised as metropolitan of the new province, each province preserving its own revenues (Bas. Epp. 97, 98, 122). Gregory attributed Basil's action to a high sense of duty, but could never forget that he had sacrificed his friend to that, and the wound inflicted on their mutual attachment was never healed, and even after Basil's death Gregory reproaclies him with his unfaithfulness to thelaws of friendship. "This lamentable occurrence took place seven years before Basil's death. He had before and after it many trials, many sorrows ; but this prob- ably was the greatest of all " (Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 144). The Ptochotropheion, or hospital for the reception and relief of the poor, which Basil had erected in the suburbs of Caesarea, afforded his untiring enemies a pretext for denouncing him to Helias, the new president of the province. This establishment, which was so extensive as to go by the name of the " New Town," 17 KaivT) wdXts (Greg. Naz. Or. XX. p. 359), and subsequently the " Basileiad" after its founder (Soz. vi. 34), included a church, a palace for the bishop, and resi- dences for his clergy and their attendant min- isters ; hospices for the poor, sick, and way- farers ; and workshops for the artisans and labourers whose services were needed, in which the inmates also might learn and practise various trades. There was a special department for lepers, with arrangements for their proper medical treatment, and on these loathsome objects Basil lavished his chief personal ministrations. By such an enor- mous establishment Basil, it was hinted, was aiming at undue power and infringing on the rights of the civil authorities. But Basil adroitly parried the blow by reminding the governor that apartments were provided in the building for him and his attendants, and suggesting that the glory of so magnificent an architectural work would redound to him {Ep. 84). . , . Far more harassing and more lasting troubles arose to Basil from the double dealing of Eustathius, the unprincipled and time- serving bp. of Sebaste. [Eustathius of Sebaste.] Towards the middle of June 372, the venerable Theodotus, bp. of Nico- polis, a metropolitan of Lesser Armenia, a prelate of high character and unblemished orthodoxy, deservedly respected by Basil, had invited him to a festival at Phargamon near his episcopal see. Meletius of Antioch, then in exile in Armenia, was also to be there. Sebaste was almost on the road between Caesarea and Nicopolis, and Basil, aware of the suspicion entertained by Theodotus of the orthodoxy of Eustathius, determined to stop there on his way, and demand a definite statement of his faith. Many hours were spent on fruitless discussion until, at three in the afternoon of the second day, a sub- stantial agreement appeared to have been attained. To remove all doubt of his ortho- 122 BASIL THE GREAT doxy, Basil requested Thfodotus to draw up a formulary of faith for Eustathius to sign. To his mortification not only was his request refused, but Theodotus plainly intimated that he had now no wish for Basil's visit. While hesitating whether he should still pursue his joumev, Basil received letters from his friend Eusebi'us of Samosata, stating his inability to come and join him. This at once decided him. Without Eusebius's help he felt himself unequal to face the controversies his presence at Nicopolis would evoke, and he returned home sorrowing that his labours for the peace of the church were unavailing {Epp. 98, 99). A few months later the sensitive orthodoxy I of Theodotus prepared another mortification for Basil. In carrying out the commands of Valens. mentioned above, to supply Armenia with bishops, the counsel and assistance of Theodotus as metropolitan was essential. As a first step towards cordial co-operation, Basil sought a conference with Theodotus at Getasa, the estate of Meletius of Antioch, in whose presence he made him acquainted with what had passed between him and Eustathius at Sebaste, and his acceptance of the orthodox faith. Theodotus replied that Eustathius had denied that he had come to any agreement with Basil. To bring the matter to an issue, Basil again proposed that a confession of faith should be prepared, on his signing which his future communion with Eustathius would depend. This apparently satisfied Theodotus, who invited Basil to visit him and inspect his church, and promised to accompany him on his journey into .\rmenia. But on Basil's arrival at Nicopolis he spurned him with horror (e/iSeXi'-^aro) as an excommunicated person, and refused to join him at either morning or evening prayer. Thus deserted by one on whose co-operation he relied, Basil had little heart to prosecute his mission, but he continued his journey to Satala, where he consecrated a bishop, established discipline, and promoted peace among the prelates of the province. Basil well knew how to dis- tinguish between his busy detractors and one like Theodotus animated with zeal for the orthodox faith. Generously overlooking his former rudenesses, he reopened communica- tions with him the following year, and \^isiting Nicopolis employed his assistance in once more drawing up an elaborate confession of faith embodying the Nicene Creed, for Eustathius to sign (Bas. Ep. 123). Eustathius did so in the most formal manner in the presence of witnesses, whose names are appended to the document. But no sooner had this slippery theologian satisfied the requirements cf Basil than he threw off the mask, broke his promise to appear at a synodical meeting called by Basil to seal the union between them and their respective adherents, and openly assailed him with the most unscrupulous invectives (Epp. 130, 244). He went so far as to hold assemblies in which Basil was charged with heterodox views, especially on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, and with haughty and over- bearing behaviour towards his chorepiscopi and other suffragans. At last Eustathius pushed matters so far as to publish a letter written by Basil twenty-five years before to the heresiarch Apollinaris. It was true that BASIL THE GREAT at that time both were laymen, and that it was merely a friendly letter not dealing with theological points, and that Apollinaris had not then developed his heretical views and stood high in the esteem of Athanasius. But its circulation served Eustathius's ends in strengthening the suspicion already existing against Basil as a favourer of false doctrine. The letter as published by Eustathius had been disgracefully garbled, and was indignantly repudiated by Basil. By a most shameful artifice some heretical expressions of Apol- linaris, without the author's name, had been appended to Eustathius's own letter accom- panying that attributed to Basil, leading to the supposition that they were Basil's own. Basil was overwhelmed with distress at being represented in such false colours to the church, while the ingratitude and treachery of his former friend stung him deeply. He restrained himself, however, from any public expression of his feelings, maintaining a dignified silence for three years (Bas. Epp. 128, 130, 224, 225, 226, 244). During this period of intense trial Basil was much comforted in 374 by the ap- pointment of his youthful friend Ampuilo- CHius to the see of Iconium. But the same year brought a severe blow in the banishment of his intimate and confidential counsellor Eusebius of Samosata. At the end of this period (375) Basil, impelled by the calumnies heaped upon him on every side, broke a silence which he considered no longer safe, as tending to compromise the interests of truth, and published a long letter nominally addressed to Eustathius, but really a document intended for the faithful, in which he briefly reviews the history of his life, describes his former intimacy with Eustathius, and the causes which led to i the rupture between them, and defends him- self from the charges of impiety and blasphemy so industriously circulated (Bas. Epp. 223, 226, 244). It was time indeed that Basil should take some public steps to clear his reputation from the reckless accusations which were showered upon him. He was called a Sabel- lian, an Apollinarian, a Tritheist, a Mace- donian, and his efforts in behalf of orthodoxy in the East were continually thwarted in every direction by the suspicion with which he was regarded. Athanasius, bp. of Ancyra, misled by the heretical writings that had been fath- ered upon him, spoke in the harshest terms of him (Ep. 25). The bishops of the district of Dazimon in Pontus, giving ear to Eusta- thius's calumnies, separated themselves from his communion, and suspended all intercourse, and were only brought back to their allegiance by a letter of Basil's, written at the instance of all the bishops of Cappadocia, characterized by the most touching humility and affection- ateness {Ep. 203). The alienation of his rela- tive Atarbius and the church of Neocaesarea, of which he was bishop, was more difficult to redress. To be regarded with suspicion by the church of a place so dear to himself, his residence in youth, and the home of many members of his family, especially his sainted grandmother, Macrina, was peculiarly painful. But the tendency of the leading Neocaesareans was Sabellian, and the emphasis with which he was wont to assert the distinctness of the Three Persons was offensive to them. They BASIL THE GREAT took umbrage also at the favour he shewed to monasticism, and the nocturnal services he had established. Basil wrote in terms of affectionate expostulation to them, and took advantage of the existence of his brother Peter's monastic community at Annesi to pay the locality a visit. But as soon as he was known to be in the neighbourhood a strange panic seized the whole city ; some fled, some hid themselves ; Basil was everywhere de- nounced as a public enemy. Atarbius abrupt- ly left the synod at Nicopolis on hearing of Basil's approach. Basil returned, mortified and distressed [Epp. 126, 204, 207, 210). Be- sides other charges Basil was widely accused of denying the proper divinity of the Holy Spirit. This charge, which, when made by some Cap- padocian monks, had been already sternly reproved by Athanasius (Ath. ad. Pall. ii. 763, 764), was revived at a later time on the plea that he had used a form of the doxology open to suspicion, " Cilory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit " * (de Spir. Sanct. c. r, vol. iii. p. 3). Self-defence was again reluctantly forced on the victim of calumny. He prayed that he might be de- serted by the Holy Ghost for ever if he did not adore Him as equal in substance and in honour (bixoovcnov koX oij.6tlixov) with the Father and the Son (Greg. Naz. Or. xx. 365). Similar charges made at the festival of St. Eupsychius in 374 led Amphilochius to re- quest him to declare his views, which he did in his treatise de Spiritu Sancto (§ i ; Ep. 231). Maligned, misrepresented, regarded with suspicion, thwarted, opposed on all hands, few champions of the faith have had a heavier burden to bear than Basil. The history of the Eastern church at this period is indeed little more than a history of his trials and sufferings. But his was not a nature to give way before difficulties the most tremen- dous and failures the most disheartening. The great object he had set before himself was the restoration of orthodoxy to the Eastern church, and the cementing of its disorganized fragments into one compact body capable of withstanding the attacks of hostile powers. This object he pursued with undaunted per- severance, notwithstanding his feeble health, " which might rather be called the languor of a dying man." Cut to the heart by the miserable spectacle which surrounded him, the persecution of the orthodox, the triumphs of false doctrine, the decay of piety, the worldliness of the clergy, the desecration • Cf. Hooker, Eccl. Pol. V. xJii. 12, "Till Arianism had made it a matter of great sharp- ness and subtilty of wit to be a sound believing Christian, men were not curious what syllables or particles of speech they used. Upon which when St. Basil began to practise the like indif- ferency, and to conclude public prayers, glorifying sometime the Father ivith the Son and the Holy Ghost, sometime the Father by the Son in the Spirit, whereas long custom had inured them to the former kind alone, by means whereof the latter was new and strange in their ears ; his needless experiment brought afterwards upon him a necessary labour of excusing himself to his friends and maintainiug his own act against them, who because the light of his candle too much drowned theirs, were glad to lay hold on so colourable a matter, and exceedingly forward to traduce him as an author of suspicious innovation." BASIL THE GREAT 123 of the episcopate by ambition and covetous- ness, rival bishops rending asunder the vener- able church of Antioch, Christians wasting in mutual strife the strength that should have been spent in combating the common foe, feeling himself utterly insufficient in his isolation to work the reformation he desired, Basil had looked round eagerly for effectual aid and sympathy. He naturally turned first to that " great and apostolic soul who from boyhood had been an athlete in the cause of religion," the great Athanasius [Epp. 69, 80, 83). In the year 371 he begged his assistance in healing the unhappy schism of Antioch by inducing the Western Church to recognize Meletius, and persuading Paulinus to withdraw. He called on him to stir up the orthodox of the East by his letters, and cry aloud like Samuel for the churches {Epp. 66, 69). In his request about Antioch, Basil y was inviting Athanasius to what was in fact impossible even to the influence and talents of the primate of Egypt ; for being committed to one side in the dispute he could not mediate between thorn. Nothing then came of the application " (J. H. Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 105). Basil had other requests to urge on Athanasius. He was very desirous that a deputation of Western prelates should be sent to help him in combating the Eastern heretics and reuniting the orthodox, whose authority should overawe Valens and secure the recognition of their decrees. He asked also for the summoning of a council of all the- West to confirm the decrees of Nicaea, and annul those of Ariminum (Epp. 66, 69). Basil next addressed himself to the Western churches. His first letter in 372 was written to Damasus, bp. of Rome, lamenting the heavy storm under which almost the whole Eastern church was labouring, and entreating of his tender compassion, as the one remedy of its evils, that either he, or persons like- minded with him, would personally visit the East with the view of bringing the churches of God to unity, or at least determining with whom the church of Rome should hold com- munion (Ep. 70). Basil's letters were con- veyed to Athanasius and Damasus by Doro- theus, a deacon of Antioch, in communion with Meletius. He returned by way of Alex- andria in company with a deacon named Sabinus (afterwards bp. of Piacenza) as bearer of the replies of the Western prelates. These replies were full of expressions of sympathy, but held out no definite prospect of practical help. Something, however, was hoped from the effect of Sabinus's report on his return to the West, as an eye-witness of the lamentable condition of the Eastern church. Sabinus was charged with several letters on his return to Italy. One, bearing the signatures of thirty-two Eastern bishops, including besides Basil, Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samo- sata, Gregory Nyssen, etc., was addressed to the bishops of Italy and Gaul ; another was written in Basil's own name to the bishops of the West generally. There were also private letters to Valerian of Aquileia and others. These letters gave a most distressing picture of the state of the East. " Men had learnt to be theorists instead of theologians. The true shepherds were driven away. Grievous 124 BASIL THE GREAT wolves, spoiling the flock, were brought in instead. The houses of prayer were destitute of preachers, the deserts full of mourners. The faithful laity avoided the churches as schools of impiety. Priestly gravity had perished. There was no restraint on sin. Unbelievers laughed, the weak were unsettled. . . . Let them hasten to the succour of their brethren, nor allow the faith to be extinguished in the lands whence it first shone forth " (Ep. 93). A Western priest, Sanctissimus, who visited the East towards the end of 372 — whether travelling as a private individual or deputed by Damasus is uncertain — again brought assurances of the warm attachment and sincere sympathy of the Italian church ; but words, however kind, were ineffectual to heal their wounds, and Basil and his friends again sent a vehement remonstrance, beseech- ing their Western brethren to make the emperor Valentinian acquainted with their wretched condition, and to depute some of their number to console them in their misery, and sustain the flagging faith of the orthodox (Epp. 242, 243). These letters, transmitted by Dorotheus — probably a different person from the former — were no more effectual. The only point gained was that a council' — con- fined, however, to the bishops of Illyria — was summoned in 375 through the instrumentality of Ambrose, by which the consubstantiality of the Three Persons of the Trinity was de- clared, and a priest named Elpidius dispatched to publish the decrees in Asia and Phrygia. Elpidius was supported by the authority of the emperor Valentinian, who at the same time promulgated a rescript in his own name and that of his brother Valens, who dared not manifest his dissent, forbidding the persecution of the Catholics, and expressing his desire that their doctrines should be everywhere preached (Theod. iv. 8, 9). But the death of Valentinian on Nov. 17, 375, frustrated his good intentions, and the per- secution revived with greater vehemence. The secret of the coldness with which the requests for assistance addressed by the Eastern church were received by the West was partly the suspicion that was entertained of Basil's orthodoxy in consequence of his friendship with Eustathius of Sebaste and other doubtful characters, and the large- heartedness which led him to recognize a real oneness of belief under varying technical formulas, but was principally due to his refusal to recognize the supremacy of the bp. of Rome. His letters were usually addressed to the bishops of the West, and not to the bp. of Rome individually. In all his dealings Basil treats with Damasus as an equal, and asserts the independence of the East. In his eyes the Eastern and Western churches were two sisters with equal prerogatives ; one more powerful than the other, and able to render the assistance she needed, but not in any way her superior. This want of deference in his language and behaviour offended not Damasus only, but all who maintained the supremacy of Rome. Jerome accused Basil of pride, and went so far as to assert that there were but three orthodox bishops in the East' — Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Paulinus [ad Pammach. 38). His appeals proving ia- BASIL THE GREAT effectual, Basil's tone respecting Damasus and the Western prelates changed. He began to suspect the real cause of the apathy with which his entreaties for aid had been received, and to feel that no relief could be hoped from their " Western superciliousness " (r?}? dvTiKf)% 6<ppvos), and that it was in vain to send emis- saries to " one who was high and haughty and sat aloft and would not stoop to listen to the truth from men who stood below ; since an elated mind, if courted, is sure to become only more contemptuous" (Epp. 215, 239). But while his hope of assistance from the West lessened, the need for it increased. The persecution of the orthodox by the Arians grew fiercer. " Polytheism had got posses- sion. A greater and a lesser God were wor- shipped. All ecclesiastical power, all church ordinances, were in Arian hands. Arians baptized ; Arians visited the sick ; Arians administered the sacred mysteries. Only one offence was severely punished, a strict observ- ance of the traditions of the Fathers. For that the pious were banished, and driven to deserts. No pity was shewn to the aged. Lamentations filled the city, the country, the roads, the deserts. The houses of prayer were closed ; the altars forbidden. The orthodox met for worship in the deserts exposed to wind and rain and snow, or to the scorching sun" {Epp. 242, 243). In his dire extremity he once more appealed to the West, now in the language of indignant expostulation. " Why," he asks, " has no writing of consola- tion come to us, no visitation of the brethren, no other of such attentions as are due to us from the law of love ? This is the thirteenth year since the war with the heretics burst upon us. Will you not now at last stretch out a helping hand to the tottering Eastern church, and send some who will raise our minds to the rewards promised by Christ to those who suffer for Him ? " (Ep. 242). These letters were dispatched in 376. But still no help came. His reproaches were as ineffectual as his entreaties. A letter addressed to the Western bishops the next year (377) proves that matters had not really advanced a single step beyond the first day. We find him still entreating his Western brethren in the most moving terms to grant him the consolation of a visit. " The visitation of the sick is the greatest commandment. But if the Wise and Good Disposer of human affairs forbids that, let them at least write something that may comfort those who are so grievously cast down." He demands of them " an authoritative condemnation of the Arians, of his enemy Eustathius, of Apollin- aris, and of Paulinus of Antioch. If they would only condescend to write and inform the Eastern churches who were to be admitted to communion and who not, all might yet be well " (Ep. 263). The reply brought back by the faithful Dorotheus overwhelmed him with sorrow. Not a finger was raised by the cold and haughty West to help her afflicted sister. Dorotheus had even heard Basil's beloved friends Meletius and Eusebius of Samosata spoken of by Damasus and Peter of Alexandria as heretics, and ranked among the Arians. What wonder if Dorotheus had waxed warm and used some intemperate Ian- BASIL THE GREAT guage to the prelates ? If he had done so, wTote Basil, let it not be reckoned against I him, but put down to Basil's ai count and the I untowardness of the times. The deep de- I spondency which had seized Basil is evidenced i by his touching words to Peter of Alexandria : ( " I seem for my sins to prosper in nothing, ! since the worthiest brethren are found de- ficient in gentleness and fitness for their (iflice from not acting in accordance with my wishes " {Ep. 266). Foiled in all his repeated demands, a deaf ear turned to his most earnest entreaties, the council he had begged for not summoned, the deputation he had repeatedly solicited unsent, Basil's span of life drew to its end amid blasted hopes and apparently fruitless labours for the unity of the faith. It was not permitted him to live to see the Eastern churches, for the purity of whose faith he had devoted all his powers, restored to peace and unanimity. " He had to fare on as he best might — admir- ing, courting, but coldly treated by the Latin world, desiring the friendship of Rome, yet wounded by her superciliousness- — suspected of heresy by Damasus, and accused by Jerome of pride " (Newman, Church of the Fathers, p. 115). Some gleams of brightness were granted to ! cheer the last days of this dauntless champion of the faith. The invasion of the Goths in 378 1 gave Valens weightier cares than the support I of a tottering heresy, and brought his perse- cution of the orthodox to an end on the eve of I his last campaign, in which he perished after j the fatal rout of Hadrianople (Aug. 9, 378). I One of the first acts of the youthful Gratian was to recall the banished orthodox prelates, and Basil had the joy of witnessing the event so earnestly desired in perhaps his latest ex- tant letter, the restoration of his beloved friend Eusebius of Samosata {Ep. 268). Basil died in Caesarea, an old man before his time, Jan. I, 378, in the 50th year of his age. He rallied before his death, and was enabled to ordain with his dying hind some of the most faithful of his disciples. " His death-bed was ; surrounded by crowds of the citizens, ready," , writes his friend Gregory, " to give part of . their own life to lengthen that of their bishop." ' He breathed his last with the words " Into ; Thy hands I commend my spirit." His funeral j was attended by enormous crowds, who I thronged to touch the bier or the hem of his I funeral garments, or even to catch a distant I glimpse of his face. The press was so great i that several persons were crushed to death, almost the object of envy because they died with Basil. Even Jews and pagans joined in the general lamentations, and it was with j some difficulty that the bearers preserved their • sacred burden from being torn to pieces by I those who were eager to secure a relic of the ! departed saint. He was buried in his father's , sepulchre, " the chief priest being laid to the priests ; the mighty voice to the preachers ; the martyr to the martyrs" (Greg. Naz. Or. ^^: 371. 372). In person he was tall and thin, holding himself very erect. His com- plexion was dark, his face pale and emaciated I with close study and austerities ; his forehead ; projecting, with retiring temples. A quick . eye, flashing from under finely arched eye- BASIL THE GREAT 125 brows, gave light and animation to his coun- tenance. His speech was slow and deliberate. His manner manifested a reserve and scdatc- ness which some of his contemporaries attri- buted to pride, others to timidity. Gregory says, " It was the self-possession of his char- acter, and composure and polish, which they called pride," and refers not very convincingly to his habit of embracing lepers as a proof of the absence of superciliousness (Or. xx. 360). Basil's pride, indeed, was not the empty arrogance of a w^eak mind ; but a well- grounded confidence in his own powers. His reserve arose partly from natural shyness — he jestingly charges himself with " the want of spirit and sluggishness of the Cappadocians " {Ep. 48)— partly from an unwillingness to ciHumit himself with those of whom he was not sure. It is curious to see the dauntless opponent of Modestus and Valens charged with timidity. The heretic Eunomius after his death accused him of being " a coward and a craven skulking from all severer la- bours," and spoke contemptuously of his " solitary cottage and close-shut doors, and his flustered look and manner when persons entered unexpectedly " (Greg. Nys. adv. Eunom. i. p. 318). Philostorgius also speaks of Basil as " from timidity of mind with- drawing from public discussions " {H. E. iv. 12). The fact seems to be that Basil was like many who, while shewing intrepid courage when once forced into action, are naturally averse from publicity. He was a great lover of natural beauty, as shewn by his letters. The playful turn of his mind is also seen in many passages of his familiar letters, which sufficiently vindicate him from the charge of austerity of character. In manner he united Oriental gravity with the finished politeness of the Greeks, and sedateness with sweetness ; his slightest smile was commendation, and silence was his only rebuke (Greg. Naz. Or. XX. 260, 261). The voice of antiquity is unanimous in its praise of Basil's literary works (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 239). Nor has the estimate of modem critics been less favourable. " The style of Basil," writes Dean Milman, " did no dis- credit to his Athenian education. In purity and perspicuity he surpasses most of the heathen as well as Christian writers of his age " {Hist, of Christianity, iii. no). The works of Basil which remain may be classed as : I. Expository, II. Dogmatic, III. Moral, IV. Epistolary, V. Liturgical. I. Expository. — Cassiodorus records that Basil wrote commentaries on almost all the books of Holy Scripture. The greater part of these are lost. Those that remain are — 1. Hexaemeron. — Nine Homilies on the Six Days' Work of Creation. This is the most celebrated of all his works. 2. Seventeen Homilies on the Psalms. — These were preached ad populum. The first, on the Psalms generally, was translated by Rufinus, and is found prefixed to St. Augustine's Com- mentaries. The only other homilies that have reached us are those on Ps. 7, 14 (two), 28 (two), 29, 32, 33, 37, 44, 45, 48, 59, 61, and 114 (two). 3. Commentaries on the first Sixteen Chapters of Isaiah, a continuous work. 126 BASIL THE GREAT II. Dogmatic. 1. Five books against Eunomius. — Com- mended by Jerome (cgregii libri), Gregory Naziaazen, and Photius (e^aiperoi Xoyoi). 2. On the Holy Spirit, addressed to Amphi- lochius and written at his request. 3. On Baptism, two books. 4. Homilies. III. Moral and Ascetic. 1. Homilies, against envy, drunkenness, anger, on fasting, etc. A very sensible ad- monition to a young man how to read the books of heathen WTiters with profit (Homil. 24), included among these homilies, has been frequently translated and separately pub- lished, among others by abp. Potter, 1694. Several homilies are in honour of local martyrs, St. Julitta, St. Barlaam, St. Mammas, etc. 2. On true Virginity, a treatise addressed to Letoius, bp. of Melitene, rejected by Garnier on internal evidence, but generally accepted. 3. Ascetic Writings,* including- — (a) Pre- fatory Discourse ; (b) Discourse on the Renun- ciation of Worldlv Goods ; (c) On the Ascetical Life ; (d) On Faith ; (e) On the Judgment of God, a prologue to the Ethics ; (f) Ethics or Morals, under 80 heads, compiled from N.T. ; (g) On the Monastic Institutions, includ- ing \dyos a.<XKT]TLKo<>, and viroTvirijJcn'i aaK-qaeiiis ; (h) The Greater Monastic Rules, opoi Kara TrXdros, 55 in number (in the form of Basil's answers to questions of his monks), with a proem ; (i) The Lesser Rules, opoi Kara (TnTOfj.rjv. 313 in number, in the same form of question and answer ; (k) Animadversions on Delinquent Monks and Nuns, a very early example of a Poenitentiale ; (1) Monastic Con- stitutions, daKr)TLKal 5tard?€i5, in 34 chapters. IV. Epistolary.' — In addition to those just mentioned we have a collection of no fewer than 365 letters addressed by Basil to his private and official correspondents, including two attributed to the emperor Julian and twelve to Libanius (cf. F. Loofs, Eustathius von Sebaste und die Chronologie der Basilian- ischen Briefe, Halle, 1897). Excerpts from some Letters of Basil from papyrus MSS. were published by H. Landwehr : Greek MS. from Fayoum, 188^. V. Liturgical. — There is no reason to call in question the universal tradition of the East, that Basil was the composer of a liturgy. Those offices, however, which have come down to us under his name have been so largely interpolated at many different periods, that it is impossible to ascertain the correct text of the liturgy as drawn up by him. There are three chief editions of the Liturgy bearing Basil's name : (i) the Greek or Constantino- politan, (2) the Syriac, translated into Latin by Masius, (3) the Alexandrian, found in Coptic, Greek, and Arabic, which versions concur in establishing one text. Of these, the Constantinopolitan furnishes the surest materials for ascertaining the genuine form. The standard edition is the Benedictine, pub. at Paris, 1 721- 1730, by Julian Garnier, in 3 vols, fol., reprinted by Migne, Patr. Gk. * Sozomen informs us that in his day the ascetic writings commonly attributed to Basil were ascribed by some to his, at one time, friend and companion Eustathius of Sebaste. BASILIUS vol. 29-32. In Pitra's Analecta (Paris, 1888) some Fragmenta Ascetica and Epitimia, and in Psalmos were ascribed to Basil. An English translation of some selected works and letters and useful Prolegomena are given in Post- Nice ne Fathers (VVace and Schaff) by W. Blomfield Jackson, 1895. A revised text of the treatise On the Holy Spirit with notes and intro. is pub. by the Clarendon Press. A cheap popular Life by R. T. Smith is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers. [e.v.] Basilius.theintimatefriendof Chrysostom, with whom he resolved on the adoption of an ascetic life, and whose consecration to the episcopate he secured by a strange deception. His see is unknown, but was probably neat Antioch. [e-v.] Basilius of Cilicia, presbyter of Antioch and bp. of Irenopolis in Cilicia, c. 500 ; the author of an Ecclesiastical History in three books, from A.D. 450 to the close of Justin's reign. ! Photius speaks disparagingly of it {Cod. 42). He also wrote a violent book against Joannes Scythopolitanus, and Photius {Cod. 107) says ' its object was to oppose the doctrine of the i union of the two natures in Christ. [e.v.] j Basilius, bp. of Seleucia, in Isauria, and I metropolitan, succeeded Dexianus, who at- tended the council at Ephesus, and therefore after 431. He is erroneously identified by Photius with the early friend of Chrysostom, who must have been considerably his senior (Tillemont, xv. p. 340). He is very unfavour- ably known from the vacillation he displayed with regard to the condemnation of Eutyches. He took a leading part in the council at Constantinople in 448, at which Eutyches was condemned ; and the next year, when the fidelity of the acts of the council was called in question, was one of the commission appointed to verify them (Labbe, Concil. vol. iv. 182, 230). But at the " Robbers' Synod " held at Ephesus a few months later his courage gave way, and he acquiesced in the rehabilitation of Eutyches, and retracted his obnoxious language. Before long he re- turned to orthodoxy, and in 450 affixed his signature to the famous Tome of pope Leo, on the Incarnation. At the council of Chalcedon, 451, the imperial commissioners proposed his deposition, together with that of other prelates who had aided in restoring Eutyches. But Basil submitted, concurred in the condemnation of Eutyches, and his offence was condoned (ib. 553, 604, 787). j His extant works comprise 39 homilies (17 t on O.T. and 22 on N.T.), the titles and subjects j being given by Fabricius, Bibl. Grace, lib. v. c. 19, 10. Four on John xi., published as his, 1 prove to be the work of St. Chrysostom. A Homily on the Transfiguration was added to the series in the ed. of the Jesuit Daus- queius, in 1604. A prose work on The Life and Miracles of St. Thecla has been attributed to him ; but not only does the style differ, and savour of a later age, but we learn from Photius that Basilius wrote St. Thecla's life in verse. Another supposititious work is the Demonstratio contra Judaeos, which appears in the Heidelberg ed. of 1596. Basil's homilies shew much oratorical power and skill in the I use of figurative language. He does not lose BEDA sight of persoicuity, but overburdens his style with metaphors. He not unfrcqucntly re- raiuds us of Chrysostom, though greatly his inferior in power. His homilies were first pub. in Gk. bv Commelin, Lugd. Bat. i,so6, 8vo ; and in 'Latin by Claud. Dausqueius, 1604, 8vo. Thev are in the Dibl. Patr. Colon. V. and Lugd. Bat. viii. 1677. They were also printed at the end of the works of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Paris, 1672, fol. (Phot. Cod. 168 ; Tillemont, M,in. cccl. xv. 340, seq. et passim ; Cave Hist. Lift. 441)- [k.v.] Beds, more correctly Baeda, The Vener- able. [Xote. — Though not prt)perly coming within the period of this condensed ed.. Dr. Stubbs's valuable art. is retained as Bede is the classical historian of the English Church for so much of our proper period. — Ed.] Bede was born on the estate given by Ecgfrith, king of Northunibria, to Benedict Biscop for the foundation of his sister monas- teries of Wearmouth and J arrow, probably, however, before the lands were so bestowed ; for the Wearmouth estate was given in 674, and the J arrow one in 682, whilst the birth of Bede seems satisfactorily fixed to 673. The place of his birth is uncertain, for whilst tra- dition and local history fix it at J arrow, there is no positive evidence. Nor are the names of his parents preserved. He himself, writing, as may be reasonably concluded, immedi- ately on the completion of his History in 731, J describes himself then as in his 59th year ; this would fix his birth in 673 ; but as he lived until 735, and the passage may have been added at anv time between 731 and 735, his birth has bien sometimes put as late as 677. Mabillon, however, whose arguments are sound and whose conclusion has been generally recei\'ed, accepts 673. At the age of 7 Bede was handed over by his relations to the care of Benedict Biscop, who had not, in 680, begun the build- ings at J arrow, but had just returned from Rome bringing the arch-chanter John. Bede was educated in one or both of the sister monas- teries, and after Benedict's death he passed under the rule of Ceolfrith. At the age of 19 he was ordained deacon by John of Beverley, then bp. of Hexham, and in his 30th year received the priesthood from the same prelate ; as John ceased to be bp. of Hexham in 705, and the later date for Bede's birth would place his ordination as priest in 706 at the earliest, this conclusively favours the earlier date ; in which case he was ordained deacon in 691 and priest in 702. From his admission to the joint monastery to his death he remained there employed in study and devotional exercises, and there is no evidence that he ever wan- dered further than to York, which he visited shortly before his death. In the valuable MS. Cotton, Tiberius A. xv. fo. 50, which is not later than the loth cent., is preserved a letter of pope Sergius to Ceolfrith, desiring him to send to Rome "religiosum famulum Dei N. venerabilis monasterii tui," to assist in the examination of some points of eccle- siastical discipline. This letter was very early believed to refer to Bede ; and by the time of William of Malmesbury had begun to be read, " religiosum Dei famulum Bedam, venerabilis monasterii tui presbyterum " \ the name of Bede resting on the authority of William of BEDA 127 Malmesbury only, and the word presbyterum on an interlineation in the Cotton MS. as well. H presbyterum be authentic, it is a strong argument against the identification of Bede, for he was not ordained priest until 702, and Sergius died in 701 ; but it is not essential to the sense, rests apparently on an interpolation, and if genuine may be a mistake of the pope. Intercourse between Wearmouth and Konie was nearly continuous at this time, and there is no more likely monk under Ceolfrith's rule than Bede. Some monks of the monastery went to Rome in 701 (Bede, de Temporum Ratione, c. 47), and brought a privilege from Sergius on their return (Hist. Abbat. c. 12), but Bede was not among them. The invita- tion was probably meant for Bede, and per- haps the acceptance of it was prevented by the death of Sergius. Whether Bede's studies were mainly at Wearmouth or at J arrow is not important ; as he died and was buried at J arrow, he probably lived there chiefly, but the two houses were in strict union, and he was equally at home in both. Under the liberal and enlightened ministration of Bene- dict Biscop and Ceolfrith, he enjoyed advan- tages perhaps not elsewhere available in Europe, and perfect access to all existing sources of learning in the West. Nowhere else could he acquire at once the Irish, Roman, Gallican, and Canterbury learning; that of the accumulated stores of books which Benedict had bought at Rome and at Vienna ; or the disciplinary instruction drawn from the monasteries of the continent as well as from the Irish missionaries. Amongst his friends and instructors wereTrumbert, the disciple of St. Chad, and Sidfrid, the fellow-pupil of St. Cuthbert under Boisil and Eata ; from these he drew the Irish knowledge of Scripture and discipline. Acca, bp. of Hexham and pupil of St. VVilfrid, furnished him with the special lore of the Roman school, martyrological and other ; his monastic learning, strictly Bene- dictine, came through Benedict Biscop from Lerins and many other continental monas- teries ; and from Canterbury, with which he was in friendly correspondence, he probably obtained instruction in Greek, in the study of the Scriptures, and other refined learning. His own monastery offered rest and welcome to learned strangers like abbot Adamnan (Bede, H. E. v. 21), and Bede lost no oppor- tunity of increasing his stores. He describes the nature of his studies, the meditation on Scripture, the observance of regular discipline, the care of the daily singing in church, "semper aut discere, aut docere, aut scribere dulce habui." These were the occupations of his youth. After his ordina- tion he devoted himself to selecting from the Fathers passages suitable for illustration and edification, and, as he says modestly, added contributions of his own after the pattern of their comments. The list of his works given at the conclusion of his History, Bede seems to have arranged in order of relative importance, not of their composition ; and most of them afford only very slight indications of the dates of writing. Probably the earliest of his writings are the more elementary ones, on Orthography, the A rs Metrica and the de Naiura Rerum. The 128 BEDA BEt)A Ars Metrica is dedicated to Cuthbert, a " con- [ Benedict Biscop, not of that of Wilfrid. The levita," which seems to fix the date of writing , soundness and farsightedness of his ecclesias- before 702 {0pp. ed. Giles, vi. 78). The de I tical views would be remarkable in any age, Temporibus, the latest date of which is 702, j and especially in a monk. His letter to may have followed almost immediately, and j Egbert contains lessons of wisdom, clear the de Natura Rerum has been referred to the [ perception of abuses, and distinct recommen- same date. The de Sex aetatibus Saeculi was 1 dation of remedies, which in the neglect of written 5 years later to be read to Wilfrid. 1 observance of them might serve as a key for The whole of the commentaries are later ; the whole later history of the Anglo-Saxon they are all dedicated to bp. Acca, who sue- church. It breathes also the purest patriot- ceeded his master Wilfrid in 709. The Com- ■ ism and most sincere love of souls. There is mentaries on the Apocalypse, the Catholic 1 scarcely any father whose personal history is Epp., and Acts, came first. Then that on 1 so little known, and whose personal character St. Luke ; that on Samuel followed, 3 books [ comes out in his writings so clearly as does of it being written before the death of Ceol- : that of Bede in this letter, and in his wonderful frith in 716 ; that on St. Mark many years : History, after. De Tempomm Ratione is assignable on | Loved and honoured by all alike, he lived internal evidence to 726. Before the History come the Life of Cuthbert and of the abbots of Wearmouth and J arrow which are period which, at least for Northumbria, was of very varied character. The wise Ald- frid reigned during his youth and early man- referred to in the greater work. The History ! hood, but many years of disquiet followed his was completed in 731, after which only the ' death, and even the accession of his friend Ep. ad Egbertum seems to have been written. 1 Ceolwulf in 731 did not assure him of the end The work on which he was employed at the of the evils, the growth of which, since king time of his death was the translation of St. ! Aldfrid's death, he had watched with mis- John's Gospel. i givings. His bishops, first John of Beverley, Bede's attainments were very great. He \ and after the few years of Wilfrid's final certainly knew Greek (H. E. v. 24) and some J restoration, Acca his friend and correspondent, Hebrew. He knew Vergil, Ovid, Lucan, ! and his abbots, first Ceolfrith and then Huaet- Lucretius, Terence, and a host of smaller 1 bert, were men to whom he could look up and poets. Homer he quotes once, perhaps at ' who valued him. His fame, if we may judge second-hand. He knew nearly all the second- | from the demand for his works immediately rate poets, using them to illustrate the .4 rs I after his death, extended wherever English Metrica. The earlier Fathers were, of course, missionaries or negotiators found their way, in familiar use. The diversity and extent of { and must have been widespread during hislife. his reading is remarkable : grammar, rhetoric, j Nearly every kingdom of England furnished poetry, hagiography, arithmetic, chronology, I him with materials for his history : a London the holy places, the Paschal controversy, i priest searched the records at Rome for him ; epigrams, hymns, sermons, pastoral admoni- ! abbot Albanus transmitted him details of the tion and the conduct of penitents ; even j history of the Kentish church ; bp. Daniel, the speculations on natural science, on which he I patron of Boniface, supplied the West Saxon ; specially quotes Pliny, employed his pen, ' the monks of Lastingham, the depositories besides his great works on history and the 1 of the traditions of Cedd and Chad, reported interpretation of Scripture. On all these how Mercia was converted ; Esi wrote from points his knowledge was thoroughly up to I East Anglia, and Cynibert from Lindsey. the learning of the day ; his judgment inde- I Soon after visiting Egbert at York in 734 pendent and his conclusions sound. He must ! his health began to fail ; and by Easter, 735, have had good teachers, a good librjury, and he had become asthmatic. But he laboured to an insatiable desire for learning. These \ the last, and, like Benedict Biscop, spent the qualifications fitted him for the remarkable j time of unavoidable prostration in listening place he holds in literature. 1 to the reading and singing of his companions. By promoting the foundation of the school , When he could, he continued the work of trans- of York, he kindled the flame of learning in | lation, and had reached the gth verse of John vi. the West at the moment that it seemed to be ! on the day he died. As the end approached, he expiring both in Ireland and in France. This \ distributed the few little treasures he had been school transmitted to Alcuin the learning of allowed to keep in his chest, a little pepper, Bede, and opened the way for culture on the | incense, and a few articles of linen ; then, continent, when England was relapsing into having completed the sentence he was die- barbarism under the terror of the Danes. It fating, he desired to be propped up with his is impossible to read the more popular writings I face towards his church. He died repeating of Bede, especially the Ecclesiastical History, '\ the Gloria Patri. The day is fixed by the without seeing that his great knowledge was letter of Cuthbert, who details the events of coupled with the humility andsimplicity of the , his deathbed to his friend Cuthwin, May 26, purest type of monasticism. Employed on a 735. He was buried at J arrow where he theme which, in the prevailing belief of mira- died; hisrelics werein the nth cent, removed culous stories, could scarcely be treated of to Durham, and in 1104 were found in the without incurring the charge of superstition, j same coffin with those of St. Cuthbert. The he is eminently truthful. The wonders he | story of his epitaph and the tradition of the relates on his own account are easily referred 1 bestowal of the title of Venerable is too well to natural causes; and scarcely ever is a known and too apocryphal to be repeated here, reputed miracle recounted without an author- For the subsequent fate of his remains see ity. His gentleness is hardly less marked. Cuthbert. Alcuin has preserved one of his He is a monk and politician of the school of sayings : "I know that the angels visit the BEDA canonical hours and gatherings of the brethren; what if they find not rae there among the brethren ? Will they not say, Where is Bede : whv does he not come with the brethren to the prescribed prayers ? " (Ale. E[}. i6, ed. Migne). Of tlie legendary or fictitious statements about Bede, the following are tlie most important : his personal acquaintance with Alcuin, which is impossible ; his education and sojourn at Cambridge, on which see tHles, PP. Eccl. Angl. i. Ixx. seq. ; his visits to Italy and burial at Genoa or at Rome, which seem to belong to another person of the same name, {ib. i. cvi.). and the legendary statements about his title of Venerable (ib. i. ci.). For a detailed investigation of these, and the alleged author- ities for them, see Ciehlc's learned monograph, Disp. Hist. Thcol. dc Bed. Vcn. (Leydcn, 1838), pp. 2-4, 17-21, and for the fallacies as to the date of Bede's death, ib. pp. 31 seq. Bede's own list of his works may be re- arranged as follows : (i) Commentaries on O.T. — viz. Gen. 4 books, derived chiefly from Basil, Ambrose, and Augustine ; the Tabernacle, 3 books ; Sam. 3 books ; the Building of the Temple, 2 books ; on Kings, 30 questions dedicated to Nothelm ; Prov. 3 books ; Canticles, 7 books ; on Isa., Dan., the 12 minor prophets, and part of Jer., extracts from Jerome ; on Ezra and N'eh. 3 books ; on the Song of Habakkuk, i book ; on Tobit, i ; chapters of lessons on the Pentateuch, Josh., and Judges; Kings, Job, Prov. Eccles. Canticles, Isa., Ezra, and Neh. (2) Commentaries on N.T. : St. Mark, 4 books ; St. Luke, 6 books ; 2 books of homilies on the Gospels ; Acts, 2 books ; a book on each Catholic Ep. ; 3 books on the Apocalypse, . Lessons on the whole N.T. except the Gospels. (3) Letters: de Sex Aetatibus ; de Mansion- ibus filiormn Israel ; de eo quod ait Esaias " et claudentur, etc." ; de Ratione Bissexti ; de 1 Aequinoctio. ; (4) Hagiographies : on St. Felix, rendered from the poem of Paulinus ; on Anastasius, a revised trans, from the Greek ; on St. Cuth- ' bert, in verse and prose ; the abbots of Wear- i mouth and J arrow ; the History of the English Church ; the Martyrology. I (5) Hymns and epigrams, i (6) Scientific books : de Natura Rerum, de \ Temporibus, de Temporum Ratione. I (7) Elementary books : on Orthography, Ars i Melrica, Schemato, and Trope. Besides these he wrote translations into : English, none of which are extant, from the Scriptures ; Retractationes on the Acts ; the Letter to Egbert ; and a book on penance is I ascribed to him. 1 Bede's collected works, including many not I his, were pub. at Paris, 1544 ; Basle, 1563 ; ■ Cologne, 1612, 1688 ; and bv Dr. Giles (Lond. i and Oxf.) in 1843 ; and in Migne's Patr. xc- i "V- [S-] j All study of Bede must henceforth begin : with Mr. C. Plummer's monumental edition 'i0f the historical writings Baedae Opera His- ./ortca (Clarendon Press, 1896). It contains ; the //»s/oria Ecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, the Htstoria Abbatttm, the Ep. ad Egbertum, and ;the anonymous Historia Abbatum. An excel- ,lent introduction presents a critical survey of Bede's works with large references in footnotes BENEDICTUS OF NURSIA 129 to modern authorities. The student should consult the index in vol. ii. 418 for the fre- quent allusions scattered throughout the two vols, to the various writings of Bede. For the text of works other than historical reference must still be made to Migne's Patr. Lai. (vols. 94-95), or to Dr. J. .\. Giles's Patres F.cclcsiae .inglicanae (vols. 1-12). A critical edition of, at all events, the Biblical words of Bede is still a desideratum. Dr. Giles edited some of the smaller treatises 50 years ago, and Mr. Edward Marshall published Bede's Explanation of the .■\pocalypse in 1878; but with these exceptions few, if any, of his writings have in recent years appeared separately. In the i6th and 17th cents, homilies and other works were frequently printed. Reference may be made on this point to the art. Bede in the 4-vol. ed. of this Dict. Translations of the historical books were made by Dr. Giles in 1840, Mr. Gidley in 1870, and by Miss A. M. Sellar in 1907. The last named is the most useful for the student. It is a revision of Dr. Giles, and his work is in turn based upon Mr. Stevens (1723). The notes in Mayor and Lumby's ed. of H. E. iii. and iv. (Camb. Univ. Press) are learned and important. Reference should also be made to Lives of Bede by Bp. Browne ( 1 879 )and Canon H.D.Rawnsley (1904), and to the general treatmentof Bedeand his times in Dr. Bright's Chapters from Early English Church Hist. (pp. 335-338), and Dr. W. Hunt's History of the English Church (vol. i. pp. 205-208). A monograph on "Place Names in the English Bede and the Localization of the MSS.," by Thomas Miller, was contri- buted to Quellen und Forschungen zur Sprach- und CuUurgeschichte der germanischen Volker (Strassburg, i8g6). The important question of the chronological order of Bede's works is discussed by Mr. Plummer, op. cit. (i. cxlv.- Clix.). [H.G.] Benedictus of Nursia. St. Benedict, abbot of Monte Cassino (" Abbas Casinensis "), called " patriarch of the monks of the West," lived during the troubled and tumultuous period after the deposition of Augustulus, when most of the countries of Europe were either overrun by Arians or still heathen. There were many monks in southern Europe, but without much organization till Benedict reformed and remodelled the monastic life of Europe (Mab. Ann. I. i.). The principal, almost sole, authority for the life of St. Bene- dict are the Dialogues of Gregory the Great. \ The genuineness of these has been questioned, but without sufficient cause. Benedict was born about a.d. 4 So at Nursia (Norcia), anciently belonging to the Sabines ("frigida Nursia," Virg.), an episcopal city in the duchy of Spoleto in Umbria. His parents were of the higher class (" liberiori genere," Praef. Dial.). A later writer gives their names, Euproprius and Abundantia (Petr. Diac. de Vir. III. i.). The ruins of the an- cestral palace are shewn at Norcia, with a crypt, the reputed birthplace of Benedict (^lab. Ann. i. 4). He was sent as a boy to j be educated at Rome ; but soon, shocked by the immorality of his companions, fled, followed by his nurse (Cvrilla ; Petr. D. de Vir. III. i.), to Able (Effide), on the Anio (Teverone), about forty miles from Rome [Dial. ii. i). Thence he retired to a cave at 130 BENEDICTUS OF NURSlA Sublaqueum (Subiaco), where he lived as a hermit in almost utter isolation for some years, visited only from time to time by a priest of the neighbourhood, Romanus (Dial. ii. i). The cave, the well-known " il Sagro Speco," is shewn about three miles of very steep ascent above the town of Subiaco, and the tradition- ary spot marked by a monastery, once famous for its library and for the first printing press in Italy, where the youthful anchoret rolled naked in the thorn-bushes to overcome sensual temptations (Mab. Ann. i. 8). The fame of his sanctity spreading abroad, Benedict was invited, his youth notwithstanding, by the monks of a neighbouring monastery (at Vico- varro) to preside over them, and very reluc- tantly consented. Soon, however, their laxity rebelled against his attempts at reformation (he seems thus early to have shewn the or- ganizing faculty for which he became after- wards so remarkable), and he abdicated, after miraculously escaping being poisoned by them [Dial. ii. 3). He retired to his cave ; and undertook the superintendence of youths, among whom were two who became foremost among his followers, Maurus and Placidus, sons of Roman patricians {Dial. ii. 4). Here he founded, it is said, twelve monasteries, each of twelve monks with a " father " at the head of them (Dial. ii. 3). Of these only two remain, " II Sagro Speco " and " Sta. Scholastica " ; the rest being in ruins, or merely oratories (Mab. Ann. ii. i). That of " Sta. Scholastica," so named after Benedict's sister, enjoys special privileges, and takes precedence among the Benedictine foundations even of Monte Cassino, as of older date (Alb. Butler, Lives of the Saints). Several of the miracles ascribed to Benedict are connected with Subiaco. But, after some time, finding his work continually hindered by the machi- nations of a dissolute priest, Florentius, he re- moved, probably c. 530 (Mab. Ann. iii. 5), with some of his disciples to Monte Cassino (Dial. ii. 8), destined to become illustrious as the head- quarters of the great Benedictine order, and as a stronghold of learning and liberal arts even in the darkest ages. The mountain, with a town and stream at its base, all of the same name, stands on the borders of what were formerly Latium and Campania, nearer to Naples than Rome, a few miles from the birthplace of the great Dominican, Thomas Aquinas. Some ruins of an old Roman amphitheatre mark the site of the town, near the modern St. Germano ; the little stream flows into the Rapido, a tributary of the Garigliano (Liris). The summit of the mountain three miles above the town, and even at the present time inaccessible to carriages, was crowned, before the arrival of Benedict, by a temple of Apollo ; frequented even then by the rustics (Dial. i. 8), although the existence of a bp. of Cassino is indicated by the list of bishops present at the Roman council, A.D. 484 (Mab. Ann. iii. 5). On this precipitous eminence, looking down on the plains washed by the peaceful Liris (" taci- turnus amnis," Hor.), and backed by the wild crags of the Abruzzi Benedict set himself with new vigour to carry out his plans of a revival of monasticism. The miraculous intervention of which Gregory hands down the story (Dial. ii. 9, 10) is not necessary to explain how the BENEDICTUS OF NURSIA missionary spirit of Benedict and his monks, overthrew the image and altar of Apollo, and' reared shrines of St. John Evang. and St. Martin, the founder of monasticism in France, within the very walls of the Sun-god's temple — it was customary to reconsecrate, not to destroy, pagan edifices (Greg. M. Ep. xi. 76) — where now stands one of the most sump- tuous of Italian churches. Here Benedict commenced the monastery destined to a world-wide reputation. Here for 12 years or more he presided over his followers ; here he is believed to have composed the Benedictine Rule, in the same year, it is said, in which the schools of Athens were suppressed, and his famous Code was promulgated by Justinian; and from this sequestered spot he sent forth his emissaries not only to Anxur (Terracina, Dial. ii. 22), but beyond the borders of Italy to Sicily (Mab. Ann. iii. 25). Mabillon con- siders the narrative in Greek by Gordianus of the Mission of Placidus into Sicily spurious, but the mission itself beyond doubt. Not many years elapsed before this and other similar foundations were richly endowed with lands and other offerings (Greg. M. Ep. iii. 3). It was in the vicinity of Monte Cassino that Benedict confronted and rebuked the ferocious Totila (a.d. 542) at the head of his victorious Ostrogoths (Dial. ii. 14, 15), and that he was wont to cheer his solitude by brief and rare interviews with his beloved sister, Scholastica, herself a recluse at no great distance (ib. 33), He is said to have been summoned to a synod at Rome (a.d. 531) by Boniface II. (Cave, Hist. Litt. on the authority of a codex Bibl. Fa/, by Ant. Scrip. Mon. Cas., Eleg. Abb. Cas. p. 25). His death is variously computed from 539 (Schol. Bened. in Honor. August, ii'. 30 ap. Fabr. Bibl. Ecd.) to a.d. 543 (Trithem, de Vir. 111. c. 300, ap. Fabr. ; of. Clint. Fast. Rom. and Mab. A A. SS. O.S.B. Praef.). Some few writers assign a yet later date. His sister (his twin-sister according to . Trithemius, but cf. Mab. Ann. iii. 14) shortly 1 predeceased him. She is called abbess by Bertharius, Abb. Cas. in the 8th cent, (ib.) ; | but probably lived alone (cf. Greg. M. Dial. iii. ; 7, 14), or as one of a sisterhood. The words j " adcellampropriam recessisset " areambiguous (Dial. ii. 34 ; cf. Act. Sand. Feb. 10). I The character of St. Benedict may be best : estimated from his Regula Monastica, if, as indeed is reasonable to suppose, it was his composition. In contrast to monastic rules already in existence, chiefly of Eastern origin, : it breathes a spirit of mildness and considera- , tion, while by the sanction for the first time given to study it opened the way for those literary pursuits which afterwards developed themselves so largely within convent walls.' The account of the great Reformer's tender, affection for his sister, and of his withdrawal before opposition at Subiaco, seems to give'' verisimilitude to the traditionary portraits of him, as of gentle though dignified aspect. His demeanour before Totila, the strict rule under which he kept others as well as himself {Dial. ii. 23, etc.), and his severity in repress-, ing the slightest disobedience (24, 28, etc.) testify to his practical insight into character, (20), as well as to his zeal and courage. In Dial. iii. 161 he is said (like Anthony) to have BENEDICTUS I. reprove(] a hermit who had chained himself to a rock, in these words, " Brother, be bound only by the chain of Christ ! " The character of the Benedictine Order, by the specialities which have always distinguished it from other religious orders, attest the sagacious and liberal character of its founder. Fleury thinks he was not ordained, although he preached {Keel. Hist. xxxii. 15). The idea of his being a priest is modern (Mab. Ann. O.S.B. v. 122 ; Murat. Ser. Ital. iv. 27). Some, probably not all, of the remains of St. Benedict were transferred from his shrine at M. Cassino to the Benedictine abbey at Floriacum (Fleury), on the Loire, in the 7th cent, or at a later date (Mab. Acta, ii. 339). The question is discussed at length in A A. SS. Boll. 21 Mar. iii. 299-301, and ia Mab. AA. SS. O.S.B. Saec. ii. 337-352. For his life, see Greg. M. Dial. lib. ii. in Migne's Patr. Ixvi., also in Mabillon's Acta Sanctorum O.S.B. Saec. i., in Muratori, Script. Rer. Italic, iv., and elsewhere. Vita S. Bene- dicli (in verse), by ^Slarcus Pocta, said to be a disciple of St. Benedict, in Mab. A. A. SS. Saec. i. ; cf. Pauli Diac. Histor. Langobard. i. 26 ; see also Gregoire le Grand, la vie de St. Benoit, etc., par Jos. Mege, Par. 1734, 4to ; Mab. Ann. O.S.B. i. viii.. Acta Sanctorum (BoUand.), 21 Mar. iii. Bened. Haefteni, Commentar. in Vit. S. Bened. For a more complete catalogue of hymns, sermons, etc., on St. Benedict see Potthast s.v. Among modem biographies see Le pitture dello Zingaro nel cJnostro di S. Severino in Napoli piibblicate per la prima volta e dilucidate da Stanislao d'.-iloe (Napoli, 1846, 4to) ; also Tosti St. Ben., historical discourse on his life from the Italian (Lond. 1896), and Essays on Tosti's Life (Lond. 1S96). In a new ed. of the English trans, of Montalembert's Monks of the West (Lond. 6 vols. 1S96) is an introduction by Dom Gasquet on the Rule. A convenient ed. of the Rule, by D. H. Blair, with Eng. translation, was pub. at Lond. and Edin. (zi\d. ed.), 1896. [i.G.s.] Benedictus I., pope, called bv the Greeks BonoSUS (Evagr. Sc. H. E. v. 16), son of Boniface, a Roman, was elected successor to John III. on June 3, 574 (Jaffe, Regesta Pont. ; the dates given by Baronius are erroneous ; of. Clinton, F. R. ii. 543, on the causes of discrepancy in the pontifical chronology). During his pontificate Italy was harassed by the invasion of the Lombards. Though they never actually penetrated into the city o'f Rome, they ravaged the suburbs, violated the cemeteries, and persecuted the Christians. Misery and famine ensued, and Rome was only relieved eventually by a corn fleet from Egypt, dispatched at the pope's request by the emperor Justin. Benedict died in July 578, and was buried on the last day of that month in St Peter's. He was succeeded by Pelagius II. (Anastas. Liber. Pontif. ; cf. Paul. Diac. de Gestis Long. ii. 10, ap. Muratori, i.). According to Ciacconius {Vitae Pont. Rom.) his memory was eulogized by Gregory the Great. His restoration of certain lands to the Abbot of San Marco at Spoleto rests on the same authority (Greg. Op. ii. 950, ed. Bened.) ; see generally Baronius, sub annis 573-577 ; Labbe, Concil vol. v.). [t.r.b.] BERYLLUS 131 Bertha [Bercta), wife of Ethelbert, king of Kent. She was daughter of Caribort, king of PariS, by liis wife Ingobcrga (Greg. Turon. iv. 26, ix. 26), and lost her father in 575, her mother in 589. The date of her marriage is unknown, but it was probably after the death of her mother, although Bede speaks of the king receiving her " a parentibus." Ethel- bert was still a heathen, and on his marriage it was made a condition that his wife should be allowed to enjoy the exercise of her own religion, and should be attended by a bishop. Liudhard, or Letard, who is called by the Canterbury historians bp. of Senlis (Thorn, ed. Twysden, 1767), was chosen to accompany her, and the remains of the church of St. Martin, at Canterbury, were allotted for Christian worship (Bede, H. E. i. 26). It was partly, no doubt, by her influence that Ethel- bert was induced to receive the Roman mission and to be baptized. Pope Gregory, in 601, when sending Mellitus to reinforce Augustine's company, addressed a letter to Bertha, in which he compliments her highly on her faith and knowledge of letters, and urges her to make still greater efforts for the spread of Christianity. He also ascribes the conversion of the English mainly to her, and compares her to the empress Helena (St. Greg. Epp. xii. 29 ; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 17, 18). The date of her death is unkno\vn. She was buried in the porch of St. Martin, in the church of SS. Peter and Paul (Bede, H. E. ii. 5). Ethelbert seems to have marriccl again after her death. She was the mother of Eadbald, who succeeded to the throne on Ethelbert's death, and of Ethelburga, who, in 625, was married to Edwin, King of North- umbria. As her son was uubaptized in 616, it is probable that she found considerable difficulty in promoting Christianity in her own family, or else that she died whilst her children were very young. Elmham (ed. Hardwick, p. no) says she took part in founding the monastery of St. Augustine, at Christmas, 604, but this is merely traditional ; and the latest trustworthy trace of her is St. Gregory's letter of 601. [s.] Beryllus, bp. of Bostra,* in Arabia, known in his day as one of the most learned teachers of the church. He conceived heretical views as to the person of our blessed Lord, to con- sider which a synod assembled at Bostra, a.d. 244. The bishops unanimously condemned j his teaching, and declared that Christ at His I Incarnation was endowed with a human soul (Socr. H. E. iii. 7), but were unable to con- ! vince Beryllus of his error. Origen. however, i who, having been recently degraded from Holy Orders and excommunicated at Alexandria, was then residing at Caesarea, had been in- vited to the synod, and by his intellectual superiority, dialectical skill, and friendly moderation succeeded in proving to Beryllus the unsoundness of his tenets, and in leading him back to the orthodox faith. For this, according to Jerome, he received the thanks of Beryllus in a letter extant in his time. Our only authority as to the tenets of Beryllus is a somewhat obscure passage of t;usebius, H. E. vi. 33, and a fragment of Origen's com- mentary on the Epistle to Titus, found in the • Socr. H. E. iii. 7, erroneously makes Beryllus bp. of Philadelphia. 132 BLANDINA apology of Pamphilus, Orig. 0pp. torn. iv. p. 22, ed. Bened., which have led to very opposite conclusions. These may be seen in Dorner, where the whole question is discussed at length. His views were Monarchian, and are identified by Schleiennacher with those of the Patripassians, and by Baur with those of Artemon and the neo-Ebionites. Accord- ing to Dorner, Bervllus occupies a middle place, forming a connecting link between the Patripassians and Sabellius. The leadmg ideas of his teaching as developed by Dorner from Eusebius were as follows : (i) there existed a Trarpt^rj ^eorTjs in Christ, but not an Ihia eedrrjs: (2) Christ had no independent existence in a circumscribed form of being of His own (Kar idiav ouaias -n-fpi-ypacp-qv), before His Incarnation {eviSruxia). (3) Sub- sequently to His Incarnation, He Who had been identified with the TrarpLKr} deoTrjs became a circumscribed Being possessed of an in- dependent existence ; the being of God in Christ being a circumscription of the deor-r^s of the Father, i.e. of God Himself. According to Eusebius, H. E. vi. 20, Beryllus was the author of epistles and treatises displaying considerable elegance. Hieron. de Script. Eccl. No. Ix. ; Niceph. H. E. v. 22 ; Neander ii. pp. 350 ff. ; Gieseler, v. p. 219; Dorner, Person of Christ, First Period, Second Epoch, § i. c. 2, div. i. vol. ii. pp. 35-45. Clark's trans. ; Schrockh, iv. 38 ; Mosheim, de Reb. Christ, ante Constant, p. 699 ; UUman, Comment, de Bervll. Bost. (Hamb. 183^) ; Fock, Diss, de Christolog. Bervll. Bost. (1843). [e.v.] Blandina, martyr, a female slave, reckoned as the chief among the martyrs of Lyons, in that, although weakest in body, she suffered longest and most bravely the most various and prolonged torture. Among other things she was stretched upon a cross and thrown to wild beasts, which, however, refused to touch her ; and finally she was tied up in a net and gored to death by a bull. (Eus. H. E. v. i ; Eucher. Lugdun. Horn, inter Horn. Euseb. Emesen. xi. ; Greg. Tur. de Glor. Martt. xlix. ; Baron. June 2.) [a.w.h.] Boethlus {Boirios. Procop.), Anicius Man- lius Severinus.* This honourable name, in- vested by the church for so many centuries with a halo of sanctity, can hardly be ex- cluded from a Dictionary of Christian Bio- graphy, though some criticism in modern times has tended to distinguish the Roman senator, the author of the Consolatio Philoso- phiae, from the writer of certain theological treatises which bear his name, and upon the genuineness of which depends his claim to be enrolled among the mart>TS of Christendom. These works, (i.) de Sancta Trinitate, (ii.) Utrum Pater et Filius Substan- tialiter Praedicentur, (iii.) de Duabus Naturalis et una Persona Christi, contra Eutychen et Nestorium, (iv.) Fidei Confessio sen brevis Institutio Rcligionis Christianae, based upon the Aristotelian Categories, and compiled in great measure from the writings of St. Augus- tine, being concerned entirely with abstract questions of dogma, offer but little to compare * The additional name of Torquatus does not occur before the 15th cent. Bertius is the only commentator who gives the praenomen Flavins. BOfiTHIUS with the Consolatio, into which the mind and heart of its author were manifestly thrown ; nevertheless Hand {Encyclopddie, v. Ersch. u. Gruber, in voce) has endeavoured to shew that they are alien in point of philosophy as well as in the method of thought and expres- sion from the undoubted writings of Boethius. For instance, although philosopher and theo- logian alike demonstrate the substantial as opposed to the accidental nature of God, Boethius (ad Arist. Categ. c. 4) maintains Aristotle's distinction of substances, whereas the author of the first theological treatise { insists upon the substantial indifference of j the three persons in the Trinity. Again, while Boethius translates the ov<ria of Aristotle 1 by substantia, the author of the third treatise adopts the later rendering essentia, while ! he also follows ecclesiastical writers in his use of the words substantia {hwoaraaL's] and : persona [irpcxTiinrov). The arguments of Hand have been controverted by Gustave Baur (de Boeth. Christianae Fidei Assertore, c. i), but [ the theory of a second Boethius, whom Hand [ supposes to have been confounded at an early date with the philosopher, so far from being refuted, has suggested the still more plausible conjecture of Obbarius (Proleg. ad Consol. Phil. p. xxxvii. Jenae, 1843) that another j Severinus was the author of the works in I question, and that to this person, and not to i the author of the Consolatio, belong the honours of martyrdom in defence of the Catholic faith. In support of this conjecture there are the facts : (i.) That no author is known to mention the theological works of Boethius before Alcuin (de Proc. Spir. Sancti, P- 752), who flourished nearly three centuries after his death. (ii.) That although the tradition was current in the Middle Ages, from Paulus Diaconus (8th cent.) downwards, that Boethius laid down his life in his zeal for the Catholic faith against the Arian invaders of Italy, this is not his own account of his fall from court favour nor is it supported by any contemporary writer, (iii.) That in the epitaph of Gerbertus, bp. of Ravenna, after- wards pope Sylvester II., inscribed upon the monument raised in his honour by Otho III., A.D. 996, no mention is made of martyrdom or of canonization (Migne, Patr. vol. 139, p. 287). (iv.) That while the church of Rome knows nothing of St. Boethius, the festival of St. Severinus has been held on Oct. 23 ever since the 8th cent., in the neighbourhood of Ticinum, where Boethius is popularly believed to have been executed. The double clue nms throughout the history of Boethius, as derived from various sources ; the same twofold character, half secular, half ecclesiastical, pervades the whole ; and hence the unusual number of so-called fables mingled with the best authenticated facts — e.g: — (i) The wife of Boethius was unquestion- ably Rusticiana, the daughter of the senator Symmachus (Cons. Phil. ii. 3, 4 ; Procop. Goth. iii. 20), by whom he had two sons, Aurelius Anicius' Symmachus and Anicius Manlius Severinus, who were consuls a.d. 522 (Cons. Phil. ii. 3, 4) ; but tradition makes him to have been also the husband of Elpis, a Sicilian lady and the authoress of two hymns in the Breviary [Elpis], and by her to BOETHIUS have had two sons, Patricius and Hypatius, Greek consuls a.d. 500. (2) According to his own statement, Boethius was" imprisoned {Cons. Phil. i. ii. metr. 24) at a distance of 500 miles from Rome {ib. i. 4) ; according to other accounts he was simply exiled, a confusion which no doubt arose from the epitaph of the said Elpis, in which she is said (Burni. Auih. Lai. toni. ii. epigr. 138) to have followed her husband into banishment. (3) His fall and death is mixed up by Paulus Diaconus and other writers, who are followed among modern writers by Bahr [Rom. Lit. p. 162) andHeyne (Ccnsar. ingenii, etc.. Boeth.), with the constrained embassy of pope John to Constantinople on behalf of the Arians of the East, which is said to have resulted in the suspicion of his treachery and finally in his death ; whereas Boethius was put to death, according to others (Anonym. Vales., etc.), before the embassy, or at least before the return of the pope, a.d. 525, and as he himself implies [Cons. Phil, i- 4).. on suspicion of conspiracy, not against Arianism, but for the restoration of the liberty and power of the senate. (4) Two distinct accounts exist of his execution, one stating that he was beheaded atTicinum (Anast. Vit. Pontif. in Johanne I. ; Aimoin, Hist. Franc, ii. i), where he was imprisoned, according to popular tradition, in a tower still standing at Pa via in 1584 (Tiraboschi, iii. 1. i, c. 4) ; another relating (Anonym. Vales, p. 36, in Gronov. ed. Amm. Marceil.) that he was confined along with Albinus in the baptistery of a church, and soon afterwards executed " in agro Calven- tiano," first being tortured by a cord tightly twisted round his forehead, and then beaten to death with a club. (3) He is claimed by the church as a saint and martyr under the name of Severinus, the friend of St. Benedict (Tritenhem, ap. Fabric. Bibl. Lat. iii. 13), and the worker of a miracle at his death (Martianus Rota, vid. Boeth. in usum Delphin.), but of all this his contemporaries knew nothing, and no hint of it appears until three centuries after his death, when he also becomes the author of four dogmatic treatises on the mysteries of the Trinity. Whether or not this double tradition has grown out of the history of two distinct individuals, there can be little doubt that to obtain a true estimate of the character and writings of Boethius, the author of the Consolatio must be distinguished from Severinus, saint and martyr, or whoever else was the writer of the above-mentioned theological works. It remains for us briefly to notice the most authentic facts of the philosopher's life, and to inquire how far his thoughts were coloured by the contempor- aneous influence of Christianity, or exercised an influence in their turn upon the religious thought of the Middle Ages. Boethius was born between the years a.d. 470-475, as is inferred from his contemporary Ennodius (Eucharisma de Vita sua), who says that he himself was sixteen when Theodoric invaded Italy, a.d. 490. As a wealthy orphan (Cons. Phil. ii. 3) Boethius inherited the patri- mony and honours of the Anician family, was BOETHIUS 133 brought up under the care of the chief men at Rome (ib. ii. 3), and became versed in the erudition of his own country and like- wise in that of Greece. In the words of his friend Cassiodorus, " The geometry of Euclid, the music of Pythagoras, the arith- metic of Niconiachus, the mechanics of Archimedes, the astronomy of Ptolemy, the theology of Plato, and the logic of Aristotle," were translated and illustrated for the benefit of the Romans by his indefatigaljle pen (Var. i. Ep. 43). Nor was he less distinguished for his virtue. His purse was ever open to the poor of Rome (Procop. Goth. I. i.). He exerted his authority and eloquence on behalf of the oppressed provincials (Cons. Phil. i. 4). Such conspicuous merit was at first appre- ciated by Theodoric. He received the title of patrician while still a youth (ib. i. 3), became consul a.d. 510, and princeps senatus (Procop. Goth. I. i.), was employed in the important station of master of the offices (Anonym. Vales, p. 26), in which post his scientific knowledge and mechanical skill were turned to ample account (Cassiod. Ep. i. 10, 43, ii. 40), and reached the summit of his fortune on the day when, supported by his two sons, who had just been inaugurated in the consulship, he pronounced a panegyiic upon Theodoric and gratified the populace with a largess (Cons. Phil. ii. 3). But a re- verse was at hand. The philosopher had exerted himself to rescue the state from the usurpation of ignorance ; the senator had opposed his integrity to the tyranny and avarice of the barbarians who did not in general share the moderation of their leader. His expression, " palatini canes " (ib. i. 4), shews his uncompromising spirit against their iniquities ; and it is not surprising that the courage and sympathy he shewed in pleading the cause of Albinus, a senator who was accused of " hoping the liberty of Rome " (ib.), joined to other similar conduct, and misrepresented by his foes, at length poisoned the mind of Theodoric, who seems to have appointed one Decoratus, a man of worthless character, to share and control the power of his favourite (ib. iii. 4). As to the existence of any widespread conspiracy to overthrow the Ostrogothic rule there is but very faint evidence, and against this must be set down his own indignant self-justification (ib. i. 4). A sentence of confiscation and death was passed upon him by the senate without a trial ; he was imprisoned in the Milanese territory, and ultimately executed in one of the ways named above, probably about the 30th year of his age, a.d. 520-324. His father-in-law, Symmachus, was involved in his ruin (Procop. Goth. I. i.), and his wife, Rus- ticiana, reduced to beggary (ib. iii. 20). The remorse of Theodoric, which came too late to save " the last of the Romans," is the natural and tragic finish to a story which has too many parallels in history. It was during his imprisonment that Boe- thius composed his Consolation of Philosophy, a work described by Gibbon as " a golden volume, not unworthv of the leisure of Plato or Tully." It is a dialogue in prose and verse (a species of composition suggested probably by the medleys of Petronius and Capella) 134 BOETHIUS between the author and his visitant, Philo- sophy, whom he represents as a woman of reverend mien and varying stature, upon the borders of whose vesture were woven the letters IT and e, symbolizing no doubt the Platonic division of philosophy into wpaKTiKr) and OeuipriTLKT]. Those who regard the " Con- solation " as the work of a Christian have not unnaturally been perplexed by its total silence as to the distinctive faith of Christianity, and have been forced to suppose it incomplete (Bertius, Lips. 1753), or to interpret it allegori- cally (Gervais, vid. Schrockh, Hist. Eccles- xvi. 118). It breathes a spirit of resignation and hope, but so does the Phaedo. It is based upon a firm belief in Providence, but it is only in his poetic flights that the author's language seems to savour of a belief in a personal God {Cons. Phil. iii. metr. 9), his faith never elsewhere rising higher than Theism, and occasionally passing into Pan- theism (ib. iii. 12, et pass.). He asserts the efficiency of prayer, but the injunction thereto is drawn from the Timaeus and not from the N.T. (ib. iii. 9), while the object of his aspirations is not the (rrefpavos fciT/s or 61/caio- avvr}s of the Apostle, but the summum bonum of the Greek philosopher. He has been thought to betray an acquaintance with the Christian idea of heaven (ib. i. 5, iii. 12, iv. I, V. i), but his patria is the peace of the philosophic mind, not the woX'iTevfxa ev oipavui virapxov. In short, the whole work, with the exception of words and phrases which merely imply an acquaintance with Christian writers, might have been written, so far as theology is concerned, by Cicero himself. The works of Boethius prove his intimate know- ledge of Greek literature, and were for centuries the only vehicle bv which Greek philosophy penetrated to the West ; but his chief work is now of value only as serving, along with the poetry of Claudian and Ausonius, to mark the point of contact between the thought of heathendom and the faith of Christianitv. that from the 6th to the 14th cent, its author Pfas invested with a monopoly of philosophic neatness was natural in the' utter decav of (earning, but it was the excess of darkness ivhich made his light of brightness sufficient to shine across the ages till it paled in the rising splendour of the revival of letters. His works are : rfe Consolatione Philosophiae libri v. ; in Porphyrii Isagogcn a Victorino Translatam Dialogi ii. ; in eandem a se ipso Latine Translatam libri v. ; in Categorias Aristoielis libri ii. ; in Ejusdem Librum ire pi ep/jiriVfLas lib. i. ; Editionis secundae libri vi. ; Analyticorum Aristotelis Priorum et Posteri- orum libri iv. ; Topicorum Aristotelis libri viii. ; in Aristotelis Topica libri viii. (not extant) ; Introduclio in Syllogismos Categoricos ; de Syllogismis Hypvtheticis libri ii. ; de Divisione ; de Definitione ; de Differentiis Topicis libri iv. ; in Topica Ciceronis libri vi. ; Elenchorum Sophisticorum libri ii. ; de Arithmeticd libri ii. ; de Musicd libri v. ; de Geonietrid libri ii. ; also two short treatises entitled respec- tively " de Rhetoricae Cognatione," and " Loc- orum Rhetoricorum Distinctio," discovered by cardinal Mai in a MS. of the nth cent. Doubtful works : de Unitaie et Uno ; de BONIFACIUS I. Bono ; de Hebdomadibus ; all of which are dedicated to pope John. The most complete ed. of his works is in Migne's Pair. Lat., which is a collation of the best edd. The best edd. of the Consolatio are those of Theod. Obbarius (Jenae, 1843) and R. Peiper (Leipz. 1871), the latter including the theological works and prolegomena. The most interesting trans, is that into Anglo- Saxon by Alfred the Great, edited by W. J. Sedgefield (Lond. 1899). See also G. Boissier, "Le Christianisme de Boece" in Journal des savants (Paris, 1899). The chief ancient authorities for the life of Boethius are the epistles of his contemporaries Cassiodorus and Ennodius, and the History of Procopius. The best modern authorities are Hand, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop. ; and for an opposite view of his religious faith, Gustave BauT, de Boeth. Christianae Fidei As- sertore (Davmst. 1841) ; Heyne, Censura Boeth. de Cons. Phil. (Gotting. 1805), in Opusc. Academ. vi. 142 ; the " Prologomena de Boethii vita et scriptis " to the ed. of the Cons. Phil, by Obbarius ; A. Hildebrand, Boethius und seine Stelling zum Christenthum (Regussburg, 1885); and H. F. Stewart, Boethius, an Essay (Edin. 1891). [e.m.y.] Bonifacius I., pope and saint, successor of Zosimus, a Roman, son of a priest, Jocundus, has been identified with Boniface the priest, the papal representative at Constantinople during the time of Innocent I. (Baron ins s.a. 405, § 15, cf. Bianchi-Giovini, Storia dei Papi, i- 353)- Zosimus died on Dec. 26, 418. On i the 28th Boniface was elected bishop in the I Church of St. Theodora by a majority of the ! clergy and people, and consecrated next day I in the church of St. Marcellus. Previously, ; however, a small body of the clergy, contrary I to the command of the prefect Symmachus, ' had shut themselves up in the Lateran, and j as soon as the burial of Zosimus took place, proclaimed Eulalius the archdeacon pope. Three bishops (including the bp. of Ostia) assisted at the consecration of Eulalius, nine at that of Boniface. Symmachus reported to the emperor Honorius in favour of Eulalius. Honorius decided accordingly, and ordered Boniface to quit the city, but ultimately pro- nounced in his favour.' This was the third disputed election (see full account, with all the documents, in Baronius s.a. 419 ; Jaiie, Regesta). Personally, Boniface is described as an old man at the time of his appointment, which he was unwilling to accept, of mild character, given to good works (Anastasius, Lib. Pont.). In the contest against Pelagius, Boniface was an unswerving supporter of orthodoxy and Augustine. [Pelagius.] Two letters of the Pelagians had fallen into the pope's hands, in both of which Augustine was calumniated. Boniface sent them promptly by the hands of Alypius to Augustine him- self, that he might reply to them. His reply, contained in the " Ouatuor libri contra duas Epp. Pelagianorum " (Opp- x. 411, Ben. ed. ; cf. Repr. ii. 61 in \'o\ i.), is addressed to Boni- face, and bears testimony to the kindness and condescension of his character. Boniface was strenuous in enforcing the discipline of the church. Thus he insisted that Maximus, bp. of Valence, should be brought to trial for BONIFACIUS II. his misdemeanours before the bishops of Gaul (see letter in Labbe, Cone. ii. 15S4). So also in the case of the vacancy of the see of Lodove he insisted on a rigid adherence to the decrees of the council of Nicaca, that each metropoli- tan, and in this case the metropolitan of Narbonne, should be supreme within his own province, and that the jurisdiction conferred bv his predecessor Zosimus on the bp. of Aries should be of none effect (Labbe, ib. 1585). On the significance of this transaction as re- gards the history of the relation of the pope to the metropolitans, see Gieseler, Ecc. Hist. i. § 92 (p. 265, Eng. trans.). Nor was he less strenuous in his assertion of the rights of the Roman see. Following the policy of his pre- decessors, Siricius and Innocent, he vindicated the supremacv of his patriarchate over the province of Eastern Illyria. The people of Corinth had elected a certain Perigenes bishop, and sent to Rome to ask the pope to ratify the election. Boniface refused to entertain their request until sent through the hands and with the consent of the papal legate, Rufus, archbp. of Thessalonica. The party in Corinth opposed to Perigenes appealed to the Eastern emperor. Theodosius decreed that canonical disputes should be settled bv a council of the province with appeal to the bp. of Constantinople. Boniface im- mediately complained to Honorius that this law infringed the privileges of his see, and Theodosius, on the request of his uncle, an- nulled it. Proposals, however, had actually been made for the convocation of a provincial council to consider the Corinthian election. To check this tendency to independence, and to defeat the rival claims of Constantinople, Boniface forthwith addressed letters to Rufus, to the bishops of Thessaly, and to the bishops of the entire province. Rufus was exhorted to exercise the authority of the Roman see with all his might ; and the bishops were commanded to obey him, though allowed the privilege of addressing complaints concerning him to Rome. " No assembly was to be held without the consent of the papal vicar. Never had it been lawful to reconsider what had once been decided by the Apostolic see" (see documents in Labbe, iv. 1720 sqq.). Among the lesser ordinances attributed to him by Anastasius the most important is that whereby he forbade slaves to be ordained without the consent of their masters. Boniface died on Sept. 4, 422, and was buried, according to the Martyr. Hieronyni. (an. Jaffe, Reg.), in the cemetery of St. Maximus, according to Anas- tasius in that of St. Felicitas (cf. Ciacconius, Vtt. Pont, who gives several epitaphs). He was succeeded by Celestine L His letters are given by Labbe, vol. iv. ; Migne, Pair. vol. xx. ; Baronius. (Cf. Jaffe, Regesta and App. pp. 932.. 933, where spurious letters and decrees attributed to Boniface are given), [t.r.b.] Bonifacius II., pope, successor to Felix IV., of Roman birth but Gothic parentage, son of Sigisbald or Sigismund, was elected bp. of Rome on Sept. 17, 530, and consecrated five days later in the basilica of Julius (Jaffe, Regesta Pont.). At the same time a rival party in the basilica of Constantine elected and con- secrated Dioscorus. The Roman church was saved from schism by the death of Dioscorus BONOSUS 135 a few weeks afterwards ; but Boniface carried his enmity beyond the grave, and anathema- tized his dead rival for simony (cf. Cassiodorus, Var. 0, Ep. 5I. This anathema was subse- quently removed by Agapetus I. It has been conjectured (by Baronius, Labbe, Cave, etc.) that the double election was brought about by Athalaric the Gothic king, that he might have an opportunity to intervene after the example of Theodoric, and place a partisan of his own upon the papal throne. [Theodoricus (3) ; Fflix III. (cf. Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. i. § 115, p. 340, Eng. trans, and reff.).] The pontificate of Boniface is chiefly remarkable for the bold measure proposed and carried by him at a council at St. Peter's, by which he was em- powered to nominate his own successor. Accordingly he nominated the deacon Vigilius (subsequently pope, 537), and obtained the consent of the clergy thereto. Shortly after- wards, however, another council met and annulled the previous decree as contrary to the canons. Boniface acknowledged his error and publicly burned the document with his own hands. Some {e.g. Bianchi-Giovlni, Storia dei Papi, ii. 165) have conjectured that Boniface acted throughout as the tool of the unprincipled Vigilius ; others {e.g. Baronius, Milman, etc.) that the object of Boniface was to prevent for the future the interference of the Gothic king, and that it was the Gothic king that compelled him to rescind the decree. It would have been equally difficult, however, to have brought the clergy and people of Rome to tolerate such a scheme. Of the pontificate of Boniface there is little else to record. A petition was presented to him (in which he is styled " Universal Bishop ") by Stephen, archbp. of Larissa, metropolitan of Thessaly, complaining of the encroachments of the patriarch of Constantinople, who had suspend- ed Stephen from his office. The result of the council held is unknown, but there can be little doubt that Boniface followed the policy of his predecessors in this matter and asserted the authority of the Roman see over the whole of the province of Illyria (see documents in Labbe, Cone. iv. 1690 seq., also Bonifacius I.). He died in Oct. 532, and was buried on the 17th in St. Peter's. He was succeeded by John II. (see generally Anastasius, Lib. Pont. ; Labbe, Cone. iv. 1682 sqq. ; Baronius, sub annis ; Migne, Patr. Ixv.). [t.r.b.] Bonosus, the founder of the sect of the Bonosiani, was bp. of Sardica in IlljTia at the end of the 4th cent. (Tillemont, x. 754). Bonosus is only known to us as holding the same views with Helvidius with regard to the perpetual virginity of the mother of our Lord, and as to His brethren, whom he affirmed to have been the natural offspring of Joseph and Mary. At the synod of Capua, convened by Valentinian, a.d. 391, to settle the rival claims of Flavian and Evagrius to the see of Antioch, opportunity was taken to lay an accusation against Bonosus. The synod was unwilling to consider the question, and transferred it to Anysius, the bp. of Thessalonica and metropolitan, and his suffragans, who, as a neighbour of Bonosus, might be supposed to be more fully acquainted with the merits of the case (Labbe, ii. 1033). Bonosus was condemned for heretical teaching, deposed, 136 BOSPHORIUS and his church closed against him. Bonosus consulted Ambrose, who recommended pati- ence and submission. This prudent counsel was not followed, and the difference was ex- aggerated into a schism, which lasted into the 7th cent. Bonosus and his followers were widely accredited with heretical views respect- ing the conception and person of Christ. Mercator calls him an Ebionite, and a pre- cursor of Nestorius {Dissert, i. de Haeres. Nestor. § 6, ii. 315). But the Bonosians were more usually charged with Photinianism (Gennadius, de Eccl. Dogm. c. 52, " Photini- ani qui nunc vocantur Bonosiaci "). Whether these charges were well grounded, or were based on the general unpopularity of the sect, it is impossible to determine. Their baptism was pronounced valid by the 17th canon of the second synod of Aries, a.d. 445, on the ground that, like the Arians, they baptized in the name of the Trinity (Labbe, iv. 1013). But Gregory the Great, in a letter to the Irish bishops (Ep. lib. ix. 61), includes them in those whose baptism the church rejected be- cause the name of the Trinity was not invoked (cf. Gennadius, de Eccl. Dogm., u.s.). They on their part rebaptized those who joined them. The third council of Orleans, a.d. 538, ordained that they who did so should be arrested by the royal officers and punished. The Bonosians were anathematized by pope Vigilius {Ep. XV. ; Labbe, v. 333). [e.v.] Bosphorius, bp. of Colonia in Cappadocia Secunda, a confidential friend and corre- spondent of Gregory Nazianzen and Basil the Great. His episcopate was prolonged through at least 48 years (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203), and must have commenced in 360. From the letters of Gregory we learn that he and Bos- phorius had lived together in youth, laboured together, and grown old together (Greg. Ep. 141, 227). He had great influence over the gentler nature of Gregory, who speaks of him with the highest respect, both for the purity of his faith and the sanctity of his life, as well as for his successful exertions in bringing back wanderers to the truth, acknowledging the benefit he had derived, both as hearer and teacher, from him {Ep. 164, 225). He persuaded Gregory to remain at Nazianzus after his father's death, and to accept the unwelcome charge of the see of Constantinople. Gregory bitterly complained of his unscrupu- lous importunity, but yielded (Ep. 14, 15). In 383 Bosphorius was accused of unsound- ness in the faith — a charge which greatly distressed Gregory, who ^vrote urgently in his behalf to Theodore of Tyana, Nectari'us. and Eutropius {Ep. 225, 227, 164). Basil ad- dressed to him a letter denying the charge of having excommunicated his bp. Dianius {Ep. li.). He attended the second oecumenical council at Constantinople in 381 (Labbe, ii. 956). Palladius speaks with gratitude of the sympathy shewTi by him towards the bishops banished in 406 for adherence to Chrysos- tom's cause (Pallad. c. 20, p. 203). [e.v.] Briglda (5), v., abbess of Kildare— Feb. i, 523. The designation " Fierv Dart" seems peculiarly appropriate for " the Mary of Ireland," who, although her fame on the continent is eclipsed by the greater reputation there of her namesake the widow-saint of CAECILIA Sweden, yet stands forth in history with a very marked individuality, though the histories that have come down to us are mainly devoted to a narrative of the signs and wonders which God wTought by her. As to her Acts, Colgan has published six Lives in his Trias Thauma- turga, and the Bnllandists five. It is more difficult to trace the historical points in St. Bridget's life than to recount the legendary accretions which testify to a basis of fact, could we but find it after so many centuries. In the legend there is no little beauty, and in almost all we find an undercurrent of true human feeling and deep Christian discern- ment. (See some of them given at length in Bp. Forbes's Kal. Scott. Saints, 288 seq., from Boece. Breviary of Aberdeen, and Col- gan's Tr. Thaum. For a full and critical account of her life, see Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. i. 68, 335, and chaps, viii. and ix. passim ; Todd, Book of Hymns, i. 65 seq. ; O'Hanlon, Ir. Saints, ii. i seq. ; Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints, ii. 14 seq.) Her chief residence was the monastery of Kildare, " cella quercus," which she founded ; but affiliated houses of both men and women (" de utroque sexu ") were raised all over the country, she being abbess above all other abbesses, and the bishop with her at Kildare being similarly above all bishops in her other monasteries. Montalembert (Monks of the West, Edin. ii. 393-395) gives an account of St. Brigida and her monasteries, and places her birth at a.d. 467 and her death at a.d. 525. He says, "There are still 18 parishes in Ireland which bear the name of Kilbride or the Church of Bridget " (ib. ii. p. 395, n.). The Irish annals, however, vary as to the date of her death, but the most probable, and resting on highest authority, is a.d. 523 (O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scrip, iv. 13 ; Bp. Forbes. Kal. Scott. Saints, 287). In Scotland the cultus of this saint was very extensive, her dedications being chiefly found in the parts nearest to Ireland and under Irish influence. (For a short list see Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 290-291.) [a. p.p.] ^ I Caecilia (1), St., a Roman lady, one of < the four principal virgins and mart>TS of the : Western Church, who is commemorated in both the Latin and Greek churches on Nov. 22, but of whom we have hardly any authen- tic account. ', The veneration paid to her can be traced ; to a very early period. Her martyrdom and that of her three companions is referred to in nearly all the most ancient Latin breviaries ; and missals — e.g. in the Sacramentary of ' pope Gregory ; the breviary and missal of 1 Milan ascribed to St. Ambrose ; the Moz- arabic or Spanish liturgy, with proper prayers ' and prefaces ; and a grand office for her feast is contained in the Gallican missal, which is believed to have been in use in Gaul from the 6th cent, down to the time of Charlemagne. Her name appears in the Martyrology attri- , buted to Jerome, in that of Bede, and in all the others, and her mart\Tdom is placed at . Rome. Yet it is very difficult, says Tille- mont, to find her true place iu the chroaology. I CAECILIA The earliest writer who mentions her is For- tiinatus, bp. of Poictiers, at the end of the 6th cent., who states that she died in Sicily be- tween A.D. 1/6 and i8o, nnder the emperor M. Aurelius or Commodus. The Life of St. Caccilia by Symeon Metaphrastes, a hagio- f^rapher of the loth cent., makes her contem- porary with Urban, and places her martyrdom at Rome under Alexander Severus, c. 230 ; the Greek menologies place it under Diocle- tian (2S4-305). On the other hand, the Roman calendar drawn up at Rome under pope Liberius, c. a.d. 352-366, contains no mention of her. This, indeed, is not a com- plete list of martvrs, but a list of the chief feasts (Rossi, i. 116). Her body must, how- ever, have been there not long after this period ; for in the time of pope Symmachus (A.D. 498) there was a church of St. Caecilia at Rome, in which he held a council. The account of her life and martyrdom by Svmeon Metaphrastes, to be found in Surius, is of no authority. The narrative is full of marvels and improbabilities, and the internal evidence alone is quite sufficient to prove its legendary character, though some critics have of" late endeavoured to uphold its credibility, and to refer its compilation in its present form to the commencement of the 5th cent. (cf. Ceillier, //!s/. dcs Auteurs Sacres, vol. ii. Paris, I S59. and see below). There can be little doubt that these Acts of St. Caecilia were composed to be read in the church of the saint on the day of her feast. According to the legend, she was born at Rome of a noble family. She re- solved, from love to her Lord, to devote her- self to Him by a vow of perpetual virginity. Her parents wished her to marry Valerian, a young Roman, who at that time was not a Christian. She went through the marriage ceremonies ; but when alone with her young husband, told him of her vow, and Valerian allowed her to keep it. At her entreaty, he sought out the retreat of Urban, and received baptism at his hands. On returning to his spouse, wearing the white robe of a neophyte, he found her praying in her chamber, and an angel of God at her side. In answer to Valerian's prayer, the angel promised that his brother, Tiburtius, should become a Christian, and foretold that both brothers should receive the crown of martyrdom. In A.D. 230 Turcius Almachius, prefect of the city, took advantage of the emperor's absence to give free vent to his hatred of the Christians, and daily put many to death. Valerian and Tiburtius were soon brought before his tri- bunal. After being scourged, the two brothers were commanded to offer incense to the gods. On refusing, they were condemned to be be- headed and given in charge to Maximus. So moved was he by their exhortations that in the night he and all his family, together with the lictors, believed and were baptized. On the morrow his prisoners were beheaded at the place called Pagus Triopius on the Via Appia at the fourth mile from Rome. When the news reached the prefect that Maximus also had become a Christian, he ordered him to be scourged to death with leaden balls. Soon afterwards he sent his officers to Caecilia ind bade her sacrifice to the gods. As she refused, he commanded her to be shut up in CAECILIA 137 her bath, and that the furnace should be heated with wood seven times hotter than it was wont to be. But a heavenly dew falling upon tiic spouse of Christ refreshed and cooled her body, and preserved her from harm. A day and a night the prefect waited for news of her death. Then he sent one of his soldiers to behead her ; but though the sword smote her neck thrice, the executioner could not cut off her head, and he departed, leaving her on the floor of her bath bathed in blood. For three days longer she lived, never ceasing to exhort the people whom she loved to continue steadfast in the Lord, and watching over the distribution of her last alms. Having given her house to the church, she gave up her spirit into the hands of the living God. Urban and his deacons buried her in the cemetery of Calixtus on the Via Appia near the third mile- stone. Her house he consecrated to God as a church for ever. It is alleged that her body was found at Rome by pope Paschal I. (a.d. 821), in the cemetery of Praetextatus, adjoin- ing that of Calixtus on the Via Appia, and that it was removed by him to the church of St. Caecilia, which he was then rebuilding, and which stands, as is said, on the site of her house, at the extremity of the Trastevere. Here, it is said, her body was again dis- covered at the end of the'i6th cent, in the time of Clement VIII. Baronius has given a long account of the circumstances connected with this pretended discovery, of which he was a witness (s. ann. 821). The legend of this saint has furnished the subject of several remarkable pictures. The oldest representation of her is a rude picture or drawing on the wall of the catacomb called the cemetery of San Lorenzo, of the date probably of the 6th or 7th cent. (See d'Agin- court, plate xi.) In the 13th cent. Cimabue painted an altar-piece, representing different episodes in the life of the saint for the church dedicated to her at Florence. In both these she appears with the martyr's crown. In fact, before the 15th cent. St. Caecilia is seldom depicted with her musical instruments. She has generally the martyr's palm and the crown of red or white roses. When she came to be regarded as the patron saint of musicians is unknown, nor have we any record of her use of instruments of music. The most cele- brated representation of St. Caecilia as patroness of this art is the picture by Raphael {c. A.D. 1513), now in the gallery of Bologna. In 1584, in the time of pope Pius V., an academy of music was founded at Rome, and placed under the tutelage of St. Caecilia. Thenceforward she came to be more and more regarded as queen of harmony, and Dryden's well-known ode has rendered her familiar to us in this character. For a more detailed account, we may refer to the following : de Vitis Sanctorum, ed. Surius (Venice, 1581), torn. vi. p. 161, s.d. Nov. 22 ; Acta Sanctorum, by the Bollandists, s.d. April 14, p. 204; Baronii Annates s. an. A.D. 821; Tillemoat, vol. iii. pp. 259-689; S. Caeciliae Acta a Laderchio (Rome, 1722), 2 vols. 4to, incorporating the work of Bosio, with large additions ; Sacred and Legendary Art, by Mrs. Jameson, 3rd ed. (Lond. 1857), pp. 583-600; Ceillier, Histoire des Auteur$ 138 CAECILIANUS Sacres, vol. ii. (Paris, 1859); S. Cecile, par Dom. Gueranger (Paris, 1874). [t.d.c.m.] Here may be added the ingenious ex- planation, given by bp. Fitzgerald, of how St. Caecilia became regarded as the patron of music. She is described as steeling her heart at her marriage festi%'ities against all the allurements to sensual pleasure, and among these, special mention is made of the " sym- phonia instrumentorum " to which she refused to hearken; but " organis cantantibus die nuptiarum " she made melody in her heart to God, saying, " May my heart and body be undefiled." The necessities of the pictorial art demanded that each saint should be depicted with an appropriate and distinc- tive symbol. Bp. Fitzgerald suggests that St. Caecilia was hence represented in early pictures with the organ prominent in her Acts ; and that she was thence imagined to be a musician by those who did not under- stand that she was only represented with an organ as other saints are depicted with the instrument of torture by which they suffered. We may certainly believe that Dryden's " drew an angel dowTi " had its origin in a misunderstanding of pictures. The Acts relate that on her wedding night she told Valerianus that she was under the protection of an angel who would punish him if he did not respect her chastity, and whom he could see for himself if he would be baptized. This no doubt is the angel who appears in pictures of St. Caecilia, and there is no groimd for the idea that the angel came down to listen to her music. Erbes {Zeitschrift f. Kirchengeschichte, ix. i) thinks that the Acts of St. Caecilia are not earlier than the end of the 5th cent. They not only exhibit a use of St. Augustine's work on the Trinity which appeared in a.d. 416, but coincidences in language, as well as in substance, make it probable that the whole story of Caecilia is derived from the story of Martinianus and Maxima told bv Victor Vitensis, I. 30. This would bring down the date of the Acts to c. a.d. 490. Erbes remarks that the original day of commemoration of St. Caecilia was Sept. 16 : Nov. 22 really commemorates the dedication of the church of St. Caecilia, which probably took place under Sixtus III. between 434 and 440. Concerning the neighbourhood of the burial- place of St. Caecilia in the catacombs to that of certain popes, Erbes holds that in the year 236 a suitable burial-place was being prepared for the body of Pontianus, then brought from Sardinia, as well as for that of Anteros who had died in Rome, that the site was furnished by the Caecilian family, and that in order to make room for the two bishops the body of Caecilia was moved to an adjacent side chamber. As to how Caecilia suffered martjT- dom we have no authentic information, [g.s.] Caecilianus (2), first archdeacon, then (a.d. 311) bp., of Carthage. Of importance in connexion with the Donatist controversy. When archdeacon, he resolutely supported his bishop Mensurius in opposing the fanatical craving for martyrdom. The Christianity of N. Africa exhibited an extravagance in this respect which reached its height after Diocle- tian's persecution. Men courted death that CAECILIANUS they might be honoured as martyrs and con- fessors ; some, without doubt, in a spirit which commands our respect, but others in a spirit which fostered the supposition that the martyr's cross would wash away for eternity the misery, follies, sins, and crimes of a whole life. On the death of Mensurius, Caecilian was nominated as his successor. The part he had taken against the would-be martyrs was then brought up against him. The religious world of Carthage divided itself broadly into two sections, the moderate and rigoris'tic parties, or the supporters and opponents of the prin- ciples of Caecilian. At the head of the latter was a devout and wealthy lady named Lucilla, who had been severely rebuked by the archdeacon for superstitious veneration for mart>Ts' relics. The rigoristic party wished to fill the vacant see with one of their own followers. Caecilian's party hastened matters, and the archdeacon was consecrated by Felix, bp. of Aptunga ; whether in the presence of any Numidian bishops or not seems uncertain. Secundus, primate of Numidia and bp. of Tigisis, was presently invited to Carthage by the rigoristic party. He came, attended by 70 bishops, and cited Caecilian before them.' Felix of Aptunga was denounced as a " traditor " (i.e. one who had delivered up the sacred writings in his pos- session), and consequently it was claimed that any ordination performed by him was invalid. Caecilian himself was charged with unneces- sary and heartless severity to those who had visited the confessors in prison ; he was de- nounced as a " t>Tannus " and a " camifex." He declined to appear before an assembly so prejudiced ; but professed his willingness to satisfy them on all personal matters, and offered, if right was on their side, to lay down his episcopal office, and submit to re-osdina- tion. Secundus and the Numidian bishops answered by excommunicating him and his party, and ordaining as bishop the reader Majorinus, a member of LuciUa's household. The church of N. Africa now became a prey to schism. The party of Caecilian broke off from that of Majorinus, and the Christian world was scandalized by fulminations, ex- communications, invectives, charges, and countercharges. Both parties confidently an- ticipated the support of the state ; but Con- stantine, now emperor of this part of the Roman world, took the side of the Caecilianists. In his largesse to the Christians of the province, and in his edicts favourable to the church there, he expressly stipulated that the party of Majorinus should be excluded : their views were, in his opinion, the "madness" of men of " unsound mind." The rigoristic party appealed to the justice of the emperor, and courted full inquiry to be conducted in Gaul — at a distance, that is, from the spot where passions and convictions were so strong and one-sided. A council met a.d. 313 at Rome, in the Lateran, presided over by Melchiades (Miltiades), bp. of Rome, who had as his assessors the bishops of Cologne, Aries, and seventeen others. Caecilian appeared with ten bishops ; Donatus, bp. of Casae Nigrae, in Numidia, headed the party of Majorinus. The personal charges against CAESARIUS Caecilian were examined and dismissed, and his party proclaimed the representatives of the orthodox Catholic church ; Donatus him- self was declared to have violated the laws of the church, and his followers were to be allowed to retain their dignity and office only on condition of reunion with Caecilian's party. The bitterness of this decision was modified by Caecilian's friendly proposal of compromise ; but his advances were rejected, and the cry of injustice raised. It was wrong, the rigorists pleaded, that the opinion of twenty should overrule that of seventy ; and they demanded first that imperial commissioners should in- vestigate matters at Carthage itself, and that then a council should be summoned to examine their report, and decide upon its information. Constantine met their wish. Jurists went to Carthage, collected documents, tabulated the statements of witnesses, and laid their report before the bishops assembled (a.d. 314) at .Aries. This council, presided over by Marinus, bishop of the see, and composed of about 200 persons, was the most important ecclesiastical assembly the Christian world had yet seen ; and its decisions have been of permanent value to the church. As regarded Caecilian person- ally, the validity of his ordination was con- firmed, the charge raised against his conse- crator, Felix, being proved baseless ; and as regarded the general questions debated — such as traditorship, its proof or disproof ; ordina- tion by traditors, when valid or not ; baptism and re-baptism — canons of extreme import- ance were passed. [Arles, Synod of, in D. C. A.] The temper displayed by the victors was not calculated to soothe the conquered ; and an appeal was at once made from the council to the emperor himself. Constantine was irritated ; but, after some delay, ordered the discussion of the question before himself per- sonally. This occurred at Milan (a.d. 316). The emperor confirmed the previous decisions of Rome and Aries, and followed up his judgment by laws and edicts confiscating the goods of the party of Majorinus, depriving them of their churches, and threatening to punish their rebellion with death. From this time the schism in the N. African church lost its purely personal aspect, and became a stern religious contest on questions of discipline. [Donatism.] Caecilian lived to c. A.D. 345. (For authorities, etc., see Dona- tism.) [J.M.F.] Caesarius (2), St., of Nazianzus, physician, son of Gregory bp. of Nazianzus, brother of St. Gregory of the same place, and youngest of the family, born probably c. a.d. 330. His death occurred in a.d. 368 or 369. The name is simply a derivative from Caesar, originally adopted in compliment to the reigning family. Authorities. — The funeral oration by his brother, St. Gregory Nazianzen (the 7th, in some ed. the loth) ; two letters addressed by Gregory to Caesarius and one to the Praeses Sophronius (numbered 17, 18, 19, or, more commonly, 30, 51, 52), and a few lines in the Carmen de Vita Sua of the same. Photius, Btbliotheca Cod. 210 (p. 168 ed. Bekker, Berolini, 1824). L«/e.— According to the testimony of his brother, Caesarius owed much to the careful CAESARIUS training received from his parents. He be- took himself to Alexandria, " the workshop of every sort of education," for better instruc- tion in physical science than he could obtain in Palestine. There he behaved as a model student, being very careful in the matter of companionship, arid earnest in pursuit of knowledge, more especially of geometry and astronomy. This last-named science he studied, says his panegyrist, in such wise as to gain the good without the evil — a remark readily intelligible to those who are aware how deeply a fatalistic astrology was at that period associated with the study of astronomy. Refusing a post of honour and emolument at Byzantium, he came home for a time, but returned to the court and was much honoured by Julian. There is a slight, but not per- haps irreconcilable, discrepancy between the funeral oration delivered by Gregory and the letter (17 or 51) which Gregory addressed to his brother. The oration seems to depict Caesarius as from the first spurning all offers of Julian, but the letter severely rebukes Caesarius for becoming a member of the im- perial household, and taking charge of the treasury. Such a step is called a scandal in a bishop's son, and a great grief to his mother. Caesarius, however, finally avowed himself a Christian, and broke with Julian. His con- duct, together with that of Gregory, caused Julian to exclaim, "Oh happy father! oh unhappy sons ! " Under subsequent emperors, more especially under Valens, Caesarius more than regained his former honours, and became a quaestor of Bithynia. A remarkable escape from a terrible earthquake at Nicaea, appar- ently c. A.D. 367 or 368, to which many dis- tinguished men fell victims, induced Caesarius, at his brother's suggestion, to arrange for retirement from worldly cares. He received Baotism, and soon after died. The Uvareis or Quaestiones (sive Dialogi) de Rebus Divinis, attributed to this physician, may be safely ascribed to some Caesarius. But the name was not an uncommon one, and some considerations seem to shew that the author was not Caesarius of Nazianzus. Photius treats the supposed authorship as merely a current unexamined tradition, and the book refers to Maximus, who lived sub- sequently. [j.G.c] Caesarius (3), St., sometimes called of Chalons (Cabillonensis sen Cabellinensis) from his birth- place Chalons-sur-Saone ; but more usually known as Caesarius of Aries (Arelatensis) from his see, which he occupied for forty years. He was certainh' the foremost ecclesiastic in the Gaul of his own age. The date of his birth lies between a.d. 468 and 470 ; the date of his death is Aug. 27, 542. Authorities. — (i) The biography, written by his admiring disciple, St. Cyprian, bp. of Toulon (Tolonensis) with the aid of other ecclesiastics (ed. by d'Achery and Mabillon in the Acta Sanctorum Ord. S. Benedicti, Venet. 1733, tom. i. p. 636, et sqq., also in the Bol- landists' Acta Sanctorum under date of Aug. 27). (2) His will, first published by Baronius (Annal. tom. vi. ad ann. 508) from archives preserved at Aries ; also given by Surius, I.e. ; a document of some interest for the student of Roman law, but thought by 140 CAESARIUS Brugsch (archives o*f the Society of Ancient History) to be a forgery of Hincmar of Rheims. (3) Acts of various councils, over all of which Caesarius presided (Labbe, Concilia, torn. ii. pp. 995-1098, ed. Parisiis, 1714). (4) The Regula ad Monachos and Regula ad Virgines, drawn up by him for a monastery and a con- vent of his own foundation (ed. by Holstenius in his Codex Regularum, and by P. de Cointe in his Annales Ecdesiastici Francorum). Tri- themius, fixing the date of Caesarius much too late, fell into the error of supposing him to be a Benedictine. (5) His sermons. Of these 40 were pubd. at Basle in 1558 ; 46 in a Bibliotheca Patrmn, ed. at Leyden in 1677 ; 14 more in another Bihl. Pair, of (iallandi, Venice 1776 (cf. Oudin in Comment, de Script. Eccles. vol. i. p. 1339) ; and 102, formerly ascribed to St. Augustine, are by the Bene- dictine editors assigned to Caesarius (Appen- dix to tom. V. of the works of St. Augustine). Others have been separately pubd. by Baluz ; but Neander justly remarks that a complete collection of his sermons, conveying so much important information respecting the charac- ter of Caesarius and his times, still remains a desideratum [Church Hist. vol. v. p. 4, note). Cf. also A. Malnory, St. Cesaire, eveque d' Aries (Paris, 1894) ; Arnold, Cesarius von Arelate, (Leipz. 1894). Life. — Caesarius was born at Chalons of pious parents. His sister Caesaria afterwards presided over the convent which he founded, and to her he addressed his Regula ad Virgines. At the age of thirteen he betook himself to the famous monastery of Lerins (Lerinum), where he rapidly became master of all which the learning and discipline of the place could impart. Having injured his health by austerities, he was sent to Aries (Arelate) to recruit. There the bp. Eonus, having made his acquaintance, ordained him deacon and then presbyter. For three years he presided over a monastery in Aries ; but of this building no vestige is now left. At the death of Eonus the clergy, citizens, and persons in authority proceeded, as Eonus himself had suggested, to elect Caesarius, sincerely against his own wish, to the vacant see. He was consecrated in a.d. 502, being probably about 33 years of age. In the fulfil- ment of his new duties he was courageous and unworldly, but yet exhibited great power of kindly adaptation. He took great pains to induce the laity to join in the sacred offices, and encouraged inquiry into points not made clear in his sermons. He also bade them study Holy Scripture at home, and treat the word of God with the same reverence as the sacraments. He was specially zealous in redeeming captives, even selling church ornaments for this purpose. A notary named Licinianus accused Caesar- ius to Alaric as one who desired to subjugate the civitas of Aries to the Burgundian rule. Caesarius was exiled to Bordeaux, but was speedily, on the discovery of his innocence, allowed to return. He interceded for the life of his calumniator. Later, when Aries was besieged by Theodoric, apparently c. a.d. 512, he was again accused of treachery and im- prisoned. An interview with the Ostrogothic king at Ravenna in a.d. 513 speedily dispelled CAESARIUS these troubles, and the remainder of his epis- copate was passed in peace. The directions of Caesarius for the conduct of monks and nuns have been censured as pedantic and minute. They certainly yielded to the spread of the rising Benedictine rule, but must be judged by their age and in the light of the whole spirit of monasticism. As the occupant of an important see, the bishop of Aries exercised considerable influ- ence, official as well as personal. Caesarius was liberal in the loan of sermons, and sent suggestions for discourses to priests and even bishops living in Spain, Italy, Gaul, and France [i.e. the province known as the Isle of France). The great doctrinal question of his age and country was that of semi- Pelagian- ism. Caesarius, though evidently a disciple of St. Augustine, displayed in this respect considerable independence of thought. His vigorous denial of anything like predestination to evil has caused a difference in the honour paid to hismemory, according as writers incline respectively towards the Jesuit or Jansenist views concerning divine grace. The most important local council over which Caesarius presided was that of Orange. Its statements on the subject of grace and free agency ha\'e been justly eulogized by modern historians (see, e.g., Canon Bright's Church History, ch. xi. ad fin.). The following pro- positions are laid down in canon 25 : " This also do we believe, in accordance with the Catholic faith, that after grace received through baptism, all the baptized are able and ought, with the aid and co-operation of Christ, to fulfil all duties needful for salvation, provided they are willing to labour faithfully. But that some men have been predestinated to evil by divine power, we not only do not believe, but if there be those who are willing to believe so evil a thing, we say to them with all abhorrence anathema. This also do we profess and believe to our soul's health, that in every good work, it is not we who begin, and are afterwards assisted by Divine mercy, but that God Himself, with no preceding merits on our part, first inspires within us faith and love." On the express ground that these doctrines are as needful for the laity as for the clergy, certain distinguished laymen (illustres ac magnifici viri) were invited to sign these canons. They are accordingly sub- scribed by 8 laymen, and at least 12 bishops, including Caesarius. [Pelagianism.] As a preacher, Caesarius displayed great knowledge of Holy Scripture, and was emin- ently practical in his exhortations. Besides reproving ordinary vices of humanity, he had often to contend against lingering pagan superstitions, as auguries, heathen rites on the calends, etc. His sermons on O.T. are not critical, but dwell on its typical aspects. Some rivalry appears to have existed in the 6th cent, between the sees of Aries and Vienne, but was adjusted by pope Leo, whose adjustment was confirmed by Symmachus. Caesarius was in favour at Rome. A book he wrote against the semi- Pelagians, entitled de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, was sanctioned by pope Felix ; and the canons passed at Orange were approved by Boniface II. The learned antiquary Tbomassin believed him to have CAESARIUS been the first Western bishop who received a pall from the pope. Guizot, in his Civilisa- tion en Frame, cites part of one of his sermons as that of a representative man ; while Neande£ has nothing but eulogy for his " un- wearied, active, and pious zeal, ready for (verv sacrifice in the spirit of love," and his moderation on the controversy concerning scmi-Pclagianism. This is indeed the great glorv of Caesarius. He more than anticipates the famous picture drawn by Chaucer of a teacher, earnest, sincere, and humble, but never sparing reproof where needed. [j.g.c] Caesarius (7). Among the works attributed to Chrvsostom is a treatise entitled ad Caesar- tiiiii Moiiachum Epistola contra Apollinaristas. We onlv possess it in a Latin translation, though a few fragments of the Greek original are found in Anastasius and John Damascene and elsewhere. This tract, the literary history of which is very curious, is of disputed authenticity. If it is genuine, Caesarius had embraced a religious life from his childhood and become a monk ; his piety had secured Chrvsostom's affection, and at one time he had lived with him. Meeting with some ApoUinarists, he purchased a book by Apolli- narius which led him eagerly to embrace those views. The intelligence caused great grief to Chrysostom, then in exile at Cucusus, who sent him this letter to refute the Apolli- narian heresy. It contains a celebrated passage illlustrating the doctrine of the two distinct natures in the one person of Jesus Christ by reference to the holy Eucharist, in which he speaks of the nature of bread as remaining in that which by the sanctifying grace of God is freed from the appellation of bread and thought worthy to be called the body of the Lord. This passage was adduced in controversy about the year 1548 by Peter Mart\T, who deposited a transcript of it in archbp. Cranmer's library. After Cranmer's death this document was lost, and Martyr was accused of having forged it (Perron, de I'Euchar. 381-3). His reputation was cleared by the rediscovery by Emeric Bigot, in a Florentine library, of doubtless the very MS. which Martyr, himself a Florentine, had used. Bigot in 1680 printed the epistle with Palla- dius's Life of Chrysostom. Previous to pub- lication, through the influence of two censors of the Sorbonne, Louis XIV. ordered the leaves containing the letter to be cancelled. For an account of the mutilation see Mend- hdiva'slndex of Pope Gregory XVI. xxxii.-xxxiv. But Bigot having made known his discovery to literary friends, Allix (preface to Anastasius in Hexaemeron, 1682) protested against the suppression, and the cancelled leaves were printed bv le Moyne, Varia Sacra, 1683, by Wake, 1686, and by Basnage, 1687. The Jesuit Harduin published the epistle in 1689, accepting it as Chrysostom's, and vindicating the consistency of its doctrine with that of his church. It is accepted as genuine by Tillemont and Du Pin. The genuineness was first assailed by Le Quien (1712) in the preface to his edition of John of Damascus, and his arguments were adopted and enlarged by Montfaucon. Maffei found a Greek fragment also at Florence, professing to be from Chry- sostom, the first sentence of which is identical CAIUS 141 with one in this letter, but proceeding to illus- trate its doctrine by two similes not found in the Latin. The extract was printed by Basnage in Canisius's Lectiones Antiquae (.\ntwerp, 1725), pp. 283-287. The second paragraph may be taken from a different work, but the MS. gives no indication of a change of author. Perhaps the Latin does not re- present the whole of the letter. Against the genuineness it is urged that Caesarius is not mentioned elsewhere by Chrysostom, though the letter implies that they had been intimate from youth ; that the style (if so little of the Greek allows us to judge) is rugged and abrupt, and the tone more scholastic than is common with Chrysostom ; that the earliest Greek author who quotes it as Chrysostom's is of the 7th cent., though we should expect it to have been used in the Eutychian disputes, and quoted in the Acts of the 4th, 5th, and 6th councils. Le Quien also urged that lan- guage is used which is not heard of until employed by Cyril of Alexandria in contro- versy with Nestorius. Montfaucon, however, has produced precedents for much of this language from Athanasius, and has clearly proved that the letter was directed not against Eutychianism, but against Apollinarianism ; and with much probability he identifies the work assailed with a work of Apollinarius quoted by Eulogius (ap. Photium, Cod. 230, p. 849). This being so, we are more inclined to accept the letter as written while the ApoUinarian disputes were raging than, as Montfaucon conjectures, forged a century or two afterwards for use in the Eutychian controversy, since one of the arguments against its genuineness is that there is no evidence that it ever was so used. On the controversy as to the genuineness, see the authorities referred to by Fabricius, Bibl. Gr., ed. Harles, i. 699 ; Chrys. iii. 747-760, and xiii. 496, ed. Migne ; iii. 736-746, ed. Mont- faucon ; Tillemont, vii. 629, and xi. 340-343 ; Routh, Opuscula, ii. (479-488). [e.v.] Cainites. [Carpocrates.] Caius (2), an ecclesiastical writer at the beginning of the 3rd cent., according to late authority, a presbyter of the Roman church. Eusebius mentions but one work of his, to which he refers four times (H. E. ii. 25, iii. 28, 31, vi. 20), and from which he gives some short extracts. This was a dialogue pur- porting to be a report of a disputation held at Rome during the episcopate of Zephyrinus (a.d. 201-219) between Caius and Proclus, a leader of the sect of Montanists. [Proclus.] This dialogue is mentioned by the following writers, who may, however, have only known it from the account given by Eusebius : — Hieron. de Vir. III. 59 ; Theod. Haer. Fab. ii. 3 ; iii. 2, where the present text, doubtless by a transcriber's error, reads Patroclus in- stead of Proclus (Niceph. Call. H. E. iv. 12, 20 ; Photius, Bibl. 48). Only the last of these attributes any other work to Caius. Theo- doret says that he wrote against Cerinthus, but is probably referring to a part of the dialogue in question. In the short fragments preserved, Proclus defends the prophesyings of his sect by appeal- ing to the four daughters of Philip, who with their father were buried at Hicrapolis ; Caius, 142 CAIUS on the other hand, offers to shew his anta gonist at the Vatican and on the Appian Way the tombs of the apostles " who founded th church." That Caius should have conducted a disputation at Rome does not of itself prove that he, any more than Proclus, permanently resided there. Yet the expression cited con- veys the impression that he did ; and Eusebius was apparently of that opinion, for elsewhere (vi. 20), having mentioned that Caius only counted St. Paul's epistles as thirteen, omit- ting that to the Hebrews, he adds that even in his own time " some of the Romans " did not ascribe that epistle to the apostle. It is just possible that we are still in possession of the list of genuine apostolic v\Titings which Eusebius (I.e.) intimates that Caius gave, in order to rebuke the rashness of his opponents in framing new Scriptmres. Muratori attri- buted to Caius the celebrated fragment on the canon published by him, which concludes with a rejection of Montanist documents. [MuRATORiAN FRAGMENT.] But it is difficult to believe that if this were the list referred to by Eusebius, he would not have quoted it more fully. Among the heretical writings rejected by Caius was a book of Revelations (Eus. ii. 25) purporting to be WTitten by a great apostle and ascribed by Caius to Cerin- thus, in which the author professes to have been shewn by angels that after the resurrec- tion Christ's kingdom should be earthly, that men should inhabit Jerusalem, should be the slaves of lusts and pleasures, and should spend a thousand years in marriage festivities. The strongest reason for thinkmg that the book intended is the canonical book of the Revela- tion is that Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25) asserts that some of his predecessors had maintained that the Apocalypse is the work of Cerhithus, and describes their views in language strongly resembling that of Caius. There had been much speculation respect- ing Caius himself (s.v. D. C. B. 4-vol. ed.) ; and Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers (Clement of Rome, vol. ii. p. 377), questions his existence. But Dr. Gwynn, of Dublin, pub. in Herma- thena VI. some fragments of Capita adv. Caium, written by Hippolytus, which he had discovered in Cod. Mus. Brit. Orient. 560. These passages shew that he had attacked the Apocalypse of St. John, and treated the book as inconsistent with the Holy Scriptures. Harnack (Herzog.3) thinks it not improbable that he had treated the Apocalypse as a work of Cerinthus ; and as he would be at one in this opinion with the Alogi of Asia Minor, a connexion between him and them may be supposed. Nothing more is known with certainty of him (cf. Zahn, Gesch. des N. T. Kanons, ii. 985 seq.). [g.s. and ed.] Caius (3). Pope from Dec. 17 (16 ?) a.d. 283 {9 or 10 days after the death of his predecessor Eutychianus), to Apr. 22, a.d. 296, i.e. for 12 years 4 months i week (Pontifical, Bucher, p. 272), but only for 11 years according to Anastasius (c. 24) and to most Latins, and for 15 years according to Eusebius, who speaks of him as a contemporary [H. E. vii. 32 ; Chron. 284). He is probably the same as Caius the deacon, imprisoned With pope Stephen, a.d. 257 (Anastas. c. 24). Just as he was raised to the chair, the stern old Roman Carus died CALANDIO mysteriously in a thunderstorm in the East, and his profligate son Carinus succeeded to the empire at Rome. These events would seem to make a persecution, such as is assigned to this period by various martyr Acts, not in itself improbable, and though the Acts in question are untrustworthy (see Tillemont, iv. 565), we are hardly justified in taking Eusebius for a witness to the contrary, a£ far as concerns the West. The probability is confirmed by the delay of the funeral of Eutychianus tiU July 25, 284 (v. Rossi, ii. 378). The persecution is not represented as general, but as aimed at a few obnoxious de- votees, and Caius does not appear as leading, accompanying, or inciting them, but only as exercising a fatherly supervision. Probably the persecution continued for some time under Diocletian. The early Pontifical, as well as Anastasius, makes Caius of Dalmatian origin and cousin to this emperor. The Acts of St. Susanna confirm this, but are untrustworthy (Till. iv. 760). Caius is said in the early Pon- tifical to have avoided persecution by hiding in the crypts. During his latter years the Church must have enjoyed peace. He is said by Anastasius to have established the 6 orders of usher, reader, exorcist, subdeacon, deacon, and presbyter, as preliminary stages necessary before attaining the episcopate, and also to have divided Rome into regions assigned to the deacons. He is said to have sent Protus and Januarius on a mission to Sardinia (Mart. Rom. Baron. Oct. 25). He died in peace according to the 6th-cent. Pontifical, and is not called a martyr by any one earlier than Bede and Anastasius. He was succeeded by Marcellinus. A decretal is ascribed to him. From a confusion between the calends of March and of May in the Mart. Hieron., Rabanus assigns his death, and Notker his burial, to Feb. 20 (Rossi, ii. 104). His com- memoration on July I in the Mart. Hieron. is unexplained (ib. p. 105). He was the last of the 12 popes buried in the crypt of Sixtus, in the cemetery of Callistus (ib. p. 105). He is therefore mentioned again, Aug. 9, at which date a copy of the inscription set up by Sixtus III. was placed in the margin of the ancient mart>Tology (ib. pp. 33-46). [e.b.b.] Calandlo orCalendIo (Ka\av5iuv), succeeded Stephen II. as bp. of Antioch, a.d. 481. He owed his promotion to the episcopate to the emperor Zeno and Acacius, bp. of Constanti- nople ; but the exact circumstances of his appointment are uncertain. There is a large body of evidence (not, however, to be admitted without grave question) that Calandio's elec- tion was of the same uncanonical character as that of his predecessor in the see [Stephen II.] ; and that being at Constantinople on business connected with the church of Antioch at the time of the vacancy of the see, he was chosen bishop, and ordained by Acacius ; but the letter of pope Simplicius to Acacius, dated July 15, a.d. 482, conveying his sanction of Calandio's election (Labbe, Cone. iv. 1035). suggests a possible confusion between the election of Calandio and of Stephen II. Calandio commenced his episcopate by excommunicating his theological opponents. He refused communion with aU who declined to anathematize Peter the Fuller. Timothy CALUGONUS the Weasel, and the Encyclic of Basiliscus cuademning the decisions of the council of Chalcedou (Evagr. H. E. iii. lo ; Niceph. H. E. XV. 28). He is reported to have endeavoured to counteract the Monophysite bias given to the Trisagion by Peter the Fuller in the addition of the words 6 (XTavpwOeis 5t" 7}/j.3.s, by prefixing the clause Xpiare HacriXei) (Theod. Lector, p. 556 b.) Calandio translated the remains of Eustathius, the banished bp. of Antioch, with the permission of Zeno, from Philippi in Macedonia, where he had died, to his own city — a tardy recognition of the falsehood of the charges against Eustathius, which had the happy result of reuniting to the church the remains of the party that still called itself by his name (Theod. Lector, p. 577; Theophanes, p. 114). Calandio fell into disfavour and was banished by the Em- peror Zeno, at the instigation of Acacius, to the African Oasis, a.d. 485, where, probably, he died. The charge against him was that of having erased from the diptychs the name of Zeno, as the author of the Heiioticon ; and of having favoured Illus and Leontius in their rebellion, a.d. 4S4. But the real cause of his deposition was the theological animosity of Acacius, whom he had offended by writing a letter to Zeno accusing Peter Mongus of adul- tery, and of having anathematized the decrees of the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. ii. 16 ; Liberatus Diaconus, Breviar. c. xviii. ; Gelasius, Ep. xiii. ad Dardan. Episc. ; Labbe, iv. 1208-1209, XV. ad Episc. Orient, ib. 1217). On his deposition, the victorious Peter the Fuller was recalled to occupy the see of Antioch. ' [e.v.] Calligonus, eunuch and chamberlain to Valentinian IL, insulted Ambrose, a.d. 385 (Ambr. Ep. xx. (i), iii. p. 859). He conveyed a message, or reported a saying, of the em- peror's, and added, " While I am alive, dost thou contemn Valentinian ? I will remove thy head from off thee." Ambrose answered, " God grant thee to fulfil thy threat ; for I shall suffer what bishops suffer, and thou wilt do what eunuchs do. And would that God would avert them from the church, that they might turn all their weapons on me." Calli- gonus was afterwards put to death on a peculiarly infamous charge (Augustine, contra Julianum, vi. 14, vol. x. 845). Tillemont (x. 175) supposes that these events were in the mind of Ambrose when he wrote the 6th chapter of his book on Joseph. This is very probable, but the further inference that that book was WTitten two years later seems wholly erroneous. The event that occurred after two years was the usurpation of Maximus. It is possible that Ambrose encountered two eunuchs. Cf. also de Broglie, VEglise et VEmpire, vi. 173. [e.b.b.] Callistus (1) (i. q. formosissimus ; later spelt Calistus, but Calixtus first in nth cent., Bunsen's Hippolytus, i. 131, note), the suc- cessor of pope Zephyrinus in a.d. 218, said to have been a Roman, and the son of Domitius. Nothing was known of Callistus, except that the Martyrologium Romanum contained a tradition of his martyrdom, till the discovery of the Philosophumena in 1850. This work, which first appeared under the name of Origen, but is now ascribed to Hippolytus, CALLISTUS 143 almost certainly the contemporary bp. of Portus, gives an account of the life of Callistus which is scarcely credible respecting one of the bishops of Rome, who had before been honoured as a saint and martyr. According- ly, much controversy has sprung up round the names of Callistus and Hippolytus. H Hippo- lytus is to be believed, Callistus was an unprincipled adventurer ; if Callistus can be defended, grave doubt is thrown upon the veracity of Hippolytus. Bunsen and Words- worth adopt the former view ; Dollinger the latter, in an ingenious treatise translated by Dr. Plummer (T. &. T. Clark, 1876). The story as told by Hippolytus is lifelike and natural, and, however much we may allow for personal rancour, we cannot but believe it to be substantially true. He tells us that Callistus was originally a slave in the household of a rich Christian called Carpophorus. His master intrusted to his charge a bank in the Piscina Publica, where Callistus induced his fellow-Christians to deposit their savings upon the security of the name of Carpophorus. The bank broke, and Callistus fled, but Carpophorus tracked him to Portus, and found him on board an out- ward-bound ship. The slave threw himself overboard in despair, but was picked up, and delivered to his master, who brought him back and put him to the pistrinum, or mill worked by the lowest slaves, for a punishment. After a time, however, he was set at liberty, and again attempted suicide, and for this purpose raised a riot in a synagogue of the Jews. By them he was brought before Fuscianus, the praefectus urbi, who, in spite of the fact that Carpophorus claimed him as his slave, condemned him, as a disturber of public worship allowed by the Roman laws, to be sent to the mines of Sardinia {Philoso- phumena, ed. Miller, pp. 286, 287). His supposed desire for death certainly seems an inadequate motive for raising the riot in the Jewish synagogue. Dollinger supposes that, while claiming his debts at the hands of members of the Jewish synagogue, his zeal for religion impelled him to bear witness for Christ, and that thus his exile to Sardinia was a species of martjTdom for Christianity (Dollinger, Hippolytus u. Kallis- tus, p. 119). The date of his exile is proxi- mately fixed, since Fuscianus served the office of praefectus urbi between a.d. 188 and a.d. 193 (Bunsen's Hippolytus, i. 138). Some time after, proceeds Hippolytus, Marcia, the Christian mistress of Commodus, persuaded the emperor to grant an amnesty to Christians undergoing punishment in Sardinia ; and Callistus, at his own entreaty, was released, although his name was not on the list (supplied by the then bp. Victor) of those intended to benefit by Marcia's clemency. Callistus re- appeared in Rome, much to the annoyance of Victor, for the outrage on the synagogue was recent and notorious. He therefore sent him to Antium, making him a small monthly allowance {Philosophumena, p. 288). Milman dates this c. a.d. 190, in the very year of Victor's accession {Lat. Christ, i. 55, note). That Carpophorus's runaway slave should be of such importance that the pope should buy him off with an allowance, and insist upon 144 CALLISTUS his residing at a distance, shews that Callistus was already thought to he no ordinary man. He must have resided at Antium for a long time ; for Zephyrinus, who did not succeed Victor till A.D. 202, recalled him. The new bishop " gave him the control of the clergy, and set him over the cemetery " {Phil. p. 288). This suggests that Callistus had been ordained at Antium ; and the words " set him over the cemetery" {els to KOifj.r]Tripiov Kar^ffTijaev) have a special interest ; for one of the largest catacombs in Rome is known as the Coe- meterium Sti. Calixti. That this should have been intrusted to the same man to whom also was given the control of the clergy proves what a high value was set upon this first public burial-place of the Christians in Rome. Thirteen out of the next eighteen popes are said to have been buried here ; and the names of seven of the thirteen (Callistus himself being one of the exceptions) have been identified from old inscriptions found in one crypt of this cemetery. Now (a.d. 202) for the first time Callistus became a power in the Roman church. To Hippolytus, who held a double position in that church [Hippolytus], he became especi- ally obnoxious. Being set over the Roman clergy, he was over Hippolytus, who was the presbyter of one of the Roman cardines or churches ; but as a presbyter himself, he was inferior ecclesiastically to one who was also the bp. of Portus. Hippolytus claims to have detected Callistus's double-dealing from the first ; but tells us that Callistus, aspiring to be bp. of Rome himself, would break openly with neither party. The question which now divided the church was that of the Monarchia, or how to reconcile the sovereignty of the Father with the Godhead of the Son. Cal- listus, who had obtained a complete ascend- ancy over the mind of Zephyrinus, according to Hippolytus an ignorant and venal man, took care to use language now agreeing with the Sabellians, now with Hippolytus. But he personally sided with Sabellius, called Hippolytus a Ditheist, and persuaded Sabel- lius, who might otherwise have gone right, to coalesce with the JMonarchians. His motive, says Hippolytus, was that there might be two parties in the church which he could play off against each other, continuing on friendly terms with both {Phil. p. 289). We find from Tertullian that Zephyrinus began, no doubt under Callistus's influence, the relaxation of discipline which he himself afterwards carried further when he became bishop. Under Zephyrinus the practice first obtained of allowing adulterers to be re- admitted after public penance {de Pudicitid, i. 21 ; Dollinger, pp. 126-130). Zephyrinus died in a.d. 218, and Callistus was elected bishop instead ; and Hippolytus does not scruple to avow that by this act the Roman church had formally committed itself to heresy. He regards his own as the orthodox church, in opposition to what he henceforth considers as only being the Callistian sect {Phil. pp. 289, 292). Yet the first act apparently of Callistus as bishop was towards conciliating his rival. He threw off, perhaps actually excoramimicated (djr^wo-e), Sabellius. But he only did this, says Hippolytus, to CAPRASIUS proclaim a heresy quite as deadly as the other. If he is to be believed, he is right in thus characterizing it. The Father and the Son, Callistianism said, were one ; together they made the Spirit, which Spirit took flesh in the womb of the Virgin. Callistus, says Hippolytus indignantly, is as Patripassian as Sabellius, for he makes the Father suffer with the Son, if not as the Son {ib. pp. 289-330). Hippolytus brings against him several other grave accusations of further relaxing the bonds of church discipline {ib. pp. 290, 291) — e.g. (i) He relaxed the terms of readmission into the church : accounting no sin so deadly as to be incapable of readmission, and not exacting penance as a necessary preliminary. {2) He relaxed the terms of admission into orders, ordaining even those who had been twice or thrice married ; and permitting men already ordained to marry freelv. (3) He also re- laxed the marriage laws of the church, thereby bringing them into conflict with those of the state; and Hippolytus says that a general immorality was the consequence. Dollinger, however, pertinently observes that Hippolytus ] does not even hint a charge of personal im- ; morality against Callistus (Dollinger, Hippo- ■ lytus und Kallistus, p. 195). (4) He allowed ; second baptisms, which perhaps means that ; a repetition of baptism was substituted for ', the penance which had been necessary at the \ readmission of grievous sinners into the • church. This is the only accusation which . Dollinger meets with a distinct contradiction, on the ground that no such practice was known in the later Roman church (p. 189). Yet it i surely is not as inconceivable as it seemed to , him that later bishops of Rome might have , reversed the acts of their predecessor. Callistus is said to have died in a.d. 223 (Eus. H. E. vi. 20). Tradition tells us that ; he was scourged in a popular rising, thrown | out of a window of his house in Trastevere, ; and flung into a well. This would account for 1 no epitaph being found to Callistus in the 1 papal crypt of his own cemetery in the cata- • combs. E. Rolffs, in Texte und Untersuch. 1 (1893), xi. 3 ; P. Battifol, Le Decret de Callist. i in Etudes d'Hist. etde Thiol. (Paris, 1902), pp. j 69 seq. [g.h.m.] Caprasius (2), St., presbyter at Lerins (I'lsle ■ de St. Honorat). Having a great desire to become a hermit, he distributed his goods to the poor and with St. Honoratus ultimately fixed on the isle of Lerins, described as a frightful desert where nothing was to be seen , but serpents and other venomous creatures. • There Honoratus built a monastery, into which he received many monks from the neighbouring countries. It was under the \ discipline of Caprasius and Honoratus, who ' are said to have made it the home of saints. 1 Hilarius describes their new monastery as being distinguished for chastity, faith, wisdom, justice, truth. They also built in the island a church, of which Honoratus became minister. Caprasius died c. 430, and is commemorated on June i. (Acta Sanctorum, Jun. i, p. 77 ; Hilar. Arelat. de Vita S. Honorati, cap. ii. Patr. ■ Lat.l.p. 1255; EucheTiusLugd. de Laud. Eremi, 42, Patr. Lat. 1. p. 711 ; Sidonius ApoU Carm. • § 384, Patr. Lat. Iviii. p. 721 ; Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs S acres et Eccles. t. viii. p. 439.) [c.h.J ' CAPREOLUS Capreolus, bp. of Carthage, known in con- nexion with the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. N. Africa at that time being ravaged by the Vandals under Genseric, it was impossible to convene the bishops to appoint representatives from the church of Carthage at the council. The bishop, however, in his zeal for the catholic doctrine, dispatched an elaborate letter in its defence, which is extant, both in Greek and Latin. There is also extant an- other letter by Capreolus on this controversy, written in answer to inquiries addressed to him from Spain, by Vitalis and Constantius. Both letters are iii Migne, vol. liii. p. 843. Also a fragment of the letter which he addressed to Theodosius, who convoked the council, is quoted by Ferrandus in his letter to Pelagius and .\natolius, c. 6, Pair. Migne, Ixvii. 925. The Sermo de Tempore Barbarico, .11 the Vandal invasion of Africa, usually attributed to St. Augustine, and other ser- mons in which Augustine describes the Vandal ravages, are considered byTillemont (xvi. 502) to have been written by Capreolus (Hardouin, i. 1419-1422 ; Fleury, xxv. 41 ; Till. xii. 559, xiii. 901, xiv. 376. '399. xvi. 495, 502, 789), but this is doubtful. [d.b.] Tillemont supposes Capreolus to have suc- ceeded to the see of Carthage shortly before the death of Augustine (430), as the letter convoking the council of Ephesus seems to have been addressed to him and to Augustine (xii. 559). Another object of his letter to Ephesus was to implore the council not to re- open the question of the Pelagian heresy. When his letter was read, Cyril and all the bishops exclaimed, " That is what we all say ; that is what we all wish." and they ordered it to be inserted in the Acts of the council (Vine. Lerin. c. 31 ; Labbe, Cone. iii. 529). He is probably the " priest " in Africa in the time of Aspar, mentioned in the Book of Promises, ascribed to Prosper (i. 4, c. 6). It is instructive to note the importance that he attaches to the descent of the God-man into Hades. Chaps. 5-12 are taken up with answering the new error. He quotes Ps. xvi. 10 ; John X. 18 ; I. Cor. ii. 7, 8 ; II. Cor. v. 18, 19 ; Heb. i. 2, 3 ; Col. ii. 15 ; Heb. x. 28-30 ; John XX. 17. He does not quote John xvi. 32, but says (c. 13) that it would be endless to adduce all scripture testimonies. His answer to the argument from Ps. xxii. i is drawn from the latter half of the verse (as it is in the LX.\ and \'ulgate, which are not improbably right), " Far from my health are the words of my failings," and based on the mystery of the union of the two natures, " that human con- dition should know itself" (c. 5). The death of Capreolus is generally dated c. A.D. 435. His burial was commemorated in the calendar of Carthage between July 21 and 30 ; the note of the day is lost, [e.b.b.] Caracalla, the nickname of M. Aurelius Severus Antoninus Bassianus, son of Lucius Septimius Severus, born April 4, 188, declared Caesar a.d. 196, three years after his father's accession ; succeeded to the empire in con- junction with his brother Geta, Feb. 211, sole emperor after slaying his brother in his mother's arms a.d.' 212, in Gaul 213, in Ger- many and on the Danube 214, at Antioch and Alexandria 215, marched against Parthia 216, CARACALLA 145 killed on the way from Edessa to Carrhae, April 8, 217. His mother, according to con- temporary authorities, was Julia, a Syrian woman, whom Severus had married because of certain prophecies. Spartianus, in the time of Constantine, assures us that Julia was his stepmother, and that his mother was Severus's first wife Marcia. This would make his story somewhat less horrible, but compels the historian at the cost of some inconsistency to refer his birth to 174, or earlier. The principal authorities are TertuUian, ad- dressing Scapula, governor of Africa, in 211 ; the sober, contemporary, and apparently im- partial, narrative of Herodian (bks. vii. viii.) ; the abridgment, by the very late compiler Xiphilinus, of the 77th book of the contem- porary historian Dion Cassius, with which the compiler seems to have incorporated fragments of other works of a like early date ; the narra- tive written for Constantine by Lampridius Spartianus in the Historia Augusta ; laws, coins, inscriptions (see Clinton), and especially a record in the Digest, bk i, tit. 5, 1. 17, from the 22nd book of Ulpian. Dion charges him with inheriting all the worst features of the races from which he sprang ; on his father's side, the braggart levity of the Gaul and the truculence of the African ; on his mother's, the tricksiness of the Syrian. TertuUian (ad Scap. c. 4) calls him Antoninus, and informs us that " his .father Severus had a regard for Christians ; . . . and Antoninus . . . was brought up on Christian milk. And, moreover, Severus knew most illustrious men and most illustrious women to be of this sect, and not only did not hurt, but honoured [exornavit or, more pro- bably, exoneravit, exonerated] them by the wit- ness he bore them, and withstood the raging populace." It has been inferred that the young prince was not only brought up amid Christian influences, but had a Christian wet-nurse. We can easily conceive how injurious it must have been for the child to find the Christians in the palace screened, while yet he was taken to see shows of wild beasts where Christians were thrown to them to devour. Spartianus tells us that he was a most charming child, quick at learning, engaging with his prattle, and of a very tender heart. " If he saw condemned criminals thrown to the beasts, he cried, or looked away, which more than won the hearts of the people. At seven years of age, when he heard that a boy that was his playmate had been severely beaten for Jewish superstition, it was a long while before he would look at his own father or the boy's father again, or at the people who had him flogged. By his own in- tercession he restored their ancient rights to the people of Antioch and Byzantium, who had helped Niger against his father. It was for his cruelty that he took an aversion to Plautianus. But all this was only while he was a boy [sed haec puer]." The " Jewish superstition " has been interpreted, with great probability, to mean Christianity. The Plautianus men- tioned was, teste Herodian, a vile tyrant, all- powerful with Severus, whose daughter Cara- calla was compelled to marry, much against his will, in the hope of reforming him from certain low tastes, such as won him the favour of the city populace. 10 146 CARACALLA Spartianus tells us that when Caracalla emerged from boyhood, before his accession, he was so changed, so stern, that no one would have known him ; whereas his brother Geta, who had been an unpleasing child, was very much improved as he grew up. His narrative, and the abridgment of Dion, afford no clue to the enmity that sprang up between the brothers, and deeper principles seem to have been involved than mere fraternal jealousy. Caracalla's early life was such as to teach him heart-hardening dissimulation ; TertuUian, while the brothers yet ruled jointly, lu-ges at once the uncertainty of human life, and the probability that Caracalla would favour the Christians ; and it is the fact that his victory coincided with a general and prolonged cessa- tion of a long and cruel persecution. We cannot tell whether he had any higher motives than a mean malice and uneasy envy in his murder of his brother, and whether the mother, for whose sake he claimed to have done it and whom he would not allow to utter or even listen to a complaint, ever forgave him. The incredible charge of incest was afterwards brought against them. But there is little doubt as to the results of the deed. He did not become a Christian, and the ancient gods of the state were the last to whom he had recourse. He patronised Philostratus, who wrote for his mother and for him the Life of Apollonius of Tyana. He thus fostered one of the chief counterfeits of Christianity. He gathered round him all who professed to read the future, and he worshipped the spirits of the dead. But they could not rid his ears of his brother's dying cry, yU^re/), fxriTip, rexoOffa, TtKoma, [So-jOei, acpd^Ofiai. He continued to court the city populace, and enriched Rome with magnificent baths, which even in ruins are the most superb monuments of refined luxury. But his fits of savagery must have made it hard for him to continue a favourite of the populace. Henceforth he relied mainly on his army, and sought ease of mind in excitement. Both necessities involved ex- pense. Whatever impulse he gave to the corruption of the capital, he himself con- tentedly shared the roughest privileges of the soldiers. But that alone could not secure their aflection. In the first day of his crime he had lavished the wealth his father had been eighteen years in acquiring. New sources of revenue were needed. It is the method that Caracalla adopted to raise a revenue that gives him his main claim to a place in the catalogue of men whose lives affected the Christian church. His act, as Gibbon has shewn, marked an era in the de- cline of the empire. But more than that, it affected very greatly the position of Christians in all future persecutions. It is this indeed mainly that enables us to pronounce with certainty that the act was his, and belonged to no earlier date. " All who are in the Roman world," says Ulpian, " have been made citizens of Rome by an institution of the emperor Antoninus." " A most grateful and humane deed ! " exclaims Augustine {de Civ. Dei, v. 17, vol. vii. 161), and immediately subjoins the proviso that made the boon so equivocal. At a stroke the Roman world was pauperized. Every citizen resident in the CARITAS capital was entitled to receive every month, at a cheap rate — the indigent quite gratuitous- ly' — a certain amount of corn or bread. This was one of the chief drains upon the revenue, and one of the main causes of extortion in the provinces. But Augustus laid a tax on citizens from which aliens were exempt, a tax which made the franchise in many cases a burden to be declined rather than a boon to be coveted, a duty of five per cent, on all be- quests. Nerva and Trajan, however, exempted the passage of moderate inheritances from parent to child, or vice versa (Plin. Paneg. 37, 38). Caracalla, by raising the provincials to the franchise, did not free them from the tribute they owed before, but imposed this additional burden, which he doubled in amount, and which involved the odious intru- sion of the taxgatherer in seasons of domestic bereavement. The act seems to synchronize with a cotigiariiim or largess to the populace in A.D. 214. Thenceforward Caracalla's laws, wherever promulgated, seemed to be dated at Rome. Oppressive as were the effects of the act, it seems yet to have been welcomed. It was but fair, thought Augustine, that rustics who had lands should give food to citizens who had none, so long as it was granted as a boon and not extorted as a right. But besides its effects as a financial measure, Caracalla's act broke down the barriers of so- ciety ; annulled, as far as any imperial institu- tion could, the proud old sovereign common- wealth, the queen of nations, whose servants and ministers the emperors had ever professed to be ; opened the command of armies to unlettered barbarians ; removed the bars to the influx of Greek and Syrian and Egyptian corruption into Rome ; reduced the subjects to a level, above which only the emperor, the minion of the army, towered supreme. In earlier times St. Paul's Roman citizenship had stood him in good stead ; and in the story of the martyrs in Gaul under M. Aurelius the Roman citizens had been reserved till the emperor's will was known. A boon now so widely diffused could scarcely retain the same value. But we hear no more of Christians being crucified, unless they were slaves, or first reduced to slavery. Unutterably horri- ble as the tortures devised against them were, they were no longer commonly thrown to the beasts as a show. They suffered by the sword at last, and all their tortures were such as might befall any citizen of Rome who trans- gressed the mandate of the emperor. [D. C.A.< Persecution ; Torture.] Thus martyrdom, ' instead of the obstinacy of an abject alien . superstition, became the bold and cheerful resistance of free citizens to the arbitrary will ; of one who, when he began to torture, became a barbarous tyrant. [e.b.b.] Caritas. Charity with her virgin sisters, ; Faith and Hope, and their mother Wisdom, seem to have been the names of real martyrs. The names were very natural ones for Chris- tians to give to their children. On the Aurelian Way, in the church of St. Pancras, lay Sophia with her three daughters : Sapientia, with her daughters Fides, Spes, and Charitas, as Wil- liam of Malmesbury calls them ; but the Latin' names nowhere else occur in this order, the Greek names, when given in full, always do. CARPOCRATES Sophia, Pistis, Elpis, Agape, arc said to have been a mother and daughters who suffered in September, and whose relics were transferred to the church of St. Silvester. On the other hand, Sapienta, Spes, Fides, Caritas, are said by Ado to have suffered Aug. i, and were buried on the Appian Way, in the crypt of St. Caecilia. In that crypt has been found the inscription, pistk si»ei sokoki dulcissimae FECir. In the same place, if we rightly under- stand de Rossi, was found agape qve vxit A.NNIS VGIKTI ET SEX IN PACE Agape, who lived twenty-six years in peace. There is no statement of relationship in the notices of the tombs on the Appian Way. It appears pro- bable that Ado has confounded the widely celebrated martyrs who are said to have suf- fered in September under Adrian, with the occupants of some Christian tombs in a crypt where there were many celebrations early in .\ugust. The Menology gives the ages of Faith, Hope, and Love as 12, 10, and 9. (De Rossi, Rom. Soft. i. 180-183, ii. 171 ff., pi. Iv. 10; Bede, Mart. July i, Bede, Mart. And. June 23 ; Usuard, Aug. i ; Menol. Basil. Sept. 16.) [E.B.B.] Carpocrates {Kap7ro\-pdT?7?, Irenaeus ; Kapn-o- Kpas, Epiphanius and Philaster, both probably deriving this form from the shorter treatise against heresies by Hippolytus), a Platonic philosopher who taught at Alexandria early in the 2nd cent., and who, incorporating Chris- tian elements into his system, became the founder of a heretical sect mentioned in one uf our earliest catalogues of heresies, the list of Hegesippus, preserved by Eusebius (//. E. iv. 22). These heretics are the first of whom Irenaeus expressly mentions that they called themselves Gnostics ; Hippolytus first speaks of the name as assumed by the Naassenes or Ophites (Ref. v. r). Of all the systems called Gnostic, that of Carpocrates is the one in which the Hellenic element is the most strong- ly marked, and which contains the least of what is necessarily Jewish or Oriental. He is described as teaching with prominence the doctrine of a single first principle : the name fiovaSiKT] yvuxris, given by Clement of Alex- andria {Strom, iii. 2) to the doctrine of the school which he founded, is made by Neander to furnish the key to the whole Carpocratian system ; but possibly is only intended to contrast with the doctrine of the Valentinian teachers, who thought it necessary to provide the first Being with a consort, in order that emanations from Him might be conceivable. Carpocrates taught that from the one unknown unspeakable God different angels and powers had emanated, and that of these the lowest in the series, far below the unbegotten Father, had been the makers of the world. The privi- lege of the higher souls was to escape the rule of those who had made the world ; even by magical arts to exercise dominion over them, and ultimately, on leaving the world, to pass completely free from them to God Who is above them. Jesus he held to be a mere man naturally born of human parents, having no prerogatives beyond the reach of others to attain. His superiority to ordinary men con- sisted in this, that His soul, being steadfast and pure, remembered those things which it had seen in the revolution (rj Trepiipop^) in which CARPOCRATES 147 it had been carried round with the unbegotten (lod, and therefore power [or a " power "] had been sent from God en.ibling Him to escape the makers of the world. Though brought up in Jewish customs, He had despised them, and therefore had received powers enabling Him to destroy the passions which are given to men as a punishment. But in this there was nothing special : others might be the equals or the superiors not only of Peter or Paul, but of our Lord Himself. Their souls, too, might remem- ber the truths they had witnessed ; if they despised the rulers of the world as much as Jesus did, they would be given the same privi- leges as He, and higher if they despised them more. Thus the Carpocratians gave honour, but not an exclusive honour, to Christ. They had pictures of Him, derived, it was said, from a likeness taken by Pilate's order ; and images, which they crowned and treated with other marks of respect ; but this they did also in the cases of Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers. In the opening statement concerning the making of the world, the doctrine ascribed to Carpocrates is almost identical with that as- cribed to Saturninus ; but in the next para- graph the language is distinctly taken from the myth in Plato's Phaedrus, in which human knowledge is made to be but a recollection of what the soul had seen when carried round with the gods in their revolution, and per- mitted to see the eternal forms of things. The doctrine of the duty of despising the rulers of the world received among the Car- pocratians an interpretation which enabled them to practise immorality without scruple. Things in themselves were indifferent ; no- thing was in its own nature good or evil, and was only made so by human opinion. The true Gnostic might practise everything — nay, it was his duty to have experience of all. A doctrine concerning the transmigration of souls which was taught by other Gnostic sects, and which harmonized well with Platonic teaching, was adopted by the Carpocratians in the form that a soul which had had its com- plete experience passed at once out of the dominion of the rulers of the world, and was received up to society with the God above them : those which had not were sent back to finish in other bodies that which was lacking to them ; but all ultimately would be saved. But as was also taught by the Basilidians of Irenaeus and by the Ophites, salvation be- longed to the soul alone ; there would be no resurrection of the body. In conformity with this theory was interpreted the text from the Sermon on the Mount, " Agree with thine adversary quickly." The "adversary" (whom, Epiphanius tells us, they named Abolus, a corruption, doubtless, from the Diabolus of Irenaeus) was one of the world-making angels, whose office it was to conduct the soul to the principal of these angels, " the judge." If he found that there were acts left undone, he de- livered it to another angel, " the officer," to shut it up " in prison " — i.e. in a body — until it had paid the last farthing. The doctrine that we ought to imitate the freedom with which our Lord despised the rulers of the world raises the question. Did Carpocrates intend to impute immorality to Him ? On this point Carpo- 148 CARPOCRATES crates was misunderstood either by Hippolytus or by his own disciples. According to Hippo- lytus, Carpocrates taught that Jesus surpassed other men in justice and integrity (aojcppoavvr] Kal dperrj Kai /iiy diKaioavvris, Epiphanius), and no doubt our Lord's example might have been cited only in reference to freedom from Jewish ceremonial obligations ; yet the version of Ire- naeus seems more trustworthy, which does not suggest that the superiority of Jesus consisted in anything but the clearer apprehension of eternal truths which His intellect retained. Carpocrates claimed to be in possession of the true teaching of Christ spoken secretly by Him to His apostles, and communicated by them in tradition to the worthy and faithful ; and the apostolic doctrine that men are to be saved by faith and love was used by him to justify an antinomian view of the complete indifference of works. Epiphanes, the son of Carpocrates by a Cephallenian woman, maintained a licentious theory of communism in all things, women included. The Carpocratians and the Cainites have often been coupled together as the two most immoral of the Gnostic sects, and in practical effects their doctrines may not have been very different ; but the Carpocratian theory of the indifference of human actions fell short of the inversion of good and evil which is ascribed to the Cainites. Whereas the latter represented the God of the Jews and Maker of the world as an evil Being who ought to be resisted the former only spoke of the makers of the world as inferior beings whose restric- tions it is true enlightenment to despise ; and the arguments of Epiphanes, derived from the equality that reigns in nature, assume that the creation is so far conformed to the will of God that from the laws which pervade it we may infer what is pleasing to the supreme power. Whether immorality were directly taught by Carpocrates himself or not, his followers be- came proverbial for deliberate licentiousness of life. The Christians thought it likely that the stories current among the heathen of scenes of shameless debauchery in the Christian love- feasts had a real foundation in what took place among the Carpocratians. Philaster, who, apparently through oversight, enumerates the Carpocratians twice, the second time (57) giving them the alternative names of Floriani and Milites, directly asserts this. His pre- decessors had suggested it as probable (Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 2 ; cf. Justin Martvr, Apol. 26). Irenaeus counts Carpocratian doctrines and practices as means employed by Satan to discredit the Christian name among the heathen. (See also Eus. H. E. iv. 7.) A more trifling heathen belief about the Christians generally seems to have been true of the Carpocratians, viz. that they knew each other by secret bodily marks (noiaculo corporis, Minucius Felix, cc. 9, 31) ; for the Carpocratians marked their disciples by cauterizing them in the back of the lobe of the right ear. It appears from Heracleon (Clem. Alex. p. 995, Eclog. ex Script. Proph. xxv.) that this was a baptismal ceremonv, intended to represent the " baptism with fire," predicted of our Lord by the Baptist. This confirms the evidence as to the use of at least St. Matthew's Gospel by the Carpocratians furnished by Epiphanius {Haer. xxx. p. 138) and by the CARPOCRATES use made of the Sermon on the Mount. Celsus probably refers to this rite (Origen, v. 64) when he says that Christians gave to certain others of them the opprobrious name aKorjs KavaT-qpia.. Origen, however, supposes that L Tim. iv. 2 is here referred to. Mention has already been made of the culti- vation of magic by the Carpocratians, and their pretension to equal the miraculous powers of our Lord. Hippolytus, in the fourth book of the Refutation, gives us several specimens of wonders exhibited by magicians, not very unlike feats performed by profes- sional conjurors to-day. It was easy for Ire- naeus to shew (ii. 32) how very unlike these transient wonders were to be permanent miracles of healing effected by our Lord, and which, as he claimed, continued in the church. According to Neander, the Carpocratian system sees in the world's history one struggle between the principles of unity and of multi- plicity. From one eternal Monad all existence has flowed, and to this it strives to return. But the finite spirits who rule over several portions of the world counteract this universal striving after unity. From them the different popular religions, and in particular the Jewish, have proceeded. Perfection is attained by ; those souls who, led on by reminiscences of 1 their former condition, soar above all limita- : tion and diversity to the contemplation of the j higher unity. They despise the restrictions ■ imposed by the mundane spirits ; they regard ' externals as of no importance, and faith and love as the only essentials ; meaning by faith, ■ mystical brooding of the mind absorbed in the ' original unity. In this way they escape the ' dominion of the finite mundane spirits ; their ■ souls are freed from imprisonment in matter, ' and they obtain a state of perfect repose (cor- responding to the Buddhist Nirwana) when ; they have completely ascended above the '. world of appearance. ' With respect to the Carpocratians, the pri- j mary authorities are Irenaeus (i. 25, ii. 31-34), ' Clem. Alex. (Strom, iii. 2 ) ; Tertullian (de i Anima, 23, 35), who appears to have drawn his > information from Irenaeus ; Philaster (35) and : Pseudo-Tertullian (9), who represent the ear- ' Her treatise of Hippolytus ; Epiphanius (27), ; who weaves together the accounts of Hippoly- tus and of Irenaeus ; and Hippolytus, who in his later treatise (vii. 20) merely copies Ire- naeus, with some omissions, thereby suggesting that he was not acquainted with the work of Irenaeus when he wrote the earlier treatise. ' He certainly had at that time other sources of information, for he mentions three or four points not found in Irenaeus — e.g. he empha- sizes the Carpocratian doctrine of the unity of : the first principle, tells of emanations from that principle of angels and powers, gives a ' different version of the excellence of Jesus, and . says that Carpocrates denied the resurrection of the body. It is not impossible that Justin's work on heresies may have furnished some materials for Irenaeus. In any case Irenaeus probably added much of his own, for the pains he has taken with the confutation make it ' probable that in his time the sect was still active at Rome. We cannot assign an exact date to Carpo- crates ; but there are affinities between his CASSIANUS JULIUS system and those of Saturninus and Basilides, which suggest one a little later than Basilides, from wliom he mav have derived his know- ledge of Christianity. Eusebius is probably- right in placing him in the reign of Hadrian {d. A.D. 138). It suffices merely to mention the invention of the writer known as Praedestin- atus (i. 7) that the Carpocratians were con- demned in Cyprus by the apostle Barnabas. Matter, in his history of Gnosticism, gives an account of certain supposed Carpocratian in- scriptions, since found to be spurious (Giese- ler's Ecc. Hist. c. ii. § 45, note 16). [g.s.] Cassianus (2) Julius, a heretical teacher who lived towards the end of the 2nd cent., chiefly known to us by references to his writings made on two occasions by Clemens Alexandrinus. In the first passage {Strom, i. 21, copied by Euse- bius, Praep. Ev. x. 12) Clement engages in a chronological inquiry to shew the greatly superior antiquity of Moses to the founders of Grecian philosophy, and he acknowledges him- self indebted to the previous investigations made by Tatian in his work addressed to the Greeks, and by Cassian (spelt Casianus in the MS. of Clement, but not in those of Eusebius) in the first book of his Exegetica. Vallarsi (ii. 865) alters without comment the Cassianus of previous editors into Casianus, in Jerome's Catalogue 33, a place where Jerome is not us- ing Clement directly, but is copying the notice in Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13). Jerome adds that he had not himself met the chronological work in question. In the second passage (Strom. iii. 13, seq.) Cassian is also named in con- nexion with Tatian. Clement is, in this section, refuting the doctrines of those Gnostics who, in their view of the essential evil of matter, condemned matrimony and the procreation of children ; and after consider- ing some arguments urged by Tatian, says that similar ones had been used by Julius Cassianus whom he describes as the origi- nator of Docetism (6 r^s SoKTjcrecos f^apxwi'), a statement which must be received with some modification. [Docetae.] He quotes some passages from a treatise by Cassian on Con- tinence {irepi eyvpareias, i) Trept evvovxio-s), in which he wholly condemned sexual inter- course, and referred its origin to instigations of our first parents by the serpent, alleging in proof II. Cor. xi. 3. Cassian quoted Is. Ivi. 3.. Matt. xix. 12, and probably several other passages which are discussed by Clement without express mention that they had been used by Cassian. Cassian also uses certain alleged sayings of our Lord, cited likewise in the so-called second epistle of the Roman Clement to the Corinthians, cap. xii., as well as in the Excerpta Theodoti, Ixvii. p. 985. I-ightfoot U'jtices (Clement, I.e.) that Cassian, by the omission of a clause, makes the Encra- tite aspect of the passage much stronger than it appears in the citation of the Pseudo-Clement. Clemens Alexandrinus makes no complaint of unfairness in the quotation ; but while he re- marks that the sayings in question arenot found incur four Gospels, but only in the Gospel ac- cording to the Egyptians, he gives adifferent ex- planation far less natural than that of Cassian. • Another specimen of Cassian's arguments in this treatise is preserved in Jerome's Commen- tary on Gal. vi. 8. Jerome there answers an CASSIANUS 149 Encratite argument founded on this text, viz. that he who is united to a woman soweth to the flesh, and therefore shall of the flesh reap corruption. This argument is introduced with words which, according to the common read- ing, run, " Tatianus qui putativam Christi carnem introducens, omnem conjunctionem masculi ad foeminam immundam arbitratur, tali adversum nos sub occasione praesentis tcstimonii usus est argumento." There is little doubt that we are to read instead of Tatianus, Cassianus. The Benedictine editor who retains the old reading notes that Cas- sianus is the reading of two of the oldest MSS., while Vallarsi says that Cassianus was the reading of every MS. he had seen. The Docetism of Cassian was closely con- nected with his Encratism, for it was an obvious answer of the orthodox to his doctrine on Continence, that if the birthof children were essentially evil, then our Lord's own birth was evil, and His mother an object of blame. This was met by a denial of the reality of our Lord's body. Cassian also taught that man had not been originally created with a body like ours, but that these fleshly bodies were the " coats of skin " in which the Lord clothed our first parents after the Fall. This notion, probably derived from Valentinus (Iren. I. v. p. 27), had considerable currency. References for it will be found in Huet's Origeniana, ii. Qu. 12, viii., and Beausobre, Manicheisme, ii. 135). Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 8) enumerates among the followers of Valentinus one Cossian, by whom, no doubt, Julius Cassianus is in- tended ; for many greater inaccuracies in the names are in the present text of Theodoret, and Theodoret would have found authority in Clement for classing Cassian with Valentinus. The coincidences between Tatian and Cas- sianus seem too close to be accidental, but we have not data to determine their relative priority. If Cassian were really the founder of the sect called Docetae, he must have been some time antecedent to Serapion (Eus. H. E. vi. 12). His country may have been Egypt (of. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt. Chr. Lit. pp. 201- 204). [Docetae ; Excratites]. [g.s.] Cassianus (6), bp. of Autun. The date we assign him will vary according as we attach more weight to the ancient Life of him, which professes to be based on a contemporary record (.4cteSS. Aug. 5, vol. ii. p. 64), as Ruinart prefers to do, or to a casual statement by Gregory of Tours, who was shewn his tomb (Glor. Conf. 74, 75), as doTillemont and the Bollandists. The Life tells us that he was born of noble parents in Alexandria, and brought up by a bp. Zonis ; that he made his house a Christian hospital in the time of Julian, liberated his slaves, and built a church to St. Lawrence at Orta in Egypt, at which place he was made bishop against his will in the time of Jovian, a.d. 363. The tomb of Cassian was famous. A stain in the form of a cross appeared on it, which is said to have prompted Germanus to hold a con- versation with the saint in his tomb. He asked him how he did, and the saint answered that he was at rest. This is told in his Life, and may explain the great eagerness to obtain dust scraped from the stones of his tomb, which was almost bored through in con- sequence, as testified by Gregory. [e.b.b.] 150 CASSIANUS JOHANNES Casslanus (11) Johannes has been called the founder of Western monachism and of the semi- Pelagian school. More exactly, he was the first to transplant the rules of the Eastern monks into Europe, and the most eminent of the writers who steered a course between Pelagian- ism and the tenets of St. Augustine. Like St. Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, and others, he is usually designated by his agnomen. His birth is dated between a.d. 350 and 360 ; his birthplace is not known. Gennadius calls him " Scytha " {Fabric. Biblioth. Eccles. s.v.) ; but this inav be merely a corruption from Scetis or Scyathis, where Cassian resided for some time among the monks of Nitria. His parents, of whose piety he speaks gratefully (Coll. xxiv. i), sent him to be educated in a monastery at Bethlehem ; and there he would have frequent intercourse with pilgrims from the West. This cannot have been, as some have thought, the monastery of St. Jerome, for that was not then in existence, nor does Cassian ever refer to Jerome as his teacher. Here Cassian became intimate with Germanus, the future companion of his travels. The fame of the Egyptian monks and hermits reached Cassian and his friend in their cells. About a.d. 390 they started, with leave of absence for sev-en years, to study by personal observation the more austere rules of the " renuntiantes," as they were called, in the Thebaid. At the end of seven years they revisited Bethlehem ; and thence returned very soon to the Egyptian deserts {Coll. xvii. 31). Thus Cassian collected the materials for his futiu-e writings. Besides other voluntary hardships, he speaks of the monks having to fetch water on their shoulders a distance of three or four miles (Coll. xxiv. 10). Evidently in his estimation, as in that of his contemporaries generally, the vocation of a solitary is hoUer than even that of a coenobite. About A.D. 403 we find Cassian and Ger- manus at Constantinople, perhaps attracted by the reputation of Chr>sostom. By him Cas- sian was ordained deacon, or, as some think, appointed archdeacon ; and in his treatise de Incarnatione (vii. 31) he speaks of Chrysostom with affectionate reverence. Cassian and his friend were entrusted with the care of the cathe- dral treasures ; and, after the expulsion of Chrysostom, they were sent by his adherents on an embassy to Rome c. a.d. 405 to solicit the intervention of Innocent I. No further mention is made of Germanus ; nor is much known of Cassian during the next ten years. Probably he remained at Rome after Chrys- ostom died, A.D. 407, until the approach of the Goths under Alaric, and thus acquired a personal interest in the Pelagian controversy. After quitting Rome it has been inferred from a casual expression in the de Instittttis (iii. i) that Cassian visited the monks of Meso- potamia ; some say that he returned for a time to Egypt or Palestine ; and by some he is identified' with Cassianus Presbyter. Prob- ably Cassian betook himself from Rome to Massilia (Marseilles). In this neighbourhood he founded two monasteries (one afterwards known as that of St Victor) for men and women respectively. Tillemont says that the rule was taken from the fourth book of the de lustitutis ; and that many monasteries in that part of Gaul owed their existence to this foun- CASSIANUS JOHANNES dation. As Cassian is addressed in the Epis- tola Castoris as " abbas," " dominus," and " pater," it is argued, but not with certainty, that he presided over his new monastery. Here he devoted himself to literary labours for many years, and died at a very great age, probably between a.d. 440 and 450. The de Institutis Renuntiantimn, in twelve books, was written c. 420 at the request of Castor, bp of Apta Julia, in Gallia Narbo- nensis (Praef. hist.). Books i.-i%'. treat of the monastic rule ; the others of its especial hindrances. The former were abridged by Eu- cherius Lugdunensis. The Collationes Pairum in Scithico Eremo Commorantium, in which Cassian records his Egyptian experiences, were evidently intended to complete his previous work ; his purpose being to describe in the de lustitutis the regulations and observances of monachism ; in the Collationes its interior scope and spirit : in the former he writes of monks, in the latter of hermits. The Colla- tiones were commenced for Castor, but after his death Collat. i.-x. were inscribed to Leon- tius, a kinsman of Castor, and Helladius, bishop in that district ; xi.-xvii. to Honoratus, abbat of Lerins, and Eucherius, bp. of Lug- dunum (Lyons) ; xviii.-xxiv. to the monks and anchorets of the Stoechades (Hyeres). The Collationes have been well called a " speculum monasticum " : St. Benedict ordered them to be read daily ; they were highly approved also by the founders of the Dominicans, Carthu- sians, and Jesuits. But the orthodoxy of the Collationes, especially of iii. and xiii., on the subject of Grace and Freewill, was impugned by St. Augustine and Prosper of Aquitania. [Pelagianism.] An attempt was made by Cassiodorus and others to expur- gate them. Cassian's last work, de Incar- natione Christi (cf. i. 3, v. 2), was directed against the Nestorian heresy, c. 429, at the suggestion of Leo then archdeacon and after- wards pope. Probably Cassian was selected for this controversy as a disciple of Chrys- ostom, the illustrious predecessor of Nestorius in the see of Constantinople (Inc. vii. 31). The treatises de Spirituali Medicind Monachi, Theologica Confessiu, and de Conflictu Virtutum acVitiorum are generally pronounced spurious. Cassian is remarkable as a link between Eastern and Western Christendom, and as com- bining in himself the active and the contem- plative life. It is difficult to overestimate his influence indirectly on the great monastic system of mediaeval Europe. His writings have always been in esteem with monastic re- formers ; especially at the revival of learning in the 15th cent. Even his adversary Prosper calls him " insignis ac facundus." Cassian shews a thorough knowledge of the Holy Scriptures ; often with a good deal of quaint- ness in his application of it. His style, if not i so rich in poetic eloquence as that of his great I opponent, is clear and forcible ; and he is practical rather than profound. His good sense manifests itself in his preface to the I Instituta, where he annoimces his intention to 1 avoid legendary wonders and to regard his subject on its practical side. He insists con- tinually on the paramount importance of the intention, disclaiming the idea of what is called the " opus operatum " — for instance, on CASSIODORUS MAGNUS AURELIUS CASSIODORUS MAGNUS AURELIUS 151 almsgiving (Inst. vii. 21), fasting {Coll. i. 7), and prayer (ix. 3) ; and he is incessant in denouncing the especial sins of cloister-life, as pride, ambition, vainglory. The life of a monk, as he portraj's it, is no formal and mechanical routine ; but a daily and hourly act of self-renunciation (xxiv. 2). On the other hand, he is by no means free from ex- aggerated reverence for mere asceticism ; and, while encouraging the highest aspirations after holiness, allows too much scope to a selfish desire of reward. As a casuist he is for the most part sensible and judicious, e.s:;., in dis- criminating between voluntary and involun- tary thoughts (i. 17). But he presses obedience so far as to make it unreasonable and fanatical {I list. iv. 27, etc.), and under certain circum- stances he sanctions deceit {Coll. xvii.). On the subject of Predestination Cassian, without assenting to Pclagius, protested against what he considered the fatalistic ten- dency of St. Augustine. In the CoUationes he merely professes to quote the words of the Egyptian " fathers " ; and in the de Incar- natione he distinctly attacks Pelagianism as closely allied with the heresy of Nestorius (i. 3, vi. 14). Still, it is certain from the tenor of his WTitings that Cassian felt a very strong repugnance to any theory which seemed to him to involve an arbitrary limitation of the possibility of being saved. It has been well said that St. Augustine regards man in his natural state as dead, Pelagius as sound and well, Cassian as sick. [Pelagianism.] The best critical ed. of Cassian's works is in the Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. xiii. xvii., ed. by Petschenig. In Schaff and Wace's Posi- Nicene Library there is a translation of most of them, with valuable prolegomena and notes by Dr. Gibson, Bp. of Gloucester. Fi.G.s.l Casslodorus (or rather, Cassiodorius) Mag- nus Aurelius, senator, and chief minister to the Ostrogothic princes of Italy, born at Scylacium (Squillace) in Bruttium, 469-470, of a noble, wealthy, and patriotic family. Cas- slodorus was brought up under circumstances highly favourable to his education, which included the study of grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, music, arithmetic, geometry, astro- nomy, mechanics, anatomy, Greek, and the sacred Scriptures. His learning and accom- plishments early attracted the notice of Odoacer, the first barbarian ruler of Italy, by whom he was made " comes privatarum," and subsequently " comes sacrarum largitionum " {Var. i. 4). After the final defeat of Odoacer by Theodoric at Ravenna, 493, Cassiodorus retired to his patrimonial estate in Bruttium, and secured the wavering allegiance of the provincials to the cause of the new ruler ; for this service he was appointed by Theodoric to the official government of Lucania and Brut- tiurn. Happy in the art of ruling to the satis- faction of the governed without neglecting the interests of his master, he was summoned, up- on the conclusion of his prefecture, to Raven- na, and advanced successively to the dignities of secretary, quaestor, master of the offices, praetorian prefect, patrician, and consul. Meanwhile he enjoyed an intimacy with the prince, which, reflected as it is in his Varieties, has given to that work much of the character apd value of a state journal. Illiterate him- self, Theodoric employed the eloquent pen of his minister in all public communications, and spent his leisure time in acquiring from him erudition of various kinds {Var. ix. 24). It would seem to have been the ambition of Cassiodorus, whose genius for diplomacy was consummate, to bring about a fusion between the Arian conquerors and the conquered Catholic population of Italy, to establish friendly relations with the Eastern empire, and possibly to create at Rome a peaceful centre to which the several barbaric kingdoms which had established themselves in Gaul, Spain, and Africa might be attracted. The progress of Theodoric to the capital, where the schism between pope Symmachus and his rival, Laurentius, was then raging, a.d. 500, was probably planned by him in view of this result {Var. xii. 18, 19 ; cf. Gibbon, Decl. and Fall, c. 39) ; but the temper of Theodoric's declin- ing years must have disappointed the hopes of Cassiodorus, and in 524 he resolved to divest himself of his honours, and to seek shelter in his Calabrian retreat from the storm which proved fatal to his co-senators, Boethius and Symmachus. After the death of Theodoric, 525, Cassiodorus again became conspicuous as the trusted adviser of his daughter Amalasun- tha, widow of Eutaric, who acted as regent for her son Athalaric {Var. ix. 25). By his influ- ence the Goths were kept in subjection to the new rule, notwithstanding the Roman pro- clivities of Amalasuntha as displayed in the education of the young prince. The threat- ened danger of an invasion by Justinian was likewise averted by the ready aid of his purse and pen (Procop. B. G. i. 3)- Upon the en- forced acceptance by Amalasuntha of Theo- datus as co-regent, Cassiodorus again submit- ted to circumstances {Var. x. 6, 7), and wrote letters soliciting the goodwill of the senate and the emperor (x. i, 2, 3). He was then praetorian prefect and continued to serve under Theodatus after the untimely death of Athalaric and the treacherous murder of Amalasuntha. One is tempted to suspect the nobleness of a character which, no matter how Infamous the ruler, could accommodate itself with such singular tact to every change of government ; but Cassiodorus was no mere time-server. His writings shew him to have been animated by a truly patriotic spirit ; and if he adapted himself skilfully to the varying humours of the court, it was that he might be able to alleviate the misfortunes of his con- quered countrymen. Upon the triumph of Belisarius and the downfaU of the Ostrogoths, Cassiodorus, now 70 years of age, withdrew to his native province and founded the monastery of Viviers at the foot of Mount Moscius, which he describes (xii. 15). For 30 years he had laboured to preserve authority from its own excesses, to soften the manners of the Goths and uphold the rights of the Romans ; but, weary of the superhuman task, turned to the cloister for repose and freedoni. His activity, however, was not satisfied with the ordinary occupations of monastic life. Hence while the summit of the mountain was set apart for the hermits of the community {mon- asterium castellense), there sprang up at its base, beneath his own immediate auspices, a 152 CATHARINE societv'of coenobites, devoted to the pursuit of learning and science {monasterium yivari- ense). He endowed the monastery with his extensive Roman library (Div. Lit. c. 8). The monks were incited by his example to the study of classical and sacred literature, and trained in the careful transcription of manuscripts, in the purchase of which large sums were con- tinually disbursed. Bookbinding, gardening, and medicine were among the pursuits of the less intellectual members of the fraternity (ib. 28, 30, 31). Such time as he himself could spare from the composition of sacred or scientific treatises he employed in con- structing self-acting lamps, sundials, and water-clocks for the use of the monastery. Nor was the influence of his example confined to his own age, institution, or country ; the multiplication of manuscripts became gradu- ally as much a recognized employment of monastic life as prayer or fasting ; and for this the statue of Cassiodorus deserves an honour- able niche in every library. The date of his death is uncertain. He composed his treatise on orthography in his 93rd year (de Orthogr. praef.). Of his extant writings, the twelve Books of Varieties, consisting principally of letters, edicts, and rescripts, are the only work of real importance ; apart, however, from the study of these pages, it is hardly possible to obtain a true knowledge of the Italy of the 6th cent. The very style of the writer, possessing, as it does, a certain elegance, yet continually de- viating from pure idiom and good taste, is singularlv characteristic of the age which wit- nessed the last flicker of Roman civilization under the Ostrogothic rule. It is as though the pen of Cicero had been dipped in barbaric ink. The general result is artificial and bi- zarre ; but though his meaning is frequently obscured by his rhetoric, his manner is not as unpleasing as is often asserted. It will be sufficient to enumerate here the other writings of Cassiodorus, a more detailed account of which is given in Smith's D. of G. and R. Biogr. (2) Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae, libri xii., being an epitome of the ecclesiastical his- tories of Sozomen, Socrates, and Theodoretus, as digested and translated by Epiphanius Scholasticus. (3) Chronicon, chiefly derived from Eusebius, Jerome, and Prosper. (4) Coin- putus Paschalis. (5) Exposttio in Psalmos, principally borrowed from St. Augustine. (6) Expositio in Cantica Canticorum, of doubtful authenticity. (7) De Institutione Divinarum Literarum, an interesting work as illustrating the enlightened spirit which animated the monastic life of Viviers. (8) Complexioncs in Epistolas Apostolorum, in Acta, et in Apocalyp- sin, first brought to light by the Marquis Scipio Maffei at Florence, in 1721. (9) De Artibus ac Disciplinis Liberalium Literarum. (10) De Oratione et de Octo Partibus Orationis, of doubt- ful authenticity. (11) De Orthographia. (12) De Anima. Of the lost writings of Cassio- dorus the most important appears to have been de Rebus Gestis Gothorutn, libri xii., of which we have the abridgment of Jornandes. The best ed., together with an appendix con- taining the commentaries discovered by Maffei, is in Migne's Pair. vols. Ixix. Ixx. [e.m.y.] Catharine (Catharina, Catherine, etc), St., CATHARINE virgin and martyr of Alexandria. Tillemont writes, in the 17th cent., that it would be hard to find a saint more generally reverenced, or one of whom so little was known on credible authority, and adds that no single fact about her is certain (Mem. eccl. vii. pp. 447, 761 ; cf. Papebrocius, as quoted in Baron. Ann. Eccl. ed. Theiner, iii. ad ann. 307). The earliest mention of St. Catharine in the Eastern church (v. Menology of Basil) under the name of WiKadapiva. (possibly a corruption of 7? KaOapivij, dim. of Kadap6i, pure), is about the end of 9th cent. (Tillem. u.s. ; Baillet, Vies des Saints, torn. viii. Nov. 25) ; in 13th cent, she appears in the Latin Martyrologies (Baillet, ib.), the crusaders having brought her fame to Europe among other marvels from the East. Some time in the 8th or 9th cent, the monks on Mount Sinai disinterred the body, as they were eager to believe, of one of those Christian martyrs whose memory they cherished. Eusebius relates how a lady of Alexandria — he omits her name — was one of the victims of Maximinus early in 4th cent. {H. E. xiii. 14). It was easy to identify the corpse as that of the anonymous sufferer, to invent a name for it, and to bridge over the distance between Alexandria and Mount Sinai. Simeon Metaphrastes, a legendist of Constan- tinople in loth cent., gives a long account of St. Catharine's martyrdom, with horrible de- tails of her tortures, an exact report of her : dispute in public with the philosophers of the ■ city and of the learned oration by which she ■ converted them and the empress Faustina . and many of the court, and how her corpse ] was transported to Mount Sinai by angels ! (Martin, Vies des Saints, tom. iii. pp. 1841, 1 seq.). But the whole story is plainly unhis- ; torical, even apart from the significant fact that there is no external testimony to its ; authenticity. For in Eusebius the emperor's ; exasperation is provoked, not, as in the legend, by a refusal to abjure Christianity and 1 to sacrifice to his gods, but by a refusal to ' gratify his guilty passion ; and the punish- , ment inflicted is merely exile, not torture and death. Even Baronius, who suggests emend- ations to make the legend more probable, hesitates to accept it as historical, while his commentator, with Tillemont and Baillet, abandons altogether the hopeless attempt to reconcile Simeon Metaphrastes with Eusebius. The martyrdom of St. Catharine is commem- orated in the Latin and Greek calendars on Nov. 25 ; the discovery (" invention ") of her r bodv on Mount Sinai on May 13 in the French • Martyrology (Baillet, «.s.). In England her festival was promoted from the 2nd class (on which field labour, though no other servile ; work, was permitted) to the ist class of holy- days in 13th cent. {Cone. Oxon. a.d. 1222, c. 8 ; ■ Cone. Vigorn. a.d. 1240, c. 54), and retained as a black-letter day at the Reformation. It was left untouched in Germany at the re- trenchment of holidays in a.d. 1540- In France it was gradually abolished as a holiday, although the office was retained in 17th cent. (Baillet, ii.s.). In Europe during the middle • ages her name was held in great reverence. Louis IX. of France erected in Paris a costly ' church in her name ; and the famous Maid of , Orleans claimed her special favour and tutC' ' CAULACAU lage (Martin, u.s.). The head of St. Catharine I was alleged to be preserved in her church in j the Piazza of St. Peter's at Rome. She was regarded generally as the patron saint of schools, probably from the tradition of her learned controversy with the philosophers at .Alexandria. A semi-monastic order, the Knights of Mount Sinai or of Jerusalem, in- stituted in Europe A.n. 1063 in honour of St. Catharine, under the rule of St. Basil, bound themselves by vows to chastity, though not to celibacy '{castitd conjugale), to entertain pilgrims, and in rotation, each for two years, to guard the holy relics. Their dress was a white tunic, and embroidered on it a broken wheel, armed with spikes, in memory of the jagged wheel on which, according to the legend, the saint was racked, and which was miraculously shattered by divine interposition. The order became extinct after the fall of Constantinople ; but in the 17th cent, the Basilian monks at Paris gave the badge of the order to any candidates who would take the vow of chastity and of obedience to the rule of St. Basil (Moroni, Dizion. Eccles. Reference to Giustiniani, Hist. Chronol. d- Ordini Equestri, p. 121 ; Bonami, Catalogo d. Ord. Equest. p. 21). See Tillem. Mem. eccl. ; Baronius (Caesar), Annales Ecclesiastici (Barri Ducis, 1864, 4to, torn. iii.);Bollandus Joannes, Les^ctorfessain/s, etc. (Lyons, Besan^on, 1865, 8vo, Nov. 25); Life of St. Catharine, with its Latin original from the Cotton MSS., ed. with Intro., etc., by E. Einenkel (Lond. 1884); Life and Martyrdom of St. Cath. of Alex. (Roxburghe Club, No. 90, Lond. 1884). [I.G.S.] Caulacau. [Basilides.] Celsus (1). Of the personal history of this, the first great polemical adversary of Chris- tianitv, we know nothing with certainty ; and even Origen, from whom the whole of our knowledge of Celsus is derived, had received the work of Celsus, entitled d\r]d7]s \6yos, or the True Discourse, without any hint of the history or date of its author. But questions far more interesting than personal ones are raised by his attack on Christianity, of which enough has been pre- served by Origen in his contra Celsum to con- vey to us a very tolerable idea of its nature. We must be on our guard at once against dis- paraging it too much, and against thinking too highly of its ability. Origen, indeed, who to all appearance is a very fair antagonist, speaks of it with contempt. But Celsus was not a mere polemical assailant ; he was a philo- sopher on his own account, and held in certain respects by no means unenlightened opinions. He had strong faith in reason. " What evil is it," he asks, " to be learned and to have cultivated the intellect with the best puisuits, to be and to appear wise ? What obstacle are these things to the knowledge of God ? Do not they rather lead and assist to the attain- ment of truth ? " Nor had that similarity between the human and the animal frame, which the natural science of our own day in- sists upon, escaped his notice. Hence he deduces that ants " converse, have reason, notions of general truths, speech," etc. (iv. 84), and even that they have knowledge of God. It would be hard, again, to cavil at his ideas of the Divine Nature ; he speaks of men CELSUS 153 '' burning with the love of it " (i. 8) ; he is intolerant of the association of it with any- thing that is mortal or perishable. He was not free from superstition ; he believed in magic, and declared that serpents and eagles were more skilled in it than men (iv. 86). Baur says that " in acuteness, in dialectical aptitude, in many-sided cultivation, at once philosophic and general, Celsus stands behind no opponent of Christianity." Admitting that this panegyric is not groundless, we must add, that in vital insight Celsus was deficient. As an ofiponent of Christianity, the chief charac- teristic of Celsus is a strong, narrow, intolerant common sense. To him Christianity is an " exitiabilis superstitio " ; he gives credence to every story against it on which he can lay his hands ; he dwells with coarse jocularity on the Jewish tradition of Panthera and the Virgin Mary (i. 28, sqq.) ; he unearths a certain Diagramma, a figure symbolizing the world, and consisting of a circle called Leviathan en- closing ten other circles, apparently used in the rites of some sect more or less approximating to the Christians (vi. 22). He has no idea of regarding Christianity from the inside, and of inquiring into the reason of its influence ; he uses jest for argument, and interprets every- thing in a bad sense. Treating of the flight of Jesus into Egypt, and afterwards (as he alleges) before the betrayal, he asks, " Had God need to fly from His enemies ? Does fear belong to Goci ? " From such instances it is evident that Cel- sus wholly misapprehended the force of the doctrine that he was attacking. There are cases, indeed, in which he shews himself more acute. He challenges the evidence of Chris- tianity, and asks, "Who saw the dove lighting on the head of Jesus after His baptism ? " As to the Resurrection, he makes the remark which has been copied by Renan and others, that it was Mary Magdalene, " a fanatical woman," who was the first witness of the resurrection, according to all the accounts (ii. 55) ; and remarks on the disbelief invariably given to such accounts as those of the resurrection of Zamolxis, Pythagoras, Orpheus, Protesilaus, Hercules, and Theseus. But the most remark- able portions of his attack are those directed against the general character of Christianity. He dwells on the numerous sects of Christians, all of whom said, " Crede, si salvus fieri velis," and asks how one is to judge between so many? Origen does not deny the fact, but maintains that it is a proof of the importance of that on which they debated, and further that they all set forth Jesus alone as the means of salvation (vi. 11). Celsus accuses the Christians of law- lessness, and of keeping wholly to themselves, and not caring for those outside. He com- plains vehemently of them as discouraging learning, wisdom, and thought ; as rejecting the authority of reason ; as being the patrons of sinners, whereas to the heathen mysteries only " the holy and virtuous " were invited. He makes a great point of the opposition be- tween the morality of the Old and New Testa- ments, in respect of the earthly success which is the crowning happiness of the former, and so strongly reprobated by the latter. Finally, he maintains that no revelation of the Supreme 1 Being can be made ; but that, if it could be 154 CERDO made, it must be of universal and compelling ' efficacy ; that, however, all that is possible is revelation by an angel or demon, and even that he denies to Judaism or Christianity. The form of Celsus's work, the aX-qdy]? \6yos, is well known. He begins with a dialogue be- tween a Jew and a Christian, in which the Jew sets forth his objections to Christianity. But he had not any partiality for Judaism. He treats Moses and the Jewish Scriptures with a contempt which amusingly contrasts with the uncritical reverence which he pays to the Galactophagi of Homer, the Druids, and the Getae, whom he terms " wise and ancient nations " (i. i6) ; and with which he accepts the stories of Linus and Musaeus, though after- wards he rejects those of Perseus and Amphion (i. 64). In one of the most unpleasing pas- sages of his work, he compares Jews and Christians to a set of worms or frogs squab- bling in the mud, and saying, " God is, and we are next to Him, and it is for our sake that the whole world is made ; and God will come and take us up to heaven, except those who are bad, whom He will burn with fire." The work of Origen against him is, as a whole, of much controversial merit and philo- sophical breadth. Origen, indeed, like Celsus, is not free from the superstitions of his time ; thus he defends the star whose appearance is told in the second chapter of St. Matthew by a reference to comets, which, he remarks, por- tend future events, such as wars and pestil- ences. But, on the whole, there are few works of the ancient Fathers which can be read with more pleasure and profit. F. C. Baur has written an elaborate critique on Celsus in his work on Christendom and the Christian Church in the First Three Centuries (Tiibingen, 1853). But especially valuable is Prof. Theodor Keim's monograph (Celsus's Wahres Wort. Ziirich, 1873). Dr. Keim gathers together, and translates, the fragments of Celsus con- tained in Origen ; and adds disquisitions of much interest, both on Celsus himself and on two of his contemporaries, Lucian of Samosata and Minucius Felix. Both Baur and Keim rate Celsus too highly ; but the general ten- dency of Christian writers has naturally been to underrate him. The date of Celsus's treat- ise is fixed by Keim as a.d. 177, or 178. (Cf. Renan, Marc-Aurele; Pelagaud, Etude sur Celse (Lyons, 1828) ; Aube, Histoire des perse- cutions (Paris, 1878) ; Lightfoot, Apost. Fath. IL i. pp. 513 ff-) [J-R-M.] Cerdo (1) (KipSwv), a Gnostic teacher of the first half of the 2nd cent., principally known as the predecessor of Marcion. Epiphanius (Haer. 41) and Philaster (Haer. 44) assert him to have been a native of Syria, and Irenaeus (i. 27 and iii. 4) states that he came to Rome in the episcopate of Hyginus. This episcopate lasted four years, and Lipsius {Chronologie der romischen Bischo/e) places its termination a.d. 139-14 1. Bearing in mind the investigations of M. Waddington concerning the year of Poly- carp's martyrdom, we prefer the earlier date, if not a still earlier one, and would put Cerdo's arrival at Rome as early as a.d. 135. According to the account of Irenaeus, Cerdo had not the intention of founding a sect apart from the church. He describes him as more than once coming to the church and making CERINTHUS public confession, and so going on, now teach- ing his doctrine in secret, now again making public confession, now convicted in respect of his evil teaching, and removed, or, as some think, voluntarily withdrawing himself, from ! the communion of the brethren (d^itrTd/iei'os TTjj Tu!v a.5e\(pQi> evvodias). Epiphanius seems I inaccurate in giving a heading to a sect of I Cerdonians. Preceding writers speak ordy of Cerdo, not of Cerdonians ; and probably his 1 followers were early merged in the school of 1 Marcion, who is said to have joined himself to ! Cerdo soon after his arrival in Rome. j Apparently Cerdo left no writings, nor is 1 there evidence that those who report his 1 doctrine had any knowledge of it independent j of the form it took in the teaching of his Marcionite successors. Consequently we can- not now determine with certainty how much of the teaching of Marcion had been antici- pated by Cerdo, or what points of disagree- ment there were between the teaching of the I two. Hippolytus, in his Refutation (x. 19), makes no attempt to discriminate between their doctrines. Tertullian, in his work against Marcion, mentions Cerdo four times, but only as Marcion's predecessor. Irenaeus says that Cerdo taught that the God preached : by the law and the prophets was not the j Father of our Lord ; for that the former was known, the latter unknown ; the former was j just, the latter good. Pseudo-TertuUian's account {Haer. 16) may be regarded as repre- senting that in the earlier treatise of Hippoly- tus, which was also used by Philaster and j Epiphanius. Thus we learn that Cerdo intro- duced two first principles (dpx«0 and two gods, the one good, the other evil, the latter I the creator of the world. It is an important difference that to the good god is opposed in j the account of Irenaeus a just one ; in that of Hippolytus, an evil one. In the later work of Hippolytus already cited, Cerdo is said to \ have taught three principles of the universe, j dyaddv, diKaiov, vXrjv. Ps. -Tertullian goes on to say that Cerdo rejected the law and the prophets, and renounced the Creator, teaching I that Christ was the son of the higher good , deity, and that He came not in the substance i of flesh but in appearance only, and had not ' really died or really been born of a virgin ; and j that Cerdo only acknowledged a resurrection of the soul, denying that of the body. He adds, but without support from the other authorities, that Cerdo received only the j Gospel of St. Luke, and that in a mutilated } form ; that he rejected some of Paul's epistles j and portions of others, and completely re- I jected the Acts and the Apocalypse. There is every appearance that Ps. -Tertullian here ; I transferred to Cerdo what in his authority was ! stated of Marcion. For a discussion of his ' other doctrines see Marcion. [g.s.] Cerinthus, a traditional opponent of St. John. It will probably always remain an open question whether his fundamentally Ebionite sympathies inclined him to accept ' Jewish rather than Gnostic additions. Modern scholarship has therefore preferred to view his ' doctrine as a fusing together and incorporating in a single system tenets collected from Jewish, ' Oriental, and Christian sources ; but the , nature of that doctrine is sufi&ciently clear, and '. CERINTHUS its opposition to the instruction of St. John as decided as that of the Nicohiitanes. Cerinthus was of Egyptian origin, and in religion a Jew. He received his education in the J udaeo-Philonic school of .Alexandria. On leaving Egvpt he visited Jerusalem, Caesarca, and .Antioch. From Palestine he passed into Asia and there developed t^s aiVoP dTru-Xeias ^dfyaOpoy (Epiph. xxviii. 2). Galatia, accord- ing to the same authority, was selected as his headquarters, whence he circulated his errors. On one of his journeys he arrived at Ephesus, and met St. John in the public baths. The Apostle, hearing who was there, fled from the place as if for life, crying to those about him : " Let us flee, lest the bath fall in while Cerin- thus, the enemy of the truth, is there." The value of this and other such traditions is confessedly n(it great — that of the meeting with St. John in the bath is told of " Ebion " as well as of Cerinthus ; — but a stratum of fact probably underlies them, and they at least indicate the feeling with which the early " Churchmen " regarded him. Epijihanius, by whom the majority are preserved, derived the principal portion of his statements partly from Irenaeus, and partly, as Lipsius has shewn with high probability, from the now lost earlier work of Hippolytus on heresies. His doctrines may be collected under the heads of his conception of the Creation, his Christology, and his Eschatology. His opin- ions upon two of these points, as preserved in existing works, support the usual view, that Cerinthus rather than Simon Magus is to be regarded as the predecessor of Judaeo-Chris- tian Gnosticism. Unlike Simon Magus and Menander, Cerin- thus did not claim a sacred and mystic power. Caius the Presbyter can only assert against him that he pretended to angelic revelations (Eus., Theod.). But his mind, like theirs, brooded over the co-existence of good and evil, spirit and matter ; and his scheme seems intended to free the " unknown God " and the Christ from the bare imputation of infec- tion through contact with nature and man. Trained as he was in the philosophy of Philo, the Gnosis of Cerinthus did not of necessity compel him to start from opposition- — in the sense of malignity- — of evil to good, matter to spirit. He recognized opposition in the sense of difference between the one active perfect principle of life — God — and that lower imper- fect passive existence which was dependent upon God ; but this fell far short of malignity. He therefore conceived the material world to have been formed not by " the First God," but by angelic Beings of an inferior grade of Emanation (Epiph.). More precisely still he described the main agent as a certain Power {ii'rvaiiii) separate and distinct from the " Principality " (7; vnep to. b\a avOevrda, v. Suicer, Thes. s.v. ai'^.) and ignorant of t6v i'TTtp wdvTa 6iov. He refused in the spirit of a true Jew to consider the " God of the Jews" identical with that author of the material world who was alleged by Gnostic teachers to be inferior and evil. He preferred to identify him with the Angel who delivered the Law (Epiph. and Philastr.). Neander and Ewald have pointed out that these are legitimate deductions from the teaching of Philo. The CERINTHUS 156 conception is evidently that of an age when hereditary and instinctive reverence for the law served as a check upon the system- maker. Cerinthus is a long way from the bolder and more hostile schools of later Cinosticism. The Christology is of an Ebionite cast and of the same transition character. \t must not be assumed that it is but a form of the common Gnostic dualism, the double-personality after- wards elaborated by Basilides and Valentinus. Epiphanius, the chief soiirce of information, is to many a mere uncritical compiler, some- times following Hippolytus, sometimes Ire- naeus. Now it is Christ Who is born of Mary and Joseph (Epiph. xxviii. i), now it is Jesus Who is born like other men, born of Joseph and Mary ; He differs from others only in being more righteous, more prudent, and more wise ; it is not till after baptism, when Jesus has reached maiUiood, that Christ, " that is to say, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove," descends upon Jesus from above {&vw0ev iK Tou &VUI Qiov' dirb ttJs virip ret 8\a avOevTEiat, Iren.), revealing to Him and through Him to those after Him the " unknown Father." If, as Lipsius thinks (p. 119), Irenaeus has here been influenced by the later Gnostic systems, and has altered the original doctrine oif Cerin- thus as given in Hippolytus, that doctrine would seem to be that he considered " Jesus " and " Christ " titles given indifferently to that One Personality Which was blessed by the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Power on high (t) ai'wOei' diii^afxis)- This Power enables Jesus to perform miracles, but forsakes Him at His Passion, " flying heavenwards." So, again, it is Jesus, according to one passage of Epiph- anius, Who dies and rises again, the Christ being spiritual and remaining impassible ; according to a second, it is Christ Who dies, but is not yet risen, nor shall He rise till the general resurrection. That passage, how- ever, which allows that the human body of Jesus had been raised from the dead separates its author completely from Gnostic successors. The Chiliastic eschatology of Cerinthus is very clearly stated byTheodoret, Caius, Diony- sius (Eus.), and Augustine, but not alluded to by Irenaeus. His silence need perhaps cause no surprise : Irenaeus was himself a Chiliast of the spiritual school, and in his notes upon Cerinthus he is only careful to mention what was peculiar to his system. The conception of Cerinthus was highly coloured. In his " dream " and " phantasy " the Lord shall have an earthly kingdom in which the elect are to enjoy pleasures, feasts, marriages, and sacrifices. Its capital is Jerusalem and its duration 1000 years : thereafter shall ensue the restoration of all things. Cerinthus de- rived this notion from Jewish sources. His notions of eschatology are radically Jewish : they may have originated, but do not contain, the Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage between the souls of the elect and the Angels of the Pleroma. Other peculiar features of his teaching may be noted. He held that if a man died unbap- tized, another was to be baptized in his stead and in his name, that at the day of resurrec- tion he might not suffer punishment and be made subject to the i^ov<xia Koa/jLoiroioi (cf. 156 CERINTHUS I. Cor. XV. 29). He had learned at Alexandria I to distinguish between the different degrees of ] inspiration, and attributed to different Angels 1 the dictation severally of the words of Moses and of the Prophets ; in this agreeing with | Saturninus and the Ophites. He insisted upon ] a partial observance of the "divine" law, 1 such as circumcision and the ordinances of [ the sabbath ; resembling, in this severance of | the genuine from the spurious elements of the I law, the school which produced the Clemen- \ tina and the Book of Baruch. He did not even ' scruple (ace. to Epiph.) to call him who gave the law " not good," though the epithet may ' have been intended to express a charge of - ethical narrowness rather than an identification of the Lawgiver with the wovnpbs of Marcion. Epiphanius admits that the majority of these opinions rest upon report and oral communi- cation. This, coupled with the evident confusion of the statements recorded, makes it difficult to assign to Cerinthus any certain place in the history of heresy. He can only be regarded generally as a link connecting Judaism and Gnosticism. The traditionary relations of Cerinthus to St. John have pro- bably done more to rescue his name from oblivion than his opinions. In the course of time popular belief asserted that St. John had written his Gospel specially against the errors of Cerinthus, a belief curiously travestied by the counter-assertion that not St. John but Cerinthus himself was the author of both the Gospel and the Apocalypse. It is not difficult to account on subjective grounds for this latter assertion. The Chiliasm of Cerinthus was an exaggeration of language current in the earliest ages of the church ; and no work in N.T. reproduced that language so ingenuously as the Apocalypse. The conclusion was easy that Cerinthus had but ascribed the Apoca- lypse to the Apostle to obtain credit and cur- rency for his own forgery. The " Alogi " argued upon similar grounds against the Fourth Gospel. It did not agree with the Synoptists, and though it disagreed in every possible way with the alleged doctrines of Cerinthus, yet the false-hearted author of the Apocalypse was, they asserted, certainly the writer of the Gospel. The Cerinthians (known also as Merinthians) do not appear to have long survived. If any are identical with the Ebionites mentioned by Justin {Dial. c. Tryph. 48), some gradually diverged from their master in a retrograde direction (Dorner, p. 320) ; but the majority were engulfed in sects of greater note. One last allusion to them is found in the ecclesias- tical rule applied to them by Gennadius Mas- siliensis : " Ex istis si qui ad nos venerint, non requirendum ab eis utrum baptizati sint an non, sed hoc tantum, si credant in ecclesiae fidem, et baptizentur ecclesiastico baptismate" {de Eccles. Dogmatibus, 22 ; Oehler, i. 348). The following primary and secondary autho- rities upon Cerinthus may be mentioned : Irenaeus, adv. Haer. ; S. Hippolytus, Refutatio omn. Haeres. (" Philosophumena ") ; Theod. Haeret. Fab. Camp. ; Epiphanius, Epit. Panar., Haer. ; Philastrius de Haeret., Corp. Haeres- olog. ; Augustine, de Haer. lib. viii. ; Pseudo- Tertullian, Lib. adv. omn. Haeres. x. ; Eus. Hist. Eccles. ; Neander, Ch. Hist. ; Ewald, CHR0MATIU5 Gesch. d. Volk. Israel ; Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. ; Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Epiphanius ; Dorner, Die Lehre v. d. Person Christi ; Mil- man, Hist, of Christianity ; Robertson, Hist of Christ. Ch. ; Westcott, Canon of N.T., p. 243 (ed. 1866) ; Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Canons, vol. i. 220-262, vol. ii. 973 etc. [j.m.f.] Christopher, St. (\piaTocp6pos), a martyr of universal fame, baptized by St. Babylas, the martyr-bp. of Antioch, who suffered (c. 250) under Decius in Lycia. From early times the untrustworthy character of some of the popular stories of him has been acknowledged. Usuard (a.d. 876) thus commemorated him (July 25) after St. James, according to the common Western use, in his Martyrologium : " At Samos in Licia. After he had been scourged with iron rods, and then delivered from the broiling flames by the virtue of Christ, his head was at last severed from his body, which had fallen full of arrow-wounds, and the martyr's witness was complete." For the legends respecting him (including the very familiar, but quite unauthentic, one of his bearing the Christ-child), see D. C. B. (4-V0). ed., S.V.), and two simple works written respectivelv bv the late Archd. Allen and W. G. Pearse (S.P.C.K.). [e.b.b.] Chromatius, bp. of Aquileia, one of the most influential Western prelates of his day, the friend and correspondent of Ambrose, Jerome, Rufinus, and other leading ecclesiastics, and a warm supporter of Chrysostom against his Oriental assailants. He was a native of Aquileia, w-here he resided under the roof of his widowed mother, together with his brother Eusebius and his unmarried sisters. Jerome, writing c. a.d. 374, congratulates the mother on her saintly offspring (Hieron. Ep. xliii. [vii.]). He was still a presbyter when he took part in the council held at Aquileia, against the Arians Palladius and Secundianus, a.d. 381 (Am- brose, Gest. Concil. A quit. tom. ii. pp. 834, § 45 ; 835, § 51 ; 843, § 76). On the death of Valerian, Chromatius became bishop of his native city. The date is placed by Baronius towards the end of a.d. 388. It was at his request that St. Ambrose ex- pounded the prophecy of Balaam in an epis- tolary form (Ambros. Ep. lib. i. ep. 50, § 16). To his importunities, together with those of Heliodorus, bp. of Altino, and the liberality with which they both contributed to the expenses, we owe several of Jerome's transla- tions of and commentaries on the books of O.T. {e.g. Tobit, Prov., Eccl., Cant., andChron.). In A.D. 392 he dedicated to Chromatius his two books of Commentaries on Habakkuk {Prolog, ad Habacc), and c. 397 yielded to his urgency and undertook the translation of Chronicles {Praef. in Paralip.). Chromatius was also an early friend of Rufi- nus, who, whilst an inmate of the monastery at Aquileia, received baptism at his hands c. a.d. 371 (Rufin. Apolog. in Hieron. lib. i. p. 204). When, on the publication of Rufinus's trans- lation of Origen's de Principiis, the friendship between Jerome and Rufinus was exchanged for violent animosity, Chromatius main- tained his friendship with both, and did his best to reconcile them. Chromatius imposed on Rufinus the task of translating the Eccle- siastical History of Eusebius into Latin, to- CHRYSIPPUS gether with Origen's Homilies on Joshua (Rufin. Hist. p. 15)- In the persecution of Chrysostom, Chroma- tins warmly embraced his cause. The posi- tion he held in the West is shewn by Chrysos- tom's uniting his name with those of Innocent bp. of Rome and Venerus bp. of Milan in the protest addressed to the Western church I Fallad. c. ii. ad fin.). Chromatins sent Chry- sostom a letter of sympathy by the hands of the Western deputation {ib. c. iv.), and a.d. 406 received from him a letter of grateful thanks (Chrys. E/y. civ.). Chromatins also wrote in Chrysostom's behalf to Honorius, who forwarded his letter to his brother Arcadius as an evidence of the sentiments of the Western church (Pallad. c. iii. iv.). He died c. 407. We have under his name 18 homilies on "the Sermon on the Mount," commencing with a Tractatus Singularis de Octo Beatitudinibus, followed by 17 fragments of expositions on Matt. iii. 13-17 ; v. ; \'i. His interpretation is literal, not allegorical, and his reflections moral rather than spiritual. Galland. Bibl. Vet. Pair. viii. c. 15 ; Migne, Patr. Led. xx. 247 seq. ; Tillemont, Mem. eccl. xi. pp. 538 seq. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 378. [e.v.] Chrysippus, one of four brothers, Cappa- docians by birth, of whom two others were named Cosmas and Gabriel, as recorded by C\Til of Scythopolis. They left their native country for Jerusalem, that they might be instructed by the celebrated abbat Euthymius. In 455 Chrysippus was made the superior of the monastery of Laura, and subsequently of the church of the Resurrection, by the patri- arch Juvenal. He was raised to the presby- terate, and on the elevation of his brother Cosmas, who had held the office, to the see of Scythopolis, was appointed " guardian of the Holy Cross," which he held till his death. Chrysippus was a copious author, and accord- ing to Cyril, who praises him as davfiacrrbs avyypacpevs, " left many works worthy of all acceptation," very few of which are extant. A"laudatio Joannis Baptistae," delivered on the occasion of his festival, is printed in a Latin translation by Combefis (Biblioth. Concionat. vii. 108). Fabricius mentions a Homilia in Deiparam, printed in the Auctarium Biblioth. Patr. (Paris, 1624), vol. ii. p. 424, and a Laud- atio Theodori Martyris, which appears to be lost. Photius (Cod. 171) records his having read in a writing of Chrysippus a statement relating to the baptism of Gamaliel and Nico- demus by SS. Peter and John, and the martj'r- dom of the latter, which Chrysippus had derived from a fellow-presbyter^ Lucian, to whom it had been revealed in a dream, to- gether with the localities in which their bodies and that of St. Stephen were to be found. This is a very early example of the dreams indicating the position of valuable relics which we meet with so frequently in the middle ages, by which the failing fortunes of a religious house were revived, or the rival attractions of another establishment emulated (Cyrill. Scy- thop. Vit. S. Eiithym. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 444 ; Combefts, Bibl. Cone. i. 8.) [e.v.] Chrysogonus (1), martyr in the persecution of Diocletian, whose name was inserted in the Canon of the Mass from a very early period, which shews his importance, though little is CHRYSOLOGUS, PETRUS 157 now known of him. In the Menology he is commemorated along with Anastasia, Dec. 22. He was of " great Rome," " a man that feared God," "teacher of the Christians"; "and when persecution was set on foot he was arrested and cast into prison." " Diocletian, staying at Nice, wrote to Rome that all the Christians should die, and that Chrysogonus should be brought bound to Nice, and when he was brought he beheaded him." For Nice we should probably read Nicomedia. In these acts it is easy to trace the effects of the first and second of Diocletian's edicts. Chry- sogonus evidently was not one of the traditors, so numerous at Rome under the first edict, Feb. A.D. 303. Hence, when by the second edict, not long after, all the clergy were com- mitted to jail, he exercised great influence from his prison on the faithful, still for the most part unscathed and at large. The ques- tion is to what we are to refer the statement about the decree that all Christians should be killed, and that Chrysogonus should be brought to Bithvnia. His passion is assigned to Dec. 22. By the third edict, on the great anniversary festival of the emperor on the 2ist, the clergy were to sacrifice if they were to be included in the general release of prison- ers ; if not, torture was to be employed to induce them. But there were no general orders for the arrest of all Christians. The rescript of Trajan was still in force. But the great festival must have brought to light many a recusant. They might not be executed, but if they died under torture it was strictly legal. When, in the spring of a.d. 304, the fourth edict appears, it sets forth no new penalties ; it merely interprets the previous decrees in all the grim pregnancy of their meaning : " certis poenis intereant." It may well be that the constancy of men like Chrysogonus, under their tortures, was among the things that drove Diocletian mad ; and that he left word at his hurried departure from Rome (Dec. 22, a.d. 303), " Send him after me." The martyrdom is assigned by several Western authorities to Aquileia or the neighbouring Aquae Gradatae in Friulia. The day to which it is almost universally assigned in "the West, from the Calendar of Carthage onwards, is Nov. 24. Anastasia's commemo- ration in the West is on Dec. 25, and in some of the Hieronymian martyrologies her passion is assigned to Sirmium, which was probably the scene of Diocletian's illness. But Usuard tells that she was transported to the little isle Palmaruola (about lat. 410, long. 310) in the Tyrrhene sea. [e.b.b.1 ChrysologUS, Petrus, archbp. of Ravenna, A.D. 433-454, said to have been born at Forum Cornelii (Imola), according to Agnellus, in the episcopate of Cornelius, by whom he was brought up [Serm. 165), ordained deacon, and made oeconomus of the church. The ordinary account of Peter's elevation to the see of Ravenna, which is repeated by successive bio- graphers with ever-increasing definiteness of statement, does too much violence to the facts of history to be worthy of credit. The impro- babilities of the story are exposed by Tille mont, and it is stigmatized by Dupin as " a groundless tale related by no credible author." It is, however, given so circumstantially by 15^ CHRYSdSTOM, JOHK Agiiellus in his Liber Pontificalis that it may contain some distorted elements of truth. In tlie 176 sermons of his still extant we look in vain for traces of the golden eloquence to which he owed his surname. They are very short, written in brief simple sentences ; his meaning is always clear, and his language natural ; but there is nothing in them calcu- lated to touch the heart or move the affections. His fame as a preacher evidently depended more on voice and manner than on matter. His sermons are almost all on subjects from the gospels, usually the parables and miracles, commencing with a course of six on the pro- digal son. Many other works ascribed to him, including commentaries on Scripture, and letters against the Arians, have all perished by lire, partly in the siege of Imola, by Theodoric, c. A.D. 524 ; partly in the conflagration of the archbishop's library at Ravenna, c. a.d. 700. Tillemont.xv. ii4seq. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 432; Migne, Pair. Lat. lii. pp. 9-680 ; Herzog, Real- Encyc. ii. 695. [e.v.] ChrysOStom, John ('Iwawrj^ Xpi'trooro^os). The surname " golden-mouthed," given to the great preacher of Antioch, and bp. of Constan- tinople, on account of the magnificent brilliancy of his eloquence (cf. Petrus Chrvsologus), has entirely superseded . his personal name John, which alone is found in contemporary or closely subsequent writers. When the epithet was first applied is unknown. There is no trace of it in his lifetime, but it was in common use before the end of the 5th cent. Chrysostom was born at Antioch probably A.D. 347. He was of good family ; his father Secundus filling the post of " magister mili- tum " (a-TpaT7)\d.TT]s), one of the eight men of distinguished rank — illustres viros ( Veget. de Re Militari, ii. 9) — who commanded the imperial armies. His mother, Anthusa, was also a lady of good family (Pallad. p. 40 ; Socr. vi. 3). Anthusa, while John was an infant, was left a widow at the age of twenty, refused all offers of marriage, and devoted herself to the educa- tion of her boy and the care of his property (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 55). Her unremitting devotion to her maternal duties excited ad- miration even from the heathen [Ep. ad Vid. Jun. i. c. 2, p. 340). St. Chrysostom's life may be conveniently divided into five epochs : (a) His life as a lay- man at Antioch till his baptism and admission as a reader, a.d. 347-370 ; (b) his ascetic and monastic life, a.d. 370-381 ; (c) his career as deacon, presbyter, and preacher at Antioch, A.D. 381-398 ; (d) his episcopate at Constan- tinople, a.d. 398-404 ; {e) exile, a.d. 404-407. (a) Life as a Layman at Antioch. — The intel- lectual power manifested at a very early age marked him out as fitted for one of the learned professions. The bar was chosen, and at about 18 years of age he began to attend the lectures of the celebrated sophist Libanius, the intimate friend and correspondent of the emperor Julian, and tutor of Basil the Great, who had come to end his days in his native city of Antioch. The genius and ability of the pupil excited the greatest admiration in his master, who, being asked on his deathbed, c. A.D. 395, which of his pupils he thought wor- thiest to succeed him, replied, " John, if the Christians had not stolen him from us " (Soz. CHRVSOStOM, JOHN H. E. lib. viii. c. 2). When Chrysostom commenced practice as an advocate, his gift of eloquence speedily displayed itself. His si^eeches were listened to with delight, and were highly praised by Libanius, no mean judge of rhetoric. A brilliant career was opening before the young man, leading to al that men most covet, wealth, fame, high place. But a change, gradual but mighty, came over his spirit, and like another young student of the neighbouring province of Cilicia, " the things that were gain to him he counted loss for Christ." Like Timothy at the knees of Eunice, " from a child " Chrysostom had learnt from his devout mother the things that were " able to make him wise unto salvation," and his soul revolted at the contrast between the purity of the gospel standard and the baseness of the aims and viciousness of the practices prevalent in the profession he had chosen. To accept a fee for making the worse appear the better cause seemed to his generous and guileless soul to be bribed to lie— to take Satan's wages — to sin against his own soul. His disinclination to the life of a lawyer was much increased by the influence of the exam- ple of his intimate friend Basil, the companion of his studies and the sharer of all his thoughts and plans. The two friends had agreed to follow the same profession ; but when Basil decided on adopting a monastic life, and to follow, in Chrysostom's words, " the true philosophy," Chrysostom was unable at once to resolve to renoimce the world, to the attrac- tions of which his ardent nature was by no means insensible, and of which he was in some danger of becoming a slave. He was " a never-failing attendant at the law courts, and passionately enamoured of the theatre " {de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 14, p. 363). His friend Basil's adoption of an ascetic life at first caused an interruption of their intercourse. But life was intolerable separated from his second self. He renewed his intimacy with Basil. The pleasures and pursuits of the world became distasteful to him, and he soon resolved to abandon it altogether, quitting mother and home, and finding some sacred retreat where he and his friend could devote themselves to strict ascetism (ib. c. 4). This decisive change — Chrysostom's conversion we should now call it- — was greatly promoted by the acquaintance he formed at this period with the mild and holy Meletius, the orthodox and legitimate bp. of Antioch, who had recently returned to his see after one of his many banishments for the faith. Meletius quickly observed the intel- lectual promise of the young lawyer, and, enamoured of the beauty of his disposition, sought frequent opportunities of intercourse, and in a prophetic spirit declared the greatness of his future career (Pallad. p. 40). Up to this time Chrysostom, though the child of Christ- ian parents, had remained unbaptized, a not unfrequent practice at this epoch. The time for public profession of his faith was now come, and after a probation of three years, Meletius baptized him, and ordained him reader. This was in a.d. 369 or 370, when Chrysostom was about 23 years old (Pallad. p. 41). (b) Ascetic and Monastic Life. — Baptism re- stored the balance which Chrysostom tells us had been so seriously disturbed by Basil's CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN higher religious attainments {de Sacerdut. lib. i. c. 3, p. 363)- He became in the truest sense '■ a new man " (Pallad. p. 184). His desire to flee from the world, with his beloved Basil, was established, and only frustrated by the passionate entreaties of his weeping mother that her oidv child, for whom she had given up all, would not desert her. The whole scene is narrated by Chrysostom in a passage of ex- quisite simplicity and tenderness (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 5, pp. 363-365). His affectionate nature could not resist a mother's tears. In spite of Basil's continued urgency, he yielded so far as to remain at home. But if out of lUial regard he abstained from deserting his home for a monastery, he would make a mon- astery of his home. He practised the most rigid asceticism, ate little and seldom, and that of the plainest, slept on the bare ground, and rose frequently for prayer. He rarely left the house, and, to avoid his old habit of slander, kept almost unbroken silence. It is not sur- prising tliat his former associates called him morose and unsociable (ib. lib. vi. c. 12, p. 431). Upon some of these associates, however, his influence began to tell. Two of his fellow- pupils under Libanius, Maximus, afterwards bp. of Seleucia, and Theodorus, bp. of Mop- suestia, adopted the ascetic life under the superintendence of Diodorus and Carterius, who presided over a monastery in or near Antioch. From Diodorus Chrysostom learnt the clear common-sense mode of interpreting Holy Scripture (repudiating the allegorizing principle), of which he and Theodore became such distinguished representatives. The in- ability of his friend Theodore to part definitely with the world, and stifle natural instincts, was the occasion of the composition of Chry- sostom's earliest extant treatises. Theodore's love for a girl named Hermione led him to leave the ascetic brotherhood and return to secular life. Chrysostom's heart was deeply stirred at this. He regarded it as a sin to be repented of and forsaken if Theodore would not forfeit salvation. He addressed two letters to him full of impassioned eloquence, earnestly calling him to penitence and amend- ment. His fervid remonstrances succeeded. Theodore gave up his engagement, and finally abandoned the world (ad Theodorum Lapsum, Ep. i. ii. ; Socr. H. E. vi. 3). We now come to a passage in Chrysostom's life which we must condemn as utterly at variance with truth and honour. Yet we must bear in mind that the moral standpoint of the Fathers was on this point different from our own. It was generally held that the cul- pability of an act of deception depended upon its purpose, and that if this was good the deception was laudable. Chrysostom himself says, " There is a good deceit such as many have been deceived by, which one ought not even to call a deceit at all," instancing that of Jacob, " which was not a deceit, but an economy " (Hotnil. vi. in Col. ii. 8). On this principle, which every healthy conscience now repudiates, Chrysostom proceeded to plan and execute a deliberate fraud to entrap his friend Basil into consecration to the episco- pate. Several sees were now vacant in Syria, which it was desirable to fill without delay. A body of prelates met at Antioch for this CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 159 purpose. Among those suitable for the epis- copate, Chrysostom and Basil were pointed out, though they were not yet even deacons. Chrysostom's awful sense of the weight and responsibility of the priestly office, which breathes in every line of his treatise de Sacer- dotio, and of his own unfitness, made him tremble at the idea of ordination. Basil, on the contrary, he considered to be well tjualified, and he was fully resolved that the church should not lose the services of his friend. While, therefore, he pretended acquiescence in his friend's proposition that they should decide alike in the matter, he secretly resolved to avoid the dreaded honour by concealment. When the time of consecration arrived, and Basil was carried before the bishops, and re- luctantly forced to accept ordination, Chry- sostom was nowhere to be found, and it was represented to Basil that he had been already consecrated. When too late Basil discovered the unfaithfulness to their compact, and upbraided Chrysostom ; his complaints were received with laughter and loud expressions of thankfulness at the success of his plot (de Sacerdot. lib. i. c. 3, p. 365). [Basilius.] About A.D. 374 Chrysostom carried into effect his resolution of devoting himself to an ascetic life, and left his home for a monastic community on one of the mountain ranges S. of Antioch. As there is no reference in any of his writings to any opposition from his mother, it is probable that her death had left him free. After four years spent in unremitting auster- ities, he left the society of his kind, and, dwel- ling in a mountain cavern, practised still more rigid self-discipline (Pallacl. p. 41). At the end of two years his health so completely gave way that he was forced to return to his home in Antioch. To these austerities may be attributed that debilitated frame, weakness of digestion, and irritability of temperament, to which his constant physical sufferings and many of his chief difficulties and calamities are not remotely traceable. (c) A Preacher and Presbyter at Antioch.' — ■ Chrysostom did not return to Antioch to be idle. He was ordained deacon by Meletius A.D. 381, shortly before the latter left to pre- side over the oecumenical council of Constan- tinople (Pallad. p. 42). Meletius died during the session of the council, and his successor Flavian raised Chrysostom to the presby- terate early in a.d. 386 (ib.). During his five years' diaconate he had gained great popularity by his aptness to teach, and his influence had made itself widely felt at Antioch. While deacon he composed the de Virginitate : the Ep. ad Viduam Juniorem, addressed to the young widow of Therasius (c. 381) ; its sequel de non Iterando Conjugio ; and the orations de Martyre Babyla. After his ordination he preached his first sermon before the bishop, and a vast crowd was gathered by the fame of his eloquence (Sermo, cum Presbyt. fuit Ordinatus, de se ac de Episcopo, deque Populi M ultitudine) . The succeeding ten years, embracing Chrysostom's life as a presbyter at Antioch, were chiefly devoted to the cultivation of the gift of pulpit eloquence on which his celebrity mainly rests. It was during this period that " the great clerk and godly preacher," as our First Homily terms 160 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN him, deli%'ered the greater part of the dis- courses extant, which must be but a very small portion of those preached, for he preached re- gularly twice a week, on Saturday and Sunday, besides Lent and saints' days, and, as we learn from his homilies on Genesis, sometimes five days in succession (Tillemont, torn. xi. p. 34)- Flavian appointed him frequently to preach in the cathedral. Whenever he preached the church was densely thronged, the hearers tes- tifying their delight in loud and noisy applause. This was highly offensive to Chrysostom, who often rebuked their unseemly behaviour {adv. Avian, de Incomprehen. Dei Natura, Homil. iii. c. 7, p. 471 ; Homil. iv. § 6, p. 480). The most remarkable series of homilies, containing his grandest oratorical flights, and evincing most strikingly his power over the minds and passions of men, are the Homilies on the Statues, delivered in March and April, a.d. 387, while the fate of Antioch was hanging in awful suspense on the will of the justly of- fended emperor Theodosius. The demand for a large subsidy to pay a liberal donative to the army had exasperated the citizens. The ominous silence with which the proclamation of the edict was received, Feb. 26, broken only by the wailings of the women, was soon suc- ceeded by mutinous cries, and all the symp- toms of a popular outbreak. The passions of the mob were stimulated by those who had nothing to lose and might gain from public disorder. The influence of Flavian might have calmed the tumult, but he was from home. The rabble, swelling in numbers and fury as it rushed through the city, proceeded to acts of open violence. The public baths were ransacked ; the praetorium was attacked and the mob with difficulty repulsed, the governor saving himself by flight through a back door, and finally the hall of judgment was stormed. This was the scene of their crowning act of insurrection. The portraits of the emperors, which decorated the walls of the court, were pelted with stones and filth, and torn to shreds, the Augusti themselves were loaded with curses, and the statues of Theo- dosius and his deceased wife, the excellent Flaccilla, were torn from their pedestals and ignominiously dragged through the streets. Further outrages were only stopped by the appearance of a band of archers dispatched by the prefect. The mutiny quelled, calm reflec- tion set before them the probable consequences of this recent fury. Panic fear, as is usual, succeeded the popular madness. The out- bursts of unrestrained passion, to which the emperor was subject, were well known. The insult to his beloved empress would be certain to be keenly resented and terribly avenged. It was only too probable that an edict would be issued for the destruction of Antioch or for the massacre of its inhabitants, foreshadowing that of Thessalonica, which three years later struck horror into the Christian world. Their only hope lay in the intercession of Flavian, who, regardless of his age and the serious ill- ness of his sister, had instantly started for the imperial city, to lay at the emperor's feet the confession of his people and to supplicate for pardon. Day by day, during this terrible suspense, lasting for three weeks, Chrysostom devoted his noblest gifts as a sacred orator CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN to awaken repentance among the dissolute crowds hanging on his impassioned words. Just before Easter Flavian returned with the glad tidings that their crime was pardoned. The homily delivered by Chrysostom on Easter day (the 21st of the series) describes the inter- view of Flavian with Theodosius, the prelate's moving appeal for clemency, and its immedi- ate effect on the impressionable mind of the emperor, who granted a complete amnesty and urged Flavian's instant return to relieve the Antiochenes from their terrible suspense. One happy result of this crisis was the conversion of a large number of the still heathen popula- tion to Christianity (Homil. de Anna. I. c. i, vol. iv. p. 812). These events occurred in the spring of a.d. 387. For ten years longer Chrysostom con- tinued as a preacher and teacher at Antioch. To this period may be assigned his comment- aries on Gen. and Pss., St. Matt, and St. John, Acts, Rom., Cor., Gal., and Eph. Those on Tim. i., ii.. Tit., and on the other Epp. of St. Paul, are considered by Tillemont to have been certainly delivered at Constantinople (Till. Mem. eccl. torn. xi. pp. 92-97, 370-376). (d) Episcopate of Constantinople. — Chrysos- tom's residence at Antioch ended in a.d. 397. In Sept. the bp. of Constantinople, the amiable and indolent Nectarius, died. The vacant see was one of the most dignified and influential in the church. Public expectation was excited as to his successor. The nomination rested with the emperor Arcadius, but virtually with the prime minister Eutropius. Passing by numerous candidates, he determined to ele- vate one who had no thought of being a candidate at all, John of Antioch, whose eloquence had impressed him during a recent visit to Antioch on state business. Chrysos- tom's name was received with delight by the electing prelates, and at once unanimously accepted. The difficulty lay with Chrysostom himself and the people of Antioch. The double danger of a decided " nolo episcopari " on Chrysostom's part and of a public commo- tion among the Antiochenes was overcome by stratagem. Asterius, the " comes orien- tis," in accordance with secret instructions from Eutropius, induced Chrysostom to ac- company him to a martyr's chapel outside the city walls. There he was apprehended by the officers of the government, and hurried over the 800 miles under military escort from stage to stage, and reached his imperial see a closely guarded prisoner. His remonstrances were unheeded ; his inquiries met with obstinate silence. Resistance being useless, Chrysostom felt it more dignified to submit. He was consecrated Feb. 26, 398, by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. The duty was very unwelcome, for Theophilus had left no stone unturned to secure the nomination of Isidore, a presbyter of Alexandria. The ceremony was witnessed by a vast multitude, assembled to listen to the inaugural sermon of one of whose eloquence they had heard so much. This " sermo enthronisticus " is lost (Socr. H. E. vi. 2 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 2 ; Pallad. p. 42). Constantinople soon learnt the difference between the new bishop and his predecessor. Chrysostom at once disfurnished the epis- copal residence, and disposed of the costly CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN plate and rich equipment for the benefit of the poor and the hospitals (Pallad. pp. 46, 47). Instead of banqueting with the laity, he ate the simplest fare in his solitary chamber {ib. pp. loi, 102). He studiously avoided the court and association with the great, and even ordinarv conversation, except when duty com- pelled (ib. pp. 103, 120-123). Such behaviour could hardly fail to be misrepresented. To the populace, accustomed to the splendour of former bishops, Chrysostom's simplicity ap- peared unworthy of his lofty station, and he was openly charged with parsimony, morose- ness, and pride (Socr. H. E. vi. 4 ; Soz.. H. E. viii. 9). Nor was the contrast more acceptable to most of his clergy, whose moral tone was far from elevated. Chrysostom, with uncom- promising zeal, attempted to bring them back to simplicity of life and to activity in their calling. He deposed some on charges of homicide and adultery, and repelled others from the Eucharist. He set his face resolutely against the perilous custom of receiving " spiritual sisters " {avveiffaKrai), which was frequently the source of the grossest immorali- ties. To obviate the attractions of the Arians who at night and at early dawn gathered large crowds by their antiphonal hymns under por- ticoes and in the open air, as well as for the benefit of those unable to attend the church in the day, he revived the old custom of nocturnal services with responsive chanting, to the in- dignation of those clergy to whom ease was dearer than the spiritual improvement of their flocks (Pallad. p. 47 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 8 ; Homil. in Acta, 26, c. 3, p. 212). His dis- ciplinary measures were rendered more un- popular by his lack of a conciliatory manner, coupled with irritability of temper and no small obstinacy (Socr. H. E. vi. 3, 21 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 3). He was also too much swayed by his archdeacon, Serapion, a proud, violent man, who is reported to have ex- claimed at an assembly of the clergy, " You will never be able, bishop, to master these mutinous priests unless you drive them before you with a single rod " (Pallad. 18, 19 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 4 ; Soz. viii. 9). But while his relations with his clergy were becoming increasingly embittered, he stood high in favour with the people, who flocked to his sermons, and drank in greedily his vehement denunciations of the follies and vices of the clergy and aristocracy (Socr. vi. 4, 5). He was no less popular with Arca- dius and his empress, the Prankish general's daughter, Eudoxia, who was beginning to sup- plant the author of her elevation, the eunuch Eutropius, and to make her feeble partner bow to her more powerful will. For a time the bishop and the empress, between whom was afterwards so uncompromising an hostility, vied with one another in expressions of mutual admiration and esteem. Towards the latter part of 398, not long after Chrysostom had taken possession of his see, the relics of some anonymous martyrs were translated by night with great ceremony to the martyry of St. Thomas, on the seashore of Drypia, about nine miles from the city, which the empress had instituted in a fit of religious excitement. So lengthened was the procession and so brilliant the torches, that Chrysostom compares it to CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 161 a river of fire. The empress herself in royal diadem and purple, attended by nobles and ladies of distinction, walked by the side of the bishop, in the rear of the chest enclosing the sacred bones. It was dawn before the church was reached and Chrysostom began his sermon. 1 1 was full of extravagant laudat ions of Euxodia and of ecstatic expressions of joy, which after- wards formed a ground of accusation against him (Homil. Dicta Postquam Reliquiae, etc. vol. xii. pp. 4.68-473). The next day the em- peror with his court visited the shrine, and, laying aside his diadem, reverenced the holy martyrs. After the departure of Arcadius Chry- sostom delivered a second enthusiastic homily in praise of his piety and humility (Homil. Dicta Praesente Imperatore, ib. pp. 474-480). At the same period the largeness of Chrysos- tom's heart and the sincerity of his Christian love were manifested by his care for the spirit- ual state of the numerous Goths at Constan- tinople. Some were Catholics, but the major- ity were Arians. He had portions of the Bible translated into their vernacular, and read by a Gothic presbyter to his countrymen in the church of St. Paul, who afterwards addressed them in their own tongue (Homil. 8, vol. xii. pp. 512-526). Chrysostom himself frequently preached to them by an interpreter. He ordained native readers, deacons, and presby- ters, and dispatched missionaries to the Gothic tribes who still remained on the banks of the Danube, and consecrated a bishop from among themselves named Unilas (Theod. H. E. v. 30 ; Ep. 14, 207). Having learnt that the nomad Scythian tribes on the banks of the Danube were desirous of being instructed in the faith, he at once dispatched missionaries to them, and corresponded with Leontius, bp. of Ancyra, with regard to the selection of able men from his diocese for this work (ib. H. E. V. 31). In his zeal for the suppression of pagan idolatry he obtained an imperial edict, a.d. 399, for the destruction of the temples in Phoenicia, which was carried out at the cost of some Christian ladies of Constantinople, who also supplied funds for missionary exertions in that country (ib. v. 29). These efforts for the propagation of the faith were very dear to Chrysostom's heart, and even during his exile he superintended and directed them by letter (Ep. 53, 54, 123, 126). He endeavoured to crush false doctrine wherever it was making head. Having learnt that the Marcionite heresy was infecting the diocese of Cyrus, he wrote to the then bishop, desiring him to expel it, and offering to help him in putting in force the imperial edicts for that purpose. He thus evidenced, in the words of Theodoret, that, like St. Paul, he bore in his heart " the care of all the churches " (H. E. v. 31). Eutropius fell from power in 399. He had hoped for a subservient bishop ; but not only did Chrysostom refuse to countenance his nefarious designs, but denounced his vices from the pulpit with unsparing fidelity. The unhappy man, hurled in a moment from the pinnacle of his greatness, took refuge for a while in the church, but was ultimately be- headed at Chalcedon (Socr. H. E. vi. 5 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 7 ; Philost. H. E. xi. 6 ; Zosimus, V. 18 ; Chrys. Horn, in Eutrop. vol. iii. pp. 454-460; de Capto Eutrop. ib. pp. 460-482). u 162 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN Early in a.d. 400 Gainas, the haughty Goth who had had a large share in the downfall of Eutropius.demandedthesurrenderofthreelead- ingministers, Aurelianustheconsul.Saturninus, ajid count John the empress's chief favourite. To relieve the emperor of embarrassment, they surrendered themselves. Their lives were in extreme danger. Chrysostom resorted to Gainas's camp, pleaded the cause of the hos- tages, and endeavoured to persuade the Goth to lessen his extravagant demands to be made consul and commander-in-chief, which would have placed the emperor at his mercy. Gain- as had urged his claim for one of the churches of Constantinople for Arian worship, but Chrysostom's eloquence and spiritual author- ity overpowered him, and he desisted for a time at least in pressing his demand (Soz. H. E. viii. 4 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 6 ; Theod. H. E. V. 32, 33 ; Chrys. Horn, cum Saturn, et Aurel. etc., vol. iii. pp. 482-487). The sequel belongs to general history. The emperor, as a last resort, declared Gainas a public enemy ; the inhabitants of the city rose against the Goths ; a general massacre ensued, and Gainas was forced to flee for safety (Zosim. v. 18-22). At this epoch the power and popularity of Chrysostom was at its culminating point. We have now to trace its swift and complete de- cline. The author of his overthrow was the empress P2udoxia. Her shortlived religious zeal had burnt itself out, and when she found Chrysostom too clear-sighted to be imposed upon by an outward show of piety, and too uncompromising to connive at wrong-doing even in the highest places, and that not even her rank as empress could save her and her associates from public censure, her former attachment was changed into the most im- placable enmity. Jealousy of Chrysostom's influence over Arcadius contributed to her growing aversion. Chrysostom was now the only obstacle to her obtaining undisputed supremacy over her imbecile husband, and through him over the Eastern world. Means must be found to get rid of this obstacle also. Chrysostom himself afforded the opportunity inhis excessof zeal for the purity of the church by overstepping his episcopal jurisdiction, not then so strictly defined as in modem dioceses. Properly speaking, the bp. of Constantinople had no jurisdiction beyond the limits of his own city and diocese. For Constantinople, as a city whose imperial dignity was of modern creation, was not a metropolitan see, but sub- ject ecclesiastically to the metropolitan of Heraclea (otherwise Perinthus), who was ex- arch of the province of Thrace. The claims of Heraclea becoming antiquated, the prelates of Alexandria, as the first of the Eastern churches, gradually assumed metropolitan rights over Byzantium. But subjection to any other see was soon felt to he inconsistent with the dignity of an imperial city, and by the third canon of the oecumenical council held within its walls, a.d. 381, its bishop was de- clared second to the bp. of Rome, after him coming the metropolitans of Alexandria and Antioch. But this precedence was simply honorary, and although Nectarius had set the precedent followed by Chrysostom of exer- cising jurisdiction in the Thr'acian and Asiatic dioceses, the claim did not receive legal I CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN authority until the council of Chalcedon (can. 28). At a conference of bishops held at Con- stantinople in the spring of a.d. 400, Eusebius of Valentinopolis accused his brother bishop, Antoninus of Ephesus, of selling ordination to bishoprics, melting down the church plate for his own benefit, and other grave offences (Pallad. p. 126). A delegacy was dispatched to Asia to investigate these charges. Many dishonest and vexatious delays occurred, and the accused bishop died before any decision could be arrived at (ib. pp. 130-133). The Ephesian clergy and the bishops of the circuit appealed to Chrysostom to make peace. Prompt at the call of duty, Chrysostom, though it was the depth of winter (Jan. 401), and he in very feeble health, proceeded to Ephesus. On his arrival he exercised metro- political authority, deposing six bishops con- victed of simony, and correcting with unspar- ing hand the venality and licentiousness of the clergy {ib. pp. 134-135 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 10; Soz. H. E. viii. 6). His excessive severity did not reconcile the reluctant ecclesiastics to the questionable authority upon which he acted. The results of Chrysostom's absence of three months from Constantinople were dis- astrous. He had entrusted his episcopal authority to Severian, bp. of Gabala, who basely abused his trust to undermine Chry- sostom's influence at court. The cabal against Chrysostom was headed by the empress and her favourite ladies, of whose extravagance of attire and attempts to enhance their personal charms, the bishop had spoken with contemp- tuous ridicule, and among whom the wealthy and licentious widows Marsa, Castricia, and Eugraphia, " who used for the ruin of their souls the property their husbands had gained by extortion" (Pallad. pp. 35, 66), were con- spicuous. This cabal received an important accession by the arrival of two bishops from Palestine, Antiochus of Ptolemais and the grey-haired Acacius of Beroea (Pallad. 49). [AcAcius ; Antiochus.] Serapion, Chrysos- tom's archdeac(jn, had kept his master in- formed of Severian's base proceedings, and had continually urged his speedy return. His return was the signal for the outbreak of open hostilities, which Chrysostom's vehement and unguarded language in the pulpit exasperated. Soon after his return, he chose his text from the history of Elijah, and exclaimed, " Gather together to me those base priests that eat at Jezebel's table, that I may say to them, as Elijah of old, ' How long halt ye between two opinions ? ' " {ib. 74). This allusion was only too clear. He had called the empress Jezebel. The haughty Eudoxia could not brook the insult, and the doom of Chrysostom was sealed. But until the plot was ripe it was necessary to keep up the semblance of friendship, and even ■ of deference, towards one who could still make ecclesiastical authority felt. Some half-heard words of Severian, uttered in annoyance at Serapion's discourtesy, were distorted by the archdeacon into a blasphemous denial of Christ's Divinity (Socr. H. E. vi. 10; Soz. H. E. viii. 10). The charge was rashly credited by Chrysostom, who, without further inquiry, sentenced him to excommunica- tion and banishment from Constantinople. Chrysostom was still the idol of the commou CHRYS03T0M, JOHN people. The news spread that Severian had insulted their bishop, and Severian's life would have been in danger had he not speedily fled to Chalcedon, and put the Bosphorus be- tween himself and the enraged mob. All the authority of the emperor and the passionate entreaties of the empress, who even placed her infant son on Chrysostom's knees in the church of the Apostles as an irresistible plea for yielding to her petition, were needed to extort forgiveness for Severian. Chrysostom interceded for him with the populace {Horn, lie Recipiendo Severiano, vol. iii. pp. 492-494), and the semblance of peace was restored (Socr. and Soz. u.s.). The secret intrigues, checked for the time, soon broke out afresh. The allusion to J ezebel was not forgiven by Eudoxia, and Severian was equally implacable. The clergy were eager to rid themselves of one who, in the words of Palladius, " like a lamp burning be- fore sore eyes," was intolerable from the bril- liancy of his virtues. All they wanted was a powerful leader. Such a leader was found in Theophilus, bp. of .Alexandria, who had been unwillingly com- pelled to consecrate Chrysostom. A pretext for his interference was afforded by the hos- pitality shewn by Chrysostom and his friends to some Egyptian monks, known from their remarkable stature as " the Tall Brethren " [Ammonius], whom Theophilus had treated with great injustice and cruelty, nominally because of their Origenistic views, but really because they were privy to his own avarice and other vices (Isid. Pelusiot. Ep. i. 142). Chrysostom had received them kindly, and written in their behalf to Theophilus, who re- plied with an indignant remonstrance against protecting heretics and interfering in the affairs uf another diocese. The monks claimed the right of prosecuting their defamers (Pallad. pp. 51-62 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 7, 9 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 12, 13). A personal appeal to Eudoxia secured them this. Theophilus was summoned to appear before a council for the investigation of the whole case of these Nitrian monks, while their calumniators were called upon to substantiate their charges or suffer punishment. Theophilus, however, devised a scheme for turning the tables upon Chrysostom, and transforming the council into one before which Chrysostom himself might be arraigned ( Pallad. p. 64). [DiOSCORUS.] To pave the way for the execution of this plot Theophilus induced Epiphanius, the ven- erable bp. of Salamis, to visit Constantinople, with the decrees of a council recently held in Cyprus, by which the tenets of Origen which the Nitrian monks were charged with holding were condemned, for Chrysostom's signature (Socr. H. E. vi. 10-14 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 14)- Epiphanius petulantly declined the honours and hospitality prepared for him until Chrysostom had formally condemned Origen and expelled " the Tall Brethren." Chrysostom replied that he left both to the coming council, and would not prejudge the matter. The relations between the two pre- lates were further embittered by the ordination of a deacon by Epiphanius in violation of the canons of the church (Socr. H. E. vi. 11). No better success attended Epiphanius's CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 163 attempt to obtain a condemnation of Origen from the bishops then at Constantinople. An interview with the accused monks, at which Epiphanius was obliged to acknowledge that he had not read a page of their writings, and had condemned them on hearsay, seems to have opened his eyes to the real character of Theophilus and the nature of the transaction in which he had become an agent. He refused to take any further share in the designs of Theophilus, and set sail for Cyprus, dying on his voyage or soon after his return (Socr. H. E. vi. 12-14 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 14, 15). Shortly after Epiphanius's departure Theo- philus arrived at Constantinople, accompanied by a bodyguard of rough sailors from his own city of Alexandria, laden with costly presents. He received a vociferous welcome from the crews of the Egyptian corn-ships, but the bishops and clergy of the city kept aloof. He refused all communications with Chrysostom, rejected all his offers of hospitality, and, as- suming the position of an ecclesiastical supe- rior, not of a defendant about to take his trial, openly declared that he had come to depose Chrysostom for grave offences. The three weeks between his arrival and the commence- ment of the synod were devoted to ingratiating himself with influential personages and the disaffected clergy, by flattery, sumptuous banquets, and splendid gifts. Arcadius, pro- bably unaware of the plans of the secret cabal, remonstrated with Chrysostom for his delay in proceeding to Theophilus's trial, which Chrysostom justified by his unwillingness to usurp a jurisdiction not legitimately his (Socr. H. E. vi. 15; Soz. H. E. viii. 16; Pallad. 65, 66 ; Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent, i). Theo- philus had no such scruples. He assumed as patriarch of Alexandria the supremacy over all Eastern bishops, and claimed the right of summoning Chrysostom as a suffragan before his tribunal. Apprehensive of the well-known popularity of Chrysostom with the lower orders, he dared not venture to hold a synod in Constantinople. The place chosen was a suburb of Chalcedon, on the other side of the Bosphorus, known as " the Oak," where was a large church with contiguous buildings for the clergy and monks. Thirty-six bishops, of whom all but seven were Egyptians, Theo- philus's suffragans, formed the council. The Asiatic bishops were mainly such as Chrysos- tom had made his enemies during his recent visitation. None was more hostile than Ger- ontius of Nicomedia, whom he had deposed. The presidential chair was occupied by the bp. of Heraclea, as metropolitan. To this packed council, the members of which were at the same time " judges, accusers, and wit- nesses " (Phot. Cod. 59, ad init.), in the middle of July, A.D. 403, Chrysostom was summoned to answer to a list of charges containing 29 articles drawn up by the archdeacon John. Many of these were contemptibly frivolous, others grossly exaggerated, some entirely false (Pallad. p. 66). They had reference to the administration of his church and the al- leged malversation of its funds ; to his violent and tyrannical behaviour towards his clergy ; to his private habits — " he had private inter- views with women " — " he dined gluttonously by himself as a cyclops would eat " ; to ritual Ifi4 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN irregularities — " he robed and unrobed himself on his episcopal throne, and ate a lozenge after celebration " (Pallad. p. 66), and had violated the rule as to fasting communion ; to his having ordained unworthy persons ; and heretical deductions were drawn from sonie incautious and enthusiastic expressions in his sermons. A second list of charges under r8 heads was presented by Isaac the monk. In these the accusation of violence and inhos- pitality was renewed, and he was charged with invading the jurisdiction of other prelates (Phot. Cod. 59 ; Chrys. Ep. 125, ad Cyr.). The most flagrant charge was that of uttering treasonable words against the empress, com- paring her to Jezebel (Pallad. p. 74). This was construed into exciting the people to rebellion, and on this his enemies chiefly relied. The sessions lasted 14 days. Four times was Chrysostom summoned to appear before the self-appointed tribunal. His reply was digni- fied and unwavering. He refused to present himself before a packed synod of his enemies, to which he was summoned by his own clergy, and he appealed to a lawfully constituted general council. But irregular as the synod was, he expressed his readiness, in the interests of peace, to appear before it, if his avowed enemies, Theophilus, Severianus, Acacius, and Antiochus, were removed from the number of the judges. As this proposal met with no response, Chrysostom summoned a counter- synod of bishops attached to his cause, forty in number, whose letter of remonstrance to Theophilus was treated with contempt. At its twelfth sitting a message from the court urged the packed synod to come to a speedy decision. To this it yielded prompt obedience. By a unanimous vote it condemned Chry- sostom as contumacious and deposed him from his bishopric. The charge of uttering treasonable words was left to the civil power, his enemies secretlv hoping fof a capital sentence (Socr. H. E. vi. 15 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 17). The imperial rescript confirming the sentence of deposition, however, simply condemned the bishop to banishment for life. The indignation of the people knew no bounds, when, as the evening wore on, the sentence on their beloved bishop became generally known. A crowd collected round Chrysostom's resid- ence, and kept watch for 3 days and nights at its doors and those of the great church, lest he should be forcibly carried off. A word from him would have raised an insurrection. But the sermons he addressed to the vast multitudes in the cathedral advocated patience and resignation to the Divine Will. On the third day, during the noontide meal, he slipped out unperceived by a side door, and quietly surrendered himself to the imperial officers, by whom he was conducted after dark to the harbour and put on board a vessel which con- veyed him to Hieron at the mouth of the Eiixine. The victory of his enemies seemed complete. Theophilus entered the city in triumphal state and wreaked vengeance on the bishop's partisans. The people, who had crowded to the churches to pour forth their lamentations, were forcibly dislodged, not without bloodshed. Furious at the loss of their revered teacher, they thronged the approaches to the imperial palace, clamour- CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN ing for his restoration and demanding that his cause should be heard before a general council. Constantinople was almost in re- volt (Socr. H. E. vi. 16 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 18 ; Theod. H. E. v. c. 34 ; Zosim. Hist. V. 23 ; Pallad. p. 15). The following night the city was convulsed by an earthquake, felt with peculiar violence' in the bedroom of Eudoxia. The empress fell at Arcadius's feet, and entreated him to avert the wrath of Heavenby revoking Chrysostom's sentence. Messengers were dispatched to discover the exiled prelate, bearing letters couched in terms of the most abject humiliation. The news of Chrysostom's recall caused uni- versal rejoicing. Late as it was, a whole fleet of barques put forth to meet him. The Bosphorus blazed with torches and resounded with songs of triumph (Theod. H. E. v. 34). Chrysostom at first halted outside the city, claiming to be acquitted by a general council before resuming his see. The people sus- pected another plot, and loudly denounced the emperor and empress. Fearing a serious outbreak, Arcadius sent a secretary to desire Chrysostom to enter the walls without delay. .\s a loyal subject he obeyed. On passing the gates he was borne aloft by the crowd, carried into the church, placed on his episcopal seat, and forced to deliver an extemporaneous ad- dress. His triumph was now as complete as that of his enemies a few days before. Theo- philus, and some of the leaders of the cabal, lingered on in Constantinople, hoping for a turn in the tide. But they were now the un- popular party, and could hardly shew them- selves in the streets without being attacked and ill-treated. The person of Theophilus was no longer safe in Constantinople ; while a more formidable danger was to be apprehended if the general council, which Chrysostom pre- vailed OP the emperor to convoke, met and ' proceeded to inquire into his conduct. On the plea that his diocese could no longer put up with his absence, Theophilus abruptly left the city, and sailed by night for Alexandria (Socr. H. E. vi. 17; Soz. H. E. viii. 19; Chrys. £/>. ad Innocent.). His flight was speedily followed by the assembling of a council of about 60 bishops, which annulled the proceedings at the council of the Oak, and declared Chrysostom still legitimate bp. of Constantinople. This judicial sentence re- moved all Chrysostom's scruples, and he resumed his episcopal duties (Soz. H. E. viii. 19). The first result of the failure of. the machinations of Chrysostom's enemies, was an apparently complete reconciliation between him and the empress, who seemed entirely to have forgotten her former resent- ment. But, within two months, circumstances arose which proved the unreality of the friend-, ship, and awakened a still more irreconcilable feud. Eudoxia aspired to semi-divine hon- ours. A column of porph>Ty was erected in the lesser forum, in front of the church of St. Sophia, bearing aloft her silver statue for the adoration of the people. Its dedication in Sept. 403 was accompanied by boisterous and licentious revehry. The noise of this un- seemly merriment penetrated the church and. disturbed the sacred services. Chrysostom's holy indignation took fire, and he mounted the CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN diiibo and thundered forth a homily, embrac- ing in its fierce invective all who had any share in these profane amusements, abov^e all, the arrogant woman whose ambition was the cause of them. " Herodias," he was reported to Eudoxia to have exclaimed, " is once rnore maddening ; Herodias is once more dancing ; once more Herodias demands the head of John on a charger." All her former fury revived, and she demanded of the emperor signal redress. Sacerdotal and imperial authority stood confronted. One or other must yield (Socr. H. E. vi. iS ; Soz. H. E. viii. 20; Theophan. p. 68 ; Zosim. v. 24). The enemies of Chrysostom were not slow in reappear- ing. Acacius, Severian, Antiochus, with other members of the old cabal, hastened from their dioceses, and were soon in close conference with their former confederates among the fashionable dames and worldly and fri%-olous clergy of the city. After repeated deliberations they decided their policy. For months past Chrysostom had been wearying the emperor with demands for a general council. Let such a council be called, care being taken to select its members discreetly, and let this fresh outburst of treasonable lan- guage be laid before it, and the result could not be doubtful. Theophilus, too wary to appear again on the scene of his defeat, directed the machinations of the plotters. He put a new and powerful tool in their hands, in the 12th canon of the council of more than doubtful orthodoxy held at Antioch, a.d. 341, pro- nouncing the ipso facto deprivation of any bishop who, after deposition, appealed to the secular arm for restoration. The council met towards the end of 403. On the succeed- ing Christmas Day the emperor refused to communicate, according to custom, in the cathedral, on the ground of the doubtful legality of Chrysostom's position (Socr., Soz. U.S.). This was justly regarded as ominous of Chrysostom's condemnation. Chrysostom, supported by 42 bishops, maintained his usual calm confidence. He continued to preach to his people, and his sermons were characterized by more than common vigour and unction (Pallad. p. 81). The synod determined to submit the decision to the emperor. An adroit demand was made in Chrysostom's favour by Elpidius, the aged bp. of Laodicea, himself a confessor for the faith, that the chief promulgators of the canon of Antioch, Acacius and Antiochus, should subscribe a declaration that they were of the same faith as its original authors, who were mainly Arians. The emperor was amused, and at once agreed to the proposal. The two bishops caught in the trap became livid with rage (It'i. t6 7r€X(5i'67-epoi' fxerajSaXdvTes Tr)v fiopcpriv, Pallad. p. 80), but were compelled to promise a compliance, which their astuteness had little difficulty in evading. The synod continued its protracted session. We have no record of any formal decision or sentence. None indeed was necessary ; Chrysostom's violation of the Antiochene canon had deposed him : he was no longer bp. of Constantinople. Meanwhile Easter was fast approaching. It would be intolerable if the emperor were a second time shut out from his cathedral on a chief festival of the church. Chrysostom must be at once CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 165 removed : if possible, quietly ; if not, by force. Assured by Antiochus and his com- panions that Chrysostom had been actually condemned and had ceased to be a bishop, Arcadius was persuaded to order his removal {ib. p. 81). An imperial officer was sent to desire the bishop to leave the church imme- diately. Chrysostom respectfully but firmly refused. " He had received the church from God, and he would not desert it. The em- peror might expel him forcibly if he pleased. His violence would be his excuse before God for leaving his post." When the time arrived for the great baptismal function on Easter Eve, when no fewer than 3,000 catechumens were expected, he calmly left his residence, despite the orders of the emperor, and pro- ceeded to the cathedral. The imperial guards, forbidden to use force, dared not interfere. The perplexed emperor summoned Acacius and Antiochus, and reproached them for their advice. They replied that " Chrysostom, being no longer a bishop, was acting illegally in administering the sacraments, and that they would take his deposition on their own heads " (/7). p. 82). The emperor, overjoyed at having the responsibility of the bishop's condemna- tion removed from himself, at once ordered some guards to drag Chrysostom from the cathedral as usurping functions no longer his, and reconduct him to his domestic prison. A vast crowd was assembled in the church of St. Sophia, to keep the vigil of the Resurrec- tion. The sacrament of baptism was being administered to the long files of catechumens. Suddenly the din of arms broke the solemn stillness. A body of soldiers, sword in hand, burst in, and rushed, some to the baptisteries, some up the nave to the sacred bema and altar. The catechumens were driven from the font at the point of the sword. Many were wounded, and, as an eye-witness records, " the waters of regeneration were stained with blood" (ib. p. 81). The baptisteries appropri- ated to the females were invaded by the rude, licentious soldiers, who drove the women, half- dressed, shrieking into the streets. Other soldiers forced open the holy doors, and the sanctuary was profaned by the presence of pagans, some of whom, it was whispered with horror, had dared to gaze on and even to handle the Eucharistic elements. The clergy, clad in their sacred robes, were forcibly ejected, and chased along the dark streets by the brutal soldiery. With holy courage the dispersed catechumens were reassembled by their clergy in the baths of Constant ine, which, hastily blessed by the priests, became sacred baptisteries. The candidates were again approaching the laver of regeneration, when they were once more forcibly dispersed by the emissaries of Antiochus. The soldiers, rude barbarians from Thrace, executed their com- mission with indiscriminating ferocity. The ministering priest received a wound on the head ; a blow on the arm caused the deacon to drop the cruet of sacred chrism. The women were plundered of their robes and ornaments ; the clergy of their vestments, and the extemporized altar of its holy vessels. The fugitives were maltreated and beaten, and many dragged off to prison. The horrors of that night remained indelibly imprinted on Kir. CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN the minds of those who witnessed them, and were spoken of long afterwards with shudder- ing. Similar scenes were enacted wherever the scattered congregations endeavoured to reunite. For the greater part of Easter week Constantinople was like a city that had been stormed. Private dwellings were invaded to discover clandestine assemblies. The partisans of Chrysostom — the Joannites, as they began to be called — were thrown into prison on the slightest suspicion, and scourged and tortured to compel them to implicate others (Chrys. Ep. ad Innocent, ap. PaJlad. pp. 17-20 ; Pallad. pp. 82-88). For two months the timid Arcadius could not be prevailed upon to sign the decree for Chrysostom's banishment, and Chrysostom continued to reside in his palace, which was again guarded by successive detachments of his adherents. His life was twice attempted by assassins (Soz. H. E. viii. 21). (e) Exile. — At last, on June 5, a.d. 404, Arcadius was persuaded to sign the edict of banishment. Chrysostom, after a final prayer in the cathedral with some of his faithful bishops, prepared with calm submission to yield it prompt obedience. To guard against a popular outbreak, he directed that his horse should be saddled and taken to the great west entrance, and after a tender farewell of his beloved Olympias and her attendant deacon- esses, he passed out unobserved at a small postern and surrendered himself to the guard, who conveyed him, with two bishops who re- fused to desert him, to a vessel which instantly started under cover of night for the Asiatic shore (Pallad. pp. 89-90). He had scarcely left the city when the church he had just quitted took fire ; the flames, which are said to ha%'e broken out first in the episcopal throne, caught the roof, and the conflagration spread to the senate house and adjacent public build- ings {ib. pp. 91-92 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 18 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 22 ; Zosim. v. 24). The sus- picion, however unjustly entertained, that this fire was due to Chrysostom's adherents, re- solved that the church of their beloved teacher should never be possessed by his enemies, led to a relentless persecution of the Joannites under the semblance of a judicial investiga- tion. Innocent persons of every age and sex were put to the torture, in the vain hope that they would inculpate leading members of their party. The presbyter Tigrius and the young reader Eutropius expired under their torturer's hands. Others barely escaped with their lives, maimed and mutilated (Soz. H. E. viii. 22-24). The tender heart of Chrysostom was wrung upon hearing of the sufferings inflicted on his friends, especially upon his dearly loved Olym- pias. To the charge of incendiarism was added that of contumacious resistance to the em- peror's will, in refusing to hold communion with Arsacius and Atticus, who in succession had been thrust into Chrysostom's see. [Arsa- cius ; Atticus.] This was made a crime punishable with degradation from official rank, fine, and imprisonment. The clergy faithful to Chrysostom were deposed, and banished with every circumstance of brutality. Some did not reach their place of banishment alive. The most persevering endeavours were made to stamp out the adherents of the banished prelate, not only in Constantinople but in CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN Asia Minor and Syria — endeavours which only deepened their attachment to him, and con- firmed their resolution never to yield (Theod H. E. v. 34). All other help failing, the persecuted party appealed to the Western church as represented by its chief bishops. Letters were sent ad- dressed to Innocent, bp. of Rome, Venerius of Milan, and Chromatins of Aquileia, by Chry- sostom himself, by the 40 friendly bishops, and by the clergy of Constantinople (Pallad. p. 10). Theophilus and his adherents sent counter- representations (ih. p. 9). Innocent, without hesitation, pronounced the synod that had condemned Chrysostom irregular, and an- nulled his deposition because pronounced in the absence of the accused, and wrote authori- tative letters to the chief parties. To Theo- philus he addressed sharp reproof, to the Con- stantinopolitan clergy fatherly sympathy, to Chrysostom himself sympathy and encourage- ment {ib. pp. 23, 24 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 26), and he persuaded Honorius to write a letter to his brother Arcadius, urging the convocation of a general synod. This letter was conveyed to Constantinople by a deputation of Western bishops. But Arcadius was not a free agent. The bishops were not allowed admission to his presence. The letters they bore were wrested from them, the thumb of one of the bishops being broken in the struggle. They were in- sulted, maltreated, and sent home with every mark of contumely (Pallad. pp. 30-33 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 28). Chrysostom's place of exile, selected by Eudoxia's hatred, was Cucusus, a lonely moun- tain village in the Tauric range, on the borders of Cilicia and Lesser Armenia. It had a most inclement climate and was exposed to per- petual inroads from Isaurian marauders. Chrysostom first learnt at Nicaea the place of his future abode. His disappointment was severe, but remonstrance was vain. Re- freshing breezes from lake Ascanius invigora- ted his worn constitution, and helped him to face the long and sultry journey. It was the season when the heat was most oppressive, and his conductors were instructed to push on with the utmost speed, without regard to his strength or comfort. Whatever kind con- sideration could do to mitigate his sufferings was done by the officers in charge, Anatolius and Theodorus, who gladly executed for him all the duties of personal servants. On July 5 Chrysostom left Nicaea to traverse the scorch- ing plains of Galatia and Cappadocia under a midsummer sun. More dead than alive, he reached Caesarea. The bp. Pharetrius, an unworthy successor of the great Basil and a concealed enemy of Chrysostom (Pallad. p. •J^), was greatly troubled at a halt being fixed at Caesarea. His clergy were Joannites almost to a man : if he treated Chrysostom badly, he would offend them ; if well, he would incur the more terrible wrath of the empress. So, while sending complimentary messages, he carefully avoided an interview, and used all means to dispatch him from Caesarea as quickly as possible. This was not so easy, for a severe access of his habitual ague-fever had compelled Chrysostom to seek medical aid {Ep. 12). He was received with enthusiastic affection by all ranks in the city. His lodging CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN was attacked by a body of fanatical monks, probably the tools of Pharetrius, who threat- ened to' burn it over his head unless he in- stantly quitted it. Driven out by their fury, Chrysostom, suffering from a fresh attack of fever, found refuge in the country house of a wealthy lady near, named Seleucia. But the threats of Pharetrius prevailed on Seleucia to turn Chrysostom out of doors in the middle of the night, on the pretext that the barbarians were at hand, and that he must seek safety by flight. The dangers of that terrible night, when the fugitives' torches were extinguished for fear of the Isaurians and, his mule having fallen under the weight of his litter, he was taken up for dead and had to be dragged or rather carried along the precipitous mountain tracks, are graphically described in his letters to Olympias [Epp. 12, 14). He reached Cucu- sus towards the end of August. His reception was of a nature to compensate for the fatigues of the way and to mitigate the trials of exile (Ep. 14, § i). He found agreeable occupation in writing and receiving letters, and insocial inter- course with congenial friends. Never even as bp. of Constantinople did he exert a wider and more powerful influence. The East was almost governed from a mountain village of Armenia. His advice was sought from all quarters. No important ecclesiastical measure was under- taken without consulting him. In the words of Gibbon, " the three years spent at Cucusus were the most glorious of his life. From that solitude Chrysostom, whose active mind was invigorated by misfortunes, maintained a strict and frequent correspondence with the most distant provinces ; exhorted the separ- ate congregations of his faithful adherents to persevere in their allegiance ; urged the de- struction of the temples of Phoenicia, and the extirpation of heresy in the isle of Cyprus ; extended his pastoral care to the missions of Persia and Scythia, and negotiated by his ambassadors with the Roman pontiff and the emperor Honorius." His voluminous corre- spondence, which all belongs to this period, shews how close a connexion he kept up with the clergy and laity of his former diocese, and how ururemitting was his oversight of the in- terests of his church (Soz. H. E. viii. 27). His chief cause of suffering was the variable clim- ate and the length and severity of the winter. In the winter of 405 the intelligence that the Isaurian brigands were intending a coup de main on Cucusus drove nearly the whole of the inhabitants from the town. Chrysostom joined the fugitives. The feeble old man with a few faithful companions, including the presbyter Evethius and the aged deaconess Sabiniana, wandered from place to place, often passing the night in forests or ravines, pur- sued by the terror of the Isaurians, until they reached the mountain fort of Arabissus, some 60 miles from Cucusus, in the castle of which place, " more a prison than a home," he spent a winter of intense suffering, harassed by the fear of famine and pestilence, unable to pro- cure his usual medicines, and deprived of the comfort of his friends' letters, the roads being blocked with snow and beset by the Isaurians who ravaged the whole district with fire and sword (Epp. 15, 61, 69, 70, 127, 131). Once he narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 167 marauders, who made a nocturnal attack, and all but took the town (Ep. 135). With the return of spring the Isaurians retired, and Chrysostom was able to descend to Cucusus early in 406. After Arabissus this desolate little town seemed a paradise. His greatest joy was in being nearer his friends and receiv- ing their letters more regularly (Epp. 126, 127, 128). A third winter brought its usual hard- ships, but Chrysostom was now somewhat acclimatized and endured them without a re- currence of illness (£/>/?. 4, 142). His wonderful preservation from dangers hitherto, and the manner in which his feeble health, instead of sinking under the accumulated trials of his banishment, became invigorated, awoke san- guine anticipations, and he now confidently anticipated his return from banishment and his resumption of the care of his diocese (Epp. I, 2, 4). But this was not to be. The unhappy Eudoxia had preceded the victim of her hatred to the grave, but left other equally relentless enemies behind. Stung with disappointment that the rigours of Cucusus had failed to kill him, and that from his mountain banishment he exercised a daily growing influence, they obtained a rescript from Arcadius transferring him first to Arabissus (Pallad. p. 96), and then to the small town of Pityus at the roots of Caucasus on the bleak N.E. shores of the Euxine. This was chosen as the most un- genial and inhospitable spot in the whole empire, and therefore the most certain to rid them quickly of his hated existence, even if, as proved to be the case, the long and toilsome journey had not previously quenched the feeble spark of life. This murderous purpose was plainly evidenced by the selection of two specially ferocious and brutal praetorian guards to convey him there, with instructions to push forward with the most merciless haste, regardless of weather or the health of their prisoner, a hint being privately given that they might expect promotion if he died on the road (ib. p. 98). The journey was to be made on foot. Towns where he might enjoy any ap- proach to comfort and have the refreshment of a warm bath were to be avoided. The neces- sary halts, as few and brief as possible, were to be at squalid villages or in the unsheltered country. All letters were forbidden, the least communication with passers-by punished with brutal blows. In spite of some approach to consideration on the part of one of his guards, the three months' journey between i Cucusus and Comana must have been one long slow martyrdom to the fever-stricken old man. His body was almost calcined by the sun, and, to adopt Palladius's forcible image, resembled a ripe apple ready to fall from the tree (ib. p. 99). On reaching Comana it was evident that Chrysostom was entirely worn out. But his pitiless guard hurried him through the town without a moment's halt. Five or six miles outside stood a chapel over the tomb of the martyred bishop, Basiliscus. Here they halted for the night. In the morning Chry- sostom begged for a biicf respite in vain ; but he had gone scarcely four miles when a violent attack of fever compelled them to return to the chapel. Chrysostom was supported to the altar, and, clothed in white baptismal robes, he distributed his own clothes to the bystanders, 168 CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN partook of the blessed Eucharist, prayed a last prayer " for present needs," uttered his accus- tomed doxology, " Glory be to God for all things," and having sealed it with an " Amen," yielded up his soul to his Saviour, Sept. 14, 407, in the 6oth year of his age and loth of his episcopate, 3 years and a quarter of which he had spent in exile. He was buried in the mart\Ty by the side of Basiliscus {ib. pp. 99-ior). Thirty-one years afterwards (Jan. 27, 438), when Theodosius II. was emperor, and Proclus, formerly a disciple of Chrysostom, was bp. of Constantinople, Chry- sostom's body was taken from its grave near Comana and translated with great pomp to his own episcopal city, and deposited hard by the altar in the church of the Holy Apostles, the place of sepulture of the imperial family and of the bishops of Constantinople, the young emperor and his sister Pulcheria assisting at the ceremony, and asking the pardon of Heaven forthe grievous wrong inflicted by their parents on the sainted bishop (Socr. H. E. vii. 45 ; Theod. H. E. v. 36 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 31). The personal appearance of Chrysostom, as described by contemporary writers, though dignified, was not imposing. His stature was diminutive {a-ic/xdriov) ; his limbs long, and so emaciated by early austerities and habitual self-denial that he compares himself to a spider {apaxvwST]^. Ep. 4). His very lofty forehead, furrowed with wrinkles, expanded widely at the summit, his head was bald " like that of Elisha," his eyes deeply set, but keen and piercing ; his cheeks pallid and withered ; his chin pointed and covered with a short beard. His habits were of the simplest, his personal wants few and easily satisfied. The excessive austerities of his youth had ruined his digestive powers and he was unable to eat food except in the smallest quantities and of the plainest kind. Outward display in dress, equipage, or furniture was most distasteful to him. En- amoiured of the cloister, the life of the bishop of the capital of the Eastern world, compelled by his position to associate with persons of the highest rank and magnificence of life, was intolerable. It is not surprising that he was thought morose and ungenial and was unpopular with the upper classes. His strength of will, manly independence, and dauntless courage were united with an inflexi- bility of purpose, a want of consideration for the weaknesses of others, and an impatience at their inability to accept his high standard, which rendered him harsh and unconciliatory. Intolerant of evil in himself, he had little tolerance for it in other men. His feebleness of stomach produced an irritability of temper, which sometimes led to violent outbursts of anger. He was accused of being arrogant and passionate. He was easily offended and too ready to credit evil of those whom he dis- liked. Not mixing with the world himself, he was too dependent on the reports of his friends, who, as in the case of Serapion, some- times abused his confidence to their own purposes. But however austere and reserved to the worldly and luxurious, he was ever loving and genial to his chosen associates. In their company his natural plaj-fulness and amiability was shewn, and perhaps few ever exercised a more powerful influence over the CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN hearts and affections of the holiest and most exalted natures. His character is well summed up by Dr. Newman — " a bright, cheerful, gentle soul," his unrivalled charm " lying in his singleness of purpose, his fixed grasp of his aim, his noble earnestness ; he was indeed a man to make both friends and enemies, to inspire affection and kindle resentment ; but his friends loved him with a love ' stronger ' than ' death,' and his enemies hated him with a hatred more burning than ' hell,' and it was well to be so hated, if he was so beloved." Chrysostom's extant works are more volumi- nous than those of any other Father, filling 13 folios in the Benedictine ed. They may be roughly divided into — I. Treatises ; II. Ex- positions of Scripture, chiefly in the form of Homilies, but partly continuous Comment- aries ; III. Homilies, (a) doctrinal, (b) occa- sional, (c) panegyrical, {d) general ; IV. Letters ; V. Liturgy. I. Treatises. — The earliest works we have from his pen are his letters ad Theodorum Lapsum, i. ii. [sea supra) , written while Chry- sostom was still resident at Antioch before A.D. 372. To his early monastic life we may assign the two books de Compunctione, ad- dressed respectively to Demetrius and Stele- chius. His three books in defence of the monastic life (adversus Oppugnatores Vitae Monasticae) were called forth by the decree of Valens enforcing military service and civil functions on monks, a.d. 373. His short treatise, Comparatio Regis et Monachi, belongs to the same period. The three books de Pro- videntiii, ^^Titten to console his friend Stagirius, the subject of an hysterical seizure then iden- tified with demoniacal possession, were prob- ably composed after his return to Antioch, i.e. subsequently to 381. Before ordination to the priesthood he composed two letters on the superior happiness of a single life {ad Viduam Juniorem) and his treatise on celibacy (de Virginilate). His six books de Sacerdotio, justly ranked among his ablest, most instruc- tive, and most eloquent \vritings, are among his earliest, and placed by Socrates (H.E. vi. 3) in the first days of his diaconate, c. 382. Its maturity of thought and sobriety of tone pre- vent our fixing this work at a much earlier period. The treatises denouncing the custom for the clergy to have " spiritual sisters " re- siding under the same roof with them {contra eos qui subintroductas habent ; Regulares foeminae viris cohabitare non debent), incorrect- ly assigned by Socrates (ib.) to his diaconate, were written, Palladius tells us (p. 45), after he became bp. of Constantinople, c. 398. To his exile belong the Nemo laeditur nisi a seipso, and Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt ob adversitates. II. Expositions of Scripture. — It is as an ex- positor of Scripture that Chrysostom is' most deservedly celebrated. His method of dealing with the divine Word is characterized by the sound grammatical and historical principles and the healthy common sense, introduced by his tutor Diodorus, which mark the exegetical school of Antioch. He seeks to discover not what the passage before him may be made to mean, but what it was intended to mean ; not what recondite lessons or truths may be forced from it by mystical or allegorical interpreta- tions, but what it was intended to convey; CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN not what may be introduced into it, but what may be legitimately elicited from it. While regarding Scripture in the strictest sense as the word of God, no sentence of which must be neglected, he is far from ignoring the human element in it, holding that though its writers " spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," they retained their personal indi- viduality ; that their natural powers were quickened and illuminated, not superseded by divine inspiration. He regards the Scriptures as a connected whole, and avoiding the erro- neous plan of treating texts as isolated gnomes, he seeks always to view a passage in relation to its context, and to the general teaching of Scripture. His expository works, being chief- ly homiletic, do not give any continuous or systematic exegesis of the text. His primary object was a practical one — the conversion and edification of his hearers — and he frequently disappoints those who, looking for the meaning of a difficult passage, find instead a vehement denunciation of some reigning vice or fashion- able folly, or an earnest exhortation to culti- vate some Christian grace or virtue (of. Phot. Cod. 174)- We are told by Suidas and Cassiodorus that Chrysostom wrote commentaries on the whole of Holy Scripture, from the beginning to the end. Among those extant are the 67 Homilies on Genesis, preached at Antioch ; and 8 shorter and slighter, but more florid and rhetorical, sermons on topics from Gen. i. and ii., delivered earlier in the same year. The ninth of these sermons, de Mutatione Nomi- num, does not belong to the series. The only other homilies on the historical books of O.T. are five on the narrative of Hannah in I. Samuel, and three on David and Saul, as- signed by Tillemont to a.d. 387. He delivered homilies on the whole book of Psalms, of which we have only those on Ps. iii.-xii., xliii.-xlix., cyiii.-cl. (inclusive), collected at an early period with great critical acumen. As early as Photius the gaps indicated already existed. There is a homily on the opening verses of Ps. xli., which belongs to a different series. On Isaiah a continuous commentary was composed by Chrysostom, but only the part on CO. i.-viii. 11 is extant. There is a series of six homilies on the opening verses of c. vi., in Oziam sen de Seraphinis. The fourth of these belongs to a different series. To these we may add a homily on Is. xlv. 7. The only extant commentary on any part of Jeremiah is one " on free will," Jer. x. 23. Chrysostom's general views on prophecy are given in two sermons de Prophetiarum Obscur- ilate, justly ranked by Montfaucon " inter nobilissimas." The Synopsis Sacrae Scrip- turae is an imperfect work, ending with Nahum. His commentaries on N.T. commence with go on Matthew, delivered at Antioch. St. Thomas Aquinas is reported to have said that he would rather possess these homilies than be the master of all Paris. There are none on Mark or Luke ; but we have 88 on St. John's Gospel, also preached at Antioch. These are more doctrinal than hortatory or practical, being chiefly against the Anomoeans. The 55 homilies on Acts are among his feeblest works. The style is inelegant, the language unrefined, and the line of interpretation jejune (Phot. CHRYSOSTOM, JOHN 169 Cod. 174). The secret of their inferiority is that they were written at Constantinople in the midst of the troubles arising from Gainas and the Goths, when he had no time for studied composition ; as also were the 24 homilies on Eph., the 15 on Phil., the 12 on Col., the 11 on I. Thess., and the 5 on II. Thess., which hardly reach Chrysostom's highest standard of excel- lence. On the other hand, the 33 on Rom., which were certainly delivered at Antioch, are among his most elaborate discourses. No- where does he shew more argumentative power or greater skill in developing his author's mean- ing. On I. Cor. we have 44 homilies, and 30 on II. Cor., preached at Antioch, of which the former series " have ever been considered by devout men as among the most perfect speci- mens of his mind and teaching " (Keble). The commentary on Gal. is continuous, not in the homiletical form, and a somewhat hasty work. Montfaucon correctly assigns the 18 homilies on I. Tim., the 10 on II. Tim., and the 6 on Tit. to his ministry at Antioch. From some marks of negligence the three on Philemon have been thought to be extemporaneous addresses taken down by others. The 34 on Hebrews were delivered at Constantinople, and pub. from notes by Constantine, a presbyter, after Chrysostom's death. III. Homilies, (a) Doctrinal. — The chief of these are the 12 delivered against the Ano- moean form of Arianism, in the first year of his presbyterate, at Antioch, a.d. 387. " They are," writes Stephens, " among the finest of his productions." Soon after he wrote the 8 against the Jews and Judaizing Christians {contra Judaeos). {b) Occasional.' — Not a few of his grandest flights of Christian oratory were called forth by the events of the stirring times in which he lived. The most remarkable is the series of 21 " On the Statues" {ad Populum Aniioch- eniim de Statuis), for the circumstances of which see supra. Another class includes orations delivered at Constantinople on the fall of Eutropius, on the insurrection of Gainas, on the troubles connected with Severian, and the noble and pathetic series connected with his own deposition and exile. To these we may add homilies delivered on the great Church festivals. (c) Panegyrical.' — These deserve careful at- tention as illustrating " the passionate devo- tion to the memory of departed saints which was rapidly passing into actual adoration." The earliest is probably that commemorating his venerated spiritual father Meletius, a.d. 386. The others are mostly devoted to the eulogy of the bishops and martyrs of the church of Antioch, St. Ignatius, St. Eusta- thius, St. Babylas, St. Pelagia, St. Domnina and her two daughters, and others, and were delivered at the martyria, or chapels erected over their remains. Chrysostom delivered a homily on the day of the commemoration of the emperor Theodosius, and heaped extra- vagant laudations on the empress Eudoxia and on Arcadius during his ardent but short- lived friendship with them at the outset of his episcopate. {d) General.- — Among these we include those belonging to Christian life generally, e.g. the 9 de Poenitenda, 2 Catecheses ad Illuminandos, 170 CHRYSOSTOM. JOHN those de Contitientia, de Perfecta Caritate, de Consolatione Mortis, and numerous ones on single texts or separate parables. On his homilies, expository and practical, Chrysostom's fame chiefly rests, and that de- servedly. He was in truth " the model of a preacher for a great capital. Clear, rather than profound, his dogmatic is essentially moulded up with his moral teaching. . . . His doctrines flow naturally from his subject or from the passage of Scripture under discus- sion ; his illustrations are copious and happy ; his style free and fluent ; while he is an un- rivalled master in that rapid and forcible application of incidental occurrences which gives such life and reality to eloquence. He is at times, in the highest sense, dramatic in manner " (Milman, Hist, of Christ, iii. 9). IV. Letters. — The whole of Chrysostom's extant letters belong tohis banishment, wTitten on his road to Cucusus, during his residence there, or in the fortress of .\rabissus. The most important are 17 addressed to the deaconess Olyrapias, who shared his hopes and fears and all his inmost feelings. The whole number is 242, written to every variety of friend — men of rank, ladies, ecclesiastics of every grade, bishops, presbyters, deacons and deaconesses, monks and missionaries, his old friends at Antioch and Constantinople, and his more recent acquaintances at Caesarea and other halting-places on his journey — and including every variety of subject ; now addressing re- proof, warning, encouragement, or consola- tion to the members of his flock at Constanti- nople, or their clergy ; now vigorously helping forward the missionary work in Phoenicia, and soliciting funds for pious and beneficent works ; now thanking his correspondents for their letters or their gifts ; now complaining of their silence; now urging the prosecution of the appeal made in his behalf to Innocent and the Western bishops, and expressing his hope that through the prayers of his friends he would be speedily given to them again ; and the whole poured forth with the undoubting confidence of a friend writing to friends of whom he is sure. We have in this correspond- ence an index to his inner life such as we possess of few great men. The letters are simply in- estimable in aiding us to understand and ap- preciate this great saint. In style, as Photius remarks, they are characterized by his usual brilliancy and clearness, and by great sweet- ness and persuasive power (Phot. Cod. 86). V. Liturgical. — It is impossible to decide how much in the liturgies passing under the name of St. Chrysostom is really of his age. There are very many editions of the liturgy, no two of which, according to Cave {Hist. Lit. i- 305). present the same text ; and hardly any that do not offer great discrepancies. It would be, of course, a fundamental error to attribute the composition of a liturgy de novo to Chrysostom or any of the old Catholic Fathers. When a liturgy is called by the name of any Father, all that is implied is that it was in use in the church to which that Father belonged, and that it may have owed some corrections and improvements to him. The liturgy kno%vn in comparatively late times by the name of Chrysostom has been from time immemorial that of the church of Constantinople. CLAUDIUS The best and most complete edition of Chry- sostom, as of most of the Christian Fathers, is the Benedictine, prepared by the celebrated Bernard de Montfaucon, who devoted to it more than twenty years of incessant toil and of journeys to consult MSS. It was pub. at Paris, in 13 vols. fol. in 171 8. The value of this magnificent edition lies more in the his- torical and critical prefaces, and other literary apparatus, than in the text, which is faulty. It has been reprinted at Venice in 1734 and 1755, and at Paris in 1834-1839. The most practically useful edition is in the Patrologia of the Abbe Migne, in 13 vols. 8vo. (Paris, 1863). It is mainly a reprint of the Benedictine ed., but enriched by a judicious use of the best modem commentators. The chief early authorities for the life of Chrysostom, besides his own works, are the Dialogue of his contemporary Palladius, bp. of Hellenopolis, which, however valuable for its facts, deserves Gibbon's cen- sure as "a partial and passionate vindica- tion," and the Ecclesiastical Histories of I Socrates (lib. vi.), Sozomen (lib. viii.), and Theodoret (lib. v.), the Lexicon of Suidas {sub voc. 'lwdvvr)%), and the letters of Isidorus of Pelusium (ii. Ep. 42). The biography by George of Alexandria is utterly worthless, be- ing more an historical romance than a memoir. Of more modern works, it will suffice to name " the moderate Erasmus " (tom. iii. Ep. 1150), the ■' patient and accurate " Tillemont {Mem. Eccl. tom. ix.), and the diligent and dull Mont- faucon. The brilliant sketch of Gibbon (Decl. and Fall, c. xxxii.) must not be omitted. Neander's Life of St. Chrysostom is a work of much value, more for the account of Chry- sostom's opinions and words than for the actual life. Amadee Thierry's biographical articles in the Revue des Deux Mondes describe Chrysostom's fall and exile most graphically, though with the licence of an artist. The most satisfactorv biography is bv Rev. W. R. W. Stephens (Lond. 1872), to which the foregoing article is largely indebted. Trans- lations of several of his works are contained in the Post-Xicene Fathers, edited by SchafE and Wace. S.P.C.K. publishes cheaply St. Chrys. On the Priesthood, by T. A. Moxon, and extracts from his writing in St. Chrysostom's Picture of his Age and Picture of the Religion of his Age. [e.v.] Claudius (1), a.d. 4:I-54- The reign of this emperor has special interest in being that to which we must refer the earliest distinct traces of the origines of the church of Rome. Even before his accession, the new faith may have found its way there. The " strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes " (Actsii. 10), who were at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, or some of the " synagogue of the Libertines " (Acts vi. 9), yielding to the arguments of Stephen, may have brought it thither. " An- dronicus and Junia or Junias," who were " in Christ " before the conversion of St. Paul (Rom. xvi. 7), and at Rome when that apostle wrote to the church there, may have been among those earlier converts. When Herod Antipas and Herodias came to court the ■ favour of Caligula (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 7) and gain for the former the title of king, they ■ must have had some in their train who had known — ^perhaps those who bad reported to CLEMENS, FLAVIUS him (Matt. xiv. i, 2) — the " mighty works " of the prophet of Nazareth. The frequent visits of Herod Agrippa would make events in Judaea common topics at Rome. His pre- sence there when Claudius came to the throne (Joseph. Antiq. xix. 4, 3) may reasonably be connected with the indulgence then extended to the Jews by that emperor {ib. xix. 5). The decree mentioned in Acts xviii. 2, and by Suetonius {Claudius, c. 25), indicates a change of policv, and the account of Suetonius prob- ably tells the cause of the change, " Judaeos impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit." * He does not give the date of the expulsion, but it was probably between A.D. 43, when Agrippa left Rome, and a.d. 51, when St. Paul arrived at Corinth, and when the decree is mentioned as recent. The explanation turns upon the interpretation of the words " impulsore Chresto." We know from Tertullian (A/yol. c. 3) that " Christi- anus " was commonly pronounced " Chresti- anus " by those ignorant of its derivation ; and that the name of Christ was for long similarly mispronounced we learn from Lactantius (" immutata litera Chrestum solent dicere," Ver. Sap. iv. 7). It seems legitimate, there- fore, to assume that the name " Christ " had been heard in the disputings of Jews and Christians, and that the prefects and Roman population, ignorant of its true significance, conceived it to be the name of some local ring- leader in a seditious riot. Many indications in Acts and Romans imply a considerable growth of the Christian community before the accession of Nero. It is obvious further, (i) that the expulsion of Christians who had been Jews or proselytes would leave a certain proportion of purely Gentile Christians whom the edict would not touch ; and {2) that those who returned would naturally settle, not in the Jewish trans- Tiberine quarter of the city, but in some safer locality, and that thus the church at Rome, at or soon after the death of Claudius, would gradually become more and more free from Jewish or Judaizing influences. (On other points connected with the rise and progress of Christianity at Rome under Claudius see " Aquila and Priscilla," and the " Proto- mart\T Stephen," in the writer's Biblical Studies.) [E.H.P.] Clemens (1 ), FlaviUS, son of Sabinus. brother of the emperor Vespasian, and therefore first cousin to Domitian, whose niece Havia Domi- tilla was his wife. Domitian regarded his kinsman with great favour, and placed his two sons, whom he caused to be named after him- self and his brother, Vespasianus and Domi- tianus. under the tuition of Quintilian as his destined successors. Flavius Clemens was consul in a.d. 93, and had only just resigned the office when he and his wife Domitilla were suddenly arrested and convicted on the charge of " atheism," bv which there is no reasonable doubt that Christianity is intended. The • Dio Cassius (Ix. p. 669) speaks of Claudius as not expelling the Jews, but only forbidding them to as- semble. Probably this was an earlier measure not found sufficiently effective. The expulsion of the "Mathematici" about the same time (Tacitus, Ann. xii. 52) implies a general alarm as to the spread of "Eastern superstitions," CLEMENS ROMANUS 171 crime on which they were condemned was, according to Dio Cassius, that of " Judaizing," from which in the popular mind Christianity was hardly distinguishable. The religious charge was' regarded by Suetonius as a most trivial one, the object of suspicion rather than of proof — " tenuissima ex suspicione " — but it was strengthened by a neglect of the ordi- nary usages of Roman social and political life, almost unavoidable by a Christian, which was regarded as a " most contemptible indolence " meriting severe animadversion. Clemens suf- fered death ; his wife Domitilla was banished to an island off the W. coast of Italy. [Do.vii- TiANUS, (i).] Sueton. Domit- § 15 ; Dio Cassius, Hist. Ixvii. 14; Tillem. tom. ii. p. 124; Merivale, Rmna-.'.s under the Enipire,\o\.\\i.c. Ixii. p. 383. LiKhtfont, Phtlipt'iau-i, p. 22. I'e.v.] Clemens Romanus. According to common tradition, one of the first, if not the first, bp. of Rome after the apostles, and certainly a leading member of that church towards the end of the ist cent. (i) Among the most authentic proofs of the connexion of Clement with the Roman church is the mention of his name in its liturgy. The early Christians on the death of a bishop did not discontinue the mention of his name in their public prayers. Now the Roman Canon of the Mass to this day, next after the names of the apostles, recites the names of Linus, Cletus, Clemens ; and there is some evidence that the liturgy contained the same names in the same order as early as the 2nd cent; Probably, then, this commemoration dates from Clement's own time. (2) An independent proof that Clement held high position in the church of Rome is afforded by the Shepherd of Hernias, a work not later than the episcopate of Pius (a.d. 141-156), the writer of which claims to have been contemporary w th Clement. He repre- sents himself as commissioned to write for Clement the book of his Visions in order that Clement might send it to foreign cities, that being his function ; while Hermas himself was to read the Vision at Rome with the elders who presided over the church. Thus Clement is recognized as the organ by which the church of Rome communicated with foreign churches ; but the passage does not decide whether or not Clement was superior to other presbyters in the domestic government of the church. (3) Next in antiquity among the notices of Clement is the general ascription to him of the Epistle to the Church of Corinth, commonly known as Clement's first epistle. This is written in the name of the church of Rome, and neither in the address nor in the body of the letter contains Clement's name, yet he seems to have been from the first everywhere recognized as its author. We may not un- reasonably infer from the passage just cited from Hermas that the letter was even then celebrated. About a.d. 170 it is expressly mentioned by Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, who, acknowledging another letter written from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth by their then bp. Soter, states that their former letter written by Clement was still read from time to time in their Sunday assemblies. Eusebius (//. E. iii. 16) speaks of this public reading of Clement's epistle as the ancient 172 CLEMENS ROMANUS custom of very many churches down to his own time. In the same place (and in H. E. iv. 22) he reports that Hegesippus, whose historical work was written in the episcopate next after Soter's, and who had previously visited both Rome and Corinth, gives parti- culars concerning the epistle of Clement, and concerning the dissensions in the Corinthian church which had given rise to it. The epistle is cited as Clement's by Irenaeus {adv. Haer. iii. 3), several times by Clement of Alex., who in one place gives his namesake the title of Apostle (Strom, i. 7, iv. 17, v. 12, vi. 8) ; by Origen {de Princip. ii. 3, in Ezech. 8, in Joan. i. 29) ; and in fact on this subject the testimony of antiquity is unanimous. A letter which did not bear Clement's name, and which merely purported to come from the church of Rome, could scarcely have been generally known as Clement's, if Clement had not been known at the time as holding the chief position in the church of Rome. (4) Last among those notices of Clement which may be relied on as historical, we place the statement of Irenaeus (I.e.) that Clement was third bp. of Rome after the apostles, his account being that the apostles Peter and Paul, having founded and built up that church, committed the charge of it to Linus ; that Linus was succeeded by Anencletus, and he by Clement. This order is adopted by Euse- bius, by Jerome in his Chronicle, and by Eastern chronologers generally. A different order of placing these bishops can also, however, lay claim to high antiquity. The ancient catalogue known as the Liberian, be- cause ending with the episcopate of Liberius, gives the order and duration of the first Roman episcopates : Peter 25 years, i month, 9 days ; Linus 12 years, 4 months, 12 days ; Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days ; Cletus 6 years, 2 months, 10 days ; Anacletus 12 years, 10 months, 3 days : thus Anacletus, who in the earlier list comes before Clement, is replaced by two bishops, Cletus and Ana- cletus, who come after him ; and this account is repeated in other derived catalogues. Ire- naeus himself is not consistent in reckoning the Roman bishops. [Cerdc] The order, Peter, Linus, Clemens, is adopted by Augus- tine (Ep. 53 ad Generosum) and bv O'ptatus of Milevis (de Schism. Donatist. ii. '2). Tertul- lian (de Praescrip. c. 32) states that the church of Rome held Clement to have been ordained by Peter; and Jerome (Cat. Scr. Ecc. 15), while adopting the order of Irenaeus, mentions that most Latins then counted Clement to have been second after Peter, and himself seems to adopt this reckoning in his commen- tary on Isaiah (c. 52). The Apostolic Constitu- tions (vii. 46) represent Linus to have been first ordained by Paul, and afterwards, on the death of Linus, Clement by Peter. Epipha- nius (Haer. xxvii. 6) suggests that Linus and Cletus held office during the lifetime of Pet CLEMENS ROMANUS that Clement, after having been ordained by Peter, withdrew from his office and did not resume it until after the death of Linus and Cletus. A more modern attempt to reconcile these accounts is Cave's hypothesis that Linus and after him Cletus had been appointed by Paul to preside over a Roman church of Gen- tile Christians ; Clement by Peter over a church of Jewish believers, and that ultimately Clement was bishop over the whole Roman chiu-ch. Still later it has been argued that the uncertainty of order may mean that during the ist cent, there was no bishop in the church of Rome, and that the names of three of the leading presbyters have been handed down by some in one order, by others in another. The authorities, however, which differ from the account of Irenaeus, ultimately reduce them- selves to two. Perhaps the parent of the rest is the letter of Clement to James [Clementine Literature] giving an account of Clement's ordination by Peter ; for it seems to have been plainh- the acceptance of this ordination as historical which inspired the desire to cor- rect a list of bishops which placed Clement at a distance of three from Peter. The other authority is the Chronicle of Hippolytus, pub. A.D. 235 fsee Chronicon Canisianum in D. C. B. 4- vol. ed.), and the memoir of Mommsen there cited), for it has been satis- factorily shewn that the earlier part of the Liberian catalogue is derived from the list of Roman bishops in this work. The confusion of later \vTiters arises from attempts to re- concile conflicting authorities, all of which seemed deserving of confidence : viz. (i) the list of Irenaeus, and probably of Hegesippus, giving merely a succession of Roman bishops ; (2) the list of Hippolytus giving a succession in somewhat different order and also the years of the duration of the episcopates ; and (3) the letter to James relating the ordination of Clement by Peter. The main question, then, is, which is more entitled to confidence, the order of Irenaeus or of Hippolytus ? and we have no hesitation in accepting the former. ■ First, because it is distinctly the more an- cient ; secondly, because if the earlier tradi- tion had not placed the undistinguished name Cletus before the well-known Clement, no later writer would have reversed its order ; thirdly, because of the testimony of the liturgy. Hippolytus being apparently the first scientific chronologer in the Roman church, his author- ity there naturally ranked very high, and his order of the succession seems to have been ' generally accepted in the West for a consider- ' able time. Any commemoration, therefore, introduced into the liturgy after his time would have followed his order, Linus, Clemens, ; Cletus, or, if of very late introduction, would have left out the obsciure name Cletus alto- ' gather. We conclude, then, that the commem- oration in the order, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, had been introduced before the time of Hip- and Paul, who, on their necessary absence from ' polytus, and was by then so firmly established Rome for apostolic journeys, commended the j that even the contradictory result arrived at charge of the church to others. This solution ] by Hippolytus (because he accepted as histor- is adopted by Rufinus in the preface to his j icallv true'the ordination of Clement by Peter translation of the Recognitions. Epiphanius j as related in the Ep. to James) could not alter has an alternative solution, founded on a ' it. The Recognitions are cited by Origen,' conjecture which he tries to support by a re- I the contemporary of Hippolytus ; and the ference to a passage in Clement's epistle, viz. | account which their preface gives of Clement's CLEMENS ROMANUS ordination seems to have been fulh- believed by the Roman church. The death of Clement and the consequent accession of Evaristus is dated by Eusebius in his Chronicle a.u. 95, and in his Church History the third year of Trajan, a.d. 100. According to the chrono- logy of the Liberian Catalogue, the accession of Evaristus is dated a.d. 95. Now no one dates the death of Peter later than the per- secution of Nero, a.d. 67. If, therefore, Clement was ordained by Peter, and if we retain the order of Irenaeus, Clement had an episcopate of about 30 years, a length far greater than any tradition suggests. Hippo- lytus, probably following the then received account of the length of Clement's episcopate, has placed it a.d. 67-76 ; and, seeing the above ditficulty, has filled the space between Clement and Evaristus by transposing Cletus and, as the gap seemed too large to be filled by one episcopate, by counting as distinct the Cletus of the liturgy and the Anacletus of the earlier catalogue. Apparently it was Hippolytus who devised the theory stated in the Apostolic Constitutions, that Linus held the bishopric during the lifetime of Peter ; for this seems to be the interpretation of the dates assigned in the Liberian Catalogue, Peter 30-55, Linus 55-67. But the whole ground of these specula- tions is removed if we reject the tale of Clem- ent's ordination by Peter ; if for no other reason, on account of the chronological con- fusion which it causes. Thus we retain the order of Irenaeus, accounting that of Hippo- htus as an arbitrary transposition to meet a chronological difficulty. The time that we are thus led to assign to the activity of Clement, viz. the end of Domitian's reign, coincides with that which Eusebius, apparently on the authority of Hegesippus, assigns to Clement's epistle, and with that which an examination of the letter itself suggests (see below). The result thus arrived at casts great doubt on the identification of the Roman Clement with the Clement named Phil. iv. 3. This identification is unhesitatingly made by Origen {in Joann. i. 29) and a host of later' writers. Irenaeus also may have had this passage in mind when he speaks of Clement as a hearer of the apostles, though probably he was principally influenced by the work which afterwards grew into the Recognitions. But though it is not actually impossible that the Clement who held a leading position in the church of Philippi during Paul's imprisonment might thirty years afterwards have presided oyer the church of Rome, yet the difference of time and place deprives of all likelihood an identification merely based upon a very com- mon name. Lightfoot has remarked that Tacitus, for instance, mentions five Clements (Ann. i. 23, ii. 39, xv. 73 ; Hist. i. 86, iv. 68). Far more plausibly it has been proposed to identify the author of the epistle with another Clement, who was almost certainly at the time a distinguished member of the Roman church. We learn from Suetonius [Domit. 15) and from Dio Cassius, Ixvii. 14, that in 95, the very year fixed by some for the death of bp. Clement, death or banishment was inflicted by Domitian on several persons addicted to Jewish customs, and amongst them Flavins Clemens, a relation of his own, whose consulship had but just CLEMENS ROMANUS 173 expired, was put to death on a charge of atheism, while his wife Domitilla, also a member of the emperor's family, was banished. The language is such as heathen writers might naturally use to describe a persecution of Christians ; but Eusebius (H. E. iii. 13) ex- pressly claims one Domitilla, a niece of the consul's, as a sufferer for Christ ; and (Chron. sub anno 95) cites the heathen historian Brut- tius as stating that several Christians suffered martyrdom at this time. If, then, the consul Clement was a Christian martyr, his rank would give him during his life a foremost posi- tion in the Roman church. It is natural to think that the writer of the epistle may have been either the consul or a member of his family. Yet if so, the traditions of the Roman church must have been singularly defective. No writer before Rufinus speaks of bp. Clement as a martyr ; nor does any ancient writer in any way connect him with the consul. In the Recognitions Clement is represented as a rela- tion of the emperor ; not, however, of Domi- tian, but of Tiberius. A fabulous account of Clement's martyrdom, probably of no ear- lier origin than the 9th cent., tells how Clement was first banished to the Crimea, worked there such miracles as converted the whole district, and was thereupon by Trajan's order cast into the sea with an anchor round his neck, an event followed by new prodigies. The only genuine work of Clement is the Ep. to the Corinthians already mentioned. Its main object is to restore harmony to the Corinthian church, which had been disturbed by questions apparently concerning discipline rather than doctrine. The bulk of the letter is taken up in enforcing the duties of meekness, humility, submission to lawful authority, and but little attempt is made at the refutation of doctrinal error. Some pains, it is true, are taken to establish the doctrine of the Resurrec- tion ; but this subject is not connected by the writer with the disputes, and so much use is made of Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians that we cannot lay much stress on the fact that one of the topics of that epistle is fully treated. The dissensions are said to have been caused by the arrogance of a few self-willed persons who led a revolt against the authority of the presbyters. Their pride probably rested on their possession of spiritual gifts, and perhaps on the chastity which they practised. Though pains are taken to shew the necessity of a distinction of orders, we cannot infer that this was really questioned by the revolters ; for the charge against them, that they had unwarrant- ably deposed from the office of presbyter certain who had filled it blamelessly, implies that the office continued to be recognized by them. But this unauthorized deposition naturally led to a schism, and representations made at Rome by some of the persons ill- treated may have led to the letter of Clement. It is just possible that we can name one of these persons. At the end of the letter a wish is expressed that the messengers of the Roman church, Ephebus and Bito, with Fortunatus also, might be sent back speedily with tidings of restored harmony. The form of expression distinguishing Fortunatus from the Roman delegates favours the supposition that he was a Corinthian, and as Clement urges on those 174 CLEMENS ROMANUS who had been the cause of dissension to with- draw for peace' sake, it is possible that For- tunatus might have so withdrawn and found a welcome at Rome. Another conjecture identifies him with the Fortunatus mentioned in St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians. However precarious this identification may be, internal evidence shews that the epistle is not so far from apostolic times as to make it impossible. None of the apostles are spoken of as living, but the deaths of Peter and Paul, described as men of their own generation, are referred to as then recent, and some of the presbyters appointed by the apostles are spoken of as still surviving. The early date thus indicated is confirmed by the absence of allusion to controversial topics of the 2nd cent., and by the immaturity of doctrinal de- velopment on certain points. Thus " bishop " and " presbyter " are, as in N.T., used con- vertibly, and there is no trace that in the church of Corinth one presbyter had any very pronounced authority over the rest. The de- position of certain presbyters is not spoken of as usurpation of the authority of any single person, but of that of the whole body of presbyters. Again, to the writer the " Scrip- tures " are the books of the O.T. ; these he cites most copiously and uses to enforce his arguments. He expressly mentions St. Paul's Ep. to the Corinthians ; and twice reminds his hearers of words of our Lord. The way in which he uses the quotations implies the exist- ence of written records recognized by both parties. Besides these, without any formal citation he makes unmistakable use of other N.T. books, chiefly of Heb., but also of Rom. and other Pauline, including the Pastoral, epistles. Acts, James, and I. Peter. Still, their authority is not appealed to in the same manner as is that of the O.T. It may be mentioned here that Clement's epistle contains the earliest recognition of the Book of Judith. He quotes also from O.T. apocryphal books or interpolations not now extant. To fix more closely the date of the epistle, the principal fact available is, that in the opening an apology is made that the church of Rome had not been able to give earlier atten- tion to the Corinthian disputes, owing to the sudden and repeated calamities which had befallen it. It is generally agreed that this must refer to the persecution under either Nero or Domitian. A date about midway between these is that to which the phenomena of the epistle would have inclined us ; but having to choose between these two we have no hesitation in preferring the latter. The main argument in favour of the earlier date, that the temple service is spoken of as being still offered, is satisfactorily met by the occur- rence of a quite similar use of the present tense in Josephus. Indeed the passage, carefully considered, suggests the opposite inference ; for Clement would Judaize to an extent of which there is no sign elsewhere in the epistle, if, in case the temple rites were being still celebrated, he were to speak of them as the appointed and acceptable way of serving God. All the other notes of time are difficult to reconcile with a date so close to the apostles as the reign of Nero. As to whether the writer was a Jew or a | CLEMENS ROMANUS Gentile, the arguments are not absolutely decisive ; but it seems more conceivable that a Hellenistic Jew resident at Rome could have acquired the knowledge i>f Roman history and heathen literature exhibited in the epistle, than that one not familiar from his childhood with the O.T. could possess so intimate an acquaintance with it. This consideration, of course, bears on the question whether Flavius Clemens could have written the letter. The letter does not yield any support to the theory of ist cent, disputes between a Pauline and an anti-Pauline party in the church. No such disputes appear in the dissensions at Corinth ; and at Rome the Gentile and Jewish sections of the church seem in Clement's time to be completely fused. The obligation on Gentiles to observe the Mosaic law does not seem a matter of concern. The whole Chris- tian community is regarded as the inheritor of the promises to the Jewish people. Clement holds both SS. Peter and Paul in the highest (and equal) honour. The epistle was known until 1875 only through a single MS., the great Alexandrian MS. brought to England in 1628, of which an account is given in all works on the criticism of the N.T. One leaf, containing about the tenth part of the whole letter, has been lost. In this Greek Bible of the 5th cent, the two letters of Clement to the Corinthians are books enumerated among N.T., not with the apostolic epistles, but after the Apocalypse. Hence the ecclesiastical use of Clement's letter had prob- ablynot ceased when this MS. wascopied. The ep. was first ed. by Patrick Young (Oxf. 1633), and often since, among the most important edd. being Cotelier's in his Apostolic Fathers {Paris, 1672); Jacobson's; Hilgenfeld's in his N.T. extra Canonem Receptum ; Lightfoot's (Camb. 1869, and in his great ed. of the Apostolic Fathers. 1890); Tischendorf's (Leipz. 1873); and Gebhardt and Harnack's (Leipz. 1875). A photograph of this portion of the MS. was pub. by Sir. F. Madden in 1856. An Eng. trans, of the ep. (and of thos? on Virginity) is in the Lib. of Anle-Xiceue Fathers. An entirely new authority for the text of the epistle was gained by the discovery in the library of the Holy Sepulchre at Fanari, in Constantinople, of a MS. containing an unmuti- lated text of the two epistles ascribed to Clement.'* The new authority was announced, and first used in establishing the text, in a very careful and able ed. of the epp. by Bryennius, metropolitan of Serrae, pub. in Constantinople at the end of 1875. The MS., which is cursive and dated a.d. 1056, is contained in a small octavo volume, 7 J inches by 6, which has, besides the Epp. of Clement, Chrysos- tom's synopsis of the O.T., the Ep. of Barnabas, the Teaching of the Twelve Apos- tles (occupying in the MS. less space by one- fourth than the second Ep. of Clement), and a collection of Ignatian epistles. It gives a very good text of the Clementine letters, in- dependent of the Alexandrian MS., but, on the whole, in tolerably close agreement with it, even in passages where the best critics had * still later a Syriac MS. purchased for the Univer- sity of Cambridge was found to contain a trans, of these two epistles. This has been ed. with notes and a facsim'le plate by R. I,. Bensley (Camb. Univ. Press). CLEMENS ROMANUS suspected error. Besides filling up small lacunae in the text of the older MS., it supplies the contents of the entire leaf which had been lost. This part contains a passage quoted by Basil, but not another quoted by Pseudo- Justin, confirmed in some degree by Irenaeus, which had been referred to this place (see Lightfoot, p. i66). Except for trifling omis- sions we must have the letter now as complete as it was originally in the Alexandrian MS. For Harnack, on counting the letters in the recovered portion, found that they amounted almost exactlv to the average contents of a leaf of the older MS. Lightfoot has pointed out that by a small change in the text of Ps.- Justin, his reference is satisfied by a passage in the newly discovered conclusion of the second epistle. The new portion of the first principally consists of a prayer, possibly founded on the liturgical use of the Roman church. What has been said in the beginning of the letter as to the calamities under which that church had suffered is illustrated by some of the petitions, and prayer is made for their earthly rulers and that they themselves might submit to them, recognizing the honour given them by God, and not opposing His will. Very noticeable in this new part of the letter is the tone of authority used in making an unsolicited interference with the affairs of another church. " If any disobey the words spoken by God through us, let them know that they will'entangle themselves in transgression, and no small danger, but we shall be clear from this sin." " You will cause us joy and exultation if, obeying the things written by us through the Holy Spirit, you cut out the law- less passion of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and concord in this letter. But we have sent faithful and discreet men who have walked from youth to old age unblameably amongst us, who shall be witnesses between us and you. This have we done that you may know that all our care has been and is that you may speedily be at peace." It remains open for controversy how far the expressions quoted indicate official superiority of the Roman church, or only the writer's conviction of the goodness of their cause. We may add that the epithet applied by Irenaeus to the epistle iKaviirrdTTj proves to have been suggested by a phrase in the letter itself, 'iKavQs eTredTeiXafxev. Lightfoot gives references to a succession of writers who have quoted the epistle. Poly- carp, though not formally quoting Clement's epistle, gives in several passages clear proof of acquaintance with it. A passage in Ignatius's epistle to Polycarp, c. 5, may also be set down as derived from Clement, but other parallels collected by Hilgenfeld are extremely doubt- ful. The epistle does not seem to have been translated into Latin, and was consequently little known in the West. For some of the spurious works ascribed to Clement see Clementine Literature. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. — This letter also formed part of the Alexandrian MS., but its conclusion had been lost by mutilation. We now have it complete in the edition of Bryennius. In the list of contents of the older MS. it is marked as Clement's second epistle, but not expressly described as to the Corin- CLEMENS ROMANUS 175 thians. It is so described in the later MS. It is not mentioned by any writer before Eusebius, and the language used by some of them is inconsistent with their having accepted it. Eusebius mentions it as a second letter ascribed to Clement, but not, like the former, used by the older writers, and he only speaks of one as the acknowledged epistle of Clement. The two epistles are placed among the books of the N.T., in the 8th book of the Apostolic Consti- tutions, which probably belongs to the 6th cent. The second epistle is first expressly cited as to the Corinthians by Sevcrus of Antioch early in the same cent. Internal evidence, though adverse to Clementine authorship, assigns to the work a date not later than the 2nd cent., and probably the first half of it. The writer is distinctly a Gentile, and contrasts himself and his readers with the Jewish nation in a manner quite unlike the genuine Clement ; and his quotations are not, like Clement's, almost exclusively from O.T. ; the gospel history is largely cited, and once under the name of Scripture. Many of the quotations, however, differ from our canonical gospels, and since one of them agrees with a passage re- ferred by Clement of Alexandria to the gospel of the Egyptians, this was probably the source of other quotations also. The epistle would seem from this to be earlier than the close of the and cent., at which time our four gospels were in a position of exclusive authority. The controversies with which the writer deals are those of the early part of the 2nd cent. In language suggested by the Ep. to the Ephesians, the spiritual church is described as created before the sun and moon, as the female of whom Christ is the male, the body of which he is the soul. It seems likely that a work using such language had gained its acceptance with the church before Gnostic theories con- cerning the Aeons Christus and Ecclesia had brought discredit upon such speculations. The doctrine of the pre-existence of the church is, as Harnack noted, one of several points of contact between this work and the Shepherd of Hennas, making it probable that both emanate from the same age and the same circle. We therefore refer the place of com- position to Rome, notwithstanding an appar- ent reference to the Isthmian games which favours a connexion with Corinth. The de- scription of the work as an Ep. to the Corinthians, never strongly supported by ex- ternal evidence, is disproved by the newly discovered conclusion, whence it clearly ap- pears that the work is, as Dodwell and others had supposed, no epistle, but a homily. It professes, and there seems no reason to doubt it, to have been composed to be publicly read in church, and therefore the writer's position in the church was one which would secure that use of his work. But he does not claim any position of superiority, and the foremost place in ruling and teaching the church is attributed to the body of presbyters. He nowhere claims to be Clement. But it is not strange that an anonymous, but undoubtedly early document of the Roman church should come to be ascribed to the universally acknow- ledged author of the earliest document of that church ; nor that when both had come to be received as Clement's, the second should come 176 CLEMENS ROMANUS to be regarded as, like the first, an epistle to the Corinthians. The Two Epistles on Virginity.— These are extant only in Syriac, and only in a single MS. purchased at Aleppo c. a.d. 1750, for Wetstein. He had commissioned a copy of the Philo.x- enian version of the N.T. to be bought, and this MS. proved to be only a copy of the well- known Peshito. But the disappointment was compensated by the unexpected discovery of these letters, till then absolutely unknown in the West. After the Ep. to the Hebrews, the last in the Peshitta canon, the scribe adds a doxology, and a note with personal details by which we can date the MS. a.d. 1470, and then proceeds, " We subjoin to the epistles of Paul those epistles of the apostles, which are not found in all the copies," on which follow II. Peter, II., III. John, and Jude, from the Phi- loxenian version, and then, without any break, these letters, with the titles : " The first epistle of the blessed Clement, the disciple of Peter the apostle," and " The second epistle of the same Clement." The MS. is now pre- served in the library of the Seminary of the Remonstrants at Amsterdam. The letters were published, as an appendix to his Greek Testament, by Wetstein, who also defended their authenticity. The last editor is Beelen (Louvain, 1856). The letters, though now only extant in Syriac, are proved by their Graecisms to be a translation from the Greek, and by the existence of a fragment containing an apparently different Syriac translation of one passage in them. This fragment is contained in a MS. bearing the date a.d. 562. The earliest writer who quotes these letters is Epi- phanius. In a passage, which until the dis- covery of the Syriac letters had been felt as perplexing, he describes Clement as " in the encyclical letters which he wrote, and which are read in the holy churches," having taught virginity, and praised Elias and David and Samson, and all the prophets. The letters to the Corinthians cannot be described as ency- clical ; and the topics specified are not treated of in them, while they are dwelt on in the Syriac letters. St. Jerome, though in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers he follows Eusebius in mentioning only the two letters to the Corinthians as ascribed to Clement, yet must be understood as referring to the letters on virginity in his treatise against Jovinian where he speaks of Clement as composing almost his entire discourse concerning the purity of virginity. He may have become acquainted with these letters during his resi- dence in Palestine. The presumption against their genuineness, arising from the absence of notice of them by Eusebius and every other writer anterior to Epiphanius, and from the limited circulation which they appear ever to have attained in the church, is absolutely con- firmed by internal evidence. Their style and whole colouring are utterly unlike those of the genuine epistle ; and the writer is evidently one whose thoughts and language have been moulded by long and early acquaintance with N.T., in the same manner as those of the real Clement are by his acquaintance with the Old. The Gospel of St. John is more than once cited, but not any apocryphal N.T. book. Competent judges have assigned these epistles CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA to the middle of the 2nd cent., but their argu- ments hardly suffice to exclude a somewhat later date. The Epistles to James our Lord's Brother. — In the article Clementine Literature is given an account of the letter to James by Clement, which relates how Peter, in immediate anti- cipation of death, ordained Clement as his successor, and gave him charge concerning his ministry. After the trans, of this letter by Rufinus, some Latin writer added a second, giving instruction as to the administration of the Eucharist and church discipline. These two letters had considerable currency in the West. In the forged decretals both were much enlarged, and 3 new letters purporting to be Clement's added. James is in the original Clementines the head of the church, but in the later epistle receives instruction and commands from Peter's successor Clement. There must have been yet other letters ascribed to Clement in the East if there be no error in the MS. of Leontius (Mai, Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. vii. 84), who cites a pas- sage not elsewhere extant as from the ninth letter of Clement. Discourses concerning Providence and the righteous judgment of God are cited by Anastasius of Antioch ; and a i3th-cent. writer (Spicilegium Ache- rianum, viii. 382) reports having seen in a Saracen MS. a book of Revelations of Peter, compiled by Clement. The highest, and pro- bably the final, authority on St. Clement of Rome is now the great work of Bp. Lightfoot, forming, in 2 parts, pub. 1890, voL i. of his ed. of the .Apostolic Fathers. See also Harnack, ; Chronol. der Altchr. Lit., 1897, pp. 251 fi., 438 ff. ; an ed. by A. Jacobson of Clement's works in 2 vols, in Apost. Patr. (Clar. Press); an Eng. trans, of the Epistle of Clement, by J. A. F. Gregg (S.P.C.K.). [g.s.] : Clement of Alexandria, i. Life. — His full ; name, Titus Flavins Clemens, is given by • Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13) and Photius (Cod. iii) in the title of the Stromateis {'\Itov <t>\au;ou . \\\rjixevTo^ [Photius adds wpia^vripov 'A\e^a>'- ■ Spei'as] tC}v Karo-Triv aXtjOr] cpiXoaocpiav yvtvariKUV ' uirofivrmoLTuiv (XTpw/xaTe'is). The remarkable, coincidence of the name with that of the nephew of Vespasian and consul in 95 cannot have been accidental, but we have no direct evidence of Clement's connexion with the imperial Flavian family. Perhaps he was descended from a freedman of the consul ; his wide and varied learning indicates that he had received a liberal education, and sO' far suggests that his parents occupied a good' social position. The place of his birth is not certainly known. Epiphanius, the earliest authority on the question, observes that twO; opinions were held in his time, " some saying that he was an Alexandrian, others that he was an Athenian" {dv 4>aal rivei 'AXf^avSpia 'irepoL SyAdrjvaiov. Haer. xxxii. 6). Alexandria was the principal scene of his labours ; but there was no apparent reason for connecting him with Athens by mere conjecture. The statement that he was an Athenian must there' fore have rested upon some direct tradition Moreover, in recounting his wanderings hi makes Greece the starting-point and Alex andria the goal of his search (Strom, i, § i} p. 322) ; and in the 2nd cent. Athens was stil CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA the centre of the literary and spiritual life of Greece. We may then with reasonable proba- bility conclude that Clement was an Athenian by training if not by origin, and the fact that he was at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria towards the close of the century fixes the date of his birth c. a.d. 150-160. Nothing is recorded of his parentage ; but his own language seems to imply that he embraced Christianity by a personal act, as in some sense a convert [Paed. i. § i, p. 97, ras TraXaids a.iroiJLVviJ.tvoi dd^as ; cf. Paed. ii. § 62, p. 206, SdKpvd ffffjLfv . . . ol eh avrbi' TreTTLcrTevKdres), and this is directly affirmed by Eusebius (Praep. Ev. ii. 2 f.), though perhaps simply by inference from Clement's words. Such a con- version would not be irreconcilable with the belief that Clement, like Augustine, was of Christian parentage at least on one side ; but whether Clement's parents were Christians or heathens it is evident that heathenism at- tracted him for a time ; and though he soon overcame its attractions, his inquisitive spirit did not at once find rest in Christianity. He enumerates six illustrious teachers under whom he studied the " true tradition of the blessed doctrine of the holy apostles." His trst teacher in Greece was an Ionian (Athen- agoras ?) ; others he heard in Magna Graecia ; others in the East ; and at last he found in Egypt the true master for whom he had sought (Strom, i. § ir, p. 322). There can be no doubt that this master was Pantaenus, to whom he is said to have expressed his obliga- tions in his Hypotyposes (Eus. H. E. vi. 13, V. 11). Pantaenus was then chief of the catechetical school, and though the accounts of Eusebius and Jerome (Eus. H. E. v. 10 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. 36, 38) are irreconcilable in their details and chronology, it is certain that on the death or retirement of Pantaenus, Clement succeeded to his office, and it is not unlikely that he had acted as his colleague before. The period during which Clement presided over the catechetical school (c. a.d. 190-203) seems to have been the season of his greatest literary activity. He was now a presbyter of the church {Paed. i. § 37, p. 120) and had the glory of reckoning Origen among his scholars. On the outbreak of the perse- cution under Severus (a.d. 202, 203) in which Leonidas, the father of Origen, perished, Cjement retired from Alexandria (Eus. H. E. yi. 3), never, as it seems, to return. Nothing is directly stated as to the place of his with- drawal. There are some indications of a visit to Syria (Eus. H. E. vi. 11, Sj- Lcrre) ; and, later, we find him in the companv of an old pupil, Alexander, aftenvards bp. of Jerusalem, and at that time a bp. of Cappadocia, who was m prison for the faith. If therefore Clement had before withdrawn from danger, it was through wisdom and not through fear. Alex- ander regarded his presence as due to " a special providence " (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 14), and charged him, in most honourable terms, with a letter of congratulation to ihe church of Antioch on the appointment of Asclepiades to the bishopric of that citv, a.d. 311 (Eus. H. E. ^'-.ii)- This is the last mention of Clement which has been preserved. The time and the place of his death are alike unknown. Popu- lar opinion reckoned him among the saints of CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 177 the church ; and he was commemorated in the early Western martyrologies on Dec. 4. His name, however, was omitted in the martyr- ology issued by Clement 'VIII. after the cor- rections of Baronius ; and Benedict XIV. elaborately defended the omission in a letter to John V. of Portugal, dated 1748. Benedict argued that the teaching of Clement was at least open to suspicion, and that private usage would not entitle him to a place in the calen- dar (Benedicti XIV. Opera, vi. pp. 119 ff. ed. 1842, where the evidence is given in detail ; cf. Cognat, Clement d'Alexandrie, pp. 451 fi.). ii. Works. — Eusebius, whom Jerome follows closely with some mistakes (de Vir. III. 38) has given a list of the works of Clement (H. E. vi. 13) : (i) '^Tpwuarfh, libb. viii. ; (2) 'TTTOTHTraKrets, libb. viii. ; (3) \\pb% "E/\X7;;'as \6705 TTpoTpewTiKoi (adversus Gentes, Jerome) ; (4) WaL^a-ywyo's, libb. iii. ; (5) T/s o <Tw^6txevoi 7r,\oi''(Ttos ; (6) lltpi Tov Trdtr^a ; (7) AtaX^^fis Trepi vrjartlas ; (8) Ilnpl KaraXaXlas ; (9) llporpewTiKos eh {nrop.ovqv ^ irpbs roi)^ veioarl (SejSaTTTKr/j.ei'ovi (omitted by Jerome) ; (10) Kayiic iKKXijo'LacrTLKds fi wpbf tovs lovSat ^ovrai (de Canonibus Ecclesiasticis et adversum eos qui Judaeormn sequuntur errorem, Jerome). Photius (Bibl. Codd. 109-111) mentions that he read the first five works on the list, and knew by report 6, 7, 8 (Trepi KaKoKoyiai) ; 10 (Trepi Kavbvwv eKKXrjaiacTTLKicv) ; from the variations in the titles and the omission of 9, it is evident that he derived his knowledge of these simply from the secondary Greek version of Jerome's list. Nos. i, 3, 4, 5 are still preserved almost entire. Of 2 considerable fragments remain ; and of 6, 8, 10 a few frag- ments are preserved in express quotations. Quotations are also found from a treatise Trepi irpovoias, and from another Trepi ^vxn^, to which Clement himself refers (Strom, iii. 13, p. 516; v. 88, p. 699). Elsewhere Clement speaks of his intention to write On First Prin- ciples (wepi dpxi^v, Strom, iii. 13, p. 516 ; id. 21, p. 520 ; cf. iv. 2, p. 564) ; On Prophecy (Strom. V. 88, p. 699 ; id. iv. 93, p. 605) ; Against Here- sies (Strom, iv. 92, p. 604) ; On the Resurrection (Paed. i. 6, p. 125) ; On Marriage (Paed. iii. 8, p. 278). But the references may be partly to sections of his greater works, and partly to designs never carried out (cf. Strom, iv. 1-3, pp. 563 f.). No doubt has been raised as to the genuineness of the Address, the Tutor, and the Miscellanies. Internal evidence shews them all the work of one writer (cf. Reinkens, de Clemente, cap. ii. § 4), and they have been quoted as Clement's by a continuous succes- sion of Fathers even from the time of Origen (Comm. in Joh. ii. 3, p. 52 b ; Strom. ; anony- mous). These three principal extant works form a connected series. The first is aa exhortation to the heathen to embrace Christianity, based on an exposition of the comparative character of heathenism and Christianity ; the second offers a system of training for the new convert, with a view to the regulation of his conduct as a Christian ; the third is an introduction to Christian philo- sophy. The series wil further continued in the lost Outlines (inroTvinbaeLs), in which Clement laid the foundation of his philosophic structure in an investigation of the canonical 12 178 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA writings. The mutual relations of these writings shew that Clement intended them as a complete system of Christian teaching, corresponding with the " whole economy of the gracious Word, Who first addresses, then trains, and then teaches " {Paed. i. i), bringing to man in due succession conviction, discipline, wisdom. The first three books correspond in a remarkable degree, as has frequently been remarked (Potter, ad Protrept. i.), with the stages of the neo- Platonic course, the Puri- fication {aTTOKadapffis), the Initiation (jxv-r)(jLs), and the Vision (iwoTTTeLa). The fourth book was probably designed to give a solid basis to the truths which were fleeting and unreal in systems of philosophy. Though his style is generally deficient in terseness and elegance, his method desultory, his learning undigested ; yet we can still thankfully admire his richness of information, his breadth of reading, his largeness of sympathy, his lofty aspirations, his noble conception of the office and capacities of the Faith. I. The Address to the Greeks (A670S irpoTpeir- TiKos Trpdi'aWTji'as : cf. Strom, vii. § 22, p. 421, eV Ti2 TrpoTpewTiKif) iwLypa4>ofxev(j) TjiMy A67(f)).' — The works of Clement were composed in the order in which they have been mentioned. The Tutor contains a reference to the Address in the first section (6 \6yos bnrivlKa jxev enl a-wrrtpiaf wapfKciXei, wpOTpewTLKbs 6vofia aiVoj fjv: cf. Strom, vii. § 22 ; Pott. p. 841) ; and, if we can trust the assertion of Eusebius (//. E. V. 28), some of Clement's works were composed before the accession of Victor (a.d. 192). Putting these two facts together, we may reasonably suppose the Address written c. A.D. 190. It was addressed to Greeks and not to Gentiles generally, as Jerome under- stood the word (" adversus gentes," de Vir. III. 38). It deals almost exclusively with Greek mythology and Greek speculation. Its general aim is to prove the superiority of Christianity to the religions and the philo- sophies of heathendom, while it satisfies the cravings of humanity to which thev bore wit- ness. The gospel is, as Clement shews with consummate eloquence, the New Song more powerful than that of Orpheus or Arion, new and yet older than the creation (c. 1), pure and spiritual as contrasted with the sensuality and idolatry of the pagan rites, clear and substan- tial as compared with the vague hopes of poets and philosophers (2-9). In such a case, he argues, custom cannot be pleaded against the duty of conversion. Man is born for God, and is bound to obey the call of God, Who through the Word is waiting to make him like unto Himself. The choice is between judgment and grace, between destruction and life : can the issue then be doubtful (10-12) ? It is not difficult to point out errors in taste, fact, and argument throughout Clement's appeal ; but it would be perhaps impossible to shew in any earlier work passages equal to those in which he describes the mission of the Word, the Light of men (p. 88), and pictures the true destiny of man (pp. 92 ff.). II. The Tutor (6 Tlaidaytoyds: cf. Hos. v. 2, quoted in Paed. i. 7, p. 129).— The Tutor was written before the Miscellanies, in which the Tutor is described generaUy (Strom, vi. § i, CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA P- 736) — i.e. c. A.D. 190-195. The writer's de- sign was " to prepare from early years, that is from the beginning of elementary instruction (e\- KarTjx'/o-eaJs), a rule of life growing with the increase of faith, and fitting the souls of those just on the verge of manhood with virtue so as to enable them to receive the higher know- ledge of philosophy " {els €in<7Ti]ij.-qi yvoianicrj: wapaSoxv'^, Strom. I.e.). The main scope of the Tutor is therefore practical : the aim is action and not know- ledge ; but still action as preparatory to knowledge, and resting upon conviction. It is divided into three books. The first gives a general description of the Tutor, Who is the Word Himself (1-3) ; of the " children " whom He trains. Christian men and women alike (46) ; and of His general method, using both chastisements and love (7-12). The second and third books deal with special precepts de- signed to meet the actual difficulties of con- temporary life and not to offer a theory of morals. It would not be easy to find else- where, even in the Roman satirists, an equally , vivid and detailed picture of heathen manners. : The second book contains general directions as to eating and drinking (i f.), furniture (3), entertainments (4-8), sleep (9), the relations of : men and women (10), the use of jewellery ' (11 f.). The third book opens with an inquiry : into the nature of true beauty (c. i). This j leads to a condemnation of extravagance in : dress both in men and in women (2 ff.), of ' luxurious establishments (4 f.), of the misuse of wealth (6 f.). Frugality and exercise are | recommended (8-10) ; and many minute di- rections are added — often curiously sugges- ' tive in the present times — as to dress and ' behaviour(ii f.). General instructions from' Holy Scripture as to the various duties and ; offices of life lead up to the prayer to the Tutor | — the Word — with which tlie work closes. Immediately after the Tutor are printed in the editions of Clement two short poems, which, have been attributed to him. The first, , written in an anapaestic measure, is A Hymn' of the Saviour Christ [v/jLvoi tou ^uTrjpos[ Xpiarov), and the second, written in trimeter; iambics, is addressed To the Tutor (eis tov UaiSaywydv). The first is said to be "Saint Clement's" (tov ayiov KxrtpievTos) in those MSS. which contain it ; but it may be a work of primitive date, like the Morning Hymn which has been preserved in our Com- munion Office as the Gloria in Excelsis. If, it were Clement's, and designed to occupy its. present place, it is scarcely possible that it would have been omitted in any MS. ; while it makes an appropriate and natural addition, if taken from some other source. There is no' evidence to shew that the second is Clement'si work ; it is doubtless an effusion of some pious scholar of a later date. III. The Miscellanies ('ZTpuixaTeh).*—1h(. title, patchwork (or rather bags for holding ihi bedclothes, like arpw/uaTodecrfioL), suggests a truf idea of the character of the work. It is de- signedly immethodical, a kind of meadow, ai' Clement describes it, or rather a woodec • The full title is given at the close of Books i. iii V, ; TWK Kara. Tr]V a\rf$rj <j)iKotTo<jiiav yvui(TTiKOiV VWO; fxyriixdroiv (TTptit/iareis. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA ; mountain (vii. § in), studded irregularly with I various growths, and so fitted to exercise the ' ingenuity and labour of those likely to profit by it (vi. § 2, p. 736, Pott.)- But yet the book is'inspired by one thought. It is an endeavour to claim for' the gospel the power of fulfilling all the desires of men and of raising to a I supreme unity all the objects of knowledge, ; in the soul of the true gnostic — the perfect Christian philosopher. The first book, which is mutilated at the beginning, treats in the main of the office and the origin of Greek philosophy in relation to Christianity and Judaism. Clement shews that Greek philo- sophy was part of the Divine education of men, subordinate to the training of the law and the prophets, but yet really from God (§§ 1-58 ; 91-100). In his anxiety to establish this cardinal proposition he is not content with shewing that the books of O.T. are older than f those of the philosophers (59-65 ; 101-164 ; 180-182) ; but endeavours to prove also that the philosophers borrowed from the Jews {66-90 ; 165 f.). After this he vindicates the character and explains the general scope of the law — "the philosophy of Moses" (167-179). The main object of the second book lies in the more detailed exposition of the originality and superiority of the moral teaching of revelation as compared with that of Cireek philosophy which was in part derived from it (§§ i ff. ; 20-24; 78-96). The argument includes an examination of the nature of faith (4-19 ; 25-31), resting on a godly fear and perfected by love (32-55) ; and of repentance (56-71). He discusses the sense in which human affections are ascribed to God (72-75) ; and shews that the conception of the ideal Christian is that of a man made like to God (97-126), in accord- ance with the noblest aspirations of philosophy (127-136). The book closes with a prelimin- ary discussion of marriage. The third book investigates the true doctrine of marriage (§§ 57-60) as against those who indulged in every license on the ground that bodily actions are indifferent (i-ii ; 25-44) ; and, on the other hand, those who abstained from marriage from hatred of the Creator (12-24 ; 45-46). Various passages of Scripture wrongly inter- preted by heretics are examined (61-101) ; and the two main errors are shewn to be inconsis- tent with Christianity (102-110). The fourth book opens with a very interesting outline of the whole plan of the comprehensive apology for Christianity on which he had entered (§§ 1-3)- The work evidently grew under his I hands, and he implies that he could hardly expect to accomplish the complete design. He then adds fresh traits to his portrait of the true " gnostic." Self-sacrifice, martyrdom, lie at the root of his nature (8-56 ; 72-77), virtues within the reach of all states and of both sexes (57-71), though even this required to be guarded against fanaticism and mis- understanding (78-96). Other virtues, as love and endurance, are touched upon (97-119) ; and then Clement gives a picture of a godly woman (120- 131), and of the gnostic, who rises above fear and hope to that perfection which rests in the knowledge and love of God (132-174). In the fifth book Clement, fol- lowing the outline laid down (iv. i), discusses laith and hope (§§ 1-18), and then passes to CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 179 the principle of enigmatic teaching. This, he argues, was followed by heathen and Jewish masters alike (19-26) ; by Pythagoras (27-31); bv Moses, in the ordinances of the tabernacle (32-41) ; by the Acgyptians (42-44) ; and by many others (45-56). The princii)le itself is, he maintains, defensible on intelligible grounds (57-60), and supported by the authority of the apostles (61-67). ^'or in fact the knowledge of God can be gained only through serious effort and by divine help (68-89). This review of the character and sources of the highest knowledge leads Clement back to his characteristic pro- position that the Cireeks borrowed from the Jews the noblest truths of their own philo- sophy. The sixth and seventh books are designed, as Clement states (vi. § i) to shew the character of the Christian philosopher (the gnostic), and so to make it clear that he alone is the true worshipper of God. By way of prelude Clement repeats and enforces (§§ 4-38) what he had said on Greek plagiarisms, yet admitting that the Greeks had some true knowledge of God (39-43), and affirming that the gospel was preached in Hades to those of them who had lived according to their light (44-53), though that was feeble compared with the glory of the gospel (54-70). He then sketches the lineaments of the Christian philo- sopher, who attains to a perfectly passionless state (71-79) and masters for the service of the faith all forms of knowledge, including various mysteries open to him only (80-114). The reward of this true philosopher is proportioned to his attainments (115-148). These are prac- tically unlimited in range, for Greek philo- sophy, though a gift of God for the training of the nations, is only a recreation for the Chris- tian philosopher in comparison with the serious objects of his study (149-168). In the seventh book Clement regards the Christian philosopher as the one true worshipper of God (§§ 1-5), striving to become like the Son of God (5-21), even as the heathen conversely made their gods like themselves (22-27). The soul is his temple ; prayers and thanksgivings, his sacrifice ; truth, the law of his life (28-54). Other traits are added to the portraiture of " the gnostic " (55-88) ; and Clement then meets the general objection urged against Christianity from the conflict of rival sects (89-92). Heresy, he replies, can be detected by two tests. It is opposed to the testimony of Scripture (93-105) ; and it is of recent origin (106-108). At the close of the seventh book Clement remarks that he " shall proceed with his argument from a fresh beginning " (ruii' f^T/s ttTT ciXXijs apx^s Troir]ff6fJ.e0a rbv \6yov). The phrase may mean that he pro- poses to enter upon a new division of the Mis- cellanies, or that he will now pass to another portion of the great system of writings sketched out in Strom, iv. 1-3. In favour of the first opinion it may be urged that Eusebius (H. E. vi. 13) and Photius {Cod. 109) expressly mention eight books of the Miscellanies ; while on the other hand the words themselves, taken in connexion with vii. i, point rather to the commencement of a new book. The fragment which bears the title of the eighth book in the one remaining MS. is in fact a piece of a treatise on logic. It may naturally have served as an introduction to the examina- 180 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA tion of the opinions of Greek philosophers, the interpretation of Scripture, and the re- futation of heresies which were the general topics of the second principal member of Clement's plan (iv. 2) ; but it is not easy to see how it could have formed the close of the Miscellanies. It is " a fresh beginning " and nothing more. In the time of Photius (f. A.D. 850) the present fragment was reck- oned as the eighth book in some copies, and in others the tract. On the Rich Man that js Saved (Bibl. in). Still further confusion is indicated by the fact that passages from the Extracts from the Prophetical Writings are quoted from " the eighth book of the Mts- cellanies" (Bunsen, Anal. Ante-Nic. 1. 288 f.), and also from " the eighth book of the Out- lines " {id. 285) ; while the discussion of pro- phecy was postponed from the Miscellanies to some later opportunity {Strom, vii. i, cf. iv. 2). Perhaps the simplest solution is to suppose that at a very early date the logical introduction to the Outlines was separated from the remainder of the work, and added to MSS. of the Miscellanies. In this way the opinion would arise that there were 8 books of CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA remark (oi dwb (JvaXevrivov, §§ 2,6 24- 16, 23, 25; 37 ; (is (prjaiv ( oi Oi<a\€i>Tii>i.a.voi, __ ee65oros, §§ 22, 26, 30 ; (p-^ai, §§ 41, 67 ; (paal, §§ 33, 35 ; \€yoi"Tcv, § 43)- It follows that in some cases it is uncertain whether Clemen'. quotes a Valentinian author by way of ex- position, or adopts the opinion which he quotes. The same ambiguity appears to have existed in the original work ; and it is easy to see how Photius, rapidly perusing the treatise, may have attributed to Clement doctrines which he simply recited without approval and without examination. Thus, in the frag- ments which remain, occasion might be given to charge Clement with false opinions on the nature of the Son (§ 19)- on the creation of Eve {§ 21), on the two Words (§§ 6, 7, 19), on Fate (§§ 75 ff.), on the Incarnation (§ i). There is no perceptible order or connexion m the series of extracts. The beginning and end ; i are equally corrupt. Some sections are quite detached '{e.g. §§ 9> 18, 21, 28, 66, etc.).; ' others give a more or less continuous exposi- tion of some mystery : e.g. §§ 10-16 (the nature of spiritual existences) ; 39-65 (the relations of wisdom, Jesus, the Christ, the demiurge; the Miscellanies, and scribes supplied the place \ ^j^g material, the animal, the spiritual) ; 67-86 of bk. viii. according to their pleasure. IV. The Outlines {'TTroTvirwffeis) probably grew out of the Miscellanies. Several express (birth, fate, baptism). ^ : {b) The prophetic selections {iK tojc 7rpo0ir"-; kQv iK\oyai) are for the most part scarcely less desultory and disconnected than the Sum- maries, but far simpler in style and substance. They commence with remarks on the symbol- ism of the elements, and mainly of water Then follow fragmentary reflections; quotations from the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th books of the Outlines have been preserved ; but the fragments are too few and Clement's method too desultory to allow these to furnish a certain plan of the arrangement of the work. _^ Thev agree, however, fairly with the summary ; ^^ discipline (9-1 1^ on knowledge, faith, ore- description of Photius, and probably books ! ^^.^^^ the new creation (12-24). fire (25 f.), on i.-iii. contained the general introduction, with , ^^.^.j^j' ^^d preaching (27), on traits of the notes on the O.T. (" Genesis, Exodus, and the 1 ^^^^ gnostic (28-37). A long and misceUane- Psalms") ; booksiv.-vi., noteson the Epp. of I ^^^ series of observations, some of them St. Paul; books vii. viii., on the Catholic Epp. | physiological succeeds (38-50), and the collec- In addition to the detached quotations, 1 t'.^^ closes wi'th a fairly continuous exposition' (§§ i-S there can be no reasonable doubt that the , ^^ p^ three series of extracts, (a) The summaries from the expositions of Theodotus and the so- (xix.). Theo-. Manuscript.— The summaries from dolus and the prophetic selections are at present^ called Western school, (b) The selections from ; ^^^^ ^^j^, ^^ ^^^ p,^^ (L_). The text giver the comments on the prophets, and {c) 1 he - outlines on the Catholic_ Epistles, were taken from the Outlines. the edd. of Clement is most corrupt. The conjectural emendations and Latin trans, o: But partly from the ^ernays given by Bunsen in his ed. of the method of compilation, partly from the manner jfji^gj^ents of The Outlines (A nal. Ante-Ntc. i.) in which they have been preserved in a single ^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^j. ^^^^ valuable help for th< MS., these fragments, though of the deepest interest, are at present only imperfectly in- telligible. (a) The summaries from Theodotus {iK tQjv QeodoTOV Kal ttjs avaroXiKT]'! KaXovfx^vrjs 5i8acr- KttXias Kara rovi OvaXevrivov xp<5»'0i'S iirtTOf-iai) are at once the most corrupt and the most intrinsically difficult of the extracts. It understanding of the text. Dindorf, in hi: ed., has overlooked these. (c) The third important fragment of thi Outlines consists of a Latin version of notes 01, detached verses of I. Peter, Jude, and I., IL John, with several insertions, probably due 11 some' cases to transpositions in the MS. {e.g I. John ii. I, hae namque primitivae, virtute. appears as if the compiler set down hastily the j — audita est, Pott. p. 1009. stands properly ii passages which contained the interpretations of the school which he wished to collect, with- out regard to the context, and often in an imperfect form. Sometimes he adds the criticism of Clement {r)ij.fh 54, § 8 ; 'E/J.0I Si, § 17 ; 6 rjixhepos [\6705], § 33) ; but generally the Valentinian comment is given without • Bunsen (Anal. Ante-Nic. i. pp. 163 f.) arranges the contents of the books very differently. The evidence is slight ; but it does not appear from Photius that the Gospels formed the subject of special annotation, and Bunsen makes the third book Commeniarius in Evangelia. connexion with the line of speculation on Jud' 9) ; and in others to a marginal illustratio: drawn from some other part of the work {e.i Jude 24, cum dicit Daniel— confusus est Cassiodorus says {Inst. Div. Litt. 8) that Clea ent wrote some remarks on I. Peter 1., IL Joni and James, which were generally subtle, bt at times rash ; and that he himself translate them into Latin, with such revision as renc ered their teaching more safe. It has generaU' been supposed, in spite of the difference < range {James for Jude) that these Latin note CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA are the version of Cassiodorus. It seems, however, more probable that the printed notes are mere glosses taken from a Catena, and not a substantial work. The Adumhrationes were published by de la Eigne in his Biblio- theca Patrum, Par. i575 (and in later editions); but he gives no account of the MS. or MSS. from which the text was taken. Ph. Labbe, however, states {de Scriptt. Eccles. 1660, i. p. 230) that he saw an ancient parchment MS., " qui fuit olim Coenobii S. Mariae Montis Dei," which contained these Adumbrationes, under that title, together with Didymus's com- montarv on the Catholic Epistles. De la Pigne then, probably, found the notes of Clement in the " very ancient but somewhat illegible MS." from w'hich he took his text of Didymus, which follows the Adumbrationes [Bibl. vi. p. 676 n.). V. The remaining extant work of Clement, Who is the Rich Man that is Saved ? (rh 6 crcuj'6- fifvoi ir\oi>cnos :) is apparentlva popular address based upon Mark x. 17-31- The teaching is simple, eloquent, and just ; and the tract closes with the exquisite " story, which is no story" of St. John and the young robber, which Eusebius relates in his History (iii. 23). iii. Clements' Position and Influence as a Christian Teacher. — In order to understand Clement rightly, it is necessary to bear in mind that he laboured in a crisis of transition. This gives his writings their peculiar interest in all times of change. The transition was three- fold, affecting doctrine, thought, and life. Doctrine was passing frt^m the stage of oral tradition to written definition (i). Thought was passing from the immediate circle of the Christian revelation to the whole domain of human experience (2). Life in its fulness was coming to be apprehended as the object of Christian discipline (3). A few suggestions will be offered upon the first two of these heads. (i) Clement repeatedly affirms that even when he sets forth the deepest my-steries, he is simply reproducing an original unwritten tradition. This had been com- mitted by the Lord to the apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul, and handed down I from father to son, till at length he set forth j accurately in wxiting what had been delivered I in word {Strom, i. § 11, p. 322 ; cf. vi. 68, j p. 774 ; and fragm. ap. Eus. H. E. ii. i). But this tradition was, as he held it, not an inde- pendent source of doctrine, but a guide to the apprehension of doctrine. It was not co-ordinate with Scripture, but interpretative of Scripture {Strotn. vi. 124 f., pp. 802 f. ; de Div. Sal. § 5, p. 938). It was the help to the training of the Christian philosopher (6 yvwa- WKOJ), and not part of the heritage of the simple believer. Tradition in this aspect preserved the clue to the right understanding of the hidden sense, the underlying harmonies, the manifold unity of revelation. More par- I ticularly the philosopher was able to obtain j through tradition the general principles of I interpreting the records of revelation and i significant illustrations of their application. I In this way the true " gnostic " was saved j from the errors of the false " gnostic " or heretic, who interpreted Scripture without re- j gard to " the ecclesiastical rule " {Strom, vi. . l?5, p. 803, Kavwv iKKX-qaiaffTiKdt : 6 ^kk\. k. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA 181 ib. vi. 165, p. 826 ; vii. 41, p. 855 ; cf. 6 Kavihv TTJs d\iit>(ias, ib. vi. 124, p. 802 ; 131, p. 806; vii. 94, p. 890 ; 6 Kavwu ttjs iKK\ria-La^, ib. i. 96, P- 375 ; vii. 105, p. 897). The examples of spiritual interpretation which Clement gives in accordance with this traditional " rule " are frequently visionary and puerile {e.g. Strom, vi. 133 ff. pp. 807 ff.). But none the less the rule itself witnessed to a vital truth, the continuity and permanent value of the books of Holy Scripture. This truth was an essential part of the inheritance of the Catholic church ; and Clement, however faulty in de- tail, did good service in maintaining it {id. vii. 96, p. 891). As yet, however, the contents of the Christian Bible were imperfectly de- fined. Clement, like the other Fathers who habitually used the Alexandrine O.T., quotes the books of the Apocrypha without distin- guishing them in any way from the books of the Hebrew canon, and he appears to regard the current Greek Bible as answering to the Hebrew Scriptures restored by Ezra {Strom. i. 124, p. 392 ; id. 148, p. 409). There is the same laxity of usage in Clement with regard to the N.T. He ascribes great weight to the Ep. 0/ Barnabas {Strom, ii. 31, p. 445 ; id. 116, p. 489) ; and makes frequent use of the Preaching of Peter (Strom, i. 182, p. 427, etc.) ; and quotes the Gospel ace. to the Hebrews (Strom, ii. 45, p. 453). Eusebius further adds that he wrote notes on the Revelation 0/ Peter, which is in fact quoted in the Extracts from the Prophets (§§ 41, 48, 49). The text of his quotations is evidently given from memory {e.g. Matt. V. 45, vi. 26, etc.). But as the earliest Greek writer who largely and expressly quotes the N.T. (for the Greek fragments of Irenaeus are of comparatively small compass), his evidence as to the primitive form of the apostolic writings is of the highest value. Not unfrequently he is one of a very small group of witnesses who have preserved an original reading {e.g. I. Cor. ii. 13, vii. 3, 5, 35, 39, etc.). In other cases his readings, even when presumably wrong, are shewn by other evid- ence to have been widely spread at a very early date {e.g. Matt. vi. 33). It is impossible here to follow in detail Clement's opinions on special points of doc- trine. The contrast which he draws between the gnostic (the philosophic Christian) and the ordinary believer is of more general interest. This contrast underlies the whole plan of his Miscellanies, and explains the different aspects in which doctrine, according to his view, might be regarded as an object of faith and as an object of knowledge. Faith is the foundation ; knowledge the superstructure {Strom, vi. 26, p. 660). By knowledge faith is perfected {id. vii. 55, p. 864), for to know is more than to believe {id. vi. 109, p. 794). Faith is a sum- mary knowledge of urgent truths : knowledge a sure demonstration of what has been received through faith, being itself reared upon faith through the teaching of the Lord {id. vii. 57, p. 865). Thus the gnostic grasps the complete truth of all revelation from the beginning of the world to the end, piercing to the depths of Scripture, of which the believer tastes the surface only {id. vi. 78, p. 779 ; 131, p. 806 ; vii. 95, p. 891). As a consequence of this intelligent sympathy with the Divine Will, the 182 CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA gnostic becomes in perfect unity in himself i/xovaSiKds), and as far as possible like God itd. iv. 154, p. 633 ; vii. 13, p. 835). Definite outward observances cease to have any value for one whose whole being is brought into an abiding harmony with that which is eternal : he has no wants, no passions ; he rests in the contemplation of God, which is and will be his unfailing blessedness (id. vii. 35, p. 851, 84, p. 883 ; vi. 71, p. 776 ; vii. 56, p. 865). In this outline it is easy to see the noblest traits of later mysticism ; and if some of Clement's statements go beyond subjects which lie within the powers of man, still he bears impressive testimony to two essential truths, that the aim of faith through knowledge perfected by love is the present recovery of the divine likeness; and that formulated doctrine is not an end in itself, but a means whereby we rise through fragmentary propositions to knowledge which is immediate and one. (2) The character of the gnostic, the ideal Christian, the perfect philosopher, represents the link between man, in his earthly conflict, and God : it represents also the link between man and men. The gnostic fulfils through the gospel the destiny and nature of mankind, and gathers together the fruit of their varied ex- perience. This thought of the Incarnation as the crown and consummation of the whole history of the world is perhaps that which is most characteristic of Clement's office as an interpreter of the faith. It rests upon his view of human nature, of the providential government of God, of the finality of the Christian dispensation. Man, according to Clement, is born for the service of God. His soul {\f/vxv) is a gift sent down to him from heaven by God {Strom, iv. 169, p. 640), and strains to return thither {id. 9, p. 567). For this end there is need of painful training {Strom, i. 33, P- 335 ; vi. 78, p. 779) ; and the various partial sciences are helps towards the attainment of the true destiny of existence {Strom, vi. 80 ff. pp. 780 ff.). The " image " of God which man receives at his birth is slowly completed in the " likeness " of God {Strom, ii. 131, p. 499 ; cf. Paed. i. 98, p. 156). The inspiration of the divine breath by which he is distinguished from other creatures (Gen. ii. 7) is fulfilled by the gift of the Holy Spirit to the believer, which that original constitu- tion makes possible {Strom, v. 87 f. ; p. 698 : cf. Strom, iv. 150, p. 632). The image of God, Clement says elsewhere, is the Word (Logos), and the true image of the Word is man, that is, the reason in man {Cohort. 98, p. 79). It follows necessarily from this view of humanity, as essentially related to God through the Word, that Clement acknowledged a provi- dential purpose m the development of Gentile life. He recognized in the bright side of Gentile speculation many divine elements. These he regarded as partly borrowed from Jewish revelation, and partly derived from reason illuminated by the Word (A670S), the final source of reason. Some truths, he says, the Greek philosophers stole and disfigured ; some they overlaid with restless and foolish speculations ; others they discovered, for they also perhaps had " a spirit of wisdom " (Ex. xxviii. 3) {Strom, i. 87, p. 369). He dis- tinctly recognized the ofiice which Greek philo- CLEMENTINE LITERATURE sophy fulfilled for the Greeks as a guide to righteousness, and a work of divine providence {Strom, i. 176 ff. pp. 425 ff. ; 91 ff. pp. 372 ff.). He regarded it as a preparation for justifying faith {Strom, i. 99, p. 377 ; vi. 44, p. 762 ; i.i. 47 ff. pp. 764 ff.), and in a true sense a dispeii- sation, a covenant {Strom, vi. 42, p. 761 ; ii. 67, P- 773 ; id. 159, p. 823 ; i. 28, p. 331). The training of Jews and of the Greeks was thus in different ways designed to fit men for the final manifestation of the Christ. The systems were partial in their essence, and by human imperfection were made still more so. The various schools of philosophy, Jewish and heathen, are described by Clement under a memorable image, as rending in pieces the one truth like the Bacchants who rent the body of Pentheus, and bore about the fragments in triumph. Each, he says, boasts that the morsel which it has had the good fortune to, gain is all the truth. Yet by the rising of the light all things are lightened, and he who again combines the divided parts and unites the ex- position fX67os) in a perfect whole will look upon the truth without peril {Strom, i. 57, p. 349). Towards this great unity of all science and' all life Clement himself strove ; and by the influence of his writings kept others alive to; the import of the magnificent promises in the, teaching of St. Paul and St. John. He af-! firmed, once for all, upon the threshold of thei new age, that Christianity is the heir of all' past time, and the interpreter of the future. Six-' teen centuries have confirmed the truth of his principle, and left its application still fruitful. • Clement of Alexandria's works are in Migne's' Pair. Gk. vols. viii. ix. ; and an ed. of his' Opera ex rec. Guil. Dindorfii in 4 vols, witl' Latin notes is pub. by the Clarendon Press: A full enumeration of the MSS. of Clement's works will be found in D. C. B. (4 -vol. ed.). Besides the chief Church Histories, the fol. lowing works are important for the study o Clement : Le Nourry, Appar. ad Bibliolhecan] Patrum, lib. iii. (reprinted in Dindorf's edi' tion) ; Moehler, Patrologie, 1840 ; Mansel, Th>' Gnostic Heresies, lect. xvi. ; and the historic of the Alexandrine School, by Guericke, Matter J. Simon, Vacherot. Interesting summaries o Clement's teaching, besides those in the genera works of Lumper, Marechal, and Schramm are given by bp. Kaye {Some Account of th Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexan dria, Lond. 1835) ; abbe Freppel {Cletner d'Alexandrie, coiirs a la Sorbonne, Paris, 1866) • Ch. Bigg {The Christian Platonists of Alex' andria, Oxf. 1886); F. J. A. Hort {Six Lecture on the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Lond. 1895). i cheap popular Life is pub. by S.P.C.K. i their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; an Eng. trans of the Homily on the Rich Man by P. M. Bai nard (S.P.C.K.), text by the same in Texts an Studies, vol. v. No. 2 (Camb. Univ-. Press), wb has also collected Clement's Biblical text fc the gospel and Acts {ib. vol. v. No. 4). A vah able ed. of the 7th book of the Miscellanies,vi'\t translation, introduction and notes, was pal in 1902 at Cambridge by the late Prof. Hoi and Prof. J. B. Mayor. Translations of moi! of his works are contained in the Ante-Nicei Lib. vol. ii. (T. & T. Clark). [b.f.w.] Clementine Literature. Among the spuriov writings attributed to Clement of Rome, tl CLEMENTINE LITERATURE chief is one which purported to contain a re- cord made by Clement of discourses of the apostle Peter, together with an account of the circumstances under which Clement came to be Peter's travelling companion, and of other details of Clement's family history. This work assumed a variety of forms. The Ebionitism with which the original work had been strongly coloured was first softened, then removed. Changes were also made with a view to im- provement of the story ; and as time went on far more interest was felt in the framework of narrative than in the discourses themselves. In the latest forms of the work, several of the discourses are omitted, and the rest greatly abridged. In early times, even when the work was rejected as heretical, it yet seems to have been supposed to rest on a groundwork of fact, and several statements passed into church tradition which appear primarily to rest on its authority. Afterwards, in its orthodox ioTin, it was accepted as a genuine work of Clement and atrustworthyhistoricalauthority. On the revival of learning the disposition was to disregard the book as a heretical figment quite worthless to the student of church his- tory. Later it was seen that even if no more than a historical novel composed with a controversial object towards the end of the ' 2nd cent., such a document must be most I valuable in shewing the opinions of the school ! from which it emanated ; and accordingly the 1 Clementine writings play an important part ! in all modern discussions concernmg the history of the early ages of the church. The work has come down to us in three principal forms. I. Tlu Homilies (in the MSS. TO. K\riij.(vna), first printed by Cotelier in his edition of the Apostolic Fathers 1672, from one of the Colbertine MSS. in the Paris Library. This manuscript is both corrupt and defec- tive, breaking off in the middle of the 19th of the 20 homilies of which the entire work consists. The complete work was first pub. by Dressel, 1853, from a MS. which he foimd in the Ottobonian Library in the Vatican. Notes on the homilies by Wieseler, which were intended to have formed part of this publica- tion, only appeared in 1859 as an appendix to Dressel's ed. of the Epitomes (see below). The two MSS. mentioned are the only ones now known to exist. II. The Recognitions {dvayviixreis, dvayvupi<r- fiol) bears in the MSS. a great variety of titles, the most common being Itinerarium S. dem- entis (corresponding probably to TrepioSoi K\ri/jievTos or wepiodoi. Tlerpov). The ori- ginal is lost, but the work is preserved in a translation by Rufinus, of which many MSS. are extant. Rufinus states in his preface that there were then extant two forms differing in many respects. He adds that he had omitted certain passages common to both, one of which he specifies, as being, to say the least, unintelligible to him ; and elsewhere expresses his opinion that those passages had been inter- polated by heretics. He claims to have aimed at giving rather a literal than an elegant trans- lation ; and there seems reason to regard this translation as more faithful than some others by him. We can test his work in the case of fragments of the original preserved by quota- tion, and, moreover, we have a Syriac trans. CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 183 of the first three books, which is in the main in fair agreement with the Latin. For one of the most important variations see Lightfoot On the Galatians, 4th ed. p. 316. The trans, of Rufinus was first pub. by Sich.irdus (Basle, 1526). The most important later edd. are by Cotelier in his Apostolic Fathers (Paris, 1672) and by Gersdorf (Leipz. 1838). A new ed., founded on a better collation of MSS., is much to be wished for. The Syriac trans., an ed. of which was pub. by de Lagarde, i86r, is preserved in two MSS. in the British Mu- seum. The older of these claims to have been written at Edessa, a.d. 411, and exhibits errors of transcription, which shew that it was taken from a still earlier MS. It contains the books i. ii. and iii. of the Recognitions and part of c. i. of book iv., at the end of which is marked " the end of the first discourse of Clemens." Then follow the loth homily headed " the third against the Gentiles " ; the nth homily headed " the fourth " ; the 12th and 13th homilies, the former only as far as c. xxiv., with the heading " from Tripoli in Phoe- nicia " ; and the 14th homily headed " book xiv.," after which is marked " the end of the discourses of Clemens." The other MS. is some four centuries later, and contains only the first three books of the Recognitions, the note at the end being " the ninth of Clemens who accompanied Simon Cephas is ended." Eng. trans, of both the Homilies and the Recog- nitions are given in the A nte-Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). III. The Epitome, first pub. by Turnebus, 1555, is an abridgment of the first form {i.e. the Homilies), and contains also a continu- ation of the story, use being made therein of the martyrdom of Clement by Simeon Meta- phrastes, and of a tale by Ephraim, bp. of Chersonesus, of a miracle performed at the tomb of Clement. The Epitome is given in forms of varying fulness in different MSS. The edition by Dressel (Leipz. 1859), besides giving a fuller version of the Epitome as pre- viously pub., contains also a second form con- siderably different. There must have been at least one other form not now extant, called by Uhlhorn the orthodox Clementines, which re- tained the discourses, but completely expur- gated the heresy contained in them. This is inferred from the citations of the late Greek writers (Nicephorus Callisti, Cedrenus, and Michael Glycas) ; and the Clementines so amended were so entirely accepted by the later Greek church, that a Scholiast on Eusebius is quite unable to understand the charge of heresy which his author brings against them. In what follows we set aside the Epitomes as being manifestly a late form, and confine our attention to the other two forms, viz. the Homilies and Recognitions, to which, or to their writers, we shall refer as H. and R. Of these the Homilies contain all the character- 1 istics of Ebionitism in much the harsher form ; 1 but before discussing the doctrine, we will compare the narratives as told in either form. '; The following is an abstract of the Recogni- tions. The form is that of an autobiography addressed by Clement to James, bp. of Jeru- i salem. The work divides itself into three portions, probably of different dates. i I. Clement, having stated that he was born 184 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE at Rome and from early years a lover of chastity, gives a lively description of the per- plexity caused him by his anxiety to solve the problems, what had been the origin and what would be the future of the world, and whether he himself might look fonvard to a future life. He seeks in vain for knowledge in the schools of the philosophers, finding nothing but dis- putings, contradiction, and uncertainty. At length a rumour that therehad arisen in Judaea a preacher of truth possessed of miraculous power is confirmed by the arrival of Barnabas in Rome, who declares that the Son of God was even then preaching in Judaea, and promising eternal life to His disciples. Barnabas is rudely received by the Roman rabble, and returns to his own country in haste tobe present at a Jewish feast. Clement, though desirous to accompany him for further instruction, is detained by the necessity of collecting money due to him ; but sails shortly after for Pales- tine, and after a fifteen days' voyage arrives at Caesarea. There he finds Barnabas again and is introduced by him to Peter, who had arrived at Caesarea on the same day, and who was on the next to hold a discussion with Simon the Samaritan. Peter forthwith frees Clement from his perplexities, bv instructing him in the doctrine of the " true prophet." For one who has received the true prophet's credentials there is an end of uncertainty ; faith in Him can never be withdrawn, nor can anything which He teaches admit of doubt or question. Clement by Peter's orders committed his teaching to wTiting, and sent the book to James, to whom Peter had been commanded annually to transmit an account of his doings. We are next told that Simon postponed the appointed discussion with Peter, who uses the interval thus gained to give Clement a con- tinuous exposition of the faith, in which God's dealings are declared from the commencement of the world to the then present time. This section includes an account of a disputation held on the temple steps between the apostles and the various sects of the Jews, viz. the priests, the Sadducees, the Samaritans, the Scribes and Pharisees, and the disciples of John. When the apostles are on the point of success the disputation is broken off by a tumult raised by an unnamed enemy, who is unmistakably Saul, who flings James down the temple steps, leaving him for dead, and disperses the assembly. The disciples flv to Jericho, and the enemy hastens to Damascus, whither he supposes Peter to have fled, in order there to make havoc of the faithful. At Jericho, James hears from Zacchaeus of the mischief being done by Simon at Caesarea, and sends Peter thither to refute him, ordering him to report to him annually, but more particu- larly every seven years. In the section just described there are some things which do not harmonize with what has gone before. The date of the events related is given as seven years after our Lord's passion, although the previous story implies that Clement's vovage had been made in the very year that ended our Lord's ministry. Also in one place (L 71) Peter is mentioned in the third person, though he is himself the speaker. These facts prove that the story of Clement has been added on to an older document. It has been conjec- CLEMENTINE LITERATURE tured that this document was an Ebionite work 'Avai3afffj.ol 'lo/cw/Son. the contents of which, as described by Epiphanius (xxx. 16), well cor- respond with those of this section, and the title of which might be explained as referring to discourses on the temple steps. But this conjecture encounters the difficulty that the author himself indicates a different source for this part of his work. We are next introduced to two disciples of Peter, Nicetas and Aquila, who had been dis- ciples of Simon. These give an account of the history of Simon and of his magical powers, stating that Simon supposed himself to per- form his wonders by the aid of the soul of a murdered boy, whose likeness was preserved in Simon's bed-chamber. Prepared with this ; information, Peter enters into a public discus- sion with Simon which lasts for three days, the main subject in debate being whether the difficulty of reconciling the existence of evil with the goodness and power of the Creator does not force us to believe in the existence of a God different from the Creator of the world. The question of the immortality of the soul is also treated of, and this brings the discussion to a dramatic close. For Peter offers to settle the question by proceeding to Simon's bed- chamber, and interrogating the soul of the murdered boy, whose likeness was there pre- served. On finding his secret known to Peter, Simon humbles himself, but retracts his re- pentance on Peter's acknowledging that he had this knowledge, not by prophetic power, but from associates of Simon. The multitude, however, are filled with indignation, and drive Simon away in disgrace. Simon departs, in- forming his disciples that divine honoiurs await him at Rome. Peter resolves to follow him among the Gentiles and expose his wickedness; and having remained three months at Caesarea for the establishment of the church, he ordains Zacchaeus as its bishop, and sets out for Tri- polis, now the centre of Simon's operations. This brings the third book of the Recognitions to a close ; and here we are told that Clement sent to James an account in ten books of Peter's discourses, of which the author gives the contents in detail, from which we may conclude that they formed a work really in existence previous to his own composition. These contents can scarcely be described as an abstract of the three books of the Recognitions; for though the same topics are more or less touched on, the order and proportion of treat- ment are different. One of the books is de- scribed as treating of the Apostles' disputatioQ at the temple ; and therefore it seems needless to look for the original of this part in the Ascents of James or elsewhere. II. On Peter's arrival at Tripolis he finds that Simon, hearing of his coming, had fied by night to Syria. Peter proceeds to instruct the people ; and his discourses, containing a polemic against heathenism, occupy the next three books of R. Bk. vi. terminates with the baptism of Clement and the ordination of a bishop, after which Peter sets out for Antioch, having spent 3 months at Tripolis. III. With bk. vii. the story of Clement's recognition of his family begins. We shall presently discuss how an occasion is skilfully presented for Clement's relating his family CLEMENTINE LITERATURE history to Peter. That liistory is as follows : Clement's father, Faust inianus, was a member of the emperor's family, and married by liim to a lady of noble birth, uaiued Mattidia. By her he had twin sons, Faustiis and Faustinus, and afterwards Clement. When Clement was five years old, .Mattidia told her husband that she had seen a vision warning her that unless she and her twin sons speedily left Rome and remained absent for ten years, all must perish miserably. Thereupon the father sent his wife and children with suitable provision of money and attendance to Athens, in order to educate them there. But after her departure no tidings reached Rome, and Faustinianus, having in vain sent others to inquire for them, at length left Clement under guardianship at Rome, and departed himself in search of them. But he too disappeared, and Clement, now aged thirty-two, had never since heard of father, mother, or brothers. The story pro- ceeds to tell how Peter and Clement on their way to Ant inch go over to the island of Aradus to see the wonders of a celebrated temple there. While Clement and his party are admiring works of Phidias preserved in the temple, Peter converses with a beggar woman outside, and the story she tells of her life is in such agreement with that previously told him by Clement, that Peter is able to unite mother and son. The vision which she had related j had been feigned in order to escape from the incestuous addresses of her husband's brother, j without causing family discord by revealing his wickedness. On her voyage to Athens she had been shipwrecked, and cast on shore by the waves, without being able to tell what had become of her children. All now return to the main land, and on telling the story to their companions who had been left behind, Nicetas and Aquila recognize their own story and de- clare themselves" to be the twin sons, who had been saved from the wreck and sold into slavery by their rescuers. Mattidia is bap- tized. After the baptism Peter and the three brothers, having bathed in the sea, withdraw to a retired place for prayer. An old man in a workman's dress accosts them and undertakes to prove to them that prayer is useless, and that there is neither (.od nor Providence, but that all things are governed by astrological fate (genesis). A set disputation takes place and occupies bks. viii. i.x. ; the 3 brothers, being well trained in Grecian philosophy, successively argue on the side of Providence, and discuss the evidence for astrology. The discussion is closed by a dramatic surprise. When all the old man's other difficulties have been solved, he undertakes to produce a conclusive argu- ment from his own experience. His own wife liad been born under a horoscope which com- pelled her to commit adultery, and to end her days by water in foreign travel. And so it turned out. She had been guilty of adultery with a slave, as he had learned on his brother's testimony, and afterwards leaving Rome with her twin sons on account of a pretended vision, had perished miserably by shipwreck. Peter has now the triumph of fully reuniting the family and gaining a victory in the discussion, by shewing the complete falsification of the astrological prediction. From the account given by Rufinus, it would seem that one of CLEMENTINE LITERATURE 185 the forms of the Rfcoi^ntlionx known to him closed here ; but in the tenth book as we have it, the story is prolonged by discourses in- tended to bring Faustinianus to a hearty re- ception of Christianity. After this Simon is again brought on the stage. Ho li.is been very successful at Antioch in shewing wonilers to the people and stirring up their hatred against Peter. One of Peter's emissaries, in order to drive him to flight, prevails on Cornelius the centurion, who had been sent on public busi- ness to Caesarea, to gi%e out that he had been commissioned to seek out and destroy Simon, in accordance with an edict of the empcmr for the destruction of sorcerers at Rome and iti the provinces. Tidings of this are brought to Simon by a pretended friend, who is in reality a Christian spy. Simr)n, in alarm, flees to Laodicea, and there meeting Faustinianus, who had come to visit their common friends, Apion (or, as our author spells it, Ajipion) and Anubion, transforms bv his magic the features of Faustinianus into his own, that Faustinian- us may be arrested in his stead. But Peter, not being deceived by the transformation, turns it to the greater discomfiture of Simon. For he sends Faustinianus to Antioch, who, pretending to be Simon, whose form he bore, makes a public confession of imposture, and testifies to the divme mission of Peter. After this, when Simon attempts again to get a hearing in Antioch, he is driven away in disgrace. Peter is received then with the greatest honour and baptizes Faustinianus, who has meanwhile recovered his own fi)rni. We turn now to the story as told in the Homilies. The opening is identical with that of the Recognitions, except for one small varia- tion. Clement, instead of meeting Barnabas in Rome, has been induced by an anonymous Christian teacher to sail for Palestine ; but being driven by storms to Alexandria, there encounters Barnabas. It is not easy to say which form is the original. On the one hand, the account that Clement is delayed from fol- lowing Barnabas by the necessity of collecting money due to him is perfectly in place if the scene is laid at Rome, but not so if Clement is a stranger driven by stress of weather to Alex- andria. The author, who elsewhere shews Alexandrian proclivities, may have wished to honour that city by connecting Barnabas with it ; or was perhaps unwilling that Peter should be preceded by another ajiostle at Rome. On the other hand, the rabble which assails Bar- nabas is in both versions described as a mob of Greeks, and the fifteen days' voyage to Pales- tine corresponds better with Alexandria than with Rome. The narrative proceeds as in R. as far as the end of Peter's disputation with Simon at Caesarea ; but both Peter's prelim- inary instructions to Clement and the disputa- tion itself are different. In H. Peter prepares Clement by teaching him his set ret doctrine concerning difficulties likely to be raised by Simon, the true solution of which he could not produce before the multitude. Simon would bring forward texts which seemed to speak of a plurality of Gods, or which imputed imper- fection to God, or spoke of Him as changing His purpose or hardening men's hearts and so forth ; or, again, which laid crimes to the charge of the just men of the law, Adam and 186 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. In public it would be inexpedient to question the author- ity of these passages of Scripture, and the difficulty must be met in some other way. But the true solution is that the Scriptures have been corrupted ; and all those passages which speak against God are to be rejected as spurious additions. Although this doctrine is represented as strictly esoteric, it is reproduced in the public discussion with Simon which immediately follows. This disputation in H. is very short, the main conflict between Peter and Simon being reserved for a later stage of the story. It is here stated, however, that this disputation at Caesarea lasted three days, although only the subjects treated on the first day are mentioned. We have next a great variation between H. and R. According to H., Simon, vanquished in the disputation, flies to Tyre, and Nicetas, Aquila, and Clement are sent forward by Peter to prepare the way for him. There they meet Apion, and a public disputation on heathen mythology is held be- tween Clement and Apion, the debate going over many of the topics treated of in the tenth book of R. On Peter's arrival at Tyre, Simon flies on to Tripolis, and thence also to Syria on Peter's continuing the pursuit. We have, as in R., discourses delivered to the heathen at Tripolis, and the story of the discovery of Clement's family is in the main told as in R., with differences in detail to be noticed pre- sently. In H., the main disputation between Peter and Simon takes place after the recog- nitions, and is held at Laodicea, Clement's father (whose name according to H. is Faustus) acting as judge. The last homily contains ex- planations given by Peter to his company after the flight of Simon ; and concludes with an account similar to that in R., of the transfor- mation of Clement's father. To this analysis must be added an account of the prefatory matter. Neither the Latin nor Syriac version of the Recognitions trans- lates any preface ; but Rufinus mentions having found in his original a letter of Clement to James, which he does not prefix, because, as he says, it is of later date and he had trans- lated it elsewhere. The remark about later date need not imply any doubt of its genuine- ness, but merely that the letter, which pur- ports to have been written after the death of Peter, is not rightly prefixed to discourses which claim to have been written some years previously. The letter itself is preserved in the MSS. of the Homilies, and gives an ac- count of Peter's ordination of Clement as his successor at Rome, and closes with instruc- tions to Clement to send to James an abstract of Peter's discourses. The work that follows purports to contain an abridgment of dis- courses already more fully sent to James ; and is given the title : " An epitome by Clement of Peter's discourses during his sojournings " {iwiSrj/j.iwv Ki)pvyixa.Tuv). The Homilies con- tain another preface in the form of a letter from Peter himself to James. In this no mention is made of Clement, but Peter himself sends his discourses to James, strictly for- bidding their indiscriminate publication, and charging him not to communicate them to any Gentile, nor even to any of the circumcised, except after a long probation, and the later CLEMENTINE LITERATURE ones only after such an one had been tried and found faithful with regard to the earlier. Subjoined is an oath of secrecy to be taken by those to whom the writings shall be communi- cated. Examination shews that the letter of Clement cannot belong to the Homilies ; for its account of Clement's deprecation of the dignity of the episcopate, and of the charges given to him on his admission to it, are in great measure identical with what is related in the 5th homily, in the case of the ordination of Zacchaeus at Caesarea. These are omitted from the story as told in the Recognitions. The inference follows that the letter of Clement is the preface to the Recognitions. Thus, accord- ing to the conclusion we form on other grounds as to the relative priority of the two forms, either R., when prefixing his account of Clem- ent's ordination, transposed matter which the older document had contained in connexion with Zacchaeus, or H., when substituting for the letter of Clement a letter in the name of Peter himself, found in Clement's letter matter which seemed too valuable to be wasted, and therefore worked it into the account of the first ordination related in the story, that of Zacchaeus. The letter of Peter thus remains as the preface either to the Homilies or to the earlier form of the work before the name of Clement had been introduced. On the ques- tion of relative priority it may be urged that it is more likely that a later writer would remove a preface written in the name of Clem- ent, in order to give his work the higher author- ity of Peter, than that the converse change should be made ; and also that the strong charges to secrecy and to the communication of the work in successive instalments would be accounted for, if we suppose that at the time of the publication of the Homilies another version of Peter's discourses had been in circulation, and that the writer was anxious to offer some account why what he produced as the genuine form of the discourses should not have been earlier made known. Respecting this rela- tive priority there has been great diversity of opinion among critics : Baur, Schliemann, Schwegler, and Uhlhorn give the priority to H., Hilgenfeld and Ritschl to R. ; Lehmann holds R. to be the original for the first three books, H. in the later part. Lipsius regards both as independent modifications of a com- mon original. Without speaking over-con- fidently, our own conclusion is, that while neither of the existing documents can claim to be the original form, they are not independ- ent ; that H. is the later and in all that relates to Clement's family history has borrowed from R. Probably the original form contained little but discourses, and was probably an esoteric document, in use only among the Ebionites ; and the author of R. may have added to it the whole story of Clement's re- covery of his parents, at the same time fitting the work for popular use by omitting or softening down the harshest parts of its Ebion- itism ; and finally, H., a strong Ebionite, may have restored some of the original discourses, retaining the little romance which no doubt had been found to add much to the popularity and attractiveness of the volume. The follow- ing are some of the arguments which prove that H. is not an original. CLEMENTINE LITERATURE (i) The story of Clement's first recognition of his family is told in exactly the same way in R. book 7, and in H. book 12. Clement, anxious to be permitted to join himself per- manently as travelling companion to Peter, reminds him of wonls used at Caesarea : how Peter had there invited those to travel with him who could do so with piety, that is, with- out deserting wife, parents, or other relations whom thev could not properly leave. Clement states that he is himself one thus untrammelled, and ho is thus led to tell the story of his life. These words of Peter, to which both K. and H. refer, are to be found only in R. (iii. 71), not in H. It has been stated that the ordin- ation of Zacchaeus at Caesarea is told fully in H., and only briefly in R. In recompense R. has a long section describing the grief of the disciples at Peter's departure and the consola- tions which he addressed to them ; all this is compressed into a line nr two in H. It is matter which any one revising R. would most naturally cut out as unimportant and unin- teresting ; but we see that it contains words essential in the interests of the story, and can hardly doubt that these words were intro- duced with a view to the use subsequently made of them. This instance not only shews, as Lehmann admits, that H. is not original in respect of the Caesarean sections, but still more decisively refutes Lehmann's own hypo- thesis that it was H. who ornamented an originally simpler story with the romance of the recognitions. Either the author of that romance, as is most probable, was also the author of Peter's Caesarean speech, which has little use except as a preparation for what follows ; or else, finding that speech in an earlier document, used it as a connecting link to join on his own addition. In either case he must have been fully alive to its importance, and it is quite impossible that he could have left it out from his version of the story. Moreover, of the two writers H. and R., H. is the one infinitely less capable of inventing a romance. Looking at the whole work as a contro\ersial novel, it is apparent all through that H. feels most interest in the controversy, R. in the novel. (2) Further, in the same section in the passage common to H. and R., Peter sends on Nicetas and Aquila to prepare the way for his coming. He apologizes for parting company with them, and they express grief at the sepa- ration, but console themselves that is it only for two days. On their departure Clement says, " I thank Gf)d that it was not I whom you sent away, as I should have died of grief." Then follows the request that Peter would accept him as his inseparable companion. This is all consistent as told by R. ; for these regrets are expressed on the first occasion that any of the three brothers is removed from personal attendance on Peter. But as H. tells the story, Peter had already sent on Clement, while still unbaptized, together with Nicetas and Aquila, to Tyre, where they hold a disputation with Apion. There is not a word of grief or remonstrance at the separation for more than a week, and it is therefore strange that subsequently there should be so much regret at a two days' ]>arting. It is plain that H. has interpolated the mission to CLEMENTINE LITERATURE IS7 iTyre; but failed to notice that lie .Might in consistency to have modified some of the next portion of R. which he retained. This dis- putation with .Xpion has been alleged as a proof of the priority of M., for Apion is intro- duced also into K., but only as a silent char- acter ; and it is urged that the original fcmn is more likely to be that in whi< h this well-known adversarv of Judaism conducts a disputation, than that in which he is but an insignificant companion of Simon. But this argument does not affect the relative priority of H. and R., whatever weight it mav have in proving R. not original. Eusebius (iii. 38) mentions a long work ascribed to Clement, and then but recently composed fas he infers from not having seen it quoted by any earlier writer), containing dialogues of Peter and Apion. This description may be intended for the Homilies ; but may refer to a still earlier work. There are expressions in R. which seem to imply that the writer believed himself to be making an im|irovemcnt in substituting for Peter as a disputant against heathenism, persons whose early training had been such as to gi\e them better knowledge of heathen mythology and philosophy. (3) The story of Clement's recognition of his brothers contains plain marks that H. has abridged R. According to R., Nicetas and Aquila, seeing a strange woman return with Peter and Clement, ask for an explanation. Peter then repeats fully the story of the ad- ventures of Clement's mother. Nicetas and Aquila listen in silence until Peter describes the shipwrecked mother searching for her children and crying, " Where are my Faustus and Faustinus ? " then, hearing their own names mentioned, they start up in amaze and say, " We suspected at the first that what you were saying might relate to us ; but yet as many like things happen in different persons' lives, we kept silence ; but when you came to the end and it was entirely manifest that your statements referred to us, then we confessed who we were." H. avoids what seems the needless repetition of an already-told story, and only states in general terms that Peter recounted Mattidia's history ; but the amazed starting- up of the brothers, and their words, are the same as in R. ; while, as the incident of the mention of their former names is omitted, it is in this version not apparent why the con- clusion of Peter's speech brought conviction to their minds. Evidently H., in trying to shorten the narrative by clearing it of repeti- tion, has missed a point in the story. (4) As told above, in R. the recognition of Clement's father crowns a disputation on astrological fate. In H. the whole story is spoiled. An old man accosts Peter, as in R., and promises to prove from his personal history that all things are ruled by the stars ; but nothing turns on this. The recognition takes place in consequence of a chance meeting of Faustinianus with his wife, and has no relation to the subject he undertakes to discuss with Peter. The obvious explanation is, that H. has copied the introduction from R. ; but omits the disputation because he has already anticipated it, having put the argument for heathenism into the mouth of the eminent rhetorician Apion, who seemed a fitter char- 188 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE acter to conduct the disputation than the unknown Faustinianus. Further H. (xx. 15) and R. (x. 57) both state that the magical transformation of Clement's father takes place on the same day that he had been recognized by his family. This agrees with the story as told by R. ; but H. had made five days' disputation intervene between the recognition and the transformation. Thus in the account of each of the three sets of recognitions there is evidence that H. copied either from R. or from a writer who tells the story exactly as R. does ; and the former hypothesis is to be pre- ferred because there is no evidence whatever of R.'s non-originality in this part of his task. (5) We have seen that in H. there are two disputations of Simon with Peter, viz. at Caesarea and at Laodicea. There is decisive proof that in this H. has varied from the original form, which, as R. does, laid the scene of the entire disputation at Caesarea. The indications here, however, point to a borrowing not from R. but from a common original. H. does relate a disputation at Caesarea, but evi- dently reserves his materials for use further on, giving but a meagre sketch of part of one day's dispute, while he conscientiously follows his authority and relates that the dispute lasted three days. Afterwards at Laodicea the topics brought forward in the earlier discussion are produced as if new. Simon, e.g., expresses the greatest surprise at Peter's manner of disposing of the alleged spurious passages of the Pentateuch, although exactly the same line of argument had been used by Peter on the former occasion. The phenomenon again presents itself (H. xviii. 21) of a reference to former words of Peter which are not to be found in H. itself, but are found in R. ii. 45. Lastly, in the disputation at Laodicea, the office of summoning Peter to the conflict is ascribed to Zacchaeus, in flagrant contradic- tion of the previous story, according to which Zacchaeus was the leading man of the church at Caesarea before Peter's arrival, and had been left behind as its bishop on Peter's de- parture. This alone is enough to shew that H. is copying from an original, in which the scene is laid at Caesarea. It may be added that the Apostolic Constitutions make mention only of a Caesarean disputation. (6) It has been stated that the last homily contains private expositions by Peter to his disciples, and these can clearly be proved to be an interpolation. In R., after the disputa- tion on " genesis " in which Clement's father is convinced, the party having returned home and being about to sit down to meat, news comes of the arrival of Apion and Anubion and Faustinianus goes to salute them. In H. the party have retired to rest, and Peter wakes them up in the middle of the night to receive his instructions ; yet in the middle of this midnight discourse we have an account, almost verbally agreeing with R., of the news of the arrival of Apion coming just as they were about to sit down to meat, and the consequent departure of Clement's father. The discourse, thus clearly shewn to be an interpolation, con- tains H.'s doctrine concerning the devil, and is in such close connexion with the preceding homily (which relates how Peter, in his Laodi- cean disputation, dealt with the problem of CLEMENTINE LITERATURE the permission of evil in the universe) that this also must be set down as an addition made by H. to the original story. We can see why H. altered the original account of a Caesarean disputation — namely, that he wished to re- serve as the climax of his story, the solutions which he put into Peter's mouth of the great controversy of his own day. (7) In section H. ii. 19-32, which contains the information given by Nicetas and Aquila concerning Simon, there are plain marks that H. is not original. Nicetas, in repeating a con- versation with Simon, speaks of himself in the third person : " Nicetas answered," instead of " I answered." In the corresponding section of R., Aquila is the speaker, and the use of the third person is correct. Yet this matter, in which H. is clearly not original, is so different from R., that we conclude that both copied from a common original. One instance in this section, however, deserves to be men- tioned as an apparent case of direct copying from R. In H. ii. 22, Simon is represented as teaching that the dead shall not rise, and as rejecting Jerusalem and substituting Mount Gerizim for it ; but nowhere else is there a trace of such doctrine being ascribed to Simon ; and no controversy on these subjects is re- ported in the Homilies. There is strong reason for suspecting that H. has here blundered in copying R. i. 57, where a Samaritan, whom there is no ground for identifying with Simon, is introduced as teaching these doctrines of the non-resurrection of the dead, and of the sanctity of Mount Gerizim. We turn to some of the reasons why R. must also be regarded as the retoucher of a previously existing story. The work itself recognizes former records of the things which it relates. In the preface it purports to be an account written after the death of Peter of discourses, some of which had by Peter's com- mand been written down and sent to James during his own lifetime. R. iii. 75 contains an abstract of the contents of ten books of these previously-sent reports. Again, R. v. 36, we are told of the dispatch to James of a further instalment. Everything confirms the conclusion that R. is here using the credit which an existing narrative had gained, in order to obtain acceptance for his own addi- tions to the story. Moreover, as we have seen, there are instances in the first division of the work where H. is clearly not original, and yet has not copied from R. ; whence we infer the existence of an independent authority, at least for the earlier portion, employed by both writers. There are places where H. and R. seem to supplement one another, each supply- ing details omitted by the other ; other places where it would seem as if an obscure passage in the common original had been differently understood by each ; and in the discourses common to both, there are places where the version presented by H. preserves so much better the sequence of ideas and the cogency of argument that it is scarcely possible to think the form in R. the original (cf. esp. H. ix. 9, 10, R. iv. 15, 16). There are places, again, where both seem to have abridged the common original. Thus R. mentions concerning an early conversation, that none of the women were present. There is no further mention of CLEMENTINE LITERATURE woiueii in tlio iiarty until quite late in tliosturv both H. and R. incidentally speak of Peter's wife as being in the company. In may be noted in passing that they do not represent Peter and his wife as living together as married people ; but Peter always sleeps in the same room with his disciples. We may conjecture that the original contained a formal account of the women who travelled with Peter, and this is contirmed bv St. Jerome, who refers to a work called the circuits of Peter {TrepioSoi) as mentioning not only Peter's wife, but his daughter, of whom nothing is said either by H. or R. The work cited bv Jerome contained a statement that Peter was bald, which is not found either in H. or R. In like manner we may infer that the original contained a formal account of the appointment of 12 precursors (TrpooSoi) who were to go before Peter to the different cities which he meant to visit. H. several times speaks of the precursors, assum- ing the office to be known to the reader, but without ever recording its appointment. R. does give an account of its appointment, but onewhich implies that Peter had come attended by 12 companions, of whom Clement was already one. We have already mentioned in- consistencies in this first section from which we infer, that though the original form of the story mentioned the name of Clement, the introduction containing the account of Clem- ent's journey from Rome is a later addition. We conclude that the work cited by Jerome is the common original of H. and R. ; and a comparison of the matter common to the two shews that both pretty freely modified the original to their own uses. From what has been said concerning H. under No. 7, we infer that the original contained mention both of Clement and of Nicetas and Aquila, and it is likely that Clement was there too represented as the recorder of the discourses. The original must have contained an account of a three days' disputation with Simon held at Cae- sarea ; it also included the polemic against heathenism contained in the Tripolis dis- courses, as may be inferred both from R. v. 36 and also from a comparison of the two records of these discourses. It is likely that the same work contained the disputation of Peter and Apion referred to by Eusebius, and that H. followed the original in making Apion a speak- ing character, although he has been involved in confusion in trying to combine this with the additional matter imported by R. We may conjecture too (see R. x. 52) that it also con- tained a disputation by Anubion on the subject of " genesis." On the other hand, there is no evidence that the original contained anything concerning the recognitions by Clem- ent of the members of his family. In this part of the story R. makes no acknowledgment of previous accounts sent to James ; and he shews every sign of originality and of having carefully gone over the old story, skilfully adapting it so as to join on his own additions. It appears from H. ii. 22, 26, that in quite an early part of the history the original intro- duced Nicetas and Aquila as addressing their fellow-disciple Clement as " dearest brother," and this probably gave R. the hint (see R. viii. 8) of representing them as natural broth- ers. R. omits these expressions in the place CLEMENTINE LITERATURE IS!) where they are inappropriate. A qurstiun may be raised whether the document referrctl to in R. iii. 75, and which contained an ac- count of th'^ disput.it ion with Simon, was part of the same work as that referred to in v. 36, which contain. 'd the disputation against the heathen. We have marked them as probably dilftrent. It mav be remarked that Peter's daily bath, carefully recorded in the later books, is not mentioned in the three earlier. A ques- tion may be raised whether the original did not contain an account of a meeting of Simon and Peter at Rome ; and it is not impossible that such an account may have been originally de- signed by the author; as one or two references to Rome as well as the choice of Clement as the narrator give cause to suspect. But that in any case the design was not executed appears both from the absence of any early reference to a Roman contest between Simon and Peter ; and also from the diversity of the accounts given as to the manner of Simon's death, since we may believe that if the document we are considering had related the story, its version would have superseded all others. Quite a different impression as to relative originality is produced when we compare the doctrine of H. and R., and when we com- pare their narratives. The doctrine of H. is very peculiar, and, for the most part, con- sistently carried through the whole work ; in R. the deviations from ordinary church teach- ing are far less striking, yet there are passages in which the ideas of H. can be traced, and which present the appearance of an imperfect expurgation of offensive doctrine. In H., Judaisni and Christianity are represented as identical, and it is taught to be enough if a man recognize the authority either of Christ or of Moses ; in R. he is required to acknow- ledge both. On this point, however, H. is not consistent ; for in several places he agrees with R. in teaching the absolute necessity of baptism to salvation. H. rejects the rite of sacrifice altogether ; according to R. the rite was divinely permitted for a time until the true prophet should come, who was to replace it by baptism as a means of forgiveness of sins. With respect to the authority of O.T. alleged for the rite of sacrifice, and for certain erro- neous doctrines, H. rejects the alleged pas- sages as falsified ; R. regards them merely as obscure, and liable to be misunderstood by one who reads them without the guidance of tra- dition. The inspiration of the prophets later than Moses is denied by H. and admitted by R., though quotations from their writings are alike rare in both forms. According to H., the true prophet has presented himself in various incarnations, Adam, who is regarded as being identical with Christ, being the first and Jesus the last ; and the history of Adam's sin is rejected as spurious ; according to R., Christ has but revealed Himself to and inspired various holy men of old. And, in general, concerning the dignity and work of our Lord, the doctrine of R., though short of orthodox teaching, is far higher than that of H. The history of the fall, as far, at least, as regards the temptation of Eve, is referred to by R. as historical ; but concerning Adam there are intimations of an esoteric doctrine not fully explained. H. gives what may be called a 190 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE physical theory of the injury done by demons. They are represented as having sensual desires, which, being spirits, they can gratify only by incorporation with human bodies. They use therefore the permission which the divine law grants them, of entering into the bodies of men who partake of forbidden food, or who, by worshipping them, subject themselves to their power ; and with these the union is so close, that after death, when the demons descend to their natural regions of tire, the souls united to them are forced to accompany them, though grievously tormented by the element in which the demon feels pleasure. The opposition between fire and light is much dwelt on ; and again, the water of baptism and other ablu- tions is represented as having a kind of phy- sical efficacy in quenching the demonic fire. AH this doctrine concerning demons shews itself comparatively faintly in R. ; yet there seem indications that the doctrine as ex- pounded in H. was contained in the original on which R. worked. It is natural to think that the earlier form is that one of which the doctrine is most peculiar ; the later, that in which the divergences from orthodox teaching are smoothed away. Yet it is not always true that originality implies priority; and the application of this principle has caused some of the parts of H. which can be shewn to be the most recent, to be accepted as belonging to the original. For instance, we have seen that the private conversation between Peter and his disciples in the 20th homily bears on the face of it marks of interpolation ; yet the clearness and peculiarity of its doctrine have caused it to be set down as belonging to the most ancient part of the work. The same may be said of the section concerning philanthropy at the end of the 12th homily, which, however, is wanting in the Syriac, and may be reason- ably set down as one of the most modern parts. For it is an addition made by H. to the story of the recognitions as told by R. ; and we have already shewn that in all that relates to the recognitions H. is more recent than R. We arrive at more certain results, if, examining the sections we have named, and for which H. is most responsible, we try to discover his favourite thoughts and forms of expression, and so to recognize the hand of the latest reviser in other parts of the work. Space will not permit such an examination here ; but we may notice the fondness of H. for discovering a male and female element in things, and for contrasting things under the names of male and female. The ahnost total absence of the idea from R. makes it unlikely that it could have had any great prominence in the original document. The idea, however, became very popular in the sect to which H. belonged ; and is noticed by a writer of the loth cent, as a characteristic of some Ebionites then still re- maining (see Hilgenteld,N.T. Extra Can.Recept. iii. 156). The germ, however, of the distinc- tion between male and female prophecy, on which H. lays so much stress, was apparently in the original document, which disposed of the testimony borne by our Lord to John the Baptist by the distinction that John was the greatest of the prophets born of women, but not on the level of the Son of Man. The general result of an attempt to discriminate CLEMENTINE LITERATURE what belongs to H. and R. respectively, from what they found in their common original, leads to the belief that H., far more nearly than R., represents the doctrinal aspect of the original, from which the teaching of H. differs only by legitimate development. The Clementines are unmistakably a pro- duction of that sect of Ebionites which held the book of Elkesai as sacred. For an ac- count of the sources whence our knowledge of this book is derived, and for the connexion of the sect with Essenism, see Elkesai in D. C. B. {4-V0I. ed.). Almost all the doc- trines ascribed to them are to be found in the Clementines — e.g. the doctrine of successive incarnations of Christ, and in particular the identification of Christ with Adam, the re- quirement of the obligations of the Mosaic Law, the rejection however of the rite of sacrifice, the rejection of certain passages both of O.T. and N.T., hostility to St. Paul, ab- stinence from flesh (H. viii. 15, xii. 6, xv. 7), the inculcation of repeated washing, discour- agement of virginity, concealment of their sacred books from all but approved persons, form of adjuration by appeal to the seven witnesses, ascription of gigantic stature to the angels (H. viii. 15), permission to dissemble the faith in time of persecution (R. i. 65, x. 55) ; while again the supposed derivation of the book of Elkesai from the Seres is ex- plained by R. viii. 48, where the Seres are described as a nation by whom all the ob- servances on which the Ebionites laid stress were naturally kept, and who were con- sequently exempt from the penalties of sick- ness and premature death which attended their neglect. Ritschl regards the book of Elkesai as an exposition of these doctrines later than the Homilies ; but we are disposed to look on it as earlier than the work which formed the common basis of H. and R. A recognition of this book is not improbably contained in a passage which is important in reference to the use made by H. and R. of their common original. The date which the book of Elkesai claimed for itself was the third year of Trajan. Whether it actually were so old need not here be inquired, but the fact that it was confessedly no older might seem to put it at a disadvantage in comparison with the Pauline system which it rejected. But its adherents defended their position by their doctrine of pairs — viz. that it has been ever God's method to pair good and evil to- gether, sending forth first the evil, then the countervailing good. Thus Cain was followed by Abel, Ishmael by Isaac, Esau by Jacob, so now, Simon Magus by Peter ; and at the end of the world Antichrist will be followed by Christ. The penultimate pair enumerated takes, in the translation of Rufinus, a form scarcely intelligible ; but the Syriac shews that the version given by R. did not essentially differ from that of H. ; and that the contrasted pairs predicted by Peter are a false gospel sent abroad by a deceiver, and a true gospel secretly disseminated after the destruction of the holy place, for the rectification of the then existing heresies. It seems most probable that we are here to understand the doctrine of Paul and of Elkesai ; and it may be noted that the fact, that, in this pair, gospels, not persons, are con- CLEMENTINE LITERATURE trasted, favours the coiiclusiuii that Hippo- lytus was mistaken in supposing Elkesai to be the name of a person. Two other of the contrasted pairs deserve notice : H. contrasts Aaron and Moses, R. the masJcians and Moses. Again, H. contrasts John the Baptist and our Saviour, R. the tempter and our Saviour. In both cases the version of H. seems to be the original, since in that the law of the pairs is strictly observed that an elder is followed by a better younger ; and we can understand R.'s motive for alteration if he did not share that absolute horror of the rite of sacrifice which ranked Aaron on the side of evil, or that hostility to John the Baptist which shews itself elsewhere in H., as, for example, in ranking Simon Magus among his disciples. There are passages in R. which would give rise to the suspicion that he held the same doctrines as H., but concealed the expression of them in a book intended for the uninitiated, for though in H. the principle of an esoteric doctrine is strongly asserted, the book seems to have been written at a later period, when concealment had been aban- doned. However, the instance last considered is one of several, where R.'s suppression of the doctrinal teaching of his original seems to imply an actual rejection of it. It remains to speak of that part of the Cle- mentines to which attention has been most strongly directed by modern students of the early history of the church — their assault on St. Paul under the mask of Simon Magus. In the first place it may be remarked that the school hostile to St. Paul which found expres- sion in these Clementines cannot be regarded as the representative or continuation of the body of adversaries with whom he had to contend in his lifetime. Their connexion was with the Essenes, not the Pharisees ; and they themselves claimed no earlier origin than a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, an event which would seem to have induced many of the Essenes in some sort to accept Christianity. We have seen that a theory was devised to account for the lateness of the period when what professed to be the true gospel opposed to St. Paul's was published. It follows that whatever results can be obtained from the Clementines belong to the history of the 2nd cent., not the first. The name of Paul is mentioned neither by H. nor R. Hostility to him appears in R. in a milder form ; R., plainly following his original, ignores St. Paul's labours among the heathen, and makes St. Peter the apostle of the Gentiles; and in one passage common to H. and R., and there- fore probably belonging to the earlier docu- ment, a warning is given that the tempter who had contended in vain with our Lord would afterwards send apostles of deceit, and there- fore the converts are cautioned against receiv- ing any teacher who had not first compared his doctrine with that of James, lest the devil should send a preacher of error to them, even as he had raised up Simon as an opponent to Peter. It need not be disputed that in this passage, as well as in that concerning the pairs already quoted, Paul is referred to, his preaching being spoken of in the future tense as dramatic propriety required, since the action of the story is laid at a time before his CLEMENTINE LITERATURE lit I conversion. In both places Paul, if i'aul be meant, is expressly distinguished from Simon. In the letter of Peter prefixed to the Homilies, we cannot doubt that Paul is assailed as the enemy who taught that the obligations of the Mosaic law were not iierpetual, and who unwarrantably represented Peter himself as concurring in teaching which he entirely repudiated. There remains a single passage as the foundation of the Simon- Paulus theory. In the Laodicean disputation which H. makes the climax of his story, a new topic is suddenly introduced (xvii. 13-20), whether the evidence of the senses or that of supernatural vision be more trustworthy ; and it is made to appear that Simon claims to have obtained, by means of a vision of Jesus, knowledge of Him superior to that which Peter had gained during his year of personal converse with Him. In this section phrases are introduced which occur in the notice of the dispute at Antioch, between Peter and Paul, contained in the Ep. to the Gala- tians. It need not be doubted, then, that in this section of the Homilies the arguments nominally directed against Simon are really intended to depreciate the claims of Paul. Since von Colin and Baur first took notice of the concealed object of this section, specula- tion in Germany has run wild on the identifica- tion of Paul and Simon. The theory in the form now most approved will be found in the article on Simon Magus in Schenkel's Bibel- Lexikou. It has been inferred that Simon was in Jewish circles a pseudonym for Paul, and that all related of him is but a parody of the life of Paul. Simon as a historical character almost entirely disappears. Even the story told in the Acts of the Apostles has been held to be but a caricature of the story of Paul's bringing up to Jerusalem the collection he had made, and hoping by this gift of money to bribe the apostles to admit him to equal dignity. In order to account for the author of the Acts admitting into his narrative the section concerning Simon, explanations have been given which certainly have not the ad- vantage in simplicity over that suggested by the work itself — viz. that the author having spent seven days in Philip's house had learned from him interesting particulars of his early evangelical work, which he naturally inserted in his history. The Simon- Paulus theory has been particularly misleading in speculations as to the literary history of the tales con- cerning Simon. Lipsius, for instance, has set himself to consider in what way the history of Simon could be told, so as best to serve the purpose of a libel on Paul ; and having thus constructed a more ingenious parody of Paul's life than any which documentary evidence shews to have been ever in circulation, he asks us to accept this as the original form of the story of Simon. It becomes necessary, there- fore, to point out on how narrow a basis of fact these speculations rest. To R., anti-Pauline though he is, the idea of identifying Simon with St. Paul seems never to have occurred. All through his book Paul is Paul, and Simon Simon. The same may be said of the whole of the Homilies, except this Latxliccan dis- putation, which is the part in which the latest writer has taken the greatest liberties with his original. Before any inference can be drawn 192 CLEMENTINE LITERATURE from this section as to an early identification ot Simon and Paul, it must be shewn that it belongs to the original document, and is not an addition of the last reviser only. The object of the latter may be inferred from what he states in the form of a prediction (xvi. 21), that other heretics would arise who should assert the same blasphemies against God as Simon ; which we may take as implying that the wTiter has put into the mouth of Simon doctrines similar to those held by later heretics against whom he had himself to contend. In particular, this Laodicean section is strongly anti-Marcionite ; and it is just possible that this section may have been elicited by Mar- cionite exaggeration of the claims of Paul. But we own, it seems to us far more probable that H. has here preserved a fragment of an earlier document, the full force of which it is even possible he did not himself understand. Further, it is altogether unproved that in this earlier document this particular disputation was directed against Simon. The original work may well have included conflicts of St. Peter with other adversaries, and in another instance we have seen reason to think that H. has made a mistake in transferring to Simon words which in the earlier document referred to another. Again, even if the earlier writer did put Pauline features into his picture of Simon, it no more follows that he identified Simon with St. Paul than that the later writer identified him with Marcion. The action of the story being laid at a date antecedent to St. Paul's conversion, it was a literary necessity that if Pauline pretensions were to be refuted, they must be put into the mouth of another. At the present day history is often written with a view to its bearing on the controversies of our own time ; but we do not imagine that a vvriter doubts Julius Caesar to be a historical character, even though in speaking of him he may have Napoleon Bonaparte in his mind. Now, though the author of the Clementines has put his own words into the mouth both of Simon and Peter, it is manifest that he no more doubted of the historical character of one than of the other. For Simon, his authorities were — (i) the account given in Acts viii. which furnished the conception of Simon as possessed of magical powers ; (2) in all probability the account given by Justin Mart\Tr of honours paid to Simon at Rome ; and (3) since R. refers to the writings of Simon, it can scarcely be doubted that the author used the work ascribed to Simon called the Great Announce- ment, some of the language of which, quoted by Hippolytus, is in the Clementines put into the mouth of Simon. Hence has resulted some little confusion, for the heresy of the Great Announcement appears to have been akin to the Valentinian ; but what the Clementine author has added of his own is Marcionite. Quotations from N.T. in the Clementines.- — All the four gospels are quoted ; for since the publication of the conclusion of the Homilies by Dressel, it is impossible to deny that St. John's gospel was employed. Epiphanius tells us that a Hebrew translation of St. John's gospel was in use among the Ebionites. The quota- tions are principally from St. Matthew, but often with considerable verbal differences from our present text ; and there are a few passages CLEMENTINE LITERATURE quoted which are not found in any of our present gospels. The deviations from the existing text are much smaller in R. than in H., and it may be asserted that R. always conforms to our present gospels in his own added matter. Since it is known that the Ebionites used an Aramaic gospel, which in the main agreed with St. Matthew but with considerable variations, we may conclude that this was the source principally employed by the author of the original. H. seems to have used the same sources as the original ; but yet two things must be borne in mind before we assert that variations in H. from our existing texts prove that he had a different text before him : one is the laxity with which he cites the O.T. ; the other, the fact that the story demands that Peter should be represented as quoting our Lord's discourses from memory and not from any written source ; and the author would naturally feel himself entitled to a certain amount of licence in quotations of such a kind.* Place and Time of Composition of the Clemen- tine Writings. — The use made of the name of Clement had caused Rome to be accepted as the place of composition by the majority of critics, but the opposite arguments urged by Uhlhorn appear conclusive, and to, at least, the original document an Eastern origin must be assigned. Hippolytus mentions the arrival in Rome of an Elkesaite teacher c. a.d. 220, whose doctrines would seem to have been then quite novel at Rome, and not to have taken root there. The scene of the story is all laid in the East, and the writings shew no familiarity with the Roman church. The ranking Clement among the disciples of Peter may be even said to be opposed to the earliest traditions of the Roman church, which placed Clement third from the apostles ; but it is quite intelligible that in foreign churches, where the epistle of Clement was habitually publicly read in the same manner as the apostolic epistles, Clement and the apostles might come to be regarded as contemporaries. Clement might naturally be chosen as a typical repre- sentative of the Gentile converts by an Ebion- ite who desired by his example to enforce on the Gentile churches the duty of obedience to the church of the circumcision. For all through it is James of Jerusalem, not Peter, who is represented as the supreme ruler of the churches. The author of the original docu- ment habitually used an Aramaic version of N.T. ; and there are a few phenomena which make it seem not incredible that the original document itself may have been written in the same language. Uhlhorn's conjecture of Eastern S^Tia as the place of composition seems not improbable. The Recognitions with the prefatory letter relating the ordination of Clement as bp. of Rome may, however, have been a version designed for Roman circulation. The data for fixing the time of composition are but scanty. The Recognitions are quoted by Origen (with, however, a division of books differing from the present form) c. a.d. 230. • In one place (xix. 3) H., having quoted some sayings of our I,ord, makes the slip of referring to these as " Scripture." It thus clearly appears that the author used written gospels to which he ascribed the authority of Scripture. CLEMENTINE LITERATURE This gives the latest limit iov the publication of K. We may infer that the chronicle of Hippolytus A.D. 235 recognizes the Ep. of Clement to James, since it counts Peter as first bp. of Rome, and places the episcopate of Clement at a time so early as to make his ordination by Peter possible. [Clemens Kom- ANUS.] It is not unreasonable to date the Ep. of Clement to James at least a quarter of a cent, earlier, in order to allow time for its ideas to gain such complete acceptance at Rome. Irenaeus is ignorant of the episcopate of Peter, but ranks Clement as a contemporary of the apostles. It is likely, therefore, that he knew the work on which the Recognitions were founded, but not this later version. As a limit in the other direction we have the use of the name Faustus for one represented as a member of the imperial family, which points to a date later than the reign of Antoninus, whose wife, and whose daughter married to Marcus Aurelius, both bore the name of Faustina. A section (R. ix. 17-29) is identical with a passage quoted by Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 6, 10, as from the dialogues of Bardesanes. But the date of Bardesanes himself is uncer- tain. [Bardesanes.] The date assigned by Eusebius in his chronicle for his activity, a.d. 173, seems to need to be put later, because an authority likely to be better informed, the Chronicle of Edessa, with great particularity assigns for the date of his birth July 11, a.d. 154. Further, the dialogue cited by Eusebius and by R. has been now recovered from the S\Tiac, and has been published in Cureton's Spicilegium Syriacum (1855). From this it appears that the dialogue does not purport to be WTitten by Bardesanes himself, but by a scholar of his, Philippus, who addresses him as father and is addressed by him as son. This forbids us to put the dialogue at a very early period of the life of Bardesanes, and R. may have been the earlier. Merx (Bardesanes von Edessa) tries to shew that other sections also in R. were later interpolations from Barde- sanes ; but his arguments have quite failed to convince us. On the whole, a.d. 200 seems as near an approximation as we can make to the probable date of R. The form H. must be dated later, possibly a.d. 218, the time when, according to Hippolytus, the Elkesaite Alcibiades came from Apamea to Rome. There is little to determine very closely the date of the original document. If we could lay stress on a passage which speaks of there being one Caesar (R. v. 19, H. x. 14), we should date it before a.d. i6r, when Marcus Aurelius shared the empire with Verus; and though this argu- ment is very far from decisive, there is nothing that actually forbids so early a date, though we could not safely name one much earlier. The prolegomena of the earlier editors of the Clementines are collected in Migne's Palro- logia. The most important monographs are von Colln's article in Ersch and Grujjer (1828), Schliemann, Die Clementinen (Hamburg, 1844) ; Hilgenfeld, Die clementinischen Recogttitionen vnd Homilien (Jena, 1848); Uhlhorn, Die Homilien und Recognitionen des Clemens Rom- anus {Gott'mgen, 1854) ; Lehmann, Die clement- inische Schriften (Gotha, 1867). In these works will be found references to other sources of information. Baur has treated of the Clem- CLOVIS lit:) entines in several works : tlie section in Die christlichc Gnosis, pp. 300-414, may especially bo mentioned. Ritschl, Die Entstehung der aUkatholischen Kirche, enters more largely into the subject of the Clementines in his first ed. See also Li)is,ius, QHcUcnkntik des Epiphanioa and Die Qucllen dcr Rumischcn I'elnissage, and an interesting review by Lipsius of Lchmann's work in the Protestaniische Kirchenzeitung (1869), pp. 477-482. Cf. Lightfoot's Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 99 ff. and 406 ff. ; and Harnack, Gescl:. der All.-Ch. Lit. p. 212 flf. [o.s.] CletUS or Anacletus, " le meme que .St. Clet, comnie les savants en conviennent " (L'Art de verif. les dates, i. 218). Eusebius calls him Anencletus, and says that he was succeeded in the see of Rome by Clement in the twelfth year of Domitian, having himself sat there twelve years. According to this, his own con- secration would have fallen in the first vear of Domitian, or a.d. 81 ; but it is variously dated by others (cf. Gieseler, E. H. § 32 with note 4, Eng. tr.). Eusebius indeed nowhere says that he succeeded Linus, or was the second bp. of Rome : yet he places him between Linus, whom he calls the first bishop, and Clement, whom he calls third. Other ancient author- ities make Clement the first bishop (see Clinton, F. R. ii. 399). Rohrbacher, on the strength of a list attributed to pope Liberius, places Clement after Linus, Cletus after Clement, and another pope named Anencletus after Cletus (E. H. iv. 450). This Gieseler calls " the modern Roman view." [But for this question of the succession of the Roman bishops, see Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, part i. pp. 201- 345 ; of which Bp. Westcott says (Preface to Lightfoot), " Perhaps it is not too much to say that the question of the order of the first five bps. of Rome is now finally settled."] Three spurious epistles have the name of Anacletus affixed to them in the Pseudo-Isidorian collec- tion (Migne, Patr. cxxx. 59 and seq.). [e.s.ff.] Clovis (in the chroniclers Chlodovechus, etc., modern German Lndwig, modern French Louis), son of Childeric, one of the kings of the Salian Franks, born a.d. 466, succeeded his father in 481 (Greg. Tur. ii. 43). As soon as he reached manhood (486) he attacked Syagrius, " rex Romanorum " (Greg. ii. 23), son of Aegidius, the isolated and independent representative of the Roman power in Gaul (J unghans, pp. 22, 23). Syagrius was defeated, and Clovis advanced his territory from the Somme to the Seine, and afterwards to the Loire (Gcsla Francorum, 14), was recognized as king by the former subjects of Syagrius (Greg. ii. 27), and transferred his capital from Tournai to Soissons (Vita S. Remigii, ap. Bouquet, iii. 377 e). Waitz (ii. 60 «.) doubts this (see J unghans, p. 34, n. 3). Many wars and conquests followed (Greg. ii. 27). About A.D. 492 Clovis married the Burgundian princess Clotilda, a Christian and a Catholic, and she is said to have made many attempts to convert her husband from idolatry (Greg, ii. 29 ; Riickert, Culturgeschichte, i pp. 316, 317 ; Binding, Das Burgundisch-Romanische Reich, Leipz. 1868, pp. 111-114, doubts the value of Clotilda's work ; Bornhak, Gesch- ichte der Franken unter den Merovingern, Greifswald, 1863, pp. 207, 208, magnifies it). What her entreaties could not effect the crisis 13 194 CLOVIS of war brought about. During a battle against the Alaniauni (whether at Tolbiac or else- where, see Bonihak, p. 209, note 2 ; Waitz, ii. 65, note 2) the Franks were hard pressed, and beginning to yield. Clovis raised his eyes to heaven and invoked the aid of Christ. Forthwith the tide of battle turned, and the Alamanni fled. Remigius, at the instance of Clotilda, called on Clovis to fulfil his vow. " Gladly," replied the king, " but I must first obtain the consent of my own people." His warriors signified their assent in the well- known words, " Gods that die we cast away from us ; the god that dies not, whom Remi- gius preaches, we are prepared to follow." On Christmas Day, 496, Clovis, with his sisters Albofleda, a heathen, and Lantechild, an Arian, was baptized by Remigius at Rheims. " Gently, Sicambrian, bow down thy head, worship what thou hast hitherto destroyed, destroy what thou hast hitherto worshipped," were the apt words of Remigius (Greg. ii. 30, 31; Vita Rem. ap.Boaquet). How important this conversion was in the eyes of the Catholic world of the day may be seen from the letters of congratulation addressed to Clovis by Avitus, bp. of Vienne (Bouquet, iv. 49), and by pope Anastasius, who wrote both to the king and to the bishops of Gaul (Thiel, Ep. Rom. Pont. pp. 624 and 634). Theodoric. the Ostrogothic king of Italy, was an Arian, though a tolerant one, but Euric, the Visigoth, had proclaimed himself militant and prose- lytizing (Fauriel, ii. 28) ; the Burgundian and Vandal princes were also Arian. The majority of the population of Gaul was Catholic, and Clovis was the only Catholic prince. (On the relation of these Arian princes to their Catholic subjects, see Binding, pp. 125 ff.) Whatever may have been his motives, and every variety has been attributed to him, from direct inspir- ation of the Holy Ghost (Rettberg, Kirchen- geschichte, i. pp. 274, 275) to the coldest political calculation (Binding, pp. 111-114), Clovis must have been aware that by his conversion to the Catholic faith he would make the majority of his own subjects firm in their allegiance, and the Roman subjects of the Arian princes in the south ill-affected towards their rulers. (An instance of such disaffection may be found in Greg. ii. 36.) Nor can he have been ignorant of the political importance of the aid which he would get from the Catholic priesthood throughout Gaul. From this point, there- fore, dates an increase of influence among the Roman population, the foundations were laid of a Roman nobility of office and intellect capable of superseding the old Teutonic no bility of race (Bornhak, pp. 219-221). Thus, whilst from one point of view this was the " first step towards the world-historical union of Teutonic civilization with the Roman church " (Richter, p. 36, note 6), on the other hand, a reaction of Roman civihzation against its Teutonic conquerors now set in, and modern Latin France became possible. As an immediate consequence of the conversion, a body of Frankish warriors not yet converted joined Rachnachar (Vita Rem. ap. Bouquet, iii. p. 377 c, d). Whether this was also a desertion of Clovis is doubtful (see Junghans, p. 59). The conversion of the nation was not completed till long afterwards (see Waitz, CLOVIS ii. 85, note i ; and Rettberg, pp. 285-287). All questions connected with the conversion of Clovis are fully treated by Riickert, Cultur- geschichte des Deutschen Volkes in der Zeit des Uebergangs aus dem Heidenthum in das Chris- tenthum (I.eipz. 1853-1854). The next war of Clovis was with Burgundy, A.D. 500. (lUndobald, the uncle of Clotilda and murderer of her parents, was defeated at Dijon. Clovis annexed part of the Burgun- dian dominion, and gave the rest to Godegisel, another brother. Shortly afterwards Gundo- bald returned, expelled Godegisel, and appar- ently became reconciled to Clovis, for in 507 the Burgundians helped Clovis in his expe- dition against the Visigoths. (This alliance is not mentioned by Gregory, but see Binding, p. 194, note 659 ; and Richter, p. 41, note e.) Between 505 and 507 Clovis is said to have been inflicted with tedious illness (Vita Sever- ini, Bouquet, iii. 392 b) ; on his recovery he immediately issued his famous declaration of war against the Visigoths : " Verily it grieves my soul that these Arians should hold a part of Gaul ; with God's help let us go and con- quer them, and reduce their territory into our hands " (Greg. ii. 37). From Paris Clovis marched through Orleans to Tours, gave strict orders for the protection of the Catholic church and its property (Ep. ap. Bouquet, iv. 54), met and defeated the Visigoths at Voullon or Vougle near Poictiers, and slew king Alaric with his own hand (Richter, p. 40 notes and reff.). The winter of 507-508 Clovis spent at Bordeaux, carried off the Visigothic treasure from Toulouse, and reduced Angouleme and the surrounding territory before his return to Paris, which city henceforward he made his capital (Greg. ii. 38). That the religious ele- ment was very powerful in this war (Riickert, i. 324) is evident from the letter of Clovis to the bishops (Bouquet, I.e.), from the vain attempts which Alaric had made to confirm the allegiance of his Catholic and Roman sub- jects (Richter, p. 39, note 2), and from what Cassiodorus (Var. iii. Ep. 1-4) tells us of the negotiations before the war. Theodoric the Ostrogoth had proposed an alliance of the Arian German kings for the maintenance of peace ; and when the Franks began to pursue their victories in a fresh campaign and laid siege to Aries, Theodoric interfered, sent an army under Ibbas, which defeated the Franks and relieved Aries, and eventually agreed to a peace, by which Provence was annexed by the Ostrogothic power, Septimania adhered to the- Visigothic kingdom of Spain, and Clovis's conquest of Aquitaine was acknowledged (Binding, p. 212 and note 731). We do not know whether Clovis joined personally in this Rhone campaign. No mention of it is made by Gregory. It was at Tours, on his return from Bordeaux in 508, that Clovis received a letter from the emperor Anastasius, " confer- ring upon him the consular dignity, from which time he was habitually called consul and Augustus " (" ab Anastatio Imperatore codi- cillos de consulatu accepit, et in basilica beati Martini tunica blatea indutus est et chlamyde, imponens vertice diadema, . . . et ab ea die tanquam consul et (al. ' aut ') Augustus est vocitatus," Greg. ii. 38). Much discussion has taken place as to the exact meaning of CLOVIS this passage. The name of Clovis does not appear in the consular Fasti, but in the pro- logue to the Lex Salia he is entitled " procon- sul " (Sybel, Jahrb. d. Alt. in Rheinl. iv. p. 86). Again, the chlaniys and the diadem are the insignia of the patriciate. Hence it has been assumed by many that what was conferred on Clovis was the proconsulate and the patriciate (V'alesius, i. 299 ; Kichter, pp. 40, 41 ; Jung- hans, pp. 126-128). On the contrary, Waitz (ii. 59-61) and others {e.g. Petigny, ii. 533 ; and Bornhak, pp. 234, 235), adhering to the exact words of Gregory, maintain that it was the title of consul that was conferred on Clovis. The significance of the event itself is plain. Anastasius saw the value to the empire of the Prankish power as a counterpoise to the Ostro- gothic. Clovis willingly accepted any title of honour by which he obtained a quasi-legal title in the eyes of his Roman subjects (cf. Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. i. note 3 on c. i.). The well-known story of the vase of Soissons (Greg. ii. 27) not only shews how ill Clovis brooked the liberty and equality of the other Prankish chiefs, but reveals the most unfavour- able side of his character — his deceitfulness. " Dolus," however, if on the right side, is seldom an attribute of blame with the mediae- val chroniclers. The most discreditable deeds of this character attributed to Clovis are the machinations by which he subjected the other Prankish chiefs originally his equals, and brought about the unification of the Prankish empire. Thus he suggested the murder of his father to Sigebert, king of the Ripuarian Pranks, and when the deed was done, himself took possession of the kingdom (Greg. ii. 40). King Chararich was tirst imprisoned, and then put to death (ib. 41 ; cf. c. 27 clam feriri, of Syagrius), and likewise king Rachnachar of Cambrai and his two brothers (ib. 42). Early in 511 Clovis summoned a council of 32 bishops to Orleans (see Decrees ap. Sirmondi, Cone. Gall. i. 177). Before the close of the year he died at the age of 45, and was buried at Paris in the church of the Apostles (after- wards St. Genevieve's) which he and Clotilda had built. He left four sons, Theodoric the eldest (illegitimate) ; Clodomir, Childebert, and Lothar, by Clotilda. The only first-class original authority for the reign of Clovis is Gregory of Tours, Historia Francorum, ii. 27-43, contained in the collec- tions of Duchesne, vol. i. ; and Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens, etc., vol. ii. (in the 3rd vol. of Bouquet are extracts from the lives of the saints relating to this reign. On the authority of (iregory see Lobell, Gregor von Tours und seine Zeit, pp. 320 ff. ; Monod, in the Bibliotheque de VEcole des hautes Etudes, part viii. (1872); andWattenbach,£>eM/sc/i/aMds Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter (3rd ed. 1873), vol. i. pp. 76-83. The best monograph on the subject of Clovis is Junghans, Geschichte der Frankischen Konige Childerich und Chlodovech (Giittingen, 1857). Cf. also G. Kurth, Hist. Poet, des Meroving. (Paris 1893) ; Prou, La Gaule Meroving. On the constitution of the kingdom of Clovis and its constitutional history, see Waitz, Deutsche Ver/assungs- geschichte, ii. pp. 51-71 ; and G. Richter, An- nalen d. Deutschen Geschichte im Mittelalter, i. pp. 27-32 (1873). [T.R.B.] COELESTINUS 195 Coelestinus.i-omnionly called Celestlne, 4 ind bp. of Rome, succeeded Boiiifacf I. i<i\ Sunday, Sept. 10, 422, without any dclav or contest. He was of Roman birth, the son of Priscus. In early life he had visited Milan during the episcopate of St. Ambrose. While deacon to Innocent, he had written a cordial letter to St. Augustine, who returned a suitable rei)ly (.\ug. Ep. 192). Soon after his accession to the see of Rome, Celestine received a letter from Augustine {Ep. 209) on the case of one Antony, bp. of Fussala, 40 miles from Hippo, who had gravely misconducted himself in his office, been compelled by a synod of bishops to leave Pussala, and had afterwards applied to Boniface for restoration. Augustine en- treated Celestine not to impose on the people of Pussala, by aid of secular power, a prelate so unworthy. After this, the African bishops resolved no longer to allow appeals to Rome from their country ; and when Celestine, apparently in 426, wrote to them in behalf of the priest Apiarius, a general council of Africa sent a reply begging Celestine to observe the Nicene rule (can. 5) and not receive to communion those excommunicated by them. The African church thus claimed its right to decide its own causes. They pointed out that the Nicene council had ordered that all causes should be decided where they arose ; nor could anyone " believe that our God will inspire a single individual with justice, and deny it to a large number of bishops sitting in council." That persons should be sent from Rome to decide causes in Africa had been " ordained by no synod " ; and they had proved toCelestine's predecessor, by authentic copies of Nicene canons, that such a claim was wholly baseless {Cod. Can. Eccl. Afric. ad. fin. ; Galland, Bibl. Patr. ix. 289). Celestine was zealous against Pelagianism, and constrained Coelestius, the companion of Pelagius, to leave Italy. The affairs of eastern Illyricum occupied the attention of Celestine, as of his predeces- sors. This civil " diocese " was attached, politically, to the eastern empire ; but the see of Rome had kept a hold over its churches by committing a sort of vicarial authority to the see of Thessalonica, which was its head. Thus Damasus is said to have made the bps. of Thessalonica his representatives. See Pleury, b. xviii. c. 22. Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 9, thinks this an over-statement ; but at any rate, he observes, Siricius (who succeeded Damasus), and afterwards Innocent, gave a delegated authority to Anysius of Thessa- lonica. In A.D. 421 a collision took place between the Roman bp. Boniface and Theo- dosius II., who " claimed the power of trans- ferring to the bp. of Constantinople that superintendence over the bps. of Illyricum " which Rome had entrusted to Thessalonica (Pleury, xxiv. 31). But Theodosius appears to have yielded thr- point ; and Celestine having already " interposed " in behalf of an lUyrian bishop named Felix, who was " in peril of being crushed by factious accusers," afterwards wrote (Cel. Ep. 3) to Perigenes of Corinth and eight other prelates of eastern Illyricum, asserting his right, as successor of St. Peter, to a general oversight (" necessita- tem de omnibus tractandi "), and directing bis 196 COELESTINUS " beloved brethren " to refer all causes to his deputy, Rufus of Thessalonica, and not to consecrate bishops, nor hold councils, without the sanction of that bishop. " Dominentur nobis regulae," writes Celestine, " non regulis dominemur ; simus subjecti canonibus," etc. But, says Tillemont significantly, " it is difficult to see how he practised this excellent maxim " ; for by the sixth Nicene canon the Illyrian bishops would be subject to their several metropolitans and provincial synods (xiv. 150). Another letter from Celestine {Ep. 4) was addressed, July 25, 428, " to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne, for the purpose of correcting several abuses " (Fleury, xxiv. 56). Some bishops, he had learned, " surreptitiously " wore the philosophic " pal- lium," with a girdle, by way of carrymg out Luke xii. 35. " Why not," asks Celestine, " also hold lighted lamps and staves ? " The text is to be understood spiritually. This sort of dress, he adds, may be retained by those who dwell apart (monks), but there is no pre- cedent for it in the case of bishops. " We ought to be distinguished from the people, not by dress, but by teaching ; not by attire, but by conduct." On other matters he comments. Some refuse to give absolution to penitents even at the hour of death : this is a barbarous " killing of the soul." Some consecrate lay- men to the episcopate. Let no one be con- secrated until he has gone through all degrees of the ministry : he who would be a teacher must first be a disciple. In the appointment of bishops he said that the wishes of the flock must be respected : NuUus invitis detur episcopus. These words became the recognized expression of a great principle of church law. With this letter may be compared a short one (Ep. 5), written in 429, to urge the Apulian and Calabrian bishops to observe the canons, and not to gratify any popular wish for the consecration of a person who had not served in the ministry. (On this subject of per saltum consecrations, see Bingham, ii. 10, 4 seq.) In the same year (429) Germanus bp. of Auxerre and Lupus of Troyes were sent into Britain to repress Pelagianism. Prosper, in his Chronicle, says that Celestine sent German to guide the Britons to Catholic faith. Con- stantius of Lyons, the biographer of German, whom Bede follows (H. E. i. 17), says that German and Lupus were sent by a larg:e synod of Gallic bishops. (Prosper was then in Gaul, and ere long became Celestine's secretary : Constantius wrote some sixty years later, but with full access to local information.) The accounts may be reasonably harmonized. In German's case there was probably a special commission from Celestine, in addition to that which emanated from the Galilean synod. In this way, apparently, Celestine, as Prosper afterwards wrote in another work (C. Colla- torem, 21, al. 24), " took pains to keep the Roman island Catholic." It will be natural to consider next Celestine's proceedings in regard to Ireland, which, says Prosper, in the same sentence, he " made Christian." Two years after the expedition of German he con- secrated Palladius, and sent him to " the Scots, who believed in Christ," i.e. to the Irish, •' as their fii-st bishop." Such is Prosper's COELESTINUS statement in his Chronicle. Palladius had but little success, and stayed in Ireland but a short time ; and there is no sufficient evidence for associating the mission of his great succes- sor, St. Patrick, with Celestine or with the see of Rome. (See Todd's Life of St. Patrick, pp. 309 seq., 352, 387, etc.) We now turn to the part which Celestine took in the great doctrinal controversy raised by Nestor ius at Constantinople at the end of 428. Celestine (Ep. 13) early in 429 received copies of controversial discourses said to be by Nestorius, and wTote on his own behalf, and on that of other Italian bishops, to Cyril of Alexandria, asking for information. [Cyril.] C>Til purposely kept silence for a year ; and before he wrote, Celestine had received from Nestorius himself, by the hands of a man of high rank, named Antiochus, copies of his discourses, with a letter, in which Nestorius speaks of certain exiled Pelagians resident in Constantinople ; and then passes on to the controversy about the Incarnation, and de- scribes his opponents as Apollinarians, etc. He wrote more than once again (Mansi, iv. 1023), and another extant letter resumes the same topic. Celestine caused the Nestorian discourses to be rendered into Latin ; and meanwhile re- ceived a letter from Cyril, accompanied by other translations of these documents, made at Alexandria. Thus aided, Celestine formed his own opinion on their theological character, and summoned a synod of bishops at the beginning of Aug. 430. We possess an inter- esting fragment of his speech on this occasion. " I remember that Ambrose of blessed memory, on the day of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, made the whole people sing to God with one voice — ' Veni, Rederaptor gentium, Ostende partuni Virginis ; Miretiir omne saeculum ; Talis decet partus Deum ' " (Ambros. Hymn 12 ; in Brev. Ambros. first vespers of Nativ.). " Did he say, ' Talis decet partus hominem ' ? So, the meaning of our brother C>Til, in that he calls Mary ' Theoto- kos,' entirely agrees with ' Talis decet partus Deum.' It was God Whom the Virgin, by her child-bearing, brought forth, through His power Who is full of omnipotence." He pro- ceeded to quote a passage from Hilary, and two shorter ones from Damasus (Mansi, iv. 550 ; Galland, ix. 304). The council's reso- lutions were expressed by Celestine in letters to C\Til and to Nestorius. The former (Ep. 11) commends CjTil's zeal in a cause v/hich is, in truth, that of " Christ our God " ; and con- cludes by saying that unless Nestorius should, within ten days, condemn his own wicked doc- trines by a written profession of the same faith, as to " the birth of Christ our God," which is held by the Roman, by the Alexandrian, by the entire church, provision must be made for the see of Constantinople as if vacant, and Nestorius must be treated as one " separate from our body." This letter was dated Aug. II, 430. Celestine wrote also to John, bp. of Antioch, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Flavian of Philippi, and Rufus of Thessalonica (Ep. 12). His meaning is evident : he is not professing COELESTINUS to act as the sole supreine judge and oracle of Christendom, or as the mouthpiece of the Catholic cliurch ; he announces his resolution, in concert with the Alexandrian church, to break off all communion with the bp. of Con- stantinople, unless the latter retracted his heretical sentiments. Another letter was addressed to Nestorius himself {Ep. 13) : its point is contained in the observation, " You have been warned once, twice — I now give you the third warning;, according to the rule of St. Paul : if you wish to retain com- munion with myself and with the bp. of Alexandria, affirm what he affirms — confess our faith." Celestine also wrote {Ep. 14) to the clergy and laity of Constantinople, exhort- ing the orthodox clergy to endure manfully, and to take example from St. Chrysostom and St. Athanasius. For the events which followed the council of Rome, see Cyril. In Nov. 430, when Theo- dosius had summoned an oecumenical council to meet at Ephesus at the coming Whitsun- tide, and before the Roman and Alexandrian resolutions had been communicated to Nes- torius, the latter wrote to Celestine that the best solution would be the adoption of the word " Christotokos," although he did not object to " Theotokos," if it were used so as not to imply " a confusion of natures." In the spring of 431 C\Til wrote again to Celestine, asking what should be done if Nestorius — having refused to retract at the summons of Rome and Alexandria — were to retract at the coming synod. Celestine answered. May 7 {Ep. 16), in a tone which exhibits him in a more favourable light than his great Alexan- drian colleague, " I am anxious for the salva- tion of him who is perishing, provided that he is willing to own himself sick : if not, let our previous decisions stand." Next day. May 8, Celestine wrote instructions for the three per- sons whom he was sending to represent him at the council {Ep. 17). The substance was, " When you reach Ephesus, consult Cyril in everything, and do what he thinks best. But if the council should be over when you arrive, and Cyril gone to Constantinople {i.e. to con- secrate a new bishop), you must go thither also, and present to the emperor the letter which you will be charged with for him. If you find matters still unsettled, you will be guided by circumstances as to the course wliich, in conjunction with Cyril, you shoukl take." On the same day Celestine wrote the most remarkable of his letters, that addressed to the council of Ephesus {Ep. 18), which was aftenvards read, first in Latin, then in a Oreek translation, at the second sitting of the (council (see Mansi, iv. 1283). Celestine, citing Matt, xviii. 20, adds, " Christ was present in the company of apostles when they taught what He had taught them. This duty of preaching has been entrusted to all the Lord's priests in common, for by right of inheritance are we bound to undertake this solicitude. Let us act now with a common exertion, that we may preserve what was entrusted to us and has been retained through succession from the apostles {per apostolicam successionem) to this very day." Celestine then insists on those recollections of the pastoral epistles which the place of the council's meeting should inspire. COELESTINUS 107 " Idem locus, cadem causa. . . ." " Let us be imanimous, let us do nothing l)V strife or vainglory." He reminds th(un of the words of St. I'aul to the " cpiscopi " of Ephesus. .\cts XX. 28. It was on July 10 that the three deputies appeared in the council, Nestorius having been deposed on June 22 ; the council, as Firmus of Caesarea told the deputies, had " followed in the track " of Celestinc's previous decision ; but, it must be observed, after a full and independent examination of the evidence. The deputies on the next day heard the " acts " of the first session read, and then affirmed the sentence passed on Nestorius in that session, taking care to dwell on the dignity of the see of St. Peter, while Cyril was not less careful to refer to them as representing " the apostolic chair and the council of Western bishops." The council wrote to Celestine as their " fellow- minister " {Ep. 20), giving a narrative of events, and saying that they had read and affirmed the sentences formerly pronounced by him against the Pelagian heretics. They evidently regarded him as first in dignity among all bishops, but not as master or ruler of all; they " admire him for his far-reaching solicitude as to the interests of religion." " It is your habit, great as you are, to approve yourself in regard to all things, and to take a personal interest in the defence of the churches." Nestorius, though sent away from Ephesus, had been allowed to live at his old home near Antioch. Celestine objected strongly to this, and thought that Nestorius ought to be placed where he could have no opportunity of spread- ing his opinions. The birthplace of the Christian name is beset by a pestilent " di- sease." As for Nestorius's adherents, he thinks, there are many points for consideration, and that a distinction should be drawn between heresiarchs and their followers. The latter " should have opportunity of recovering their position on repentance." The consecrators of Maximian appeared to him to have passed a too indiscriminating sentence against all Nes- torianizing bishops, and Celestine wished to moderate their zeal. He also wrote {Ep. 23) to Theodosius, extravagantly lauding his acts in behalf of orthodoxy, speaking highly of Maximian, and hinting that Nestorius ought to be sent into distant exile. " One of Celestinc's last actions," says Tille- mont, xiv. 156, " was his defence of the memory of St. Augustine as a teacher, against the semi- Pelagians of Caul. He wrote to Vcnerius, bp. of Marseilles, and five other Gallic prelates, urging them not to be silent. When presbyters spoke rashly and conten- tiously, it was not seemly that bishops should allow their subordinates ' to claim the first place in teaching,' especially when they raised their voices against ' Augustine of holy mem- ory ' " (Ep. 21). The nine articles on the doctrine of grace appended to this letter are not by Celestine (see note to Oxf. ed. of Fleury, iii. p. 143). Celestine is described by Socrates (vii. 11) as having treated the Novatianists of Rome with harshness, taken away their churches, and obliged their bishop Rusticola to hold his services in private houses. Celestine died on or about July 26, 432 (TiUemont, xiv. 738). 198 COELESTIUS and was succeeded by Sixtus III. Hefele, Cone. Gesch. ed. 2, pp. 164 ff. [w.b.] Coelestius occupies a unique position among the Hibernian Scots, as he taught not the faith, but heresy. The general belief is that be was a native of Ireland, of noble birth, and, in early years, of singular piety. About a.d. 40.5 he is found attached to Pelagius at Rome, and the names of these two figure largely in the history of the church, till they are finally condemned in the Ephesine council, a.d. 431. Coelestius had for some time studied law, and then become a monk, when his speculations upon the conditions of grace and nature attracted attention, as he affirmed the leading points of what were afterwards known as the Pelagian heresy upon the fall of man and the need of supernatural assistance, in effect denying both. These errors he had partly learned, as he said, from a holy presbyter, Rufinus, of whom nothing else is known. From Rome, on the approach of the Goths, he passed to Sicily, and thence to Carthage ; by a council at Car- thage, under Aurelius the bishop, his teaching was condemned, a.d. 412, though St. Augus- tine of Hippo had not yet taken up the contro- versy against him. He soon after retired to Ephesus, where he obtained the priesthood which he had sought in vain at Carthage. On an appeal to pope Zosimus, a.d. 417, he pre- sented his teaching in such a light as to procure acquittal before the pope, who, however, in the following year saw good reason to condemn him. At Carthage he always met with a deter- mined opposition, and at Constantinople and Rome both the imperial and the ecclesiastical powers were finally arrayed against him. After the condemnation of the doctrines of Pelagius by the oecumenical council at Ephe- sus, Coelestius passed from sight. His chief opponents were St. Augustine and St. Jerome Mosheim, Eccl. Hist. i. cent. v. c. 23 seq. ; Gennadius, de Script. Eccl. c. 44 ; Robertson, Ch. Hist. i. B. ii. c. 8 ; O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scrip, iv. 97 n. ; Gieseler, i. 2 ; Dupin, Htst. Ch. cent. V. c. 2. [Pelagius ; Zosimus.] [j.g.] CoeliCOlae. The death of Julian (a.d. 363) was followed by a reaction in favour of the Christians and against the Jews. The fierce bitterness of the edicts of Constantine and Constantius was never perhaps renewed, but the decrees of Theodosius the Great (379-395) and his son Honorius (395-423) were suffi- ciently strong and cruel to make it evident how the Roman emperors were influenced, both theologically and politically. The Christians convinced themselves that a stand must be made more earnestly than ever against any heresy which would seduce their members in the direction of either Judaism or paganism. The possible confusion of Christianity with either was by all means to be avoided. Most especially should this be the case as regarded Judaism. The scandal at Antinch which roused "the holy indignation of St. Chrysostom — Christian ladies frequenting the synagogues and observing the Jewish festivals,' Christian men bringing their lawsuits by preference before the judges of Israel (Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden, iv. 315) — found its reflection in many of the chief centres of the Eastern and Western empires. Hence the effort became more and more strenuous to suppress not only such open COLLUTHUS approximation of the two religious bodies, but also such sects as indicated, by their forms and doctrines, the intention of presenting a com- promise with the truth. St. Augustine {Op. ii. Ep. xliv. cap. vi. § 13, ed. Migne) wrote to the "Elder" of one of these sects, the Coelicolae, inviting him to a conference. Edicts of Theodosius and Honorius denounced the " new doctrine " of the sect, which was said to be marked by " new and unwonted audacity," and to be nothing else than a " new crime of superstition " {Cod. Theod. xvi. t. v. viii. X. Cod. Justin, i. tit. ix.). Happily there is reason to believe that kinder counsels mod- erated the severity of such intolerance (Gratz, p. 386 seq. ; Levysohn, Diss. Inauguralis de Jud. sub Caesar Conditione, pp. 4 seq.). It is difficult to ascertain precisely the views of the Coelicolae. In one edict they are classed v/ith the Jews and the Samaritans, in a second with the Jews only. But it would be a mistake to consider them simply Jews. The Romans, it is well known, called the Jews worshippers of idols through a mistaken notion that the Jewish use of the word " Heaven " for "God" (Buxtorf, Lex. Rabb. s.v. Q'pt;', p. 2440 ; Jost, Gesch. d. Judenthums, i. 303) indicated the worship of some created embodi- ment of heaven (Vitringa, de Synag. i. 229). The Coelicolae proper would therefore be easily included by the Romans under the one general title " Jews." From St. Augustine's letter it would seem that the Coelicolae used a baptism which he counted sacrilege — i.e. they probably combined a Christian form of baptism with the Jewish rite of circumcision. Such a compro- mise would appear most objectionable and dangerous to St. Augustine. If, moreover, as their name may indicate, the Coelicolae openly professed their adhesion to the Jewish worship of the One God and rejected the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, this would be an error for which their abhorrence of pagan forms of idolatry would not compensate. More than this it seems impossible to ascer- tain. The Coelicolae of Africa, like their congeners the BeoaejSels of Phoenicia and Palestine, and the Hypsistarii of Cappadocia, were soon stamped or died out. J. A. Schmid, Hist. Coelicolarum ; C. G. F. Walrh, Hist. Patriarcharum Jud. pp. 5-8 ; Bingham, Orig. Eccles. vii. 271; Niedner, A". G. p. 321 n. (1866) ; Hase, K. G. p. 121 ; Hasse-Kohler, K. G. i. 103 ; Herzog, R. E. s.v. " Himmelsanbeter." [j.m.f.] Colluthus (2), presbyter and founder of a sect at Alexandria early in the 4th cent. He claimed (on what grounds it is unknown) to exercise episcopal functions ; but the council of Alex- andria under Hosius (a.d. 324) decided that he was only a presbyter, from which it was held to follow necessarily that Ischvras and others ordained by him were only laymen (Ath. Apol. cont. Arian. 12, 75-77, 80, pp. 106, 152). The passages cited mention also a sect of Colluthians. Bp. Alexander, in a letter pre- served by Theodoret {Ecc. Hist. i. 4), seem': to imply that Colluthus commenced his schis- matical proceedings before Arius had separated from the church. A phrase used by Alexander {XpL<TTefjLTrop€ia) has been understood by Vale- sius to charge Colluthus with taking money for conferring orders. Valesius also infers that the cause of CoUuthus's separation was COLLYRIDIANS impatience that Alexaiulor had not taken stronger measures against Arianism. The name Colluthus is the first among those pres- byters who subscribed to Alexander's condem- nation of Arius (tlclas. Cyzic. ii. 3). These authorities accuse Colluthus of schism, not heresy ; as is also indicated by the mildness of the action of the council, which would prob- ably have excommunicated him had he been deeply tainted with erroneous doctrine. Epiphanius mentions in general terms (Haer. 69, 728) that Colluthus taught some perverse things, and founded a sect, which was soon dispersed. The first to give Colluthus a separate heading in heretical lists is Philas- trius (79), followed by Augustine and later heresiologists. Philastrius charges him with contradicting Is. xlv. 7, by teaching that God did not make evil. Tillemont, vi. 231 ; Walch, Hist, der Ketz. iv. 502 ; Harnack, Alt. Chr. Lit. i. 480. [G.S.] Collyridians. Under this name Epiphanius (Haer. 70) assails certain women who had brought from Thrace into Arabia the practice of performing on certain days rites in honour of the Blessed Virgin, the chief being the offer- ing of a cake (wWi/p/j), and the partaking of it by the worshippers. Epiphanius condemns their conduct because (a) women ought not to offer sacrifice, and (b) Mary is to be honoured, God only to be worshipped. The name Colly- ris (or kindred forms) is to be found in the LXX translation of Lev. vii. 12, viii. 26 ; 2 Sam. vi. 19, xiii. 68 ; and the word passed thence into the Latin versions. [g.s.] Columba (1) Columcille, June 9. The life, character, and work of this saint have been exhaustively treated by an Irish and a French author, Reeves and Montalembert. St. Columba was the son of Fedhlimidh, son of Fergus Cennfada, and thus descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, monarch of Ireland, his great- great-grandfather. Born at Gartan, a wild district in co. Donegal, on Dec. 7, most probably in 521, he was baptized at Tulach-Dubhglaise (now Temple-Douglas, about halfway between Gartan and Letterkenny), under the name, first, of Crimthann (wolf), and then of Colum (dove), to which was afterwards added the suffix cille, as some say, from his close attendance at the church of his youthful sojourn, and as others, from the many communities founded and governed by him. His chief instructor was bp. Finnian of Moville (by whom he was or- dained deacon). While at Clonard with St. Finnian he was ordained to the priesthood by bp. Etchen of Clonfad, to whom he was sent by St. Finnian for that purpose. Why he was never raised to the episcopate is a matter of speculation : in the Scholia on the Felire of St. Aengus the Culdee there is a legend relating how the order of the priesthood was conferred bv mistake in place of that of the episcopate (Todd, St. Patrick, 70-71 ; Book of Obits of C. C. Dublin, Dubl. 1844, p. liv. ; Colgan, Acta SS. 306 n'''). Bp. Lloyd supposes a political reason, and Lanigan thinks he applied only for the office of chorepiscopus. But Dr. Reeves is of opinion that he really shrank from the responsibilities and many obligations of the highest ecclesiastical rank. In and about a.d. 544 we have probably to place the many ecclesiastical and monastic foundations attri- COLUMBA COLUMCILLE 199 buted to him in Irci.uui, liis rliicf favourites being Durrow and Derry. The reasons usually given for his afterwards leaving Ireland are various. But whatever they may have been, he is said to have used his influence to excite a quarrel between the families of the north and south HyNeill, and the consequence was the battle fought in the barony of Carberry, between Druiiulilf .uid Sligo, on the borders of Ulster and Conuaiight. a.d. 561, and gained by the Neills of the North, the party of St. Columba. In consequence of St. Columba's participation in this quarrel, a synod was assembled at Teltown in Meath to excommu- nicate him for his share in shedding Christian blood, and if the sentence of excommunication was not actually pronounced, it was owing to the exertions of St. Brendan of Birr and bp. Finnian of Moville on his behalf. Whether by the charge of the synod of Teltown, that he must win as many souls to Christ by his preach- ing as lives were lost at Cul-Dreimhne, or through his own feeling of remorse, or his great desire for the conversion of the heathen he left Ireland in 563, being 42 years old, and, traversing the sea in a currach of wickerwork covered with hides, landed with his 12 com- panions on the small island of I, Hy, I-colm- kille, lova, or lona, situated about 2 miles off the S.W. extremity of Mull in Argyllshire. There, on the border land between the Picts and Scots, and favoured by both, St. Columba founded his monastery, the centre from which he and his followers evangelized the Picts and taught more carefully the Scots, who were already Christians at least in name. Hy was henceforth his chief abode, but he frequently left it for Scotland, where he founded many churches, penetrating N. even to Inverness, and probably farther, and E. into Buchan, Aber- deenshire, sending his disciples where he him- self had not leisure to go. His connexion with Ireland was not broken ; and in 575 he attended the synod of Drumceatt, with his cousin king Aidan of Dalriada, whom he had crowned in lona in 574. From lona as a centre he established Christianity on a firm basis to the N. of the Tay and Clyde. Unfor- tunately, valuable as St. Adamnan's Life of St. Columba is, it is written rather to extol its subject than to present a picture of the time, and so gives little chronological sequence to the events of the thirty years and upwards of his sojourn in lona. We gather, however, that in his monastery he was indefatigable in prayer, teaching, study, and transcription of the Scriptures ; people came to him from all quarters, some for bodily aid, but most for spiritual needs ; and soon smaller societies had to be formed, as at Hinba (one of the Garveloch Islands), Tyree, etc., for the re- quirements of the monastery. He visited king Bruide at Craig-Phadrick, beside Inver- ness, and established the monastery of Deer in the N.E. corner of Aberdeenshire, where he left St. Drostan, so that his churches are traced all over the N. of Scotland {Book of Deer, pref.). He also frequently visited Ireland on matters connected with his monasteries, the superin- tendence of which he retained to the last. He manifested the greatest favour for the bards and national poetry of his country, being him- self accounted one of the poets of Ireland, and 200 COLUMBANUS poems attributed to him are preserved and quoted by Dr. Reeves and Montalembert (see also Misc. Arch. Soc. i seq.)- In a.d. 593 he seems to have been visited by sickness, and the angels sent for his soul were stayed but for a time. As the time approached, and the infirmities of age were weighing upon him, he made aU preparations for his departure, bless- ing his monastery, visiting the old scenes, and taking his farewell of even the brute beasts about" the monastery. On a Sat. afternoon he was transcribing the 34th Psalm (Ps. xxxiii. E.V.), and coming to the verse, " They who seek the Lord shall want no manner of thing that is good," he said, " Here I must stop — at the end of this page ; what follows let Baithen write." He then left his cell to at- tend vespers, and, returning at their close, lay down on his couch of stone, and gave his last injunctions to Baithen, till the bell at mid- night called them to the nocturnal office. St. Coluraba was the first to enter the oratory, and when the brethren followed with lights they found the saint prostrate before the altar, and he soon passed away, with a sweet smile upon his face, as though he had merely fallen into a gentle sleep. This, according to Dr. Reeves's computation, was early in the morn- ing of Sun. June 9, 597. Ireland justly mourned for one of the best of her sons ; Scot- land for one of her greatest benefactors. The Life of St. Columba, written by Adamnan, ninth Ahhat of that Monastery, by W. Reeves, D.D. (Dubl. 1857) ; a more modern ed. giving Lat. text ed. with intro., notes, glossarv, and trans, by Dr. J. T. Fowler (Oxf. Univ. Press) ; Les Moines d'Occident, par le Comte de Monta- lembert, vol. iii. (Paris, 1868). See also The Life of St. Columba, ed. by John Smith, D.D. (Edinb. 1798). In his preface Dr. Reeves gives a full bibliographical account of the Irish and Latin Acts and Life of St. Columba, with a notice of the MSS., codices, authors, and edd. Cf. Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. 107. fj.c] Columba occupies in missionary history the entire generation preceding the arrival of Augustine (a.d. 597). The Celtic apostle of Caledonia died the very year in which the Roman mission set foot in the south of Britain. The first abbat of lona laboured much longer, in a far wider sphere, and personally with more success, as well as prodigiously more romance, than the first archbp. of Canterbury. [Adamnan.] [c.h.] Columbanus, abbat of Luxeuil and Bobbio, Nov. 21. On this day, in the Mart. Doneg. (by Todd and Reeves, 315), is the entry | " Columban, abbat, who was in Italy." Thus simply does the Irish calendar refer to an Irish- man famous in France, Switzerland, and Italy, the great champion of public morals at a cruel and profligate court, the zealous preacher of the Gospel in lands where it had been all but forgotten, and the pious founder of monas- teries. His life, written with great care and minuteness by Jonas, of Susa in Piedmont, a monk of his m.onastery at Bobbio, in the time of Attala and Eustace, his immediate succes- sors, is now pub. by Mabillon (in Acta SS. Ord. St. Bened. tom ii. sec. ii. 2-26), and by Messingham (Flor. Ins. Sand. 219-239), who appends the account of miracles omitted by Jonas, and other additions {ib. 239-254), also COLUMBANUS adding the Rule of St. Columbanus in ten chaps., a short Homily by the saint on the fallaciousness of human life, and some car- mina {ib. 403-414). The fullest account of his life, works, and writings is in Fleming's Col- lectanea Sacra (fol. Lovan. 1667), which in- cludes Jonas's Life and St. Columbanus's writings. His writings are also in Bibl. Mag. Vet. Pat. vol. viii. (Paris, 1644), and Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. vol. xii. (Lyons, 1677). His poems were first printed by Goldastus {Paraen. Vet. pars. i. 1604). Wright {Biog. Brit. Lit. 157 seq.) gives useful particulars of the editions of his uTitings. St. Columbanus was born in Leinster in or about A.D. 543, the year in which Benedict, his great monastic predecessor, died at Monte Cassino. His chief training was in the monas- tery of Bangor, on the coast of Down, under the eye of St. Comgall, where he accepted the monastic vows and habit. At the age, most probably, of a little over forty, he was seized with a desire to preach the Gospel beyond the limits of Ireland, and with 12 companions crossed over to France, c. a.d. 585, making a short visit to Britain as he went. For several years he traversed the country, teaching the faith, but apparently without building any monastery, till, coming to Burgundy at the solicitations of Gontran the king, he took up his abode in a deserted part of the Vosges mountains. He first chose the ruined Roman fort of Anagrates, now Annegray, a hamlet of the commune of Faucogney (Haute-Saone) ; then, needing a larger foundation, removed, A.D. 590 or 5QI, to the ruins of the ancient Luxovium, about 8 miles from Annegray, and established his celebrated monastery of Luxeuil, on the confines of Burgundy and Austrasia. But soon he had to erect another monastic establishment at Fontaines, or Fon- tenay, and divide his monks among these houses. Over each house he placed a superior, who yet was subordinate to himself, and for their management he drew up his well-known Rule, derived no doubt in great measure from his master St. Comgall, and perhaps to some extent from St. Benedict of Munte Cassino. The great principle of this Rule was obedience, absolute and unreserved ; and the next was constant and severe labour, to subdue the flesh, exercise the wiU in daily self-denial, and set an example of industry in cultivation of the soil. The least deviation from the Rule entailed a definite corporal punishment, or a severer form of fast as laid down in the Peni- tential (see the Rule in Messingham, u.s., Fleming, M.S., and Max Bibl. Vet. Patr. tom. xii. Lyons, 1677 ; and on it see Montalembert, Monks of the West, ii. 447 seq. ; Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. ii. 267-269 ; Neander, Gen. Ch. Hist. v. 36, 37; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. vi. 484 seq. ; Mabillon, Ann. Bened. lib. viii. sect. 17). For 20 years in the wooded and all but inaccessible defiles of the Vosges moun- tains St. Columbanus laboured with his monks, and all classes of men gathered round him, notwithstanding the severe discipline. His own inclination was always to retire into the wood and caves and hold unrestrained communion with God ; but besides the claims of his monasteries. Christian zeal and charity drew him forth. He excited against himself COLUMBANUS strong feeling among the Ciallican clergy and in the Burgundian court. A worldly priest- hood felt the reproach of his exceeding earnest- ness and self-denial, and his pure severity was a constant accusation of loss of love and truth in them. Moreover, he carried with him the peculiar rites and usages of his Irish mother- church ; the Irish mode of computing Easter, the Irish tonsure, and the " Ciu-sus Scot- orum " which he had received from St. Com- gall. This gave great offence to the Gallo- Frank clergy, and in 602 he was arraigned before a synod, where he defended himself 1 boldly, pleading that if error there was it was not his, but had been received from his fathers, and he asked but the licence " to live in silence, in peace and in charity, as I have lived for 12 years, beside the bones of my 17 departed brethren." At the same time he wrote to pope Gregory the Great several letters on the subject, as afterwards to pope Boniface IV., but with what immediate result we know not, though the haughty bearing and generally independent tone, in words and letters, of " Columbanus the sinner " were little calcu- lated to propitiate the favour of bishops or popes ; while Gregory's very friendly con- nexion with queen Brunehault would make that pope give little heed to the appeals of the stranger whom she disliked. But he received great opposition from the Burgundian court. Thierry II., called also Tlieodoric, was under age, and his grandmother Brunehault ruled in violent and arbitrary fashion, and encouraged the young king in every form of vice, that she might retain the control of the kingdom. This open profligacy St. Columbanus reproved by word and \vriting, and thus incurred the bitterest enmity of the king, and specially of the queen-mother. Gifts and flattery proving in vain, he was first carried prisoner to Besangon, and finally banished from the kingdom, a.d. 610. He departed from Luxeuil after 20 years' labour there, never to return. With his Irish monks he eventually arrived at the Lake of Constance. First he came to Arbon on its W. coast ; then, hearing of the ruins of Bregentium, now Bregenz, at its S.E. corner, he went thither with St. Gall and his other monks, and spent three years preaching to the people, and contending with privation and difficulty. When Bregenz was brought under the power of Burgundy, St. Columbanus had again to flee, and leaving St. Gall at Bregenz he himself, with only one disciple, passed S. across the Alps into Lombardy, where he was honourably received by king Agilulf. At Milan he was soon engaged in a controversy with the many Arians of Lombardy, and about this time wrote to the pope Boniface IV. at the suggestion of king Agilulf and his queen Theo- delind. Agilulf, in 613, presented Colum- banus with a district in the wild gorges of the Apennines, between Genoa and Milan, not far from the Trebbia, and there he built his celc- ! brated monastery of Bobbio, and there, Nov. 21, | 615, calmly resigned his spirit. For his life j and times, see Lanigan, Ecd. Hist. Ir. ii. c. 13 ; Ussher, Ecd. Ant. cc. xv. xvii. ; Ind. Chron. A.D. 589, 614 ; Montalembert, Monks nf the West, ii. bk. vii. ; Butler, Lives of the SS. xi. 435 seq. ; Neander, Gen. Ch. Hist. v. 35 seq. ; Milman, Hist. Lat. Christ, ii. bk. iv. c. 5. In COMGALL 201 his writings St. Columbainis everywhere shews sound judgment, solid ecclesiastical learning, elegant taste, and deep spiritual discernment, which says much for the man and for the school in which ho was educated. This is well pointed out by Moore in his Htst. of Ireland (i. p. 267). [j.c] It is the great distinction of Columbanus, as Neander has observed, that he set the example at the end of the 6th cent, nf that missionary enterprise in remote countries of Europe which was afterwards so largely followed up from England and Ireland, as tlie names of Cilian, \Vilfrid, Willebrord, Boniface, Willi- bald, Willehad, remind us. Colonies of pious monlss journeyed forth under the leadership of able abbats, carrying the light of Christianity through the dangerous wilds of continental heathendom. It was about 12 years before the arrival of the Roman mission in England (a.d. 597), and the same length of time before the death of Columba the apostle of Caledonia, that Columbanus, fired perhaps by the example of this energetic missionary, passed over into Gaul. Columbanus's foundation of Luxeuil achieved as great a celebrity as his Rule, and a more enduring one. It became the parent of numerous streams of monastic colonies, which spread through both Burgundies, Raur- acia (the ancient bishopric of Basel), Neustria, Champagne, Ponthieu, and the Morini. Lux- euil was, in short, as Montalembert expresses it, the monastic capital of Gaul, as well as the first school in Christendom, a nursery of bishops and saints ; while Bobbio, although for so brief a period under the government of its founder, became a stronghold of orthodoxy against the Arians, and long remained a school of learning for North Italy. The works of Columbanus contained in Fleming's Collectanea Sacra (Lovanii, 1667) are as follows. Prose : — I. Regula Monastica, in 10 short chaps. II. Regula Coenobialis Fratrnm, sive Liber de Quotidianis Poenitentiis Monachorum, in 15 chaps. III. Sermones sive Instructiones Variae, 17 discourses, the first being " de Deo Uno et Trino," and the last, " Quod per Viam Humilitatis et Obedicntiae Deus quaerendus et sequendus sit." IV. Liber sett Tractatus de Modo seu Mensura Poeni- tentiarum, the second title being de Poeniten- tiarum Mensura Taxanda. It prescribes pen- ances for various sins. V. Instructio de Octo Vitiis Principalibus, less than a column in length. The vitia are gula, fornicatio, cupid- itas, ira, tristitia, acedia, vana gloria, superbia. VI. Five Epistolae Aliquot ad Diversos : (i) " ad Bonifacium IV." ; (2) " ad Patres Svnodi cujusdam Gallicanae super Quaestione Paschae Congregatae " ; (3) "ad Discipulos et Monachos suos " ; (4) "ad Bonifacium Papam"; (5) "ad S. (ircgorium Papam." These are especially interesting for the infor- mation they give on the dispute between the Roman and Irish churches. In reference to (i), see BoNiFACius IV. The poetical works, PoemataQuaedam, occupy ahowi 8 pp. fol., rang- ing in length from 4 lines to 164. The metres are both classical and medieval. [ch.] Comgall,one of tiie most prominent leaders of monasticisra in Ireland, said to have had as many as 3,000 monks under him at one 202 COMMODIANUS time in Bangor and affiliated houses. He was a native of Mourne, now Magheraraonie, in the co. of Antrim, and on the shore of Lough Larne. He was probably born a. d. 5 1 7 (Reeves). After teaching for some years he founded in 558 his great monastery at Bangor, in the Ards of Ulster and co. of Down. Hither multitudes flocked from all quarters, and for it and kindred institutions he drew up a Rule which was considered one of the chief ones of Ireland. His most noted disciples at Bangor were Cormac, son of Diar- maid and king of South Leinster, who in his old age abdicated and became a monk, as is related in the Life of St. Fintan ; and St. Columbanus, abbot of Luxeuil and Bobbio. [CoLUMBANUs.] After ruling the monastery of Bangor and its dependencies for " 10 days, 3 months and 50 years," as the calendars say, but about 44 years according to computation, St. Comgall died at Bangor on May 10, a.d. 602, aged 85, having received his viaticum from St. Fiachra (Feb. 8) of Congbail. He is justly reckoned among the Fathers of the Irish church. He was biuried at Bangor. See further Lanigan, Eccl Hist. Ir. ii. c. 10 ; Reeves, Adamnan, pass, and Eccl. Ant. pass. ; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. cc. 13-17, wks. v. vi., Ind. Chr. a.d. 456, 516; Bp. Forbes, Kal. Scott. Saints, 108- no. His dedications in Scotland were at Durris, Kincardineshire, and possibly Dercongal, or Drumcongal, now Holywood, in Galloway (Forbes, M.5.). [j-c] Cotnmodianus, the author of two Latin poems, Instructiones adversus Gentium Deos pro Christiana Disciplina, and Carmen Apolo- geticum adversus Judaeos et Gentes. His In- structions are included " inter apocrypha " in a synodal decree of Gelasius (Concil. tom. iv.), probably because of certain heterodox state- ments respecting Antichrist, the Millennium, and the First Resurrection. In what age he lived has been much disputed. Internal evi- dence in the poem shews that the author lived in days of persecution. The style of the Instructions points to the age of Cyprian, with whose works they have more than once been edited. There is an allusion to the Novatian Schism (§ xlvii. ad tin.), and the language of § lii. seems to be aimed against the " Thurifi- cati " and " Libellatici " of the 3rd cent. In § Ixvi. 12 a " subdola pax " is mentioned, which Cave refers to the temporary quiet en- joyed by the Christians under Gallienus, after the Decian and before the Aurelian persecu- tion. Other expressions (e.g. agonia propin- qua, § liii. 10) clearly point to the expectation of fresh suffering. But the most important passage as affecting the date of the poem is one in which the author upbraids the Gentiles for perseverance in unbelief, though Christian- ity has prevailed for 200 years (§ vi. 2), and this, which, singularly enough, seems to have escaped the notice of the earlier critics, must be held to fix the date of Commodian as ap- proximately A.D. 250. The barbarity of his style, and the peculiarity of certain words (e.g. Zabulo, Zacones), led Rigault to infer that he was of African extraction. He applies to him- self the epithet " Gazaeus," but this probably refers to his dependence upon the treasury of the church (gazophylacium) for support, and not to any connexion with Gaza. Originally COMMODUS a heathen (Instruct. Praef. 5, § xxvi. 24), he was converted by the perusal of the Scriptures (Praef. 6), and if the words " Explicit tractatus sancti Episcopi . . ." discovered on the MS. of the Carmen Apologeticum by Pitra, may be taken to refer to the author of the poem, who, from internal evidence, is conclusively proved to have been Commodian, it would seem that he ultimately became a bishop. His works (a trans, of which is given in the Ante-Nicene Lib.), though utterly valueless as literature, are of considerable interest in the history of the Latin language as showing that the change had already commenced which resulted in the formation of the Romance lan- guages. The Instructions are in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. V. ; the Apology in Pitra's Spicilegium Solismense, vol. i. [e.m.y.] Commodus, a.d. 180-193. The monstrous vices of this degenerate son of Marcus Aurelius brought at least one counterbalancing advan- tage. The persecutions of his father's reign ceased for a time in his. The popular feeling against the Christians, thougla it still con- tinued, was no longer heightened and directed by the action of the Imperial government, and the result was a marked increase of numbers. Many rich and noble, with their households and kindred, professed themselves Christians (Ens. H. E. V. 21), even in the emperor's palace, but it is uncertain whether they were officers, freedmen, or slaves (Iren. adv. Haer. iv. 30). Marcia, the favourite mistress of the emperor, is said by Dio Cassius (Ixxii. 4) or Xiphilinus writing in his name, to have used her influence with Commodus in their favour and to have done them much good service. The strange history of Callistus in the Refutation of all Heresies attributed to Hippolytus (ix. 6) throws fresh light on Marcia's connexion with the Christian church at Rome. The epithet by which he describes her as a " God-loving woman " may be, as Dr. Wordsworth sug- gested, ironical ; but it is clear that she was in frequent communication with the officers of the church. Callistus had been brought before Fuscianus, the city prefect, charged with disturbing a synagogue of the Jews, and was sentenced to hard labour in the mines of Sardinia. Marcia sent for Victor, a bishop of the church, asked what Christians were suffering for their faith in Sardinia, and obtained from Commodus an order of release. The order was given to an eunuch, Hyacinth- us, who carried it to Sardinia, and obtained the liberation of Callistus and others, alleging his own influence with Marcia as his warrant, though the name of Callistus had not been included in the list. The narrative clearly implies that Hyacinthus was a Christian. Thus some Christians had, as such, been condemned to exile ; and persecutions, though less frequent, had not altogether ceased. One sufferer of the time takes his place in the list of martjTS. Apollonius, a Roman citizen of distinction, perhaps a senator, of high repute for philosophical culture, was accused before Perennius, the prefect of the city, by one of his own slaves. In accordance with an imperial edict sentencing informers, in such cases, to death even when the accused was found guilty, the slave bad his legs brokeij. CONSTANS I. Apollonius delivered before the senate an elaborate Apologia for his faith. By what Eusebius speaks of as an ancient law (possibly the edict of Trajan) he was beheaded {H. E. V. 21). [E.n.p.] Constans I., the youngest of the three sons of Constantine the Great, was born c. 320 and made Caesar in 333 ; he reigned as Augustus 337-350, when he was killed by the conspiracy of Ma'gnentius. [Constantius II.] De Broglie (iii.pp. 58. 59) inhischaracterof him remarks: "As far as we can discriminate between the contradictory estimates of different historians, Constans was of a simple, somewhat coarse, nature, and one without high aims though without malice. As regards the inheritance of his father's qualities, while Constantius seemed to have taken for his share his political know- ledge, his military skill, and his eloquence (thoughreproducingaveryfaintimageof them), Constans had only received great personal cour- age and a straightforwardness that did him honour. He was, besides, a lover of pleasure : he was suspected of the gravest moral irregu- larities. . . . Hehad firm, though certainly un- enlightened, faith, and frequently gave proofs of it by distributing largesses to the churches and favours to the Christians " (cf. Eutrop. Brev. x. 9, Vict. Cues. 41, Epit. 41). Zosimus (ii. 42) gives him a worse character than do the others. Libanius in 348 delivered a panegyric on Con- stans and Constantius, called /iJacnXtvds \6yos, vol. iii. ed. Reiske, pp. 272-332. St. Chrysostom in the difficult and probably corrupt passage of his 15th Homily on the Phi'lippians, p. 363, ed. Gaume, speaks of him as having children and as committing suicide, statements elsewhere unsupported. The most favourable evidence for Constans is the praise of St. Athanasius (Apol. ad Constantium, 4 sqq. ; cf. the letter of Hosius in Hist. Arian. ad Monachos, 44). His conduct with respect to the Arian and Donat- ist controversies gained him the esteem of Catholics. He was a baptized Christian ; his baptism is referred to in Ap. ad C. 7. [j.w.] Constantinus I. — I. A. Ancient Authorities (Heathen). — Eutropius, Breviarium, Hist. Rom., end of gth and beginning of loth book. This historian was secretary to the emperor, and his short account is therefore valuable. The Caesares and the Epitome, current under the name of Aurelius Victor, were doubtless the work of different authors. The first, who wrote under Constantius, was a friend of Ammianus, and praefectus urbi towards the close of the cent. ; the second, who excerpted from the first, lived a generation later, and continued his compilation down to the death of Theodosius the Great. They seem to have used the same sources as Zosimus, whom they supplement. The Paneg\Tists, as contemporary writers, deserve more attention than has been given them, allowance being made for the defects incident to their style of writing. Those re- lating to our subject — Anon. Panegyr. Maxi- miano et Constantino (a.d. 307), Eumenii Con- stantino in natalihiis urb. Trevir. (310), and Gratiarum actio Flaviensium nomine (311), Anon, de Victoria adv. Maxentium (313), and Nazarii Paneg. Constantino (321) — are all the product of Gallic rhetoricians. The Scriptores Hist. Augustae contain several contemporary references to Constantine; those in Julian's CONSTANTINUS I. 203 Caesars are, as might be expected, unfriendly and satirical. The first vol. of the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine historians contains the frag- ments of Eunapius, Priscus, Uexippus, etc., but these are of little moment, as are the extracts from Praxagoras in Photius, Cod. 62. Indirectly it is supposed that we have more of the matter of these earlier writers in Zosimus's laropia via, bk. ii. This historian lived probably c. 450. He was a bitter enemy of Constantine, whom he accuses of various crimes and cruelties, and blames for the novel- ties of his policy, shewing a particular dislike of his conversion. He falls into several his- torical blunders. The part of Ammianus's Histories relating to this reign is unfortunately lost. Some remarks on it occur in the part preserved, from which we gather his general agreement with his friend and contemporary Victor. The text of Ammianus, pub. by Gardthausen (Teubncr, 1874), may be recom- mended. He has also given a revised text from the MSS. of the anonymous excerpts generally cited as A nonymus Valesii, Excerpta Valesiana. They received this name from being first printed by H. Valois, at the end of his ed. of Ammianus. Some of these extracts may be traced word for word in Eutropius and Orosius ; hence their author did not live ear- lier than the 5th cent. Others are valuable as coming from sources elsewhere unrepresented. (Christian.) The earliest contemporary authority is Lactautius, de Mortibus Persecut- orum, a tract pub. after the defeat of Max- entius and before Constantine had declared himself the enemy of Licinius — i.e. probably 313 or 314. His bitterness is unpleasant, and his language exaggerated and somewhat ob- scure, but his facts are generally confirmed by other authors, where we can test them. The most important is Eusebius. Three of his works especially treat of Constantine, Hist. Eccl. ix. and x., down to 324, and probably pub. before the death of Crispus in 326 ; de Vita Constantini, in four books, with a trans- lation of Constantine's Orafio ad Sanctorum Coetum as an appendix, pub. after his death ; and, thirdly, TpiaKovTaerijpiKds, or Laudes Constantini, a panegyric at his tricennalia, containing little but rhetoric. To harmonize Eusebius and Zosimus is difficult. Fleury's dictum, " On ne se trompera sur Constantin en croyant tout le mal qu'en dit Euscbe, et tout le bien qu'en dit Zosime," may be per- fectly true, but Zosimus says very little good of him and Eusebius very little harm. Euse- bius has great weight as a contemporary and as giving documents, which have not for the most part been seriously challenged ; but he is discredited by fulsomeness and bad taste in his later works, and bv inconsistencies of tone between them and his history. He announces, however, that he will only recount those actions of the emperor which belong to his religious life {V. C. i. 11 : M'^''^ ^« ^P^^ "^^^ deo<pi\fi (TwrdvovTa ftlov), and is open to the criticism of Socrates (H. E.\. 1) as tQiv iiralvwu Tov fiaaiXfm Kal ttjj iravnyvpiK^i v^prjyopla^ TWf Xoywv fMciWov w$ iv (yKui/xiif) (fipovTiaa.^ fj TTfpi TOV CLKpi^Cis TrepiXajiftv to. yivd/xtfa. We must allow for the natural exultation of Chris- tians over the emperor who had done so much 204 CONSTANTINUS I. for them and openly professed himself an in- stniment of Providence for the advancement of Christianity. Neither in the case of Euse- biu5 nor of Zosimus must we push our distrust too far. The best ed. of the historical works of Eusebius is by F. A. Heinichen, repub. and enlarged (Leipz. 1S6S-1S70, 3 vols.).* The laws issued by Constantine (after 312) in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes are very im- portant contemporary documents. The first are in a purer state, and may be consulted in the excellent ed. of Hanel (Bonn. 1S42-1S44), or in the older standard folios of Godefroi, with their valuable historical notes. Both codes are arranged chronologically in Migne's Pat- rohgia. Opera Constantini, which also contains the Paneg>Tists and documents relating to the early history of the Donatists. Socrates, H. E. i., and Sozomen, H. E. i. and ii. labout a cent, later), give an account of the last period of his reign ; Socrates being gener- ally the safer guide. On his relations with Arianism much is found in the treatises and epp. of St. Athanasius, and occasional facts may be gleaned from other Fathers. As a hero of Byzantine history and tVaTio-ToXo?. Con- stantine has become clothed in a mist of fiction. Something may be gathered from Joannes Lydus, de Ma gist rat. P. R., and among the fables of Cedrenus and Zonaras may be foimd some facts from more trustworthy sources. B. Modern A uthorities. — It will be unneces- sary to enumerate the well-known wTiters of church history and the multitude of minor essays on separate points of Constantine's life. As early as 1720 Vogt {Hist. Lit. Const. Mag. Hamburg) gave a list of more than 150 authors, ancient and modem, and the number has since infinitely increased. The first critical life of importance is by J. C. F. Manso {Lehen Constantins des Grosseij. Wien, 1S19, etc.), but it is hard and one-sided, unchristian, if not antichrist ian. Jacob Burckhardt largely fol- lows Manso, but is much more interestinir and popular {Die Zeit Constantins des Gr. Basel, 1853), though not always fair. Some mis- statements in it are noticed below. He views the emperor merely as a great politician, and shews much bitterness against Eusebius. Theodore Keim's Der Uebertritt Const, des Gr. (Ziirich, 1S62) is in many points a good refuta- tion of Burckhardt, as well as being a fair statement from one not disposed to be credu- lous. The first two volumes of L'EgUse et PEmpire au IV^ Steele, by A. de Broglie> Paris, 1S55, etc.), give the views of a learned Roman Catholic, generally based on original author- ities, and this is perhaps the most useful book upon the subject. The section (134) in Dr. P. Schafi's Gesch. der Alten Kirche (Leipz. 1867, also trans.) is as good a short accoimt of Con- stantme as can be named. In English we have a short life by a Nonconformist, Mr. Joseph Fletcher (Lond. 1852, i6mo), but no standard work of importance. The brilliant sketch by Dean Stanley in his Eastern Church is probably the fairest picture of Constantine in our language. For his relations with Arian- ism we may refer to Ne^raian's Arians of the • For a careful judgment of Eusebius "s Life of Constantine, Heinichen 's 23rd Mdetema may be con- sulted (vol. iiL p. 754). a. also de Broglie,' L'Eglise ft I Empire, vol. iii. p. 39. CONSTANTINUS I. Fourth Cent, (ist ed. 1833 ; 3rd ed. 1871) ; Neale's Eastern Church, Patriarchate of Alex- andria; Bright's History of the Church, a.d. 313-451, 2nd ed. 1869; and Gwatkin's Arian Controversy A simple monograph on Con- stantine by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. II. Life. — Period i. To 312. — Flavins Val- erius Aurelius Constantinus, stimamed Magnus or the Great, was bomFeb. 27, probably in 274, at NaIssu3(Nissa),inDardaniaorUpperMoesia, where his family had for some time been settled. His father. Constantins Chlorus, was still young at the time of his son's birth. He was of a good family, being nephew by the mother's side of the emperor Claudius. A few years later we find him high in favour with Carus, who intended, it was said, to make him Caesar. Constantine's mother Helena, on the other hand, was of mean position, and apparently was married after her son's birth. Constantine was brought up at Drepanum in Cicilia, his mother's birthplace (Procop. deAedif. Justin. v. 2). His father, on becoming Caesar and taking another wife, sent him, when about 16 years old, cis a sort of hostage to Diocletian at Nicomedia, who treated him with kindness. His first military service was to accompany that emperor against AchiUaeus in 296, and Eusebius saw him as a young and handsome man passing through Palestine into Eg%TDt (F. C. i. 19). In 297 he took part in the suc- cessful war of Galerius against the Persians ; and about this time married Minervina. Constantine continued in the East while his father was fighting in Gaul and Britain. In 303 he was present when the edict of persecu- tion against the Christians was promulgated at Nicomedia and the palace soon after struck by lightning. The concurrence of these two events made a strong impression upon him {Orat. ad Sanct. Corf. 25). He also witnessed in 305 the abdication of the two Augusti, Dio- cletian and Maximian. A higher destiny awaited him in another part of the empire.' His father insisted upon his return, and Galerius at length was per- suaded to give permission and the seal neces- sary for the public posts, ordering him not to start before receiving his last instructions on the morrow. Constantine took flight in the night. He had probably good reasons for his mistrust, and to stop pursuit maimed the public horses at many stations on his road (Zos. ii. 8 ; Anon. Val. 4 ; Victor, Caes. 21), which lay partly through countries where the persecution was raging. He arrived at Gesoriacura (Boulogne) just in time to accom- pany his father to Britain on his last expedi- tion against the Picts (Eumen. in Nat. Urb. Trev. vii.). Constantins died at York, July 306, in the presence of his sons, after declaring Constantine his successor (de ^L P. xxiv.). He was almost immediately proclaimed Augustus by the soldiers CZtSaarbs wpbs tOsv STparowedwi' dvayopevdeis. Eus. H. E. viii. 13). Almost at the same time another claimant of imperial power appeared at Rome in Maxen- tius, son of the retired Maximian, who now came forward again to assist his son. Con- stantine's first act was to shew favotir to the Christians (de M. P. xxiv.), who had been exposed to little of the violence of persecution under the mild rule of Constantins. (F. C. i. I CONSTANTINUS I. 13-17. Eusebiiis seems here t ■ exaggerate. Cf. Episcopor. partis Majonnt prcccs ad Con- stantinum, in Op. Const. Migne, col. 747.) Constantine had at once to defend Gaul against the Frank? and German tribes, who had risen during the absence of Constantius in Britain (Eumen. ib. x-). In 307 Maximian, who had quarrelled with his son, crossed the .\lps and allied himself with the Caesar of the West. Constantine received as wife his daughter Fausta. and with her the title of .Augustus (Pan. Max. et Const, v.). For three years after marriage he found sufficient emplo>Tnent in consolidating his government in the West, and in wars upon the frontier of the Rhine, over which he began to build a bridge at Cologne. The seat of his court was Treves, which he embellished with many buildings, including several temples and basilicas, and the forum. Meanwhile Galerius was seized with a painful illness, and on April 30. 311, shortly before his death, issued his haughty edict of toleration, the first of the series, to which the names of Constantine and Licinius were also affixed. Constantine remained in the West engaged in wars with the .AJemanni and Cherusci, and in restoring the cities of Gaul (cf. Eumen. Graii- arum actio Flaviensium Somine, on the restor- ation of the schfX)ls of Autim). He is said to have interfered by letter on behalf of the Eastern Christians whom Maximinus Daza now began to molest, and this is in itself prob- able tde M. P. xxxvii.). We must remem- ber that there were now four Augusti. Licinius , and Maximinus in the East ; Maxentius and j Constantine in the West. The two latter had ; for some time acknowledged one another (see ! below, § VI. Coins), and probably by tacit ! consent the four restricted themselves pretty nearly to the limits which afterwards bounded the four great prefectures. But there was little united action between them, and sole empire was perhaps the secret aim of each. Maxentius now felt himself strong enough to break with Constantine, and declared war against him. The latter determined tn take the initative, and crossed the Cottian Alps, by the pass of Mont Gene\Te, with a force much smaller than that of his opponent. Later historians afcrm that the Romans besought him by an embassy to free them from the t\Tant (Zon. .4nn. xi;i. ; Cedrenus, § 270), and this is probable, for Maxentius, by folly, insolence, and brutality had greatly alienated his subjects. Constantine had allied himself with one of the Eastern Augusti, Licinius, whom he engaged in marriage with his sister Constantia, but had to proceed against the counsels and wishes of his generals and the advice of the augurs iPan. de Vict. adv. Maxent. ii.). After taking Turin, he rested some days at Milan, where he was received in triumph, and gave audience to all who desired it (ib. vii.). We may assume that at the same place and time, the spring or summer of 312, oc- curred also the betrothal of Constantia with Licinius, and the issue of a second edict of toleration to the Christians, that somewhat hard edict to which the emperors refer in the more celebrated announcement of 313 (see below § III. B. Religious Policy, and cf. Keim, Uebertritt, note 11 ». After taking Verona, Constantine apparently met with little resist* CONSTANTINUS L 205 ance till within a few uiiles of Rome, though this is not quite consistent with the statement of Lactantius (d£ M. P. xliv.). He had turned the advanced guard of the enemy at Saxa Rubra, close to the Cremera, and then pressed forward along the Flaminian road to the walls of the city itself. With great rash- ness Maxentius had determined to give battle exactly in front of the Tiber, with the Milvian bridge behind him, about a mile from the gates of Rome. It was Oct. 26, and during the night, according to our earliest authoritv, Constantine was warned in a dream to draw the monogram of Christ, the S/, upon the shields of his soldiers, and now, if not before, learnt to invoke the name of Christ to help his arms (H. E. ix. 9, 12). For the different accounts of the vision see below, § V. Max- entius, meanwhile, spent the night in sacri- fices and divination (Zos. ii. 16, etc.). Next morning the two armies met. That of Max- entius was totally routed, although the prae- torians \'igorously resisted. The fugitives crowded upon the bridge, and upon the pontoons at its side which Maxentius had devised, according to an almost incredible statement, so as to give way beneath his opponent (Eus. H. E. ix. 9 ; 5, 6 ; V. C. i. 38 ; Zos. ii. 15). He was himself precipitated into the river, where his body was found the next day. The victor entered Rome in triumph, and was received with great joy (Pan. de Vict, adv. M. xix.). He used his victory on the whole with moderation. Eusebius tells us that he set up a statue of himself with a spear terminating in a cross in his right hand, and an inscription to the effect that by this salut- ary sign (or standard) he had restored the Roman senate and people to their ancient glory and freedom (H. E. ix. 9 ; cf. V. C. i. 40). He now enlarged and endowed many churches in and near Rome (V. C. i. 42), and wTote the letters to Anulinus in behalf of the Catholic church in Africa which led to such important consequences (ap. Eus. H. E. x. 5. 7). From these documents it is evident that Constantine had already a strong disp-^sition to favour the Christians, especially the Catholic body. The answers to one of them brought the case of Caecilian and the Donatists to his notice, and involved him in the affairs of the African i church. He accepted the title and insignia of Pontifex Maximus. and both were borne by his successors till Gratian (Zos. iv. 36). j Period ii. 312-324. Commencement of the ' cycle of Indiciions, Sept. i, 312. Constantine (sole emperor of the West. — Constantine at the age of about 3C was now sole Augustus of the West. Having settled the affairs of Rome, he proceeded early in 313 to meet Licinius at Milan. There the marriage of the latter with Constantia was consummated, and the full edict of toleration, the Edict of .^tilan, was promulgated. The emperors then sep- arated, Licinius to defend himself against Maximinus Daza, Constantine to guard the Rhine. Both were victorious. Licinius soon after became sole master of the East by the death of Maximus at Tarsus (Zos. li. 17 ; de I M. P. xlix.). The latter had followed the edict of Milan, at the behest of the other , emperors, by an act of toleration of bis own. k 206 CONSTANTINUS 1. but of a less full and generous nature. This did not prevent him from taking advantage of the absence of Licinius to invade his territory, who had in consequence to tight Maximinus at Adrianople with a force half as large as that opposed to him. The battle was in many details like that against Maxentius — Licinius was favoured with a mysterious dream, and solemnly put his army under the protection of the God of the Christians, and on the morning of the battle repeated aloud three times with his officers a prayer to the holy and supreme God {de M. P. xlvi.). After his victory he entered Nicomedia in triumph, pro- claimed the edict of Milan, June 13, and then pursued Maximinus into Cilicia, where he found that last of the persecutors dying a horrible and painful death {de M. P. xlix. ; Eus. H. E. ix. 10, 14). The brothers-in-law were thus raised to an equality of power, and were not likely to remain long at peace. The oc- casion of their quarrel is obscure. Constan- tine accused Licinius of fomenting a conspiracy against him. Licinius was defeated and made peace by the cession of lUyricum — i.e. of the whole peninsula of which Greece is the extremity. Constantine was not too busy during ttiis campaign to attend to the arrange- ment of the council of Aries, and to interest himself vehemently in the Donatist disputes. Peace followed for nine years, during which the emperor employed himself with barbarian wars, and with legislation civil and religious, as detailed below. His Decennalia were cele- brated at Rome 315, 316, and the triumphal arch dedicated. Two years later his son Crispus, now a young man, and his infant son and nephew Constantine and Licinianus, were raised to the rank of Caesar at Aries (Zos. ii. 20, etc.). His other sons by Fausta were born also in this period, Constantius in 317 and Constans in 323. Licinius mean- while began to oppress his subjects, especially the Christians. He forbade the synods of bishops, interfered with their worship, and in many cases destroyed their churches (even Julian, Cues. p. 315, is unfavourable to Licinius). Constantine was engaged in de- fending his Danubian frontier from Goths and Sarmatians, and took the Scirmatian king Rausimodes prisoner (Zos. ii. 21). In some of these expeditions he had trespassed across the boundaries of Licinius, and this was the pretext for a quarrel, which was increased by the expostulations of Constantine against the treatment of the Christians, and after some changes of temper on the part of Licinius, an open rupture took place. The character of the former war was am- biguous. This one was in great measure a religious war or crusade (Eus. H. E. x. 9). Before any conflict was fought (it was said) the subjects of Licinius thought they saw the victorious legions of Constantine marching through their streets at midday {V. C. ii. 6). The monogram of Christ was now stamped on almost all his coinage {infra, § VL). The labarum became a talisman of victory (olovei TL vuTjTi/cof dXe^LcpdpnaKOv, V. C. ii. 7). The emperor surrounded himself with Christian priests, and believed himself fav- oured with visions as he prayed in the tent containing the standard of the cross, and CONSTANTINUS I. leapt up as if inspired to victory {ib. 12). The sentiment of a divine vocation was probably a real one to him, and was fostered by the approbation of the Christians. Licinius, on the very scene of his conflict as a Christian champion with Maximinus, prepared for battle by sacrifice and worship of the gods, against whom he had then fought, and Con- stantine prepared by prayer and by giving the watchword Gei; aoirrip {V. C. ii. 5 and 6 ; cf. Soz. H. E. i. 7 on the perversion of Licinius). The battle of Adrianople, July 3, 323, was a second victory for the Christian arms. Con- stantine pursued his opponent to Byzantium. Meanwhile Crispus, who had already won his youthful laurels against the Franks, shewed himself most active in command of the fleet, and defeated the admiral Amandus in the Hellespont. This caused Licinius to quit Byzantium for Chalcedon, where he appointed one of his chief officers, Martinianus, as Caesar. Constantine pursued him, and on Sept. 10, after some negotiations, achieved a final vic- tory at Chrysopolis. Licinius, on the entreaty of Constantia, was permitted to retire to Thessalonica ; but was not allowed to live above a year longer. Socrates relates that after remaining quiet a short time, " he col- lected some barbarians, and attempted to repair his defeat " {H. £. i. 4 ; so Zonaras and Niceph. Call.), and Eusebius justifies his exe- cution by the law of war (F. C. ii. 19). Zosi- mus and the heathen historians make it an instance of the emperor's faithlessness (Zos. ii. 28 ; Victor, Epit. I.e. ; Eutrop. Brev. x. 6), as does also the chronicle of Jerome (ann. 2339, " Licinius Thessalonicae contra jus sacramenti privatus occiditur"). Yet apparently Con- stantia did not resent the execution of her husband, nor Fausta the death of her father. Constantine was thus master of the whole empire, and his first act was to issue edicts of toleration and favour to the Christians of the East {V. C. ii. 24 seq., cited as Provincialibus Palestinae and 48 seq. Prov. Orientis). He now specially assumed the title of Victor {viKriTrjs) {V. C. ii. 19). He had won it by his constant successes against barbarians on the Rhine and Danube and rival emperors from the Tiber to the Bosphorus : his twenty years of empire had brought him from London in the far West to Byzantium, the centre of the Eastern world, and had been years of unin- terrupted conquest. He was not unthankful to the Providence which had guided him, nor indisposed to acknowledge that something was due from him in return {Prov. Pal. V. C. ii. 28, 29). But his progress had not led him to a victory over himself, or rather his success made him forget his own liability to crime. Period iii. 324-337. Constantine sole em- peror. — The history of the last twelve years of Constantine's reign is of a very different character from that of preceding periods. As sole emperor he loses rather than gains in our estimation. He had no longer a religious cause to fight for nor a dangerous rival to over- throw. The hardness of his character fitted him for a life of strong excitement, but not for the intrigues of an Eastern court and the subtle questions of Eastern theology. His immoder- ate profusion in building and other expensive operations gained him the name of " spend- CONSTANTINUS I. thrift," and his liberality towards the clmrcli was by no means free from the evils that at- tend prodigal benevolence. But he had no less a providential part to play in the internal history of that church than he had had uji to this time in the destruction of her iiersecutors. As emperor of the West he had been led to interfere in her councils by the African schism, on which his decision was desired by both parties. As monarch also of the East he was brought directly into contact with specula- tions on points of Christian doctrine which had their origin and home there. He again attempted to realize his idea of unity. Taking as precedent the great council of Western bishops he had summoned at Aries (.Aug. 314) in the case of Caecilian, he determined to call together representatives of the whole empire to decide on the doctrines of Arius and the Paschal controversy (see below, § III. 2). To Constantine is due in great measure the hold- ing of the council of Nicaea (June and July, 323). But the success of that great meeting unfortunately filled him with overweening pride. The conclusion of their session fell at the beginning of the 20th year of his reign, and he celebrated the condemnation of Arius as a second triumph (V. C. iii. 14). He enter- tained all the bishops at his table. " The guards," says Eusebius, " kept watch with drawn sn-ords round the vestibule of the palace ; the men of God passed through their midst without fear, and entered the inmost parts of the royal dwelling. Some of them reclined by his side, and others w-ere placed on couches on either hand. One might have seemed to picture to oneself an image of Christ's kingdom ; the whole thing was more like a dream than a reality " (ib. 15). The same writer suggests that the church of the Anas- tasis, built by Constantine, fulfilled the pro- phecies about the New Jerusalem {V. C. iii. 33). Constantino's interest in the success of the council did not end with its dispersion. He wrote to those concerned in its decrees, strongly enforcing conformity with them. 1 h > same feelings led him to compose and deliver theological declamations, and to attempt the conversion of his courtiers. Large crowds attended to listen to the philosophizing prince, who did not spare their faults. But the matter was not one merely of philosophy. It may be, as Burckhardt suggests (p. 454), that he took such opportunities of seriously warning or even denouncing those of his " companions " and "palatines" whose presumption on his favour had become intolerable. The passion- ate and almost eloquent law of this year, pro- mulgated at Nicomedia, calls upon any one who feels wTonged by such officials to declare their grievances freely, and promises personal vengeance on those " who up to this time have deceived us by simulated integrity " ; and when Constantine felt himself wronged he did not hesitate to strike {Cod. Th. ix. i, 4 in 325). After a prolonged sojourn in the East his presence was now required in Rome. He advanced thither by slow stages, arriving about July 8, in time to celebrate the com- pletion of his 2oth year of empire, July 25, 326. He left it certainly before the end of Sept. ; but in that short space of time all that was tragical in his life seems to have reached CONSTANTINUS 207 its clima.x. Tlierc was nun h in tin- city itself to irritate and disturb him. Ihe ancient aristocracy, in the absence of a resident emperor, preserved many of its old heathen traditions. Though he came determined to be tolerant {Cod. Th. xv. i, 3) and desirous of gaining the favour of the senate (id. xv. 14 ; 3, 4), it soon became evident that he was out of harmony with Home. He would not join in the solemn review of the knights held on July 15, and in their procession and sacrifice to Jupiter Capitolinus ; but viewed it con- temptuously from the Palatine and ridiculed it to those around him (Zos. ii. 29). Such an action, joined with his Oriental dress and general bearing, seems to have aroused popular indignation against him. Though tempted to revenge himself by force, he was wise enough to refrain. (See esp. de Broglie, I.e. ii. c. 5, for the events of this year. He puts together Liban. Or. 12, p. 393 ; Or. 15, p. 412, and Chrys. Or. ad Pop. Anlioch. 21.) But this outburst was followed by far heavier tragedies within his own household. In relating them we have to rely on the vague and inconsistent talcs of later writers, those nearest the emperor, Eutropius and Eusebius, being markedly silent. They seem to have originated with divisions, such as easily arose in a family composed of so many different elements. The half-brothers of Constantine, the sons of Constantius and Theodora, natur- ally took part with their mother's half-sister, Fausta, and her sons. On the other hand, Helena had reason to sympathize with her grandson Crispus, the son of Minervina. Prob- ably it was in connexion with these divisions that Crispus was suddenly arrested and con- veyed to an unknown death at Pola in Istria (Amm. Marc. xiv. 11). Niebuhr thought it probable that the accusation of treason against his father, reported by Gregory of Tours {Hist. Franc, i. 36), had some foundation of truth. Another, but not an early account, represents Fausta as playing to Crispus the part of Phae- dra towards Hippolytus (Zos. ii. 29), and other authors name her as his accuser without specifying the nature of the charge (Vict. Epit. 41, Philostorgius, ii. 4. Sozomen, H. E. i. 5, implies that the death of Crispus was required of Constantine by others). The young and promising Caesar Licinianus was at the same time unjustifiably put to death (Eutrop. X. 6; Hieron. Chron. Ann. 2342). The following satirical distich, attributed to the city prefect Ablavius, was found on the palace doors after the death of Crispus (Sidon. Apollin. Ep. v. 8) :— " .Saturni aurea saecla quLs rcquirat ? Sunt haec gemniea, scd N'croniaiia." But he was avenged much more tragically, and at no distant date. (Jerome puts it three years later, the others connect the two events.) Fausta herself was executed in as sudden and as dark a way as Crispus. The complaints of Helena seemed to have aroused her son to this dire act of retribution (Zos. ii. 29 ; Vict. Epit. 41). Later writers represent the empress as guilty of adultery (Philcjst. ii. 4 ; Sidon. Apoll. I.e. ; Greg, turon. H. F. i. 34), and her punishment is said to have been suflocation ia the steam of a hot bath. 208 CONSTANTINUS I. There cannot, we think, despite the doubts ' raised by Gibbon, be any real doubt that [ Crispus and Fausta perished, both probably in | 328, by the orders of Constantine, acting as the instrument of family jealousies. The death of Fausta was followed by the execution of I many of her friends, presumablv those who had i taken part against Crispus (Eutrop. x. 4). Popular traditions represent Constantine as tormented by remorse after his delirium of cruelty had passed, and as seeking everywhere the means of expiation ; and nothing can be more in harmony with the character of Con- [ stantine and of the age than to suppose this, j Christian bishops could only urge him to re- pentance to be followed by baptism. But for reasons which we do not thoroughly know, Constantine put off this important step, and also the baptism of his sons. That he be- stowed some possessions on the church at this time, and built or handed over basilicas to it, is very probable. Among the many which claim foundation at his hand we may name the Vatican, which was destroyed to make room for the modern St. Peter's ; St. Agnes, which has an inscription referring to his daughter Constantina ; and the Lateran, once the palace of Fausta and the seat of the first council about the Donatists, and still the real cathedral of the pope. Probably the pilgrim- age of Helena to Palestine in pursuance of a vow, and the " Invention of the Cross," is to be assigned to the time that immediately follows. Constantine gave her every assist- ance, and authorized her to spend money freely both in alms and buildings (Paulinus of Nola, Ep. II, ad Sulpic. Sever. ; cf. V. C. iii. 47, 3). Possibly he delayed his own Bap- tism in the hope that he might soon follow her example and be washed in the holy waters of Jordan {V. C. iv. 63). He now left Rome never to return, but with the project of found- ing a new Rome in the East, which should equal if not surpass the old. The beauty and convenience of the site of Byzantiumhadlong beennoticed (cf. Herod, iv. 144) ; it was the birthplace of Fausta, and its immediate neighbourhood had seen the final defeat of Licinius. The emperor had perhajis already formed the idea of embellishing it and calling it by his own name. He had probably moved a mint thither as early as 325, and used the name (Constantinopolis) upon his coins. But now his intention may have been strength- ened by his distaste for Rome, and by a super- stition that Rome's fall from power was at hand (Chron. Pasch. ed. Bonn, p. 517). Other cities had attracted his attention ; his final choice was Byzantium. Many stories are told of the ceremonies with which he laid out the plan of the new Rome, enclosing like its proto- type the tops of seven hills. De Broglie places the foundation in 328 or 329 il.cAl 441). The Christian historians assert that the absence of heathenism from the city was the express desire of the emperor (e.g. V. C. iii. 48). The removal of Sopater perhaps gave room for the power of Helena to reassert itself. She communicated to her son the success of her pilgrimage, and forwarded him certain relics, which he received with great joy. [Helena.] The death about the same time of his sister Constantia had important consequences. She CONSTANTINUS I. was much under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and had in her household an Arian priest, who persuaded her that Arius had been most unjustly treated. She had not courage to speak on the subject herself to her brother, but on her deathbed strongly recommended this priest to him, and he was taken into the imperial family, soon gaining influence over the emperor. The result, it is said, was Con- stan tine's gradual alienationfrom the Catholics (Socr. i. 25 ; see de Broglie, c. v., at the end). Meanwhile the building of the new capital went on with great vigour, temples and cities, especi- ally in Greece and Asia Minor, being despoiled to beautify it and to fit it for the residence of a new nobility, some created, and others trans- ferred from Rome. Of the population that gathered into it ahnost all thepagans and many of the Jews became Christians. The city was solemnly consecrated on May 11, 330, followed by a feast of forty days (Idatius, fasti, Chron. Pasch. A.D. 330), and the anniversary was long kept as the nativity of Constantinople. It is indeed a very important era, marking the greatest political transformation that the Roman empire underwent. With it were con- nected the great constitutional changes detailed below, § III. I, under which grew up the Byzantine spirit with its peculiar character, turbulent, slavish, and unimaginative, but yet capable of endurance tempered with a certain kind of morality. The years that followed brought Constan- tine more than ever into the debates of the church. The emperor recalled Arius, but Athanasius, now bp. of Alexandria, refused to receive him. In the middle of his 30th year, 333, Constantine distributed the territories under his dominion between his three sons and two nephews. The eldest, Constantine, received the provinces of his grandfather, Britain, Spain, and Gaul ; Constantius, Asia, Syria, and Egypt ; Constans, Italy and Africa. Dalmatius, with the title of Caesar, had the large province of Illyricum ; and Hannibal- lian, Armenia and Pontus, with the extra- ordinary name of kin^. The evidence of coins would lead us to see in this measure a recon- ciliation of the two branches of the family. The end of Constantine's eventful life was now at hand, and as some of his first military ser- vices had been against the Persians, so now he was obliged at its close to prepare for war against that people, though he never actually engaged in it {V. C. iv. 57). The labarum had now been for many years the recognized stan- dard of the empire, wherever the emperor was present ; and as in the time of the war with Licinius, the monogram of Christ was in these last years largely stamped upon its coins (see § VI.). Constantine made also other prepar- ations for the use of religious service in war, especially of a tent for his own chapel {V. C. iv. 56 ; Socr. i. 18), and he had some time before taught his soldiers, heathen as well as Christian, a common daily prayer, and ordered Sunday to be kept as a holy day {V. C. iv. 19 and 20 ; L. C. ix. 10 ; cf. Cod. Th. II. 8, i, in 321). At Easter 337 he completed and dedi- cated his great church of the Holy Apostles, in which he desired to be buried. In the week that followed, his health, hitherto extremely good, gave way, and he sought relief in the CONSTANTINUS I. warm baths at Hclenoiiolis. Feeling his death approaching, he confessed his sins in the church of the martyrs (of the martyr Lucian- us ?), and now first received imposition of j hands as a catechumen. Then he moved back [ to the villa Ancyrona, a suburb of Nicomedia ; (Eutrop. X. 8; Vict. Caex. 41), and desired Baptism of the bishops whom he there as- sembled {V. C. iv. 61). He had wished once, he said, to be baptized in Jordan, but God ! had decided otherwise. He felt that now the blessing he had so long hoped for was otTered \ him. " Let there be no doubt about it," he added, " I have determined once for all, if the Disposer of life and death sees fit to raise me up again to fellowship with His people, to impose upon myself rules of life such as He would approve " (F. C. iv. 62, see Heinichen's note). Baptism was administered to him by the Arian prelate Eusebius of Nicomedia (Hieron. Chron. ann. 2353). From that mo- ment he laid aside the purple robe, and wore only the white garment of a neophyte. He died on Whitsunday 3^7, in the 31st year of his reign, dating from July 25, 306. ni. Religious Policy. — The great change which makes the reign of Constantine an epoch in church history is the union between church and state, and the introduction of the per- sonal interference of the emperor. The proxi- mate cause of his great influence was the re- action of feeling which took place, when the civil governor, from being a persecutor or an instrument of persecution, became a promoter of Christianity. Something, no doubt, was owing to the teaching of Christian moralists as to submission to the powers that be, and to the general tendency towards a system of official subordination, of which the political constitution of Constantine is the great ex- ample. His success in establishing that con- stitution, without any serious opposition, seems to shew the temper of men's minds at the time, and the absence of individual pro- minence or independence of thought amongst either followers or opponents. This was true as well of the church as of the state. The great men who have left their mark on church organization and policy had either passed away, like St. Cyprian, or had not yet attained their full powers. The two seeming excep- tions are Hosius bp. of Cordova and St. Athanasius. The first had great influence over the emperor, but probably lacked genius, and is but obscurely known to us. Athanasius, though he might have sympathized with some of the wide conceptions of Constantine, never came sufficiently into contact with him to overcome the prejudices raised against him by the courtiers ; and the emperor could not really comprehend the importance of the [ points for which Athanasius was contending. , The period, too, of Athanassiu's greatest 1 activity was in the succeeding reign. Constantine, therefore, was left very much to make his own way, and to be guided by his own principles or impulses. With regard to | his religious policy we have an expression of j his own, in his letter to Alexander and Arius, ' which may help us in our judgment of its merits (Eus. V. C. ii. 65). Two principles, he said, had guided his actions ; the first to unify the belief of all nations with regard to the , CONSTANTINUS I. 201) Divinity into one consistent form, the second to set in order the body of the world wine h was labouring as it were under a grievous sickness. Such, no doubt, were the real desires of Con- stantine, but he was too impulsive, too rude m intellect, too credulous of his own strength, to carry them out with patience, wisdom, and justice. We shall arrange the details of this policy under three heads : (i) Acts of Toleration. — During the first period of his reign it is jirobablc that Constan- tine as well as Constantius Chlorus prevented any violent persecution. His first public act of toleration, of which we have any certain record, was to join together with Licinius in the edict issued by Galerius in 311 (given in de M. P. 34 and more diffusely by Eus. H. E. viii. 17). The edict acknowledged that per- secution had failed, and gave permission to Christians to worship their own God and re- build their places of meeting, provided they did nothing contrary to good order (contra disciplinam, misrendered tVwTTju?/ in Eus.). The death of Galerius followed almost directly, and in the spring or summer of 312 Constan- tine and Licinius promulgated another edict perhaps not very different from that of (laler- ius. The text of it is lost. It allowed liberty of worship, but specified certain hard condi- tions ; amongst others that no converts should be made from heathenism ; that no sect out- side " the body of Christians, the Catholic Church," should be tolerated ; that confiscat- ed property should not be restored, except, perhaps, the sites of churches. This edict, issued before the conflict with Maxentius, con- trasts strikingly with the much more liberal edict of Milan issued in the spring of 313, which gave free toleration to every religious body. The purport of this edict may be summed up thus : " We have sometime per- ceived that liberty of worship must not be denied to Christians and to all other men, but whereas in our former edict divers conditions were added, which perhaps have been the cause of the defection of many from that observance, we Constantine and Licinms, Augusti, meeting in Milan, decree that both Christians and all other men soever should have free liberty to choose that form of wor- ship which they consider most suitable to themselves in order that the Divinity may be able to give us and our subjects His accus- tomed goodwill and favour. We abolish all those conditions entirely. Further for the body of the Christians in ]iarticular, all places of meeting which belonged to them, and have since been bought by or granted to others, are to be restored ; and an indemnity may be claimed by the buyers or grantees fnnu our treasury ; and the same we decree concerning the other corporate property of the Christians. The execution of the law is committed to the civil magistrates, and it is everywhere to be made public." The change of feeling here evinced was more strongly marked in other documents that followed, which more peculi- arly expressed the mind of Constantine. The first in order is a letter to Anulinus, proconsul of Africa, giving directions for the execution of the edict, in which the term " Catholic Church" is substituted for that of "body of Christians " (Eus. H. E. x. 5, 15). Then follows 210 CONSTANTINUS another addressed to the same official liber- ating the clergy " in the Catholic church of which Caecilian is president " from the pres- sure of public burdens. This concession, at first apparently made to Africa alone, was extended to the whole church in 319 (C. Th. xvi. 2, 2). The description of Christianity in the privilege granted to the African church is remarkable " as the religion in which the crowning reverence is observed towards the holiest powers of heaven " (H. E. x. 7). The mention of Caecilian and this definition of the Catholic church in the same document was not allowed to pass unchallenged by the Donatists. They presented to Anulinus an appeal, Libellus Ecdesiae Catholicae criminmn Caeciliani, and a request for a commission of inquiry, both of which he forwarded to the emperor (Aug. Ep. 88 (68), 2 ; Migne, Const. Mag. col. 479). (2) The Donatist Schism. — The appeal of the Donatists brought Constantine directly into the heart of church controversies, and was the first occasion of his gradually growing interference. Though his relations with this schism form only an episode in its history, their consequences were important. [Dona- tists.] The results were such a mixture of good and evil as seems inseparable from the union of church and state. The church profited by the development of her system of councils, and a general growth in organization and polit v ; the emperor gained a nearer insight into the feeling of the church ; and the state obtained a most important support. On the other hand must be set the identification of the Catholic with the dominant and worldly church, and the precedent allowed of imperial interference in questions of schism. From the banishment of the Donatists for schism it was no great step to the persecutions of Arians and Cathohcs for heresy, and not much further to the execution of the Priscilhanists by Magnus Maximus. (3) The Arian Controversy. — The relation of the emperor to this great controversy was the result of his last achievement of power. His complete victory over Licinius in 323 brought him into contact with the controver- sies of his new dominions in the East, just as his victory over Maxentius had led to the Don- atist appeals in the West. The first document which connects him with this controversy is a letter to Alexander and Arius (Eus. V. C. ii. 64-72 ; Socr. i. 7 gives only the latter half of it). He expresses his longing for " calm days and careless nights," and exhorts the oppo- nents to reconciliation. The whole had arisen from an unpractical question stirred by Alex- ander, and from an inconsiderate opinion expressed by Arius. Again and again he insists on the insignificance of the dispute {inrkp fiLKpwv Kal \iav iXaxL(TTUv (ptXoveiKOvv- Ttxiu - v-rrkp tQv eXaxiimav tovtuiu fijTTjo-ew;/ 6.Kpi^o\oyu(Tdf, etc.), shewing in a remarkable manner his own ignorance and self-confidence. This letter was sent by Hosius, but naturally had no effect : though we are ignorant of his proceedings at Alexandria, except that he combated Sabellianism (Socr. iii. 8, p. 394 Migne ; Hefele, § 22). Arius seems to have now written a letter of remonstrance, to which Constantine, who was under other influences or in a different mood, replied in an extra- CONSTANTINUS I. ordinary letter of violent invective. The de- tailed history of this time is involved in diffi- culty, but the expedient of a general council was a natural one both to the emperor and to the church at large. The Meletian schism in Egypt and the Paschal controversy required settlement, and in Constantine's mind the latter was equally important with Arianism. The idea and its execution are ascribed to Con- stantine without any mention of suggestions from others, except perhaps from Hosius (Sulpic. Sever. Chron. ii.40, "S.NicaenaSynod- us auctoreilloconfectahabebatur "). He sent complimentary letters in every direction, and gave the use of public carriages and litters to the bishops. The year of the council is al- lowed to be 325, but the day is much debated. Hefele discusses the various dates, and places the solemn opening on June 14 (Councils, § 26). The bishops were arranged round a great hall in the middle of the palace, when Constantine entered to open the proceedings, dressed mag- nificently, and making a great impression by his stately presence, lofty stature, and gentle and even modest demeanour. This is not the place to trace the course of the discussions that followed. [Arius.] Two points are deserving of note — first, the story of his burning the memorials and recriminations of the different parties addressed to him ; secondly, his relation to the bfioovffiov. As to the first, it is said that Constantine brought them into the synod in a sealed packet and threw them into the fire, say- ing to the bishops : " You cannot be judged by a man like myself : such things as these must wait till the great day of God's judgment," add- ing, according to Socrates, " Christ has advised us to pardon our brother if we wish to obtain pardon ourselves " (Socr. i. 8, p. 63 Migne ; Soz. i. 17). His relation to the o/xoovaiov rests on the Ep. of Eusebius to his own church, in which he gives an account of the synod to his own ad- vantage (Socr. i. 8 ; Theod. i. 12; Athan. Decret. Synod. Nic. 4). He gives the text of the creed which he proposed to the council ; and tells us that after it was read no one got up to speak against it, but, on the contrary, the emperor praised it very highly and exhorted everyone to embrace it with the addition only of one word — " consubstantial." He then proceeded to comment on it, declaring that the word implied neither a corporeal substance nor a division of the divine substance between the Father and the Son, but was to be understood in a divine and mysterious sense. Though it is pretty clear that the word bixooixrios was in the minds of the orthodox party throughout, they may have hesitated to propose it at first, as its association with Paul of Samosata was pro- vocative of much disputation. Hosius, it may be, suggested to the emperor that the proposition should come from his lips. He must have had some tuition in theological language from an orthodox theologian before he could give the interpretation with which Eusebius credits him. When the creed was finally drawn up, the emperor accepted it as inspired, and with his usual vehemence in the cause of peace proceeded to inflict penalties upon the few who still refused to sign it. He wished even to abolish the name of Arians and to change it into Porphyriaus (Ep. ad Ecclesias, Migne, p. 506 ; Socr. i. 9). Later CONST ANTIN us I. Euscbiiis i>f N'icomodiaaiul Thcopnisof Nicaca were cleposeil and banished, as they had nut recogiii/ed the depositiun of Arius, thougli they had been brouglU to sign the creed. Con- stantine intiulged particularly in invectives against Ivusebius oi Xir.iinedia, accusing him of ha\ing stirred iipperseciition under Licinius, and of deceiving himself at Nicaea (£/>. ad Xicomediensesc. Eus. ei Theognium, Migne, pp. 519 f., from Gelasius, iii. 2, and the collections of councils). Constantino expressed an im- moderate joy at the success of the council, considering it a personal triumph. Eusebius has preserved the letter the emperor then wrote to all the churches (V. C. iii. 17-20). Constantine in his relations to Arianism was obviously the instrument for good as well as for evil. "On the one hand, he acted with good intentions, and was able by the superior- ity of his position to take a wide view of the needs of the church ; on the other he was very ignorant, self-confident, credulous, and violent. We know too little of the influences by which he was swayed : how, for instance, Hosius acquired and' lost his ascendancy ; what Eusebius of Caesarea really did ; how Eusebius of Nicomedia obtained influence with the emperor in the last period of his life. We only know that the emperor, in his anxiety above all things for peace, was led to do violent acts of an inconsistent character that made peace impossible ; but we must remember that he was living in an age of violent men. For details of Constantine's relations with heathenism see especially : A. Beugnot, Hist, de la destruction du Paganisme en Occident, 2 vols. (Paris, 1835), an important and thoughtful book, unfortunately scarce ; and E. Chastel, Hist, de la destruction du Paganisme dans V Empire d'Orient (Paris, 1850) — both crowned by the .\cademy. Less important is Der Unter- gang des Hellenismus und die Entziehung seiner Tempelguter durch die Christlichen Kaiser, by Ernst von Lasaulx (Miinchen, 1854). IV. Character. — Constantine deserves the name of Great, whether we consider the poli- tical or the religious change that he effected, but he belongs to the second, rather than the lirst, order of great men. Notwithstanding his wide successes, and his tenacious grasp over the empire in which he worked such revolutions, notwithstanding his high sense of his own vocation and the grandeur of some of his conceptions, his personal character does not inspire us with admiration. With many of the impulses of greatness it remained to the last unformed and uncertain, and never lost a tinge of barbarism. He was wanting in the best heathen and Christian virtues ; he had little of dignity, cultivation, depth, or tender- ness. If we compared him with any great man of modern times it would rather be with Peter of Russia than with Napoleon. p V. Vision of the A\- — The question of the reality of this vision is perhaps the most un- satisfactory of the many problems in the life of Constantine. The almost contemporary account of Lactantius has been already men- tioned ; Life, period i. ; from de M. P. 44 : " Comraonitus est in quiete Constantinus ut caeleste signum Dei notaret in scutis atque CONSTANTINUS 211 ita proelium connnittcrct. Fecit ut jnssus est et tranversa X littera, summo capite circuni- flexo, Christum in scutis notat." This took place on the night before the battle of the Milvian bridge. Ensebius's narrative (V. C. i. 27-32) contrasts very strikingly with this. He represents Constantine as looking about for some god to whom he should appeal for assistance in his cami^aign against Maxcntius, and as thinking of the god of his father Con- stantius. He besought him in prayer to re- veal himself, and received a sign, wliich the historian could not distrust on the word and oath of the emperor given to himself many years later. About the middle of the after- noon (for so the words seem to be best inter- pretecl), he saw with his own eyes the trophy of the cross figured in light standing above the sun, and with the letters rovTifj Wxa attached to it. He and his army were seized with amazement, and he himself was in doubt as to the meaning of the appearance. .As he was long considering it night came on, and in sleep Christ appeared to him with the sign that ap- peared in heaven, and ordered him to make a standard of the same pattern. The next day he gave directions to artificers how to prepare the labarum, which was adorned with gold and precious stones. Eusebius describes it as he afterwards himself saw it. It consisted of a tall spear with a bar crossing it, on the p highest point of which was a y^ encircled with a crown, while a square banner gorgeously embroidered hung from the cross bar, on the upper part of which were the busts of the emperor and his sons. Constantine immediate ly made inquiries of the priests as to the figure seen in his vision, and determined with good hope to proceed under that protection. Eusebius nowhere states exactly where or when this took place ; his vague expressions seem to place it near the beginning of the campaign. The senate acknowledged an instinctus divinitatis and the contemporary panegyrist refers to divina praecepia in the campaign with Maxentius. Another sort of divine encouragement is recorded later by the heathen panegyrist Nazarius in 321, c. 14. " All (iaul," he says, " speaks of the heavenly armies who pro- claimed that they were sent to succ(jur the emperor against Maxentius." " Flagrabant verendum nescio quid umbone corusci et caelestium armorum lux terribilis ardebat . . . Haec ipsorum sermocinatio, hoc inter audi- entes ferebant ' Constantinum petimus, Con- stantino imus auxilio.' " A distinct incident is added by the late and antagonistic Zosimus, but he tells us nothing of what hapjjened to Constantine, only of a prodigious number of owls which flocked to the walls of Rome when Maxentius crossed the Tiber (ii. 16). On the Christian side the only independent account of later date seems U) bo that of Sozo- men, i. 3, who afterwards gives the acc.omit of Eusebius. " Having determined to make an expedition against Maxentius, ho was natur- ally doubtful of the event of the conflict and of the assistance he should have. While he was in this anxiety he saw in a dream the sign of the cross flashing in the sky, and as he was 212 CONST ANTINUSn amazed at the sight, angels of God stood by him and said, ' O Constantine, in this con- quer ! ' It is said too that Christ appeared to him and shewed him the symbol of the cross, and ordered him to make one like it, and to use it in his wars as a mainstay and pledge of victory. Eusebius Pamphili, how- ever," etc. Rufinus also gives both accounts. Later writers repeat one or other of these nar- ratives, adding details of time and place, for which there is no warrant. That something took place during the cam- paign with Maxentius which fixed Constan- tine's mind upon Christ as his protector and upon the cross as his standard, no unpreju- diced person can deny. It is equally certain that he believed he had received this intima- tion by divine favour and as a divine call. Those who give him credit for inventing the whole story out of political considerations totally misapprehend his character. But two questions obviously remain to be discussed : (i) Which account is to be preferred, that of Eusebius or Sozomen ? (2) Can we speak of the circumstance as a miracle ? (i) Eusebius's account, being the most striking and resting on the authoritv of the emperor, has been most popularly received. It is open to obvious difficulties, arising from the silence of contemporaries and the lateness of the testimony. Dr. J. H. Newman, in his Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles, has said per- haps all that can be said for Eusebius. He thinks it probable that the panegyrist of 313 refers to this vision as the adverse omen which he will pass over and not raise unpleasant re- collections by repeating (cap. 2) — for the cross would be to Romans generally a sign of dis- may, and Constantine (says Eusebius) was at first much distressed in mind with regard to it. The panegyrist also praises Constantine for proceeding " contra haruspicum monita," and asserts " habes profecto aliquod cum ilia mente divina, Constantine, secretum, quae, delegata nostri diis minoribus cura, uni se tibi dignetur ostendere ? " Optatian also, writing c. 326, though he does not mention the vision, speaks of the cross as " caeleste signum." Those modern writers too, who think of a solar halo or parhelion as an explanation, pre- fer the account of Eusebius. J. A. Fahricius was perhaps the first to offer this explanation {Exercitatio Critica de Cruce Const. Mag. in his BibliothecaGraeca, vol. vi.), which is followed by Manso, Milman, Stanlev, Heinichen, and others.* The latter in his 24th Meletema gives a useful resume of the literature of the subject. Few historians adopt the alternative, which Schaff accepts, of a providential dream (§ 134). It IS difificult in fact to resist the impression that there was some objective sign visible in daylight, such as Eusebius describes, notwith- standmg the omission of it bv Lactantius. (2) Can this sign be considered a miracle ? The arguments for this conclusion are well put by Newman. He shews that little or nothing IS gamed by explaining the circumstances as a natural phenomenon or a subjective vision if once we allow it to be providential ; and that * Mr. Whymper has given a good picture of such a phenomenon, observed by him after the fatal accident on the first ascent of the Matterhorn (bcrambles amongst the Alps, I,ondon, 1871, p. 399) CONSTANTIUS I. a priori this seems a fitting juncture for a miracle to have been worked. " It was first a fitting rite of inauguration when Christianity was about to take its place among the powers to whom God has given rule over the earth ; next it was an encouragement and direction to Constantine himself and to the Christians who marched with him ; but it neither seems to have been intended nor to have operated as a display of divine power to the confusion of infidelity or error " (§ 155). Newman seems to be right in arguing that nothing is gained — in regard to difficulties like this — by transferring the event from the category of miracle to that of special Providence, [j.w.] Constantinus II., the eldest son of Constan- tine the Great by Fausta, born a.d. 312, was made Caesar in 316 together with Crispus, and his quinquennalia were celebrated by the panegyric of Nazarius in 321. At the death of his father, the empire being redivided, Constantine as the eldest son seems to have claimed Constantinople, but this was over- ruled, and he was placed over the West. Constantine thus came into contact with St. Athanasius in his exile at Treves, and at once took him under his protection. [Athana- sius. 1 In 340 Constantine invaded the dominions of Constans and penetrated into Lombardv, where he was killed in a small engagement. His dominions then went to Constans, who thus ruled the entire West. Of his character we know little or nothing. He appears to have been a staunch Catholic, but his attack upon the dominions of his brother Constans does not put his character in a favourable light. His short reign makes him very unimportant. [j-w.] Constantlus I. Flavius Valerius, surnamed Chlorus (6 XXiopos, " the pale "), Roman emperor, a.d. 305, 306, father of Constantine the Great, son of Eutropius, of a noble Dar- danian family, by Claudia, daughter of Crisp- us, brother of the emperors Claudius II. and Quintilius. Born c. a.d. 250. Distinguished by ability, valour, and virtue, Constantius became governor of Dalmatia under the emperor Cams, who was prevented by death from making him his successor. Diocletian (emperor, a.d. 284-305), to lighten the cares of empire, associated Maximian with himself ; and arranged that each emperor should appoint a co-regent caesar. Constantius was thus adopted by Maximian, and Galerius by Diocletian (Mar. i, a.d. 292). Each being obliged to repudiate his wife and marry the daughter of his adopted father, Constantius separated from Helena, the daughter of an innkeeper, who was not his legal wife but was mother of Constantine the Great, and married Theodora, stepdaughter of Maximian, by whom he had six children. As his share of the empire, Constantius received the provinces Gaul, Spain, and Britain. In a.d. 296 he re- united Britain to the empire, after the rebel- lion of Carausius, and an independence of ten years. In a.d. 305, after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and Con- stantius became Augusti, and ruled together. As the health of Constantius began to fail, he sent for his son Constantine, who was already exceedingly popular, and who was jealously kept by Galerius at his own court. Constan- CONST ANTI us II. tine escaped, and arrived at his father's camp at Gcssoriacum (Bouldgne-sur-Mer) before ! embarking on another expedition to Britain. In A.D. 306 Constantins died in the imperial palace at Eboracum (\'<)rk). He is described as one of the most excellent characters among j the later Romans. He took the keenest in- terest in the welfare of his people, and limited I his personal expenses to the verge of affecta- tion, declaring that " his most valued treasure 1 was in the hearts of his people." The Ciauls delighted to contrast his gentleness and moderation with the haughty sternness of (.ialerius. His internal administration was as honourable as his success in war. The Chris- tians always praised his tolerance and impar- tiality. Theophanes calls him XpicrTiav6<ppuM', a man of Christian principles. He had Chris- tians at his court, .\lthough a pagan, he disapproved of the persecution of Diocletian, and contented himself by closing a few rluirches and overthrowing some dilapidated buildings, respecting (as the author of the de Morte Persecuiorum says) the true ietnple of God. Christianity spread in Gaul under his peaceful rule, and at the end of the 4th cent, that province had more than 20 bishops. Eiitrop. ix. ; Aurel. Vict. Caes. 39, etc. ; Theoph. pp. 4-8, ed. Paris ; Bus. Vit. Const. i. 13-21 ; Lactantius, dc Morte Persecutorum, 15; Smith, D. of G. and R. Biog. ; Ccillier, iii. 48, 140. 570- [w.M.s.] Constantius II., son of Constantius the Great, was the second of the sons of Fausta, born at Sirmium Aug. 6, 317, and emperor 337-36I. De Broglie remarks of him (iii. pp. 7, 8), " Of the sons of Constantine he was the one who seemed best to reproduce the quali- ties of his father. Although very small in stature, and rendered almost deformed by his short and crooked legs, he had the same ad- dress as his father in military exercises, the same patience under fatigue, the same sobriety in diet, the same exemplary severity in all that had regard to continence. He put forward also, with the same love for uncontrolled pre- eminence, the same literary and theological pretensions : he loved to shew off his elo- quence and to harangue his courtiers." Victor, Qaes. 42, speaks well of Constantius: the writer of the Epitome credits him with some virtues but speaksof theeunuchs,etc.,whosurrounded him, and of the adverse influence of his wife Eusebia. Ammianus (xxi. 16) gives an elab- orate and balanced character of Constantius which seems to be fair. The Christian writers were naturally not partial to an emperor who leaned so constantly towards Arianism and was such a bitter persecutor of the Nicene faith, and did not scruple to call him Ahab, Pilate, and Judas. St. Athanasius neverthe- less addressed him in \'ery complimentary terms in the apology which he composed as late as 356. Constantius was not baptized till his last year, yet interfered in church matters with the most arrogant pretensions. Period i., 337-350. — Constantine II., Con- stans, Constantius II., Augusti. — On the death of Constantine, Constantius hurried to Con- stantinople for the funeral of his father. The armies, says Eusebiiis, declared unanimously that they would have none but his sons to succeed him (F. C. iv. 68) — to the exclusion, CONSTANTIUS II. 21.1 therefore, of his nephews Dalmalius and Han- nibalian. There followed shortly after a general massacre of the family of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora. Many writers, and those of such distinct views as St. Athanasius, Ammianus, and Zosimus as well as Julian, openly charge Constantius with being the author of this great crime, others imply only that he allowed it. Constantine and Constans are in no way implicated in it. A new divi- sion of empire followed ; for which purpose the brothers met at Sirmium. Speaking generally, Constantine had the west, Constans the centre, and Constantius the East. From the division of empire between Con- stans and Constantius we must date the beginnings of separation of the churches. The Eastern church recovered indeed at length from Arian and semi-.Arian influences, but the habit of division had been formed and varie- ties of theological c<'nception became accen- tuated ; then the Roman church grew rapidly in power and independence, having no rival (>{ any jiretcnsions in the VVest, while in the East the older apostolic sees were gradually subordinated to that of Constantinople, and the whole church w.is constantly distracted by imperial interference. Constantius was especially ready to inter- vene. In 341, in deference to the Dedication Council of Antioch, he forcibly intruded one Gregorius into the see of Alexandria ; in 342 he sent his magister equitum, Hermogenes, to drive Paulus from Constantinople, but he did not confirm Macedonius, the rival claimant (Socr. ii. 13). These events took place while St. Athanasius was received with honour at the court of Constans, for whose use he had prepared some books of Holy Scripture (Athan. Apolog. ad Const. 4). Constans deter- mined to convoke another oecumenical coun- cil, and obtained his brother's concurrence. The place fixed upon was Sardica, on the frontier of the Easfcrn and Western empires, where about 170 bishops met in 343. Then occurred the first great open rupture between East and West, the minority consisting of W'estern bishops siding with St. Athanasius, while the Eastern or Eusebian faction seceded to Philippopolis across the border. After the dissolution of the council Constans still at- tempted to enforce the decrees of Sardica, by requiring of his brother the restoration of Athanasius and Paulus, threatening force if it was refused (Socr. ii. 22 ; Soz. iii. 20). The shameful i)l'its of the Arian bp. of Antioch, Stephen, against the messengers of Constans were happily discovered, and the faith of Constantius ' in the party was somewhat shaken (St. Athan. Htst. Arian. ad num. 20; Theod. ii. 9, 10). The pressure of the war with Persia no doubt inclined him to avoid anything like a civil war, and he put a stop to some of the Arian persecutions. Ten months later — after the death of the intruded Gregory —he invited St. Athanasius to return to his see, which Athanasius did in 346, after a curious interview with the empenr at Anticch (see the letters in Socr. ii. 23 from Athan. \Apol. c. Arianos, 54 f.). Other exiled bishops :were likewise restored. In the West, meanwhile, Constans was occupied with the , Donatists, whose case had been one of the 214 CONSTANTIUS II. elements of division at Sardica. He sent a conciliatory mission to Africa, but his bounty was rudely refused by that Donatus who was now at the head of the sect — himself a secret Arian as well as a violent schismatic — with the famous phrase, " Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia ? " The turbulence of the Circum- cellions provoked the so-called " Macarian Persecution " ; some of the schismatics were put to death, others committed suicide, others were exiled, and so for a time union seemed to be produced. (Bright, pp. 58-60 ; Hefele, § 70, Synod of Carthage. The history is in Optatus Milev. iii. i, 2.) Early in the 3'ear 350 Constans was put to death, or rather forced to commit suicide, by the partisans of the usurper Magnentius. His death was a great loss to the orthodox party, whose sufferings durmg the next ten years were most intense. Period ii., 350-361. Constantitis sole Augus- tus. — The usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul seems to have been largely a movement of paganism against Christianity and of the provincial army against the court. It was closely followed by another, that of Vetranio in IlhTia. We need not follow the strange history of these civil wars, nor recount in detail how Vetranio was overcome by the eloquence of Constantius in 350, and Magnen- tius beaten in the bloody battle of Mursa, Sept. 351, that cost the Roman empire 50,000 men. Between these two events Constantius named his cousin, Gallus, caesar and attended the first council of Sirmium. Some time be- fore the battle he must have received the letter from St. Cyril of Jerusalem, describing a cross of light which appeared " on May 7, about the third hour," " above the holy Golgotha and stretching as far as the holy mount of Olives," and seen by the whole city. St. Cyril praises Constantius and reports this marvel as an encouragement to him in his campaign. The genuineness of the letter has however been doubted, especially from the word " consub- stantial " appearing in the doxology at the end. At the time of the battle of Mursa Constantius came much under the influence of Valens, the temporizing bishop of the place, who pretended that the victory was revealed to him by an angel, and from this time he appears more distinctly as a persecutor of the Nicene faith, which he endeavoured to crush in the West. His general character also under- went a change for the worse after the un- expected suicide of Magnentius, which put him in sole possession of the empire. It is difficult to say whether he appears to least advantage in the pages of Ammianus or of St. Athanasius. It would take too long to re- count the disgraceful proceedings at the coun- cil of Aries in 353. where the legates of the new Pope Liberius were misled, or at Milan in 355, when Constantius declared that his own will should serve the Westerns for a canon as it had served the Syrian bishops, and proceeded to banish and imprison no less than 147 of the chief orthodox clergy and laity (Hist. Ar. ad Man. 33, etc. ; see De Broglie, iii. p. 263). The most important sufferers were Eusebius of Vercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionvsius of Milan. Soon after followed the exile of Liberius, and in 355 that of Hosius. All this was intended to lead up to the final overthrow CONSTANTIUS H. of Athanasius. Early in 356 Syrianus, the duke of Egypt, began the open persecution of the Catholics at Alexandria, and Constantius, when appealed to, confirmed his actions and sent Heraclius to hand over all the churches to the Arians, which was done with great violence and cruelty (Hist. Ar. 54). George of Cappadocia was intruded into the see, and Athanasius was forced to hide in the desert. In the same year Hilary of Poictiers was banished to Phrygia. Meanwhile Constantius had been carrying on a persecution of even greater rigour against the adherents of Magnentius, which is de- scribed by Ammianus (xiv. 5), whose history begins at this period. His suspicions were also aroused against his cousin Gallus, whose violence and misgovernment in the East, especially in Antioch, were notorious. The means by which Constantius lured him into his power and then beheaded him are very characteristic (Amm. xiv. 11). At the end of the same year, 355, he determined to make his younger brother, Julian, caesar in his place, putting him over the provinces of Gaul, and marrying him to his sister Helena. In the church worse things were yet to come : the fall of Hosius, who accepted the creed of the second council of Sirmium, then that of Liberius, the first after torture and severe imprisonment, the second after two years of melancholy exile, both in 357. Of the numer- ous councils and synods at this time, the most famous and important was that of Rimini in 359, in conjunction with one in the East at Seleucia, when the political bishops succeeded in carrying an equivocal creed approved by the emperor, and omitting the homoousion. Constantius, tired of the long controversy, at- tempted to enforce unity by imposing the for- mula of Rimini everywhere, and a number of bishops of various parties were deposed (Soz. iv. 23, 24). In 360 Julian was proclaimed Augustus by his army, and proposed a division of the empire, which Constantius did not accept (Amm. xx. 8). A civil war was impend- ing : Constantius was at first contemptuous, but ere long began to be haunted with fears of death, and caused himself to be baptized by Euzoius, the Arian bp. of Antioch. He expired, after a painful illness, at Mopsucrene at the foot of mount Taurus, Nov. 4, 361 (Socr. ii. 47 ; Amm. xxi. 15). He was at least three times married : in 352 or 353, after the successful issue of the civil war, to Aurelia Eusebia, a very beautiful, accomplished, and gentle lady, but an Arian, who had great in- fluence with him. She died some time before the usurpation of Julian. Besides his wives, on whom he was accustomed to lean, his chief adviser was the eunuch Eusebius, of whom Ammianus says so sarcastically, " apud quem, si vere dici debet, multum Constantius pot- uit." He also trusted much to a detestable man the notary Paulus, nicknamed Catena. Another of the same class was Mercurius, called Comes Somniorum. These men, with an army of spies (curiosi), organized a reign of terror for three years after the overthrow of Magnentius, especially in Britain, acting par- ticularly on the laws against sacrifice and magic (cf. Liban. pro Aristophane, i. p. 430). Laws in Favour of Christianity. — These will CORNELIUS be found chiefly in the second title of book xvi. of the Theodosian code, headed tic e-f^iscof'is ecclcsiis ft dericis. In 337 the emperor eon- firmed all the privileges granted to the church of Rome, at that time under the emperor's nominee, Felix, whilst Liberius was in exile. Another rescript of the same year is addressed to Felix, more explicitly guaranteeing the im- munity from taxation and forced service. The next law (a.d. 360) refers to the synod of Rimini, and the opinion expressed by various bishops from different parts of Italy, and from Spain and Africa. The last law in the series (in 361) is remarkable, as the heading gives Julian the title of Augustus. Relations to Heathenism. — The state of things that we have seen in the last years of Constan- tine continued during his son's reign. There was the same disposition on the part of the empire to put down paganism and the same elements of reaction. In the West, especially in Rome, real heathenism still retained much of its vitality and still swayed the minds of the aristocracy and the populace ; in the East the supporters of the old religion were the philosophers and rhetoricians, men more at- tached to its literary and artistic associations than prepared to defend polytheism as a creed. They were mixed up with another class, the theurgists, practisers of a higher kind of magic which was particularly attractive to Julian. The following laws from the tenth title of book xvi. of the Theodosian code relate distinctly to heathen sacrifice. Sec. 2, in 341, issued by Constantius, says : " Cesset superstitio, sacrificiorum aboleatur insania," and refers to the law of Constantine noticed above. A year or two later (the date is un- certain and wrongly given in the code), Con- stantius and Constans ordered the temples in Roman territory to be kept intact for the pleasure of the Roman people, though all " superstition " is to be eradicated ; almost at the same time they issued a law to the prae- torian prefect inflicting death and confiscation on persons sacrificing. In 353 Constantius forbade the " nocturna sacrificia " permitted by Magnentius : in 356 he and Julian made it capital to sacrifice or worship images, [j-w.] Cornelius (2), bp. of Rome, successor of Fabianus, said to have been son of Castinus. After the martyrdom of Fabianus in Jan. 250. in the Decian persecution, the see remained vacant for a year and a half. In June, a.d. 251, Cornelius was elected to the vacant post ; and, although very reluctantly, he accepted an election almost unanimously made by both orders, during the life of a tyrant who had declared that he would rather' see a new pre- tender to the empire than a new bishop of Rome (Cyprian, Ep. iii.). Decius was at that time absent from Rome, prosecuting the Gothic war which ended in his death in the winter of the same year. The persecution of the Christians thus came to an end ; but then arose the difficult question of how tf) treat the libellatici. Christians who had bought their life by the acceptance of false certificates of having sacrificed to heathen gods. Cornelius took a line at variance with that of Cyprian and the church of Carthage, which required rigorous penance as the price of readmission, while Ronie prescribed milder terms. The diffcr- COSMAS 215 ence was kept alive bv the discontent of the minority within both the chun hes. This was represented at Carthage bv Nnvatus, who separated from the church when unable to obtain less harsh terms ; in Rome by a man of similar name, Novatian, who was in favour of greater rigour than the church would allow. Novatus crossed the sea to aid Novatian in designs at Rome which must have been directly opposed to his own at Carthage. Mainly by his influence Novatian was conse- crated a bishop, and thus constituted the head of a schismatic body in Rome. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. vi. 43) quotes from a letter of bp. Cornelius to bp. Fabius of Antioch, in which he gives an account of his rival, with statistics as to the number of Roman clergy in his day. These were 46 i^riests, 7 deacons, 7 subdeacons, 42 acolytes, 52 exorcists, 32 readers and ostiarii ; 1,300 widows and orphans were pro- vided for by the church. The Novatianist heresy gave rise to a cor- respondence between Cyprian and Cornelius. Persecution was revived in Rome by Gallus, and Cornelius, followed by almost the whole church (among whom were many restored libellatics), took refuge at Centumcellae in Etruria. There Cornelius died, and another bishop, Lucius, was at the head of the church when it returned. It is doubtful whether Cornelius died a violent death. Cyprian and Jerome both speak of him as a martyr. He died Sept. 14, 252. His name as a martyr has been found in the Catacombs at some little distance from those of other popes, and in a cemetery apparently devoted almost exclu- sively to the gens Cornelia, whence De Rossi argues that he probably belonged to that patrician gens (Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow, pp. 177-183). [g.h.m.] Cosmas (1) and Damianus, brothers, phy- sicians, " silverless " mart>rs. They became types of a class, the avdp-yvpoi, " silverless " martyrs, i.e. physicians who took no fees, but went about curing people gratis, and claiming as their reward that those whom they bene- fited should believe in Christ. They were certainly not earlier than the last quarter of the 3rd cent., and the legendsof martyrs of that time, whose fame is known only by popular tradition, seem in many cases to succeed natur- ally to the place of those heathen myths that were slowest to die. For Hercules, Christopher; for Apollo, Sebastian; for Diana, Ursula; for Proserpine, Agnes. Cosmas and Uamian take the place of Aesculapius, in whose story heathenism made the nearest approach to Christianity. The Greeks distinguished three pairs of these brothers, (i) July i, in the time of Carinus ; (2) Oct. 27. Arabs, with their brothers, Anthimus, Leontius, and Euprepius, martvred under Diocletian ; (3) Nov. i, sons of Theodote. (Meiwl.) For the legends con- nected with them see I). C. 13. (4-vol. ed.). The names were early inserted in the Canon of the Mass. fi:. H.H.I Cosmas (3), surnamed Indicopleustes (In- dian navigator), a native of Egypt, probably of Alexandria (lib. ii. 114, vi. 264), originally a merchant (lib. ii. 132, iii. 178, xi. ^^(^), who flourished about the middle of the 6th cent. In pursuit of his mercantile business he navi- gated the Mediterranean, Red Sea, and Persian 216 COSMAS Gulf, also visiting India and Ceylon. His travels enabled Cosmas to collect a large store of information respecting not only the coun- tries he visited, but also the more remote lands whose merchants he met. Weary of the world and its gains, he resigned his occupation as a merchant, and, embracing a monastic life, devoted his leisure to authorship, enriching his writings with descriptions of the countries he had vis'ited and with facts he had observed or learned from others. He was no retailer of travellers' wonders, and later researches have proved that his descriptions are as faithful as his philosophy is absurd. His Christian Topography (12 books) is his only work which has survived ; the last book is deficient in the Vatican MS. and imperfect in the Medicean. The work was not all pub- lished at one time, nor indeed originally planned in its present extent ; but gradually grew as book after book was added by him at the request of his friends, or to meet the objections of the opponents of his theory. The proximate date, a.d. 547, for the earlier books is afforded by the statement (lib. ii. 140) that, when he wrote, 25 years had elapsed since the expedition of Elesbaon, king of the Axiom- itae, against the Homeritae, which Pagi ad ann. dates a.d. 522. The later works were written about 13 years subsequently. Near the end of lib. x. he speaks of the recent death of Timotheus, patriarch of Alexandria, a.d. 536, and mentions his heretical successor Theodosius, a.d. 537. The chief design of the Christian Topography is " to confute the impious heresy of those who maintain that the earth is a globe, and not a flat oblong table, as is represented in the Scriptures" (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, c. xlvii. § i. note i.). The old objections of the Epicvureans are revived, and the plane surface is not circular as with Thales, but a parallelo- gram twice as long as broad, surrounded by the ocean. Its length from E. to W. is 12,000 miles ; its breadth from N. to S. 6,000. The parallelogram is symmetrically divided by four gulfs ; the Caspian (which joins the Ocean), the Arabian (Red Sea), the Persian, and that of the Romans (Mediterranean). Be- yond the ocean, on each side of the interior continent, lies another land, in which is the Garden of Eden. Here men lived till the Deluge, when Noah and his family crossed the intervening flood in the Ark, and peopled the present world. The rivers of Paradise he supposes to run under the sea, Alpheus-like, and to reappear in our earth. The Nile is the Gihon of Eden. The whole area is surrounded by lofty perpendicular walls, from the summit of which the sky stretches from N. to S. in a cylindrical vault, meeting similar vaults at either extremity (lib. iv. 186, 187). Our author divides this huge vaulted chamber into lower, second, and third stories. The dead occupy the nethermost division ; the middle compartment is the home of the living ; the uppermost, that of the blessed. Heaven is divided from the lower regions by a solid firmament, through which Christ penetrated — and that is the Kingdom of Heaven (lib. iv. 186-188). The vicissitudes of day and night are caused by a mountain of enormous bulk, rising at the N. extremity of the oblong area. Behind this COSMAS the sun passes in the evening, and reappears on the other side in the morning. The conical shape of the mountain produces the variation in the length of the night ; as the sun rises higher above, or sinks down towards the level of the earth. Eclipses are due to the same cause. The round shadow on the moon's disk is cast by the domical summit of the mountain (lib. iv. 188). The views on cosmography thus propounded, absurd and irrational as they appear to us, were those generally entertained by the Fathers of the church. Pinning their faith on the literal meaning of the words of Scripture ac- cording to its traditional interpretation, they deduced a system which had for them all the authority of a divine revelation, any depar- ture from which was regarded as impious and heretical. The arguments by which Cosmas supports his theory are chiefly built on isolated passages of Scripture, as interpreted by the early Fathers. Some, however, are drawn from reason and the nature of the case — e.g. the absurdity of the supposition of the existence of antipodean regions, inasmuch as the beings on the other side of the world must drop off, and the rain would fall upwards instead of downwards ; while the supposed rotatory motion of the universe is disproved by the disturbance that would be caused to the repose of the blessed in heaven by their being per- petually whirled through space. Cosmas de- nounces as heretics those who, following the false lights of science, venture to maintain opposite views, and speaks in terms of strong- est condemnation of " men who assume the name of Christians, and yet in contempt of Holy Scripture join with the pagans in assert- ing that the heavens are spherical. Such assertions are among the weapons hurled at the church. Inflamed by pride as if they were wiser than others, they profess to explain the movements of the heavens by geometrical and astronomical calculations " (lib. i. Prolog.). One of his strongest arguments in support of his plan of the universe is drawn from the form of the Tabernacle of Witness, which the words iiyiov KOdfj.iKov (Heb. ix. i) warrant him in considering to have been like Noah's Ark, ex- pressly constructed as an image of the world. The subjects of the 12 books are : (i ) Against those who claim to be Christians, and assert with pagans that the earth is spherical. (2) The Christian hypothesis as to the figure and position of the universe proved from Scripture. (3) The agreement on these points of the O.T. and N.T. (4) A brief recapitulation, and a description of the figure of the universe accord- ing to Scripture, and a confutation of the sphere. (5) A description of the Tabernacle and the agreement of the Prophets and Apostles. (6) The magnitude of the sun. (7) The duration of the heavens. (8) Hezekiah's song, and the retrogression of the sun. (9) The course of the stars. (10) Testimonies of the Fathers, including 11 citations from the Festal Epistles of Athanasins, and other im- portant Patristic fragments. (11) A descrip- tion of the animals of India, and of the island of Ceylon. (12) Testimonies of heathen writers to the antiquity of Holy Scripture. Setting aside the absurdities of his cosmo- graphical system, Cosmas is one of the most COSMAS valuable geographical writers of antiquity. His errors were those of his age, and rest chiefly on his reverence for the traditional interpretation of the Bible. But he was an acute observer and vivid describer, and his good faith is unquestionable. He seems well acquainted with the Indian peninsula, and names several places on its coast. He de- scribes it as the chief seat of the pepper trade, of which he gives a very rational account, and mentions Mali, in which Montfaucon recog- nizes the origin of Malabar, as much fre- quented by traflickers in that spice. He fur- nishes a detailed account of the island of Tap- )i'!\via (Ceylon), which he calls Sieliiiiba, then tlu- priiiciinil centre of trade between China [he calls the Chinese Tfd'irj'aO and the Persian Gulf and Red Sea, where the merchants ex- changed their costly wares, and the nations of the East obtained the advantages of commer- cial intercourse, which rapidly increased and had in his time assumed considerable import- ance. The connexion between Persia and India was at that time evidenced by the exist- fiicc of a large number of Christian churches, b'ltli on the coast of India and the islands of Socotra and Ceylnn, served by priests and deacons ordained by the Persian archbp. of Seleucia and subject to his jurisdiction, which had produced multitudes of faithful martyrs and monks (lib. iii. 170). These congregations appear to be identical with the Malabar Chris- tians of St. Thomas. His nth book contains a very graphic and faithful description of the more remarkable animal and vegetable pro- ductions of India and Ceylon, the rhinoceros, elephant, giraffe, hippopotamus, etc., the cocoa-nut tree, pepper tree, etc. His remarks on Scripture manifest a not altogether uncommon mixture of credulity and good sense. He mentions that, to the discomfiture of unbelievers, the marks of the chariot wheels of the Egyptians were still visible at Clysma, where the Israelites crossed the Red Sea (v. 194) ; but he explains the supposed miraculous preservation of the gar- ments of the Israelites (Deut. xxix. 5) as meaning no more than that they lacked nothing, since merchants visited them from adjacent countries with clothing and with the wheat of which the shewbread was made (v. 205). The catholic epistles he plainly relegates to the " Amphilegomena," making the errone- ous statement that such was the universal ancient tradition and that no early expositor comments upon them. The Ep. to the Hebrews he ascribes to St. Paul, and asserts that it, as well as the Gospel of St. Matt., was rendered into Gk. by St. Luke or St. Clement. Cosmas preserves a monument of very considerable historical value, consisting of two inscriptions relating to Ptolemy Euergetes, B.C. 247-222, and an unnamed king of the Axumitae, of later date. These were copied by him from the originals at the entrance of the city of Adule, an Aethiopian port on the Red Sea ; the former from a wedge-shaped bluck of basanite or touch-stone, standing behind a white marble chair, dedicated to Mars and ornamented with the figures of Hercules and Mercury, on which the latter inscription was engraved. Notwithstanding the different localities of the inscriptions and the fact that the third person CYPRIANUS 217 is used in the former, the first in the l.itt.r, the two have been carelcsslv printed ccintinni'uslv and regarded as both reiatiuR to the conquests of Ptolemy, who has been thus accredited with fabulous Aethiopian conquests. (So in Fabri- cius, Bibl. Grace, lib. iii. 25 ; cf. Vincent, Commerce, ii. 533-58<).) They were first dis- tinguished innn each other by Mr. Salt (Tor- ages and J'ravfls to India, etc., 1809, vol. iii. 192 ; Travels in Abyssinia, 1814, p. 412), and are printed with full comments bv liickh (Corpii.'! Inscript. Graec. 1848, vol. iii. fasc. ii. 50S-314). The inscription relating to Ptolemy describes his ci>iiquest of nearlv the whole of the empire of the Seleucidae, in Asia, which, says Dean Vincent (Aneient Commerce, ii- 53i)> " was scarcely discovered in historv till this monument prompted the inquirv, and was then established on proofs undeniable." Cf. Chishull, Autiq. Asiat. p. 76; Niebuhr, Vermischte Schriften, p. 401 ; Letronne, Materiaux pour Vhist. du Ckrislianisme en Egypte, etc. {1832), p. 401 ; Buttmann, Mus. der Altcrthumsw. ii. i, p. 105. A full account of this work is given by Photius (Cod. xxxvi.), under the inappropriate title ' Kpfxrjveio. eis \>K7dT(Vxoi>, but without the author's name. From this, Fabricius very needlessly questions whether the author was really named Cosmas, or whether that was an appellation coined to suit the subject of the work, like that of Joannes Climacus. Photiiis censures the homeliness f)f the style, which he considers hardly to approach mediocrity. But elegance or refinement of diction is not to be expected from a writer, who, in his own words (lib. ii. 124), destitute of literary training and entangled in business, had devoted his whole life to mercantile pursuits, and had to contend against the disadvantages of very infirm health and weak eyesight, incapacitating him for lengthened study. We learn from his own writings that Cosmas also wrote : (i) A Cosmographia Universalis, dedicated to a certain Constantine (lib. i. 113), the loss of which is lamented with tears by Montfaucon. (2) A work on the motions of the universe and the heavenly bodies, dedicated to the deacon Homologus (lib. i. 114, vii. 274). (3) 'TTro/j.vrj/j.aTa on the Canticles, dedicated to Theophilus (lib. vii. 300). (4) Exposition of the more difficult parts of the Psalms (Du Cange, Gloss. Graec. s.v. 'Ii'- diKonXevffTrji ; Bibl. CoiMin. p. 244). (.Montfaucon, Collect. Nov. Pal. Gk. (Paris, 1706), vol. ii. 113-346; Gallandi, Bibl. I'el. Patr. (Ven. 1765), vol. ix. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 515 ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. iii. 25 ; Vincent, Commerce, ii. 505-5". 533-537, 5^7 ; Bredow. Strabo, ii. 786-797 ; Thevcnfit, Coll. des voy- ages, vol. i. ; Gosselin, Geogr. syst. des Grecs, iii. 274 ; Manncrt, Kinleil. in der Geogr. d. Allen, 188-192; Chartoii, r'.\(/;,',s, vol. ii.) fic.v.] Cyprlanus (l) Thasclus Caeclllus. Name. — He is styled Thascius Cyprianus by the jiro- consul [Vit. Pontii), and styles himself " Cyjiri- anus qui et Thascius" in the singular heading of Ep. 66. He took the name Caecilius, according to Jerome (Cat. III. Vir. v.), from the presbyter who converted him, and is called Caecilius Cyprianus in the proscription (Ep. 66). Cyprian was an orator, and afterwards even 218 CYPRIANUS a teacher of rhetoric (" in tantam gloriam venit eloquentiae ut oratoriam quoque doceret Carthagini," Hieron. Comtn. Jon. c. 3, and cf. Aug. Serm. 312, § 4). It is not quite clear what is meant by Jerome in speaking of him as a former " adsertor idololatriae," and Augustine as " having decorated the crumbling doctrines of demons." His style is very polished, and, as Augustine points out, became more simple and beautiful with time, and (as his critic believed) with the purer taste of Christianity. He edited for Christians the phraseological dictionary of Cicero (see Har- tel's praef. ad fin.). His systematic habits and powers of business contributed greatly to his success as the first of church organizers. His address was dignified, conciliatory, affection- ate ; his looks attractive by their grave joyousness. He never assumed the philo- sopher's pall, which Tertullian his " master " maintained to be the only dress for Christians ; he thought its plainness pretentious. Augus- tine speaks of the tradition of his gentleness, and he never lost the friendship of heathens of high rank (Pont. 14). He was wealthy, his landed property considerable, and his house and gardens beautiful (Pont. Vit. ad Don. i. XV. xvi.). His conversion was then important in the series of men of letters and law who were at this time added to the church, and who so markedly surpass in style and culture their heathen contemporaries. Pearson rightly sets aside the inference of Baronius (from De Dei gratia) that Cyprian was old at his conversion, but that he was so seems to be stated, however obscurely, by Pontius (c. 2, " adhuc rudis fidei et cui nondum forsitan crederetur supergressus vetustatis actatem "). Christian doctrines, especially that of regeneration, had previously excited his wonder, but not his derision {ad Don. iii. iv.). He was converted by an aged presbyter, Caecilian. During his catechesis he analysed and conversed with the circle about him on Scripture Lives, devoted him- self to chastity, and sold some estates and distributed the proceeds to the poor. He composed, in his Quod Idola dii non sint, a Christian assault on Polytheism, freely com- piling the ist and and sections of his tract from Minucius, § 20-27, § 18, § 32, and his 3rd section from Tertullian's Apology, § 21-23, with some traces of Tert. de Anima naturaliter Christiana. A comparison of this pamphlet with the ori- ginals well illustrates his ideal of style. He mainly retains the very language, but erases whatever seemed rugged, ambiguous, or strained. He maintains a historical kernel of mythology, points out the low character of indigenous Roman worship ; illustrates the activity of deluding daemons from the scenes at exorcisms, of which, however, he scarcely seems (as Tertullian does) to have been an eye- witness. He contrasts this with the doctrine of Divine unity, which he describes nobly, but illustrates infelicitously. The history of Judaism, its rejection of its Messiah, and the effects which Christianity is producing in the individual and commencing on society bring him to his new standpoint. He is perhaps the first writer who uses the continuous sufferings of believers as evidence of their credibility. This restatement and co-ordination of previous CYPRIANUS arguments was probably not ineffective, but as yet Cyprian exhibits no conception that Christianity is to be a world-regenerating power. He deliberately excludes providence from history (Quod Id. v.). At the Easter following, the season most observed in Africa for this purpose, he was probably baptized, and to the autumn after we refer the ad Donatmn, a monologue, a brief Tusculan held in his own villa, on The Grace of God. It already exhibits Cyprian not as a spiritual analyst or subtle theologian, but ir- refragable in his appeals to the distinctly New Life which has appeared in the world, amid the contemporary degradations — the repudia- tion of the responsibility of wealth, the dis- ruption of the client-bond, the aspect of the criminal classes, the pauperization of the mass, and the systematic corruption by theatre and arena. For the present, however, withdrawal from the world into Christian circles is the only remedy in which he can hope. " Divine Grace " is an ascertained psychological fact, and this, though as yet narrow in application, is the subject of the treatise. He soon after sold, for the benefit of the poor, his horti, which some wealthy friends Ijought up afterwards and presented to him again. Meantime he resided with Caecilian. We can only understand the expression of Pontius (who lived similarly as a deacon with Cyprian), " erat sane illi etiam de nobis con- tubernium . . . Caeciliani," to mean that he was at that time " of our body," the diaconate. We find other instances of the closeness of this bond. Baronius and Bp. Fell are equally in- excusable in understanding what is said of Caecilian's family and of Job's wife as having any bearing upon the question of Cyprian's celibacy There is no indication of his having been married. Caecilian at his death com- mended his family to him, although not as officially curator or tutor, which would have contradicted both Christian and Roman usage. His Ordination. — His activity while a mem- ber of the ordo or concessus of presbyters is noticed, but he was yet a neophyte when he became bishop. The step was justified on the ground of his exceptional character, but the opposition organized by five presbyters was now and always a serious difficulty to him. The Plebes would listen to no refusal, and frustrated an attempt to escape. He subse- quently rests his title {Ep. 43, Ep. 66, Vit.) on their suffrages, and on the " judicium Dei," with the consensus of his fellow bishops. In ordinary cases he treats the election by neigh- bour bishops as necessary to a valid episcopate (Ep. 57, V. ; Ep. 59, vii. ; Ep. 66). From this time Cyprian is usually addressed both by others and by the Roman clergy as Papa, though the title is not attributed to the bp. of Rome until long after. An earlier instance of the use of the name occurs at Alexandria, but probably the fi;rst application of the name is traceable to Carthage. Some time between July 248 and April 249 Cyprian be- came bishop, a few months before the close of the " thirty years' peace " of the church. His Theory of the Episcopal Office seems to have been his own already, and as it supplies the key to his conception of church govern- ment may be stated at once. The episcopate CYPRIANUS succeededtothe Jewish priesthood ♦ (Efi>. 8, !.; 69, viii. ; 65 ; 67, i. ; Testim.'xu. 85) ; the bishop was the instructor (£/>. 50. xi. ; Unit, x.) and the judge (£/>. 17, ii.)- In this latter capacity he does nothing without the information and advice of presbyters, deacon, and laity. He is the apostle of his flock (Ep. 3, iii. ; 45 ; 66, iv.) by direct succession, and the diaconatc is the creation of his predecessors. The usual parallel between the three orders of the Chris- tian and Jewish ministry differs entirely from that drawn by Cyprian. The stress laid on the responsibility of the laity is very great. Though the virtue of the office is transmitted by another channel, it is they who, by the " aspiration of God," ad- dress to each bishop his call to enter on that " priesthood " and its grace, and it is their duty to withdraw from bis administration if he is a "sinner" (Ep. 67). The bishops do not co-opt into or enlarge their own college. Each is elected by his own Plebes. Hence he is the embodiment of it. " The bishop is in the church and the church in the bishop." They have no other representatives in councils ; he is naturally their " member." These views appear fully developed in his first epistle, and in the application of texts in his early Testi- monia ; it is incredible that they should have been borrowed from paganism, and unhis- torical to connect them with J udaizers. They are (although Cyprian does not dwell on this aspect) not incompatible with a recognition of the priesthood of the laity as full as that of Tertullian. The African episcopate had declined in character during the long peace ; many bishops were engaged in trade, agricul- ture, or usury, some were conspicuously fraudulent or immoral or too ignorant to instruct catechumens and avoid using here- tical compositions in public prayers (de Laps. 4 ; Ep. 65, iii. ; Auct. de Rebapt. ix. ; Aug. c. Don. vii. 45 ; Resp. ad Epp. [Sedatus]). Similarly among the presbyters strange occu- pations were possible (Tert. de Idol. cc. 7-9) and unmarried deacons shared their chambers with spiritual sisters who maintained their chastity to be unimpaired. The effect of the persecution was salutary on this state of things, and was felt to be so. To the eighteen months of " peace " which remained belong his Epp. 1-4, and the treatise on the dress of virgins, which answers to his description of his employment as " serving discipline " during that interval. In three of the letters his authority is invoked beyond his diocese, and wears something of a metropolitan aspect. Otherwise it is to be noticed that the African bishops rank by seniority. To these letters Mr. Shepherd has taken objections, which, if valid, would be fatal to the genuineness of much of the Cyprianic cf)rrespondence ; but a rigorous investigation of those objections is conclusive in favour of the epistles. De Habitu Virginum. — Many Christian women lived, as a " work of piety," the self- dedicated life of virgins in their own homes. Tertullian had killed the fashion of going un- veiled, which some had claimed as symbolic • The bishop alone i,s called sacerdos throughout the Cyprianic correspondence. The presbyter also answers to the Levitic tribe ; each congregation (diocese) to " the congregation of Israel." CYPRIANUS 210 of childlike innocence, yet with the avowed object of rendering their order attractive. Vanity, sentiment, and the sense of security were still mischievous elements, and Cvprian writes mainly against the extravagant fashions, half Roman, half Tyrian, in which the wealth- ier sisters appeared. His book, though in language drawing largely from Tertullian's treatise of similar title, resembles much nmre in matter and aim his Cullus Feminarum. Cyprian is here so minute and fastidious in his reduction of the violent rhetoric of Tertullian that this might almost pass for a masterly study of writing ; and Augustine regards it as a very perfect wi^rk, drawing from it illustra- tions both of the " grand " and of the " tem- perate " style (Aug. de Doctrina Christiana, bk. iv. pp. 78, 86). In estimating the prob- able influence of this booklet on ascetic life, it is not satisfactory to find that the incentives used are partly low and partly overstrained — the escape from married troubles, espousals with Christ, higher rank in the resurrection ; while efficiency in works of charity, the power of purity, self-sacrifice and intercession, are not dwelt upon. Testimonia ad Quirinum, libb. iii. — These, though not certainly belonging to this time, are more like his work now than afterwards. They are texts compiled for a layman (filius). I. in 24 heads on the succession of the Gentile to the Jewish church. II. 30 heads on the Deity, Messiahship, and salvation of Christ. III. 120 on Christian duty. The skill and toil of such a selection are admirable. The im- portance of the text in elucidation of the Latin versions then afloat is immense, and Hartel is quite dissatisfied with what he has been able to contribute to this object (Hartel, Praefat. Cyp. p. xxiii.). Decian Persecution. — Cyprian's conviction of the need of external chastisements for the worldliness of the church was supported by intimations which he felt to be supernatural. The edict which began to fulfil them in the end of A.D. 249 aimed at effecting its work by the removal of leaders, and at first fixed capital penalties on the bishops only (Rettberg, p. 54 ; Ep. 66, vii.). Monotheism, even when licensed (like Judaism), had an anti-national aspect, and Christianity could not be a licita religio, simply because it was not the established wor- ship of any locality or race. In this, and in the fact that torture was applied to procure not (as in other accusations) confession but denial of the charge (Apol. ii. ; Cyp. ad Detnet. xii. 11), in the encouragement of delation as to private meetings {Dig. xlviii. 4 ; Cod. ix. 8, iv. vi. vii.), and in the power given to magis- trates under standing edicts to apply the test of sacrifice at any moment to a neighbourhood or a person, lay the various unfairnesses of which Tertullian and Cyprian complain. Dio- nysius of Alexandria, and with him Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Maximus of Nola, Babylas of Antioch, Alexander of Jerusalem, Fabian of Rome, were all attacked, the last three martyred. There was no fanaticism of martyrdom as yet. It seemed wrong to ex- pose a successor to instant death, and no bishop was elected for 16 months at Rome. Like the former three, Cyprian placed himself (before the end of Jan. ; Lipsius, Rom. Bisch. 220 CYPRIAN US Chronol. p. 200) out of reach, and, with the same determination with which he afterwards pronounced that his time was come, refused conceahnent. The grounds for his retirement, consistently stated by himself, are the neces- sity of continuing the administration {Ep. 12, i. V. vi.), the danger which at Carthage he would have attracted to others {Epp. 7, 14), the riots it would have aroused {Ep. 43), and the insistence of Tertullus (Epp. 12, 14). The Cyprianic epistles of this period, passing be- tween the Roman presbyters, the Carthaginian bishop and certain imprisoned presbyters (Moyses, Maximus), deacons (Rutinus and Nicostratus), laymen, and particularly an imperfectly educated Carthaginian confessor Celerinus (whose ill-spelt letters Epp. 21 and 22 are extant), present, when worked out, a tesselated coherence with each other and with slight notices in Eusebius (vi. 43), which is absolutely convincing as to the originality and genuineness of the documents. The Lapsi. — Five commissioners in each town and the proconsul on circuit [Epp. 43, iii. ; 10; 56) administered the Decian edict. The sufferings by torture, stifling imprisonments, and even fire (14, 21) were very severe (Ep. 22). Women and boys were among the victims. Exile and confiscation were em- ployed. In the first terror there was a large voluntary abjuration of Christianity, whether literally by " the majority of his flock " (Ep. 11) may be uncertain, but Cyprian felt himself " seated in the ruins of his house." Scenes of painful vividness are touched in, but these must be passed by. Many of the clergy fell or fled, leaving scarcely enough for the daily duty of the city (Epp. 34, iv. ; 40 ; 29), as did many provincial bishops (Epp. 11, 59). Different classes of those who conformed were the Thurificati, Sacrificati (the more heinous) (Ep. 59), and Libellatici (q.v. in D. C. A., as also LiBELLi), whose self-excision was less palpable. Of this class there were some thousands (Ep. 24). Formation of a General Policy. — Cyprian from his retirement guided the policy of the whole West upon the tremendous questions of church communion which now arose, (i) Indifferentism offered the lapsed an easy re- turn by means of indulgences from, or in the names of, martyrs. (2) Puritanism barred all return. The Roman clergy first essayed to deal with the questioninconjunction with the clergy of Carthage independently of Cyprian, whose absence they invidiously deplore (Ep. viii.). Their letter was returned to them by Cyprian himself, with some caustic remarks on its style (which are singularly incorrect ; see Hartel's Praefatio, xlviii.) as well as on the irregularity of the step. After this an altered tone, and Novatian's marked style, is discernible in their letters (Epp. 30 and ? 36). The granting of indulgences (not by that name) to lapsed persons, by confessors and martyrs, which had been first questioned and then sharply criticised by Tertullian (ad Mart. 1 ; de Pudic. 22), grew very quickly under the influence of some of those clergy who had opposed Cyprian's election. The veneration for sufferers who seemed actually to be the saviours of Christianity was intense, and many heads were turned by the adulatory language CYPRIANUS of their greatest chiefs (cf. Ep. x. 24). Their libelli would presently have superseded all other terms of communion. A strange document (Ep. 23) is extant in the form of an absolution to " all the lapsed " from " all the confessors," which the bishops are desired to promulgate. Rioters in some of the provincial towns extorted communion from their presbyters (Ep. 27, iii.). At Rome itself the influence of Novatian with the confessors created a tendency to strictness rather than indulgence, and there were no such disorders, but they prevailed elsewhere (Epp. 27, 31, 32 ; Ep. 30, iv. 4 ; 30, vii.). Cyprian at once proposed by separate letters to his clergy and laity (to whom he writes with warm confidence), to various bishops, and to the Roman con- fessors and clergy (Epp. 15, 16, 17, 26), one general course of action : to reserve all cases of lapsed, without regard to the confessors' libelli, until episcopal councils at Rome and Carthage should lay down terms of readmis- sion for the deserving (Ep. 20 ; 55, iv.) ; then the bishops, with clergy and laity (Ep. 17, iv.; Ep. 31) assisting, to investigate each case ; public acknowledgment to be made, readmis- sion to be by imposition of hands by bishop and clergy. Meantime the arts of the con- fessors to be recognized (Ep. 20, iii.) so far as that persons in danger, who might hold a libellus, should be readmitted by any presby- ter, or in extremis by a deacon (Epp. 18, ig). All others to be exhorted to repentance, and commended with prayer to God at their deaths. The grounds he urged were — (i) the wideness of the question, which was too large for individual discretion (totius orbis, Ep. 19, iii. cf. 30, vi.). (2) That if restored at once the lapsed would have fared better than those who had borne the loss of all for Christ. These principles are developed also in the de Lapsis, which, however, is not quite as M. Freppel de- scribes it, " a resume of the letters," but a resume of the modified views of Cyprian a little later. In M. Freppel's Sorbonne Lectures (St. Cyprien, pp. 195-221) may be studied with profit the Ultramontane representation of this scheme as equivalent to the modern indulgence system, backed by assertions that the Roman church " indicated to Carthage the only course," which Cyprian "fully adopted." All, however, that the Roman clergy had recom- mended was mere readmission of sick peni- tents, without any conception of a policy, or of the method by which it could be worked. These are developed step by step in Epp. 17, 18, 19, and communicated to the Roman church (Ep. 20). In replying through Nova- tian (Ep. 30, see 55 V.) the Roman presbyters re-state and adopt them (pf. Ep. 31, vi. 41). Temper in Carthage. — Through the earlier part of the above section of correspondence is perceptible a reliance on the laity. The clergy do not reply to his letters (Ep. 18), they defer to the libelli, or use them against him (Ep. 27). In Ep. 17 he entreats the aid of the laity against them. When the concurrence of the African and Italian episcopate is obtained (Ep. 43, iii.), and that of Novatian and the Roman clergy and confessors (Epp. 30, 31), assuming a stronger tone (Ep. 32) with his own clergy, he requires them to circulate the whole correspondence, which is done (Ep. 55. CYPRIANUS iv.), and excoiuimiiiicatioii is aiiiioimccd against any who should allow communion except on the agreed terms. About Nov. 250, persecution relaxed (pos- sibly owing to the Gothic advance in Thrace), and though it was still unsafe for Cyprian to return, he endeavoured to deal with the dis- tress of sufferers who had lost their all, and to recruit the ranks of the clergy and allay tlie excitement among the lapsed, by a com- mission (vicarii) of three bishops, Caldonius, Herculanus, \'ictor, and two presbyters, Numi- dicus and Rogatian (Epp. 41, 26). Dtxlaration of Parties. — The excitement on the question of the lapsed is evinced by two classes of stories then afloat as to judgments following on unreconciled otTences and on pre- sumptuous communion {dc Lapsis, 24, 25, 26). Cvprian employed both to urge delay, but they d) not emanate from his party of moderation. At Carthage the party of laxity became promi- nent ; at Rome, that of exclusiveness. (i) The party of laxity was composed of ( uifessors, spoiled by flattery (de Laps. 20), i.i>hionable lapsi, who declined all penance [Laps. 30), influential ones, who had forced certain clergy to receive them, but also some clergy who united against Cyprian's policy with the five presbyters who had from the ♦irst resisted him. Of these, three were un- lihtedly Donatus, Gordius, Fortunatus I iran. Vit. Cyp. § xvii. ; Rettberg, pp. ,, 112). That the fourth was Gaius of r)idda, or Augendus, is but a guess. The principal in position and ability was the presbyter Novatus (Pearson's Jovinus and Maxiraus, and Pame- lius's Repostus and Felix are impossible). That Cyprian's five original opponents still acted against him is shewn by " olim secundum vestrasuflragia" {Ep. 43, v.), though in 43, ii. he seems only to conjecture their complicity with Felicissimus, whom Novatus had asso- ciated with himself as deacon in managing a district called Mons (possibly the Bozra itself) (Epp. 52, 50, 36). Cyprian complains of not having been consulted in this appointment, which, owing to the then position of the deacons, gave the party control of consider- able funds. All the arrangements hitherto agreed on were disregarded by them, Cyprian's missives unanswered, and his commission of relief treated as an invasion of the diaconal office of Felicissimus, who announced, while other lapsi were at once received into com- munion, that whoe\'er held communications with or accepted aid from the commission would be excluded from communion (jr relief from the Mons {Ep. 43, ii. ; Ep. 41, where the conjecture in morle, or references to Monte in Numidia, or to the Montenses at Rome, who were Donatists, and were never (anciently) confused with the Novatianists or called Mon- tanistae, are absurd ; though Hefele, Nova- tianischer Schisma, ap. Wetzer and Welte, K. Lexik. and Candles, t. ii. p. 232, countenances these confusions). It is with the name of Felicissimus that the lax party is generally connected (Ep. 43, iii. v. vii.), and he, with a fellow-deacon Augendus, a renegade bishop Repostus, and certain others, the five presby- ters not among them, was presently excom- municated. There is no evidence, nor any contemporary instance, to warrant the belief CYPRIANUS 221 that Novatus ordained I-'clicissinnis deacon (see the MSS. reading Ep. S2. " satellitem suum diaconum constituit," which Ilartel has unwanantably departed from), nor is there any such appearance of presbvterian principles in this party, as divines of anti-episcopal churches, Neander, Rettberg, d'Aubignf-, Keyscr, have freely assumed. The partv were in episcopal communion, took part in the episcopal election at Carthage, presently elected a new bishop for themselves, and pro- cured episcopal consecration for him. When Novatus visited Rome, he threw himself into the election then jiroceeding, and, after op- posing the candidate who was chosen, pro- cured episcopal consecration for his nominee there also. Felicissimus too must have been a deacon already, or he could not have in- volved himself and Novatus in the charge of defrauding the church (Epp. 52, i. ; 50, i.). (2) The Puritan Party. — The strength of the Puritans, on the other hand, was in Rome. A group of confessors there, of whom the presbyters Moyses and Maximus were the chief, united with Novatian and the clergy in approving Cyprian's proposals. The modifi- cation of discipline by mart>Ts' merits was never countenanced here (Ep.'2S, ii.) ; never- theless, Moyses, before his death (which prob- ably happened on the last day of 250), had condemned the extreme tendencies of No\a- tian towards the non-reconcilement of peni- tents (see Valesius's correct interpretation of Eus. vi. 43, and Routh, R. S. iii. p. 81). While Cornelius at Rome and Cyprian were moving towards greater leniency than their resolutions had embodied, Novatian, without questioning the hope of salvation for the lapsed, was now for making their exclusion perpetual, and teaching that the purity of the church could not otherwise be maintained. The earthly conditions of the invisible and visible church had not yet been discussed as the Donatists compelled them to be, and Nova- tian's growing error, though in the present application it completely severed him from Cyprian and the church, was not in principle different from that which Cyprian (though without producing a schism) held in relation to Baptism. Early in a.d. 251 the Roman confessors were liberated ; they lost whatever influence Moyses had exercised on them ; they had been drawn towards Novatian, and when Novatus, arriving from Carthage, attached himself to this party, because, though its Puritanism was alien to his own practices at home, it was the only opposition existing in the capital which threatened to overthrow the Cyprianic side, they were at once organized into a party to secure the election of a bp. of Rome who would break with Cyprian. The moment for election was given by the absence of Decius and his leading officers on the frontier or in lUyria on account of the base alliance of Priscus with Cniva, and the revolt of V'alens. The party of moderation, however, prevailed and secured the election of Cr>rnelius, and consecrated him in spite of himself by 16 bishops • (" vim " Ep. 55, vii.). • I,ipsius has shewn conclusively that the conse- cration of Cornelius was about Mar. 5 {Chronol. d. romischen Bischu/e, p. 18) ; the usual stattiucnt that it was in June introduces endless contradictions into 222 CYPRIANUS First Council. — Cyprian returned to Car- thage after Easter (Mar. 23) from his 14 months' absence (biennium), which seems to have been prolonged by a fear of the " faction" (Ep. 43, i.) rekindling persecution (Ep. 55, v.) by some demonstration. The bishops of the province met in April for the first council, held in Carthage, for half a century [Agrip- PiNus], but the discussion on the lapsed was postponed by letters from Rome, which Cyprian laid before them, viz. Cornelius's an- nouncement of his election (Ep. 45, ii.) and a temperate protest against it from Novatian (45, iv.) (Maran, p. Ix. misinterprets this against the sense of Baluze, whom he edits). The protest was soon followed by a mass of charges, which Cyprian declined to submit to the council. This was excellent policy, but at the same time a curious exercise of personal authority in that earliest type of returning freedom — the church council. At the same time he made them dispatch two of their number, Caldonius and Fortunatus, to Rome, to report. Caldonius was instructed to pro- cure attestations of the regularity of the ordination of Cornelius from bishops who had attended it (Ep. 44 and cf. 45, i.). Meantime, communications with the Roman church were to be addressed only to the clergy and not to Cornelius. (The statement of Lipsius, p. 204, on Ep. 45, v., is too strong.) He was also to lay before the clergy and laity, so as to guard them against clandestine influence, the whole correspondence about Felicissimus (Epp. 41, 43. 45. v.). The council, then reverting to its programme, was obliged to dispatch first the question of Felicissimus, since, if he were justified in his reception of the lapsed, no terms of communion need be discussed ; but if the main issue went against him they could not on such ex post facto ground deal with him disciplinarily. His offence consisted not in his theory, which might conceivably be correct, but in his readmitting people whose cases had been by due notice reserved. Cyp- rian, to his honour and like a good lawyer, was not present during the trial of his oppon- ent, who was condemned. He does not em- ploy the first person in relating it (Ep. 45, v.), as he always does of councils which he at- tended, and from Ep. 48 we must conclude that he was at Hadrumetum at that very time.* The programme of the council was again inter- rupted still more seriously. Two African the commoa account, and has obliged even Pearson to resort to unmanageable hj-potheses of long re- cesses in the first council of Carthage and of several journeys of Xovatus to Rome. • This absence of CjTjrian from the trial of his opponent solves difficulties otherwise insoluble. Pearson and Tillemont attribute to the council vari- ous adjournments, partly to dispose of the long period required by their false date for Cornelius's election, and partly to give room for the visit to Hadrumetum. Frequenter ado {Ep. 59, xvi.) means largely attended, not, as Pearson and Tillemont, as- sembled again and again. I^ipsius has ingeniously conjectured, to meet the second difficulty, that the council empowered Cyprian to recognize Cornelius after their dissolution, if he were satisfied. But the council, before breaking up, were abimdantly satis- fied, and directed him to be acknowledged (Ep. 45). So that it is out of the question that afterwards Cyprian should have gone to Hadrumetum and sus- pended its correspondence with Cornelius. CYPRIANUS bishops fresh from Rome, Stephanus and Pompeius, had brought evidence of the regularity of Cornelius's ordination (Ep. 55, vii.) as conclusive as the commissioners could have obtained, and the coimcil had expressed itself as formally satisfied (Ep. 45, i.) when four new delegates from Rome (Maximus, not the confessor ; Augendus, etc.) announced the consecration of Novatian to the Roman see. This surprise (for fuller details of which see Novatian) was prepared by the party of severity, who were disappointed by the election of Cornelius, stimulated by Evaristus, whom Cyprian regarded as the author of the movement (Ep. 50), and directed in their action by Novatus, who, possibly with- out being a mere adventurer, nor on the other hand at all deserving Neander's characteristic exculpations, had no doctrine of his own to maintain, but came to Rome simply to endeav- our to promote a supposed independence by frustrating the arrangements made by the bishops as to the reception or exclusion of the lapsed. At Carthage therefore he belonged to the broad party, at Rome to the narrow.* It is a mistake to suppose that his change of party was unnoted ; cf. Ep. 52, iii. (4), " dam- nare nunc audet sacrificantium manus," with Ep. 43, iii., " nunc se ad perniciem lapsorura verterunt," i.e. by indulgence. It is also a mistake (though Lipsius falls into it, and it is universal with the earlier writers) and intro- duces confusion into the history to assume that Novatus made several voyages to and fro. If his arrival be fixed soon after Mar. 5, A.D. 251, it will be found to solve the various problems. Their embassy to Carthage, re- jected by the council (" expulsi," Ep. 50, not from Africa, as Pearson), appealed to Cyprian (Ep. 44). They were not prepared to find that he had moved towards leniency as much as Novatian to severity from their late common standpoint ; and they are told plainly that their position must now be considered as ex- ternal to the church. Accepting this, they proceed to construct a schismatic episcopal body with wide alliances. Somewhere close to this point the treatise de Unitate, or the germ of it, was first delivered in the form of a speech, or a read pamphlet, to the council. We give an outline of it later. Messengers to Cornelius (Primitivus, Mettius, Nicephorus, an acolyte) then convey full accounts of the procedure, and inform him of his general recognition as bishop, t Simultaneously, • It may here clear some difficulties in Cyprian's letters which Maran and others have confused, if we observe that Stephen and Pompey left Rome before Novatian's consecration. It is clear from the sen- sation they produced that the Novatianist embassy brought the first news of it. The council could " refute and repel " its charges, because, though they had not received (expectavimus) their own commis- sioner's report (as Maran, V. Cyp. l.xi., erroneously), they had been satisfied by Stephen's. Hence super- venerunt, 44 i. (i), means " came on the top of our ex- pectancy," not "cameafter the Novatianist embassy." The council could not, as they did, have excommu- nicated the embassy at once, if up till then they had only received Cornelius's letters, of which they were seeking ratification. t There is no reason to suppose with I,ipsius (p. 204, n.) that any correspondence is lost, except the synodic epistle about Felicissimus, for Ep. 44 says expressly that the details will be given vivd voce. CYPRIANUS appeals, which were ultimately successful, were addressed by Cyprian to' the Roman confessors to detach themselves fn-m the schism in which they found themselves in- volved. The orijiinal work before the council, the restoration of the lapsed, had been facili- tated by the two episodes, which had cleared <)(T the extreme parties on cither side. They now listened to Cyprian's treatise on the lapsed ; but they inclined to a course even milder than he suggested, while they were less disposed than he to give the " Martyrcs " any \oice ill the decisions.* Their encyclical is lost, but the particulars are extricable from his Letter to Atitonian {Ep. 55), which, since it treats only of the restoration of the libel- latici, not of the lapsed, must be earlier than the second council, a.d. 252, and from the verbal resemblance of Ep. 54 (3) to 55 (v.) must be very near the event. We thence gather that they resolved — (i) On an indi- vidual examination of the libellatici ; (2) Episcopal restoration of non-sacrificers after penance (Ep. 55, v.) ; {3) Of sacrificers if penitents at death (55, xiv.) ; (4) No restora- tion of those who deferred penance till death (55, xix.). A Roman synod was held in June or July t by 60 bishops of Italy, who accepted these decisions, and excommunicated Novatian. Cornelius announced the facts in four (so Tillemont correctly) Greek (so Valois correctly) letters to Antioch (Eus. vi. 43), with two (non-extant) of Cyprian. Briefly tosum up the constitutional results of this first council of Carthage : i. The views of the primate are submitted to those of the council ; he admits the change (Ep. 55, iii.). 2. The intercession and merits of the martyrs, as affecting the conditions of restoration, are set aside entirely. 3. On the other hand (as against Novatian), no offences are considered to be beyond the regular power of the church to remit. 4 (against Felicissimus). No power except that of the authentic organization can fix terms of communion. It will be at once seen that the free council of bishops had taken position as a Christian institution, exercising supreme governmental functions, and had laid clear lines as to where church authority resided. They further ruled that there could be no subsequent canvassing of the claims of a bishop once ordained. The resolutions were issued in the name of the bishops only. The Reconciliation of the Novatianist Con- fessors at Rome. — A second embassy of Nova- tianists followed the report of the first, in order to press Cyprian home — Primus, Diony- sius, Nicostratus, Evaristus, and above all, NovATUs ; to whose leaving Rome Cyprian does not hesitate partly to ascribe his own • Ep. 54, iii. 55 V. 3. To postpone the appearance of the de Lapsis to Nov., as Pearson does, or to any moment after the council was over, is to attribute to Cyprian a publication quite out of date and recom- mendations already disposed of. Therefore, if " ultio," c. 1. is to be pressed to mean the death of Decius (which is not necessary, in spite of the consen- sus for it), it only shews that ours is a second ed. t The old date, Oct., Ls due to the mistake as to Cornelius's election. Jerome calls this synod " Rom- ana Italica Africana," as if it were one with the Carthaginian Synod [de Scr. lice. 66, Labbe, i. pp. 865-868), and from this phrase Baronius has imagined three coimcils. CYPRIANUS 223 next success (Ep. 52 (2), ii.). Cyprian's letters to the Novatianist confessors are among the most beautiful and skilful in the collection ; and Augustine cites no less than three times a passage from the letter on their return as embodying the absolute siriptural answer to puritan separations. It is the first exposition of the parable of the Tares, and St. Paul's image of the Great House. I'revailed on by the arguments used to them, and shocked by the consequences of their action, the whole party, with numtrniis adherents, returned to the Catholic side, and were i)Mblicly and magnanimously received, like the leaders of the same sect at Nicaea, and the Donatists at Carthage, and the Arians at Alexandria, without forfeit of dignity (Epp. 49, 52, 53, 46, 54, 51). To Cyprian this was more than an occasion of Christian joy. It was the triumph of his theory (Ep. 51 ad fin.). The date of this event may be accurately determined as being after the Carthaginian council (since Cyprian does not mention this as sitting, in his letters on the confessors, and he read the account of their recantation to the church, Ep. 51, not to the bishops), but prior to the R(^)man council, or else they would have been excom- municated by it, which they evidently were not ; and since Cyprian says they recanted on the departure of Novatus, it was after the second embassy had left Rome. Treatise on Unity. — The principles of this treatise, read in the council, and sent to the Roman confessors (Ep. 54), so shape all Cyp- rian's policy, that it is best to notice it here. It indicates its date minutely by allusions to the severe party (Novatian's) (iii. ministros, etc., viii. uno in loco, etc., ix. feritas, x. con- fessor, xi. episcopi nomen, xiii. aemuli), and by the absence of allusion to the lax party (Feli- cissimus), whose schism must have been noticed in such a paper if the question had not been concluded. In c. v. its original form as an address to bishops is traceable. The first appearance of Cyprian's characteristic error about baptism occurs in c. xi. Its first problem is the existence of schism (as distinct from heresy), " altar against altar," with freedom from corrupt doctrines and lives. The sole security is the ascertainment of the seat of authority and bond of unity. This is indicated by Christ's commission given once to Peter alone, yet again to all the apostles in the same terms. The oneness of the commis- sion and the equality of the commissioned were thus emphasized. The apostleship, con- tinued for ever in the episcopate, is thus uni- versal, yet one : each bishop's authority per- fect and independent, yet not forming with the others a mere agglomerate, but being a full tenure on a totality, like that of a shareholder in a joint-stock property. " Episcopatus unus est cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur." It is in the above definition, c. iv., that the famous interpolation has been made, which Roman authorities (Mgr. Freppel, late Professor at the Sorbonne, S. Cyprien et I'Egl. d'Afr. lect. 12; Prof. Hurter, of Innspruck, 55. PP. Opuscula, v. i. p. 72) even now fee! it important to retain. The loss of it sug- gested the endeavour to make up for it by weaving together other texts from Cyprian to prove that this one after all represented his 224 CYPRIANUS doctrine — an attempt which would certainly never have been dreamed of if this spurious passage had not seemed to make him so strong a support. Such special pleading is performed with fullest ability by P. Ballerini (a.d. 1756, de Vi ac Primatu Romm. Pontiff, xiii. § iii. ed. Westhoff, 1845). The MS. history is to be found fully in Hartel's preface, p. ix. p. xliii. It was rejected by Baluze (p. xiii. p. 397, p. 409, and Latini, Bib. S. p. 179 and praef.) and inserted by authority in the editions by Manu- tius and the Benedictines. The actual origin of the interpolation is partly in marginal glosses (as Latini proved) and partly in an Ep. of Pelagius, ii. (a.d. 854 ; Pelag. ii. Ep. 6 ; Labbe, vol. vi. p. 627 ; ed. Ven. 1729), who produces as " terrible testimonies of the Fathers" a passage of Augustine nowhere else found, as well as this one four centuries before it made its way into a manuscript. Its in- troduction of the primacy of Peter as the centre of unity is a clumsy interruption of the argument and an overthrowal of Cyprian's universal principle of the " copiosum corpus Episcoporum " (Ep. 68, iii. ; 55, xx.) as the core of the visible unity of the church. The rest of the treatise is the development in beautiful language, and the illustration from nature and scripture, of his principle. Schism is a divine test and prejudicial separation of unbelievers in principle. Lastly, unity in the visible church must mirror the unity of God and the faith, and separations are due, not so much to individual teachings as to a radical selfishness commonly sanctioned in religious, no less than in secular, life. The Working of the Legislation. — The legis- lation had been brought out by the clergy — naturally the austerer class ; the one which had most inducements not to fall. It was too severe. The approach of the great plague evoked edicts for sacrifice and roused super- stitions which renewed the popular feeling against Christians, and led to the magisterial and popular outbreak of a.d. 252, which is too formally called the Persecution of Gallus (Ep. 59, viii.), and which supernatural presages, not justified by the event, foreshewed as more cruel than that of Decius (Epp. 57, vi. ; 58, i.). Of the libellatics some rigorously tried to follow, others openly defied the conciliar en- actments (Epp. 57; 65, iii.; 68, ii.). Many palliations appeared on examination. A second council of 42 bishops at Carthage, held on May 15, 252 (Ep. 59, xiii.), determined to readmit without exception or postponement all who had continued penitent. Their synodic letter (Ep. 57), by Cyprian's hand, is a complete answer to his former sterner strain. The motive cause is the necessity of strengthening by communion those who will shortly be called to suffer.* The Nova- * Ep. 64. The synodic letter of the third council characterizes the ground for readmissioa accepted by the second council as necessitate cogente, and that of the first as infirmitate urgente, and blames bp. Therapius for having neglected both. Ep. 64, therefore, cannot, with Mr. Shepherd (Letter ii. p. 10, following I^ombert ap. Pearson, Ann. Cyp. p. 456), be dated before Ep. 57, nor (as Maran) synchronize with it ; for they could not censiu-e the neglect of a rule they were in the act of making ; and why should only 42 bishops have issued letter 57, out of 66 who issued Ep. 64 ? Add to which that 64 is written in a peace- CYPRIANUS tianists having attracted converts from heathenism and now given up hope of Cyprian, consecrated their legate Maximus to be (anti-) bishop of Carthage.* The lapsed of the lax party, not being penitents, were not admissible on the new conditions ; the party had in- creased to a number reckoned scarcely smaller than the Catholics (Ep. 59, xxi. 17), but the milder terms now offered would diminish them. The leaders therefore needed a more positive basis (Ep. 59, xv. xvi. [14]), and being taunted as the only unepiscopal body among^ Christians (Ep. 43, v.), procured the adhesion of Privatus, a deposed bishop (Ep. 59, xiii.), and consecrated Fortunatus a second anti- bishop in Carthage f by the hands of five bishops, t This fact was immensely exagger- ated (59, xiv. 11), and Felicissimus sailed to Rome as legate of his new chief, hoping that a recognition might be procured for numbers which would be useful against Novatianism. They reported the unpopularity of Cyprian at Carthage, and threatened to appeal, if rejected, to the Roman laity (Ep. 59, ii. iii. xxv.). Cornelius was disconcerted. Cyprian's ob- servations on this, which begin in a half sar- castic tone (Ep. 59, ii.), rise to glowing indig- nation, as he narrates the overwhelming work at this moment entailed on him by the ex- amination in presence of the plebes of the returning schismatics and libellatics. The demand for strictness in readmission comes (as usual after times of trial) from the mass.§ The leniency of the bishop and council, the gross mistake of a rival episcopacy, and the popular claim for discipHne, rapidly broke up the party (59, xxi.) and reduced its congrega- tion to a handful. Clerical Appeals under the Same Regulations. — It is not safe to assert that the terms of re- admission for clerics were considered separ- ately at the second council, but immediately after it is accepted that lapsed bishops and clerks could never resume orders (Ep. 55, ix.). ful time, such as began with Aemilian Ap. 253. See fuither Pearson's arguments, of which one is good, one inadequate. * Not earlier. Ep. 52 ii. Novatus has not yet made a bishop in Carthage. Ep. 59 xi. Maximus is spoken of as sent nuper (a.d. 251) consecrated nunc (the Ep. being subsequent to Id. Mai. a.d. 252). From Ep. 55 X. we find they had bishops in many places before Council II. The step, then, had been delayed in Carthage, and this must have been becaitse they still had hopes of Cyprian, which, though misplaced, seem to me not unnatural. t Dean Milman (Lai. Chr. vol. i. p. 48) apparently missed the fact that there were two anti-bishops, one of each extreme ; and also fell into the error of making Fortunatus a Novatianist. X These were Privatus of I^ambaese, condemned by a council of 90 bishops, under Donatus, C>'prian's predecessor; Felix, a pseudo-bishop of Privatus's making ; Repostus, a lapsed bishop ; Maximus and Jovinus, Sacrificati, whom, from their having been condemned by nine bishops, and then by the first council. I conclude to have been bishops. § Socrates's (v. 19) statement that this was the occasion on which Poenitentiaries were first appointed to hear private confession, seems counter to the whole spirit of the time. Sozomen (vii. 6) represents the Roman mode of penance much later, when the bishop is himself the fellow penitent and the absolver. This contradiction of his statement thrt Poenitentiaries were an institution in the West as well as the East shews how little was known of the origin or date of the otHce. CYPRIAN us In Ep. 65 Cyprian rests this on the Levitical institution and on his own visions. In Ep. 67, vi., however, he speaks of all bishops being agreed on this. In Ep. 72, iii., four years later, the principle extends to presbyters and deacons who had taken part in a heresy or schism. And at first sight it presents a singularly contradictory appearance of laxity that only Novatianists and Donatists held the indelibility of orders to be such that their recanting bishops resumed their functions (Optatus, i. p. 27). There are three cases : (I) Therapius, bp. of Bulla, admits Victor, a lapsed presbyter, without due penance. Fidus, bp., reports this to the third council of 67 bishops (.\.D. 253), considering that Victor should be re-excomniunicated. The council decline to rescind the boon of " God's priest," but censure Therapius, apparently in his place [Ep. 6+ — objurgare et instruxisse), for neglect- ing the terms of the second council without any consultation of the laity. The same letter {ad Fidum, 64) contains an important decision as to age of baptism. [Fidus.] (2) Fortunatus, bp. of Assurae, lapsed, and in his place was elected Epictetus ; but the lapsed party {Ep. 65, v. iii.) on their return claimed for him the function and emoluments. The ground of order would have been sufficient ; but Cyprian, with his characteristic error, urges the vitiation of any church function dis- charged by an unworthy minister, and recom- mends individual canvassing, if necessary, to unite the flock under Epictetus. (3) The most important case is that of Basilides and Martial, m .\.d. 254, when the Spanish churches of Leon, Astorga, and Merida appeal to Cyp- rian against the negligent decision of Steph- anus, now bp. of Rome, in favour of the restoration of their lapsed bishops. The letter of the Carthaginian council of 37 bishops, A.D. 254 {Ep. 67), penned by Cyprian, declares the verdict of the bp. of Rome mistaken and to be disregarded. This letter also insists on the duty of a laity to withdraw from com- munion with a " sacrilegious " or " sinful " bishop, and marks the universal sense that there resided in a congregation no power to make valid the sacramental acts of a nominee who lacked the note of true orders {Ep. 67, iii. ; cf. Routh, vol. iii. p. 152). Practical Organizations and Christian Culture. — (a) Captivity. — During the session of the council an extensive raid was executed by the Berbers, who, severely ruled as they were without any attempt to civilize them, were beginning that steady advance on Numidia which in a few years replaced the whole range of Ferratus in their possession. In 252 their front line reached from Thubunae on the salt- marsh to the terebinth forests of Tucca, and they deported large numbers of the Christians of no less than eight sees. Several inscriptions relate to this invasion (see Revue Afric. vols. iv. vii. viii.). About £800 were subscribed by the 60 bishops and Carthaginian com- munity {Ep. 62), and sent to them. (6) Plague. — But the great field on which the expanding powers of humanity were gathered up and animated by the church was opened by the great plague which reached Carthage in a.d. 252, having travelled two years from Ethiopia through Egypt. Great CYPRIANUS 225 physical disturbances had precedt d it {ad Dem. ii. i, vii. 5). The eruption and the brain affection which marked the plague of Athens are not recorded of this ; nor yet the pulmonary symptoms, which, perhaps, were not developed in the African climate. The other svmptoms seem to be identical, and the devastation far more awful, extensive, and enduring. It lasted 20 years ; reduced the population of Alexandria by half ; destroyed the armies of Valerian before Sapor ; kept the Goths off the Thracian border, and for some time killed 5,000 persons daily in Rome (Eutrop. ix. v.; Hist. Aug. Galli, v. p. 177; Dionys. ap. Ens. vii. 22 ; Greg. Nys. Vit. Greg. Thaiim. § 12). The efforts of the Em- perors Gallus and Valerian in burying the dead were appreciated, otherwise their efforts were confined to supplications to Saturn and .\polIo. (See three types of coins of Gallus in British Museum, and see Cohen, Medailles Imper. vol. iv. p. 270 ; Bandusi, vol. i. p. 58.) Horrible scenes of desertion and spoliation ensued in Carthage as in Athens {Pontii Vit. Cyp. and Cyp. ad Dem. 10 [8], 11 [9]), when universal physical terror or audacity over- powered all other sentiments. As in Neo- Caesarea and Alexandria so in Carthage, the Christian clergy stood out as the first cham- pions of life, health, and feeling. Cyprian addressed his community in a speech, which it was wished could have been delivered to the city from the rostrum, on the duty and divineness of prayer and help to the perse- cutors {Respondere Natalibus was his watch- word), and then proposed and carried a scheme for the systematic care of the city. Filled with his motives and under his influence rich and poor undertook the parts he assigned, raised a large fund, formed a nursing staff and burial staff, and allowed no religious dis- tinction in their ministrations. But their abstinence from religious processions and sacrifices marked the Christians as enemies of God and man, and the " Overseer of the Chris- tians " was demanded by name for a contest with a lion {Epp. 59, viii. ; 66, 44). The terrible work lasted on till his exile five years later, as we must conclude from Pontius's juxtaposition of the events, with his remark that exile was the reward for " withdrawmg from human sight a horror like hell." {€) Ad Demetrianum. — Their chief foe was an aged magistrate (sub ipso exitu Dem. 25 [22]), not the pro-consul (Pearson), but per- haps one of the five primores, formerly an inquirer into the truth of Christianity, in Cyprian's own friendship (i.), now himself an inventor of accusations (c. 2) and tortures, xii. (10). The pamphlet in which Cyprian assails him is much wider in its aim than Ter- tullian's ad Scapulam ; both have the rcmon- strailce against the suppression of the one natural worship, the appeal to the demeanour of the now prevalent sect ([jars paene major cujusque civitatis), to the effects of exorcism, and the influence through suffering of the Christians. But while Tertuilian for once re- frains from denunciation, and is almost gentle in his examples of warning, Cyprian's object is wider ; he answers the question, " W hence all this political and this physical misery ? " The heathen answer attributed it to the divine 10 226 CYPRIANUS displeasure at toleration. Cyprian accepts also a certain theory of mundane decrepitude, but bases his real reply on the general disso- lution of the bonds of society ; an important passage, perhaps the very earliest on slavery (viii. [6]), marks the exact stage reached by the Christian consciousness on this subject. So also the theory of Resentment is exhibited in a certain stage of purification, though some of the language would be intolerable now. The eternal conservation of beings for eternal suffering is laid down (xxiv. 21). The most original part of the essay is the development for the first time of the theory of Probation (already struck out in his slightly earlier epistle 58 to Thibaris) as grouping the pheno- mena of humanity. Jerome hastily (Ep. 83 ad Magn. ; Lact. Inst. 5, 4) criticizes Cyprian for advancing scriptural proofs to a heathen. But (i) Deraetrian ab-eady knew something of Christianity; {2) Cyprian does not quote authors' names, as to one familiar ; (3) he quotes nothing but plainly fulfilled pre- dictions. All which (as well as the classical tone and quotations) fits the case exactly, and answers Rettberg's incompetent conjecture that Demetrian is a fancy figure. ((/) On the Mortality. — This treatise, or epistle as Augustine calls it (he quotes it no less than six times), presents to the Christians the consolatory primitive view of the topics set threateningly before Demetrian. It is meant to elevate their view of both the per- secution and the plague, from which some expected providential exemptions, while others hated it only as an interference with martyr- dom ; he explains his theory of probation and of predictions as evidencing a divine plan. He cannot reject, but he gives a Christian turn to the general belief in the world's decay ; urges organizations for relief of suffering ; treats moral causes in society as affecting general and even physical phenomena. In c. xxvi. occurs what seems more than a coin- cidence with phrases in the Te Deum. In c. XX. he condemns the use of black for mourners. [e] On Work and Alms. — A pastoral, which may indeed be connected with the incidents of Ep. 62, but more probably has a wider refer- ence to the demands made by the plague and coincident troubles on the exertions and liberality of the Christians. Among circum- stances known to us directly it would be more natural to link it to the great speech which Pontius mentions as having been delivered at that time to the community. Here again we find Cyprian working out the new faith into a life-system ; philosophically (as in a kind of Tusculan) adjusting moral feeling and practice to the newly gained higher facts about God and Man. See cc. ix. x. xi. practically develop- ing that " loss is gain," and " gain is loss," to those who are within the care of Christ, xvi. Christianity becomes a social element which up- lifts the poor : their claims take precedence of family claims; the possession of a family only increases the obligation to Christ's poor. — In xxii. is a bold passage, almost Goethesque, in which Satan apostrophizes Christ on the superior liberality of his own school. — The doctrine of the first part i-vii. develops the unfortunate conception (roundly stated in Ep. CYPMANUS 55, xviii. [14]) of good works acting on sins done after baptism, as baptism acts to remit former sin. Neander [Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 391, Bohn) remarks that while this same thought appears in TertuUian (de Poenit.), yet no one person can be regarded as the author of it. It is a natural and popular materialistic germ of the doctrines of Rome on penance. if) The Exhortation to Confessorship is a practical manual of Scripture passages, con- nected by brief remarks, under 13 heads of reflection ; compiled at the request of a lay- man, Fortunatus. Its existence sufficiently indicates the extent of suffering which a per- secution developed. A more sober tone as to the perfections of the martyrs is perceptible. The introduction of the seven Maccabees not only as examples, but as a type of unity {ad Fort, xi.), dates this as later than de Unitate, where every other possible type is accumulated but not this one. The teaching on probation also marks the stage of his thoughts. He computes the world to be near 6,000 years old {ad Fort. ii. ; cf. Tert. de V. V. I). (g) On the Lord's Prayer. — To promote intel- ligent devotion was his next aim. This treat- ise is written with precision and with visible delight. The time is clearly shewn by his deductions on unity (xxiv. ; cf. de Unit. xiv. [12]) ; on the danger of withholding commu- nion from penitents {de Or. xviii.), and on the confessor's temptations to arrogance (xxiv.). Cyprian follows TertuUian freely, not tran- scribing as before ; adopts the African " ne nos patiaris induci " without remark (cf. Aug. de Dono Persev. vi. 12), and " fiat in caelo " {id. iii. 6) ; illustrates more fully from Scripture, and uses a different version. His silence prob- ably evinces Tertullian's success in remon- strating against superstitious observances in praying (Tert. Deor. xi. xvi.), and he does not, like his " master," hail the " confusion of nations " as a mark of the kingdom ; but in his expansion of the symbolism of praying thrice a day we have the earliest use of Trinitas in Latin as a name of Deity (in Tert. adv. Prax. 3, it is not exactly this). In a.d. 427 Augustine {Ep. ccxv.) used the treatise suc- cessfully with the monks of Adrumetum to prove the Pelagian errors contrary to the Cyprianic doctrine. He quotes this short treatise of " victoriosissimus Cyprianiis " else- where 13 times to the same effect. Yet not one term occurs in it which became technical in that controversy — a fact which would alone evince its early date. Mr. Shepherd, however (Fourth Letter to Dr. Maitland, 1853), has undertaken to prove that its writer was ac- quainted with the work of Chromatius {d. a.d. 406) and is more "sacramental" than that author, Gregory Nyssen, or Chrysostom, and than Augustine's doubt as to the application of the " daily bread " allows ; he observes that Venantius (6th cent.) does not use it, though his predecessor, Hilary, refers the readers of his commentary to it in preference to com- menting himself ; having thus satisfied him- self of the lateness of the Cyprianic treatise, Mr. Shepherd therefore asperses the genuine- ness of the great Augustinian works which cite it. A critical comparison with Chro- matius would require a minuteness and space here inadmissible, but the result of such CYPRIANUS investigation leaves no doubt that Cyprian is the middle term between Tertullian and Chro- matins. Briefly, Chromatins knows no argu- ment or illustration of TertuUian's which Cyprian has not employed ; almost every one of these has in Chromatins (though a most condensed prosaic writer) some additional Cyprianic touch or colour adhering to it. Observe too Chromatius's insertion of the negative, in his qui necdmn crediderunt (§ iv.), in mistaken elucidation of Cyprian's obscure in illis credcntibus {§ xvii.) precisely as later MSS. and editors have altered it. As to the Eucharistic language about daily bread, it is admittedly not more strong than in other Cyprianic treatises, nor visibly stronger than Chromatins. The Antiochene Fathers of course are not Eucharistic in this clause, because they followed Origen's interpretation of eiriovcno's. Augustine will not strictly limit the petition to the Eucharist (though for singular reasons. Serin. 56, 57, 58), but his more analytical, yet more mystical treatment of it is distinctly in a later mood than the simply moral handling of Cyprian. That Venantius does not men- tion Cyprian in his unfinished treatise surely demands no explanation. His aim is more theological and his language very compressed. But tinges of Cyprian are perceptible in the passages on Sonship ; perseverance ; reigning with Christ ; resistance to God's will, and our- selves being made heavenly to do it ; but we may add that Ambrose's omission to comment on vv. 1-5 of c. xi. is inexplicable, except for the existence of some standard treatise, such as is mentioned by Hilary (Mt. V.) : " De orationis sacramento necessitate nos com- mentandi Cyprianus liberavit." I nterval.—Covnelms' s exile, with others, to Civita Vecchia, his decease in June 253, as a martyr, in the then sense of the word, the short episcopate of Lucius, his exile, speedy return, and death, not later than Mar. 5, a.d. 254 (Cyp. Epp. 60, 61, 67, 68), find place in Cyprian's correspondence,* not without some undue exaggerations, as when he compares the re- appearance of Lucius to that of John Baptist, as heralding the advent. Not later than this we place the epistle (63) to bp. Caecilius, re- proving the omission of wine in the chalice, and distinctly indicating the symbolical im- portance of a mixed cup ; the necessity of a Congregation to constitute a sacrament ; the irregularity of evening communion. To Sept. 253, and its council of 66 bishops, be- longs the condemnation of the postponing for even a few days, on ritual grounds, the admin- istration of the other sacrament to infants. To it belongs the affair of Therapius, as above. Changed Relations with Rome, and Cyprian's Error of Rebaptism. — In a.d. 254 Easter was on April 23 ; Stephanus was made bp. of Rome May 12 ; the Carthaginian council met towards autumn (September ?). It had seemed to Cyprian a token of divine displeas- ure with the Novatianists that they did not suffer with the church ; and their prosperity might have seemed to form Stephen's policy in • On the death of Cornelius and his sepulture, see Mommsen, Chronog. vom Jahre 354, p. 631 ; de Rossi, Roma Salt. vol. ii. pp. 66-08 ; and on the true date of his death, as distinct from his festival, Lip- »ius, Chron. d. Pap. p. 192. CYPRIANUS 227 so anti-puritan a mould, except for his over- indulgence to Marcion, the Novatianist bp. of Aries {Ep. 68) ; but his was rather a policy of general resistance to the spiritual power compacted by Cyprian and Cornelius ; a policy of the widest comprehension on the one basis of submissiveness to his see. The cases of Basil- ides and Martial have been mentioned. Cyp- rian's tone to him is one of both compassion and dictation (Ep. 68), and from his letter to Florentius Pupienus (66) it is plain that others besides Stephen felt, rightly or wrongly, more than aversion to tiie inunense influence of Cyprian. And, although the whole church has decided that Stephen was right in the great controversy which arose, it was long before his character recovered the shock of his impetuous collision with Cyprian, and grew capable of his fictitious crown of martyrdom. The next group of documents belongs to a.d. 255 and 256, and is occupied with the contro- versy on rebaptism {Epp. 69-75, Senit. Epp. Ixxxvii.). For though Cyprian objects to that term (Ep. y^, i.), catholic doctrine insists on the assertion it involves. Notwithstanding the council of Agrippinus, and the reception of thousands of heretics by rebaptism in the .\frican church (Ep. 73, iii.), numbers had been readmitted without it (Ep. 73, xxiii. ; Aug. says the practice had fallen off). On the other hand, though Stephen appeals to the constant tradition of his church against rebaptizing, this is simply to ignore the action of Callistus (Hippolytus, p. 291, a passage which is against the idea of that author's Novatianism, but which Hefele monstrously wants to apply to Agrippinus [Hist, des Conciles, vol. i. p. 87, Paris]). An allusion to Stephen (Ep. 69, x.) seems to imply that Stephen stirred the ques- tion first. Rettberg considers, after Maran, that his Oriental dispute had already occurred (p. 170). So Hefele. But this is not neces- sary. Cyprian (de Un. xi.) early committed himself to language as strong as he ever used again. The original inquiry is whether the non-heretical Novatianists, baptized as such, can be received to catholic communion. It extended itself (73, iv.), until the cases of Marcionites and even Ophites were debated ; Stephen would include, and Cyprian exclude, all. At first the difficulty was only " Is not the exclusive African practice itself a Nova- tianist mark — being otherwise used only in that sect ? " Our briefest method will be first to enumerate the documents, and then to classify their often repeated arguments. (i) Magnus, a layman, makes the first ap- plication, and is replied to by Cyprian with affectionate respect (Ep. 69). (2) The bishops of Numidia, who, though without formal vote, had adopted the practice, apply next ; the reply is from 33 bishops of Africa, with the presbyters of Carthage (Ep. 71). This is Cyprian's 5//; Council and ist on Baptism. Ep. 70 is their conciliar declaration of the necessity of (rc)baptism. (3) A Mauritaniau bishop, Quintus, is answered in Ep. 71, enclosing £/>. 70, now widely circulated (71, iv.), breathing an injured tone as towards Stephen, and indicating that the council had not been unanimous (Ep. 71, i., plurimi . . . nescic qua praesumpticme quidani). (4) The de Bono Palientiae was published abouC 228 CYPRIANUS this time, to be, without one word upon the subject matter of the controversy, a calming voice in the rising storm. The de Zelo el Livore is generally (and probably) thought to be a very little later in date, and similar in piurpose. It is equally reticent on passing events, unless (in vi. 5) there may be an allu- sion to Novatian. There are a few close verbal resemblances between the two treatises, es- pecially in de Pat. xix. (11) and de Zelo, iv. and v. (5) Next year, a.d. 256, the 6th Council under Cyprian and 2nd on Baptism, composed of 71 bishops, Numidian and Afri- can,* unanimously reaffirm the opinion in an unconciliatory synodical epistle to Stephen, conscious of the offence they will give, and enclosing Epp. 70 and 71. This epistle is mentioned by Jerome, adv. Lucif. But Augustine {Resp. ad Epp. 15) seems not to have seen it, which is strange. (6) Jubaian, a bp. of Mauritania, forwards to Cyprian a copy of a paper there circulating, with some authority, which recognizes even Marcion's baptism {Ep. 73, iv.). It may have been issued by one of those native bishops who dissented {Sentt. Epp. 59, 38, and cf. Aug. Resp. ad Epp. 52, con. Donat. vii. 16, 6). Rett- berg agrees with " Constant. Ep. Ponttf. p. 226," that it was Stephen's letter to the East. Cyprian sent J ubaian a reply so elaborate that, at the final council, he read it aloud as his own best exposition of his views, with Jubaian's convinced answer. Cyprian's letter was accompanied with all the documents sent to Stephen, and a copy of his Patience. (7) A deputation of bishops waited on Stephen but were not received [Ep. 75, xxv.) ; the letter which they bore was answered (74, i.) in terms appreciative of the greatness of the question (75, xvii.) but not arguing it, charitable to the separatists, af&rming the tradition (75, v. ; 73, xiii.), resting on the authority of the see (75, xvii.), and styling Cyprian " a pseudo-Christ, a pseudo-apostle and treacherous worker." It would be unfair not to recognize anxiety under the word " treacherous," while Fabian of Antioch, by dallying with Novatianism, was complicating Stephen's position ; and Cyp- rian's own language as to " favourers of Antichrist " (69, x.) had exposed him to re- taliation. Stephen had circulated in the East a paper which awakened " lites et dissensiones per ecclesias totius mundi " (75, xxiv.), declar- ing he would hold no communion with bishops who used second baptism [Ep. 75, xxiv. ; 74, viii. ; Dionys. Al. ap. Eus. vii. 5).t The natural reply of the metropolitan of Cappa- docia was " Thou hast excommunicated thy- self." The general history of rebaptism must be read elsewhere, but it was held in Cappadocia, Pamphylia, and other regions of Asia Minor as a practice received from " Christ and from the apostle " (75, xix.), and it had been confirmed by the councils of Synnada and Iconium.J Dionysius the Great recom- • A.D. 312. The relations of Numidia with Carth- age seem unsettled (Hefele, Conciles, vol. i. p. 170). t H. Valois is right, I believe, in thmking this a threat. Routh thinks it was actual excommunica- tion, and lyipsius that he excommunicated Cypr an. Several bishops of the seventh council were very early in the Roman calendar for iv. Id. Sep. X I,ipsius's reasons (pp. 219, 220) for datmg Ico- CYPRIANUS mended forbearance to Stephen, and to the eminent Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon.* (8) Pompey, bp. of Sabrata on the Syrtis, was the next inquirer, asking for Stephen's reply (Ep. 74). Cyprian sends it with the antidote, a fine letter, though not moderate, closing with an amendment on the canon of Stephen. Pompey was convinced if he had wavered, and his proxy at the council was presented by his neighbour the bp. of Oea. (9) The 7th council of Carthage, or 3rd on baptism, held Sept. i, a.d. 256. Eighty- seven bishops of all the three provinces, with presbyters and deacons, met in the presence of a vast laity, t The council opened with the reading of the Jubaian correspondence, and the letter to Stephen [Sent. 8), and with a brief speech from Cyprian, large and pacific (Aug. R. Epp.). Each bishop then by seniority delivered his opinion, of which we have a verbal report : from some a good argument, from some a text, an antithesis, an analogy, or a fancy : here a rhetorical sentence, there a solecism or an unfinished clause ; a simple restatement, a personality, a fanaticism ; two of the juniors vote with the majority on the ground of inexperience. But on the whole we must admire the temper and the ability of so large a number of speakers. The council had a great moral effect. It kept Roman influence at bay for a long time. Jerome is mistaken in asserting, in his youthful contra Lucif erianos, that these Fathers recanted. The custom was not specifically repealed till the synod of Aries, nor for Asia Minor till the first of Constantinople. But, from peculiar cir- cumstances, it was specially accepted in the East, and is the basis now of the rebaptism by the Jacobites, not only of heretics and Nestor- ians, but of orthodox Christians. J Before nium so late as a.d. 255 are surely quite insulBcient. Eusebius (vii. 3) says Cyprian was Trpwro? Ttoi/ xore to ] hold lebaptism, which is a most accurate expression. I He has already said that it had been held in very populous churches, and has told us of the old council of Agrippinta which declared it. Asia had quietly continued, Africa had mostly dropped the practice, I and CjTjrian was the first Twr Tore to revive it. I,ip- j sius is actually driven by his own special pleading to I say there were two synods of Iconium " which must 1 not be confounded," one named by Firmilian, and one ! by Dionysius— about the baptism of heretics— at I the same place— at a very considerable interval — both making exactly the same declaration. * Jerome (Script. Ecc.) says Dionysius took the strict view. He himself seems (Eus. vii. 9) to say the opposite, and cf. vii. 7. t I believe this to be a simple and sufficient accotmt of the circimistances of the correspondence, and Mosheim's and Rettberg's little amusement of inventing lost docmnents is unnecessary. The letter of Stephanus shewn to Pompeius is the same which Firmilian saw. The legation of course presented the synodal letter, which was meant to be final : accord- ingly Ci.'prian (in Senit. Ep.) speaks of the question as resting henceforth with individual bishops. X Of the seventh coimcil Mr. Shepherd saj'S, " M'onderful to say, it has a date." So has the second (Ep. 59, xlii.). Of another event he remarks, " It would have been far more natural to have said a.d. 180, or some such date." It would have been an excessively interesting use of the Christian era, and Mr. Shepherd has doubtless noted the careful dates of other documents, TertuUian's historical allusions, Augustine's letters. The paucity of dates is, however, singular. It may have some connexion with the Airjcan hostility, even to civil usages de- pendent on heathenism. The DonatisU at Carthage, CYPRIANUS the winter of 256* Cyprian's messengers to Firmilian returned with (10) his reply, the most enthusiastic letter of the series. We have it in Cyprian's translation from the Greek. t It has points of great interest ; compares the bp. of Rome to Judas ; shews the antiquity of rebaptism in Asia ; touches on their annual synods ; the fixed and extem- pore portions of the liturgy ; the quasi-supre- macy of Jerusalem ; the unity under wide divisions. For arguments to the point it relies on Cyprian's letters. We will now briefly classify Cyprian's argu- ments and the answers to them, avoiding the niaking him responsible for his partisans, whose judgment in council (vii.) differs mucli from his. Firmilian, on the other hand, summarizes sensibly. Cyprian then urges for rebaptism (A), Objective grounds. (a) The unity of the church, viz. that in the critical point of " church and non-church," schism does not differ from heresy (69, iii.) : the representation of sacred acts outside not equivalent to sacred acts within : " one Lord, one faith," there may be, but not " one baptism," for this implies " one church," which the schismatic renounces. (6) Unity of Belief. In its African form the creed ran, " Dost thou believe the remission of sins and life everlasting through holy church ? " and was accordingly null at the moment of baptism away from the church, (c) Baptism is a function of holy orders on account of its remis- sory virtue in respect of sin (not Tertnllian's doctrine [de Bap. xvii.]), and holy orders have no being outside the church (73, vii.), so that the whole question of episcopal authority as the bond of unity and divine organization is A.D. 411, treat the fact that the .Acts of the council of Cirta, a.d. 305, commence with the consular date as an evidence against their genuineness. The Cath- olics reply, that though the Donatists avoid dates, the Catholic- use them. But it may be that the Donatists preserve the old puritanic tradition. Cf. Aug. Brev. Coll. c. Don. p. 569, aii. diei, cap. xv. § 26, 27. (Athanasius's objection to the date in the creed of Sirmio is of another colour.) For an account of the Romanist assaults on it, see Rettberg, pp. 189, 190. Augustine accepted it, when some wished to make it of Donatist origin, on the ground of its con- taining so much against Donatism. * Stephen died, and Cyprian was exiled before the winter of 257. t It is impossible not to recognize Cyprian's style in it ; efjually impossible not to see the Gk. [.\] in some of its compound phrases and coupled epithets {e.g. i. magnam voluntatis caritatem in unum con- venire ; iii. velociter currentes, iv. quoniam sermo . . . distribuatur, etc.). [B] In the literal (sometimes awkward) rendering of words : iv. seniores et prae- positi (= prcsbyteri et epicopi) for Trpetrffurepoi xai rpottTTw-f? ; vii. praesident majores nalu, where Cyprian could not have used prcsbyteri, and yet age is not to the point ; fratribus tam longe positis (naxpii' Kf.^fi'oi?) ; V. inexcusabilem ; vi. cos qui Romae sunt ; aequaliter quae ; vii. po%side>U potcs- tatem ; x. nee ve-xari in aliquo ; quamvis ad imagin- em veritatis tamen ; xxiii. volentibus vivcre ; xii. Nos etiam illos quos hi qui. [C] Instances where the Gk. is not thoroughly mastered : viii. nisi si his episcopis quihus nunc minor fuit Paulus (? riii/ vin) ; xii. ut per cos qui cum ipsi, etc. ; cum unmeaning— observe in ix. patriae of local persecutions in .isia Minor. The remarkable translation of Lph. 4, 3, in xxiv. is in the same words as in three other places of CjTJrian, and differs from every other known render- ing ; even the .\frican Nemesianus in this councD uses curantes instead of salisagentes. CYPRIANUS 220 involved ♦ {Ep. 72, i.), and if external baptism is true, the church has manv centres ; not one foundation rock, but several (75, xvii.). The separatist teacher surrenders (70, ii.) the ani- mating, unifying Spirit, and cannot through his personal earnestness convey that Spirit to followers by baptizing them t (P.p. 60). (d) The imposition of hands on the readmitted separatist expresses that he has not, but needs to receive, the Holy Ghost ; Stephen's party use this rite, and quote the apostles at Samaria as an example. But without that Spirit how could the separatist consecrate even the water or the unction of confirmation ? {Ep. 70, i. ; cf. Sentt. Epp. i8 ; on the significance of this "royal " oil, see Bunsen ; and on the Nova- tianist disuse of it, Routh, vol. iii. pp. 69, 70). Above all, how give the New Birth which, as the essence of the sacrament, is essentially the Spirit's act (Ep. 74, v. vi. etc.) ? (e) Baptism in the absence of the Spirit is a Judaic, a carnal rite : a defilement ; more than a de- ceiving semblance, a material pollution (Ep. 75, xiii. ; 72, i. ; 73, xxi. ; 69, xvi. ; cf. Seda- tus, Sentt. Epp. i8 ; Victor Gordub. Sent., whom Augustine criticizes as going to lengths beyond Cyprian ; still the frightful expression of de Unit. xi. involves all this). The pre- tender can " neither justify nor sanctify " (69, x.), who but the holy can hallow (69, ii.) ? who but the living give life (71, i.) ? (/) Christ not present to make up for the umvorthiness of the minister. For if so His Spirit could not be absent (75, xii.), and that He is absent is ad- mitted by the necessity for imposition of hands (id. xiii.). (B) Subjective Grounds, {a) Faith of re- cipient insufficient [Epp. 73, 75, ix.) : to be effective must be true ; but is deficient in a cardinal point, viz. the remission of sins by the church ; even if not false and, as often, blas- phemous (73, iv. V ; 74). (b) Not secured by the formxtla. In the Roman church there was still such absence of rigidity that it was argued that without the Trinal form baptism into Christ's name sufficed (Ep. 74, v.). Cyprian however points to the clear words of institu- tion, and appeals to common reason to decide whether one is truly baptized into the Son who deniestHis Humanitv (Ep. 73, v.),t or treats the God of the O. t. as evil (74, iii.) : even if the genuine formula be used, still the rite is no question of words ; the absent Christ and Spirit are not bound by them as a spell. (c) Incapable of definition. It is not the church's part to graduate departures from the faith. Even death in behalf of a heresy can- not restore to the church. If what is univer- sallv accepted as ipso facto baptism (in blood) is iinavailing, how can ordinary extraneous baptism be more (Ep. 73. xxi. ; de Unit. xiv. (12) xix. ; or Dom. xxiv.) ? (C) The historical argument is handled by Cyprian in the most masterly way. (a) Usage is not worth considering as more than an apology for ignorance ; cannot be matched • This view becomes " ChrLslus baptizandi poles- tatem ei)Lscopis dedit " in Uic mouth of one of the bishops {Senlt. Ep. 17). t " Qui non habct (iuomo<lo dat ? " became a catchword of the Donatists. The reply of the Cath- olics was " Deum esse datorem " (Optat. p. 103). X The basis of this is Terl. de Bapt. xv. 230 CYPRIANUS against reason (71, iii. 73) ; (b) is not universal on side of Stephen {Ep. 71) ; (c) cannot be inferred from the non-baptism of restored perverts : their case differs from that of heathens, who had (to begin with) been made heretics, not Christians, {d) The practice of heretical bodies, which had always recognized any previous baptism, was no example to the church (74, iv.) ; nor could the Novatianist practice of rebaptism be a warning against it (73, ii.) ; it was either accidental coincidence or imitation {simiaruni more), and, if the latter, it was evidence, (e) Casuistic difficulties upon the necessity of " regeneration within the church " as to the position of unbaptized mar- tyrs {73, xxii.), heretics hitherto readmitted and deceased (xxiv.), cases of rebaptism where baptism had been \'alid, baptism by a de- moniac, are met by Cyprian with a breadth of which St. Augustine [contra Crescon. ii. 41) says, in the midst of his refutation, " such simplicity is enough for me." (D) Biblical Arguments. — The familiar ones need no more than enumeration : the one loaf ; one cup ; the ark ; the schismatic (not heretical) gainsaying of Korah ; the apostles' baptism of men who had already received the Spirit, a fortiori needed for those who con- fessedly had not. We may admire the in- genuity with which he treats such passages as Acts ii. 38, in Ep. 73, xvii., or Phil. i. 18, in Ep. 74, 75, 73, xiv. ; but about many Cyprian might fairly be addressed in the words which Optatus (b. iv. p. 96) uses to Parmenian : " You batter the law to such purpose that wherever you find the word Water there you conjure out of it some sense to our disadvan- tage." He probably originated the applica- tion of Ecclus. xxxiv. 25, " Qui baptizatur a mortuo quid proficit lavatio ejus," which the Donatists constantly quote against Augustine, and which Augustine answers only by referring mortuus to a heathen priest or vicious Chris- tian instead of a heretic. He quotes several times the LXX addition to Prov. ix. 19, " Drink not of the strange font," and Jer. xv. 18, ii. 13, " deceiving waters," " broken cisterns." In some of these applications there is poetical force, as of his favourite " garden enclosed and fountain sealed," and of the doctrines of New Birth and Sonship {Ep. 74, V. vi.) ; in Heresy who was never the Spotless Spouse we can never find a mother (Ep. 75). To this Stephen finely answers that she was an unnatural mother indeed (75, xiv.) who ex- posed her children so soon as they were born, but that the church's part was to seek them and bring them home and rear them for Christ. Dispersed as this system of Cyprian's lies, through his correspondence and tracts, it will be seen that in his mind it was not fragmen- tary, but logical and coherent. Over the theory promulgated by one of his powers and character, backed by an army of bishops,* moving as one man under him', yet indepen- dent enough each to find their own telling arguments (Cone. III.), Stephen's triumph without a council, against remonstrances from the East, and hindered by his own pre- • Some required exorcism (Sentt. 7, 8, 31) ; some declared heretics worse than heathens — a painfully early development. CYPRIANUS tentiousness and uncharitableness, * was great. It was deserved also, for Rome represented freedom, comprehensiveness, and safe latitude. She decided upon one grand principle, the same on which Jerome afterwards decided the analogous question of reordination {adv. Lucif.). Cyprian's principle was the same which blinded TertuUian {de Bapt. xv.) ; which was extended by the Donatists to make moral defects in the minister debar grace ; f which led Knox and Calvin to deny baptism to the infant children of " papists," and the Genevan divines to allow it, on the hope that " the grace which had adopted " the great-grand- fathers might not yet be so " wholly extinct that the infants should have lost their right to the common seal " (Hooker, iii. i, 12). Augustine {Resp. ad Episcopos) developed the categorical answer to each separate argument of Cyprian and his bishops, but the true solu- tion was applied at once by Stephen. The grace of baptism is of Christ, not of the human baptizer. J He who baptizes does not " give being or add force " to the sacrament. Cyp- rian's language about " justifying and sanc- tifying " may well have shocked the church of Rome, and makes Stephen's anger partly in- telligible. The child or heathen who learns Christ through the teaching of the heretic cannot be charged with " defect or disorder," in the reception of a sacrament, to which he comes with purest faith, and which it is the will of God to impart to all. Though excluded " from fellowship in holy duties with the visible church," he is still a member of such visible church. (Ep. 73, xvi. We must take the fragmentary quotation, 75, i., " Si qu's ergo a quacunque haeresi venerit " with the other, " In nomine Christi baptizatus," and cf. Routh, R. S. vol. iii. p. 183.) The only real blot which Cyprian struck was the vulgar explanation of the laying on of hands at re- admission. Upon that hypothesis his own view was justifiable. But the act was not really understood by the intelligent to be the imparting of the Spirit for the first time to those who had it not ; it was the renewing by the Spirit, and introducing to communion of a repentant and now enlightened child of God.§ " A son of God " in spite of any theological error, Stephen declares him in the fullest sense to be (Ep. 74, vi. ; 75, xvii.). The expression seems to have been much cavilled at in Car- thage, and is mentioned even in Ep. 72, after the second council. And now it ought to * Animosus, iracundus ; again, audacia, insolentia, iiihumanitas are some of the sins charged to him. t Of the use thej^ made of Cyprian himself see Aug. contra Crescon. II. xxiii. 40 : " Scripta Cv-priani nobis tanquam firmamenta canonicae auctoritatis op- ponitis." Cf. Ep. 93, ad Vincent. ; Epp. 108, 9, ad Macrob. X Optatus, b. V. p. 99, well expresses it : " Has res unicuique non ejusdem rei operarius sed credentis fides et Trinitas praestat." By implication he an- swers many of the detailed difficulties, but the great name of Cj^prian visibly lestrains him. Again, p. 103 : " Omnes qui baptizant operarios esse non dominos et sacramenta per se sancta esse non per homines." § Besides its use in ordination the imposition of hands had three intentions: (i) Confirmation. (2) Reception of penitents. (3) Exorcism. The 2nd is what .Stephen applies here. The 3rd was desired by some extreme partisans. CYPRIANUS be noticed that (as the Novatianists saw) Cyprian had a real point of contact with Nova- tianism. In the instance of Lapse he dis- covered its fallacy. In the instance of Heresy he fell into it. The visible church, according to him, included the worst moral sinner in expectation of his penitence ; it excluded the most virtuous and orthodox baptized Christian who had not been baptized by a catholic min- ister.* Nevertheless, although the Roman church then took a wider view than Cyprian as to the sonship of man to God, Cyprian was much greater (and this is the true church- moral of this part of his history) upon the possibility and duty of union in diversity. Augustine well draws out the independence of thought and action which Cyprian wished to be maintained without exclusiveness, and tells us (Aug. V. de Bapt. 17) how he was never weary of reading the conclusion of the Ep. to Quintus. Every bishop was free to judge for himself, none to be persecuted for his views, and therefore every one to be tender of the bonds of peace : " Salvo jure commu- nionis diversa sentire." The unanimity of such early councils and their erroneousness are a remarkable monition. Not packed, not pressed ; the question broad ; no attack on an individual ; only a principle sought ; the assembly representative ; each bishop the elect of his flock ; and all " men of the world," often christianized, generally ordained late in life ; converted against their interests by con- viction formed in an age of freest discussion ; their Chief one in Whom were rarely blended intellectual and political ability, with holiness, sweetness, and self-discipline. The conclu- sion reached by such an assembly uncharitable, unscriptural, uncatholic, and unanimous. The consolation as strange as the disappoint- ment. The mischief silently and perfectly healed by the simple working of the Christian society. Life corrected the error of thought. Augustine beautifully writes : " It is of no light moment that though the question was agitated among bishops of an age anterior to the faction of Donatus, and although opinions differed without the unity of the colleagues being marred, still this our present use has been settled to be observed throughout the whole Catholic church diffused throughout the world " (contra Crescon. i. xxxii. 38). The disappearance of the Cyprianic decisions has its hope for us when we look on bonds seem- ingly inextricable, and steps as yet irre- trievable. It may be noted, as affording some clue to the one-sided decisions, that the laity were silent, though Cyprian seemed pledged to some consultation with them. (See esp. Ep. 31 and 19, ii.) It must have been among them that there were in existence and at work those very principles which so soon not only rose to the surface, but over- powered the voices of her bishops for the general good. It was a parliament of officials, provincial governors. That it did not represent church opinion (that, namely, which we now accept as church doctrine), may • Thus the extreme of sacerdotalism was a fixed tenet with our own Puritan divines, who held the minister " to be of the substance of the sacrament." Cf. Hooker, Ec. Pol. V. Ixi. 5 ; Neander, vol. i. p. 540, Bohn tr. CYPRIANUS 2ni be inferred — (i) from the absolute unanimity of the 87 utterances ; (2) from the stranRC avowal of two, that, being incompetent to give an opniion, they vote with the majoritv ; (3) from the very important and powerful contemporary work of the " Auctor de Ke- baptismate " ; (4) from the silent reversal of the decision. The Last Persecution. — Of the 31 Numidian bishops who sat in the great council, the next glimpse of church offices shews q as convicts • in the mines metallum Siguense (? Siga, where there were copper-mines in Mauritania, or Siguita in Numidia itself) and in two other places, t A subdeacon and four acolvtes were commissioned bv the metropolitan' (already himself an exile) and his friend Quirinus to visit them, and supply them with necessaries {Epp. 77-79)- Cyprian had been apprehended, as perhajis the first African prisoner (Epp. 77-78), in Aug. A.D. 257. Valerian's first edict (Acta Proconsulis. and Acta Praef. Atiptistalis) had then been issued on the suggestion of Macrianus, a principal patron of the Egvptian " Magi," after a long administration of fairness to the Christians. The " eighth " persecution lasted the Apocalyptic 42 months until his death in 260. (Dion. Al. ap. Pearson, Ann. Cyp- p- 59 ; Eus. vii. 10, v. ii. 70.) On Aug. 2, 257, before the exile of Cyprian, Stephen died. His reputation as a martyr, dating from the 6th cent., is due to a transference to him of incidents from the death of Xystus. of which the singular history is traced by de Rossi, Roma Sott. Cr. vol. ii. p. 85, etc. He was succeeded on Aug. 25 by Xystus, J whom, not without a stroke at the dead lion, Pontius calls " a good pacific high-jiriest." No "state enemy" could be treated with more consideration than Cyprian rccei\-ed. Aspasius Paternus, the proconsul, heard him in secre- tario, and without confiscation or personal restraint simply required his retirement to Curubis, a free town, near the sea iin deserto loco), lonely, but pleasant, and well supplied (Pontius ; cf. Gibbon, vol. ii. 248, Smith's ed.). It was at the same time that the withdrawal of Dionysius was ordered and performed (Eus. vii. 11). On Sept. 14 a dream, related at once to his friends, was found after his martyrdom to have foretold it for that day year. Attend- ed by his deacon, and allowed the presence of friends, and " oilfering," no doubt, as in his former banishment, " his daily sacrifice," he actively organized relief for more helpless sufferers and subsidized them largely himself.§ After II months spent thus, the new proconsul Galerius Maximus, already a dying man, re- called him to his home in Carthage (horti). When a rumour arrived that Marcianus, * Morcclli, Africa Christiana, vol. i. p. 21, questions whether the separate Pracscs X\miidiac was con- tinued long after Scptimius, apparently not noticiuR (Cyp. Ep. 77, ii.) that these confessors were tried isefore the Praeses. t Pearson supposes a marble-quarry to be their work-place — tenehrae and teter odor fumi indicate mining and smelting rather. t See these calculations in Lipsius, Chron. d. Rom. Bisch. p. 213. § Gibbon strangely seems to have understood the words documentum pro/essionis dedit {i.e. taught how to hold fast our profession) to mean "an accotmt of his behaviour was published for the edification of the Christian world" (Ep. 77). 232 CYPRIANUS "entrusted with the whole republic" by Valerian, now on his last march to Persia, was determined to carry things to an extremity with Christians, Cyprian was probably the first African who procured a copy of the tre- mendous rescript, and of the letter which was about to be issued to the Praesides (Ep. 80). The proconsul in Cyprian's trial mentions both the extension of capital penalties to presbyters, and the new prohibition of the use of ceme- teries for worship. His messenger returned with the full intelligence of sweeping measures before their publication, and with news that Xystus had been beheaded (Pont. Vit. Cyp. xii. ; Leon. Sacr. Muratori, vol. i. p. 391) on Sunday, Aug. 5, in the cemetery of Praetex- tatus * when actually " teaching " in his episcopal chair, and with him four of the great Roman deacons. f It may be taken as historical fact that on Wed. the 2C)th of the previous June, Xystus had translated the supposed remains of St. Peter to the cemetery known as Cata Cumbas, on the Appian Way, and those of St. Paul to the Ostian Way. It is possible that this increasing reverence to two malefactors executed two centuries before both shewed the magistrates that the spirit of the sect was becoming more dangerous and determined them to withdraw from Christians the protection which the burial laws hitherto accorded to rites celebrated in connexion with places of sepulture ; and further, that this occasioned a withdrawal from the better- known cemetery of Callistus to the more ob- scure one of Praetextatus (see de Rossi, Rom. Soil. vol. ii. p. 41 ; and Lips, ll.cc), and the death of Xystus in that place. The news of it had scarcely reached Carthage when Galerius, now in residence at Utica, summoned Cyprian thither in honourable form {Ep. 81). Having previously refused offers of a retreat, urged on him even by heathens, he now said he was re- solved not to die, or utter the dying prophecy with which he apparently expected to be in- spired, away from his people. Accordingly, informed of the dispatch before it came, he went into hiding in Carthage, there to await the proconsul's return. On his return, he reappeared and reoccupied his own house, t The details of the trial are too numerous to repeat and too remarkable to abridge. They are found not only in the narrative of Pontius, but also in a " Passion of Cyprian," which we have in different forms, and which from its simplicity, provinciality, and minute topo- graphy, must be contemporary. § Cyprian * Afta- II months and 12 (6 ?) davs' episcopate. Eusebius, by an error, in which he indulges in other instances, ascribes to him years for months both in chronicle and historj- ; and Jerome repeats it from him. So in vii. 15 he seems to speak of him as alive after the edict of restoration. See Lipsius, I.e. t Sic lege " cum eo diacones quattuor." I Nothing is more self-consistent than the lan- guage of Ep. 83, or more inconsistent with Gibbon's " recovering that fortitude which his character re- quired." § They are entitled Ada Proconsularia, and so accepted by Pearson and Gibbon. Aug. Serm. 309 seems to quote either this Passio or some earlier document which is now embedded in it. Ep. 77, ii. refers to Cyprian's confession " Apud Acta procon- sulis " just after it was made. Does Acta mean merely " trial before " ? (Cf. Optat. B. iii. p. 68, apud acta locuti sunt.) If it means " official report," CYPRIANUS was removed from his home on Aug. 13 ; the magistrate's broken health prolonged the ex- amination ; but the prisoner's rank shielded him from suffering or indignity. Though the language of the judge was stern, the Christians confessed the reluctance with which he gave sentence. In them sense of triumph in the possession of such a martyr is dwelt on with almost as much force as the sense of loss. With a strange mingled feeling, characteristic of the vividness with which in intense moments circumstances are apprehended which would at other times be trivial, they marked how little incidents combined to do him honour. The seat he rested on for the last time hap- pened to be covered with a white cloth, the episcopal emblem. The trees were climbed, as he passed, by many a Zacchaeus. The eve and vigil of his martyrdom were kept by all his flock, watching through the night in the streets before his house, when as yet the only vigil of the Christian year was that which preceded the day of Christ's own Passion. The idea of this parallel took such hold that Augustine carries it to a painful pitch (Serm. 309). The two officers between whom Cyp- rian rode are compared to the two male- factors between whom our Lord went to His Passion. Pontius compares the words of the sentence to the prophecy of Caiaphas. Cyp- rian received no dying prophecy, nor uttered any, though his time was ample. His words were very few, and no exhortation could have been so eloquent as the " Thanks be to God " with which he answered the Judgment : " Our pleasure is that Thascius Cyprianus be exe- cuted by the sword." Personal. Theological, and Political Effective- ness. — To sum up the effect of Cyprian's 13 years' episcopate in briefest terms. Over and above, ( i) the social impressiveness for the time of a convert with such culture and such mental habits, and of that perfect i-n-ielKfia and ■wpq.bT-qs to which Augustine constantly reverts with delight, comes (2) his Philosophy. It is usual to expand the fact that he was no philosopher. Nevertheless his writings on Resentment, Patience, Probation, Envy, Self-devotion, are most able essays towards establishing a new Christian basis of Morals, and have a per- manent place in the series. (3) Evidences. As against both contemporary Judaism and contemporary paganism his collections have a distinct worth. (4) Interpretation. He has a free ideal scheme before him (Ep. 64), but in detail falls from, it, and makes mere riddles of texts. (5) Organization. This is the real epigraph of his career. The magnitude of the effect he produced is incomparably greater than that of any other person, not excepting Hildebrand. (a) The Church Council, a local and doubtful institution before, became through his management a necessary insti- tution and the imperial power of the church, and, with its system of representation by a hfe-aristocracy popularly elected, and its free discussionary scheme, exercised an important how could a Christian report be so styled, or how could a heathen one give the details with such advan- tage to the prisoners ? Dionysius Alex, refers a carping adversary to the record of his own trial before Aemilian, then prefect of Egypt (Eus. vol. i, p. 384, notes on virefxyr^ixcnicrBTi), CYPRIANUS function in the regeneration of liberty, (b) Episcopacy grew silently into an institution of the Roman empire, strong with the lasting virtues of Roman institutions, and only biding its time for recognition. (6) The Individual Independence, as he sketches it, of elected bishops preserved, while it remained, a grand democratic strength to what after a time sank to an oligarchic, and under the papacy to an administrative, magistracy. This must again be the key of church governments in states which have not that intimate union with the church which the ideal of a Christian nation requires. We here give references on the subject of this Independence, which to the policy of Cyprian's time was so essential (Ep. 55. xvii. ; actum suum, etc.. 72, iv. ; quando habet, etc., 73, xxxvi. ; nemini praescribentes, etc., 57, vi. ; si de collegis, etc., 69, xvii. ; statuat. Sentt. Epp. Praef. 6). There exists what may be called " resistance to Roman claims"; but Cyprian is totally unconscious of any claims made by the see, and resists Stephen purely as an arrogant individual. Culliis. — There were two famous basilicas erected, one on the place of his martyrdom (in a^ro sexti). where was the Mensa Cypriani, from which Augustine often preached ; the other on the shore (Aug. Conf. v. ; ad Map- palia. Aug. vol. vii. App. p. 37 ; ad Piscinas, \'ictor Vitens. i. v. iv.). In this Monica spent the night of her son's departure for Italy, praying and weeping. In Sulpicius Severiis [Dial. i. 3) his friend comes hither to pray on his way from Narbonne to Egypt. The ador- ation reached such a height that Gibbon is charmed to call him " almost a local deity." His feast and the gales which blew then were called Cypriani (Procop. Vand. i. 20, 21 ; Greg. Xaz. Or. 18, ap. Ducange, s.v.). There are still on the " brink of the shore " the massive ruins of a church which must be St. Cyprian's. Davis (Carthage and her Remains, p. 389) describes them fully, and it is not hard to see how he has misled himself into not recognizing what they are. The relics of Cyprian were given (strange conjunction) by Haroun al Raschid to Charlemagne. The sequel may be seen in Ruinart, Acta Mm. Cypr. § 17, and in the epistle of J. de la Haye, prefixed to Pamelius's Cyprian, fol. b. 3. Texts. — Of the MSS. and their connexions, and also of the edd., a good account is given by Hartel in his preface; cf. D. C. B. (4- vol. ed.). Besides the ed. in Patr. Lat may be men- tioned one by D. J. H. Goldhorn (Leipz. 1838), a useful text-book, well emended. But the best ed. now is by J. Hartel (3 vols. 8vo, 1868-1871), in the Vienna Corpus Scriptt. Eccll. Latt, which omtains all the works attributed to Cyprian, with the ad Novatianum. Auctor de Rebaptismate, Pontii Vita, etc., and Indices. It is a new recension, for which above 40 MSS. have been studied, classified, valued, and re- duced to a most clear apparatus criticus, with keen attention to orthography, and almost always a judicious discrimination of the preferable readings ; a valuable preface on the principles and history of the text- formation, [e.w.b.] [The authoritative work on St. Cyprian is by the writer of this art. English trans, of several of Cyprian's works and his Epp. are given in CYRIACUS 233 the Ante-Nicene Lib. (T. \- T. Cl.irk). A simple monograph on his Life and Times is pub. in the cheap A. and M. Theol. Lth. (Griffith) ; and an Eng. trans, of his treatise On the Lord's Prayer by T. H. Bindley is pub. byS.P.C.K.; the text, with trans., has been ed. bv Rev. H. Gee (Bell). J Cyra. [Marana.1 Cyriacus (19), 30'th patriarch of Constanti- nople, A.D. 595. He was previously presbyter and steward, < Uoi^ojuos. of the great church at Constantinople (Chronicon Paschale, p. 378). Gregory the Great received the legates bearing the synodal letters which announced his conse- cration, partly from a desire not to disturb the peace of the church, and partly from the per- sonal respect which he entertained for Cyriac; but in his reply he warned him against the sin of causing divisions in the church, clearly alluding to the use of the term oecumenical bishop (Gregorii Ep. lib. vii. 4, Patr. Lat. Ixxvii. 853). The personal feelings of Gregory towards C>Tiac appear most friendly. Cyriac did not attend to the entreaties of Gregory that he would abstain from using the title, for Gregory wrote afterwards both to him and to the emperor Maurice, declaring that he could not allow his legates to remain in com- munion with Cyriac as long as he retained it. In the latter of these letters he compares the assumption of the title to the sin of Anti- christ, since both exhibit a spirit of lawless pride. " Quisquis se universalem sacerdotem vocat, vel vocari desiderat, in elationc sua Antichristum praecurrit, quia superbiendo se ceteris praeponit" (Greg.£/>.28, 30). Inalettcr to Anastasius of Antioch, who had written to him to remonstrate against disturbing the peace of the church, Gregory defends his con- duct on the ground of the injury which Cyriac had done to all other patriarchs by the assump- tion of the title, and reminds Anastasius that not only heretics but heresiarchs had before this been patriarchs of Constantinople. He also deprecates the use of the term on more general grounds (Ep. 24). In spite of all this Cyriac was firm in his retention of the title, and appears to have summoned, or to have meditated summoning, a council to authorize its use. For in a.d. 599 Gregory wrote to Eusebius of Thcssakmica and some other bishops, stating that he had heard they were about to be summoned to a council at Constantinople, and most urgently entreating them to yield neither to force nor to persua- sion, but to be steadfast in their refusal to 1 recognize the offensive title (ib. lib. ix. 68 in Patr. Lat.). Cyriac appears to have shared in that unpopularity of the emperor Maurice which caused his deposition and death (Thco- phan. Chron. p. 242, a.m. 6094 ; Niccph. Callis. H. E. xviii. 40 ; Thcophylact. Hist. viii. 9). He still, however, had influence enough to exact from Phocas at his coronation a confession of the orthodox faith and a pledge not to disturb the church (Theoph. Chron. p. 243, A.M. 6094). He also nobly resisted the attempt of Phocas to drag the empress Con- stantia and her daughters from their sanctuary in a church of Constantinople (ib. p. 246, a.m. 6098). Perhaps some resentment at this op- position to his will may have induced Phocas to accede more readily to the claims of Boni- 234 CYRILLUS face III. that Rome should be considered to be the head of all the church, in exclusion of the claims of Constantinople to the oecumeni- cal bishopric {Vita Bonifacii III. apud Labbe, Acta Concil. t. v. 1615). Cyriacdied in 606, and was interred in the church of the Holy Apostles (Chronicon Paschale, p. 381). He appears to have been a man of remarkable piety and earnestness, able to win the esteem of all parties. He built a church dedicated to the Oeor6/fof in a street of Constantinople called Diaconissa (Theoph. Chron. 233, a.m. 6090 ; Niceph. Callis. H. E. xviii. 42). Fp-o.] Cyrillus (2), KvpiWos, bp. of Jerusalem, was probably born in Jerusalem or its immediate neighbourhood, c. 315. His writings prove that his education was liberal, and embraced a large variety of subjects. Touttee has laboriously collected evidences (c. ii.) of his acquaintance with physics, dialectics, phy- siology, mythology, etc. That he was a diligent student of Holy Scripture is certain, from the intimate knowledge, at least of the text, shewn in his Catecheses. But he was only acquainted with the LXX. His know- ledge of Hebrew was only second-hand, and often incorrect. He was ordained deacon probably by Macarius bp. of Jerusalem, c. 335 (Soz. //. £.'iv. 20, where the "text is doubtful), and priest by his successor Maximus, c. 345. Maximus, notwithstanding Cyril's youth, en- trusted him with the responsible duty of instructing catechumens, and preparing them for baptism. He also allowed him the ex- ceptional privilege, sometimes granted by bishops to presbyters of eminent ability (e.s- to Chrysostom by Flavian of Antioch, and to Augustine by Valerius of Hippo), of preaching to the people in full church on the Lord's Day. In his office of catechist, c. 347, C\Til delivered the catechetical lectures by which his name is chiefly known (Hieron. de Vir. Illusi. § 12). These lectures were preached without book on the evenings of the weeks of Lent, in the basilica of the Holy Cross, or Martyrium, erected on Calvary by St. Helena. His references to the locality are numerous and interesting (e.?. iv. 10-14, x. 19, xiii. 4, 22, 39, xviii. 33). The five mystagogical lectures were addressed during Easter-week at noon to those baptized on Easter-eve in the Anastasis, or church of the Holy Sepulchre. The episcopate of Maximus terminated at the close of 350 or the beginning of 351, and Cyril was chosen to fill the episcopal chair of Jerusalem. A cloud of doubt and difficulty hangs over his elevation to the episcopate. Jerome can hardly have been mistaken as to the main fact, though theological prejudice and personal dislike may have warped his judgment and caused him to represent the case in the least favourable light. On some leading questions Cyril and Jerome were decidedly opposed. In the great controversy of the day C\Til belonged to the Asiatic partv, Jerome to that of Rome. In the Meletian schism at Antioch also they took opposite sides : Cyril supporting ISIeletius, Jerome be- ing a warm adherent of Paulinus. Jerome asserts [Chronicon ad ann. 349) that on the death of Maximus the Arians invaded the church of Jerusalem and promised to appoint C)Til to the vacant throne if he would re- CYMLLUS pudiate his ordination by Maximus ; that C\Til consented to the humiliating terms, served some time in the church as a deacon, and was then rewarded with the episcopate by Acacius, the semi-Arian bp. of Caesarea, and according to the seventh Nicene canon metropolitan of Palestine ; that Cyril then dishonourably persecuted Heraclius, whom Maximus, on his deathbed, had nominated his successor, and degraded him to the prcsbyter- ate. This account is supported by Ruiinus [H. E. i. 23, " Sacerdotio, confusa jam or- dinatione, suscepto "). Socrates and Sozo- men, though they say nothing of CyTil's re- pudiation of his orders, are almost equally unfavourable to his orthodoxy, identifying him with the semi-.Arian party of Acacius and Patrophilus. They also introduce a new element of confusion by the statement that the see of Jerusalem was vacant not by death, but by Maximus's deposition and expulsion by the semi- Arians (Socr. ii. 38 ; Soz. iv. 20 ; Theophan. Chronograph, p. 34). This may safely be rejected. In refutation of Jerome's account, Cyril's advocates triumphantly point to the synodical letter to pope Damasus of the bishops assembled at Constantinople, the year after the second oecumenical synod, a.d. 382, which speaks of C>Til in terms of high eulogy, as a champion of the orthodox faith against Arian heresy, and affirms his canonical election to the see of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. V. 9). But this does not touch the point at issue. Acacius was the metropolitan of C\Tirs province. He and his fellow-bishops were, notwithstanding their heretical bias, the legitimate authorities for conferring the episcopate. C>Tirs election and consecration was therefore strictly canonical. Besides, the silence of the members of the synod as to facts occurring 30 years before does not disprove them. Whatever might have been Cyril's earlier heretical failings, he was on the ortho- dox side then (cf- Socr. v. 8, and Soz. vii. 7). His adhesion was valuable, and it would have been as impolitic as it was needless to revive an almost forgotten scandal. Yet CjTil's own writings quite forbid us to follow Jerome's authority in classing him with the Arians, or charging him with heretical tenets. Circum- stances might render his orthodoxy equivocal. His early patron, Maximus, was somewhat of a waverer. His friends and associates were semi- Arians, and he was chosen to the episco- pate by them, with the hope of his supporting their cause. But no error of doctrine is to be discovered in his wTitings, though he avoids the test word " horaoousion " in his cate- cheses. He is well characterized by the Due de Broglie (VEglise et V Empire, iii. 402) as " formant Fextremite de I'aile droite du Semi- arianisme touchant a I'orthodoxie, ou de I'aile gauche de I'orthodoxie touchant au Semi- arianisme," and may be regarded, certainly in the later part of his life, as one of those of whom Athanasius speaks {de Synod. 41) as " brothers who mean what we mean, and only differ about the word." The first year of Cvril's episcopate was rendered memorable by the appearance. May 7, 35 1, of a remarkable parhelion, or other atmospheric phenomenon, over Jerusalem, which was regarded as a miraculous manifestation of the symbol of CYRILLUS redemption intended to establish the faith and confute gainsayers, and produced great excite- ment in the city. The churches were thronged with worshippers, and many Jews and Gen- tiles were converted to the faith. So important did the phenomenon appear to Cyril that he wrote to the emperor Constantius describing it. This letter has been jircscrved. Its authenticity has been called in question by Rivet, but the internal evidence from the similarity of style is strong, and it is accepted by Blondel. The occurrence of the word " homoousion " at the close of the letter is, however, suspicious, and leads us to question whether the prayer for the emperor in which it stands is not a later addition (Soz. iv. 3 ; Philostorg. iii. 26; Chron. Alex. p. 678; Theophan. p. 35 a). If Acacius had reck- oned on Cyril as a faithful adherent and ready instrument in carrying out his plans, the fal- lacy of his expectations was very soon shewn. Scarcely had Cyril established himself in his see when a distressing controversy, which be- came the source of much evil to the church, arose as to the claim to priority of their re- spective sees (Theod. ii. 25 ; Soz. iv. 25). Cyril grounded his claim on the apostolical rank of his see, Acacius on the decision of the council of Nice (Can. vii.), which placed the bp. of Aelia — i.e. Jerusalem — under the bp. of Caesarea as metropolitan. This contest for pre-eminence was speedily embittered by mutual accusations of heterodoxy (Soz. iv. 25). For two years Acacius continued vainly summoning Cyril to his tribunal, and at last cut the controversy short by deposing him from his see (Soz. u.s., 357 or 358) at a small packed synod of his own adherents. The ostensible grounds were very trivial : con- tumacy in refusing to appear, and the charge — afterwards brought against Ambrose by the Arians — of having sold some of the church ornaments during a prevailing scarcity to supply the wants of the poor (Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. iv. 25 ; Theod. ii. 26 ; Epiphan. Haeres. Ixxiii. §§ 23-27), and also of having held communion with Eustathius and Elpidius after their de- position by the synod of Melitina, in Lesser Armenia (Soz. m.s. ; Basil. Ep. 253 [74]). Cyril was forced to yield. He left his see, not, however, without an appeal to a larger council, the justice of which was allowed by Constan- tius. This is noted by Socrates (ii. 40) as the first instance of an appeal against the decision of an ecclesiastical synod. On leaving Jeru- salem Cyril first retired to Antioch and thence to Tarsus, where he was hospitably received by the bp. Silvanus, one of the best of the semi-Arians, who availed himself of Cvril's powers as a preacher. We find him also here in communion and friendship with other leading members of the same party, Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and George of Laodicea (Soz. iv. 25 ; Philost. iv. 12). The enmity of Acacius pursued his rival. Silvanus was warned against holding com- munion with one who had been deposed for contumacy and other crimes. But Cyril had gained great popularity at Tarsus by his sermons, the people would not hear of his leaving them, and Silvanus declined to attend to the admonition (Theod. M.S.). Nearly two years after his deposition, Sept. 359, Cyril CYRILLUS 235 laid his appeal before the coimcil of Seleucia, at which he took his place among the semi- Arians. Acacius vehemently protested against his admission to the council. " If Cyril did not leave the synod, he must." Some of the bishops, in the cause of peace, begged Cyril to yield, at least temporarily, till his appeal had been heard. Cyril refused, and Acacius quitted the council, but soon returned, and took a leading part in the subsequent stormy debates. The semi-Arians who were opposed to Acacius were in the ascendant. Acacius was himself deposed, and Cyril restored (Theod. ii. 26 ; Socr. ii. 40 ; Soz. iv. 22 ; Philost. iv. 12). Acacius and his friends at once started for the capital, where they easily persuaded the weak Constantius to summon a fresh council. Fresh accusations were added to those formerly adduced. The charge of sacrilegiously disposing of the church goods was revived, and the emperor's indignation was excited by hearing that a baptismal robe of gold brocade, presented by his father Con- stantine to Macarius, which had been sold, had unfortunately found its way into the ward- robe of a theatre, and been recognized on the stage. Acacius's arts prevailed, and Cyril was a second time banished (Socr. ii. 42 ; Soz. iv. 25 ; Theod. ii. 27). On the accession of Julian, 361, Cyril was reinstated, together with all the exiled bishops (Socr. iv. I ; Soz. u.s. ; Theod. iii. 4 ; Amm. Marcell. xxii. 5). At Jerusalem Cyril calmly watched the attempts of Julian to rebuild the Temple, and foretold that it must fail (Socr. iii. 20 ; Rufinus, i. 37). During the reign of the orthodox Jovian Cyril's episcopate was undisturbed, and the accession of Valens and Valentinian found him in quiet possession of his see, 364. In 366 Acacius died, and Cyril immediately claimed the nomination to the see of Caesarea, and appointed Philomenus. Philomenus was deposed by the Eutychian faction, and another Cyril substituted. He, in return, was deposed by Cyril of Jerusalem, who consecrated his sister's son Gelasius in his room, a.d. 367 (Epiphan. Haer. Ixxiii. 37). In 367 Cyril was a third time deposed and exiled, with all the prelates recalled by Julian, by the edict of the Arian Valens (Socr. ii. 45 ; Soz. iv. 30 ; Epiph. Haer. Ixvi. 20). His banishment lasted till Valens died and Theodosius suc- ceeded, Jan. 19, 370, when he reoccupied his see, which he retained quietly for the 8 remaining years of his life (Hieron. Vir. III. c. 112; Socr. V. 3 ; Soz. vii. 2). On his return he found Jerusalem rent with schisms, infested with almost every form of heresy, and polluted bv the most flagrant crimes. To combat these evils he appealed to the council held at An- tioch, 379, which dispatched Gregory Nyssen to his aid. But the disease was too deeply seated to admit of an easy or speedy remedy. Gregory departed hopeless of a cure, and in his Warning against Pilgrimages drew a dark picture of the de|)ravation of morals in the Holv City (de Euntibus Hieros. p. 636). In 381 Cvrilwas present at the second oecumeni- cal council held at Constantinni)le, when he took rank with the chief metropolitans, the bps. of Alexandria and Antioch. He there declared his full adhesion to the Nicene faith. 236 CYRILLUS and his acceptance of the test word " homo- ousion " (Socr. iv. 8 ; Soz. iv. 7). Cyril died Mar. 18, 386 (Socr. v. 15 ; Soz. vii. 14 ; Bolland. Mar. 18, p. 625 b). He was bp. of Jerusalem for 35 years, 16 of which he passed in exile. His works consist of 18 " Catechetical lec- tures " addressed to catechumens {KaTvxvo^^'-^ (purr L ^o fie vwv), and 5 "Mystagogical lectures" to the newly baptized If^varayoyyiKal Karrixvc'd-^ irpoi rev's vfofpuricrrovi)- These were com- posed in his youth (a? ff rrj veoTijTL avvera^fv, Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 112), c. 347, while still a presbyter. The " Catechetical lectures " possess considerable interest as the earliest example extant of a formal system of theo- logy ; from their testimony to the canon of Scripture, the teaching of the church on the chief articles of the creed, and on the sacra- ments ; and from the light they throw on the ritual of the 4th cent. The perfect agreement of his teaching, as Dr. Newman remarks (Lib. of the Fathers, vol. ii. part i. pp. ix.-x.), as regards the Trinity, with the divines of the Athanasian school, is of great weight in deter- mining the true doctrine of the early church on that fundamental question, and relieves Cyril from all suspicion of heterodoxy. But his Catecheses do not rank high as argumentative or expository work, nor has C^Til any claim to a place among the masters of Christian thought, whose uTitings form the permanent riches of the church. All previous editions of his works were sur- passed by the Benedictine ed. of A. A. Touttee (Paris, 1720, fol., and Venice, 1761, fol.). The introduction contains very elaborate and exhaustive dissertations on his life, wTitings, and doctrines. These are reprinted in Migne's Patrologia, vol. xxxiii. The chief modern authorities for CvtH's life and doctrines are Touttee, u.s. ; Till'em. Me- moires Eccles. vol. viii. ; Cave, Historia Lit. i. 211, 212 ; Schrockh, Kirchengeschichte, xii. 343 seq. ; Newman, preface to the Oxf. trans.. Lib. of the Fathers, ii. i. Newman's trans, was carefully revised by Dr. E. H. Gifford in the Lib. of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (1894), and furnished with a very important introduction. [e.v.] Cyrillus (7), St., archbp. of Alexandria. He was a native of Alexandria, and had learned theology under monastic discipline in " the desert." During this period he had been re- proved by Isidore of Pelusium, who was for years his venerated monitor, for occupving himself, even in " solitude," with worldlv thoughts and interests (Isid. Ep. i. 25) ; and it is evident from his whole career that so strong a will and so vehement a nature could never be thor- oughly satisfied with a life of contemplation. After five years' abode in mount Nitria, his uncle, the then archbp. Theophilus, summoned him to Alexandria, where he was ordained, and expounded and preached with great reputation (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 226). Theo- philus died Oct. 15, a.d. 412. Cxxil was put forward for the vacant chair ; and after a tumultuous contest was enthroned, three days after his uncle's death. (See his first Paschal homily.) His episcopate, begun in trouble and discord, seemed at first to forebode nothing better than a course of violent and CYRILLUS untempered zeal, as if the fierce spirit cf Theophilus were governing his conduct. He shut up the chamberof the Novatianists, took away their " sacred treasure," and deprived their bishop, Theopemptus, of all his property (Socr. vii. 7). He then made an attack upon the large body of Jewish residents. They had provoked him by implacable hostility. One Hierax, a schoolmaster, always foremost in applauding Cyril's sermons, was denounced by the Jews as an encourager of sedition when he was in the theatre at the promulgation of a prefectorial edict. Orestes, the prefect, who hated Cyril as a formidable rival potentate, had Hierax publicly tortured in the theatre. Cyril thereupon tried the effect of menaces on the principal Jews of Alexandria. This only increased their bitterness ; they began to organize plots against the Christians ; and one night a cry rang through the streets that " Alexander's ' church was on fire." The Christians rushed to save their sanctuary : the Jews, recognizing each other, as pre- arranged, by rings made from the bark of palm branches, slew the Christians whom they met. At daybreak C>Til, at the head of an immense crowd, took forcible possession of the s\Tiagogues, expelled the Jews from the city and abandoned their property to plunder. Orestes, naturally indignant, complained to the emperor, Theodosius II., then a boy of fourteen. C\Til addressed to the court an account of the Jewish outrages, and, at the suggestion of the people, endeavoured to pacify the prefect. Orestes would not listen. Cyril extended to him, as a form of solemn appeal, the book of the Gospels ; it might well have occurred to Orestes that the archbishop had forgotten some of its precepts when he in person led a multitude of Christian zealots to revenge one violence by another. The gifted female philosopher, Hypatia, the boast of Alexandrian paganism, was dragged from her carriage into the great Caesarean church, where her body was torn to pieces. This hideous crime, done in a sacred place and in a sacred season — it was the Lent of 415 — brought, as Socrates expresses it (vii. 15), "no small reproach on CtoI and the church of the Alexandrians." Was this foul murder what Gibbon calls it, an " exploit of C^Til's " ? Did he take any part in it, or approve it ex post facto ? It has been said that " Cvnril was suspected, even by the orthodox, of comphcity in the murder" (Stanley's Led. on East. Ch. 293). Socrates, as sympathizing with the Novatianists, has been considered to do C3Til less than justice ; but he does not suggest such a suspicion against him, or against the whole church of Alexandria. He says, fairly, that this church and its chief pastor were to some extent disgraced by such a deed of members of it. As for Damascius's assertion that Cyril really prompted the murder (Suidas, p. 1059), we cannot consider as evidence the statement of a pagan philosopher who lived about 130 years after the event, and was a thorough hater of Christianity. We are justified in regarding it, with Canon Robertson {Hist. Ch. i. 401), as " an unsupported calumny " ; but, as he adds, " the perpetrators were mostly officers of his church, and had unquestionably derived encouragement from CYRILLUS Cyril's earlier proceedings ; and his character deservedly sutlered in consequence." The turbulent and furious " parabolani " and others, who shed Hypatia's blood at the foot of the altar, were but " bettering the instruc- tion " which had let them loose upon the synagogues. Cyril's name has paid dearly for the error, and the great doctrinal cause which he upheld so stoutly in after-years has suffered for the faults of his earlier life. It was but natural that the government should the next year restrain the clergy from pohtical action, especially by restrictions on the number and conduct of the parabolani. Cyril had inherited his uncle's animosity against John Chrysostom, who, in his opinion, had been canonically deposed ; he rejected with bitterness the advice of Atticus of Con- stantinople to place " John's " name on his church diptychs (Ep. p. 204) ; and it was not until after the memory of that persecuted saint had been rehabilitated at Constantinople as well as at Antioch that the archbp. of Alexandria, urged by Isidore of Pelusium (Isid. i. 370), consented in 417 to follow these precedents. (See Tillemont, xiv. 281.) We pass over several uneventful years, during which C>Ti] doubtless occupied him- self in ordinary church affairs and in theo- logical literature, and come to the great con- troversy with which his name is pre-eminently associated. In the end of 428 he became aware of the excitement caused in Constan- tinople by the preaching of archbp. Nestorius. The hne of thought which Nestorius had entered upon (under the influence, as it seems, of Theodore of Mopsuestia) led him to ex- plain away the mystery of the Incarnation by reducing it to a mere association between the Eternal Word and a human Christ. The Alexandrian see had agents at Constantinople, and the denial, by Nestorius and his supporters, of the strict personal oneness between " Ciod the Word " and the Son of Mary — expressed by the formula, " Let no one call Mary Theo- tokos " — was an event which was certain to excite the vigilant zeal of a prelate like Cyril, opposed, alike by temperament and ante- cedents, to whatever undermined the myste- rious majesty of the Christian faith. Very early in Jan. 429 Cyril dealt with the subject in his Paschal letter or homily, the 17th of the series ; in which, while affirming with great vividness and emphasis the reality and per- manence of Christ's manhood, he enforced the singleness of his Divine Personality, and applied to His human mother, in two distinct passages, a phrase even stronger than "Theo- tokos " — MTTTip HeoD. About the end of Apr. 429, when the controversial sermons of Nes- torius — exhibiting no little confusion of thought, but clearly indicating a disbelief in what is theologically termed the Personal Union — had reached Egyptian monks, Cyril wrote to all who within his jurisdiction were " practising the solitary life," a long letter, upholding the term "Theotokos" in its true sense, as not meaning " mother of the God- head," but niuther, as regarded the manhood, of Him Wlio, being in the form of God, as- sumed the form of a servant, and, being the Lord of Glory, condescended to suffer the death of the cross. If it was true, Cyril CYRILLUS 237 argued, that Jesus Christ was God, it was by consequence not less true that His mother was "Theotokos.'' If she was not rightly so called, her Son was a human individual ex- ternal to the divine nature, and not in a true sense Emmanuel. This letter cites at length the Nicene Creed in its original form, ignoring the alterations made by the council of Con- stantinople, and insisting that the creed identified Jesus Christ with the Divine Co- essential Son. Nestorius was much dis- pleased at the reception given to this letter by some official persons at Constantinople. He ordered one Photius to answer it, and en- couraged some Alexandrians residing at the imperial city, who had been rebuked by Cyril for gross offences, to prefer complaints against him (Mansi, iv. 1003, 887). On the other hand, Cyril, having also been interrogated by Celestine of Rome as to the genuineness of Nestorius's sermons, wrote his first letter to Nestorius (Cyr. Ep. p. 19 ; Mansi, iv. 883), the point of which was that the prevailing excitement had been caused, not by the letter to the monks of Egypt, but by Nestorius's own refusal to allow to Christ's mother a title which was the symbol of her Son's real Divinity. Cyril also referred to a work On the Holy and Co-essential Trinity, which he himself had written in the lifetime of Nes- torius's predecessor Atticus, and in which he had used language on the Incarnation which harmonized with his letter to the monks. Nestorius replied very briefly, and in a courteous tone ; although he intimated dislike of what he deemed harsh in Cyril's letter (Cyr. Ep. p. 21 ; Mansi, iv. 885). He evidently did not wish to quarrel with the see of Alexandria, although he practised considerable severities on monks of his own city who withstood him to the face. Cyril, too, was not forward to press the controversy to extremes. During the latter part of 429 he was even blamed by some for inactivity. But he may have written at this period, as Garnier thinks, his " Scholia," or " Notes," on the Incarnation of the Only-begotten (Mar. Merc. ii. 216), and in Feb. 430 (probably after hearing how Nestor- ius had upheld a bishop named Dorotheus in his anathema against the word "Theotokos") he wrote, in synod, a second Ep. to Nes- torius — the letter which became a symbolic treatise sanctioned by general councils. (See it in Cyr. Ep. p. 22 ; Mansi, iv. 887 ; of. Tillemont, xiv. 338). Nothing can be more definite and luminous than his disclaimer of all Apollinarian notions, which had been imputed by Nestorius to those who confessed the " Theotokos " ; his explanation of the idea intended by that phrase ; his peremptory exclusion of the theory of a mere association as distinct frcjin a hypostatic or personal union, and his not less emphatic assertion of the dis- tinctness of the natures thus brought together in the one Christ. " Not that the difference of the natures was annulled by the union, but rather that one Godhead and Manhood con- stituted the one Lord Jesus Christ, by their ineffable concurrence into unity. . . . Thus we confess one Christ and Lord." The answer of Nestorius was characterized by ignoratio elenchi, and could not be regarded as a satis- factory statement of belief (Cyr. Ep. p. 25 ; 238 CYRILLUS Mansi, iv. 891). Cyril wrote another letter to some of his own clergy resident at Constanti- nople ; the Nestorian argument from the im- passibility of the Godhead he put aside as not to the purpose ; and charged Nestorianism with making two Christs and two Sons (Cyr. Ep. p. 32 ; Mansi, iv. 1003). This letter re- cognizes the proverbial eloquence of " John " Chrysostom, and expresses the writer's desire for peace, if peace could be had without a sacrifice of truth. He disapproved of a draft petition to the emperor, sent him by these clerics, as too vehement. In a similar strain he wrote to a common friend of Nestorius and himself, declaring earnestly that he cared for nothing so much as the faith, and desired that Nestorius might be preserved from the charge of heresy (Cyr. Ep. p. 31 ; Mansi, iv. 899). A long letter " On the Right Faith," which he wrote about the same time to the emperor Theodosius, contained an elaborate survey of former heresies, and of the error now spreading in the church (Cyr. tom. v. par. 2 ; Mansi, iv. 617). Cyril's keen-eyed speculative ortho- doxy did not stand coldly apart from all care for practical religion. He felt the vital im- portance of his cherished doctrme in its bearings on the Christian life ; he urged in this treatise that if the Word were not per- sonally incarnate, i.e. if the human Teacher and Sufferer were not really one with the eternal Son of God, the faith of Christian men would be made void, the work of their salva- tion annihilated, and the cross lose its virtue. For the very principle of Christian redemption lay in this, that it was one and the same " Ego" Who, possessing, by virtue of His incarnation, at once a divine and a human sphere of exist- ence, could be at once the God of mankind and the Saviour Who died for them. In c. 21 he dwells, in pursuance of this idea, on the death of Christ as being a full satisfaction (b^fjov d\)]6wt olvtcl^iov). This treatise contains an argument on which Cyril was never weary of insisting : it was particu- larly congenial to the depth and awe, the richness and the tenderness, of his thoughts on the great mystery of incorporation into Christ. From the admitted truth that the flesh of Christ was received in the Eucharist as life-giving, he argued that it must be, in a real sense, the flesh of God. In c. 6 of the treatise, he says that Nestorians would not have erred by dwelling simply on the differ- ence between the natures of " God " and " flesh " — that difference was undeniable ; but they went on to assert an individual and separate being for the man Jesus as apart from the Divine Word, and this was the very point of their heresy. In c. 27 he rises to almost Chrysostomic eloquence when he sets forth the superangelic greatness involved in the idea of " the Lord of Glory." Another treatise, in two books, was addressed to the princesses, Pulcheria, the gifted sister of the feeble emperor, Arcadia, and Marina (Cyr. tom. V. par. 2 ; Mansi, iv. 679 seq.). In bk. i. he argued at length from Scripture for the oneness and Divinity of Christ, for His position as the true object of faith, and for His office as life-giver and atoner ; and among the texts he urged were Heb. i. 3, 6, xiii. 8 ; Tit. ii. 13 : I. Cor. ii. 8 ; II. Cor. viii. 9 ; Eph. iii. CYMLLUS 17 ; Gal. i. i ; Phil. ii. 6 ; Matt. xi. 28, xvi. 16, 20 ; John i. 14, xvii. 3 ; I. John v. 5 (with- out the words about the " heavenly wit- nesses "). He laid great stress on the vastness of the claim advanced by and for Christ in Scripture, and on the unreasonableness of demanding so absolute an obedience if He were not personally Divine. He asked how the death of a mere man could be of such importance for the race ? Many a saint had lived and died, but not one by dying had become the saviour of his fellows. He quoted nine passages from earlier writers in support of the term " Theotokos," or of the doctrine which it guarded. In bk. ii. he explained texts relied on by Nestorians, including parts of Heb. ii. and Matt, xxvii. 46, Luke ii. 40, 52, John iv. 22, Mark xii. 32 ; in the last text seeming to recognize, as he does elsewhere (though sometimes favouring a different view), a limitation of knowledge in Christ's manhood, analogous to His submission, in His human sphere, to pain and want, and consistent with a perpetual omniscience in His Divine consci- ousness (ad Regin. ii. 17). In accordance with the emphatic assertion (ii. 7) of the value imparted to Christ's death by His Divinity, the work concludes with " for all our hope is in Christ, by Whom and with Whom," etc. In these treatises, if some texts are strained beyond their natural meaning, there is yet a remarkable exhibition of acuteness and' fer- tility of thought, pervaded and quickened by what Dorner calls Cyril's " warm interest " in Christianity as a religion. Probably c. Apr. 430 Cyril answered the letter of the Roman bishop, received a year before (Ep. p. 26) ; he informed him that the main body of the faithful of Constantinople (acting on the principle fully recognized in the ancient church, that loyalty to the faith was a higher duty than ecclesiastical subordination) were holding off from the communion of Nestorius, but greatly needed support and countenance ; and in very deferential terms asked Celestine to say whether any fellowship could be maintained by orthodox bishops with one who was disseminating heresy (Mansi, iv. ion). With this letter he sent a series of passages illustrative of what Nestorius held and of what church-writers had taught, trans- lated into Latin " as well as Alexandrians could " perform such a task, and to be shewn by his messenger Posidonius to Celestine, if the latter had received anything from Nes- torius. One other letter of Cyril's belongs to the summer of 430 : he addressed himself to the aged Acacius, bp. of Berrhoea, who com- municated the letter to John, patriarch of Antioch, but informed Cyril that many who had come to Syria, fresh from the preaching of Nestorius, were disposed to think him not committed to heresy. It is observable that Cyril tells Acacius that some had been led on by Nestorianism into an express denial that Christ was God (see Mansi, iv. 1053). We now reach a landmark in the story. On Aug. II, 430, Celestme, having held a synod which pronounced Nestorius heretical, gave Cyril a stringent commission (see this letter in Mansi, iv. 1017) to " join the authority of the Roman see to his own " in warning Nestorius that unless a wTitten retractation were exe- CYRILLUS cutcd within ten days, giving assurance of his accepting the faith as to " Christ our Clod," which was held by the churches of Koine and Alexandria, he would be excluded from the communion of those churches, and " i>n>vi- sion " would be made by them for tlu- churdi of Constantinople, i.e. by the appointment of an orthodox bishop. Had Cyril been as vio- lent and imperious as he is often said to have been, he would not have deferred by a single day the carrying out of these instructions. But he took time to assemble, at Alexandria, a " council of all Egypt," and then, probably on Mon. Nov. 3, 430, wrote his third Letter to Nestorius {Ep. p. 57 ; Mansi, iv. 1067 ; Routh, .Scr. Op. ii. 17), in which he required him to anathematize his errors, and added a long dogmatic exposition of the true sense of the Nicene Creed, with a careful disclaimer of all confusion between Godhead and manhood. To this letter were appended 12 " articles," or " chapters," anathematizing the various points of the Nestorian theory — e.g. that Emmanuel is not really God, and Mary not Theotokos ; that the Word was not personally joined to fiesh ; that there was a " connexion " of two persons ; that Christ is a " God-bearing man " ; that He was a separate individual acted on by the Word, and called " God " along with Him ; that His Flesh was not the Word's own ; that the Word did not suffer death in the flesh. These propositions were not well calculated to reclaim Nestorius ; nor were they, indeed, so worded throughout as to approve themselves to all who essentially agreed with Cyril as to the Personal Deity of Christ, and he' was afterwards obliged to put forth explanations of their meaning. Cyril WTote two other letters to the clergy, laity, and monks of Constantinople, urging them to con- tend, or praising them for having already contended, for that faith in Christ's true God- head of which " Theotokos " was the recog- nized expression (Mansi, iv. 1094). Four bishops were sent from Alexandria to bear the synodal documents to Constantinople and deliver the anathemas to Nestorius in his palace, after the conclusion of the Eucharistic service, either on Sun. Nov. 30, 430, or Sun. Dec. 7. Nestorius met the denunciations of the Alexandrian synod by enlisting several Eastern bishops in his cause, including John of Antioch, and Theodoret, who accused Cyril of Apollinarianism ; by preaching in an ortho- dox strain to his own people, and by framing 12 anathemas of his own, some of which betrayed confusion of thought, while some tended directly to confirm the charges against his teaching — e.g. he would not allow Em- manuel to be called Very God. Theodoret, whose views on the subject were not as yet clear or consistent, composed a reply to Cyril. Andrew of Samosata, in the name of the " Eastern " bishops properly so called, also entered the lists against the great theologian of Egypt, who answered both his new antag- onists in an Apology for the 12 articles (Mansi, V. 19), and a Defence of them against Theo- doret's objections, the latter addressed to a bishop named Euoptius (Mansi. v. 81). These treatises threw light on the state of mind to which Cyril's anathemas had seemed so offen- sive. The Easterns, or Andrew speaking in CYRILLUS 239 their name, exhibit some reniark.d>le misron- ceptions of Cyril's meaning— »•.«. they tax him with denying Christ's flesh to be of real human derivation ; but they absolutely disclaim the view which would make Jesus merely a prc- enunent saint, and thev speak of "worship being due to the One Son. Theodoret uses nmch language which is prinui facie Nestorian ; his t)bjections are pervaded by an ie.noratio elenchi, and his language is repeatedly illogical and inconsistent ; but he and Cvril were essentially nearer in belief than, at the time, they would have admitted (Hooker, v. 53, 4), for Theodoret virtually owns the personal oneness, and explains the phrase " God as- sumed man " by " He assumed manhood." Both writers speak severely of each other : Theodoret calls Cyril a wolf, and Cyril treats Theodoret as a calumniator. Cyril, in his Reply to the Easterns and in his letter to Euop- tius, earnestly disclaims both forms of Apollin- arianism — the notion of a mindless manhood in Christ, and the notion of a body formed out of Godhead. The latter, he says', is excluded by John i. 14. In the reply (on art. 4) he admits " the language appropriate to each nature." Cyril points out the confusions of thought which had misled Theodoret as to " God " and " Godhead " ; insists that the eternal Son, retaining His divine dignity and perfections, condescended to assume the limita- tions of manhood ; and so {ad Eiiopt. 4, as in ad Regin. ii. 17, etc.) explains Mark xii. 32, and says, with a touch of devotional tender- ness particularly refreshing amid the clash of polemics, " He wept as man, that He might stop thee from weeping. He is said to have been weak as to His manhood, that He might put an end to thy weakness " (ad Euopt. 10). He adhered with characteristic definiteness to the point really involved — the question whether Jesus were a human individual (to be viewed iotvtD?, as he repeatedly says), or whether He were the Divine Son Himself appearing in human form and occupying, without prejudice to His inalienable and pre- existent majesty, a human sphere of existence. In the former case, the Son of Mary must be regarded simply as a very highly favoured saint, and Christianity loses its distinctive power and preciousness ; in the latter case, He is a Divine Redeemer, and Christianity is a Gospel worthy of the name. " Let us all acknowledge as Saviour the Word of Ciod, Who remained impassible in the nature of the God- head, but suffered, as Peter said, in the flesh. For, by a true union, that body which tasted death was His very own. Else, how was "Christ from the Jews according to the flesh," and " God over all, and blessed for ever, amen " ? and into Whose death have we been baptized, and by confessing Whose resur- rection are we justified ? . . . The death of a mere man," etc., " or do we, as is indeed the case, proclaim the death of God Who became man and suffered for us in flesh, and confessing His resurrection, put away the burden of sin ? " (ad Euopt.) To this same period or the preceding year (420) may be assigned Cyril's five bi^oks Against Nestorius. In these he comments on passages in Nestorius'i sermons, and by all forms of argument and illustration sets forth the question really at 240 CYRILLUS stake — Had the Divine Son Himself become incarnate, or had He closely allied Himself to a man ? We must now return to the events of Nov. 430. Before the Egyptian deputies could reach Constantinople, Theodosius II. issued letters to the metropolitans of his empire, simimoning them to meet at Ephesus in the Pentecost of 431, with such bishops as each might select, to hold a general council. This resolution, taken at the instance of Nestorius, had the effect of suspending all hostile action on the part of any individual bishop or pro- vincial synod. Theodosius, who was pre- judiced against Cyril, wrote sharply to him, censuring his " meddlesomeness " and " rash- ness," and complaining of his having written separately to the princesses. In compliance with the imperial order, Cyril arrived at Ephesus with 50 bishops, about June 2, 431. For the details of the history of the Ephesine Council, or third oecumenical synod, see art. "Ephesus, Councils of," in D. C. A. It is enough here to specify the occasions on which Cyril came prominently forward. A fortnight elapsed before the council was opened : Cyril, like other prelates, employed himself in strengthening the cause he had at heart by earnest addresses. After waiting long for the arrival of John of Antioch and his attendant bishops, Cyril received a cordial letter from his brother patriarch, announcing that he had been travelling incessantly for a month, and hoped to " embrace C\Tril " in five or six days more {Ep. p. 83). There also arrived two metropolitans, who bore from him a message to the bishops requesting them to proceed with business if he were delayed. The ques- tion at once arose^" Should the bishops wait any longer ? " It would have been clearly better, even as a matter of policy, to wait a few days for John's arrival. The cause of orthodoxy could never be aided by its being associated with, to say the least, the appear- ance of unfairness or impatience. But Cyril and his suffragans were probably not at aU desirous of John's presence, for they knew he would be hostile to the C>Trilline articles : they encouraged the idea that he was purposely loitering from reluctance to join in measures against Nestorius (an idea which appears to have been unfounded, Evagr. i. 3), and took advantage of the fact that other bishops were weary of waiting, the rather that illness, and even death, had occurred among them. So the council was opened on June 22, 431 ; and John's message, which evidently referred to a possible delay beyond the six days specified, was unjustifiably quoted to defend a refusal to wait even that period. In this it is im- possible to acquit Cyril of blame ; and the fault "brought its own punishment in the confusions that ensued " (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 259). Cyril presided in the assembly ; not in virtue of the commission from Celestine to act in his stead — which had been already acted upon in the Alexandrian council of Nov. 430 — but as the prelate of highest dignity then present, and as holding the proxy and repre- senting the mind of the Roman bishop, until the Roman legates should arrive (see TiUem. xiv. 393)' Cyril called on the council to judge between himself and Nestorius : the main CYMLLUS facts were stated by his secretary ; when Nes- torius refused to appear, Cyril's second letter to him was read, and at C>Trirs request the bishops pronounced upon its orthodoxy, de- claring it in entire accordance with the faith. His third letter was received merely with a tacit assent, which might be held to extend to the " articles." (The council professed, after- wards, that it had approved Cyril's epistles ; Mansi, iv. 1237.) After evidence as to Nes- torius's opinions and the mind of orthodox Fathers had been laid before the council (great stress being doubtless laid on Nestorius' s re- cent avowal, " 1 never will admit that a child of two or three months old was God," Mansi, iv. 1 181, 1239), his deposition and excommuni- cation were resolved on by the assembled bishops ; and Cyril signed the sentence before his brethren in these words : " I, Cyril, bp. of Alexandria, sign, giving my judgment together with the council." When the patriarch of Antioch, with a few bishops, arrived on June 26 or 27, in vexation at the course taken by the majority, they held a "council" or their own, and "deposed" Cyril, and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, imputing to the former not only Apollinarianism, but also the heresy of the ultra-Arian rationalist Eunomius. On the other hand, the council of Ephesus, now reinforced by the Roman legates, treated Cyril and Celestine as one in faith, and proceeded to summon John — Cyril being disposed, had not the bp. of Jeru- salem prevented it, to move for a sentence of deposition on the patriarch of Antioch, after the first summons (see Mansi, iv. 13 11). Cyril repudiated and anathematized the heresies imputed to him, and coupled with them the Pelagian errors and those of Nestorius. John of Antioch, having disowned the council's summons, was excommunicated, with his ad- herents. Late in July count John, the im- perial high treasurer, was sent by Theodosius to Ephesus, with a letter in which Cj'ril, Memnon, and Nestorius were treated as deposed. Accordingly all three were arrested, and guards slept at Cyril's chamber door. His opponents induced Isidore of Pelusium to write to him, exhorting him to avoid the bad pre- cedents of his uncle's violent conduct, and not to give occasion for the charge of personal animosity {Ep. i. 310). Cyril, for his part, spoke, in a letter to three of his suffragans then at Constantinople {Ep. p. 91), of infamous falsehoods circulated against him, but detected by count John. He thanked God for having been counted worthy to suffer, for His Name's sake, not only bonds but other indignities. He received from a priest named Alypius a letter describing him in glowing terms as an imitator of Athanasius. While the two rival assemblies of bishops, the council and the " conciliabulum," sent deputies to the court of Theodosius, Cyril wrote an " Explanation " of his " articles," vindicating them against the charge of a confusion between the Godhead and the Manhood, or of teaching inconsistent with the distinct existence of the latter, in the one Divine Person of the Incarnate Lord. Theodosius finally ordered Cyril and his friends to return home, but abstained from condemn- ing the " Eastern " bishops, who on their side complained of his partiality to their opponents. CYRILLUS On Oct. 30, 431, Cyril returned to Alexandria ; and shortly afterwards Maximian, a pious and simple-hearted man, who by virtue of an imperial mandate had been amsccratcd to the see of Constantinople in the room of Nestorius, announced his accession to Cyril, who in his reply compared him to the faithful Eliakim, invested with the stewardship of llezekiah's household on the deprivation of the unworthy Shebna. This letter contained a statement of orthodox doctrine, and a disclaimer of all ideas of " confusion " or " alteration " in the divine nature of the Word {Ep. p. 94 seq. ; Mansi, v. 257 seq.). Cyril next began a vindication of his conduct to be laid before the emperor (Mansi, v. 225). Theodosius, hoping for a reconciliation, endeavoured to arrange a meeting between John and Cyril at Nico- media. Cyril was now disposed to moderation, and resolved to insist only upon the condem- nation of Nestorius and the recognititu of Maximian. The meeting, it was found, could not take place ; but a council at Antioch framed six articles, expressly rejecting those of CntII, while accepting Athanasius's letter to Epictetus as an exposition of Nicene orthodoxy. Cyril's reply shewed that he had mastered his tendency to vehement and un- yielding self-assertion. He WTote to Acacius of Berrhoea, the oldest bp. in S>Tia, who had forwarded to him the six articles by the hands of the " tribune and notary " Aristolaus. CjTil's letter (preserved, in a Lat. version, in the " Synodicon," Mansi, v. 831) is worth at- tention : he represented the impossibility of withdrawing what he had written against Nestorius — it would be easy to come to a good understanding about the " articles " of the Alexandrian synod if only the Easterns would accept the deposition of Nestorius. " Those who anathematize them will see that the meaning of the articles is directed solely against his blasphemies." For himself, Cyril disavowed and condemned once more the heresies imputed to him, and asserted the impassibility of the divine nature in Christ, while insisting that He, the Only-begotten Son, Himself " suffered for us in the flesh," accord- ing to the words of St. Peter. This letter (referred to by Cyril in subsequent letters, Ep. pp. no, 152, 153) opened the way to his re- conciUation with John. The latter, although in his recent council he had bound himself to demand a recantation of the Cyrilline articles, now declared that Cyril had fully cleared himself from all heretical opinions. After a conference with Acacius of Berrhoea, John sent to Alexandria, Paul bp. of Emesa, a man of experience whom they both could trust, to confer with Cyxil (see Cyril's letters to Acacius and Donatus, Ep. pp. in, 156). When Paul reached Alexandria, Cyril was laid up with ill- ness (Mansi, v. 987), but, when able, received him, as Paul himself said, kindly and pacifically (Mansi, v. 288). They began their conference : Paul presented to Cyril a confession of faith as exhibiting the mind of John of Antioch (Ep. p. 103) ; it had been originally written at EphesusbyTheodoret (Tillem. xiv. 531). " We confess," so ran this fornmlary, " our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, to be perfect God and perfect Man, of a reason- able soul and a body, before the ages begotten CYRILLUS of the Father according to Godhead, but in the last days Himself the solf-samc, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary accord- ing to Manhood ; of one essence with the Father as to Godhead, of one essence with us as to Manhood. For there took place an union of two natures ; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this idea of an union without confusion, we ct)nfess the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, because God the Word was incarnate and made Man, and from His very conception united to Himself the temple assumed from her." The formu- lary, although it dwelt more than Cyril had been wont to do on the double aspect of the Incarnation, was accepted by Cyril as repre- senting Paul's own faith, and he placed a corresponding statement in the hands of Paul. The latter asked whether he would stand by Athanasius's letter to Epictetus. " Certaiidy ; but is your copy of it free of corruption ? " Paul produced his copy ; Cyril, comparing it with the authentic text, found that it had been tampered with (Mansi, v. 325). After further conversation the two bishops agrecti to " for- get " the troubles of Ephesus. Paul gave Cyril a letter from John, which, though gentle and dignified in tone, referred to the " arti- cles " in language which annoyed Cyril, and he spoke of the letter as " insulting." Paul soothed him with courteous assurances, but Cyril proceeded to the point which John had ignored— the recognition of the deposition of Nestorius, and the condemnation of his heresy. Paul offered to make such a declaration in John's name, but Cyril promptly and keenly insisted that John himself should make it [ib. 313). Just as little could Cyril give way as to the four Nestoriauizing metropolitans deposed by the new archbp. of Constantinople: that sentence, he insisted, must stand good [ib. 349). Paul then, in writing, satisfied C>Til as to his own orthodoxy, and Cyril allowed him to join in the church-service of Alex- andria, even inviting him to preach on Christ- mas Day, 432, in the great church (ib. 293). The bp. of Emesa began with the angelic hymn, proceeded to the prophecy of Emma- nuel, and then said, " Thus Mary, Mother of God, brings forth Emmanuel." A character- istic outbreak of orthodox joy interrupted the discourse. The people cried out, " This is the faith ! 'Tis God's own gift, O orthodox Cyril ! This is what we wanted to hear." Paul then went on to say that a combination of two per- fect natures, the Godhead and Manhood, constituted " for us " the one Son, the one Christ, the one Lord. Again the cry arose, " Welcome, orthod(jx bishop ! " Paul re- sumed his discom-se, and explained St. Peter's confession as implying a duality of nature and an unity of person in Christ. On New Year's Uay, 433, after alluding to Cyril as a kind- hearted trainer who had smiled upon his per- formance, he preached at greater length on the unity of the Person and the distinctness of the natures, as being co-ordinate and harmonious truths ; and his teaching was heartily en- dorsed by Cyril, who sent two of his own clergy to accompany him and Aristolaus, the em- peror's secretary, who was very zealous for the reunion, to Antioch, with a paper for John to sign, and a letter of communion to be given lU 242 CYRILLUS him when he had signed it. But Cynril con- sidered Maximian also languid in the cause, and he wrote many letters to persons con- nected with the imperial court, including the " Augusta " Pulcheria, to bring their influence to bear upon John and separate him definitely and finally from Nestorius (Mansi, v. 988). These letters were backed up by presents euphemistically called " blessings " (eulogiae), which were employed by CntII as a matter of course, for he knew but little of delicacy and scrupulosity as to the means to be used in gaining a court to the church's interests. Cyril also assured Theognostus, Charmosynus, and Leontius, his " apocrisiarii " or church agents at Constantinople {Ep. p. 152) that this peace with John implied no retractation of his old principles. In the spring of 433 John of Antioch wrote to C^Til, reciting the formu- lary of reunion, abandoning Nestorius, and condemning Nestorianism (Mansi, v. 290). In another letter John entreated C\Til in a tone of warm friendship to believe that he was " the same that he had known in former days" {Ep. p. 154). On Apr. 23 (Pharmuthi 8) Cyril announced this reconciliation in a sermon (Mansi, v. 310, 289), and began his reply to John, " Let the heavens rejoice and the earth be glad " {Ep. p. 104 ; Mansi, v. 301). In this letter (afterwards approved by the council of Chalcedon) he cited the text, " One Lord, one faith, one baptism," as ex- pressing the happiness of the restored peace ; and added his usual disclaimers of all opinions inconsistent with the reaUty of Christ's man- hood. He commented on John iii. 13, I. Cor. XV. 47, I. Pet. iv. I. He also sent to John a copy of the genuine text of Athanasius's letter to Epictetus. John himself became an object of suspicion and animosity to the thoroughgoing Nestorians ; and even Theo- doret, though he admitted that CntH's recent language was orthodox, would not abandon Nestorius's cause. In another direction doubts and anxieties were excited by the language now sanctioned by C\Til. Isidore, to whom C>Til had always allowed great free- dom of admonitory speech, and who had blamed him for unyieldingness, now expressed a fear that he had made too great concessions {Ep. i. 324). Other friends of his were scan- dalized by his acceptance of the phrase " two natures." Was not this, they began to ask, equivalent to a sanction of Nestorianism ? To vindicate his orthodoxv herein, C\Til \vrote a long letter to Acacius of Meliten'e {Ep. p. 109 ; Mansi, v. 309), who had signified to him that some disquietude was felt. ' He narrated the recent transactions ; and after insisting that the formulary was not (as some had re- presented it) a new creed, but simply a state- ment called forth by a special emergency (as those who signed it had been accused of rejecting the Nicene faith, and were therefore constrained to clear themselves), he proceeded to exhibit the essential difference between the formulary and the Nestorian error. Nestor- ius, in fact, asserted two Christs : the formu- lary confessed one, both divine and human. Then C^tII added that the two natures spoken of in the formulary were indeed separate in mental conception, i.e. considered apart from Christ, but that " after their union " in Christ CYRILLUS " the nature of the Son was but one, as belonging to one, but to One as made man and incar- nate." Again, " The nature of the Word is confessedly one, but has become incarnate," for " the Word took the form of a servant," and " in this sense only could a diversity of natures be recognized, for Godhead and ^tan- hood are not the same in natural quality." Thus, in regard to the Incarnation, " the mind sees two things united without confusion, and nowise regards them, when thus united, as separable, but confesses Him Who is from both, God, Son, and Christ, to be one." " Two natures," in Nestorius's mouth, meant two natures existing separately, in One Who was God and in One Who was Man ; John of Antioch and his brethren, while admitting that Godhead and Manhood in Christ might be regarded as intrinsically different, yet un- equivocally acknowledged His Person to be one. The phrase " one incarnate nature " of God the Word, or " one nature, but that incarnate," had been already {ad Regin. i. 9) quoted by C>Til as Athanasian : although it is very doubtful whether the short tract On the Incarnation of God the Word, in which it is found, was really written by Athanasius. But, as now used by Cyril in his vindication of the formulary from Nestorianism, it became in after-days a stumbling-block, and was quoted in support of Monophysitism (Hooker, v. 52, 4). Did, then, Cyril in fact hold what was condemned in 451 by the council of Chalce- don ? Would he have denied the distinct co-existence of Godhead and Manhood in the one incarnate Saviour ? Were the Fathers of Chalcedon wrong when they proclaimed C>Til and Leo to be essentially one in faith ? What has been already quoted from the letter to Acacius of Melitene seems to warrant a nega- tive answer to these questions. What Cyril meant by " one nature incarnate " was simply, " Christ is one." He was referring to " nature " as existing in Christ's single Divine Personality (cf. adv. Nest. ii. ; cf. note in Athan. Treatises, Lib. Path. i. 155). When he denounced the idea of the separation of the natures after the union, he was in fact denouncing the idea of a mere connexion or association between a human individual Jesus and the Divine Word. Therefore, when he maintained the nature to be one, he was speaking in a sense quite dis- tinct from the Eutychian heresy, and quite consistent with the theology of Chalcedon. Other letters, written by C\Til under the same circumstances, throw light on his true mean- ing. Successus, an Isaurian bishop, had" asked him whether the phrase " two natures " were admissible {Ep. p. 135 ; Mansi, v. 999). Cyril wrote two letters to him in reply. In the first, after strongly asserting the unitv of the Son both before and since the Incarnation, he quoted the " one nature incarnate " as a phrase of the Fathers, and employed the illustration from soul and body, " two na- tures " being united in one man in order to set forth the combination of Godhead and Manhood in one Christ (cf. his Scholia de Inc. 8). There was, he added, neither a conversion of Godhead into flesh nor a change of flesh into Godhead. In other words, Christ's bod}^ though glorified, and existing as God's body, was not deprived of its human reahty. In the CYRILLUS second letter, replying to objections made by Successus to statements in the first, CjTil fully admitted that Christ " arrayed Himself with our nature," so that in Him both Clodhead and Manhood, in Christ, retained their natural distinctness (cf. p. 143), and that the human nature was neither diminished nor subtracted. Further on he repeated the phrase " one nature, but that incarnate," in the sense (as the context shews) of " One Who in His original nature was God, by incarnation becoming man." In another letter he gave, to a priest named Eulogius, a similar account of the phrase, and obviously viewed it as guarding the truth of the Personal Union (Ep. p. 133). In another, addressed to a bishop named Valerian (and remarkable for the emphasis with which the Divinitv of Christ is exhibited as bearing on His Atonement), the word " nature," in this connexion, is evidently used as synonymous with " person " or hypostasis ; and as if specially anxious to exclude all possible misconception, he wrote : " He, being by nature God, became flesh, that is, perfect man. . . . As man He was partaker of our nature." This language agrees with that of his 17th Paschal Homily (Cyr. v. ii. 226). Cf. also his statement in adv. Nest. ii. t. vi. 50, that while the divine and the human natures are different things, as all right-thinking men must know, yet after the Incarnation they must not be divided, for there is but one Christ. Again (ib. p. 45) that Christ is not twofold is explained by the context to mean that Christ before and since the Incarnation is one and the same Person ; and {ib. p. 48). the reason for calling Christ's Godhead the cpvais is explained by the consideration that He was originally God, while in the fifth book (ib. p. 139) He is said to have given up His body to the laws of its own nature (ttjs idias (pvaews). In the ninth book, de S. Trinitate (dial, quod unus est Christus), he denies all transmutation or con- fusion of the natures, asserts the distinctnes<^ of Godhead and Manhood, adding that "the bush burning yet unoonsumed was a type of the non- consumption of the Manhood of Christ in its contact with His Divinity " (cf. Scholia, 2, 9). To return to the history. Maximian, dying in Apr. 434, was succeeded by Proclus, whose glowing sermon on the Incarnation had been among the earliest expressions of orthodox zeal against the Nestorian theory, and who de- serves to be remembered as a very signal example of the compatibility of orthodox zeal with charitable tenderness (Socr. vii. 41). Soon after his accession the imperial court resolved to enforce on all Eastern bishojis the acceptance of the concordat which had reconciled John of Antioch with Cyril, upon pain of expulsion from their dioceses. The Xestorians, on their side, were indefatigable in circulating the works of Theodore of Mop- suestia, who had formed the theological mind of Nest(.rius ; and Cyril, who was informed of this during a visit to Jerusalem, was stirred to new energy by the evident vitality of the theory which he so earnestly abhorred. He wrote to the " tribune " Aristolaus, and to John of Antioch, complaining that, as he was informed, some bishops were repudiating Nestorianism insincerely or inadequately, and were declaring that its author had been con- CYRILLUS 243 demned merely for denying the " Theotokos " (Mansi, v. 996, cf. ib. 970). He urged that the bisliops siiould anathematize Nestorianism in detail. John wislied nr) new test to be imposed ; and Cyril found he had gone tt)o far (ib. 969, 972, 996). John was much annoyed at Theodoret's pertinacious refusal to anathematize Nestorius — a refusal in which Theodoret persisted until the eighth session of the council of Chalcedon (ib. 997). As the Nestorianizers professed entire adhesion to the Nicene Creed, Cyril drew up an exposition of it (Ep. p. 174, Mansi, v. 383, cf. ib. 975) addressed to certain " fathers of monks," in which he urged the incompatibility of that " venerable and oecumenical symbol of faith " with the denial of the personal unity of the Saviour. In this tract, a copy of which he sent to Thcodosius, he disclaimed, as usual, any " fusion, commixture, or so-called con- substantiation " (crvvovaiwaiv] of the Godhead with the flesh. He drew up a short treatise in three books to prove that Mary was Theotokos, that Christ was one and not two, and that while He was impassible as God, He suffered for us m flesh that was His own. This he intended as an antidote to the Nestorian argu- ments which, as he learned, were rife in Syria (Mansi, v. 995). The name of Theodore of Mopsuestia was at this time a watchword of eager controversy. Proclus of Constantinople, in his " Tome " addressed to the Armenian clergy, in which he spoke of " one incarnate person" (not "nature") of God the Word, had condemned Theodore's opinions without naming him (ib. 421) : the messengers who carried this document to John of Antioch in- serted Theodore's name, without authority from Proclus, as the author of certain passages selected for censure. John and his suffragans accepted the Tome, but declined to condemn Theodore by name. Proclus rejoined that he had never wished them to go beyond a Cf)n- demnation of the extracts. Cyril, so far from feeling any tenderness towards Theodore, traced Nestorianism to his teaching and to that of Diodore of Tarsus (ib. 974) a'"^' \vrote vigorously in support of this thesis (ib. 992). A synodal letter from John and his suffragans, stating their objections to Theodore's name being anathematized on the score of expres- sions which, they urged, could be taken in a sense accordant with the language of eminent Fathers, drew forth from Cyril a somewhat in- dignant replv. Theodore, he said (Ep. p. 195), had " borne down full sail against the glory of Christ " ; it was intolerable that any parallel should be drawn between his language and that of Athanasius or Basil : he insisted that no one should be allowed to preach Theodore's opinions ; but he did not urge any condem- nation of his memory, and even dwelt on the dutv of welcoming all converts from Nestor- ianism without a word of reproach as to the past. He saw that it would be imprudent to proceed publicly against the memory of a theologian so highly esteemed that the people cried out in some liastern churches, " We be- lieve as Theodore did," and would rather bo " burnt " than disown him ; and he wrote to Proclus advising that no further stepsshould be taken in the matter (Ep. p. 199)- The remam- ing events of Cyril's long episcopate may be 244 CYRILLUS told briefly. Rewrote to Domnus, the successor of John in the see of Antioch (and afterwards unhappily conspicuous in the Eutychian con- troversy) , in behalf of Athanasius sometime bp. of Perrha, who described himself, falsely it appears, as sorely wronged by some of his own clergy {Ep. p. 208). In another letter to Dom- nus, peremptory in style, he took up the cause of another aged bishop named Peter, who professed to have been expelled and plundered of his property on the pretext of a renunciation of his see, which after all had been extorted from him {Ep. p. 209). In both these cases Cyril shewed a somewhat impulsive readiness to beheve the story of a petitioner, and a some- what dictatorial temper in regard to the affairs of another patriarchate. He wrote also a work against the Anthropomorphites, whose wild fancies about the Divine nature (as being limited and corporeal) had given such trouble in the days of his predecessor ; and in a letter on this subject to Calosirius, bp. of Arsinoe, he added a caution against the false mysticism which insisted on prayer to the exclusion of all labour, and on the " senseless " opinion that the Eucharistic consecration lost its efficacy if the sacrament was reserved until the follow- ing day. " Christ's holy Body," wrote Cyril, " is not changed ; but the power of consecra- tion and the life-giving grace still remain in it " {Op. vi. 365). In the last year of his life he wrote to Leo, then bp. of Rome (to whom, as archdeacon of Rome, he had written in 431 against the ambitious schemes, as he regarded them, of Juvenal bp. of Jerusalem [Leon. Ep. 119, 4]) on the right calculation of Easter for A.D. 444, which, according to the Alexandrian cycle of 19 3'ears, he fixed for April 23. In 444, on June 9 or 27, his eventful life ended. Cyril's character is not, of cnurse, to be judged by the coarse and ferocious invective against his memory, quoted as Theodoret's in the fifth general council (Theod. Ep. 180 ; see Tillem. xiv. 784). If this were indeed the production of Theodoret, the reputation to suffer would assuredly be that writer's. What Cyril was, in his strength and in his weak- ness — in his high-souled struggle for doctrines which were to him, as to all thoughtful believers in Christ's Divinity, the expres- sions of essential Christian belief ; or in the moments when his old faults of vehemence and impatience reappeared in his conduct — we have akeady seen. He started in public hfe, so to speak, with dangerous tendencies to vehemence and imperiousness which were fostered by the bad traditions of his uncle's episcopate and by the ample powers of his see. It would be impossible to maintain that these evils were wholly exhausted by the grave errors which — exaggerations and false impu- tations set aside — distinguished his conduct in the feud with the Jews and with Orestes; when, although guiltless of the blood of Hy- patia, he must have felt that his previous violence had been taken as an encouragement by her fanatical murderers. The old impa- tience and absolutism were all too prominent at certain points of the Nestorian struggle ; although on other occasions, as must be ad- mitted by all fair judges, influences of a soften- ing and chastening character had abated the turbid impetus of his zeal and had taught him CYRILLUS to be moderate and patient. " We may," says Dr. Newman {Hist. Sketches, iii. 342), " hold St. Cyril a great servant of God, without considering ourselves obliged to defend certain passages of his ecclesiastical career. . . . Cyril's faults were not inconsistent with great and heroic virtues, faith, firmness, intrepidity, fortitude, endurance, perseverance." Those who begin by condemning dogmatic zeal as a fierce and misplaced chivalry for a phantom, will find it most difficult to be just to a man like Cyril. But if his point of view, which was indeed that of many great religious heroes, and eminently of Athanasius, be fully understood and appreciated, it ought not to be difficult to do justice to his memory. The issue raised by Nestorianism was to Cyril a very plain one, involving the very essence of Apostolic Christianity. Whatever ambiguities might be raised by a Nestorian use of the word Trpdawirov, it was clear to Cyril that the new theory amounted to a denial of the Word Incarnate. Nor was it a mere theory of the schools. Its promulgator held the great see of the Eastern capital, involving a central position and strong court influence, and was no mere amiable dreamer or scholastic pedant, whose fancies might die away if left to themselves. He has in modern times been spoken of as " the blameless Nestorius " : he was in his own times spoken of as " the incendiary " on ac- count of a zeal against other forms of heresy which impelled him to take strong measures against opponents of his own. This was the enemy against whom Cyril did battle for the doctrine of a real Incarnation and a really Divine Christ. He had to reckon on opposi- tion, not only from Nestorius himself, but from large numbers — a miscellaneous company, including civil functionaries as well as prelates — who accepted the Nestorian theology, or who thought strong language against it un- called-for and offensive. He might have to encounter the displeasure of an absolute government — he certainly had for some time the prospect of that displeasure, and of all its consequences ; he had the burden of ill-health, of ever-present intense anxiety, of roughly expressed censure, of reiterated imputations affecting his own orthodoxy, of misconcep- tions and suspicions which hardly left him a moment's rest. Whatever faults there were in his conduct of the controversy, this at least must be said — not only by mere eulogists of a canonized saint, but by those who care for the truth of history — that the thought as well as the heart of Christendom has for ages accept- ed, as the expression of Christian truth, the principle upheld by Cyril against Nestorius. A real and profound question divided the disputants ; and that stanza of Charles Wes- ley's Christmas hymn which begins, " Christ, by highest heaven adored," conveys the C>Tilline or Ephesine answer to that question in a form which exhibits its close con- nexion with the deepest exigencies of spiritual life. Cyril, as a theological writer, has greater merits than are sometimes allowed by writers defective in a spirit ot equity. His style, as Cave admits, may be deficient in elegance and in eloquence ; he may be often tedious, CYRILLUS and sometimes obscure, although, as Photius says {Cod. 136), his Thesaurus is remarkable for its lucidity. His couiments on Scripture may be charged with excessive mysticism, or with a perpetual tendency to bring forward his favourite theological idea. There may be weak points in his argument — e.g. undue pressing of texts, and fallacious inferences, several of which might be cited from the treatise To the Princesses. But any one who consults, e.g., the Thesaurus, will acknowledge the ability with which Cyril follows up the theological line of Athanasius (see pp. 12, 23, 27, 30, 50), and applies the Athanasian mode of thought to the treatment of Eunomian rationalism (p. 263), and the vividness with which, in this and in other works, he brings out the Catholic interpretation of cardinal texts in N.T. His acquaintance with Greek literature and philosophy is evident from the work against Julian ; but he speaks quite in the tone of Hippolytus's "Little Laby- rinth" (Eus. v. 28^ when he deprecates an undue reliance on Aristotelian dialectics and a priori assumption on mysteries transcend- ing human thought [Thesaur. 87, de recta fide 16, 17). Fragments of CjTrilline treatises not other- wise extant are preserved in synodal acts and elsewhere, and other works, as his Paschal Cycles and The Failure of the Synagogue, are mentioned by Sigebert and Gennadius. The Monophysites used on festivals a " Liturgy of St. Cyril," which is substantially identical with the Gk. " Liturgy of St. Mark " (see Palmer's Orig. Liturg. i. 86, and Neale's Inlrod. East. Ch. i. 324), and their traditionary belief, ex- pressed in a passage cited from Abu'lberkat by Renaudot, Lit. Orient, i. 171, is that Cyril " completed " St. Mark's Liturgy. " It seems highly probable," says Dr. Neale, quoting this, " that the liturgy of St. Mark came, as we have it now, from the hands of St. Cyril " ; although, as Palmer says, the ortho- dox Alexandrians preferred to call it by the name of the Evangelist founder of their see. The Coptic Cyrilline Liturgy is of somewhat later date, and more diffuse in character. It seems not improbable that the majestic in- vocation of the Holy Spirit which is one of the distinctive ornaments of St. Mark's Liturgy, if it was not composed during the Macedonian controversy in the 4th cent., represents to us the lively zeal of the great upholder of the Hypostatic Union for the essential Divinity of the Third Person in the Godhead. CntH's works were well edited by John Aubert (1658) in six volumes, an edition not yet superseded ; there is no Benedictine St. Cyril. In 1859 Dr. Payne Smith pub. Cyril's Commentary on St. Luke's (iospel, trans, from a Svriac version. An elaborate edition by P. E. Pusey, M.A., of Christ Church, of the Commentary on the Minor Prophets [2 vols.) and the Commentary on S. John's Gospel (3 vols.) is pub. by the Clarendon Press, as is also the text and trans, with Lat. notes of the Comm. in Luc. ed. by R. P. Smith. An important work has recently been published bv Dr. Bethune Baker, of Cambridge, entitled Nestorius and his Teaching, a Fresh Examina- tion of the Evidence, which adduces much, from new discoveries, in vindication of Nestorius DALMATIUS 245 from the heresy attributed to him. See also CuRisToLOGV, in I). C. li. (4-V0I. ed.). [w.h ] Cyrlilus (13) of S. vlhopolis (Bethshan). so called from his birthplace, a hagiologist, fl. c. 555. His father, John, was famous for his rc- ligiinis life. Cyril commenced an ascetic career at the age of 16. On leaving his monastery to visit Jerusalem and the holy places, his mother bid him put himself under the instruction of John the Silentiary, by whom he was com- mended to Leontius, abbat of the monastery of St. Euthymius, who adnutted him as a monk in 522. Thence C\Til passed to the Laura of St. Saba, where he commenced his sacred bio- graphies with the Lives of St. Euthvmius and St. Saba, deriving his information' from the elder monks who had known those saints. He also wrote the Life of St. John the Silentiarv and other biographies, affording a valuable picture of the inner life of the Eastern church in the 6th cent. They have been unfortunate- ly largely interpolated by Metaphrastes. The following biographies are attributed to Cvril by Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 41, x. 155): (i) S. Joannes Silentiarius (ap. Surium, May 13) ; (2) S. Euthymius (Cotelerius, Eccl. Graec. Monutn. ii. 200) ; (3) S. Sabas. (ib. iii. 220); (4) Theodosius the Archimandrite (only found in Latin, of doubtful authenticit>^ ; (5) Cyriacus the Anchoret; (6) S. Theognius the Ascetic, bp. of Cyprus (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. U.S. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. p. i. 529). [e.v.] Dalmatius (4), monk and abbat, near Con- stantinople at the time of the council of Ephesus (a.d. 431). His influence arose from his eminent piety, strength of character, and fiery zeal. Under Theodosius the (ircat he had served in the 2nd company of Guards, married, had children, and led a virtuous life. Feeling a call to a monastic life, he left his wife and children, except a son Faustus, and went to be instructed by abbat Isaac, who had dwelt in the desert since his infancy. Isaac at his death made him Hegumenus, superior of the monas- tery, under the patriarch Atticus. Consulted by councils, patriarchs, and emperors, he re- mained in his cell 48 years without quitting it. He is sr>metimes addressed as chief of the monasteries of Constantinople ; but it is uncertain whether this was a complimentary or official title. He is not to be confounded with Dalmatius, monk at Constantinople, bp. of Cyzicus ; because the latter was present at the council of Ephesus in that capacity. During the supremacy of the Nestorian party at Ephesus, letters were conveyed by a beggar in the hollow of a cane from Cyril and the Athanasian or Catholic bishops to the emperor Theodosius II., the clergy and people at Constantinople complaining that they had been imprisoned three months, that the Nes- torians had deposed Cyril and Menmon bp. of Ephesus, and that they were all in the greatest distress. A short memf)rial was added to the letter of the bishops, i.robably for Dalm.itius. Dalmatius was greatly moved, and believed himself summoned to go forth at length from his retreat in the interests of truth. Accom- panied by the monks of all the monasteries, 246 DAM ASUS led by their abbats, he went to the palace in a long procession, divided into two companies, and singing alternately ; a vast crowd of sympathizers followed. The abbats were admitted to the emperor's presence ; and the monks remained outside chanting. Return- ing to the people, the abbats asked them to go to the church of St. Mocius to hear the letter of the council and the emperor's reply. They went through the city, the monks chanting and carrving wax tapers. Great enthusiasm was excited against Nestorius. At the church the abbats read the letter of the bishops, which produced high excitement. Dalmatius, who was a presbyter, then mount- ed the pulpit, begged them to be patient, and in temperate and modest terms related his conversation with the emperor, and its satis- factory result. The emperor then wrote to Ephesus, ordering a deputation of each party to arrive at Constantinople. In a letter to Dalmatius the council acknowledged that to him only was owing the emperor's knowledge of the truth. Cyril, Ep. 23, etc., Patr. Gk. Ixxvii. ; Concil. Gen. i. ; Dalmatii Apol. p. 477 ; St. Procl. CP. Episc. Ep. iii. ; Patr. Gk. Ixv. p. 876, Ixxxv. col. 1707-1802; Ceillier, viii. 290, 395. 396. 407> 594 ; Fleury, bk. xxvi. [w.m.s.] Damasus, pope, said to have been a Span- iard, the son of Antonius. On the death of Liberius (Sept. a.d. 366) the factions which had disgraced his election broke out with re- doubled violence. The original root of bitter- ness had been .Arianism ; and Felix the Arian antipope [Felix II.] had been expelled by Liberius. Seven days after the death of Liberius, Felix's partisans met and proclaimed Damasus pope in the Lucina [qy. the crypt of St. Lucina in the catacomb of Callistus ?]. Damasus had previously taken up a middle position between the contending parties, which may have specially recommended him to the electors, who could not hope to carry an ex- treme man. Yet, about the same time appar- ently the party of Liberius met in the Julian basilica and elected Ursicinus or Ursinus. It is difficult to ascertain the truth with regard to the strife between the rival popes. Our most detailed account is by personal enemies of Damasus. and the incidents of the struggle are recorded under Ursinus. Damasus used his success well, and the chair of St. Peter, even if, as his enemies alleged, acquired by violent means, was never more respected nor vigorous than during his bishopric. He appears as a principal oppo- nent of .\rian and other heretics. Bp. Peter of Alexandria was his firm friend all along ; and was associated with him in the condemnation of ApoUinaris (Soz. vi. 25), and in affixing the stigma of Arianism to Meletius of Antioch and Eusebius, who were upheld by Basil (Basil, Ep. cclxvi. iii. 597, ed. Bened.). On ^leletius's death Damasus struggled hard to gain the • chair of Antioch for Paulinus, and to exclude Flavianus ; nor was he reconciled to the latter till some time later (Socr. v. 15). His correspondence with Jerome, his at- tached friend and secretary, begins a.d. 376, and closes only with his death a.d. 384. Six of Jerome's letters to him are preserved, two being expositions of difficult passages of Scrip- ture elicited by letters of Damasus asking the DANIEL aid of his learning. J erome's desire to dedicate to him a translation of Didymus's work on the Holy Ghost was only stopped by his death. In later letters Jerome speaks in high terms of Damasus ; calls him " that illustrious man, that virgin doctor of the virgin church," " eager to catch the first sound of the preach- ing of continence " ; who " wrote both verse and prose in favour of virginity " {Epp. Hieron. 22, 48). From this Milman {Latin Christ, i. 69) conjectures that Damasus was a patron of the growing monastic party — a not improbable conjecture, rendered more likely by the ardent attachment of Jerome, and the veneration in which the memory of pope Damasus was held by later times, when monasticism had taken firm root in the Roman church. But the best-known record of Damasus will always be his labour of love in the catacombs of Rome. Here he searched ardently and devotedly for the tombs of the mart},TS, which had been blocked up and hidden by the Christians during the last per- secution. He " removed the earth, widened the passages, so as to make them more service- able for the crowd of pilgrims, constructed flights of stairs leading to the more illustrious shrines, and adorned the chambers with marbles, opening shafts to admit air and light where practicable, and supporting the friable tufa walls and galleries wherever it was neces- sary with arches of brick and stone work. Alraost all the catacombs bear traces of his labours, and modern discovery is continually bringing to light fragments of the inscriptions which he composed in honour of the martyrs, and caused to be engraved on marble slabs, in a peculiarly beautiful character, by a very able artist, Furius Dionysius Filocalus. It is a singular fact that no original inscription of pope Damasus has ever yet been found exe- cuted by any other hand ; nor have any in- scriptions been found, excepting those of Damasus, in precisely the same form of letters. Hence the type is well known to students of Christian epigraphy as the ' Damasine char- acter ' " {Roma Sotterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow, p. 97). Damasus also laid down a marble pavement in the basilica of St. Sebastian, recording by an inscription the temporary burial in that church of SS. Peter and Paul '{ib. p. 1 14). He built the baptistery at the Vatican in honour of St. Peter, where de Rossi thinks, from an inscription in the Damasine character, was an actual chair which went by the name of St. Peter's seat [ih. p. 393), and he drained the crypts of the Vatican, that the bodies buried there might not be disturbed bv the overflow of water {ib. p. 334). He died in Dec. 384, after a pontificate of 18 years. Before his death he had prepared his own tomb above the catacomb of Callistus, giving his reason in an inscription in what is called the Papal crypt of that catacomb : " Hie fateor Damasus volui mea condere membra, Sed timui sanctos cineres vexare priorum " {ib. p. 102). Cf. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vols. i. and ii. [g.h.m.] Damianus (2), M. [Cosmas.] Daniel (9) the Styhte, of the 5th cent., was a Mesopotamian by birth, and in his youth had visited Symeon' the Stylite. After having DATIVUS lived a monastic life in convents for several years, at the age of 47 he received as a legacy the cowl of Symeon, and established his pillar 4 miles N. of Constantinople. The patriarch Gennadius ordained him presbyter against his will, standing at the foot of his column. Then the patriarch, by means of a ladder, adminis- tered the Eucharist, and received it in turn from the Stylite. He lived on his pillar for 33 years, and died at the age of 80. He was visited with reverence by kings and emperors as an oracle ; but discouraged all who brought complaints against their bishops. Towards the end of his life, solicited eagerly by both sides, he took part in the dispute between the emperor Basiliscus, a IMonophysite, and Aca- cius patriarch of Constantinople. Descending from his pillar, he appeared in the city, de- nounced Basiliscus, and inflamed the people with such zeal that Basiliscus published an orthodox edict. The following is his prayer before he began his life on the pillar : " I yield Thee glory, Jesus Christ my God, for all the blessings which Thou hast heaped upon me, and for the grace which Thou hast given me that I should embrace this manner of life. But Thou knowest that in ascending this pillar I lean on thee alone, and that to Thee alone I look for the happy issue of mine under- taking. Accept, then, my object ; strengthen me that I finish this painful course ; give me grace to end it in holiness." In his last will to his disciples, after commending them to the common Father of all, and to the Saviour Who died for them, Daniel bade them " hold fast humility, practise obedience, exercise hospital- ity, keep the fasts, observe the vigils, love poverty, and above all maintain charity, which is the first and great commandment ; avoid the tares of the heretics ; separate never from the church your mother : if you do these things your righteousness shall he perfect." Baronius places his death in a.d. 489. Vita S. Daniel, ap. Surium, ad diem ii. decemb. cap. xli. xlii. xliii. ; Robertson, Ch. Hist. ii. 41-43, 274 ; Ceillier, x. 344, 403, 485. Baronius, ed. Theiner, vol. viii. ad an. 460, § 20 ; 464, § 2 ; 465, § 3- 12, 13; 476, § 48, 50, 51, 53; 489, § 4. [W.M.S.] Dativus (3), celebrated senator, martyred under Diocletian Feb. 11, a.d. 304. In spite of orders to the contrary, a company of the faithful met in the town of Abitina, in the proconsulate of Africa, to celebrate Christian worship and communion, at the house of one Felix Octavius. Forty-nine men and women were surprised by the official and magistrates of the town. They marched cheerfully to their destination, chanting hymns and can- ticles, having at their head Dativus the sena- tor and Saturninus the presbyter. They confessed Jesus Christ, were chained, and sent to Carthage. There the proconsul Anulinus examined them. Dativus, refusing to say who was the chief of their company, was tor- tured. As he lay under the iron, at a second examination, Dativus was accused by For- tunatianus, advocate, brother of the martyr Victoria, one of the arrested, of enticing her and other young girls to Abitina. Victoria, however, indignantly denied that she had gone there but of her own accord. The exe- cutioners continued tormenting Dativus, till DAVID 47 the interior of his breast could be sefu. He went on praving and begging Jesus Christ for patience. The proconsul, stopping the tor- ture, asked him again if he had been present. " I was in the assembly," he answered, " and celebrated the Lord's Supper with the breth- ren." They again thrust the irons into his side ; and Dativus, repeating his prayer, continued to say, " O Christ, I pray Thee let me not be confounded." And he added, " What have I done ? Saturninus is our presbyter." Dativus was carried to gaol. Here he soon afterwards died. Many of his com- panions were also tortured, and most of them were starved to death in prison. Kuinart, Acta Sine. Mart. p. 382; Ceillier, iii. 20, etc.; AA. SS. Bolland. Feb. ii. p. 513. fw.M.s.] David (5), St. (Dcgiii ; Welsh, Dewi), the most eminent Welsh saint. His Period. — The Annales Cambriae, our earliest authority for his existence, date his death a.d. 601 ; and one reading, which the Monumenta only gives in brackets, under a.d. 458, is : " St. Dewi nascitur anno tricesimo post discessum Patricii de Menevia " (M. H. B. 830, 831). Geoffrey of Monmouth dates his death a.d. 542, and William of Malmesbury A.D. 546. Ussher argues that he died a.d. 544, at the age of 82 {Brit. Eccl. Ant. Works, 1847 ; vi. 43, 44, Chron. Index, ad ann. 544) ; but Rice Rees, who has followed him in his com- putations, places his birth 20 years later, and fixes A.D. 366 as the last date possible for his death. The a.d. 601 of the Ann. Camb. is the date adopted by Haddan and Stubbs {Coun- cils, i. 121, 143, 148), who remark that David would thus come into view just as the history of Wales emerges from the darkness that conceals it for a century after the departure of the Romans. A resume of authorities for his Life is given by Jones and Freeman {Hist, of St. David's, 240), and a full and careful list of all known materials, manuscript and printed, by Hardy {Descr. Catal. i. 766). The Story of his Life. — The asserted facts of St. David's life, omitting such as are clearly legendarv, meet with various degrees of cre- dence from authors of repute. Rees, in his Essav on Welsh Saints, while rejecting several circumstances as manifestly fabulous or in- credible, such as his going to Jerusalem to be consecrated, is disposed to accept enough to make a biographical narrative. His father was (in medieval Latin) Xantus or Sanctus, prince of Kerctica — ie. modern Cardiganshire. David is said to have been educated first under St. Iltutus in his college (afterwards called from him Llanilltyd Fawr, or Lanwit Major), and subseciuently in the college of PauUnus (a pupil of (lermanus and one of the great teachers of the age), at Ty- gwvn ar Daf (Rees, Welsh Saints. 178), or at Whitland in Carmarthenshire (Jones and Freeman) ; and here he spent ten years in the study of Holy Scripture. In course of time David became head of a society of his own, founding or restoring a monastery or college at a spot which Giraldus calls Vallis Hosma (derived, as is generally supposed, from a con- fusion between Rhos, a swamp, and Khosyn, a rose), near Hen-Meneu, and this institution was subsequently named, out of respect to his 248 DAVID memory, Ty Dewi, House of David, or St. David's. In those days, remarks Rees, abbats of monasteries were looked upon in their own neighbourhoods as bishops, and were styled such, while it is probable that they also exer- cised chorepiscopal rights in their societies {Welsh Saints, 182, 266; cf. Haddan and Stubbs, i. 142, 143). Such dignity David enjo^-ed before his elevation to the arch- bishopric of the Cambrian church. It was the Pelagian controversy that occasioned his advancement. To pronounce upon the great heresy then troubling the church, archbp. Dubricius convened a synod at Breti, and David, whose eloquence put the troublers to confusion, made such an impression that the synod at once elected him archbp. of Caerleon and primate of the Cambrian church, Du- bricius himself resigning in his favour. The locality of this synod, which holds a marked place in Welsh ecclesiastical traditions, was on the banks of the Brefi, a tributary of the T eifi ; Llanddewi Brefi it was afterwards called, from the dedication of its church to St. David. It is 8 miles from Lampeter, and from recent archaeological discoveries has been identified with an important Roman station, the Loventium of the itineraries (Lewis, Top. Diet, of Wales ; cf. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 117). The Pelagian heresy, how- ever, still survived, and the new archbishop convened another synod, the issue of which was so decided as to gain it the name of the Synod of Victory. It is entered in the /In^ato Cambriae, " Synodus Victoriae apud Britones congregatur," under a.d. 569, but not with full confidence (M. H. B. 831). It is also men- tioned, without a date, in the Aitnales Mene- venses (Wharton, Angl. Sac. ii. 648). After residing for a while at Caerleon on Usk, where the seat of the primate was then established, David, by permission of king Arthur, removed to Menevia, the Menapia of the Itineraries, one of the ports for Ireland (Wright, Celt, Roman, and Saxon, 13S). The Roman road Via Julia led to it ; the voyage across was 45 miles ; the Menapii, one of the tribes which held the E. coast of Ireland, were no doubt a colony from the opposite shore of Britain {ib. 43) ; David's baptism by the bp. of Munster indicates a religious connexion between Men- evia and Ireland. The tradition of a mission of the British church to Ireland to restore the faith there, under the auspices of David, Gildas, and Cadoc (Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, i. 115) points the same way. May we not, therefore, assume that the see was removed because the tide of Saxon conquest drove the British church to cultivate closer relations with their Celtic brethren opposite ? As primate, David distinguished himself by saintly character and apostolic zeal, a glowing, not to say an overcharged, description of which is given in Giraldus. It is generally agreed that Wales was divided into dioceses' in his time. Rees, in his learned essay on the Welsh saints, shews that of the dedications and localities of the churches of the principality, a large num- ber terminate in David's native name, ddewi, or are otherwise connected with his memory ( Welsh Saints, p. 52). These instances, more- over, abound in a well-defined district ; and Rees has ingeniously used these circumstances DECIUS as indicating the limits of the diocese of arch- bp. David's immediate jurisdiction (ib. pp. 197-19Q). David's successor was Cynog. Jones and Freeman [St. David's,' 246 seq.) conclude that we may safely accept as his- torical facts : that St. David established a see and monastery at Menevia early in the 7th cent., the site being chosen for the sake of retirement ; that his diocese was co-extensive with the Demetae ; that he had no archiepis- copal jurisdiction ; that a synod was held at Brefi, in which he probably played a conspic- uous part, but that its objects are unknown ; and finally that of his immediate successors nothing is recorded {ib. 257). These writers convey a vivid impression of the " strange and desolate scenery " of the spot now named after St. David, and give some curious antiquarian details. Haddan and Stubbs {Councils, i. 115- 120) give dates to the synod of Brefi and the synod of Victory, a little before 569 and in 569, later than Rees's latest possible date for David's death ; and they regard the accounts given of the synods by Ricemarchus, and Giraldus after him, as purely fabulous, and directed to the establishment of the apocryphal supremacy of St. David and his see over the en- tire British church. They express much doubt as to the purpose of those assemblies being to crush Pelagianism. Valuable documentary information and references as to the whole subject of the early Welsh episcopate are given in Appendix C {op. cit.), and it is maintained that " there is no real evidence of the existence of any archiepiscopate at all in Wales during the VVelsh period, if the term is held to imply jurisdiction admitted or even claimed (until the 12th cent.) by one see over another." David was canonized by pope Calixtus c. A.D. 1 1 20, and commemorated on Mar. i (Rees, op. cit. 201). [c.h.] Decius. The reign of this emperor, though among the shortest in the Roman annals (a.d. 249-251), has gained a pre-eminence in eccle- siastical history altogether disproportioned to its place in general history. It was burnt in on the memories of men as a fiery trial, and occasioned many memorable controversies. When Cn. Messius Decius Trajanus first appears in history it is with a grown-up son, himself between fifty and sixty, as a member of the Roman senate, in the last year of the reign of Philip the Arabian. The army elected him as emperor, and forced him to lead them into Italy. Near Verona they encountered Philip, who was defeated and slain (June 17, A.D. 249), and Decius began to reign. He associated his own son and Annius Maximus Gratus with him as Caesars. The edict which made his name a byword of reproach may have been due to a desire to restore the rigorous morahty of the old Roman life, and the old rehgion which gave that morality its sanctions. If we may judge by the confessions of the great Christian teachers, who owned that the church deserved its sufferings, the lives of its members did not then present a very lovely aspect. Christian men were effeminate and self-indulgent, trim- ming their beard and dyeing their hair ; Christian women painted their faces, and brightened their eyes with cosmetics. The clergy were covetous and ambitious, looking DECIUS on their profession as a path to wealth and influence. In addition to these evils they presented, even more than they had done in the days of the Antonines, the aspect of a secret society with a highly compact organization. That the late emperor had been supposed to favour it or even to have been secretly a mem- ber of it was enough to add another element to the policy which Decius now adopted. That policy was opened early in a.d. 250 by an edict no longer extant,* of which we can form a fair estimate, partly from an account given by Gregory of Nyssa ( Vit. Greg. Thaum.), and partly from the history of the persecution, as traced by Cyprian, in his epistles and the treatise de Lapsis. and by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 40-42). It did not order any sharp measures of extermina- tion. Magistrates throughout the empire were ordered, under heavy penalties, to put pressure upon the worshippers of Christ to ab- jure Christianity. Fear did its work on many whose faith had never had any real ground- work in conviction. The seats of the magis- trates were thronged with apostates, some rushing eagerly to be conspicuous among the first to offer sacrifice and sprinkle incense on the altar ; some pale and trembling, as if about to be themselves sacrificial victims. In that crowd of renegades were, too, not a few base and feeble-hearted priests of the church. Others found an ingenious way of satisfying their conscience, and securing their position and life. The magistrates were not above accepting bribes, and for a reasonable money payment would give a certificate {libellus) that sacrifice had been duly offered, without mak- ing the actual performance of the rite com- pulsory. The libellatici were rightly branded by Christian feeling with a double note of infamy. They added dishonesty and false- hood to cowardice and denial. Bad as the sacrificati, the thiirificati, might be, they were not so contemptible as these. Next, severe measures were brought to bear on the faithful. They were dragged before the prefects and other magistrates, questioned as to their faith, required to sacrifice, exposed to insults and outrages if they refused, thrust into prison, and, in many instances, ill-treated till they died. The wiser and mnre prudent bishops, such as Dionysius of Alexandria and Cyprian of Carthage, followed the counsel of their Lord (Matt. x. 23), and the example of Poly- carp, fled from the storm themselves, and exhorted their followers to do the same. Some, who thus withdrew from the common life of men, never returned to it (e.g. Paul, the hermit of the Thebaid, and Maximus of Nice), and the Decian period has been commonly regarded, though with some exaggeration, as the starting-point of the anchorctic life. The wiser pastors continued, as far as they could, to watch over their flocks and keep them steadfast in the faith, even while exposed to taunts and suspicionsof cowardiceordeception. Others languished in prison, like the sufferers at Rome, of whom Cyprian tells, " sine solatto mortis." Some courted death not in vain, or met it bravely. • A document purporting to give the text of the edict was published at Toulouse a.d. 1664, but is universally acknowledged to be spurious. DECIUS 249 The persecution of Decius (commonly reckoned as the seventh) may fairly be meas- ured as to its extent, if not its actual severity, by the list of martyrs under it still found in the calendar of the Western church. It was more extensive and more systematic than anv that had preceded it. Fai)ian, bp. of Rome, was among the foremost of the victims ; Babylas of Antioch, Pionius of Smyrna (seized, it was said, while celebrating the anniversary of the martyrdom of Polycarp), Agatha of Sicily, Polyeuctcs of Armenia, Carpus and his deacon of Thyatira, Maximus (a layman) of Asia, Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem, Acacius of the Phrygian Antioch, Itinmachtis and Nemesius of Alexandria, Peter and his companions of Lampsacus, Irenaeus of Neo-Cacsarea, Martial of Limoges, Abdon and Sennen (Persians then at Rome),Cassian of Imola, Lucian aThracian, Trypho and Respicius of Bithynia, the Ten Martyrs of Crete, have all found a place in the martyrologies of this period, and, after allow- ing uncertainty to some of the names, the list is enough to shew that there was hardly a province of the empire where the persecu- tion was not felt. Among " confessors " (a title which seems to have been then, for the first time, used in this sense) were Origen, who was tortured on the rack, and the boy Dioscorus who, at the age of 15, offered himself for the crown of martyrdom, but was spared by the Alexandrian prefect in pity for his youth. To this reign belongs the well-known legend of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, told for the first time by Gregory of Tours {cic Glor. Martyr, c. 95). Confessing the faith, like Dioscorus, in the prime of early manhood, they were, it was said, walled up in a cave, and left to die. They fell asleep, and the place acquired a local fame for its sanctity. In the reign of Theodosius (a.d. 447) the cave was opened, and the sleepers awoke, went forth, and were startled at the changes which they witnessed, temples destroyed and churches standing in their place. Their second life was, however, of short duration. They again lay down together and fell asleep, this time not to wake again. Happily, the persecution was as short as it was severe. The attacks of the Goths (or the Carpi, probably a Gothic tribe) drew Decius and his son into Pannonia, where they fell in battle. In some respects the after-effects of the Decian persecution were more important than its direct results. It cleared off the crowd of half-hearted Christians, and left behind those who were prepared by its dis- cipline for the severer struggles that were to come under Valerian and Dindetian. (Jues- tions arose as to the treatment of those who had apostatized (the lapsi of Cyprian's treatise). Were the libellatici to be dealt with on the same footing as the t'lurificatt ? Were either capable of readmission into the fold of Christ ? Was that readmission to be conditional upon the church's normal disci- pline, or were the confessors to be allowed to give a certificate of absolution (the libellus pads) to those whose weakness or repentance was sufficient reason for indulgence ? Some of those who prided themselves, like many of the Roman confessors, on their constancy, looked down with scorn on the indulgence 250 DEMETRIAS shewn by Cyprian and Cornelius to the lapsi, and even taunted the latter with having been a Hbellattcus. The tendency to ascetic rigorism of discipline would doubtless have shewn itself sooner or later in any case, but historically the Novatianist schisms had their beginning in the Decian persecution. Cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 39-45 ; Cyprian, de Laps., and Epp. passim ; the articles in this diet, on the persons named above ; and an excellent paper on Decius by Hefele in Wetzer and Welte's Kirchen Lexicon. For the general history of the reign, see Gibbon (c. x.), whose narrative is based on Zosimus and Zonaras. [e.h.p.] Demetrias, a Roman virgin to whom Jerome wrote his treatise {Ep. 130, ed. Vail.) on the keeping of virginity. Her family was illustrious at Rome, her grandmother Proba (who is much praised by Jerome) having had three sons, all consuls. Demetrias had in early life wished to take the vow of virginity, but feared her parents' opposition. They, however, fully approved, and it gladdened all the churches of Italy. Her father having died just before the sack of Rome by Alaric, the family sold their property and set sail for Africa, witnessing the burning of Rome as they left Italy ; and, arriving in Africa, fell into the hands of the rapacious count Herac- lian, who took away a large part of their property. Jerome exhorts Demetrias to a life of study and fasting ; care in the selection of companions ; consecration of her wealth to Christ's service ; and to working with her own hands. He warns her not to perplex herself with difficult questions introduced by the Origenists ; and recommends the study of Scripture. He exhorts her to prefer the coenobitic to the hermit life, and bears testi- mony, as he had done 30 years before to Eustochium, to the excellence of the virgin- state, notwithstanding the attacks made upon it. [w.H.F.] Demetrius (2) succeeded Julianus a.d. 189, as nth bp. of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. v. 22). He presided over the see for 43 years, and died A.D. 231-232 {ib. vi. 26). He appears to have been of an energetic and imperious nature. He took an active interest in the Catechetical School, and is said to have sent one of its early chiefs, Pantaenus, on a [second ?] mission " to the Indians " on their own request (Hieron. de Vir. III. 36). After Clement had left Alexandria, he placed Origcn at its head, c. 203 (Eus. H. E. vi. 5), and strenuously encouraged him to continue his work, when his indiscreet zeal had exposed him to misrepresentation (ib. vi. 8). Later (a.d. 217), he sent Origen to the Roman governor of Arabia, at the governor's earnest invitation (ib. vi. 19). Origen fulfilled his mission satisfactorily, but not long afterwards Demetrius's friendship for him was inter- rupted. [Origen.] According to a late, and not verv trustworthy, authority, Demetrius is reported to have written letters on the keeping of Easter, maintaining the view adopted at Nicaea (Eutychius, Ann. pp. 363 ff. ; Migne, Patrol, vol. cxi.). Other legendary stories of his life are given in the Chronicon Orientale (pp. 72 f. ed. 1685), and more briefly by Tillemont (Memoires, Origene, art .vii. tom. iii. p. 225, ed. Bruxelles). DIANIUS The statement that Demetrius first changed the singular ecclesiastical arrangement of Egypt, by appointing three bishops in ad- dition to the bp. of Alexandria, who had formerly governed the whole province, is probably correct, though the only direct authority for it is that of Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, in the loth cent. (cf. Lightfoot, Phihppians, p. 230). Possibly this change was due to special views on church government, which may have influenced Demetrius in his harsh judgment on the ordination of Origen be- yond the limits of his jurisdiction. [b.f.w.] Demophilus, bp. of Constantinople, a.d. 370 ; expelled 380 ; died 386 ; formerly bp. of Berea ; born of good family in Thessalonica (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 14). On the death of Eudoxius in 370 he was elected by the Arians to the bishopric of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. iv. 14 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 13). The people, how- ever, were much divided (Philostorg. H. E. ix. 10). The orthodox party chose Evagrius for their bishop, and he was ordained by Eusta- thius, the deposed bp. of Antioch. This was the signal for an outburst of fury on the part of the Arians. Eustathius and Evagrius were banished by Valens, and their followers bitterly persecuted (Socr. H. E. iv. 14, 16 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 13, 14). Demophilus, soon after his accession, went to Cyzicus in con- junction with Dorotheus, or Theodorus, of Heraclea, to procure the election of an Arian bishop, that see having been vacant since the banishment of Eunomius. But the people of Cyzicus refused to acknowledge them till they had anathematized Aetius, Eunomius, and their followers. They were then permitted to ordain a bishop chosen by the people. The bishop who was ordained straightway and clearly taught the consubstantial faith (Philo- storg. H. E. ix. 13). In 380 changed times came and made the reign of Theodosius I. and the patriarchate of Demophilus memorable. The emperor Theo- dosius offered to confirm him in his see, if he would subscribe the Nicene Creed. Demo- philus refused, and was immediately ordered to give up his churches. He then called his followers together, and retired, with Lucius of Alexandria and others, to a place of worship without the walls (Socr. H. E. v. 7). The churches of Constantinople, which had for forty years been in Arian hands, were now restored to the orthodox ; and similarly in other cities. It was, in fact, a general dis- establishment of Arianism and re-establish- ment of Catholicism. Philostorgius (H. E. ix. 19) adds that Demophilus went to his own city, Berea. But this must have been some time afterwards, or he must have returned from exile, for he represented the Arian party at the synod held in Constantinople, a.d. 383 (Socr. H. E. V. 10 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 12). The same writer says that Demophilus was wont to throw everything into confusion, especially the doctrines of the church, and quotes from a sermon at Constantinople, in which he spoke of the human nature of the Saviour as lost in the divine, as a glass of milk when poured into the sea. Philostorg. Patrol. Gk. Ixv. ; Soz. and Socr. Patrol. Gk. Ixvii. [p.c] Dianius or Dianaeus, for more than 20 years bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, a saintly man DroYMUS much venerated in the early ehurrh, notwith- standing his somewhat doubtful orthodoxy. He was almost certainly the bishop who baptized Basil the Great on his return from Athens, and ordained him lector (Basil, de Sp. Sancto, 29, p. 357). Basil speaks of him in terms of most affectionate respect, describ- ing him as remarkable for his virtues, frank, generous, and attractive from his amiability, venerable both in aspect and in character {Ep. 31 [84]). We see him, however, in these troubled times weak and undecided, led by his peaceful disposition to deprecate con- troversy, and by his feebleness to side with the strongest ; destitute of strong theological convictions, and wanting the clearness of thought to appreciate subtleties of doctrine. He was, therefore, too often found on the semi-Arian side of the church. If, as Tille- mont holds, he is the Danius who heads the list of bishops to whom pope Julius directed his dignified reply to the insolent letter ad- dressed to him from Antioch, he took a leading part in the synod held at that city in the early months of a.d. 340, by which the de- position of Athanasius was confirmed, and r.eorge of Cappadocia placed on the throne of Alexandria (Epistola Julii, apud Athanas. Apolog. ii. p. 239). He also took part in the famous synod of Antioch, in Encaeniis, A.D. 341, and was present at Sardica, a.d. 347, where, according to Hilary (p. 29), he joined in the anathema against Julius and Athan- asius. His weakness of character was still more fatally shewn when, after the council of Constantinople, a.d. 359, the formula of Rimini was sought to be imposed on the church by the authority of the emperor. To the intense grief of Basil, Dianius yielded to pressure and signed the heretical document. Basil could not hold communion with one who had so far compromised his faith, and fled to Xazianzum. It was reported that he had anathematized his bishop, but this he indig- nantly denies (Basil, Ep. 51 [84]). Dianius keenly felt the absence of his eloquent and able young counsellor, especially when Julian endeavoured to re-establish paganism. After two years he recalled Basil, and declared that he had signed the creed of Rimini in the simplicity of his heart, hoping to restore peace to the distracted church, with no idea of im- pugning the faith of Nicaea. Basil, satisfied with Dianius's explanations, returned to his former post of adviser of the bishop till his death, which occurred soon after, probably a.d. 362. [Basilius of Caesarea.] [e.v.] DIdymus, head of the Catechetical School of Alexandria in the 4th cent., born a.d. 309 or 314 (Tillemont, Mem. x. 387). When only four years old he lost his sight from disease ; and consequently was never taught, as he himself declared, even the usual rudiments of learning. But his extraordinary force of character and intense thirst for knowledge tri- umphed over all disadvantages. He prayed for inward light, " but added studies to prayers" (Rutin, ii. 7). He learned the alphabet by touch from engraved wooden tablets, and words and syllables by attentive listening. Thus he became master of various sciences (Socr. iv. 25 ; Soz. iii. 15 ; Theod. iv. 26), and attained a truly wonderful familiarity with DIDYMUS 251 the Scriptures. Athanasius made the blind scholar head of the Catechetical Srhnf.l, as a fitting successor to Pantaenus and Clement. He was the twelfth who occupied that chair. In his earlier manhood, Anthony, visiting Alexandria to support the Catholic cause against the Arians. entered Didymus's cell, and despite his modest reluctance obliged him to offer up prayers (Rosweyd. Vit. Pair. 044, 539, ed. 1617), and asked Didynius whether he was sad on account of his blindness. After the question had been twice repeated, Didy- mus owned that he did feel the affliction pain- fully. " Do not be distressed," rejoined the saintly hermit, " for the loss of a faculty enjoyed by gnats and flies, when you have that inward evesight which is the privilege of none but saints." Jerome (£/>. 68 ; cf. Socr. iv. 29) stayed for a month at Alexandria in 386, mainly (see Prnlog. in Eph.) to see Didymus and have Scripture difficulties ex- plained bv him (Soz. I.e.). " In many points," wrote Jerome in a.d. 400 (Ep. 84)!^ " I give him thanks. I learned from him things which I had not known ; what I did know, his teaching has helped me to retain." Rufinus was also, for a much longer time, a pupil of Didymus. Palladius (Rosweyd. I.e.), who visited him four times, states that he had a dream of the emperor Julian's death at the exact time it occurred in his Persianexpedition. Sozomen says that in arguing for the Nicene faith, Didymus was successful by his extreme persuasiveness — he seemed to make every one a judge of the points in dispute (iii. 15) ; and Isidore of Pelusium [Ep. i. 331) and Libanius (Ep. 321) speak of his great ability. Our fullest information about him is derived from Jerome, who frequently refers to him as his old teacher, and affectionately describes him as " my seer," in allusion to the contrast between his physical blindness and his keen- ness of spiritual and intellectual perception. Jerome translated into Latin Didymus's treatise On the Holy Spirit, and prefixed a preface, in which he spoke of the author as having " eyes like the spouse in the Song of Songs," as " unskilled in speech but not in knowledge, exhibiting in his very speech the character of an apostolic man,' as well by luminous thought as by simplicity of words." Writing in 392 (de Viris Illustr. 109), Jerome gives a short biographical account of Didymus. The extent to which Didymus may be called an Origenizer has been discussed. See Min- garelli's " Commentarius " prefixed to his edition of Didymus's de Trinitate (Bologna, 1769). In his extant writings there is no assertion of Origenian views as to the pre- existence of souls, and he afflrms, more than once, the endless nature of future punishment ; but seems to have believed that some of the fallen angels occupied a midway position between angels and demons, and would be ultimately forgiven. Neither Kpiphanius nor Theophilus, nor indeed any one before the 6th cent, except Jerf>me, laid Origenism to his charge ; and with regard to the alleged condemnation of his memory by the 5th general council, as he is never named in the Acts, the utmost that can be made of such a statement is, that the condemnation of Origen in that synod's nth anathema (Mansi, ix. 383) 252 DIDYMUS was somewhat largely construed as carrying with it, by implication, the condemnation of other writers more or less identified with his school of thought. See Tillemont's " com- parison of Didymus with St. Gregory of Nyssa" (x. 396). Didymus's work On the Holy Spirit was clearly a protest against Mace- donianism (see Tillemont, x. 393). His comments on the Catholic Epistles are extant, as translated by Epiphanius Scholas- ticus (see Galland. Bib. Vet. Pair. u.). His notes on I. Peter shew a dislike of Chiliasm, as a carnal and frivolous theory ; he asserts free will, opposes Manicheans, admits the possi- bility of faults on the part of angels being cleansed through Christ ; and in words very characteristic of the indomitable student and teacher, rebukes Christians who neglect sacred studies and attend only to practical life (on I. Peter iii. 13). He comments briefly on II. Peter, but sets it aside as spurious and " not in the canon," although (see infra) in the de Trinitate he cites it as Petrine. The chief features of his remarks on St. John's three Epistles are, (i) the earnestness against Docet- ism, Valentinianism, all speculations injurious to the Maker of the world, (2) the assertion that a true knowledge of God is possible with- out a knowledge of His essence, (3) care to urge the necessity of combining orthodoxy with right action. In the notes on Jude, he says that Christ is called the only Sovereign because He is the only true God. He speaks of the doom of those who turn away absolutely to evil as hopeless. His treatise Against the Manicheans (pub. by Combefis in his Auctarium Novum, 1672) begins with logical formulae, intended to disprove the existence of two unoriginated Principles. From the blame and punishment attached to evil, he infers that Satan and his followers are not evil by nature ; he discusses the terms " by nature children of wrath " (which he understands to mean " really children of wrath"), "children of this world," " son of perdition," " generation of vipers," with the aim of shewing that they do not contravene the great moral facts of free will and responsibility. The devil, he urges, was created good, and became a devil by his own free will. If it be objected, why then did God make a being who was to become so pestilent ? the objection really lies against the whole plan of God's moral government, which intends His rational creatures to become good by choosing goodness, and therefore leaves them capable of choosing evil, and drawing on themselves the result of such a choice. He also asserts the transmission of original sin : a Saviour born by ordinary generation would have incurred the sin entailed on Adam's whole posterity. His three books On the Trinity have not reached us in a perfect state. They are interesting as exhibiting the Athanasian character, so to speak, of his thought in presence of Anomoeans and of Macedonians. He admits II. Peter as genuine : perhaps the opinion he had formerly held as to its non-canonicity had been reconsidered. He is very earnest, almost in the style of the " Athanasian Creed," on the co-equality of the Divine Hypostases (he uses that term in the sense which the younger generation of DINOOTH Catholics had adopted since the earlier days of the Arian strife). He enforces the per- petuity of Christ's kingdom (as if in con- troversy with Marcellians), and speaks of the Virgin Mother as Theotokos (ii. 4). He be- stows much time and pains on the Macedonian controversy. Occasionally he kindles and glows with strong devotional fervour, and concludes an eloquent passage on the glory of the Holy Trinity with a thrice-repeated Amen. Shortly before this passage he invokes the archangels, and expresses his belief in the intercession of the saints (ii. 7). [w.b.] Dimoeritae, another name for the followers of ApoUinarius, probably to be explained by a passagein aletterof Gregoryof Nazianzum to Nectarius of Constantinople {Ep. 202, al. Or. 46). Gregory says that ApoUinarius's book affirmed that He Who had come down from above had no I'oPs, but that ti]v dedrrjTa rod Movoyevovs ttjv tou vou 4'V(Jiv avairX^Tpujcraffav . Hence, as the Apollinarians maintained that our Lord assumed only (dL/xoipla) two of the three parts ( (ru'^,a, ^vxv, rors) of which perfect humanity consists, they were called Dimoeritae by Epiphanius, who says (Haer. Ixxvii.) that "some denied especially the perfect Incarna- tion of Christ ; some asserted His body consubstantial with His divinity ; some em- phatically denied that He had ever taken a soul ; others not less emphatically refused to Him a mind." Among the leaders of the Dimoeritae wasone ViTALius. Both Gregory of Nazianzum and Epiphanius came in contact with him ; the former while Vitalius was, it would seem, a presbyter, the latter when he had been made a bishop of the sect. Epiphanius at Antioch, in a long discussion with Vitalius, put the crucial question : " You admit the Incarna- tion, do you also admit that Christ took a mind (I'oO;')?" The answer was, "No." Epiphanius persisted : " In what sense then do you call Christ 7-<\eios ? " The point was debated with- out results. Epiphanius urged that not only was nothing gained by excluding mind, as we understand it, from the nature of Christ ; but also that by such exclusion much was lost which made His nature, character, and actions intelligible. Vitalius and his followers avoided Epiphanius's arguments by reverting to their favourite texts, e.g. " We have the mind of Christ " (I. Cor. ii. 16), etc. The Dimoeritae probably existed, as a sect, for a few years only, either under that name or as Vitalians, Synusiasts, Polemians, Valen- tinians, after some favourite leader or opinion. Then they died out, or merged themselves into other bodies holding similar views, or were brought back to tlie church. The books, psalteries, and hymns composed and issued by ApoUinarius and his principal followers were met, and their effects counteracted, by books and hymns such as have given to Gregory of Nazianzum a name among ecclesiastical song- writers. Epiphanius, Panaria, iii. 11 ; Haer. Ixxvii. (ed. Dindorf, iii. 1, p. 454) ; Oehler, Corpus Haereseolog. ii. 330, etc. ; and the usual Church histories, e.g. Neander, Niedner, Hase, Robertson, s.v. " Apollinarianism," should be consulted. [j.m.f.] Dinooth, Dinothus, abbat of Bangor Iscoed, DINOOTH a Welsh saint, placed by Rees between a.d. 500 and 542. Originally a North British chieftain, reverses drove him into Wales, where he fonnel a protector in Cyngen, prince of Powys. I. ike I lany other British chieftains who lost their l.uuls in the Saxon conquest (Rees, Welsh S.iinis, 207), Dinooth embraced a life of re- ligion, and, under Cyngen, founded, in con- junction with his sons, Deiniol, Cynwyl, and (Iwarthan, the monastery of Bangor on the i )ee, of which he was the first abbat. Bede mentions his name in his narrative of the second conference at Augustine's Oak {H. E. ii. 2), but merely says, cautiously, "Tempore illo Dinoot abbas praefuisse narratur." Bede, who wTote a century and a quarter after Augustine's time, shews no special acquaint- ance with the internal affairs of the Britons, and we cannot help suspecting that the pre- sent uncertainty as to the chronology of Welsh hagiology existed when Bede WTOte. A later statement makes the founder of Bangor alive in A.D. 602 or 603, and brings him to the conference, though he must have been in ex- tremest old age, and would have had a moun- tain journey from the Uee to the lower Severn (see D. C. A. "Augustine's Oak"; also Haddan andStubbs, iii. 40, 41, onAugustine's journey); it even reports the speech he is said to have made in the name of the British church in answer to Augustine. For this document see Haddan and Stubbs {Couucils. i. 122), where the answer is quoted in the original Welsh with Spelman's Latin translation. Two copies of the original MS. exist in the Cottonian collec- tion. It is accepted as genuine by Leland (Tanner, Biblioth. 1748, art. " Dinotus," p. 228), Stillingfleet (Orig. Brit. i. 536), Lappen- berg (Hist, of Eng. i. 135). On the other hand, the document does not mention the name of .Augustine, nor allude to one subject of the con- ference which is markedly noted by Bede, the evangelization of the Anglo-Saxons. In fact it contains no name whatever, but is a firm and temperate repudiation of papal authority, and an assertion of the supremacy of " the bp. of Caerleon upon Usk " over the British church. For any internal evidence to the con- trary, the " Answer " might have been penned in reply to some demand made upon the British church by the see of Canterbury centuries after Dinooth. It bears upon that subject, and that alone. We know less about Dinooth than about his famous monastery upon the right bank of the Dee, 10 or 12 miles from Chester. The name of Bangor ys y coed (Bangor under the wood) distinguishes it from other Bangors, especially that of Carnarvonshire, where Deiniol, the son of Dinooth, founded another monastery, which was soon afterwards made the seat of a bishopric. So numerous were the monks of Bangor Iscoed that, as Bede puts it, on their being divided into seven parts with a ruler over each, none of those parts consisted of less than 300 men, who all lived by the labour of their hands. It thus rivalled the Irish Bangor [Comgall], and, from the learned men men- tioned by Bede as residing there, must have been as much a college as a monastery. Au- gustine's prediction was levelled, not against this institution in particular, but the British church and people at large ; " if they would DIOCLETIAN 253 notproach thowavol \\U- to the i:nKlish nation, they should at their hands undirgo the ven- geance of diath." The conjunction desired by Augustine (" una cum nobis," Bede) in- volved their ecclesiastical submission. " Di- not)th's Answer," in recognizing this, may have appeared to some one in after-times a sufficient ground to assign the document to this occa- sion. The judgment came about 10 years afterwards, a.d. 613 (.4>i>i. Cambr. and Ann. Tighern., preferable to earlier dates, as 603 of Flor. Wig. and 606 or 607 of A . S. C. ; cf. Had- dan and Stubbs, i. 123), when Ethelfrid, the pagan king of Northumbria, invaded the Britons at Chester. Being about to give battle, he observed their " priests," who were there to pray for the soldiers, drawn up apart in a place of greater safety, and under the mili- tary protection of prince IJrocmail. They had come chiefly from Bangor, after a three days' fast. The invader, regarding them as a con- tingent of his enemy, attacked them first and slew about 1,200, only 50 escaping. Bede either here uses the term " sacerdotes " and " monachi " as synonymous, or the priests were in charge of the monks, leading their de- votions. It was a disastrous blow to Bangor, and was naturally handed down as a fulfilment of Augustine's words; but we do not hear that the monastery itself was attacked. Some 60 years later the annalists record " Combustio Bennchoriae Brittonum " (Hadd. and St. i. 125), probably referring to this Bangor of the Dee. Malmesbury (G. R. ed. Hardy, i. 66) de- scribes the extensive ruins of the place in his day — " tot semiruti parietes ecclesiarum, tot anfractus porticuum, tanta turba ruderum, quantum vix ahbi cernas " ; the credibility of which description has been almost destroyed by sometimes translating the first clause, " the ruined walls of so many churches." The re- mains had nearly disappeared in the time of Camden. (Camd. ed. Gough, ii. 422, 429 ; Smith, ad. Bed. E. H. ii. 2 ; Tanner, Nottt. ed. Nasmith, Flint, ii.) The site is on the road between Wrexham and Whitchurch, about 5 miles from each. Its modem state and surviving vestiges are described in Lewis (Topog. Diet, of Wales, art. " Bangor "). Le- land's description is in his Itinerary (vol. v. p. 30, 2nd ed. Hearne). [ch.] Diocletian (Docles, Diodes, Caius Vale- rius Diocletianus Jovius), a.d. 284-305. The acts that make the reign of this emperor memorable in the history of the church be- long to its closing years. Had he died before a.d. 303 he would have taken his place among the rulers whose general tolerance helped Christianity to obtain its victory. As it is, his name is identified with the most terrible of its persecutions. For three centuries men reck- oned from the commencement of his reign as from the era of martyrs ; and the date is still recognized in the Coptic Chun h as the basis of its chronologv. The earlier years of Difxletian concern us onlv in connexion with the struggle which came to a head when his work srinied nearly over. Elected by the soldiers in Bithynia at the age of 39, after the murder of Numerian, he was formally installed at Niconiedia. In A.D. 286 he chose Maximian as his cfilleague, gave him the title first of Caesar and then ol 254 DIOCLETIAN Augustus, and sent him to command in the West, while he remained in the East, chiefly at Nicomedia, which he tried to make, by lavish outlay on its buildings, a new capital for the empire. It indicates his intention to uphold the religion of the state that he assumed the surname of Jovius, and gave to his colleague that of Herculius. Among the buildings with which he embellished the various provinces were temples of Zeus, Apollo, Nemesis, Hecate, at Antioch, of Isis and Serapis at Rome, of Isis at Phylae, of Mithras at Vindobona. He con- sulted haruspices and augurs as to the success of his enterprises, and in more difficult emer- gencies the oracle of the Milesian Apollo at Branchidae(Lactant. de A/oft Pers. cc. lo, ii). The appointment of Constantius Chlorus and Galerius in a.d. 293 as Caesars under the two August! introduced new elements. Each was called on to prove his loyalty to the system in- to which he was adopted by a new marriage. Constantius divorced Helena and married Theodora, the step-daughter of Maximian. Galerius, also repudiating his former wife, received the hand of Valeria, the daughter of Diocletian and Prisca. To Constantius was entrusted the government of Gaul and Britain, to Galerius the provinces between the Adriatic and the Euxine. Diocletian kept the pro- vinces of Asia under his own control. Maxi- mian had those of Africa and Italy. The edict of Gallienus, a.d. 259, had placed Christianity in the number of religiones licitae, and there had been no formal persecution since. Dio- cletian and Maximian began by adopting the same policy ; and the martyrdoms which are referred to the earlier years of their reign, like those of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion at Martigny (Octodurum), of St. Victor at Mar- seilles, of SS. Cosmas and Damian and others in Cilicia, if more than legendary, must be re- ferred to special causes, and not to a general policy of persecution. The somewhat cloudy rhetoric of Eusebius in describing the condi- tion of the church of this time indicates that the last struggle with the old religion could not long be averted. The most trusted and in- fluential eunuchs of the household, Dorotheus and Gorgonius, were avowedly Christians and excused from attending at heathen sacrifices (Eus. viii. i). Prisca the wife, and Valeria the daughter, of Diocletian were kept back from an open profession of faith ; but their absence from all sacrifices made men look on them with suspicion (Lactant. de Mort. Persec. c. 15). The church of Nicomedia was the most con- spicuous edifice in the city. The adherents of the old system had good reason for alarm. They saw in every part of the empire an or- ganized society that threatened it with de- struction. Symptoms of the coming conflict began before long to shew themselves. Mal- chus, the disciple of Plotinus (better known as Porphyry), wrote against the religion of the Christians while maintaining a tone of rever- ence towards Christ Himself, and so became in their eyes their most formidable opponent. Hierocles, first as Vicarius of Bithynia and afterwards, probably, as prefect of Egypt, fought against them with pen and sword, and published Words of a Truth-lover to the Chris- tians, in which Christ was compared with Apollonius of Tyana. Within the imperial DIOCLETIAN circle itself some were impatient of the toler- ance of Diocletian. The mother of Galerius, who gave sacrificial banquets almost daily, was annoyed because Christian officers and soldiers refused to come to them. The cases of Maximilian of Theveste, in proconsular Africa, who (a.d. 295) had refused to serve as a soldier and take the military oath, as incompatible with his allegiance to Christ, and of Marcellus (a.d. 298), who at TingisiniMauritania solemnly renounced his allegiance to the emperor rather than take part in idolatrous festivals, had probably alarmed Galerius himself (Ruinart, Acta Sincera, pp. 309, 312). Occasions for decisive measures were soon found. Diocletian, who seems to have had a devout belief in divination, had offered sacri- fice, and the haruspices were inspecting the entrails of the victim to see what omens were to be found there. The Christian officers and servants of the emperor were present as part of their duty, and satisfied their conscience by making the sign of the cross upon their fore- heads. The diviners were, or pretended to be, struck with amazement at the absence, despite repeated sacrifices, of the expected signs. At last they declared their work hindered by the presence of profane persons. The emperor's rage was roused. His personal attendants and the officials in his palace were ordered to sacri- fice under penalty of being scourged. Letters were sent to military officers bidding them to compel their soldiers to a like conformity under pain of dismissal. The mother of Galerius urged the emperor on, and found but a feeble resistance. He deprecated the slaughter and wished to confine the edict to servants of his household and soldiers. He would take coun- sel with his friends and consult the gods. One of the haruspices was accordingly sent to the oracle of the Milesian Apollo at Branchidae. The answer came, not from the priestess only, but, as it were, from the god himself speaking from the recesses of his cave, telling him that the presence of the self-styled " just ones " on the earth made it impossible for the oracles to speak the truth. This turned the scale and the emperor gave way. All he asked for was that bloodshed might, if possible, be avoided. Galerius had wished to condemn to the flames all who refused to sacrifice. After many divinations, the Feast of the Terminalia (Feb. 23) of A.D. 303 was chosen as the fit day for issuing the edict against the new society. At break of day the prefect, attended by officers and secretaries, went to the church of Nico- media while Diocletian and Galerius watched the proceedings from the palace. The doors were broken open. Search was made for the image of the Christian's God, which they ex- pected to find there. The books were burned, the church sacked. Fear of the fire spreading made Diocletian shrink from burning the church, but a body of pioneers with axes and crowbars razed it in a few hours. Next morn- ing an edict ordained that (i) all churches were to be demolished ; (2) all sacred books burnt ; (3) all Christian officials stripped of their dig- ,, nities, and deprived of civil rights, and there- fore rendered liable to torture and other out- rages ; while Christian men who were not officials were to be reduced to slavery. A Christian who tore it down, with the sarcastic DIOCLETIAN exclamation, " More triumphs of Goths and Sarmatians ! " was seized, tortured, and burnt alive at a slow fire. Shortly after, a fire broke out in the palace and suspicion fell upon the Christians, notably upon the palace eunuchs. The use made of the occurrence to work upon Diocletian's fears justified the im- pression of Christian wTitcrs that it was a de- vice contrived by Galerius and executed by his slaves. All who were suspected were examined bv torture ; within a fortnight there was another similar alarm, and now there was no limit to the old man's fury. His wife and daughter were compelled to free themselves from suspicion by joining in sacrifice. The eunuchs of his household, before so trusted, Dorotheus, Gorgonius, Petrus, were put to death. The persecution raged throughout the province. Some were burnt, some drowned, some thrust into dungeons. Altars were set up in every court of justice, and both parties to suits compelled to sacrifice. A second edict ordered that all the clergy, without option of sacrifice, should be imprisoned. Anthimus bp. of Nicomedia was beheaded (Eus. H. E. viii. 6). Hierocles as author and magistrate silenced by torture those whom he failed to con- vince. Letters were sent to Maximian and Constantius in the West, urging them to adopt like measures. The former was but too will- ing an instrument. The latter, more humane and disposed to a policy of toleration, was com- pelled to join in destroying the buildings of the Christians, and was glad if he could save their lives (Lactant. de Mart. Persec. cc. 12-16). Individual mart>Tdoms may be found with more or less fulness in the Acta Sincera of Ruinart, in the Annals of Baronius, in most Church Histories, notably in Fleury, viii. and ix. Here we merely note the extent, con- tinuance, and ferocity which distinguished this persecution from all others. In Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Western Africa, Italy, and Spain the passions of men were let loose, and raged without restraint. In Gaul and Britain only was there any safety. Constantius was said (Eus. Vii. Const, i. 16) to have shewn a marked preference for those who were true to their religion, and refused to sacrifice. Else- where every town in the empire witnessed acts of incredible cruelty. The wish to destroy all the sacred books of the Christians, and all the accessories of their worship, led men to seize on the deacons, readers, and others connected with the churches, and to torture them till they gave them up. In Dec. 303, Dio- cletian went to Rome to celebrate with Max- imian the 20th anniversary of his accession. At the Vicennalia the licence of the people offended him, and he left after two weeks for Ravenna. There he was attacked by a severe illness, which detained him for some months. Slowly he made his way to Nicomedia, where he became worse. Prayers were offered for his recovery in all the temples. It was ru- moured that his death was concealed till the arrival of Galerius. When he appeared to con- tradict the rumour, he was so altered that he could hardly be recognized. His mind, it was said, was seriously affected. Galerius came, but it was to press on the emperor the duty and expediency of resigning. Maximian had been already persuaded to do so. After a feeble re- DIODORUS 2r)r. sistance Diocletian yielded. The two Caesars were to become .^ugusti. He would fain liave named Maxentius the son of Maximian and Constantine the son of Constantius to take their place ; but tlalcrius coerced or persuaded him to appoint Maximin and Severus, in whom he hoped to find more submissive instruments. When the formal acts had been completed, the emperor laid aside his official names Dioch- tianus and Jovius, and returned to the simple Diodes of his youth. For the history of the following year see Galerius and Constan- tine. The retired emperor settled at Salona, on the coast of Dalmatia, and occupied him- self with building and gardening, and refused to abandon his cabbages for the cares of the state. In 310 Maximian, after vainly strug- gling against the growing power of Constan- tine, who had succeeded Constantius, was com- pelled to end his life by his own hands. In 31 1 Galerius died in the agonies of a loathsome and horrible disease, and before his death con- fessed, by an edict of toleration, that the at- tempt which he had made to crush Christianity had failed. Diocletian survived to witness the alliance between Constantine and Licinius, to receive and decline an invitation to a con- ference with them at Milan, to hear that Con- stantine had charged him with conspiring first with Maxentius and then with Maximian, and had ordered his statue and that of Maximian to be thrown down in every part of the empire. In A.D. 313 the end came, some said through poison (Aurel. Vict. Episl. 39), to avoid a worse fate at the hands of Constantine and Licinius. It was characteristic of his fate as representing the close of pagan imperialism, that he was the last emperor who celebrated a triumph at Rome, and the last to receive the honour of apotheosis from the Roman senate (Preuss, p. i6q). [e.h.p.] Diodorus (3), presbyter of Antioch, and c. A.D. 379 bp. of Tarsus, of a noble family of .■\ntioch, where he passed nearly the whole of his life until he became a bishop (Theod. H. E. iv. 24). He studied philosophy or secular learning at Athens, where he jirobably was an associate of Basil and Julian, the future emperor (Facund. lib. iv. c. 2, p. 59). On his return to his native city, Diodorus and his friend Flavian, also of noble birth (subse- quently bp. of Antioch), embraced a religious life. Here, while still laymen, during the reign of Constantius, they exerted themselves energetically for the defence of the orthodox faith against the Arians, who were covertly supported by bp. Leontius, c. 350. They gath- ered the orthodox laity even by night around the tombs of the martyrs, to join in the anti- phonal chanting of the Psalms, which, Theod- oret tells us, was first instituted or revived by them, as a means of kindling religious zeal, after the model ascribed by tradition to the martvred bishop of their church, the holy Ignatius (Sf.cr. H. E. vi. 8 ; Theod. H. E. ii. 24). These services strengthened the faithful to meet the persecutions. The weight of Dio- dorus and Flavian at Antioch was proved when in 350 their threat of withdrawal from communion induced Leontius to susi)cnd Aetius from the diaconate (Theod. u.s.). On the accession of Julian, his attempt to re- kindle an expiring paganism provided a new 256 DIODORUS field for the energies of Diodorus. With pen and tongue he denounced the folly of a return to an exploded superstition, and so called forth the scurrilous jests of Julian. The persecution of the Catholic cause by the Arian Valens recalled Diodorus, now a pres- byter, to his former championship of the Nicene faith. During the frequent banish- ments of Meletius, the spiritual instruction of his diocese was chiefly entrusted to him and Flavian, and Diodorus saved the barque of the church from being " submerged by the waves of misbelief " (Theod. H. E. v. 4). Valens having forbidden the Catholics to meet within the walls of cities, Diodorus gathered his congregation in the church in the old town S. of the Orontes. Immense numbers were there " fed by him with sound doctrine " (Chrys. Laus Diodori, § 4, t. iii. p. 749). When forcibly driven out of this church, he gathered his congregation in the soldiers' exercising ground, or " gymnasium," and ex- horted them from house to house. The texts and arguments of his discourses were chiefly furnished by Flavian, and clothed by Diodorus in a rhetorical dress. His oratory is compared by Chrysostom to " a l>Te " for melody, and to " a trumpet " for the power with which, like Joshua at Jericho, he broke down the strongholds of his heretical opponents. He also held private assemblies at his own house to expound the faith and refute heresy (Theod. H. E. iv. 25 ; Chrys. I.e. ; Facund. iv. 22). Such dauntless championship of the faith failed not to provoke persecution. His life was more than once in danger, and he was forced to seek safety in flight (Chrys. I.e.). Once at least when driven from Antioch he joined his spiritual father Meletius in exile at Getasa in Armenia, where, in 372, he met Basil theGreat (Basil, £/7. 187). The intimate terms of Diodorus and Basil are seen from the tone of Basil's correspondence. Even more than for his undaunted defence of the catholic faith Diodorus deserves the gratitude of the church as head of the theo- logical school at Antioch. He pvursued a healthy common-sense principle of exposition of Holy Scripture, which, discarding alike allegorism and coarse literalism, sought by the help of criticism, philology, history, and other external resources, to develop the true meaning of the text, as intended by the authors (Socr. H. E. vi. 3 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 2 ; Hieron. de Vir. Illust. No. 119). Meletius, on beingrestored to Antioch in 378, appointed Diodorus bp. of Tarsus and metro- politan of the then undivided province of Cilicia (Facundus, viii. 5). His career as bishop, according to Jerome {I.e.), was less dis- tinguished than as presbyter. He took part in the great council of Antioch a.d. 379, which failed to put an end to the Antiochene schism, as well as in the 2nd oecumenical council at Constantinople a.d. 381. By the decree of the emperor Theodosius, July 30, 381, Diodorus was named as one of the orthodox Eastern prelates, communion with whom was the test of orthodoxy (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. i. 3 ; t. vi. p. 9). Meletius having died during the session of the council, Diodorus, violating the compact made to heal the schism, united with Acacius of Beroea in consecrating Flavian as 1 DIODORUS bp. of Antioch, for which both the consecrating prelates were excommunicated by the bishops of the West (Soz. H. E. vii. 11). As Phalerius was bp. of Tarsus at a council at Constantino- ple in 394, the date of Diodorus's death is ap- proximately fixed. Facundus and others tell us that he died full of days and glory, revered by the whole church and honoured by its chief doctors, by Basil, Meletius, Theodoret, Domnus of Antioch, and even by the chief impugner of the soundness of his faith, Cyril of Alexandria. This high credit was disturbed by the Nes- torian controversies of the next cent. His rationalizing spirit had led him to use language about the Incarnation containing the principles of that heresy afterwards more fully devel- oped by his disciple Theodorus. Thus, not without justice, he has been deemed the virtual parent of Nestorianism and called " a Nestor- ian before Nestorius." It was his repugnance to the errors of Apollinarianism which led him to the opposite errors of Nestorianism. His sense of the importance of the truth of Christ's manhood caused him to insist on Its distinct- ness from His Godhead in a manner which gradually led to Its being represented as a separate personality. He drew a distinction between Him Who according to His essence was Son of God — the eternal Logos — and Him Who through divine decree and adoption be- came Son of God. The one was Son of God by nature, the other by grace. The son of man became Son of God because chosen to be the receptacle or temple of God the Word. It followed that Mary could not be properly termed the " mother of God," nor God the Word be strictly called the Son of David, that designation belonging, according to human descent, to the temple in which the Divine Son tabernacled. Diodorus therefore distinguished two Sons, the Son of God and the son of Mary, combined in the person of Christ. When, then, the great Nestorian controversy set in, Cyril clearly saw that, apart from the watch- word 6eor6vos, which had not arisen in the days of Diodorus, what men called Nestorian- ism was substantially the doctrine of Diodor- us as developed by Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and that Nestorianism could only be fully crushed by a condemnation of the doctrines of Diodorus as the foimtain head. This con- demnation was most difficult to obtain. No name was held in so much reverence through- out the East. Cyril, however, was of far too determined a spirit to hesitate. If orthodox views of the Incarnation were to be established, the authority of Diodorus must, at any cost of enmity and unpopularity, be destroyed. Every means was therefore taken to enforce, by the aid of the emperor and the patriarch Proclus, his condemnation, together with that of his still more heretical pupil Theodorus. Cyril himself, in a letter to the emperor, de- scribed them in the harshest terms as the fathers of the blasphemies of Nestorius (Theo- doret, t. V. p. 854), and in a letter to John of Antioch denounced them as " going full sail, as it were, against the glory of Christ." It is not surprising that Diodorus began to be looked upon with suspicion by those who had been accustomed to regard him as a bulwark of the faith, insomuch that Theodoret, when himself accused of Nestorian leanings, did not venture DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO to quote the words of Diodorus in his defence, i though he regarded him with reverence (<rf^a)), j as " a holy and blessed father " (Theod. Ep. i i6). In the hope of rehabilitating his credit, j Theodoret wrote a treatise to prove the ortho- l doxy of Diodorus, which led Cyril to peruse them and to pronounce them categorically i heretical (ib. Epp. 38, 52). All attempts, however, to depreciate the authority of Diodorus, both by C>ril and Rabbulas of Eilessa, only exalted him in the estimation of the Xestorian party, and the opposition con- tributed to the formation of the independent and still existing Nestorian church, which looks upon Diodorus and Theodorus with deepest veneration as its founders. The presbyter Maris of Hardaschir, in Persia, translated the works of Diodorus into Persian, and they, together with those of Theodorus, were also translated into Armenian, Syriac, and other Oriental tongues (Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 209, 284 ; Clark's trans. Liberat. Breviar. c. 10). Diodorus was naturally anathematized by Eutyches and his followers. Flavian III., also bp. of Antioch, was com- pelled by the Monophysites to pass an ana- thema on the writings of Diodorus and Theo- dorus in A.D. 499. The controversy respecting the orthodoxy of Diodorus was revived in the 6th cent, by the interminable disputes about " the Three Articles." There is a full defence of his orthodoxy by Facundus in his Defensio Trium Capitulorum " (lib. iv. c. 2). Photius asserts that Diodorus was formally condemned by the fifth oecumenical council held at Con- stantinople A.D. 553, but it does not appear in the acts of that council. Diodorus was a very copious author, the titles of between 20 and 30 distinct works being enumerated in various catalogues. The whole have perished, except some fragments, no less than 60 having been burnt, according to Ebed-Jesu, by the Arians. His writings were partly exegetical, mainly controversial. He wrote comments on all the books of O. and N. T., except the Ep. to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles (I. John how- ever being commented on), and the Apoca- lypse. In these, according to Jerome (de Vir. Illust. No. 1 19), he imitated the line of thought of Eusebius of Emesa, but fell below him in eloquence and refinement. [e-v.] Diognetus, Epistle to. The Greek writing known under this name was first printed in 1592 by Henricus Stephanus, along with a companion piece To Greeks, as hitherto un- known writings of Justin Martyr, taken by him from a single faded exemplar. In his edition, as in the transcript in his own handwriting extant at Leydcn, the writing To Greeks was not prefixed, but appended to the writing To Diugnetus ; but in the MS. from which he took the pieces (identified by Gebhardt with that collated by Cunitz at Strasburg, where it perished in 1870) three works, each ascribed by name to Justin, were followed by the two pieces Of the Same to Greeks and Of the Same to Diognetus. The correctness of the ascription of each of these two pieces to Justin was separately called in question by subsequent critics ; but the con- nexion between the two pieces, the contrast in style presented by both alike to the spurious or dubious works of Justin to which in the MS. DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO 257 they were appended, and the fact that it was not directly to Justin Martvr, but to the author of the atldress To Greeks that the address To Diognetus was in the MS. ascribed, were forgotten. In the .MS., again, the text given under the headmg I o Diognetus was broken into three fragments by two clear breaks with marginal imtes from the old i3th-ccnt. scribe, saying. " Thus I found a break in the copy before me also, it being very ancient." Of these two breaks the former, occurring near the end of c. vii., is ignored by Stephanus in his division of the writing into chapters. Whether more or less be missing, the writing comprised in cc. vii.-x. is plainly the continuation of the writing commenced in cc. i.-vii. In the con- cluding fragment (cc. xi. xii.), appended after the second break, the writer calls himself " disciple of apostles," and on this ground the writer I'o Diognetus has been included among the apostolic Fathers. But the contrast be- tween cc. i.-x. and cc. xi. xii. is so great that critics have concluded the final appended fragment to be no part of the writing to Diognetus, but the peroration of another treatise by another writer. No other ancient copy of the Greek of any of the writings published in 1592 has been found ; but the writer To Greeks, with whom the writer To Diognetus was in the MS. im- mediately identified, has been plainly distin- guished from Justin by the discovery and publication by Cureton in his Spicilegium Syriaciim from a 6th or 7th cent. MS. of a Syriac version of an almost identical dis- course ascribed to one " Anibrosius, a chief man of Greece, who became a Christian, and all his fellow-councillors raised a clamour against him." We may thus say that the true traditional writer To Greeks and To Diognetus is a certain otherwise unknown Ambrosius, convert like Justin from Hellenism to Chris- tianity — the reply To Greeks, the assailants of the writer, being naturally followed by the response To Diognetus, the inquirer. This conclusion is confirmed by internal evidence. The style of the two writings is identical. In each there is the same Attic diction joined with the same Roman dignity. Nay, in each there is the same occurrence of two contrasted styles, the same passage from the scornful vigour of the satirist to the joyous sweetness of the es'angelist. " Come, be taught," says the writer To Greeks (c. v.) ; and it seems that Diognetus came. Common as the name was, the only Diognetus known to us after Christ was a painting master who c. 133 had charge of the young Marcus Aurelius. Whether this was tlie Diognetus who came to the Christian teacher we do not know. The writing addressed to him is not in form an eiiistle, it seems rather to be a discourse delivered in a Christian .Assembly into which the eminent inquirer had found his way. His coming implied a triple question: (i) " On what God relying, Christians despise death and neither reckon those gods who are so accounted by the Clrecks, nor ob- serve any superstition of Jews"; (ii) "What the kindly affection is that they have one for another " ; and (iii) " What, in short, this nfw race or practice might be that has invaded 17 258 DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO society now and no earlier." To (i) the writer replies in cc. i.-vii., first bidding the Greek look at his manufactured gods (c. i i.) , and convicting the J ews of vain oblations (c. iii.) and ungrateful service (c. iv.) to the Giver of all to all, then (c. v.) portraying the wondrous life of Chris- tians, at home yet strangers everywhere, like the soul in the body of the world (c. vi.), and so (c. vii.) passing from the earthly things to the heavenly to tell how it was God Who implanted the Word by the mission of the Maker of all, sent as an imperial Son, in love, to be sent again as Judge. So the inquirer is answered that the reasons for non-compliance with Hellenism and Judaism are obvious, but the Christians' God is the one God of the J ews, and their religion consists of purity and charity, and was founded by the mission of the Son, Whom God will send again. At this point something has dropped out. The argument may be surmised to have continued after this fashion : " An end of all things is the doctrine of your Greek sages; but the Jews looked for a per- petual earthly kingdom, and when Christ pro- claimed a kingdom not of this world, they slew Him, and yet He is not dead, and Chris- tian worship is not to deny Him." For as resumed (c. vii.) after a break in the middle of a sentence, the discourse points to martyr- doms as " signs," not of the return but " of the presence " of the Lord, as though saying, " You see. He is still with us." Then pro- ceeding (c. viii.) to contrast the follies of philosophy with the assurance wrought by the Father's revelation of Himself to faith, he explains (c. ix.) how God waited to shew forth what He had prepared till unrighteousness had been made manifest, and then, when the time came, Himself took our sins and gave His own Son for us and would have us trust Him. So (c. X.) he passes from expounding " on what God Christians rely" to expound "what the love is that they bear one to another," the out- come of their love to Him Who first loved them. The first two questions of the inquirer are thus answered, and in answering them com- pletely the third question, " What the new institution might be," would be answered along with them ; but that answer seems not to be completed before the second break. It could not be complete till it had been carried further than merely saying that " it was God Who implanted the Word," and that He did so " when the time came." " The Word that appeared new " must have been " found old " ; and this is the answer that we find in the final fragment (cc. xi. xii.) after the second break. The style has become different. We find ourselves listening to the peroration of a homily, before the withdrawal of the cate- chumens and the celebration of the mysteries. It does not follow that the final fragment does not belong to the preceding discourse. If Diognetus had shewn his desire for instruction by coming into a Christian assembly, the whole discourse may have been delivered before such an audience as is addressed in the per- oration at the close. We are brought into a new region. The satirist of superstition and evangelist of atoning, justifying mercy is succeeded by a mystical behever in a Christ born anew in hearts of saints. The new thing is portrayed as " that which was from the DIOGNETUS, EPISTLE TO beginning," yet ever new. " This is He that is ever reckoned a Son to-day." But what it is can be known only by taking up the cross and so coming to be with Christ in Paradise, " Whose tree if thou bearest fruit and if thou choosest thou shaft eat those things that with God are desired." The loss of intervening matter makes the transition to the new region abrupt and the contrast patent. " The Lord's Passover Cometh forth, and, teaching saints, the Word is gladdened." But the course is still straight- forward and the guide is not diverse. The style is different only so far as is necessitated by the difference of subject. It exhibits the same anarthrous use of nouns, the same ac- cumulation of clause on clause, not pursued too far ; the same unexpected turns at the close of the sentences ; the same union of dignity with sweetness, the same blending of Pauline with Johannine teaching ; the same persistent subordination of doctrine to life. On these grounds we may venture to differ from the wide consent of critics in imagining a second nameless author. It is worth noting that an Ambrose, of the consecration of Antioch, is said in a Syriac tradition to have been the third primate of Edessa and the East (Burkitt, Early Eastern Christianity, p. 29). The writer To Greeks and To Diognetus may have been this bringer of Greek Pauline Christianity to the regions be- yond Euphrates conquered by Trajan and abandoned by Hadrian, and have been an- cestor of the friend of Origen and of the great Milanese archbp. and of the legendary father of King Arthur. Probably an old copy exhibited three works of Ambrosius — an avowal of Christianity, and answers To Greeks and To Diognetus, each a brave act as well as a solid work, the first now lost, the second a fine sample of a class of controversial works of which samples are numerous, the third, To Diognetus, preserved in fragments only, but unique, not apologetic merely, but catechetical, a portraiture of early Christianity not in its manifestation only, but in its springs, bringing us to the gates of the Paradise of God. In free allied states like Antioch and Athens avowal of Christianity may have been toler- ated when not suffered in Roman or subject regions. In the 2nd cent, the world was not yet all Roman. The date of the writings may be determined with great probability, not with absolute certainty, except that, if genuine, they cannot be post-Nicene. The picture of the church presented to Diognetus pretty plainly belongs to a date earlier than the accession of Com- raodus. The chief school of Christian thought would seem still to be at Athens, though on the eve of its transference to Alexandria by Athenagoras. It is among the writings of Tatian, Melito, and Theophilus and the frag- ments of ApoUinaris, Abercius, etc., that these pieces seem most at home. The writer seems to appear in his freshness beside Justin in his ripeness, and to be the meeting-point of the teachings of Justin and Marcion, as he is at the point of departure of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Origen on the one hand, and Praxeas, Noetus, and SabeUius on the other. DIONYSIA Ldst in the i'i\)\vd of predecessors whom Irenaeus and Clement hardly ever name and merged in Justin's shadow, convinced that God alone can reveal Himself, and content to be hidden in his Saviour's righteousness, the old writer has gradually emerged by virtue of an inborn lustre, at once the obscurest and most brilliant of his contemporaries, and has cast a glory on the early church while remain- ing himself unknown. Authorities. — Gallandi, ap. Migne, Patr. Gk. ii. ii59ff. ; Bickersteth, Christian Fathers, (1838) ; Dorncr, Person of Christ, i. 260 ff. ; Hefele, Patres Apostolici (Tubingen, 1842) ; Neander. Church History, ii. 420, 425 (Bohn) ; Westcott, Canon (ed. 1875), pp. 85 ff. ; Bunsen, Hippolytus, i. 1S7 ff., Analecla Antenicaena, i. 103 ff. ; Donaldson, Hist. Christ. Lit. ii. 126 tf. ; Davidson, Intro, to N. T. ii. 399 ; Har- uack, Patres Apostolici. i. 205 ff. (Leipz. 1875, 2nded. 1878) ; Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum (I.ond. 1834) ; Ceillier, Autcurssacres,\. 412 (ed. 1865) ; Bigg, Origins 0/ Christianity ; Lightfoot andHarmtr, .Apost. Fathers, p. 487. An Eng. trans, of the Ep. to Diognetus is included in the A nte-Nicene Lib. andanother by L. B. Rad- ford is pub. cheaply by S.P.C.K. [e.e.b.] Dionysia (1), virgin martyr at Lampsacus, A.D. 250. Seeing Nicomachus suddenly seized with madness and dying in horror, after having denied the faith under torture, and sacrificed to the heathen gods, Dionysia cried out, " Mis- erable and most wretched man ! Why, for one hour's respite, didst thou take to thyself un- ceasing and indescribable punishment ! " The proconsul Optimus hearing her, asked if she were a Christian. " Yes," she answered, " and that is why I weep for this unhappy man, who loses eternal rest by not being able to suffer a moment's pain." The proconsul dismissed her with a brutal order. Next day, having succeeded in maintaining her chastity, she escaped, and joined Andrew and Paul, two Christians who were being stoned to death. " I wish to die with you here," she said, " that I may live with you in heaven ! " Optimus ordered her to be taken from Andrew and Paul, and beheaded. May 15, 250, the 2nd year of Decius. Ruinart, Act. Sine. Mart. p. 159 ; Ceillier, ii. 118. [w.m.s.] Dionysia (2), at Alexandria, a.d. 251, mother of many children, who, loving her Lord more than her children, died by the sword, along with the venerable lady Mercuria, without being tried by torture, as the prefect had succeeded so ill with .A.mmonarion that he was ashamed to go on torturing and being defeated by women (Dion. Alex, ad Fab. ap. Eus. H. E. Vi. 41). [E.B.B.] Dionysia (3), St., a Christian martyr in the 5th cent. According to the narrative of Victor V'itensis, her contemporary, she was a lady of rare beauty in Africa, who preferred tortures, shameful indignities, and death to renouncing her faith ; a victim of the persecution of the (orthodox or Catholic Christians by Hunneric, king of the Vandals. The date assigned for her martyrdom is 484. See Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Afri- cand, V. c. i ; ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. Ivii. ; Tillem., Memoires, t. xvi. (Paris, 1701, 4to) ; Baronius, Annates Ecclesiastici, t. viii. p. 463 (Lucae, 1741, fol.). [i.c.s.] DIONYSIUS 2r.o Dionysius (i), Pseudo-Areopagita. Under the name of Dionysius the .AiC'^pagite there has passeil current a h"d\ .>( remarkable writings. Before sheuing that the author of these writings was not the Dionysius converted by St. Paul (Acts xvii. 34), we must dis- criminate both of them from a third Dionysius, the St. Denys of Prance. The identity of all three was popularly believed for many ccn turies, and even yet is maintained by some. Was, then, the convert of St. Paul at Athens the first apostle of Prance ? The answer would not seem doubtful from the statement of Sulpitius Severus, that the earliest martyrs in Gaul were under the reign of Aurelius (Sacr. Hist. ii. 46), i.e. after a.d. 160 ; and from the circumstance that neither the old martyro- logies nor the old French chroniclers contain any hint of the identity of the two. Greg( ry of Tours {Hist. Franc, i. 30) fixes the coming of St. Denys into France as late as the reign of Decius, i.e. after a.d. 250 ; while Usuardus, who wrote his Martyrologinm for Charlemagne, assigned Oct. 3 to the memory of the Areopa- gite, and Oct. 9 to that of the patron saint of France. The reasons for believing St. Denys of France to be the author of these writings are equally slight. Their style and subject- matter all betoken a philosophic leisure, not the active life of a missionary in a barbarous country ; and a residence in the East is implied in the very titles of those to whom they are addressed. It is the opinion of Bardenhtwer {Patrol, p. 538) that the writings of Stigl- niayr and Koch (see under Authorities, infra) have proved " that the Areopagitica were no- thing more than a composition written under an assumed name, and in reality dating from about the end of the fifth century." We may deal with the writings under: (i) External History ; (2) Nature and Contents. (i) It is generally admitted that the first unequivocal mention of them is in the records of the conference at Constantinople in 532. The emperor Justinian invited Hypatius of Ephesus, and other bishops of the orthodox side, to meet in his palace the leaders of the Severians. During the debate, these alleged writings of the Areopagite were brought for- ward by the latter in support of their Mono- physite views ; and the objections of Hypatius have been preserved. H genuine, he asked, how could they have escaped the notice of Cyril and others ? (Mansi, viii. col. 821) ; and this question has never been satisfactorily answered. Supposed traces of them have been pointed out in Origen ; and other in- genious reasons, explaining their concealment for five centuries, have been confuted again and again. Still, whatever their parentage, thev are henceforward never lost sight <>f. Writers of the school which l>ad at first ob- jected to them soon found how serviceable to their own cause they might be made. Thus a chain of testimony begins to be attached to them in unbroken continuitv. In the Western church we first find them mentioned by pope Gregory the Great {c. 590) ; but his manner of citing them makes it probable that he only knew th<'ni by report. In any case, thev did not become generally known in the West till after a.d. 827, when Michael the Stammerer sent a copy to Louii 260 mONYSlUS le Ddbonnaire, son of Charlemagne. The abbey of St. Denys, near Paris, was thought the most fitting receptacle for such a treasure ; and its abbat, the superstitious and unprin- cipled Hilduin, compiled a collection of Areo- pagilica in honour of the event. This work professes to be based on documents then ex- tant, but is described in equally unfavourable terms by Sirmond and by Cave. In the next reign, that of Charles the Bald, a Latin trans, of all the Dionysian writings was made by the great scholar Joannes Erigena. It is first publicly mentioned by pope Nicholas I., in a letter to Charles in 86i, and is warmly praised by Anastasius Bibliothecarius in 865. (2) The Dionysian writings consist of four extant treatises : On the Heavenly Hierarchy ; On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy ; On the Names of God ; On Mystic Theology ; after which come ten letters or fragments of letters. This list, from one point of view, is com- plete as an exposition of the Dionysian system, and is also in its proper order. For we may take as its epitome the words of St. Paul with which the first sentence in the volume con- cludes : " For of Him and to Him are all things " (Rom. xi. 36). God, the centre to- wards which all tend, and at the same time the all-embracing circumference within which all are included ; the constant streaming forth from Him, like rays from the visible sun, of divine influences whereby men are purified, illumined, and drawn upwards to Himself ; man's powerlessness to know the real nature and being of God, while yet he may be drawn near to Him, in the mystic communion of a loving faith : such is, very briefly, the burden of the Dionysian strain. And if we take the de Divinis Nominibus as the central portion of the writings, and recognize the two Hier- archies as one consecutive whole, we have enough to fill up the outline sketched above. In the Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies, with their ninefold orders of heavenly and of earthly ministrations, we have the means, the machinery (so to speak), whereby God com- municates Himself to man. In the Divina Nomina we have disclosed to us, so far as can be seen through veils and shadows, the Fountain-head of all light and being, the object of all thought and desire. In the Mystic Theology we have the converse of the path marked out in the Hierarchies, the ascent of the human soul to mystic union with God. The three great sections of the Dionysian writings thus answer very strikingly to the three elements of which he makes his hierarchy to consist : rd^is, eTTKrrjj/x?;, and ip^pyeia wpos rb OeofLdis atpoiovixevq (Eccl. Hier. iii. § i). Yet the author refers to a series of treatises, still more numerous than the preceding, as if he thought them necessary for the completion of his design. These are :' On Divine Hymns ; Symbolic Theology ; On the Objects of Intellect and Sense; Theological Outlines ; On the Soul ; On the Just Judgment of God. To these are added by Sixtus Senensis and others : On the Properties and Orders of Angels ; The Legal Hierarchy. The question of these missing treatises is most perplexing. Did they ever exist ? If so, what has become of them ? Are they mere inventions of the author, designed to parry DIONYSIUS attacks on his own weak points, and to suggest the filling up of deficiencies which in reality he left unsupplied ? This last seems very probable. But, if true, while our respect for the intellectual completeness of the author's mind is increased, our opinion of his moral straightforwardness must be diminished. However, he is certainly entitled to the credit of his conception of such a theological system, whether all the parts be duly filled in or not. Limits of space do not here allow a minute analysis of the extant works. The Heavenly Hierarchy opens with what sounds almost like the keynote of the whole, the text Trficra o6ffis dyaOr;, k.t.\. of J as. i. 17. The lan- guage, in which the simple words of these Apostles are expanded and paraphrased, will convey no bad idea of the generally turgid style. To bring us to Himself, God graciously makes use of signs and symbols, and of inter- vening orders of ministers, by whose means we may be gradually raised to nearer com- munion with Him. Such an organization he calls a Hierarchy — " a sacred order, and science, and activity, assimilated as far as possible to the godlike, and elevated to the imitation of God proportionately to the Divine illuminations conceded to it " {Cel. Hier. iii. § I, tr. by Westcott). The members of the Heavenly' Hierarchy are the nine orders of Angels — the term Angel being sometimes used alike of all the orders, and sometimes, in a more proper and restricted sense, of the lowest of the nine. The names of the nine orders appear to be obtained by combining with the more obvious Seraphim, Cherubim, Arch- angels, and Angels, five deduced from two passages of St. Paul, Eph. i. 21 and Col. i. 16. In each of these passages four names are men- tioned, of which three (apxM- e^ovaiai, Kvpio- TTjTes) are common to both, while one is pecu- liar to each, Si'va/jieii to the former, dpuvoi to the latter. The nine are subdivided into triads, ranged thus in descending order : 1. Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones. 2. Dominations, Virtues, Powers. 3. Principalities, Archangels, Angels. The long and important treatise On the Names of God (Ilepi diiojv ovopLaroov) has been shewn by Stiglmayr and Koch to contain an extract from Proclus's treatise de Malorum Siibstitentia ; which has reached us in a Latin trans. It is an inquiry into the being and attributes of God as indicated by the Divine Names in Holy Scripture. These Names, like all outward channels of spiritual knowledge, can reveal His real nature but very imper- fectly ; and even so, not without prayer, which, like the golden chain of Homer, lifts us up to Heaven while we seem to be drawing it down to earth ; or like the rope thrown out to mariners from a rock, which enables them to draw their ship nearer to the rock, while they pull as if they would draw the rock to them (Div. Nom. iii. § i). The first thing thus revealed is God's goodness, the far-reaching effulgence of His being, which streams forth upon all, like the rays of the sun {ib. iv. § i). Evil is nothing real and positive, but a defect, a negation only : '^reprjcns &pa icrrl rb KaKbv, Kai iWfiipis, Kal dcrdevfia, Kal davfip-eTpia, K.T.\. {ib. iv. § 32). As what we DIONYSIUS call cold is but a deficiency of heat ; or darkness, of light ; so what wc call evil is a deficiency of goodness. V\'hen the sky grows dark, as evening sets in, that darkness is no- thing positive, superadded to what existed be- fore : we are conscious of gloom merely from the disappearance of the light, which was the true existence {ib. iv. § 24). This subject is pursued in a very noble train of thought to some length, and is followed by a discussion of still other names and titles, adapted to the infirmity of human understanding, under which God's attributes are made intelligible to us. That the author is conscious of his theory of evil not being logically complete appears from his briefly referring to another supposed treatise, llepi SLKaiov Kal Of'iov UKaiwr-qriov (ib. iv. § 35), for a settlement of the question how far evil, being such as is described, de- serves punishment at the hands of God. Of two legends, widely known in connexion with the name of Dionysius, from their inser- tion in the Breviary of the Latin church, one must be noticed here, as found in the present work. When Dionysius was present with Timothy, to whom he is writing, and James, 6 a.de\<p6deo^, and Peter, v Kopvipala Kai vpea- ^iTo-TT) tQ)v OfoXoywu aKporri^, and other dis- ciples, " for the spectacle of the body which was the beginning of life and the recipient of God " (eTTi Ti-jv Oeap tov i^o.'apxiKOu Kai OfoSoxov — al. (ftcoToooxov — (TciA'aTos {tb. iii. § 2) ), no one but the apostles surpassed Hierotheus, his preceptor, in the inspired hymns and praises which he uttered. This is generally consid- ered to refer to a gathering of the apostles round the deathbed of the Holy Virgin. The language is vague, and the passage comes in with singular abruptness, as a sequel to one on the power of prayer. In the paraphrase of Pachynieres, the names of the apostles are omitted. The explanation of Barradas (quoted by Hipler, ubi inf. p. 48 n.) is that the gathering round the Oeorduos really repre- sents the assembly of believers for the recep- tion of the Holy Eucharist, bending (as the words of one liturgy express it) " ante splen- dida et theodocha signa cum timore inclinati." The short treatise on Mystic Theology in- dicates the means of approaching more nearly to God, previously set forth under the Divine Names, by reversing the procedure adopted in the Hierarchies. He who would aspire to a truer and more intimate knowledge of God must rise above signs and symbols, above earthly conceptions and definitions of God, and thus advance by negation, rather than by affirma- tion, kut' a<paipc<jLV, not Kara Ofaiv. Even in the Hierarchies (Cel. Hier. ii. § 3) Dionysius had spoken of dirufpacni as a surer way of penetrating the divine mystery than KaTa.(t>aai%, and now enforces the same truth by an illus- tration which, if not taken directly from Plotinus, presents a striking parallel to one used by him — that of the sculptor, who, striving to fashion a beautiful statue, chips away the outer marble, and removes what was in fact an obstruction to his own ideal [Myst. Theol. c. ii. ; cf. Plotinus, de Pulchri- tudine, ed. Creuzer, 1814, p. 62). Of the Letters, the first two are little more than detached notes on points of the Mystic DIONYSIUS 201 Theology — on our dyvwcria of God, and His transcendent nature. The third is a short fragment on the meaning of the word l^al<f>vn% in Mai. iii. i, " The Lord . . . shall suddenly come to His temple," and its aiij)licati<)n to the Incarnation. The fourth, addressed, like the three previous ones, to the monk Cains, treats briefly of the Incarnation, and the nature of that human body with which Christ could walk upon the waters (cf. Dii<. Nom. ii. 9). The fifth, to Dorotheus, is on the meaning of the divine darkness (6 ^eFo? -yvofpo^) spoken of in the Mystic Theology. The sixth, to Sosi- pater, teaches that labour is better spent in establishing truth than in confuting error. The se\-enth is a much longer letter, addressed to Polycarp, in which he bids him answer the taunts of the Sophist Apollophancs, by recall- ing the days when he and Dionysius were fellow-students at Hicrapojis, and his own remark when they beheld the darkness of the Crucifixion : TaOra. w naXi AiomVi^. Otiwv dfioi- :Sal wpayj-uiTUji'. The exclamation attributed to Dionysius himself, as it appears in the Latin Breviary, Aid Deus naturae palitur, aut mundi machina dissolvitur, or, as it is given by Syn- gelusinhisZ.j7tf,'()iS7i'a-a-Tos iv (rapKi irdo-xf i Heoj, K.T.X., is not found in the Dionysian writings. The eighth letter, to a monk, Demophilus, is on gentleness and forbearance, and the topic is illustrated by a dream which St. Carpus had in Crete. The ninth, also a long letter, ad- dressed to Titus, bp. of Crete, refers to matters treated in the Symbolic Theology. Many points are discussed in what to some would appear a strangely neologic spirit. The anthropomorphism of O.T., the bold meta- phors of the Song of Songs (rdj tuv <j.andTU3v TTpocrvXovs Kai iratpiKdi woXv-jraPeias), and the like, can only be understood, he savs, by true lovers of holiness, who come to the study of divine wisdom divested of every childish imagination {ndaav ttji' TraiRaptuiori (f>avTaffiai> ini Tu)v iepQi' ffv/xlioXuJV dTroaKevat^oi'fvoti)- In this letter we seem to see before us a disciple of Philo. The tenth, and last, is a mere fragment, addressed to St. John the Divine, an exile in Patmos, foretelling his approaching release from confinement. Authorities. — Isaac Casaubon, de Rebus sacris Eccl. Exercitt. xxi. (1615) ; Jean Launov, Varia de duobus Dionysiis (1660) ; J. Dallaeus, de Scriptis quae . . . circumfer- unter (1666) ; P. F. Chifflet, Opuscula quatuor (1679) ; Vsshcr, Disserlalio de Scriptis . . . ap- pended to his Historia Dogmatica (1600) ; M. Lequien, Dissertatio Secunda. prefixed to tom. i. oi Joannis DamasceniOp. (171 2); Cave, Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit. (1740) ; Brncker, Hist. Crit. tom. iii. (1766) ; J. L. Mosheim, Com- mentatio de Turhata per Recentiorcs I'lalonicos Ecclesia (1767); J. A. Fabririus, litblioth. Graeca, tom. vii. (1801) ; I. G. Engelhardt, de Dionvsio Areop. Plotinizante (1820) ; Milman, I.at. Christ. v>\. vi. (iK.s?) ; Dr. Franz Hipler, Dionysius der Arenpagite (Regensburp, 1861) ; B. F. Westcotl, Essay on Dionysius the Areopagite in the Contemp. Rev. May iSfi; ; Dean Colet, On the Hierarchies of Dionysius (1869) ; J. Fowler, Essay on the works of St. Dionvsius the Areopagite, in relation to Chris- tian art, in the Sacristy, Feb. 1872 ; H. Koch, 262 DIONYSIUS in Theol. Quartalschrift, 1895 and 1898 ; Stistlmayr in Hist. Jahrbiicher (1895). [j.h.l.] Dionysius (2), St., apostle of France, and first bp. of Paris. Concerning his identity and era there are three principal opinions. (r) That he was Dionysius the Areopagite, formerly bp. of Athens, who came to Rome and was sent by Clement, bp. of Rome, to preach in Gaul. This is the tradition of the Greek church, and of those of Gaul, Germany, Spain, and Italy. The corresponding legend, shortly narrated in the Paris Martyrology, states that his companions were Rusticus, a presbyter, and Eleutherus, a deacon, and that all three were put to death by the sword under Sisinnius Fescenninus, prefect of Gaul. This is the opinion of Flavins Lucius Dexter, d. 444 {Chronicon. Patr. Lat. xxxi. 270). (2) That, although not the Areopagite, he was sent by Clement or the successors of the apostles. This is held in a poem in honour of Dionysius, attributed with some probability to Venantius Fortunatus of Poitiers, who had written a poem on the same subject commit- ting himself to no opinion [Patr. Lat. Ixxxviii. 72, 98). It is also supported by Pagius in his notes on Baronius. ^3) That he was sent from Rome in the 3rd cent., and suffered martyrdom c. a.d. 250. This is held by Sulpicius Severus, d. a.d. 410, and Gregory of Tours, d. 595. Sulpicius says, " Under Aurelius, son of Antoninus, raged the fifth persecution. Then first were martyr- doms seen in Gaul, for the religion of God was late in coming over the Alps " (Severi, Chroni- con, ii. 32, Patr. Lat. xx. 147). Gregory (Hist, of the Fm;t^s,bk. i.e. 28), speaking of the Decian persecution, quotes the Hist. Passionis S. M. Saturnini : " Under the consulship of Decius and Gratus, as is held in faithful recollection, the state of Toulouse began to have a bishop, St. Saturninus, her first and chief. These were the men sent : to Tours, Gatianus the bishop ; to Aries, Trophimus the bishop ; to Toulouse, Saturninus the bishop ; to Paris, Dionysius the bishop, etc. Of these the blessed Diony- sius, bishop of the Parisians, afflicted with many pains for the name of Christ, ended this present life under the sword." Probably, therefore, he died under the emperor Aurelian in A.D. 272 (cf. Gall. Christ, vii. 4). [w.m.s.] Dionysius (3), bp. of Corinth, probably the successor of Primus, placed bv Eusebius in his Chronicle under a.d. 171 (see also Bus. H. E. ii. 25, iii. 4, iv. 21, 23, 35 ; Hieron. Catal. 27). He was the writer of certain pastoral letters, which gained so much authority in his own lifetime that heretics (probably the followers of Marcion) found it worth while, as he complains, to circulate copies falsified by interpolations and omissions. Eusebius mentions having met with 8 of these letters — viz. seven which he calls " Catholic Epistles," addressed to Lacedemon, Athens, Nicomedia, Gortyna and other churches in Crete, Amastris and other churches in Pontus, Cnossus, and Rome ; and one to " his most faithful sister Chrysophora." Probably the letters were already collected into a volume and enumerated by Eusebius in the order they occurred there, or he would probably have mentioned the two Cretan letters consecutively. Nothing remains of tliem, except the short account of their con- DIONYSIUS tents given by Eusebius, and a few fragments of the letter to the Roman church which, though very scanty, throw considerable light on the state of the church at the time. Eusebius praises Dionysius for having given a share in his " inspired industry " to those in foreign lands. A bp. of Corinth might consider Lacedaemon and Athens as under his metropolitan superintendence, but that he should send letters of admonition to Crete, Bithynia, and Paphlagonia not only proves the reputation of the writer, but indicates the unity of the Christian community. A still more interesting proof of this is furnished by the letter to the Roman church, which would seem to be one of thanks for a gift of money, and in which he speaks of it as a custom of that church from the earliest times to send supplies to churches in every city to relieve poverty, and to support the brethren condemned to work in the mines, " a custom not only pre- served, but increased by the blessed bp. Soter, who administered their bounty to the saints, and with blessed words exhorted the brethren that came up as an affectionate father his children." The epithet here applied to Soter is usually used of those deceased in Christ ; but there are instances of its applica- tion to living persons, and Eusebius speaks of him as still bishop when the letter of Diony- sius was written. This letter is remarkable also as containing the earliest testimony that St. Peter suffered martyrdom in Italy at the same time as St. Paul. The letters indicate the general prevalence of episcopal govern- ment when they were written. In most of them the bishop of the church addressed is mentioned with honour ; Palmas in Pontus, Philip and Pinytus in Crete, Soter at Rome. That to the Athenians reminds them of a former bp. Publius, who had suffered martyr- dom during persecutions which reduced that church very low, from which condition it was revived by the zeal of Quadratus, the success- or of Publius. This form of government was then supposed to date from apostolic times, for in the same letter Dionysius the Areopagite is counted as the first bp. of Athens ; but the importance of the bishop seems to be still subordinate to that of his church. The letters, including that to Rome, are each addressed to the church, not to the bishop ; andSoter's own letter, like Clement's former one, was written not in his own name, but that of his church (iVaJf rqv iTnaTo\T)v). The letters, indeed, of Dionysius himself were writ ten in his own name, and he uses the ist pers. sing, in speaking of them, but adds that they were written at the request of brethren. Eusebius mentions two, Bacchylides and Elpistus, at whose instance that to the churches of Pontus was written. The letters also illustrate the value attached by Christians to their sacred literature. Dionysius informs the church of Rome that the day on which he wrote, being the Lord's day, had been kept holy, and that they had then read the letter of the Roman church, and would continue from time to time to read it for their instruction, as they were in the habit of reading the letter formerly written from the same church by the hand of Clement ; and speaking of the falsification of his own letters, he adds, " No marvel, then, that some have DIONYSIUS attempted to tamper with the Scriptures of the Lord, since they have attempted it on writings not comparable to them {ov roiavrai^)." Thus we learn that it was then customary to read sacred books in the Christian assemblies ; that this practice was not limited to our canonical books ; that attempts were made by men re- garded as heretics to corrupt these' writings, and that such attempts were jealously guarded against. The value attached by Christians to writings was regulated rather by the character of their contents than by the dignity of the writer ; for while there is no trace that the letter of Soter thus honoured at Corinth passed beyond that church, the letter of Dionysius himself became the property of the whole Christian community. But we learn the pre- eminent authority enjoyed by certain books, called the Scriptures of the Lord, which we cannot be wrong in identifying with some of the wTitings of our N.T. Dionysius, in the very brief fragments remaining, shews signs of acquaintance with the St. Matt., the Acts, I. Thess., and the Apocalypse. There is, there- fore, no reason for limiting to the O.T. the " expositions of the divine Scriptures," which Eusebius tells us were contained in the letter of Dionysius to the churches of Pontus. In speaking of attempts to corrupt the Scriptures, Dionysius probably refers to the heresy of Marcion, against which, we are told, he wrote in his letter to the church of Nicomedia, " de- fending the rule of truth." We cannot lay much stress on a rhetorical passage where Jerome (Ep. ad Magnum, 83) includes Diony- sius among those who had applied secular learning to the refutation of heresy, tracing each heresy to its source in the writings of the philosophers. Dionysius had probably also Marcionism in view, when he exhorted the church of Gortyna " to beware of the perver- sion of heretics," for we are told that its bp. Philip had found it necessary to compose a treatise against Marcion. We may see traces of the same heresy in the subjects treated of in the letter to the churches of Pontus (the home of Marcion), to which Dionysius gave instructions concerning marriage and chastity (marriage having been proscribed by Marcion), and which he also exhorted to receive back those who returned after any fall, whether into irregularity of living or into heretical error. But the rigorist tendencies here combated were exhibited also, not only among the then rising sects of the Encratites and Montan- ists, but by men of undoubted orthodoxy. Writing to the Cnossians Dionysius exhorts Pinytus the bp., a man highly commended by Eusebius for piety, orthodoxy, and learn- ing, not to impose on the brethren too heavy a burden of chastity, but to regard the weak- ness of the many. Eusebius reports Pinytus as replying with expressions of high respect for Dionysius, which were understood by Rufinus to imply an adoption of his views. But he apparently persevered in his own opinion, for he exhorts Dionysius to impart to his people some more advanced instruction, lest if he fed them always with milk instead of with more solid food, they should continue in the state of children. We are not told anything of the time or manner of the death of Dionysius. It must DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA 203 have been before the Paschal disputes in a.p. 108, when we find Palmas of Pontus still alive, but a new bishoj) (Hacchvlus) at Corinth. The Cireck church counts Dionysius among martyrs, and the Menaea name the sword as the instrument of his death ; but there is no authority for his martyrdom earlier than Cedrenus, i.e. the end of the nth cent. The Roman church only counts him among con- fessors. The abbey of St. Denis in France claimed to be in possession of the body of Dionysius of Corinth, alleged to have been brought from tirecce to Rome, and given them in 121=, by Innocent III. Tiie pope's bull is riven bv the Bnllandists under April 8. See Routh, Rt'l. Sac. (_mk1 ,•.!.), i. 178-201. [g.s.] Dionysius (6) of Alexandria. This " great bishop of Alexaiuhia" (Hns. H. E. vi. Praef.) and " teacher of the catholic church " (Athan. lie Sent. Dion. 6), was born, apparently, of a wealthy and honourable family (Ens. H. E. vii. II, and Valesms ad loc). He was an old man in a.d. 265 (Eus. H. E. vii. 27), and a presbyter in a.d. 233 (Hieron. de Vir. III. 69). His parents were Gentiles, and he was led to examine the claims of Christianity by private study {Ep. Dion. ap. Eus. H. E. vii. '7). His conversion cost him the sacrifice of " worldly glory " (Eus. H. E. vii. 11) ; but he found in Origenan able teacher {ib. vi. 29) ; and Dionysius remained faithful to his master to the last. In the persecutions of Decius he addressed a letter to him On Persecution [ib. vi. 46), doubt- less as an expression of sympathy with his sufferings (c. a.d. 259), and on the death of Origen (a.d. 253) wrote to Theotecnus bp. of Caesarea in his praise (Steph. Gob. ap. Phot. Cod. 232). Dionysius, then a presbyter, succeeded Heraclas as head of the Catechetical School, at the time, as the words of Eusebius imply, when Heraclas was made bp. of Alex- andria, A.D. 232-233 (Eus. I.e.). He held this office till he was raised to the bishopric, on the death of Heraclas, a.d. 247-248, and perhaps retained it till his death, a.d. 265. His epis- copate was in troubled times. A popular out- break at Alexandria (a.d. 248-249) anticipated by about a year (Eus. H. E. vi. 41) the perse- cution under Decius (a.d. 249-251). Diony- sius fled from Alexandria, and, being after- wards taken by some soldiers, was rescued by a friend, escaping in an obscure retirement from further attacks. In the persecution of Valerian, a.d. 257, he was banished, but con- tinued to direct and animate the Alexandrian church from the successive places of his exile. His conduct on these occasions exposed him to ungenerous criticism, and Eusebius has pre- served several interesting passages of a letter (c. A.D. 258-259), in which he defends himself with great spirit against the accusations of a bp. Germanus (ib. vi. 40, vii. 11). On the accession of Gallienus. a.d. 260. Dionysius was allowed to return to Alexandria (ib. vii. 13, 21). where he had to face war, famine, and pestil- ence (tb. vii. 22). In a.d. 264-265 he was invited to the synod at Antioch which met to consider the opinions of Paul of Samosata. His age and infirmities did not allow him to go, and he died shortly afterwards (a.d. 265) (ib. vii. 27, 28 ; Hieron. de Vtr. Ill- 69). Dionysius was active in controversy, but always bore himself with prudence. In this 264 DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDMA spirit he was anxious to deal gently with I the " lapsed " (Ens. H. E. vi. 42) ; he pressed | upon Novatian the duty of self-restraint, for the sake of the peace of the church, a.d. 251 (ib. vii. 45 ; Hieron. I.e.) ; and with better results counselled moderation in dealing with the rebaptism of heretics, in a correspondence with popes Stephen and Sixtus (a.d. 256-257) {Eus. H. E. vii. 5, 7, 9). His last letter (or letters) regarding Paul of Samosata seem to have been written in a similar strain. He charged the assembled bishops to do their duty, but did not shrink from appealing to Paul also, as still fairly within the reach of honest argument (Theod. Haer. Fab. ii. 8). In one instance Dionysius met with immediate success. In a discussion with a party of Chili- asts he brought his opponents to abandon their error (Eus. H. E. vii. 24). His own orthodoxy, however, did not always remain imimpeached. When controverting the false teaching of Sa- bellius, the charge of tritheism was brought against him by some Sabellian adversaries, and entertained at first by his namesake Dionysius of Rome. Discussion shewed that one ground of the misunderstanding was the ambiguity of the words used to describe " essence " and " person," which the two bishops took in different senses. Dionysius of Rome regarded inroaTauts as expressing the essence of the divine nature ; Dionysius of Alexandria as expressing the essence of each divine person. The former therefore affirmed that to divide the v-n-oaTaais was to make sep- arate gods ; the latter affirmed with equal justice that there could be no Trinity unless each iiTToo-TacTis was distinct. The Alexandrine bishop had, however, used other phrases, which were claimed by Arians at a later time as favouring their views. Basil, on hearsay, as it has been supposed (Lumper, Hist. Pat- rum, xiii. 86 f.), admitted that Dionysius sowed the seeds of the Anomoean heresy [Ep. i. 9), but Athanasius with fuller knowledge vindicated his perfect orthodoxy. Dionysius has been represented as recognizing the supre- macy of Rome in the defence which he made. But the fragments of his answer to his name- sake (Athan. de Sent. Dionysii, fTr^oreiXe AiovvffLLp 5r]\u!aai • • • for the use of eincrTeWw see Eus. H. E. vi. 46, etc.) shew the most com- plete and resolute independence ; and there is nothing in the narrative of Athanasius which implies that the Alexandrine bishop recog- nized, or that the Roman bishop claimed, any dogmatic authority as belonging to the im- perial see. To say that a synod was held upon the subject at Rome is an incorrect interpreta- tion of the facts. Dionysius was a prolific writer. Jerome (I.e.) has preserved a long but not exhaustive catalogue of his books. Some important frag- ments remain of his treatises On Nature (Eus. Praep. Ev. xiv. 23 ff.), and On the Promises, in refutation of the Chiliastic views of Nepos (Eus. H. E. iii. 28, vii. 24, 25) ; of his Refuta- tion and Defence, addressed to Dionysius of Rome, in reply to the accusation of false teach- ing on the Holy Trinity (Athan. de Sent. Dionysii ; de Svnodis, c. 44 ; de Deer. Syn. Nic. c. 25) ; of his Commentaries on Ecde- siastes and on St. Luke, and of his books Against Sabellius (Eus. Praep. Ev. vii. 19). DIONYSIUS The fragments of his letters are, however, the most interesting extant memorials of his work and character and of his time ; and Eusebius, with a true historical instinct, has made them the basis of the sixth and seventh books of his history. The following will shew the wide ground covered : A.D. 251. — To Domitius and Didymus. Per- sonal experiences during persecution (Eus. H.E. vii. II). A.D. 251-252. — To Novatian, to the Roman Confessors, to Cornelius of Rome, Fabius of Antioch, Conon of Hermopolis ; and to Christians in Alexandria, Egypt, Laodicaea, Armenia, on discipline and repentance, with pictures from contemporary history (ib. vi. 41, and vii. 45). A.D. 253-257. — To Stephen of Rome, the Roman presbyters Dionysius and Philemon, Sixtus II. of Rome on Rebaptism {ib. vii. 4, 5, 7, 9)- A.D. 258-263. — To Germanus : incidents in persecution. Against SabeUians. A series of festal letters, with pictures of contemporary history {ib. vii. 11, 22 ff., 26). A.D. 264. — To Paul of Samosata (vi. 40). To these, of some of which only the titles remain, must be added an important canonical letter to Basilides, of uncertain date, discussing various questions of discipline, and especially points connected with the Lenten fast fcf. Dittrich, pp. 46 ff.). All the fragments repay careful study. They are uniformly inspired by sympathy and large-heartedness. His criti- cism on the style of the Apocalypse is perhaps unique among early waitings for clearness and scholarly precision (Eus. H. E. vii. 25). The most accessible and complete collection of his remains is in Migne's Patr. Gk. x. pp. 1233 ff., 1575 ff., to which must be added Pitra, Spicil. Solesm. i. 15 ff. A full mono- graph on Dionysius by Dittrich (Freiburg, 1867) supplements the arts, in Tillemont, Marechal, Lumper, Moehler. An Eng. trans, of his works is in the Ante-Nicene Lrb.. and his Letters, etc., have been ed. by Dr. Feltoe for the Carnb. Patristic Texts (iqo4). [r.f.w.] Dionysius (7), bp. of Rome; a Greek by birth, consecrated July 22, a.d. 259, on the death of Xystus, in the persecution of Vale- rian. His efforts against heresy are re- corded. When Dionysius of Alexandria {q.v.) was accused of holding doctrines akin to those of Sabellius, the Roman Dionysius wrote to him, and extracted so satisfactory a defence that he declared him purged of suspicion (Athan. Ep. de Sent. Dionvs. 0pp. i. 252 ; see an Eng. trans, of the Fragm. against Sabellius in Ante-Nicene Lib.). In 264 the Alexandrian and Roman Dionysii acted together with the council of Antioch in condemning and degrad- ing Paul of Samosata. Dionysius of Rome died Dec. 26, 269. [g.h.m.] Dionysius (19), surnamed Exiguus because of his humbleness of heart, was a Scythian by birth, and a monk in the Western chinrch under the emperors Justin and Justinian. To him we owe the custom of dating events from the birth of our Saviour, though he is now acknow- ledged to have placed the era four years too late. His collection of canons laid the foun- dation of canon law. He knew Latin and Greek fairly ; though it is obvious that neither DIONYSIUS was his vernacular. His Latin translations form the bulk of his extant works. Cassio- dorus speaks of his moral and intellectual qualities with well-deserved praise. His per- formances were not original discoveries, but improvements on those of others. I. The period called after him was borrowed from Victorius of Aquitaine, who flourished loo years earlier, and is said to have invented it. It is a revolution of 532 years, produced by multiplying the solar cycle of 28 by the liinar of iq years. It is called sometimes " recapitulatio Dionysii." A note to § 13 of the preliminary dissertation to I' Art de vcrif. les dales shews how he improved on his pre- decessor. His cycle was published in the last year of the emperor Justin, a.d. 527. It began with March 25, now kept as the festival of the Annunciation ; and from this epoch all the dates of bulls and briefs of the court of Rome are supposed to run (Butler's Lives of the Saints, Oct. 15 : note to the Life of St. Teresa). His first year had for its characters the solar cycle 10, the lunar 2, and the Roman indiction 4, thereby proclaiming its identity with the year 4714 of the Julian period, which again coincided with the 4th year of the 194th Olympiad, and the 753rd of the building of Rome. It was adopted in Italy soon after its publication ; in France perhaps a century later. In England it was ordained a.d. 816, at the synod of Chelsea, that all bishops should date their acts from the Incarnation. II. In his letter to bp. Stephen, to whom he dedicates his collection of Canons, he admits the existence of an earlier, but defective, Latin translation, of which copies have been printed and named, after his naming of it, Prisca Versio by Justellus and others. His own was a corrected edition of that earlier version, so far as regards the canons of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, Gangra, An- tioch, Laodicea, and Constantinople — 165 in all — together with 27 of Chalcedon : all originally published in Greek, and all, except the Laodicean, already translated in the Prisca Versio. The Laodicean, unlike the rest, are given in an abbreviated form, and the chrono- logical order is interrupted to place the Xicene canons first. He specifies as having been translated by himself the 50 so-called canons of the Apostles, which stand at the head of his collection, which he admits were not then universally received ; and, as having been appended by himself, the Sardican and African canons, which he says were published in Latin, and with which his collection ends. His collection speedily displaced that of the Prisca. Cassiodorus, his friend and patron, writes of it within a few years of his decease, " Quos hodie usu ecclesia Romana complec- titur " ; and adds, " Alia quoque multa ex (iraeco transtulit in Latinam, quae utilitati possunt ecclesiasticae convenire " (de Inst. Div. Lilt. c. 23). It seems certain, from what Cassiodorus says, that Dionysius either trans- lated or revised an earlier translation of the official documents of the 3rd and 4th councils, as well as the canons of the ist and 2nd. III. He published all the decretal epistles of the popes he could discover from Siricius, who succeeded Damasus, a.d. 384, to Anas- tasius II., who succeeded Gelasius, a.d. 496. DIOSCORUS 2rt5 Gelasius, he says himself, he had never seen in life ; in other words, he had never been at Rome up to Gelasius's death. By this pub- lication a death-blow was given to the false decretals of the Pseudo- Isidore, centuries before their appearance. His attestation of the true text and consequent rendering of the 6th Nicene canon, his translating the gth of Chalcedon into plain Latin, after suppress- ing the 28th, which, as it was not passed in full council he could omit with perfect hf nest v, and, most of all, the publicity which he first gave to the canons against transmarine ap- peals in the .\frican code and to the stand made by the African bishops against the en- croachments of pope Zosimus and his succes- sors in the matter of Apiarius, are historical stumbling-blocks which are fatal to the papal claims. Misquotations of the Sardican canons, by which those claims were supported, are, moreover, exposed by his preservation of them in the language in which he avers they were published. Aloisius Vincenzi, writing on papal infallibility (de Sacra Monarchid, etc. 1875^ is quite willing to abandon the Sardican canons in order to get rid also of the African coif", which is a thcrn in his side. fr.s.FF.l Dioscorus (1), patriarch of Alexandria, suc- ceeded Cyril about midsummer 444, receiving consecration, according to one report (Mansi, vii. 603), from two bishops only. He had served as Cyril's archdeacon. Liberatus says that he had never been married. It is difficult to har- monize the accounts of hischaracter. Theodoret, whose testimonv in his favour cannot be sus- pected, declared in a letter to Dioscorus, soon after his consecration, that the fame of his virtues, and particularly of his modesty and humility, was widely spread (Ep. 60) ; on the other hand, after he had involved himself in the Monophysite heresy, he was accused of having gravely misconducted himself in the first vears of his episcopate (Mansi, vi. 1008). According toadeacon.Ischyrion, Dioscorus had laid waste propertv, inflicted fines and exile, bought up and sold at a high price the wheat sent by the government to Libya, appropriated and grossly misspent money left by a lady named Peristeria for religious and charitable purposes, received women of notorious char- acter into his house, persecuted Ischyrion as a favourite of Cyril's, ruined the little estate which was his only support, sent a " phalanx of ecclesiastics, or rather of ruffians," to put him to death, and, after his escape, again sought to murder him in a hospital ; in proof, Ischvrion appealed to six persons, one of whom was bath-keeper to Dioscorus (ib. 1012). According to a priest named Athanasius, Cyril's nephew, Dioscorus, from the outset of his episcopate (" which he obtained one knows not how," savs the petitioner), harassed hun and his brother by using influence with the court, so that the brother died ..f distress, and Athanasius. with his aunts, sist< r-in-law, and nephews, were bereft of their homes by the patriarch's malignitv. He himself was dc- I)osed, without any trial, fr-)m the priesthood, and became, perforce, a wanderer for years. According to a layman named Sophronius, Dioscorus hindered the execution of an im- perial order which Sophronius had obtained for the redress of a grievous wrong. " '^^'' The 266 DIOSCORUS country," he said, " belonged to him rather than to the sovereigns " {tQv KparovvToiv). Sophronius averred that legal evidence was forthcoming to prove that Dioscorus had usurped, in Egypt, the authority belonging to the emperor. He added that Dioscorus had taken away his clothes and property, and compelled him to flee for his life ; and he charged him, further, with adultery and blas- phemy (ib. 1029). Such accusations were then so readily made — as the life of St. Athanasius himself shews — that some deduction must be made from charges brought against Dioscorus in the hour of his adversity ; and wrongs done by his agents may have been in some cases unfairly called his acts. Still, it is but too likely that there was sufficient truth in them to demonstrate the evil effects on his character of elevation to a post of almost absolute power ; for such, in those days, was the great " evangelical throne." We find him, before the end of his first year, in correspondence with pope Leo the Great, who gave directions, as from the see of St. Peter, to the new successor of St. Mark; writing, on June 21, 445, that " it would be shocking (nefas) to believe that St. Mark formed his rules for Alexandria otherwise than on the Petrine model " {Ep. 11). In 447 Dioscorus appears among those who expressed suspicion of the theological character of Theodoret, who had been much mixed up with the party of Nestorius. It was rumoured that, preaching at Antioch, he had practically taught Nestorianism ; and Dioscorus, hearing this, wrote to Domnus, bp. of Antioch, Theodoret's patriarch ; whereupon Theodoret wrote a denial (Ep. 83) ending with an anathema against all who should deny the holy Virgin to be Theotokos, call Jesus a mere man, or divide the one Son into two. Dios- corus still assumed the truth of the charge (Theod. Ep. 86), allowed Theodoret to be anathematized in church, and even rose from his throne to echo the malediction, and sent some bishops to Constantinople to support him against Theodoret. Then, in Nov. 448, the aged Eutyches, archimandrite of Constantinople and a ve- hement enemy of Nestorianizers, was accused by Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, before a council of which Flavian was president, with an opposite error. He clung tenaciously to the phrase, " one incarnate nature of God the Word," which Cyril had used on the authority of St. Athanasius ; but neglected the qualifica- tions and explanations by which Cyril had guarded his meaning. Thus, by refusing to admit that Christ, as incarnate, had " two natures," Eutyches appeared to his judges to have revived, in effect, the Apollinarian heresy — to have denied the distinctness and verity of Christ's manhood ; and he was deprived of his priestly office, and excommunicated. His patron, the chamberlain Chrysaphius, applied to Dioscorus for aid, promising to support him in all his designs if he would take up the cause of Eutyches against Flavian (Niceph. xiv. 47). Eutyches himself wrote to Dioscorus, asking him " to examine his cause " (Liberat. c. 12), and Dioscorus, zealous against all anti-Cyrilline tendencies in theology, wrote to the emperor, urging him to call a general council to review Flavian's DIOSCORUS judgment. Theodosius, influenced by his wife and his chamberlain, issued letters (Mar. 30, 449), ordering the chief prelates (patriarchs, as we may call them, and exarchs) to repair, with some of their bishops, to Ephesus by Aug. I, 449 (Mansi, vi. 587). This council of evil memory — on which Leo afterwards fastened the name of " Latrocin- ium," or gang of robbers — met on Aug. 8, 449, in St. Mary's church at Ephesus, the scene of the third general council's meeting in 431 ; 150 bishops being present. Dioscorus pre- sided, and next to him Julian, or Julius, the representative of the " most holy bishop of the Roman church," then Juvenal of Jerusalem, Domnus of Antioch, and — his lowered position indicating what was to come — Flavian of Con- stantinople {ib. 607). The archbp. of Alex- andria shewed himself a partisan throughout. He did indeed propose the acceptance of Leo's letter to the council, a letter written at the same time as, and expressly referring to, the famous " Tome" ; but it was only handed in, not read, Juvenal moving that another im- perial letter should be read and recorded. The president then intimated that the council's business was not to frame a new doctrinal formulary, but to inquire whether what had lately appeared — meaning, the statements of Flavian and bp. Eusebius on the one hand, those of Eutyches on the other — were accord- ant with the decisions of the councils of Nicaea and Ephesus — " two councils in name," said he, "but one in faith" (ib. 628). Eutyches was then introduced, and made his statement, beginning, " I commend myself to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and the true verdict of your justice." After he had finished his address, Flavian desired that Eusebius, who had been his accuser, should be called in and heard. Elpidius, the imperial commis- sioner, vetoed this proposal on the ground that the judges of Eutyches were now to be judged, and that his accuser had already fulfilled his task, " and, as he thought, successfully " : to let him speak now would be a cause of mere disturbance (ib. 645). This unjudicial view of the case was supported by Dioscorus. Flavian was baffled, and the council resolved to hear the acts of the synod of Constantinople which had condemned Eutyches. The epis- copal deputy of Leo, with his companion the deacon Hilarus, urged that " the pope's letter " (probably including the " Tome " in this proposal) should be read first, but this was overruled ; Dioscorus moved that the "acts" should be first read, and then the letter of the bp. of Rome. The reading began (ib. 649). When the passage was reached in which Basil of Seleucia and Seleucus of Amasia had said that the one Christ was in two natiu'es after the incarnation, a storm of wrath broke out. " Let no one call the Lord ' two ' after the union ! Do not divide the undivided ! Seleucus was not bp. of Amasia ! This is Nestorianism." " Be quiet for a little," said Dioscorus ; " let us hear some more blasphemies. Why are we to blame Nestorius only ? There are many Nestorius- es " (ib. 685). The reading proceeded as far as Eusebius's question to Eutyches, " Do you own two natures after the incarnation ? " Then arose another storm : " The holy synod DIOSCORUS exclaimed, ' Away with Eusebius, burn him, let him be burnt' alive ! Let him be cut in two — be divided, even as he divided ! ' " " Can you endure," asked Dioscorus, " to hear of two natures after the incarnation ? " " Anathema to him that says it ! " was the reply. " I have need of your voices and your hands too," rejoined Dioscorus ; " if any one cannot shout, let him stretch out his hand." Another anathema rang out {ib. 737). An- other passage, containing a statement of belief by Eutyches, was heard with applause. " We accept this statement," said Dioscorus. "This is the faith of the Fathers," exclaimed the bishops. " Of what faith do you say this ? " asked Dioscorus. " Of Eutychcs's : for Euse- bius is impious " {daefiris. ib. 740). Similar approbation was given to another passage containing the characteristic formula of Euty- chianism : "I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the incarnation ; but after the incarnation [i.e. in Him as incarnate] I confess one nature." " We all agree to this," said Dioscorus. " We agree," said the coun- cil (ib. 744). Presently came a sentence in which Basil of Seleucia had denounced the denial of two natures after the incarnation as equivalent to the assertion of a commixture and a fusion. This aroused once more the zealots of the Alexandrian party ; one bishop sprang forward, shouting, " This upsets the whole church ! " The Egyptians and the monks, led by Barsumas, cried out, " Cut him in two, who says two natures ! He is a Nes- torian ! " Basil's nerves gave way ; he lost, as he afterwards said, his perceptions, bodily and mental {ib. 636). He began to say that he did not remember whether he had uttered the obnoxious words, but that he had meant to say, " If you do not add the word ' incar- nate ' to ' nature,' as Cyril did, the phrase ' one nature' implies a fusion." Juvenal asked whether his words had been wrongly reported ; he answered helplessly, " I do not recollect " {ib. 748). He seems to have been coerced into a formal retractation of the phrase " two natures " ; but he added " hypostases " as explanatory of " natures," and professed to " adore the one nature of the Godhead of the Only-begotten, who was made man and in- carnate " {ib. 828). Eutyches declared that the acts of the Constantinopolitan synod had been tampered with. " It is false," said Flavian. " If Flavian," said Dioscorus, " knows anything which supports his opinion, let him put it in writing . . . No one hinders you, and the council knows it." Flavian then said that the acts had been scrutinized, and no falsification had been found in them ; that, for himself, he had always glorified God by holding what he then held. Dioscorus called on the bishops to give their verdict as to the theological statements of Eutyches. They acquitted him of all unsoundness, as faithful to Nicene and Ephesian teaching. Domnus expressed regret for having mistakenly con- demned hira {ib. 836). Basil of Seleucia spoke like the rest. Flavian, of course, was silent. Dioscorus spoke last, affirming the judgments of the council, and " adding his own opinion." Eutyches was " restored " to his presbytcrial rank and his abbatial dignity {ib. 861). His monks were then released from the excom- DIOSCORUS 207 munication incurred at Constantinniile. The doctrinal decisions of the Ephesian council of 431. in its first and sixth sessions, were then read. Dioscorus proposed that these de- cisions, with those of Nicaea, should be re- cognized as an unalterable standard of ortho- doxy ; that whoever should say or think otherwise, or should unsettle theni, should be put under censure. " Let each one of you speak his mind on this." Several bishops assented. Hilarvis, the Roman deacon, testi- fied that the apostolic see reverenced those decisions, and that its letter, if read, would prove this. Dioscorus called in some secre- taries, who brought forward a draft sentence of deposition against Flavian and Eusebius, on the ground that the Ephesian council had enacted severe penalties against any who should frame or propose any other creed than the Nicene. Flavian and Eusebius were de- clared to have constructively committed this offence by " unsettling almost everything, and causing scandal and confusion throughout the churches." Their deposition was decided up- on {ib. 907). Onesiphorus, bp. of Iconium, with some others, went up to Dioscorus, clasped his feet and knees, and passionately entreated him not to go to such extremities. " He has done nothing worthy of deposition . ... if he deserves condemnation, let him be condemned." " It must be," said Dioscorus in answer ; " if my tongue were to be cut out for it, 1 would still say so." They persisted, and he, starting from his throne, stood up on the footstool and exclaimed, " Are you get- ting up a sedition ? Where are the counts ? " Military officers, soldiers with swords and sticks, even the proconsul with chains, entered at his call. He peremptorily commanded the bishops to sign the sentence, and with a fierce gesture of the hand exclaimed, " He that does not choose to sign must reckon with tne." A scene of terrorism followed. Those prelates who were reluctant to take part in the de- position were threatened with exile, beaten by the soldiers, denounced as heretics by the partisans of Dioscorus, and by the crowd of fanatical monks {ib. vii. 68) who accompanied Barsumas, until they put their names to a blank paper on which the sentence was to be written {ib. vi. 601 seq. 625, 637, 988). They afterwards protested that they had signed under compulsion. Basil of Seleucia declared that he had given way because he was " given over to the judgment of 120 or 130 bishops ; had he been dealing with magistrates, he would have suffered martyrdom." " The Egyp- tians," says Tillemont, "who signed willingly enough, did so after the others had been made to sign " (xv. 571 ; cf. Mansi, vi. 601). Flavian's own fate was the special tragedy of the Latrocinium. He had lodged in the hands of the Roman delegates a formal appeal to the pope and the Western bishops (not to the pope alone ; see Leo, Ep. 43, Tillemont, XV. 374). It was nearly his last act. He was brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by Dioscorus himself (see Evagr. i. i ; Niceph. xiv. 47^. He was then imprisoned, and soon exiled, but died in the hands of his guards, from the effect of his injuries, three days after his deposition (Liberatus, Brev. 19), Aug. 11, 268 DIOSCORUS 449. He was regarded as a martyr for the doctrine of " the two natures in the one person " of Christ. Anatolius, who had been the agent [apocrisiarius] of Dioscorus at Con- stantinople, was appointed his successor. Dioscorus and his council — as we may well call it — proceeded to depose Theodoret and several other bishops ; " many," says Leo, " were expelled from their sees, and banished, because they would not accept heresy " (Ep. 93). Theodoret was put under a special ban. " They ordered me," he writes [Ep. 140), " to be excluded from shelter, from water, from everything." Confusion now pervaded the Eastern churches. It was impossible to acquiesce in the proceedings of the " Latrocinium." Leo bestirred himself to get a new oecumenical council held in Italy : the imperial family in the West supported this, but Theodosius II. persisted in upholding the late council. In the spring of 450 Dioscorus took a new and exceptionally audacious step. At Nicaea, on his way to the court, he caused ten bishops whom he had brought from Egypt to sign a document excommunicating pope Leo (Mansi, vi. 1009, 1148; vii. 104), doubtless on the ground that Leo was endeavouring to quash the canonical decisions of a legitimate council. His cause, however, was ruined when the orthodox Pulcheria succeeded to the empire, and gave her hand to Marcian, this event leading to a new council at Chalcedon on Oct. 8, 451, which Dioscorus attended. The deputies of Leo come first, then Anatolius, Dioscorus, Maximus, Juvenal. At first Dios- corus sat among those bishops who were on the right of the chancel [ib- vi. 580). The Roman deputies on the opposite side desired, in the name of Leo, that Dioscorus should not sit in the council. The magistrates, who acted as imperial commissioners (and were the effective presidents), asked what was charged against him ? Paschasinus, the chief Roman delegate, answered, " When he comes in " (i.e. after having first gone out) " it will be necessary to state objections against him." The magistrates desired again to hear the charge. Lucentius, another delegate, said, " He has presumed to hold a synod without leave of the apostolic see, which has never been done." (Rome did not recognize the "second general council" of 381 ; which, in fact, was not then owned as general.) " We cannot," said Paschasinus, " transgress the apostolic pope's orders." " We cannot," added Lucentius, " allow such a wrong as that this man should sit in the council, who is come to be judged." " If you claim to judge," replied the magistrates sharply, " do not be accuser too." They bade Dioscorus sit in the middle by himself, and the Roman deputies sat down and said no more. Eusebius of Dorylaeum asked to be heard against Dios- corus. " I have been injured by him ; the faith has been injured ; Flavian was killed, after he and I had been unjustly deposed by Dioscorus. Command my petition to the emperors to be read." It was read by Bero- nicianus, the secretary of the imperial con- sistory, and stated that " at the recent council at Ephesus. this good {xpt]<^t6s) Dioscorus, dis- regarding justice, and supporting Eutyches in DIOSCORUS heresy — having also gained power by bribes, and assembled a disorderly multitude — did all he could to ruin the Catholic faith, and to establish the heresy of Eutyches, and con- demned us : I desire, therefore, that he be called to account, and that the records of his proceedings against us be examined." Dios- corus, preserving his self-possession, answered, " The synod was held by the emperor's order ; I too desire that its acts against Flavian may be read " ; but added, " I beg that the doctrinal question be first considered." " No," said the magistrates, " the charge against you must first be met ; wait until the acts have been read, as you yourself desired." The letter of Theodosius, convoking the late council, was read. The magistrates then or- dered that Theodoret should be brought in, because Leo had " restored to him his epis- copate," and the emperor had ordered him to attend the council. He entered accordingly. The Egyptians and some other bishops shout- ed, " Turn out the teacher of Nestorius ! " Others rejoined, " We signed a blank paper ; we were beaten, and so made to sign. Turn out the enemies of Flavian and of the faith ! " " Why," asked Dioscorus, " should Cyril be ejected ? " {i.e. virtually, by the admission of Theodoret). His adversaries turned fiercely upon him : " Turn out Dioscorus the homi- cide ! " Ultimately the magistrates ruled that Theodoret should sit down, but in the middle of the assembly, and that his admission should not prejudice any charge against him [ib. 592). The reading went on ; at the letter giving Dioscorus the presidency, he remarked that Juvenal, and Thalassius of Caesarea, were associated with him, that the synod had gone with him, and that Theodosius had confirmed its decrees. Forthwith, a cry arose from the bishops whom he had intimidated at Ephesus. " Not one of us signed voluntarily. We were overawed by soldiers." Dioscorus coolly said that if the bishops had not understood the merits of the case, they ought not to have signed. The reading was resumed. Flavian being named, his friends asked why he had been degraded to the fifth place ? The next interruption was in reference to the sup- pression, at the Latrocinium, of Leo's letter. Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, said it had not even been " received." " But," said Dioscorus, " the acts shew that I proposed that it should be read. Let others say why it was not read." " What others ? " " Juvenal and Thalassius." Juvenal, on being ques- tioned, said, " The chief notary told us that he had an imperial letter ; I answered that it ought to come first ; no one afterwards said that he had in his hands a letter from Leo." Thalassius (evidently a weak man, though holding the great see of St. Basil) said that he had not power, of himself, to order the reading of the letter (ib. 617). At another point the " Orientals," the opponents of Dioscorus, ob- jected that the acts of Ephesus misrepresented their words. Dioscorus replied, " Each bishop had his own secretaries . . . taking down the speeches." Stephen of Ephesus then narrated the violence done to his secretaries : Acacias of Arianathia described the coercion scene. When the reader came to Dioscorus's words, " I examine the decrees of the Fathers " DIOSCORUS (councils), Eiisebius said, " See, he said, ' I examine ' ; and / do tlie same." Dioscorus caught him up : " I said ' examine,' not ' in- novate.' Our Saviour bade us examine the Scriptures ; that is not innovating." " He said, Seek, and ye shall find," retorted Euse- bius (ib. 629). One bishop objected to the record of " Guardian of the faith " as an acclamation in honour of Dioscorus, " No one said that." " They want to deny all that is confessed to be the fact," said Dioscorus ; " let them next say they were not there." At the words of Eutyches, " I have observed the definitions of the council," i.e. the Ephesian decree against adding to the Nicene faith, Eusebius broke in, " He lied ! There is no such definition, no canon prescribing this." " There are four copies," said Dioscorus calm- ly, " which contain it. What bishops have defined, is it not a definition ? It is not a canon : a canon is a different thing." The bp. of Cyzicus referred to the additions made in the council of 381 to the original Nicene creed {e.g. " of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary "). The Egyptians disclaimed all such additions. (Cyril, in fact, had never acknow- ledged that revised version of the Nicene formulary.) There was some further criticism of the profession of faith made by Eutyches ; whereupon Dioscorus said, " If Eutyches has any heterodox opinion, he deserves not only to be punished, but to be burnt ! My only object is to preserve the Catholic faith, not that of any man. I look to God, and not to any individual ; I care for nothing but my own soul and the right faith " (ib. 633). Basil of Seleucia described what had taken place as regarded his own statements. " If you taught in such a Catholic tone," said the magistrates, " why did you sign the deposition of Flavian?" Basil pleaded the compulsory authority of a council of bishops. " On your own shewing," said Dioscorus, " you betrayed the faith for fear of men." Others who had given way with Basil cried, " We all sinned ; we all ask par- don." " But," said the magistrates, " you said at first that you had been forced to sign a blank paper." The " peccavimus " was reiterated (ib. 639). When the reader came to the failure of Flavian's attempt to get Eusebius a hearing, Dioscorus threw the responsibility on Elpidius ; so did Juvenal. Thalassius only said, " It was not my doing." " Such a defence," said the magistrates, "is no defence when the faith is concerned." " If," said Dioscorus, " you blame me for obeying Elpidius, were no rules broken when Theodoret was brought in ? " "He came in as accuser." " Why then does he now sit in the rank of a bishop ? " " He and Eusebius sit as accusers," was the answer ; " and you sit as accused " {ib. 649). Afterwards the magistrates recurred to this topic : " Euse- bius, at Constantinople, when accusing Euty- ches, himself asked that Eutyches should be present. Why was not a like course taken at Ephesus ? " No one answered {ib. 656). Cyril's letter to John of Antioch, " Lae- tentur coeli," was read as part of the acts of Ephesus. Theodoret, by way of clearing himself, anathematized the assertion of " two Sons." All the bishops — so the acts of Chal- cedon say expressly — cried out, " We believe DIOSCORUS 269 as did Cyril ; we did si> believe, and we </... .\nathenia to whoever docs not so believe." The opponents of Dioscorus then claimed Flavian as in fact of one mind with Cyril, as clear of Nestorianism. The " Easterns " added, " Leo believes so, Anatolius believes so." There was universal protestation of agreement with Cyril, including even the magistrates, who answered, as it wire, for Marcian and Pulcheria. Then came a fierce outcry against Dioscorus. " Out with the murderer of Flavian — the parricide ! " The magistrates asked, " Why did you receive to coinnmnion Eutyches, who holds the opposite to this belief ? Why condemn Flavian and Eusebius who agree with it ? " " The re- cords," answered Dioscorus, " will shew the truth." Presently, in regard to some words of Eustathius of Berytus, adopting Cyril's phrase, " one incarnate nature," as Atha- nasian, the Easterns cried, " Eutyches thinks thus, so does Dioscorus." Dioscorus shewed that he was careful to disclaim, even with anathema, all notions of a " confusion, or commixture," of Godhead and manhood in Christ. The magistrates asked whether the canonical letters of Cyril, recently read {i.e. his second letter to Nestorius, Mansi, vi. 660, and his letter to John, ib. 665, not including the third letter to Nestorius, to which the 12 anathemas were annexed) bore out the lan- guage as cited from Eustathius. Eustathius held up the book from which he had taken CvTil's language. " If I spoke amiss, here is the manuscript : let it be anathematized with me ! " He repeated Cyril's letter to Acacius by heart, and then explained : " One nature " did not exclude the flesh of Christ, which was co-essential with us ; and " two natures " was a heterodox phrase if {i.e. only if) it was used for a " division " of His person. " Why then did you depose Flavian ? " "I erred " {ib. V. 677). Flavian's own statement, that Christ was of two natures after the incarna- tion, in one hypostasis and one person, etc., was then considered ; several bishops, in turn, approved of it, including I'aschasinus, Ana- tolius, Maximus, Thalassius, Eustathius. The Easterns called " archbp. Flavian " a martyr. " Let his next words be read," said Dioscorus ; " you will find that he is inconsistent with himself." Juvenal, who had been sitting on the right, now went over to the left, and the Easterns welcomed him. Peter of Corinth, a young bishop, did the same, owning that Flavian held with Cyril ; the Easterns ex- claimed, " Peter thinks as does" (St.) "Peter." Other bishops spoke similarly. Dioscorus, still undaunted, said, " The reason why F"lavian was condemned was plainly this, that he asserted two natures after the incarnation. I have passages from the F'athers, Athanasius, Gregory, Cyril, to the effect that after the incarnation there were not two natures, but one incarnate nature of the Word. If 1 am to be expelled, the Fathers will be expelled with me. I am defending tlieir doctrine ; I do not deviate from them at all ; I have not got these extracts carelessly, I have verified them " {ib. vi. 684 ; see note in Oxf. ed. of Fleury, vol. iii. p. 348). After more reading, he said, " I accept the phrase ' of two natures,' but I do not accept ' two ' " (i.e. he would not say, 210 DIOSCORUS " Christ has now two natures "). " I am obliged to speak boldly idvai(Txi'VTf'iv) ; I am speaking for my own soul." " Was Flavian," asked Paschasinus, " allowed such freedom of speech as this man takes ? " " No," said the magistrates significantly ; " but then this council is being carried on with justice " (ib. 692). Some time later the Easterns denied that the whole council at Ephesus had assented to Eutyches's language ; it was the language of " that Pharaoh, Dioscorus the homicide." Eustathius, wishing, he said, to promote a good understanding, asked whether " two natures " meant " two divided natures." " No," said Basil, " neither divided nor confused " (ib. 744). Basil afterwards, with Onesiphorus, described the coercion used as to the signa- tures [ib. 827). The reading went on until it was necessary to light the candles (ib. 901). At last they came to the signatures ; then the magistrates proposed that as the deposition had been proved unjust, Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eustathius, and Basil, as leaders in the late synod, should be deposed ; but this, it appears (ib. 976, 1041), was a provisional sentence, to be further considered by the council. It was received with applause, " A just sentence ! Christ has deposed Dioscorus ! God has vindicated the martyrs ! " The magistrates desired that each bishop should give in a carefully framed statement of belief con- formable to the Nicene " exposition," to that of the 150 Fathers (of Constantinople, in 381), to the canonical epistles and expositions of the Fathers, Gregory, Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, and Cyril's two canonical epistles published and confirmed in the first Ephesian council, adding that Leo had written a letter to Flavian against Eutyches. So ended the first session (ib. 935). The second session was held Oct. 10 (ib. 937) ; Dioscorus was absent. After some dis- cussion as to making an exposition of faith, which led to the reading of the creed in its two forms — both of which were accepted — and of Cyril's " two canonical epistles," and of Leo's letter to Flavian (the Tome), which was greeted with " Peter has spoken by Leo ; Cyril taught thus ; Leo and Cyril have taught alike," but to parts of which some objection was taken by one bishop, and time given for consideration, the usual exclamations were made, among which we find that of the Illyrians, " Restore Dioscorus to the synod, to the churches ! We have all offended, let all be forgiven ! " while the enemies of Dioscorus called for his banishment, and the clerics of Constantinople said that he who communicat- ed with him was a Jew (ib. 976). In the third session. Sat. Oct. 13, the magistrates not being present, a memorial to the council from Euse- bius of Dorylaeum, setting forth charges against Dioscorus, was read (ib. 985). It then appeared that Dioscorus had been summoned, like other bishops, to the session, and in- timated his willingness to come ; but his guards prevented him. Two priests, sent to search for him, could not find him in the pre- cincts of the church. Three bishops, sent with a notary, found him, and said, " The holy coimcil begs your Holiness to attend its meeting." " I am under guard," said he ; moscoRUs " I am hindered by the officers" (nmgistriani, the subordinates of the " master of the offices," or " supreme magistrate of the palace," see Gibbon, ii. 326) ; and, after two other sum- monses, positively and finally refused to come. He had nothing more to say than he had said to former envoys. They begged him to recon- sider it. " If your Holiness knows that you are falsely accused, the council is not far off ; do take the trouble to come and refute the falsehood." " What I have said, I have said ; it is enough." They desisted, and reported their failure. " Do you order that we proceed to ecclesiastical penalties against him ? " asked Paschasinus, addressing the council. " Yes, we agree." One bishop said bittterly, " When he murdered holy Flavian, he did not adduce canons, nor proceed by church forms." The Roman delegates proposed a sentence, to this effect : " Dioscorus has received Euty- ches, though duly condemned by Flavian, into communion. The apostolic see excuses those who were coerced by Dioscorus at Ephesus, but who are obedient to archbp. Leo " (as president) " and the council ; but this man glories in his crime. He prevented Leo's letter to Flavian " (the acts of Ephesus say the letter to the council, v. supra) "from being read. He has presumed to excom- municate Leo. He has thrice refused to come and answer to charges. Therefore Leo, by us and the council, together with St. Peter, the rock of the church, deprives him of episcopal and sacerdotal dignity " (ib. 1045). A letter was written to Dioscorus, announcing that he was deposed for disregarding the canons and disobeying the council. Dioscorus at first made light of the sentence, and said that he should soon be restored ; the council wrote to the two emperors, reciting his misdeeds, as before, and adding that he had restored the heterodox and justly-deposed Eutyches to his office, in contempt of Leo's letter, had done injury to Eusebius, and had received to com- munion persons lawfully condemned (ih. 1097). The deposition of Dioscorus was confirmed by the emperor ; he was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, and died there in 454. Pro- terius, archpriest of Alexandria, who adhered to the council of Chalcedon, was placed in the see of St. Mark, but never gained the goodwill of his people as a body ; they regarded Dios- corus, though de facto deposed, as their legiti- mate patriarch ; and his deposition inaugur- ated the schism which to this day has divided the Christians of Egypt, the majority of whom, bearing the name of Jacobites, have always disowned the council of Chalcedon, and ven- erated Dioscorus as " their teacher " (Lit. Copt. St. Basil), and as a persecuted saint (see Neale, Hist. Alex. ii. 6). As to his theological position, there is, perhaps, little or nothing in his own words which might not be interpreted consistently with orthodoxy. Even as to his conduct, the charges brought by the Alex- andrian petitioners at Chalcedon are too deep- ly coloured by passion to command our full belief ; and a mere profligate oppressor would not have secured so largely the loyalty of Alexandrian churchmen. But his public acts in 449 exhibit the perversion of considerable abilities — of courage, resolution, clear-headed- ness — under the temptations of excessive DIOSCORUS power and the promptings of a tyrannous self-will. The brutal treatment of Flavian, which he practically sanctioned, in which perhaps he personally took part, has made his memory specially odious ; and his name is conspicuous among the " violent men " of church history. [MoNorHVSiTisM.] |w.n.] DioscoruS (4), the eldest of four Nitrian monks, Dioscorus, Ammonil's, Euscbius, and Euthymius, known from their stature as the " Tall Brethren," who became conspicuous in Chrysostom's early troubles. They were re- luctantly induced by Thcophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, to leave the desert and to submit to ordination. Eusebius and Euthymius be- came presbyters, and Dioscorus was consecrat- ed bp. of Hermopolis. Weary of city life and uncongenial duties, and shocked by the avarice and other vices of Theophilus, Dioscorus and his brethren returned to their solitudes, though the indignant patriarch tried to deter them by violent menaces (Socr. H. E. viii. 12). As de- positaries of dangerous secrets, they had be- come f'Tmidable to Theopliilus, who resolved to wreak vengeance upon them. On the pre- text of their adherence to the mystic views of Origen on the Person of the Deity, and their decided opposition to Anthropomorphism, which Theophilus had originally shared with them, Theophilus had them ejected from their monasteries and treated them with the utmost contumely and violence when they went to Alexandria to appeal (Pallad. p. 54). Having procured their condemnation at a packed synod at Alexandria, a.d. 401, Theophilus personally headed a night attack on their monastery, which was burnt and pillaged, and Dioscorus himself treated with violence and indignity (ib. p. 57). Driven from Egypt, the " Tall Brethren " took refuge in Palestine, but later resolved to appeal for protection to the emperor and to Chrysostom in person. Chrysostom manifested much sympathy, but contented himself with WTiting to Theophilus, urging his reconciliation with them. Theo- philus's only reply was an angry remonstrance against his harbouring heretics and interfering with another see. He sent emissaries to Constantinople to denounce the brethren as magicians, heretics, and rebels. The monks then announced their intention of appealing to the secular power for a judicial investiga- tion of the charges against them, and demand- ed that Theophilus should be summoned to answer for his conduct before a council. The superstitious reverence of the empress Eudoxia, all-powerful with the feeble Arcadius, secured them their desire, and Theophilus was ordered to appear at Constantinople. This appeal to the civil authority displeased Chrysostom, who declined to interfere further in the con- troversy. For the manner in which Thcophilus turned the tables on Chrysostom, becoming the accuser instead of the accused, and secur- ing his deposition, see Chrysostom ; Theo- philus (8). His main object having been accomplished in the overthrow of his great rival, Theophilus now made no difficulty about reconciliation with the Nitrian monks, whom he publicly restored to communion on their simplepetition. Dioscorus and Ammonius had, however, died not long before. Socr. H. E. vi. 16 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 17; Pallad. p. 157. [e.v.] DOCETISM 271 Docetism, tli<- very early iuresv tli.il our blessed Lord had a body like uurs, unly in appearance, not in reality. St. Jeronir scarce- ly exaggerates wlien he says (adv. I.iicif. 23) : " While the apostles were still surviving, while Christ's blood was still fresh in Judea, the Lord's b(-dy was asserted to be but a phan- tasm." Apart from N.T. passages, e.f,. Ej)h. ii. 9, Heb. ii. 14, which confute this assertion, but do not bear clear marks of having been written with a controversial jnirpose, it aji- IH'arsfrc.m L John iv. 2, IL John 7, that when these epistles were written there were teachers, stigmatised by the writer as prompted by the spirit of Antichrist, who denied that Jesus Christ had come in the flesh, a form of exjires- sion implying a Docetic theory. Those who held that evil resulted from the inherent fault of matter found it impossible to believe that the Saviour could be Himself under the do- minion of that evil from which He came to deliver men, and they therefore rejected the Church's doctrine of a real union of the divine and human natures in the person (>f our Lord, but our Lc rd's pre-existence and superhuman nature was regarded as so essential a part of Christianity that with two exceptions, or per- haps even only one {i.e. Ji'stinu's and perhaps Cakpocratks), all the sects known as (inostic ascribed to the Saviour a superhuman nature, some however separating the personality of that nature from His human personality, others reducing our Lord's earthly part to mere appearance. It is even doubtful whether we are not to understand in a technical sense the statement that he taught that " power " from the Father had descended on our Lord ; that is to say, whether it was not his doctrine that one of the heavenly powers had united itself to the man Jesus. Teaching of this kind is unequivocally attributed to Ckki.nthls, whose other doctrines, as rejiorted by Irenaeus, have great resemblance to those of Carpocrates. It is in opposition to the theory which makes our Lord's claim to be Christ date, not from his birth, but from some later period, that Iren- aeus (iii. 16) uses the argument, shewing his belief in the inspiration of the gospels, that Matthew might have said, " the birth of Jesus was in this wise," but that the Holy Spirit, foreseeing and guarding against the deprava- tion of the truth, said by Matthew " the birth of Christ was on this wise." Baur (Christltche Gnosis, p. 258) makes Docetism common to all the Gnostics, hoUiing that the theory which has just been described is in a certain sense Docetic ; inasmuch as while hokling Jesus to be a real man, visibly active in the work of redemption, it teaches that this is but decep- tive appearance, the work being actually i)er- formed by a distinct personality, Christ. But it is more usual and more natural to use the word Docetism only with reference to those other theories which refuse to acknowledge the true manhood of the Kedeenier. For ex- ample, we are told (Iren- i. 23) that, according to the system of Simon, the Kedeenier (who, however, is not Jesus,* but Simon himself) • Perhaps it is not correct to say " not Jesus," for Simon held a theory of the transmiRratlon of souls, and may have claimed to be identical with Jesus. If this were so, however, he must have been later than the Simon of the Acts. 2?2 DOCETISM " had appeared among men as man, though he was not a man, and was thought to have suffered in Judea, though he did not suffer." According to the system of Saturninus (Iren. i. 24), the Saviour was without birth, without body, and without figure, and appeared a man in phantasm, not in truth. According to Basilides, as reported by Irenaeus (i. 24), Christ or Nous is not distinguished from Jesus, but is said to be an incorporeal power, who transfigured Himself as He willed ; that He appeared on earth as man and worked mir- acles, but that He did not suffer ; that it was Simon of Cyrene, who, being transfigured into the form of Jesus, was crucified, while Jesus Himself, in the form of Simon standing by, laughed at His persecutors, and then, incapable of being held by them, ascended up to Him Who had sent Him, invisible to them all. The Docetism here described is strenuously com- bated in the Ignatian Epistles in their Greek form, esp. in ad Trail. 9, 10, and ad Smyrn. 2. In these the writer emphasises the statements that our Lord was truly born, did eat and drink, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified, and truly rose from the dead ; and he expressly declares that these statements were made in contradiction of the doctrine of certain unbelievers, or rafher atheists, who asserted His sufferings to be but seeming. This polemic is absent frrm the S\Tiac Ignatius, and an argument has hence been derived against the genuineness of the Greek form. But in order to make the argu- ment valid, there ought to be proof that the rise of Docetism was probably later than the age of Ignatius, whereas the probability seems to be quite the other way. Saturninus holds such a place in all heretical lists, that he must be referred to the very beginning of the and cent., and, as he taught in Antioch, may very possibly have been encountered by Ignatius. Polycarp also {Ep. 7) uses the words of I. John iv. 3 in such a way as to shew that Docetism was in his time troublesome. In the forms of Docetism thus far described there is no evidence that there was involved any more subtle theory than that the senses of the spectators of our Lord's earthly life were deceived. The Docetism of Valentinus was exhibited in a more artificial theory, which is fully set forth in our art. s.v. It appears that Valentinus was only partly docetic. He conceded to Jesus the possession of a real body capable uf really affecting the senses, but held that that body was made of a different sub- stance from ours and was peculiar as regards its sustenance by earthly nutriment (Letter to Agathopus, ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 7, 451). Irenaeus, however (v. i, 2, and more fully iii. 22), insists that the Valentinian doctrine did not practically differ from pure Docetism ; for that if our Lord had not taken substance of flesh in the womb of the Virgin He could not have been the real man Who suffered hunger and thirst and weariness, Who wept at the grave of Lazarus, Who sweat drops of blood, from Whose woimded side came forth blood and water. The Docetism of Marcion differed from that of preceding Gnostics. With them the great stumbling-block had been the sufferings oj Christ, and accordingly it is the reality 01 DOCETISM Christ's passion and death that their antagon- ists sought to establish. Marcion, on the contrary, was quite willing to acknowledge the proof of our Lord's love exhibited in His sufferings and death, but it was repulsive to him to own His human birth, which according to his view would have made our Lord the debtor and the subject of the Creator of the world. Accordingly, while Basilides had ad- mitted a real birth of the man Jesus, Valen- tinus at least a seeming birth in which the bodj- elsewhere prepared was ushered into the world, Marcion would own no birth at all, and began his gospel with the sudden announce- ment that in the 15th year of Tiberius Christ * came down (by which we are to understand came down from heaven) to Capernaum, a city of Galilee (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 7). Marcion's disciple Apelles so far modified his master's doctrine that he was willing to ov.'n that Jesus had a solid body, but denied that there had been a birth in which He had assumed it (Tert. de C. C. 6] ; and he held that of this body our Lord made only a temporary use, and that when He had shewn it to His disciples after His resurrection He gave it back to the elements from which He had received it (Hipp. Ref. vii. 38, 260). Something of this kind seems to have been also the view of the sect known as Docetae. The fourth book of the dialogue against the Marcionites (Origen, i. 853) contains a polemic against Docetism which is represented as de- fended by Marinus the disciple of Bardesanes, who adopts the Valentinian notion that our Lord had come dia Mapias, not iK Maptas, and who maintains that His earthly body was only such as the angels had temporarily as- sumed who ate and drank with Abraham. One argument on the orthodox side is used by several Fathers, and the form of words in which each has expressed himself has been much discussed in modern controversy. It occurs here in the form "If Christ were with- out flesh and blood, of what sort of flesh and blood are the bread and wine, the images (dKOfas) with which He commanded that the memorial of Him should be made ? " (cf. Ign. ad. Smyrn. 7 ; Iren. iv. 18, v. 2 ; Tert. adv. Mar- cion. iv. 40). Of later heretics, the most con- siderable who maintained a Docetic theory are the Manicheans. In the controversy with them the orthodox had exactly the same points to establish as in the controversy with Mar- cion, viz. that Christ had come into the world, not merely as sent by the Father, but as really born of the Virgin ; that He was truly incar- nate, and did not assume the form of a body merely as did the angels whose appearances have been recorded ; that He was circumcised, baptized, tempted ; that His death was a real one, as was necessary in order that His resur- rection also should be real (see in particular the disputation between Augustine and Faustus). With regard to the disputes in the 6th cent, concenung our Lord's body, see JuLiANUS (47) of Halicarnassus, and D. C. B. (4-V0I. ed.) under Corrupticolae and Phan- TASiASTAE. It is well known that Mahommed * There is a well-recommended various reading, " Deum "instead of " eum " ; butEpiplianius(//a«r. 42, p. 312) would scarcely have passed this over in silence had he found it in his Marcion. J DOMITIANUS also adopted the Docctic account of our Lord's crucitixii>u. Besides formal heresies which have beeu tainted with Docetism, the same imputation has beeu cast on more than one of the Fathers. It is very strongly brought by Photius (Btbi. 109) against the hypotyposes of CLEMtNT oi Alexan'ukia. This book has not survived, but there is no doubt from his extant writuigs that Clement ascribed 10 our Lord a real booy. in a fragment probably from the lost Hypo- typoses preserved in a Latin trans, (p. 1009), he quotes from " the traaitions " that when St. John handled the body of our Lord tlie flesh otlered no resistance, but yielded place to the disciple's hand, fvedepenning's con- clusion (Ongenes, ii. 391) is that Clement's doctrine deviated from that subsequently recognised as orthodox, not in respect of our Lora's body, the reality of which he acknow- ledged, but in holding that His body was directly united to the Divine Logos without the intervention of a human soul capable of feeling pain or suflering. Ixedepennmg (I.e.) also discusses how far Origen is chargeable with Docetism, on which also consult Huet's Origentana, ii. Qu. iii. 10, 11. The traditions referred to by Clement have been identified with the contents of a work of Leucius Charinus, purporting to relate travels ot the apostles, of which an account is given by Photius [Bibl. 114), and from which ex- tracts are also quoted in the Acts of the second council of Nicaea [.-ictio v.). In this work, which Grabe seems to have correctly regarded as Marciouite, it was taught that the Sun was not man, but only seemed to be so ; that He shewed Himself to His disciples sometimes young, sometimes old ; sometimes a child, sometimes an old man ; sometimes great, sometimes small ; sometimes so great as to touch the heavens with His head , that Plis footsteps left no trace ; and that He was not really crucified, but, according to Photius, another person in His place. The account given in the ^.icene extracts of a vision seen by St. John on the mount of Olives, at the time of the crucitixion, teaches that the form crucified was not really our Lord, but does Hot suggest that it was any other person. [g.s.J Domitianus (1), a.d. 81-96. This emperor, though placed by Lactantius [de Mori. Fcrse- cut. c. 3) and others among the persecutors of the church, can hardly be considered as having made any systematic effort to crush Christi- anity as such. Through the greater part of the empire the Christians seem to have been un- molested. The traces of persecution, such as they are, seem rather to belong to his general poUcy of suspicion and cruelty. Indirectly they are of interest in shewing how the new religion was attracting notice and spreading. (I) Vespasian, before his death, had given orders (Lus. H. E. iii. 12) that inquiry should be made for all who claimed to be descendants of the house of David, seeking thus to cut oil all who might incite the Jews to a fresh revolt. The fears of Domitian led him to continue the search, and Hegesippus (in Lus. H. t. 111. 19, 20) records one striking incident connected with it. The grandchildren of Judas, the brother of the Lord, were taken to Kome and brought into the emperor's presence. DOMITIANUS 273 They acknowledged that tin y were ^'i the kingly line, but slated that tlie only kmgdutu they looked lor was one spiritual and angelic, to be manilested at the end ot the world. Ihc emperor, Hegesippus tells us, thought them beneath his notice, released them, and allowed them to go back to J udea, and put a slop to the persecution agamit the church which he had begun. This persecution was probably the lu- quury itself, 'ihej udeaufolloweriol the Christ, whom they habitually spoke ol as the seed of David, would inevitably be suspected of being likely to appeal to the hopes ol the conquered population. j {2) Towards the close of Doinitian's reign a domestic tragedy occurred which there is good reason for connecting with the progress of Christianity. The emperor had a cousin named Llavius Clemens, whom at one time he held in high favour. He gave him his niece Flavia Domitilla in marriage, changed the names of his sons to Vespasiau and Doinitiau and designated them as heirs to the empire, and nommated Clemens as his colleague m the consulship. Suddenly, ahnost within the year ot his consulship, he put Clemens to death, banished his wile to Paudatana, and his daughter (or niece), who was also called Domi- tilla, to Pontia. Keveuge lor these acts had apparently no small share in the emperor's assassination. Uue ol the most proimnent conspirators concerned was Stephanus, an agent and Ireedinan ot the banished widow of Llemens. Thus the story is told by Suetonius (Domit. cc. 15, 17). It remains to see on what grounds chmch writers like Lusebius [H. E. ill. 18) claim the three members of the Flavian house as among the first illustrious martyrs of royal rank, (i) Flavins Clemens IS described by Suetonius (i.e.) as " contemp- tissimae inertiae." A Christian would natur- ally be so described by men of his own rank and by the outer world, just as TcrtuUiau complains that the Christians of his tnue were stigmatized, when other charges lailed, as " inlructuosi negotiis " [Apoi. c. 42). (li) The specific charge agahist Clemens and the two DomitiUae is reported by Dio Cassius (Ixvii. 14) and Xiphilmus (p. 700) to have been atheism. The same accusation, the latter adds, was brought agahist many others who shewed a bias towards J ewish customs. This again agrees with the general leehug of the Roman world towards the Christians at a later period, and may be regarded as the first in- stance of that feeling, (in) Later tradition confirms these inferences. Jerome tells us (Ep. 27) how Paula visited Poutia on her way to Jerusalem, as akeady an object ol rever- ence, and saw the three cells in which Domi- tilla and her two eunuchs Achilleus and Ne- reus had lived during their exile. They were said to have returned to Koine and sullered martyrdom under I'rajan. A church on the Coehan Hill at Koine dedicated to S. Clement, in which a tablet was discovered in 1725 t" the memory of Flavius Clemens, martyr, and de- scribed by Cardmal Albiani (7 . tlavii Ltemen- lis Viri Cunsularts ei Murlyris Tumulus iUus- iralua, 1727), seems therefore to have com- memorated the consul and not the writer of that name. The name of Clement of Alex- andria, Titus Flavius Clemens, may be re- 18 274 DOMITILLA FLAVIA garded as an indication of the honour in which the martyr's memory was held. On the whole, everything seems to indicate that the received tradition is true, and that the Christian church was almost on the point, even before the close of the ist cent., of furnishing a successor to the imperial throne. (3) With the reign of Domitian is also con- nected the legend of St. John's presence at Rome, and of his being thrown, before the Porta Latina, at the command of the emperor, into a cauldron of boiling oil, and then ban- ished to Patmos. Tertullian (de Praescript. c. 36) is the first writer who mentions it. The apostle, as the chosen friend of the Son of David, may have been pointed out by the delatores of Ephesus as the descendants of Judas were in Judea. TertuUian, in speaking elsewhere (Apol. c. 5) of Domitian's conduct towards the church, describes him as only attempting a persecution, and then, thinking better of it, recalling those whom he had condemned to exile. In other accounts (Eus. H. E. iii. 20) the decree of recall was connected with the accession of Nerva. [e.h.p.] Domitilla Flavia. [Domitianus (i).] Domnus I. (2), bp. of Antioch, appointed A.D. 269 on the deposition of Paul of Samosata, by the sole authority of the council, without any reference to the clergy and people, the bishops evidently fearing thev might re-elect Paul (Eus. H. E. vii. 30). Paul, relying on the support of Zenobia, retained for two years the episcopal residence and its church. The orthodox section appealed to Aurelian after he had conquered Zenobia and taken Antioch, A.D. 272. The emperor decided that the right of occupation should belong to the party in communion with the bishops of Italy and the see of Rome. This decision was enforced by the civil power, and Paul was compelled to leave the palace in disgrace (Eus. u.s.). Domnus died a.d. 274, and was succeeded by Timaeus (Till. Mem. eccl. t. iv. p. 302 ; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. i. p. 193, Clark's trans. ; Neale, Patr. of Antioch, pp. 52-57). [e.v.] Domnus 11. (4), bp. of Antioch, a friend of Theodoret. He was nephew of John, bp. of Antioch, brought up under Euthymius the famous anchoret of Palestine. He was ordained deacon by Juvenal of Jerusalem on his visit to the Laura of Euthymus in a.d. 429. Two years afterwards, learning that his uncle the bp. of Antioch had become entangled in the Nestorian heresy, he besought Euthymius to allow him to go and extricate him. Euthy- mius counselled him to remain where he was, telling him that God could take care of his uncle without him ; that solitude was safer for him than the world ; that his design would not turn out to his ultimate advantage ; that he might not improbably succeed to his uncle's dignity, but would become the victim of clever and unprincipled men, who would avail them- selves of his simplicity, and then accomplish his ruin ; but the old man's counsels were thrown away. Domnus left the Laura with- out even saying fareweU to Euthymius (Vita S. Euthymii, cc. 42, 56, 57). He obtained such popularity at Antioch that on the death of his uncle, a.d. 441, he was appointed his successor, and at once ranked as the chief bishop of the Eastern world. In 445 he sum DONATUS and DONATISM moned a synod of Syrian bishops which con- firmed the deposition of Athanasius of Perrha. In 447 he consecrated Irenaeus to the see of Tyre (Theod. Ep. no; Labbe, Concil. t. iii. coL 1275); but Theodosius II., having com- manded that the appointment should be annulled, Irenaeus being both a digamiis and a favourer of the Nestorian heresy, Domnus, despite Theodoret's remonstrances, yielded to the imperial will (Theod. u.s. ; Ep. 80). Ibas, bp. of Edessa, being charged with promulgating Nestorian doctrines (Labbe, ih. t. iv. col. 658), Domnus summoned a council at Antioch (a.d. 448), which decided in favour of Ibas and deposed his accusers (ib. 639 seq.). Domnus's sentence, though revoked by Flavian, bp. of Constantinople, was confirmed by three episcopal commissioners to whom he and the emperor Theodosius had committed the matter. Domnus was one of the earliest im- peachers of the orthodoxy of Eutyches, in a synodical letter to Theodosius, c. 447 (Facundus, viii. 5 ; xii. 5). At the Latrocinium, held at Ephesus, Aug. 8, 449, on this matter, Domnus, in virtue of an imperial rescript, found himself deprived of his presidential seat, which was occupied by Dioscorus, while precedence over the patriarch of Antioch was given to Juvenal of Jerusalem (Labbe, ib. 115, p. 251). Cowed by the dictatorial spirit of Dioscorus, and unnerved by the violence of Barsumas and his monks, Domnus revoked his former con- demnation of Eutyches, and voted for his restoration (ib. col. 258) and for the con- demnation of Flavian (ib. col. 306). Domnus was, nevertheless, deposed and banished by Dioscorus. The charges against him were, approval of a Nestorian sermon preached before him at Antioch by Theodoret on the death of C\Til (Mercator, t. i. p. 276), and some expressions in letters written by him to Dioscorus condemning the perplexed and obscure character of Cyril's anathemas (Liberatus, c. 11, p. 74). He was the only bishop then deposed and banished who was not reinstated after the council of Chalcedon. At that council Maximus, his successor in the see of Antioch, obtained permission to assign Domnus a pension from the revenues of the church (Labbe, ib.coX. 681 ; append, col. 770). Finally, on his recall from exile Domnus re- turned to the monastic home of his youth, and ended his days in the Laura of St. Euthymius, where in 452, according to Theophanes, he afforded a refuge to J uvenal of J erusalem when driven from his see (Theoph. p. 92). [e.v.] Donatus and Donatism. The Donatists were the first Christians who separated from the church on the ground of discipline, though the church had already been torn by heresies, such as Gnosticism and Manicheism, which had affected doctrines. It is important to remember that Donatism was not heresy, as the word is ordinarily understood. All here- tics are, in one sense, schismatics, but all schismatics are not heretics ; and the Dona- tists themselves protested, with justice, against being considered heretics. Mensurius was bp. of Carthage during and after Diocletian's persecution (a.d. 303). Having been required by consul Anulinus to give up any copies of Holy Scripture in his possession, he had hid them, and passed off DONATUS and DONATISM heretical works in their stead. The consul, learning the " pious fraud," declined to take further action. Mensurius felt it his duty to check the growing and inordinate reverence for niart>Tdom. He saw that there were too many would-be martyrs whose character would not bear close scrutiny, and, together with his archdeacon Caecilian, did his best to discountenance the reverence of good but mistaken Christians for these imdescrving men. This naturally brought him into odium with those to whom martyrdom was the be- coming conclusion of the Christian life. During his lifetime the storm was brewing, and it fairly broke out when Caecilian suc- ceeded him (a.d. 311). That appointment was felt to be a blow to all who magnified martyrdom. His opponents rested their principal objection on the fact that he had been ordained by a traditor, Felix of Aptunga ; and proceeded to elect Majorinus as successor to Mensurius. The charge was a strange one to be made by Caecilian's chief opponent, Secun'dus. bp. of Tigisis, for documents exist which prove Secundus himself a traditor, in spite of his boast to Mensurius. From that date Donatism, as it was afterwards called, had a separate and schismatical existence. Both sides appealed to Constantine, and the emperor at once subjected the alleged traditor- ship of Felix to a thorough examination by a council at Rome {a.d. 313), which decided in favour of Felix, cleared his character, and consequently declared the ordination of Cae- cilian valid. The subject was again exhaus- tively discussed before the consul Aelianus, who,' at the bidding of Constantine, gave the Donatists another opportunity (a.d. 314), at Carthage, of proving their charge against FeUx. The finding of the tribunal was un- animous: "Nemo in eum (Felicem) aliquid probare potuerit quod religiosissimas scrip- turas tradiderit vel exusserit." Bp. Majorinus died a.d. 315, but had been a leader of httle consequence. His followers had called themselves, for convenience' sake, the party of Majorinus ; but after his death, if not before, they took the name — Donatists — by which they are best known. There were perhaps 2 bishops named Donatus ; (i) of Casae Nigrae, who, before Caecilian's eleva- tion, had shewn his schismatical tendencies ; (2) the successor of Majorinus and surnamed " the Great." But this distinction has lately been questioned ; see Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divisions (1910), p. 31; -Monccaux, Revue del' Hist, de Religion (1909). In Donatus the Great personal hostility to Mensurius and Caecilian, and irritation against the decisions of Rome and Aries [Caecilian], of Aelianus and Constantine, led to a defiant attitude against both Church and State. The dissentients to Caecilian had, consistently enough, refused to his church the title of the Church of God, and approjiriated that distinction to themselves. The Caecil- ianist clergy were condemned for their league with a traditor and their acts repudiated as invalid ; hence those who followed Majorinus were rebaptized. But Constantine's edict (a.d. 316) took away from them their churches, and the heavy hand of Ursacius deprived them of their lives. The sectarians found in Donatus DONATUS and DONATISM 'J7r. a man boKl enough to denouiue the jiiip<Tial power and to infuse vigour into tiuir strife against the C.iecilianists. H<; w.is neither " the angel " his followers called him nor " the fiend " his opponents described hinj. He was a man of unquestionable ability, eloquence, and thoroughness — the Cyprian of his party, as St. Augustine called him ; but also hard and unloving to foe, proud and overbearing to friend. Optatus and St. Augustine were justified in comparing with the proud " prince of Tyre " (Ezek. xxviii. 2) the man who in liis lifetime permitted his followers to swear by his name and by his grey hairs, and coukl ask of the menial bishops, " What do you say to my party ? " and who, after his death, was described by Donatists at the conference of Carthage as the miracle-worker, " the pride of the church of Carthage, the man with the reputation of a martyr." When the soldiers of Ursacius appeared in N. Africa, Donatus was ready to resist them, and his courage infected the timid people and prelates. His name became the rallying-point for every man who had real or imaginary grievances against existing ecclesiastical, civil, and social powers, amongst others the Circum- cellions. " They were a class of men," says St. Augustine, " who followed no kind of useful occupation, held their own lives in fanatical contempt, and thought no death too cruel for those who differed from them ; they wandered about from place to place, chiefly in the country districts, and haunted the cells of the peasants for the purpose of obtaining food. Hence they were called ' Circumcel- liones.' " The better class of Donatists turned away in horror from fanatics who imbrued their hands with the blood of the innocent as well as of the guilty ; but the offer of partisanship having been once accepted, it was impossible to withdraw it altogether. Donatus, Parmenian, I'etilian, and Cresconius in turn were forced to palliate as much as they could the actions of these allies, who preferred to be called Agonistici, Champions of Christ, and who rushed into the battle with " Deo laudes " as their war-cry, and with a weapon dubbed " Israelite " as their war-club. Constantine soon found that Donatism was not to be put down by the sword. In a.p. 317 Ursacius was bidden hold his hand, and Cae- cilian was exhorted to treat his opponents kindly, and leave vengeance to God. The emperor's letter was a mixture of truth and sarcasm : "All schisms," he wrote, " are from the devil ; and these Separatists proceed from him. What good can you expect from those who are the adversaries of God and the enemies of the holy church ? Such men must split off from the church, and attach themselves to the devil. Surely we act most wisely, if we leave to them what they have wrenched from us. By patience and kindness we may hope to gain them. Let us leave vengeance to God. 1 re- joice to think that vou meet their brutality with gentleness and good temper. As I under- stand that these men have destroyed a church in Constantinople, I have ordered my finance- minister to build you a new one. God grant that these mistaken Separatists may at last see their error and turn to the one true (iod ! " It was not a letter calculated to soothe the 276 DONATUS and DONATISM Donatists. They presently replied to the emperor that he' must distinctly understand that they would have nothing to do with his " fool of a bishop " (i.e. Caecilian), and that he might do his worst. With this mutual con- tempt and recrimination matters ended for the time. Constantine during the remainder of his life ignored the Donatists ; but they increased largely in numbers in their own districts — in a.d. 330 they held a synod at- tended by 270 bishops — and established a few insignificant stations elsewhere. Constans, son of Constantine, succeeded to his father's N. African possessions ; and, at first, endeavoured to conciliate the Donatists by kindness. He pubhshed (a.d. 340) an edict requiring the Donatists to return to the church, urging that " unity must now exist, because Christ was a lover of unity," and in- structed his commissioners Ursacius (probably not the Ursacius already mentioned) and Leontius to distribute money, as alms, in Donatist as well as in Catholic churches. The Donatists spurned it as gold offered by the devil to seduce men from their faith. The sword of persecution was then unsheathed to deprive the Donatists of their churches ; and the survivors regarded the victims as martyrs and their graves as platforms for preaching resistance. In a.d. 345 Gregorius travelled through the province, offeringnot only alms but valuable church plate to all who would accept the imperial invitation to submit. Donatus sent circular letters through all the provmces, forbidding the acceptance of any presents ; and wrote to Gregorius in a scurrilous style. In A.D. 347 a third commission, composed of Paul, Macarius, andTaurinus, came to Donatus himself, with gold in their hands. The bishop listened impatiently, and at length broke out, " What has the emperor to do with the church ? " They were words which meant much at the time, but have meant more since. The language of Donatus was repeated from every Donatistic pulpit by preachers pro- claiming the duty of separation from a church " which committed fornication with the princes of this world," and whose prelates were mere tools of an emperor. Such obloquy served to madden the fanatics, even though it brought upon them furious persecution. The Circumcellions rose, and frightful blood- shed followed. These ' ' Christian champions ' ' traversed the country, subverting everything. Slaves and debtors were deemed brothers ; masters and creditors t>Tants. The excesses of the Circumcellions were so great that Donatus and his brother-bishops were forced to appeal to Taurinus to check them. The Circumcellions kissed the hands which be- trayed them, and turned their fury upon themselves. They longed for martyrdom. They invaded pagan temples that death might be found from the sword of some infuriated idolator ; they entered comrts of justice and frightened judges ordered their instant exe- cution ; travellers were stopped and threat- ened with instant death if they did not slay the suppliants. Days, hours, and places were named that an admiring crowd might witness them cast themselves headlong from some rock into the graves which their posterity would reverence as those of the martjTS. Mac- DONATUS and DONATISM arius did not discriminate between moderate Donatist and extreme Circumcellionist. With an iron hand he crushed both. Donatus was banished, and died in exile. The church was triumphant. Optatus saluted Constans as the servant of God who had been privileged to restore unity ; but many regretted that unity had been won at such a price. When Donatists afterwards called Christians " Mac- arians," in scornful allusion to the persecutor of their sect, St. Augustine replied : " Yes, we are Macarians, for that name means ' blessed,' and who is more blessed than Christ to Whom we belong ? " but it was natural to him and worthy of him to add, " Don't let us call one another names. Don't cast at me the times of Macarius, and I won't remind you of the madness of the Circumcellions. Let us, as far as possible, work together, because we are all orphans." It was probably soon after the cessation of the persecution that Gratus, Caecilian's suc- cessor, summoned a synod at Carthage, which established (i) the non-iteration of baptism, when duly administered in the name of the Trinity ; (2) the necessary restrictions on reverence for martvrs, and on the assignment of that title. In A.D. 361 Julian became emperor. His edict " recalled all the bishops and clergy banished in the reign of Constantius, and granted equal freedom to all parties of the Christian church." The Donatists were not included in this. Two of their bishops, Rogatian and Pontus, waited on the emperor ; and left with full permission to return to their country. The return was marked by violence and murder. The Donatists treated the churches as places which had been pro- faned, washed the walls and altars, tore the vestments to pieces, threw the holy vessels outside and the sacred elements to the dogs. Then they reintroduced their rigorous dis- cipline. Apostates were received only after most humiliating penance, laymen were re- baptized, and clerics reordained. For two years Donatism was in the ascendant and basked in the imperial sunshine. But the cry which went up from the dying Julian's lip's (a.d. 363), " Galilean, Thou hast con- quered," was also the cry which told the Donatist that his day of triumph had ended. Donatus had been succeeded by Parmenian, perhaps the ablest and least prejudiced of the Donatist episcopacy. A foreigner by birth, 1 and actually ignorant of many of the saddest I and cruellest episodes of Donatist history, he entered upon his duties at Carthage free from the passionate views which marked so many of his followers, and disposed to rate lightly much that to them was of great importance. His literary merit was great and excited the admiration of Optatus, bp. of Milevi, and of St. Augustine, each of whom has left a statement of the current Donatist opinions. The theo- logical disputations between Optatus and Parmenian are preserved in the great work of the former, and evidently Parmenian's opin- ions are honestly given. Optatus was a man of unquestioned piety, dialectical skill, and orthodoxy ; perfectly indifferent to Circum- cellion threats, bribery, or corruption ; earn- estly desirous for unity, if it could be obtained DONATUS and DONATISM without sacrifice of principle ; and he sought as much common ground as possible, before stating unhesitatingly where he and his opponent must part. If the usual tone of kindliness and courtesy is occasionally for- j gotten, if the title " brother " given to Par- i menian is replaced by " Antichrist " when j Donatus is mentioned, if cool, argumentative reasoning is sometimes dropped for defiant { passionate utterance, the difference is intel- ligible in a character so full of both charity and zeal that St. Augustine called him " a second Ambrose of Milan." There were two points about which, theor- etically, both men were agreed : (i) That tlicre was only one church ; and (2) that in that one church there was only one baptism, and this not to be repeated. But disagreement soon began. " A church," said the Donatist. '• in which traditors both existed and dis- pensed the sacraments was no church, and baptism administered, by traditors was no baptism." Where, then, was the pure church? with the Catholic or Donatist ? How far was the validity of the sacraments dependent upon the purity of the church and the personal char- a( ter of those who dispensed them ? These were old questions, but discussed between Optatus and Parmenian as they had never been before. [Optatus (6) ; Parmenianus.] The existence of Donatism was next threat- ened by divisions within. " As Donatus," says St. Augustine, " sought to divide Christ, so was Donatus di\ided by the divisions which arose daily amongst his own followers." Rog- atists and Maximianists, or individuals like Tichonius, arose to contest or moderate the views of the founders of the sect. [Tichonius.] The fiercest blow to Donatism was, however, given by the Maximianist schism. [Maximi- ANus (2).] Parmenian died a.d. 392, and was succeeded by Primian. Primian imposed a penance on one of his deacons, Maximian ; the deacon protested, was excommunicated, and appealed to some neighbouring bishops, who took up his cause and respectfully solicited Primian to give them a hearing or to meet them. Primian declined. In a.d. 393 more than 100 malcontent bishops assembled in synod at Cabarsussis, summoned Primian before them, and, on his again refusing to notice them, recited his misdeeds in an elaborate document, excommunicated him, and elected Maximian, procuring his consecra- tion at Carthage. The Donatists of Carthage, now divided into Primianists and Maximian- ists, had, in their turn, to experience the misery of altar set up against altar. " God," says St. Augustine, " was repaying to them the measure they had paid to Caecilian." Primian and his party were, however, much the stronger. The bj^s. of Numidia and Mauritania to the number of 310 sided with him ; and at the council of Bagai (a.d. 394), presided over by Primian himself, Maximian was exconnnunicated, and his ordainers and coadjuti-)rs commanded to repent and return to the Primianist party before a certain date. The Maximianists shewed little disposition to acquiesce in this decision, and persecution began. Maximian's church was levelled to the ground and his house handed over to a heathen priest. The proconsul Seranus was DONATUS and DONATISM 1!77 asked to assist in carrying out the judgment of the council on the rcfractnrv. The .Maxim- ianists were hunted from jilace to plarr, and the treatment of the aged and beloved bp. of Membrcsa, Salvius, was scandalous and cruel beyond measure. But few Maximianists, ho\vever, returned to the main bodv ; the majority struggled on as martyrs, rebaptizing and reordaining those who' joined them. Donatism had received a mortal wound. The action of the Catholic church and the state during this period further helped to check the extension of Donatism. Manv Donatists, priests as well as laymen, disgusted with party squabbles and cruel excesses, turned their eyes to the church. Thcv were met with kindness. In a.d. 393 a council met at Hippo under the presidency of Aurelius. bp. of Carthage. The measures passed were liberal in spirit and intention. They allowed returning Donatist clergy to retain their clerical position and functions, if they had not rebaptized, and if they brought tlieir congre- gations with them ; and decided that children of Donatists, even if they had received Donatist baptism, should not be excluded from the service of the altar. The action of the state had varied according as political events had directed imperial atten- tion to Donatists or removed it from them. Valentinian's edict (a.d. 373) deposing any clerical person who rebaptized, and Gratian's successive decrees — the first (a.d. 375) com- manding the surrender of their churches ; the second (a.d. 377) issued to tlu; Donatist, Flavian, the imperial representative in Africa, enjoining further the confiscation of houses used by them ; the third (a.d. 378) command- ing the expulsion from Rome of one Claudian, who had gone there to propagate Donatist opinions — produced a good deal of misery ; but the political disquiet connected with the murder of Gratian (a.d. 383), the wars between Maximus and Theodosius, the depcsition of Maximus and restoration of Valentinian (a.d. 388), made it impossible to enforce these or similar injunctions, and for the time the Donatists enjoyed a comparative freedom from interference. In a.d. 392 Theodosius issued his laws against heretics generally, fining all such who performed priestly functions. This was not directed against the Donatists par- ticularly, and was probably not enforced against them previous to the death of Theo- dosius (a.d. 395). That event was followed by Gildo's usurpation of power in Africa, and his alliance with one of the cruellest Donatist bishops, Optatus of Thamugas. The ravages committed were only stayed by Honorius's victory over Gildo (a.d. 398) ; and Theo- dosius's penalty was enforced by Seranus against Optatus and his followers. An edict i of Honorius (a.d. 398) decreeing the punisli- I mcnt of death to all who dared to violate j churches and maltreat the clergy was evident- ly directed against the Circumcellions. Yet the position of the Donatist body was better than that of the Catholic church. The greater part of Africa was Donatist, the church lay crushed and oppressed. Towards the end of the 4th cent, it seemed almost as if the place of the ancient. Catholic, and Apos- . tolic church would be taken by the new usurp- 278 DONATUS and DONATISM ing sect. Then the good providence of God raisedupSt. Augustine, whose piety andability shielded then and since the true church of Christ. In a.d. 391 he came to Hippo, and the popular vote at once pointed him out as the future successor of the aged Valerius. In a.d. 395 he was consecrated coadjutor-bishop. Hippo was a hot-bed of Donatism. In a letter (Ep. 33) to Proculeianus the Donatist bp. of Hippo, St. Augustine pathetically asks, "What has Christ done to us, that we rend His mem- bers asunder ? Consider how sad a division reigns in Christian households and families. Husband and wife, who — in their married life — know no division, separate themselves at the altar of Christ ! Children live with their parents in the same dwelling, but that dwelling is not also God's dwelling." Full of zeal, St. Augustine threw himself into the thick of the fight. His sermons attracted Donatists as well as Catholics, and the sectarians threat- ened his life ; but his works had great effect. Men like Petilian were silenced ; priests, lay- men, and even whole communities came back to the church. Twice in 401 a council met at Carthage to deal with the supply of Catholic clergy ; Donatist enticement or persecution ha\ing so reduced their number that many churches had no deacons and therefore no future means for supplying the higher offices. ! The council at Hippo had imposed restrictions upon Donatist clergy, who returned to the | church, exercising their office. An appeal to : pope Anastasius to remove these restrictions ' was allowed. St. Augustine set the example of receiving Donatist-ordained deacons, though apparently he declined to receive again — in an official capacity — those who had previously passed from the' church to the sectarians. These measures, though accompanied by loving words of greeting, roused the Donatists. They were still a majority, powerful and per- sistent. They called to their aid the brutal fanaticism of the Circumcellions, especially against apostate Donatists and the Catholic ', clergy. Once again fire and sword levelled churches and destroyed altars. St. Augustine was threatened, tracked, and surrounded ; Catholic priests were stopped in the road, and the choice offered them : " Promise to preach no more, or prepare for ill-treatment." Moder- ate-minded men among the Donatists looked on in horror, but were powerless to check the i barbarities. The Catholics, before appealing j to the state, desired (a.d. 403) a conference. The Donatist bishop, Primian, repelled their advances with insult, saying, "The sons of the martyrs and the brood of traditors can never meet." Equally unsuccessful were attempts of St. Augustine and Possidius to confer with leading Donatist bishops. At last a council at Carthage (a.d. 404) determined to appeal to Honorius to enforce the laws of Theodosius against the Donatists and restrict the excesses of the Circumcellions. But before the deputation reached the emperor, his anger I was kindled bv accounts from his own officers. { The cruelty of the Donatists to two Catholic bishops, Servus and Maximinian of Bagai, made him little disposed to accept the gentler measures proposed by the council of Carth- age ; and in 405 he issued an edict, fining those who had inflicted ill-usage, and | DONATUS and DONATISM threatening the Donatist bishops and clergy with banishment. In the same year imperial laws forbade rebaptism, condemned the Don- atists as heretics, confiscated their meeting- houses and the goods of those who rebaptized, excluded them from testamentary inheritance, and proclaimed to all " that the one and true Catholic faith of Almighty God was to be received." These and similar imperial edicts brought to the church many who had been wavering. The Catholics received them ! with love and forgiveness ; and in some cities, as in Carthage, union between Catholics and Donatists was openly asserted and celebrated. But these edicts exasperated still further the more extreme Donatists. St. Augustine's own city, Hippo, and its neighbourhood suffered fearfully from the Circumcellions. In a.d. 409 St. Augustine complained bitterly (Ep. Ill) of their plundering and ravages, their revengeful acts and cruelties to the Catholic bishops and laity. Letters to Donatist bishops or to imperial commissioners were of little use when the men to whom they referred would slay themselves if balked of their prey, or cast themselves into the fires they them- selves had kindled. They heard of Stilicho's death (a.d. 408). Rightly or \\Tongly they had considered him the originator of the stern decrees lately issued, and hailed the news by joining with heathen in slaying, ill-using, or putting to flight the hated Catholic bishops. Fresh deputations went to Rome ; St. Augus- tine wrote letters to the chief minister Olympius; and fresh edicts, enforcing previous laws, fines, and punishments, were sent to Africa. About this time St. Augustine issued other works which throw much light on the Donatist controversy : (a) On the One Baptism, written between a.d. 406 and 411, an answer to a tract of Petilian's bearing the same title. (6) Against Cresconius, written a.d. 409. Cresconius objected to his party being called Donatists: "Not Donatus, but Christ was their founder. It was not heresy but schism which separated them and the Catholic church " ; and Cresconius claimed that it was not they who were in schism, but the Catholics, who thereby had lost church and baptism. The invasion of Rome by Alaric king of the Goths took place A.D. 408, and it was rumoured that the Donatists of Africa were ready to support the invader. The emperor Honorius rescinded his extreme decrees against heathen and schismatic ; but in 410 a deputation of 4 bishops from Carthage again brought com- plaints against the Donatists to him. The deputation was charged to petition for a con- ference of Catholics and Donatists under im- perial presidency. In Oct. 410 Honorius instructed the proconsul of Africa, Marcellinus, to make all necessary preparations and act as president at the debates. He issued an edict (Jan. 411) inviting Catholic and Donatist bishops to meet in June at Carthage and elect representatives, promising safe-conduct and suspending meanwhile all processes against Donatists. Both parties entered eagerly into the scheme : 286 Catholic and 279 Donatist bishops came to Carthage in May ; and, after great difficulty in bringing the Donatists to the point, the president pronounced sentence. The ofiicial Acts and the testimony of Holy DONATDS and DONATISM Scripture were taken to have proved the un- soundness of the accusations against Caecilian, and of the view that one man, through the sinfulness of another, became therefore a par- taker in that other's guilt. " I therefore," said Marcellinus, " warn all men . . . to hinder the assembling of Donatists in towns and villages, and to restore the churches to the Catholics. Every bishop of the community of Donatus must, on his return to his home, return to the one true church, or at least not impede the faithful execution of the law. If they have Circumcellions about them, and do not restrain and repress the excesses of these men, they shall be deprived of their places in the state." The condemned Donatists, among whom were the principal bishops, smarting at their defeat, reviled Marcellinus and appealed to the emperor. The reply came (a. d. 412), terse and stern, and classed them as heretics. It bade them return to the church, fined them accord- ing to their rank and station, and in the event of contumacy confiscated their houses and goods. Many Donatists obeyed the edict, others scorned it. Whole communities, as at Cirta, bishops and laymen everywhere, re- turned to the church ; some from conviction, others for reasons of expediency and comfort. The CircumccUions broke out afresh, fired churches, destroyed houses, cast into the flames those Scriptures which had been found to tell against them, and cruelly maltreated and even murdered ecclesiastics who expound- ed them. The less violent proclaimed with a sneer that the church chests and imperial coffers were enriched with the gold of the Separatists, and pointed to the death of Marcellinus (a.d. 413) as a divine judgment upon their unrighteous judge. In a.d. 414 a yet sterner decree announced that all Donatist church-buildings were to become the property of the Catholic church, and all Donatist clergy to be suspended and banished. Fines were doubled ; confiscation and banishment stared the Separatists in the face ; their testimony in courts of law was disallowed ; their social condition was degraded to the lowest ; that the penalties stopped short of death was owing chiefly to St. Augustine, who strove success- fully to prevent others from imbruing their hands with the blood of mistaken fanatics. The church, to its credit be it recorded, by kindness and gentleness made the pain of defeat less bitter to its foes, while it did not neglect to avail itself of the advantages result- ing from victory. As the Catholic bishops returned to their homes they spread every- where the news of the victory, and in the following Lent publicly proclaimed it in their churches. Short summaries of the acts and judgment of the conference were circulated, one being by St. Augustine himself. These were intended principally for Catholics ; others, as St. Augustine's "ad Donatislas post collectionem," were addressed to the sectarians who might be swayed by one-sided reports circulated by Donatist bishops, or by their slanderous abuse of Marcellinus aiid the Catholics. In 418 a council at Carthage passed resolutions regulating the proceedings, when Donatist bishops, clergy, and congregations came back to the church. Nothing could DONATUS and DONATISM 270 prove more clearly to what a large extent tliis had taken place. The church was no longer suppliant, but triuniiihant ; and the change is observable also in some letters and acts of St. Augustine at this period, which may be said to be his last words on tlie great Donatist controversy. His work de Correc- done Doiiatistarum is addressed to a soldier, Bonifacius, and is WTittcn in a style and lan- guage almost military in its stern enforcement of disciiiline. Bonifacius had asked the difference between the Arians and Donatists. St. Augustine, after answering the question, went on to speak of Donatists as " rebels against the unity of the church of Christ." The conference at Carthage and the emperor had laid down laws which they disobeyed, and thus deserved punishment (Dan. iii. 29). The Lord had commanded His disciples to compel the resisting to come to the marriage- feast, and that marriage- feast was the unity of the Body of Christ. The church was that Body; so long as a man lived, God in His goodness would bring him to repentance, and lead him to that church, which was the temple of the Holy Ghost ; but outside that Body, the Church, the Holy Ghost gave no man life. The same strong statement recurs in his exhortation to Emeritus, the Donatist bp. of Caesarea. The majority of Emeritus's con- gregation had returned to the church. St. Augustine pleaded with the bishop : " Outside the church you may have everything except salvation. Vou mav have offices. Sacraments, Liturgy, Gospel, belief, and preaching, in the name of the Trinity ; but you can only find salvation in the Catholic Church." The last letters of St. Augustine were ad- dressed to a Donatist bishop Gaudentius. Marcellinus had been succeeded by Dulcitius, who endeavoured to carry out the strong laws against the Donatists with all possible mild- ness, and speciallv interested himself in re- straining the fanaticism of the Circumcellions. Unfortunately, some words of his were taken to mean that he would punish them with death unless they returned to the church. Gaud- entius and his congregation assembled in their church, determined to set fire to it and perish in the flames. Dulcitius contrived to stop this bv a letter to Gaudentius, who in two letters defended his proposed action and the views of his party. Dulcitius appealed to St. Augustine, who answered Gaudentius's argu- ments. His work, contra Gaudentium, in two books, goes over the old ground, also exposing the folly and crime of suicide. Donatism had now lived its life. No new champions appeared to defend it, and once again onlv did the schism lift up its head. Towards the end of the 6th cent, there was a momentarv revival of energy and proselytisni ; but popes such as Leo and Gregorv the Great and imperial laws were irresistible. The movement died out. The Donatists lingered on till the invasion of Africa by the Mahom- medans swept them away or merged them into some other schismatical body. See Optatus, ed. Alba Spinaeus (Par. 163'). or ed. Dupin (Antw. 1702) ; S. Auguslini. Oprra. vol. vii. (Par. ed. 1635) ; Vogel. " Donatisten in Herzog's Real-Encyclop.; Hefele. do in Wetzcr's Kirchenlexicon aadConctl-ueschtchif ; 280 DOROTHEA Neander, Church History, iii. 258, etc. ed. Bohn ; Niedner, Lehrbuch d. ChristHchen Kirch- engeschichte, 324 ; Robertson, Hist, of the Christian Church, i. I75, etc. ; Hagenbach, Kirchengeschichte, i. 547 ; Ribbeck, Donatus und Augustinus (1858) ; M. Deutsch, Drei Actenstilcke zur Geschichte der Donatismus (Ber- lin, 1875); Harnack, Dog. Gesch. {3rd. ed.) iii. 36 ff. ; Thomasius, Dog. Gesch. (2nded.) i. 606 ff. [J.M.F.] Dorothea, virgin, martyred with Theo- philus the Advocate, and two other women, Christa and Callista, at Caesarea, in Cappa- docia. Some doubt is entertained about these names, as they occur in no Greek menology or mart>Tologv ; but they are found in ancient Roman accounts ; and details are given by the monk Usuard, bp. Ado, and Rabanus. They are celebrated on Feb. 6. Baronius, Bollandus, and Tillemont all place the death of Dorothea in the persecution of Diocletian. She was a young girl of Caesarea in Cappa- docia, famed so widely for Christian piety that when the governor Fabricius, Sapricius, or Apricius arrived he had her brought before him and tortured. Unable to persuade her to marrv, he sent her to Christa and Callista that they might induce her to give up her faith. She converted them ; whereupon the governor put them to death in a boihng cauldron. Dorothea was again tortured, and shewed her joy for the martyrdom of Christa and Callista and for her own sufferings. The governor, insulted and enraged, ordered her head to be cut off. On her way to execution an advocate named Theophilus laughingly asked her to send him some apples and roses from the paradise of her heavenly bridegroom. The legend states that these were miracu- lously conveyed to him, although Cappadocia was then covered with snow. Theophilus was converted, tortured, and decapitated. Dorothea's body is said to have been taken to Rome, and preserved in the church across the Tiber which bears her name. On her festival there is a ceremony of blessing roses and apples. Migne, Diet. Hagiograph. i. 779 ; Bollandus, .Acta Sand. Feb. i. p. 771 ; Tillem. Hist. eccl. p. 497 (Paris, 1702). [w.m.s.] Dorotheus (3), a presbyter of Antioch, or- dained bv Cyril of Antioch (Hieron. Chron.) c. A.D. 290, who with his contemporary Lucian may be regarded as the progenitor of the sound and healthy school of scriptural her- meneutics which distinguished the interpre- ters of Antioch from those of Alexandria. Eusebius speaks of him with high commenda- tion, as distinguished by a pure taste and sound learning, of a wide and liberal education, well acquainted not only with the Hebrew Scriptures, which Eusebius says he had heard him expounding in the church at Antioch, with moderation (yuerpi'ws), but also with classical literature. He was a congenital eunuch, which commended him to the notice of the emperor Constantine, who placed him at the head of the purple-dye-house at Tvre Eus. H. E. vii. 32 ; Neander, Eccl. Hist, vol.' ii. p. 528, Clark's trans. ; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. vol. i. p. 247, Clark's trans. [e-v.] Dorotheus (7) , bp. of Martianopolis in Moesia Secunda, and metropolitan ; a zealous supporter of the doctrines of Nesturios, and a determined DOROTHEUS enemy of the title deoroKOi. Preaching in Constantinople not long before the council of Ephesus, he declared that " if any one asserted that Mary was the mother of God he was anathema " {Ep. Cyrill. ap. Baluz. Concil. col. 402). He attended that council, a.d. 431, signing the appeal to the emperor against the dominant party (Baluz. 701), and joining in the documents warning the clergy and people of Hierapolis and Constantinople against the errors of Cyril, and announcing Cyril's excom- munication {ib. 706, 725). He was deposed and excommunicated by C^Til and his friends. This deposition being confirmed by the im- perial power, he was ordered by Maximinian's synod at Constantinople to be ejected from his city and throne. His influence, however, with his people was so great that they refused to receive his successor Secundianus, and drove him from the city (Ep. Doroth. ad Cyrill. Baluz. 750), whereupon Dorotheus was ban- ished by the emperor to Caesarea in Cappa- docia. Two letters of his to John of Antioch are preserved in the Synodicon (Nos. 78, 115 ; Baluz. 781, 816), expressing his anxiety at Paul's setting out to Egypt and his distress at hearing that terms had been come to with Cyril, and a third (No. 137 ; Baluz. 840) to Alexander of Hierapolis and Theodoret, pro- posing a joint appeal to the emperor, [e.v.] Dorotheus (10), bp. of Thessalonica 515- 520. He wrote on April 28, 515, to pope Hormisdas, urging him to labour for the peace of the church. He testifies respect for the see of Rome, and wishes to see the heresies of Nes- torius and Eutyches everywhere condemned. But in the spring of 517 we find him a Eutychian schismatic, seeking to exercise over the province of Thessalonica the rights which belonged to its metropolis when in com- munion with the Catholic church. He per- secuted John bp. of Nicopolis, employing the secular arm and persuading the emperor Anastasius to support his faction. Com- plaints were brought to pope Hormisdas, who pointed out that he might regain his rights if he rejoined the Catholic church ; but the papal legates Ennodius and Peregrinus were to bring the affair before the emperor, if bp. Dorotheus should persist. The emperor Anastasius re- fused the message of the legates, tried to corrupt them, and wrote to the pope saying that he could suffer insults, but not commands (July II, 517). The death of the emperor almost exactly a year afterwards altered the balance against the Eutychians. Justin I., the Thracian, wrote, on his accession, to the pope, expressing his own wish and that of the principal Eastern bishops for the restoration of peace between East and West. Hormisdas, with the advice of king Theodoric, sent a third legation to Constantinople, Germanus bp. of Capua, John a bishop, Blandus a presbyter, and others. To these men at Constantinople Hormisdas wrote to inquire personally into the doings of the Eutychians at Thessalonica, and to cite bp. Dorotheus and his abettor Aristides the presbyter to Rome, that they might give account of their faith and receive resolution of their doubts. Two days before the arrival of the legates, Dorotheus baptized more than 2,000 people, and distributed the- Eucharistic bread ia large baskets, so t^at DOSITHEUS multitudes could keep it by them. On their arrival, the populace of Thcssalonica, excited, as the legates thought, by Dorotheus, fell upon them, and killed John, a Catholic, who had received tliem in his house. News of these outrages arriving at Constantinople, the emperor Justin promised to summon Doro- theus before him. The pope wrote to his legates, saying that they must see Dorotheus deposed, and take care that Aristides should not be his successor. Dorotheus was cited before the emperor at Heraclea ; he appealed to Rome, but the emperor thought it unad- visable to send him there, as his accusers would not be present. He was suddenly sent away from Heraclea. and the pope's legates, bp. John and the presbyter Epiphanius, who had remained at Thessalonica in his absence, wrote in alarm to the remaining legates at Constantinople lest Dorotheus and others should re-establish themselves in their sees by liberal use of money. Dorotheus was now obliged by the emperor to send deputies to Rome to satisfy the pope. He accordingly wrote an agreeable letter, say- ing that he had exposed his life in defence of bp. John, when the populace had fallen upon him. Pope Hormisdas wrote back, saying that the crime was known to all the world, and required clearer defence ; he remitted its ex- amination to the patriarch of Constantinople. Hormisd. Epp., Pair. I. at. Ixiii. pp. 371, 372, 408. 445, 446, 452, 468, 473, 481, 499, etc. ; Ceillier, x. 616, 618, 619, 625 626, 628, 632, 633. [W.M.S.] Dositheus (1). The earliest ecclesiastical writers speak of a sect of Dositheans, which, though it ne\er spread far outside Samaria, seems to have had some considerable duration in that quarter. It was rather a Jewish sect than a Christian heresy, for Dositheus was re- garded rather as a rival than as a disciple of our Lord, but trustworthy information as to his history and his doctrines is very scanty. Only the name of himself and his sect occurs in Hegesippus's list of heresies, preserved by Eusebius {H. E. iv. 22). He is there placed next after Simon and Cleobius. The earliest detailed account of him is given in the Clem- entine \\Titings, and it is not unlikely that their account was derived from the treatise on heresies of Justin Martyr. The Recognitions (ii. 8) and Homilies (ii. 24) agree in making Simon Magus a disciple of Dositheus, and the Recognitions would lead us to suppose that Dositheus was clearly the elder. They repre- sent him as already recognised as the prophet like unto Moses, whom Jehovah was to raise up ; when Simon with ditficulty and entreaty obtained election among his 30 disciples. The Homilies make Simon and l)ositheus fellow- disciples of John the Baptist, to whom in several places the author shews hostility. As our Lord, the Sun, had 12 apostles, so John, the Moon, had 30 disciples, or even more accurately answering to the days of a lunation, 29A, for one of them was a woman. On John's death Simon was absent studying magic in Egypt, and so Dositheus was put over his head into the chief place, an arrangement in which Simon on his return thought it prudent to acquiesce. Origen, who was acquainted with the Recognitions, probably had in his mind the DOSITHEUS 281 story of the 30 disciples of Dositheus. when he says (contra Cdsum. vi. 11) that he doubts whether there were then 30 Dositheans in the world (//). i. 57) or 30 Simonians. Recogni- tions and Homilies agree tliat Simon after his enrolment among the disciples of Dositheus bv riplr. nt n..Mtllru tlin.ll:;!, his b(Klv uagement among his feilow-dis- ir master's pretensions, provoked > smite him with a staff, which ion's magical art passed through if it had been smoke. Dositheus in amazement thereat, and conscious that he himself was not the Standing one as he pre- tended to be, inquired if Simon claimed that dignity for himself, and, being answered in the aflirmative, resigned his chief place to him and I became his worshipper. Soon after he died. l^'lsewhere (i. 54) tlie Recognitions represent Dositheus as the founder of the sect <>f the Sadducees, a sect which, according to their account, had its commencement only in the days of John the Baptist. Next in order of the early witnesses to the activity of Dositheus is Hippolytus, who, as wc learn from Photius (Cod. 121), commenred his shorter treatise on heresies with a section on the Dositheans. We gather the contents of this treatise from Epiphanius {Haer. 13), Philaster (4), and Pseudo-Tertullian. and the opening sentence of the latter, which relates to the Dositheans, is almost exactly repro- duced by St. Jerome {adv. Luciferianos, iv. 304). The first section of the work of Hip- polytus apparently contained a brief notice of pre-Christian sects, the foremost place being given to the Dositheans. Hippolytus seems to hav'e adopted the account of the Recogni- tions as to the origin of the sect of the Sad- ducees, and to have also charged Dositheus with rejecting the inspiration of the prophets. A statement that Dositheus was a Jew by birth was understood by Epiphanius to mean that he had deserted from the Jews to the Samaritans, a change which Epiphanius attri- butes to disappointed ambition. Origen men- tions Dositheus in several places {cont. Celsum U.S., tract 27 in Matt. vol. iii. 851 ; in Luc. iii. 962 ; in Johann. iv. vol. iv. p. 237 ; de Princ. iv. 1-17) ; but only in the last two passages makes any statement which clearly shews that he had sources of information independent of the Clementine Recognitions ; viz. in the commentary on John he speaks of books ascril)ed to Dositheus as being then current among his disciples, and of their belief that their master had not really died ; and in de Princ. he asserts that Dositheus expounded Exod. xvi. 29 so as to teach that persons were bound to remain to the end of the sabbath as thev found themselves at the beginning of it ; if sitting, sitting to the end ; if lying, lying, Epiphanius, who may have read Dosithean books, adds, from his personal investigations, to the details which he found in Hippolytus. He describes the sect as still existing, observ- ing the Sabbath, circumcision, and other Jewish ordinances, abstaining from animal food, and many of them from sexual inter- course either altogether, or at least after having had children ; but the reading here is uncertain. They are said to have admitted the resurrection of the body, the denial of which is represented as an addition made by 282 DOSITHEUS the Sadducees to the original teaching of Dositheus. Epiphanius adds a story that Dositheus retired to a cave, and there, under a show of piety, practised such abstinence from food and drink as to bring his life to a voluntary end. This story appears, in a slightly different shape, in a Samaritan chronicle, of which an account is given by Abraham Ecchellensis ad Hehed J esu, Catal. lib. Chald. p. 162, Rom. 1653, the story there being that it was the measures taken by the Samaritan high-priest against the new sect, especially because of their use of a book of the law falsified by Dositheus (there called Dou- sis), which compelled Dositheus to flee to a mountain, where he died from want of food in a cave. The notes of Ecchellensis are not given in Assemani's republication of Hebed Jesu (Bibl. Or. iii.). This account is taken from Mosheim (v. infra), and from De Sacy's Chrestomathie Arabe, i. 337. It appears that the sect of Dositheans long maintained a local existence. In Hebed Jesu's catalogue of Chaldee books (Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. 42) we read that Theophilus of Persia, who was later than the council of Ephesus, wrote against Dositheus. And Photius (Cod. 230) reports that he read among the works of Eulogius, patriarch of Alexandria [d. a.d. 608), one entitled Definition against the Samaritans, the argument of which is that the people of Samaria being divided in opinion as to whether the " prophet like unto Moses " was Joshua or Dositheus, Eulogius held a synod there (in the 7th year of Marcianus according to the MSS. ; if we correct this to the 7th year of Maurice, it gives a.d. 588) and taught them the divinity of our Lord. The independent notices of the continued existence of the sect make it not incredible that Eulogius may have encountered it. He appears to have really used Dosithean books, and reports that Dosi- theus exhibited particular hostility to the patriarch Judah, and if he claimed to be himself the prophet who was to come, he would naturally be anxious to exclude the belief that that prophet must be of the tribe of Judah. The form (Dosthes) given by Eulogius for his name is a closer approach than Dositheus to the Hebrew Dosthai, which it probably really represents. Drusius {de Sectis Hebraeorum, iii. 4, 6) and Lightfoot (Disquis. Chorograph. in Johann. iv.) shew that this was, according to Jewish tradition, the name of one of the priests who was sent (II. Kings xvii. 27) to teach the manner of the God of the land, and that the same name was borne by other Samaritans. There seems no ground for Reland's con- jecture {de Samaritanis, v.) that Dositheus was the author of the Samaritan book of Joshua, since published by Juynboll (Leyden, 1848). Juynboll, p. 113, quotes the testimony of an Arabic writer, Aboulfatah (given more fully, De Sacy, p. 335), that the sect still existed in the 14th cent. This writer places Dositheus in the time of John Hyrcanus, i.e. more than a hundred years before Christ. Jost {Gesch. des Judenthums, i. 66) refers to Beer {Buck der Jubilden) as giving evidence that the sect left traces in Abyssinia. Sev- eral critics who have wished to accept all the statements of the above-mentioned authorities, DUBRICIUS, DUBRIC and who have felt the difficulty of making the founder of the sect of the Sadducees contem- porary with John the Baptist, have adopted the solution that there must have been two Dosithei, both founders of Samaritan sects. But we may safely say that there was but one sect of Dositheans, and that there is no evid- ence that any ancient wTiter believed that it had at different times two heads bearing the same name. Considering that the sect claimed to have been more than a century old when our earliest informants tried to get in- formation about its founder, we need not be surprised if the stories which they collected contain many things legendary, and which do not harmonise. Probably the Dositheans were a Jewish or Samaritan ascetic sect, something akin to the Essenes, existing from before our Lord's time, and the stories con- necting their founder with Simon Magus and with John the Baptist may be dismissed as merely mythical. The fullest and ablest dis- sertation on the Dositheans is that by Mosheim {Institutiones Historiae Christianae majores, 1739, i- 376). Cf. Harnack, Gesch. der Alt.- Chr. Lit. Theol. pp. 152 f. [g.s.] Dubhthach {Duach) (3), Mac Ui Lugair. When St. Patrick had come to Tara and was preaching before king Leogaire, we are told that the only one who rose on the saint's approach and respectfully saluted him was Dubhthach, the king's poet, who was the first to embrace the Christian faith in that place ; and as Joceline says, " being baptized and confirmed in the faith, he turned his poetry, which in the flower and prime of his studies he employed in praise of false gods, to a much better use ; changing his mind and style, he composed more elegant poems in praise of the Almighty Creator and His holy preachers." This was Dubhthach Mac Ui Lugair, descended from Cormach Caech, son of Cucorb, in Lein- ster. His name occupies a large space in ancient Irish hagiology as a famous poet and the ancestor of many well-known saints. He was the teacher of St. Fiacc (Oct. 12) of Sletty, and recommended him to St. Patrick for the episcopate. [Fiacc] In the compilation of the Seanchus Mor, said to have been carried on under the auspices of St. Patrick, St. Dubh- thach was one of the nine appointed to revise the ancient laws. Colgan says he had in his possession some of the poems of St. Dubhthach {Tr. Thaum. 8 ns.) : the Poems of St. Dubhthach are given in O'Donovan's Book of Rights, and with translations and notes in Shearman's Loca Patriciana. His dates are uncertain, but his birth is placed after 370, his conversion in 433, and his death perhaps after 479. See Loca Patriciana, by the Rev. J. F. Shearman, in Journ. Roy. Hist, and Arch. Assoc. Ir. 4 ser. vols. ii. iii., with Mr. R. R. Brash's papers in the same Journal, traversing several of Shear- man's assertions ; Ware, Irish Writers, i ; Ussher, Eccl. Ant. c. 17, wks. vi. 409-412, and Ind. Chron. a.d. 433 ; Todd, St. Patrick, 130, 424, 446. [j.G.] Dubriclus, DubriO {Dibric, Dyfrig), arch-bp. of Caerleon, one of the most distinguished names in the story of king Arthur as related by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Arthur makes him archbp. of the city of Legions (Galf. Mon. Hist. viii. 12) ; he crowns king Arthur (ix. i) ; DUBRICIUS, DUBRIC makes an oration to the British army prior to the battle of Badon (ix. 4) ; and is tlie director of all the ecclesiastical pomp of the court. He was grandson of Brychan kinp of Brecknockshire, and two localities, vaguely described as the banks of the (Iwain near Fishguard and the banks of the Wye in Here- fordshire, are claimed for his birthplace. Rees decides in favour of the latter for the following reasons. In the district of Erchen- field, in the county of Hereford, are a church (Whitchurch) and two chapels (Ballingham and Hentland, subject to Lugwardine) dedi- cated to Dubricius, and all of them near the Wye. At Henllan (i.e. Old-church, now Hent- land) he is said to have founded a college, and to have remained seven years before removing to Mochros much farther up the Wye, sup- posed to be the present Moccas. In corrobo- ration of this tradition there were lately re- maining, says Rees, on a farm called Lanfrother in Hentland, traces of former importance. This author further suggests that St. Devereux, seven miles to the west of Hereford, might be a Norman rendering of Dubricius. Rees grants, in support of Ussher, that he may have been appointed bp. of Llandaff about a.d. 470, and that he was raised by Ambrosius Aurehus, the brother of Uther and uncle of Arthur, to the archbishopric of Caerleon on the death of Tremounos or Tremorius, a.d. 490. It does not appear that Wales was then divided into dioceses, or that there were any established bishops' sees except Caerleon. The jurisdic- tion of its archbishop, according to the rule observable elsewhere in the empire, would be co-extensive with the Roman province of Britannia Secunda, and his suffragans were so many chorepiscopi, without any settled places of residence. The influence of Dub- ricius and the liberality of Meurig ab Tewdrig king of Glamorgan made the see of Llandaff permanent ; whence Dubricius is said to have been its first bishop. It appears, however, that after promotion to the archbishopric of Caerleon he still retained the bishopric of Llandaff, where he mostly resided, and from which he is called archbishop of Llandaff ; but that the title belonged rather to Caerleon is clear since upon his resignation David became archbp. of Caerleon and Teilo bp. of Llandaff. Dubricius is distinguished as the founder of colleges ; and besides those on the banks of the Wye already mentioned he founded, or concurred in founding, the col- legiate monasteries of Llancarvan, Caergor- worn, and Caerleon. In his time the Pelagian heresy, which had been once suppressed by St. Germanus, had increased again to such a degree as to require extraordinary efforts for its eradication, and a synod of the whole clergy of Wales was convened at Brcfi in Card.iganshire. The distinction earned by David on that occasion gave Dubricius an excuse for laying down his office, and, worn with years and longing for retirement, he withdrew to a monastery in the island of Enlli or Bardsey, where he died. Rees, who puts the chronology of Dubricius and David early, gives a.d. 522 for the date. He was buried in the island, where his remains lay undisturbed till a.d. 1120, when they were removed by Urban bp. of Llandaff and in- EBIONISM and EBIONITES 28.1 terred with great pomji in the new r.(the<lr.i! which hari been rebuilt a short time before. His death was commemorated on Nov. 4, and his translation on May 29. The bones of the saint were with great difTicultv discovered at Bardsey, the oldest WTitings having to h« searched, as recorded in the Liber Latulavemts (ed. Rees, 1840, p. 320). Such in the main is Rees's account of Dubricius (Essav on Ihe Welsh Saints, 171-193). Of ancient materials an anonymous \'ila in Wharton {Aupl. Sac. ii. 667) is important as having been evidently compiled from earlier sources before the fables of Geoffrey of Monmouth appeared. Bene- dict of (;ioucester wrote his Vila (Anf;l. Sac. ii. 636) after Geoffrey. Capgrave has also a Life {N. L. A. {. 87). For others see Hardv, Des. Cat. i. 40-44. Haddan and Stubbs, Counctls, i. 146, 147, should be consulted on Dubricius's Llandaff bishopric, and on his connexion with Archenfield or Hrchenfield ; likewise Stubbs [Registrum, 154, 155) for the early and legend- ary successions to Llandaff and Caerleon. Sec also Ussher, Brit. Eccl. Antiq. Works, t. v. 510; Chron. Index, sub ann. 490, 512, 520- 522. In regard to the period of Dubricius, authorities differ within limits similar to those assigned to St. David. The A nnales Cambrtae under a.d. 612 give the obit of Conthigirnus and bp. Dibric, whom the editors of the Monu- menta, with an " ut videtur," name bps. Kentigern and Dubricius (M. H. B. 831). The Liber Landavensis also (80) gives this date, and it is adopted in Haddan and Stubbs (i. 146). Hardy (Des. Cat. i. 41) refers to Alford's Annates, a.d. 436, ss. 2, 3, 4, for some critical remarks on the probable chronology of the life of Dubricius. [c.n.] E Ebionism and Ebionltes. The name Ebion- ite first occurs in Irenaeus (c. 180-190). It was repeated, probably from him, by Hippo- lytus (c. 223-235) and Origen (t a.d. 234), who first introduced an explanation of the name. Others offered different explanations (.-./?. Eus. fc. 340); while other writers fabricated a leader, " Ebion," after whom the sect was called (cf. Philastrius, Pseudo-Tertullian, Pseudo- Jerome, Isidore of Spain, etc.). These explanations owe their origin to the tendency to carry back Ebionism, or the date of its founder, as far as pcjssible. Thus the " Ebionite " was (according to his own state- ment) the " poor " man (P'??S), he who voluntarily strove to practise the Master's precept (Matt. x. 9) in Apostolic times (Acts iv. 34-37 ; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c. 17) ; and the correctness of the etymology is not shaken by the Patristic scorn which derived the name from " poverty of intellect," or from " low and mean opinions of Christ " (see Eus. H. E. iii. 27 ; Origen, de Princ, and contr. Cel. ii. c. 4 ; Ignat., l-.p- ad Philadelph. c. 6, longer recension). " Ebion," first personified by Ter- tuUian, was said to have been a pupil of I Cerinthus, and the Gospel of St. John to have j been directed against them both. St. Paul and St. Luke were asserted to have spoken I and written against Ebionites. The " Apos- 284 EBIONISM and EBIONITES tolical Constitutions " (vi. c. 6) traced them back to Apostolic times ; Theodoret [Haer. Fab. ii. c. 2) assigned them to the reign of Domitian (a.d. 81-96). The existence of an " Ebion " is, however, now surrendered. Ebionism, like Gnosticism, had no special founder ; but that its birthplace was the Holy Land, and its existence contemporary with the beginning of the Christian Church, is, with certain reservations, probably correct. A ten- dency to Ebionism existed from the first ; gradually it assumed shape, and as gradually developed into the two special forms presently to be noticed. The records of the church of Jerusalem con- tained in Acts prove how strong was the zeal for the Law of Moses among the Jewish con- verts to Christianity. After the fall of Jeru- salem (a.d. 70), the church was formed at Pella under Symeon, and the Jewish Christians were brought face to face with two leading facts : firstly, that the temple being destroyed, and the observance of the Law and its ordinances possible only in part, there was valid reason for doubting the necessity of retaining the rest ; secondly, that if they adopted this view, they must expect to find in the Jews their most uncompromising enemies. As Christians they had expected a judgment predicted by Christ, and, following His advice, had fled from the city. Both prediction and act were resented by the Jews, as is shewn not only by the contemptuous term (Minim) they applied to the Jewish Christians (Gratz, Gesch. d. Juden. iv. p. 89, etc.), but by the share they took in the death of the aged bp. Svmeon (a.d. 106). The breach was further widened by the refusal of the Jewish Christians to take part in the national struggles — notably that of Bar-Cocheba (a.d. 132) — against the Romans, by the tortures they suffered for their refusal, and lastly, by the erection of Aelia Capitolina (a.d. 138) on the ruins of Jerusalem. The Jews were forbidden to enter it, while the Jewish and Gentile Christians who crowded there read in Hadrian's imperial de- cree the abolition of the most distinctively Jewish rites, and practically signified their "assent by electing as their bishop a Gentile and uncircumcised man — Mark (Eus. H. E. iv. 6). Changes hitherto working gradually now rapidly developed. Jewish Christians, with predilections ftr Gentile Christianity and its comparative freedom, found the way made clear to them ; others, attempting to be both Jews and Christians, ended in being neither, and exposed themselves to the contempt of Rabbin as well as Christian (Griitz, p. 433) ; others receded farther from Christianity, and approximated more and more closely to pure Judaism. The Ebionites are to be ranked among the last. By the time of Trajan (q6- 117) political events had given them a definite organization, and their position as a sect op- posed to Gentile Christianity became fixed b}' the acts which culminated in the erection of Aelia Capitolina. The Ebionites were known by other names, such as " Homuncionites " (Gk. " Anthro- pians " or " Anthropolatrians ") from their Christological views, " Peratici " from their settlement at Peraea, and " Symmachians " from the one able literary man among them EBIONISM and EBIONITES whose name has reached us. [Sy.mmachus (2).] Acquaintance with Hebrew was then confined to a few, and his Greek version of O.T. was produced for the benefit of those who declined the LXX adopted by the orthodox Christians, or the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodo- tion accepted by the Jews. Many, if not most, of the improvements made by the Vul- gate on the LXX are due to the Ebionite version (Field, Origenis Hexaplarum quae supersxmt, Preface). Ebionism presents itself under two principal types, an earlier and a later, the former usually designated Ebionism proper or Pharisaic Ebionism, the latter, Essene or Gnostic Ebion- ism. The earlier type is to be traced in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippo- lytus, Tertuilian, etc. ; the latter in those of Epiphanius especially. (a) Ebionism Proper. — The term expresses ; conveniently the opinions and practices of the descendants of the Judaizers of the Apostolic I age, and is very little removed from Judaism. Judaism was to them not so much a prepara- tion for Christianity as an institution eternally good in itself, and but slightly modified in Christianity. Whatever merit Christianity had, it possessed as the continuation and supplement of Judaism. The divinity of the Old Covenant was the only valid guarantee for the truth of the New. Hence such Ebion- ites tended to exalt the Old at the expense of the New, to magnify Moses and the Prophets, and to allow Jesus Christ to be " nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas " (Tertull. de Came Christi, c. 18). Legal righteousness was to them the highest type of perfection ; the earthly Jerusalem, in spite of its destruction, was an object of adoration " as if it were the house of God " (Iren. adv. Haer. i. c. 22 [al. c. 26]) ; its restoration would take place in the millennial kingdom of Messiah, and the Jews would return there as the manifestly chosen people of God. The Ebionites divided the life of Jesus Christ into two parts — one preceding, the other following. His Baptism. In common with Cerinthus and Carpocrates, they represented Him to have been " the Son of Joseph and .Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation " (Iren. I.e.). They denied His birth of a Virgin, translating the original word in Isa. vii. 14 not ■jrapOei'os, but fedvLs. He was " a mere man, nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God " (Tert. c. 14). But at His Baptism a great change took place. The event is described in the " Gospel according to the Hebrews " current among them, and the description is an altered expansion of the record of St. Matthew (iii. 13, 14). The Voice from heaven spake not only the words recorded by the Evangelist, but also the words, " This day have I begotten Thee " (Ps. ii. 7). A great light suddenly filled the place. John the Baptist asked, " Who art Thou, I,ord ? " and the Voice answered as before. John prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus, " I pray Thee, Lord, baptize me," but Jesus for- bade him, saying, "Suffer it to be so," etc., etc. (Epiph. Haer. xxx. 13). The day of Baptism was thus the day of His " anointing by election and then becoming Christ " (cf. Justin Martyr. Dial. c. Try ph. c. xlix.), it was the turning- EBIONISM and EBIONITES pi)iiit iu the lid' of Jesus : from that moment He was endued with iiower necessary to fill His mission as Messiah ; but He was still man. The Ebionites knew nothing of either pre-existence or divinity in connexion with Him. They are said to have freed themselves from the common Jewish notion that the Messiah was to be an earthly king ; they were not shocked, as were so many of the Jews, at the humbleness of the birth, the sufferings, and crucifixion of Jesus; but they agreed with them in looking upon the advent of Messiah as future, and in deferring the restitution of all thuigs to the millennium. The Ebionites proper insisted that the Law should be strictly observed not only by themselves but by all. They quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. v. 17), and pointed to His practice (cf. Matt. xxvi. 55 ; John vii. 14, etc.). It was the natural tendency of this view to diminish the value of faith in Christ and a corresponding life. Of far greater moment to them, and as necessary to salvation, was the due observance of cir- cumcision, the sabbath, the distinction be- tween clean and unclean food, the sacrificial offerings — probably with the later Pharisaic additions (cf. Eus. H.E. vi. 17) — and the refusal of fellowship or hospitality to the Gentiles (cf. Justin, c. xlvii.). They even quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. x. 24, 25) as their warrant, and affirmed their motto to be : " We also would be imitators of Christ " (Origen, quoted by Schliemann). Jesus, they asserted, " was justified by fulfilling the Law. He was the Christ of God, since not one of the rest of mankind had observed the Law com- pletely. Had any one else fulfilled the com- mandments of the Law, he would have been the Christ." Hence " when Ebionites thus fulfil the law, they are able to become Christs " (Hippolytus, Rejiit. Omn. Haer. vii. 34). As might be expected, the Apostle Paul was especially hateful to them. They repudiated his official character, they reviled him person- ally. In language which recalls that of the Judaizers alluded to in Corinthians and Gala- tians, they represented him as a teacher directly opposed to SS. Peter, James, and J ohn ; they repudiated his Apostolical author- ity because (as they affirmed) he had not been " called of Jesus Christ Himself," nor trained in the Church of Jerusalem. They twisted into a defamatory application to himself his employment of the term " deceiver" (H. Cor. vi. 8) ; he was himself one of the " many which corrupted the word of God" (ii. 17) ; he proclaimed " deliverance from the Law " only "to please men" (GaL i. 10) and "com- mend himself " (IL Cor. iii. i). His personal character was held up to reproach as that of one who " walked according to the flesh " (x. 2), puffed up with pride, marked by levity of purpose (iii. i) and even by dishonesty (vii. 2). They rejected his epistles, not on the ground of authenticity, but as the work of an " apostate from the Law " (Eus. iii. c. 27 ; Iren. I.e.). They even asserted that by birth he was not a Jew, but a Gentile (wresting his words in Acts xxi. 39) who had become a proselyte in the hope of marrying the High Priest's daughter, but that having failed in this he had severed himself from the Jews and occupied himself in writing against circum- EBIONISM and EBIONITES 285 cisioii and the observance of the sabbath (Epiph. adv. Haer. \. xxx. 16, 25). In common with the Nazarcnes and the Gnostic-Ebionitcs, the Pharisaic libionitts used a recension of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which they termed the " gospel according to the Hebrews." It was a Chaldec version written in Hebrew letters, afterwards trans- lated into Clreek and Latin by Jerome, who declared it identical with the " gosjiel of the Twelve Apostles " and the " gospel of the Nazarenes " (see Herzog, Real-Encyklopddie, " Apokryphen d. N. Test." p. 520, ed. 1877). In the Ebionitc " gospel " the section corre- sponding to the first two chapters of St. Matt, was omitted, the supernatural character of the narrative being contradictory to their views about the person of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to say with certainty what other books of the N.T. were known to them ; but there is reason to believe that they (as also the Gnostic-Ebionites) were familiar with the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke. The exist- ence among them of the " Protevangelium Jacobi" and the Wefiodoi too 1 If rpoe indicates their respect for those Apostles. (b) Essene or Gnostic Ebiouisni. — This, as the name indicates, was a type of Ebionism affect- ed by external influences. The characteristic features of the ascetic Essenes were reproduced in its practices, and the traces of influences more directly mystical and oriental were evident in its doctrines. The different phases through which Ebionism passed at different times render it, however, difticult to distin- guish clearly in every case between Gnostic and Pharisaic Ebionism. Epiphanius (adv. Haer. xxx.) is the chief authority on the Gnostic Ebionites. He met them in Cyprus, and personallv obtained information about them (cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Epiphanios, pp. 138, 143, 150 etc.). Their principal tenets were as follows : Christianity they identified with primitive re- ligion or genuine Mosaism, as distinguished from what they termed accretions to Mosaism, or the post-Mosaic developments described in the later books of O.T. To carry out this distinction they fabricated two classes of " prophets," Tr/JO^T/Tai dXrjtkiai, and irpo(pr,Tai (TiWo-ews oi'K dXTjOeias- In the former class they placed Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Moses, and Jesus ; in the latter David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. In the same spirit they accepted the Pentateuch alone among the O.T. writings, and emascu- lated it ; rejecting whatever reflected ques- tionably upon their favourites. They held that there were two antagonistic powers ap- pointed by God — Christ and devil; to the former was allotted the world to come, to the latter the present world. The conception of Christ was variously entertained. Some affirmed that He was created (not born) of the Father, a Spirit, and higher than the angels ; that He had the power of coming to this earth when He .would, and in various modes of manifestation ; that He had been incarnate in Adam, and had appeared to the patriarchs in bodilv shape ; others identified Adam and Christ. In these last days He had come in the person of Jesus. Jesus was therefore to them a successor of Moses, and not of higher 286 EBtONiSM and EBIONITES authority. They quoted from their gospel a saying attributed to Him, " I am He concern- ing Whom Moses prophesied, saying, A pro- phet shall the Lord God raise unto you like unto me," etc. {Clem. Horn. iii. c. 53), and this was enough to identify His teaching with that of genuine Mosaism. But by declining to fix the precise moment of the union of the Christ with the man Jesus — a union assigned by Pharisaic Ebionites to the hour of Baptism — they admitted His miraculous origin. In pursuance of their conception that the devil was the " prince of this world " they were strict ascetics. They abjured flesh-meat, repudiating passages {e.g. Gen. xviii. 8) which contradicted their view ; they refused to taste wine, and communicated with unleavened bread and water. Water was to them " in the place of a god " ; ablutions and lustra- tions were imperative and frequent. But they held the married life in honour, and recom- mended early marriages. To the observance of the Jewish sabbath they added that of the Christian Lord's day. Circumcision was sacred to them from the practice of the patri- archs and of Jesus Christ ; and thev declined all fellowship with the uncircumcised, but repudiated the sacrifices of the altar and the reverence of the Jew for the Temple. In common with the Ebionites proper, they detested St. Paul, rejected his epistles, and circulated stories discreditable to him. The other Apostles were known to them by their writings, which they regarded as inferior to their own gospel. The conjecture appears not improbable that as the siege of Jerusalem under Titus gave an impetus to Ebionism proper, so the ruin under Hadrian developed Gnostic Ebionism. Not that Gnosticism began then to affect it for the first time, but that Gnostic ideas hitherto held in solution were precipitated and found a congenial home among men who through contact with oriental systems in Svria were already predisposed to accept them (cf. Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, lect. viii.). This is further evident from the book of El- chasai and the Clementine literature. These works are the production of the Essene Ebion- ites ; and where they speak of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, His sayings and their lives, they do so, not in the words of the canonical Gospels and Epistles, but with additions or omissions, and a colouring which transforms {e.g.) St. Peter, St. Matthew, and St. James the Just into Essenes, and yet with that Gnostic tendency of thought which makes them lineal descendants of the Judaizers who imperilled the church at Colossae. (See Lightfoot, Colossians, p. 73, etc., znd Essenism and Christianity, p. 397, etc.) The Essene or Gnostic-Ebionites differed from the Pharisaic Ebionites in another re- spect. By missionary zeal, as well as by hterary activity, they sought to obtain con- verts to their views. In the earlier part of the 3rd cent, the Ebionite Alcibiades of Apamea (Syria) repaired to Rome. He brought with him the book of Elchasai, and " preached unto men a new remission of sins (proclaimed) in the third year of Trajan's reign " (a.d. ioi). Hippolytus, who gives an account of the matter [Haer. ix. c. viii. etc., EBIONISM and EBIONITES ed. Clark), exposed the decided antinomianism which penetrated the teaching of the mythical teacher and of the pupil, but it is evident that many " became victims of the delusion." The immorality which the book — in imitation of the teaching of Callistus — indirectly encour- aged probably attracted some, but would dis- credit the dogmatic views of the missionary. Ebionite Christianity did not, however, last very long, neither did it exercise much influ- ence west of Syria while it lasted. In Pales- tine the discomfiture accorded to " a certain one " (probably Alcibiades) who came to Caesarea c. a.d. 247 maintaining the " ungodly and wicked error of the Elkesaites " (Eus. vi. 38 ; cf. Redepenning, Origines, ii. p. 72) was in keeping with the reception accorded to less extreme Ebionite views from the time of the reconstitution of the mother-church at Aelia Capitolina. Judaism of every kind gradually passed out of favour. The attitude of the bishops of Palestine in the Paschal con- troversy of the 2nd cent, was that of men who wished to stand clear of any sympathy with Jewish customs; the language of Justin Mart>T and of Hegesippus was the language of the representatives of the Samaritan and the Hebrew Christianity of the day, not of the Ebionite. Outside of Palestine Ebionism had even less chance of survival. From the very first, the instructions and memories of St. Paul and St. John excluded it from Asia Minor ; in Antioch the names of Ignatius, Theophilus, and Serapion were vouchers for Catholic doc- trine and practice ; and the daughter-churches of Gaul and Alexandria naturally preferred doctrine supplied to them by teachers trained in the school of these Apostles. Even in the church of Rome, whatever tendency existed in Apostolic times towards Ebionism, the separation — also in Apostolic times— of the Judaizers was the beginning of the end which no after-amalgamation under Clement could retard. The tone of the Shepherd of Hernias — a work which emanated from the Roman church during the first half of the 2nd cent. (see Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 99, n. 3) — however different from the tone of Clement and St. Paul, is not Ebionite, as a comparison with another so-called Roman and certainly later Ebionite work — the Clementine writings — shews. The end of Ebionism had actually ccme in the Roman church when in the 2nd cent. Jewish practices — notably as regards the observance of Easter — were unhesitatingly rejected. The creed of the Christian in Rome was the creed which he held from Irenaeus in Gaul and Polycarp in Asia Minor, and not from the Ebionite. When the above-named Alcibiades appeared in Rome (a.d. 219), Hippolytus de- nounced his teaching (that of Elchasai) as that of " a wolf risen up against many wandering sheep, whom Callistus had scattered abroad " : it came upon him as a novelty ; it had " risen up," he says, " in our own day " {Haer. ix. cc. 8, 12). This language is a proof of the oblivion which had certainly befallen any previous propagation of Ebionism in Rome. For 200 years more Ebionism — especially of the Essene form — lingered on. A few Ebionites were left in the time of Theodoret, about the middle of 5th cent. ; the rest had returned to strict Judaism and the utter re- EDESIUS jection of Christianity, or to a puror Cbris- tianity than that which Ebionism favouroci. The Patristic notices on the Ebionites will be found in the works referred to (cf. on their value, R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen d. altestcn Ketzergeschichte, 1875). The literature on the subject is further collected by {int. al.) Schlie- mann, Die Clementinen (1844) ; Ritschl, Die Entstehung d. alt-katholischen Kirche (1857) ; Lightfoot. Galatians, Dissertation III. St. Paul and the' Three (1876). [j.m.f.] Edesius (3) shared the romantic fortunes of his brother Frumentius, the first bp. of Aiix- lunis (Axuni), in the 4th cent. Tlie bio- grai^hical details at our disposal consist of a lengthy narrative, introduced, on the authority of Edesius, by Rutinus into his Ecclesiastical History (lib. i. 9). This narrative has been copied, with slight deviations, by Socrates (//. E. i. 19), Sozomen (ii 24), and Theodoret (i. 23, 24). Cf. also Baronias {Ann. 327, viii. ix. X.). Frumentius and Edesius, the young relatives of Meropius, a Syrian philo- sopher (merchant), accompanied him on a voyage of adventure to India. On their re- turn to Phoenicia by way of the Red Sea, they landed " at a certain port," where there was " a safe haven," and there suffered from the barbarous assault of the " Indians," who murdered all the ship's company except the two youths, who were conveyed as prizes to the king. He appointed F'rumcntius and Edesius as his treasurer and cup-bearer re- spectively. By their means Christianity was introduced among " the Indians." Their names in Ethiopian documents given by Lu- dolf {Hist. Eth. iii. 2) are Fremonatos and Syd- vacus (cf. (iesenius, Aethiop. Kirche in Ersch and Gruber, and Hoffmann in Herzog's Encyc). The word " India" is used with the same indefiniteness as are Ethiopia and Libya elsewhere. From the times of Aristotle to those of Eratosthenes and of Hipparchus, India and Africa were believed to unite at some unknown point S. of the Indian Ocean {Diet. Aiic. Geogr. vol. ii. p. 4.5, art. "India " ; Pliny, vi. 22-24). These " Indians " were Abyssinians, as we see from the subsequent career of Frumentius. The king, according to Ludolf's Ethiopian Codex, was called Abreha, and on drawing near his end, offered their liberty to the two youths. The queen - mother earnestly besought them to remain, to undertake the education of the young prince Erazanes, and to assist her in the regency during his minority. They consented, and lost no opportunity of diffusing a knowledge of Christ. They sought out Christian mer- chants trading in the country, gathered Christian disciples, and built houses of prayer, " that worship might be offered, and the Roman ecclesiastical routine observed " (Soz. I.e.). They were not in orders, and Frumen- tius went to Alexandria and asked for a bishop to be sent to .Abyssinia. Athanasius conse- crated Frumentius himself. Edesius remained at T\Te and became a presbyter of the church there, where Rufinus met him. [ii.r.r.] Elagabalus. The short reign of this feeble and profligate emperor, though not coming into direct contact with the history of the Christian church, is not without interest as a phase of the religious condition of the empire. ELESBAAN 287 \'arius Avitus Bassianus, as he was named at his birth, was of Phoenician descent, and born at Eniesa, in Syria, c. a.d. 205. His mother, Julia Soemia, and aunt, Julia Mani- maea, were devoted to the worship of El-gahal ( = r.od the Creator, or, according to li-ss probable etymology, God of the Mountains), and he and his cousin Alexander Severus were in early childhood consecrated as priests of that deity, and the young Bassianus took the name of the god to whom he ministered. J ulia Mammaea had eclectic tendencies, and by her invitation the great Origm came to .\ntioch (iirobably, lu)wever, after the death of Elagabalus), and was received with many marks of honour. Eusebius, whii relates the fact {H. E. vi. 21), speaks of her as a woman of exceptional piety (-yecTj Ofo<T(ti«TTdTri t'. Kai Tis dWi) yfyovvia), and we may trace her influence in the character of her son Alexander Severus. [Severus (2).] After spending some time at Nicomedia, where he entered on his second consulship, Elagabalus proceeded in A.D. 219 (the year in which Callistus suc- ceeded Zephyrinus as bp. of Rome) to the capital. His short reign there was a frenzy of idolatrous impurity. His jealousy and suspicion led him to imprison Alexander Severus, whose virtue attracted the admira- tion both of soldiers and people, and whom, at his mother's advice, he had adojUed and proclaimed as Caesar soon after arriving in Rome. The troops rose and rescued their favourite. The two sisters, each with her son, appeared at the head of their supporters, and the followers of Severus were victorious. Soemia and the boy-emperor were thrown into the Tiber (hence the epithet Tiberinus after- wards attached to him in derision), and the senate branded his name with eternal infamy. Dio. Cass. Ixxvii. 30-41, Ixxix. ; Herodian, v. 4-23 ; Lamprid. Elagab. ; Capitt>lin. Macrinus ; Eutrop. viii. 13 ; Aurel. Victor, de Caes. xxiii., Epit. xxiii.) [e.ii.p.] Elesbaan, a king, hermit, and saint of Ethiopia during the 6th cent. (Rome, Oct. 27 ; Ethiopia, Ginbot, xx. May 15 ; cf. Ludolphus, p. 415), whose exact story is difficult to trace. (Cf. Ludolphus, History of Ethiopia, ed. 1684, p. 167 ; Lebeau, Histoire du lias Empire, ed. 1827 viii. 47, note 4; Walch, in Novi Cotn- mentarii Soe. Reg. Gottingeu. t. iv. ; Histurta Rerum in Homeritide Saec. vi. Gestarum, p. 4.) The importance of the crusades on which his fame rests is attested by tlibbon, who asserts that, had their purpose been attained, " Ma- homet must have been crushed in his cradle, and Abyssinia would have prevented a re- volution which has changed the civil and re- ligious state of the world " {Decline and Eall, c. xlii. sub fin.). The details of the saint's wars and character are drawn from the Acta S. Arethae, extant in two forms: the earlier and more authentic, found by Lequien in the Colbert Library (Oriens Christianus, ii. 428), is referred by the Jesuit author of the Ada Sanctorum to the 7th cent, at latest ; the later is, at best, but the recension of Simeon Metaphrastes, in the loth cent. It was probably during the later years of Anastasius's reign that Elesbaan succeeded his father Tazena on the throne of Ethiopia. His kingdom was greatly dependent for its 288 elesbaan welfare upon the goodwill and good order of the people of Yemen, the Homeritae, from whom it was separated by the narrow strait of Bab-el-Mandeb : for though the territory of the Homeritae the merchants of Syria and of Rome came to the great port of Adulis (cf. Assemani Bibl. Orientalis, i. p. 360), near whose ruins in Annesley Bay the Arabian traders still unlade their ships (cf. Henry Salt, A Voyage to Abyssinia, c. ix. p. 451)- When Elesbaan succeeded, the Homeritae had great- ly obscured the Christianity which they had received in the reign of Constantius, but the language of Cosraas Indicopleustes (Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. Ixxxviii. p. 170) shews that it was not wholly extinct. The name of their king is variously written Dunaan and Dhu Nowas ; by John of Asia as Dimion ; by Theophanes as Damian. He had been made king c. 490, by the people whom he had freed from their gross tjTant Laknia Dhu Sjenatir ; and having shortly after his accession forsworn idolatry and embraced Judaism, determined to enforce his new creed with the sword (cf. Acta Sanctorum, Oct. vol. x. p. 693). In retaliation for the sufferings of the Jews throughout the Christian empire, he exacted heavy tolls from all Christian merchants who came through his territory to the port of Aden and the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, and, according to John of Asia (cf. Assemani, Bibl. Orientalis, i. 360), put many Christians to death. Such action was injurious to the commerce of all the neighbouring peoples, but especially of Ethiopia ; and Elesbaan soon after his accession sent a useless remonstrance, and then prepared for war. About a.d. 519 he crossed the straits, utterly defeated the Arabian forces, and driving the Jew to refuge in the hills, left a viceroy to bear Christian rule over the Homeritae and returned to Ethiopia (ib. p. 362). The time of this expedition is incidentally and approximately marked by Cosmas Indicopleustes, who tells us that he was at Adulis " iv ry dpxv rfjs [iaffLXeias 'lovcr- TLVov Tov 'Piiifiaiwv jiacxiXeuis" (a.d. 518-527), when the king of the people of Axum, being about to war against the Homeritae, sent to ask the governor of Adulis for a copy of a certain inscription ; which copj' Cosmas and another monk were charged to make (Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. Ixxxviii. p. 102). The death of the viceroy, probably in a.d. 522 or 523, whom Elesbaan had left in Yemen, encouraged Dhu Nowas to come down from his hiding-place in the hills (" tanquam daemon carne indutus," Acta Sanctorum, Oct. xii. 316), and reassert himself as king of the Homeritae and champion of J udaism. Choos- ing a season when the Arabian Gulf would be an impassable barrier to the inter%-ention of Elesbaan, he gathered a force which presently numbered 120,000 men and, having put to death all Christians whom he could find and turned their church into a synagogue, pressed on to Negran, the head-quarters of the Ethiopian vice-royalty, then held by Arethas the phylarch. He found the garrison fore- warned and the gates closed ; nor were they opened at his threats, when coming to the wall and holding up a wooden cross he swore that all who would not blaspheme the Crucified and insult the sign of His suffering should die. ELESBAAN .\i last by treachery Dhu Nowas won an ■ entrance, promising to hurt none of the citizens and only demanding an exorbitant i tribute; but having entered, he began at once I the reckless massacre which has left its mark I even in the Koran (cf. Walch's paper in the Gottingen Commentarii, p. 25). Arethas and 1 Ruma his wife died with a defiant confession ' on their lips ; more than 4,000 Christian men, ! women, and children were killed (commem- I orated in the Roman calendar on Oct. 24) ; and from the fiery dyke into which the victims ; were thrown, Dhu Nowas received the name ! Saheb-el-Okhdud (" Lord of the Trench "). At this time, probably in Jan. 524, Simeon, bp. of Beth-Arsam, had been sent by the emperor i Justin, together with Abraham, a priest of I Constantinople, to gain the alliance of Mund- hir III., king of the Arabians of Hira, a friend valuable alike for reasons of commerce and in regard to the war with Persia. As the ambas- sadors drew near the king (the story is told by Simeon in a letter to the abbat of Gabula), I they were met by a crowd of Arabs crying that Christ was driven out of Rome and Persia and i Homeritis ; and they learnt that messengers were present from Dhu Nowas with letters to king Mundhir, in which they heard the long ! recital of the treachery by which Negran had been taken, of the insult to the bishop's tomb, of the slaughter of the Christians and the triumph of Judaism, the confession of the martvr Arethas, and the speech of Ruma urging the women of Negran to follow her to the abiding city of the divine Bridegroom, praying that the blood of the mart\T:s might be the wall of Negran while it continued in the faith, and that she might be forgiven for that Arethas had died first. They heard of her ( brutal murder, and the appeal of Dhu Nowas i that Mundhir should at once enact a like massacre throughout his kingdom. Their 1 own end must have seemed very near ; but 1 the courage of a soldier who stood forth as I spokesman of the many Christians in Mund- I hir's army decided the hesitation of the king, and the ambassadors went away unhurt (but apparentlv unanswered) to Naaman, a port in the Arabian Gulf. There they heard more fully the story of the massacre, and especially of the constancy of a boy, who was afterwards known to the bp. of Asia at Justinian's court. Simeon of Beth-Arsam thus closes his letter, praying that the news may be spread throughout the church and the martyrs re- ceive the honour of commemoration, and that the king of Ethiopia may be urged to help the Homeritae against the oppression of the Jew (cf. Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 364-379)- When this message reached Elesbaan, it was reinforced by a letter from Justin, elicited by the entreaties of Dous Ibn Dzi Thaleban, one of the few Christians who had escaped Dhu Nowas (cf. Wright, Early Christianity in Arabia, p. 56). This letter is given in the Acta S. Arethae ; where also it is told how the patriarch of Alexandria, at the request of Justin, urged Elesbaan to invade Yemen, offering up a litanv and appointing a vigil on his behalf, and sending to him the Eucharist in a silver vessel. Without delay Elesbaan collected a great army, which he divided into two parts ; 15,000 men he sent southwards ELESBAAN to cross at Bab-el-M.iiuK'b aiul, niarrliinp through Yemen, di%'crt the strength of Dhii Nowas's forces from the main body of the Ethiopians, which Elesbaan intended to semi by sea to some place on the S. coast of Arabia. For the transport of these latter he appro- priated 60 merchant vessels then anchored in his ports, adding ten more, built after the native fashion, the planks being held together by ropes. On the eve of the enterprise he went in procession to the great church of Axum, and there, laying aside his royalty, sued in forma paufycris for the favour of Him Whose war he dared to wage ; praying that his sins might be visited on himself, and not on his peojUe. Then he sought the blessing, counsel, and prayers of St. I'antaleon ; and received from within the doorless and window- less tower, where the hermit had lived for 45 years, the answer: "'Earu) avv coi 6 (yvfj.- paoiXevwt' aoi." Thus the army was sent on its twofold route. For the 15,000 Bab-el-Mandeb was indeed a gate of tears : they died of hunger, wander- ing in the desert. The main body was safely embarked, and sailed S. down the Gulf of Arabia towards the straits ; which Dhu Nowas had barred by a huge chain, stretched across the space of two furlongs from side to side. Over this, however, first ten ships and then seven more, including that of the Ethiopian admiral, were lifted by the wa\es ; the rest were driven back by stress of weather, but presently, the chain being, according to one account, broken, forced the passage, and passing the other seventeen, cast anchor farther along the coast. Meanwhile Dhu Nowas, ha\'ing first encamped on the W. shore, where he thought his chain would force the Ethiopians to land, hurried from his position, and leaving but a few men to resist the smaller fleet, watched with his main army the movements of the rest. Those on the 17 ships under the Ethiopian admiral easily effected a landing near Aden, and defeating the troops opposed to them, pressed on to the chief city, Taphar, or Taphran, which sur- rendered immediately (cf. Wright, op. cit. 58-60). Discouraged by this disaster, the main body of the Arabians offered a feeble resistance ; and Dhu Nowas saw that his downfall was very near. According to the Arabian historians, he threw himself from the cliff and died in the waves ; according to the Acta S. Arethae, he bound his seven kinsmen in chains, and fastened them to his throne, lest they should fail to share his fate ; and so awaited death at Elcsbaan's own hand. The Arabic writers are unsupported in their story of the useless resistance of a successor Dhu Ciadan ; it was probably at the death of Dhu Nowas that the kingdom of the Homeritae ended, and Yemen became a province of Ethiopia. At Taphar Elesbaan is said to have built a church, digging the foundations for seven days with his own hands ; and from Taphar he wrote of his victory to the patriarch of Alexandria. A bishop was sent from Alexandria and appointed to the see of Ne- gran, but there are doubts as to both the orthodoxy and identity of this bishop. The king restored Negran, entrusting it to Are- tbas's son, rebuilding and endowing the ELESBAAN 2S0 great chur» li, and granting i..r|utii.il ri^;ht of asylum to the jilare where the bodies «>( the martyrs had lain, and then returned to Ethionia (Boll. .-ff/aSi.Oct.xii. 322), leaving a Christian Arab nametl Esimiphacus or .-Vriathus, to be his viceroy over the conquered pcojile. A part of Elcsbaan's army, however, refused to leave the luxury of Arabia Felix, and not long after set up as rival to lisimiphaeus one Abrahah or Abraham, the Christian slave of a Roman merchant, who was strong enough to shut up the viceroy in a ft)rt and seize the throne of Yemen. A fttrce of 3,000 men was sent by Elesbaan, under a prince of his house, wjiom some call Aryates or Arethas, to depose the usurper ; and it seems that Abrahah, like Dim Nowas, sought safety among the moun- tains. But he soon (c. 540) came down and confronted the representative of Elesbaan ; and at the critical moment the Ethiopian troops deserted and murdered their general. To maintain his supremacy and avenge his kinsman, Elesbaan sent a second army ; but this, loyally fighting with Abrahah, was utterly defeated, and only a handful of men returned to Ethiopia. The Arabic historians record that Elesbaan swore to yet lay hold of the land of the Homeritae, both mountain and plain, pluck the forelock from the rebel's head, and take his blood as the price of Ary- ates's death ; and they tell of the mixed cunning and cowardice by which Abrahah satisfied the Ethiopian's oath, and evaded his anger, winning at last a recognition of his dignity. Procopius adds that Abrahah paid tribute to Elcsbaan's successor ; and the Homeritae remained in free subjection to Ethiopia almost to the end of the century. Records are extant, almost in the very words of the ambassadors, of two embassies from Justinian to Elesbaan. Joannes Malala, in writing of the first, had the autograph of the env.oy whom Proco]iius (de Bello Persico, i. 20) calls Julian ; Photius has preserved, in the third codex of his Bibliotheca, Noimosus's story of his experience in the second mission. Julian must have been sent before 531, for Cabades was still living, and, according to Procopius, Esimiphaeus was viceroy of Homeritis. He was received by Elesbaan, according to his own account, with the silence of an intense joy ; for the alliance of Rome had long been the great desire of the Ethiopians. The king was seated on a high chariot, drawn by four elephants caparisoned with gold ; he wore a loose robe studded with pearls, and round his loins a covering of linen embroidered with gold. He received Justinian's letter with every sign of respect, and began to prepare his forces to take part in the Persian war even before Julian was dismissed from his court with the kiss of peace (Johannis Malalae, Chronographia, xviii. Bonn. ed. pp. 457, 458). Malala records no secjuel of these preparations ; Proc(jpius comi)lains that none occurred. The second embassy was sent i)rimarily to Kaisus or Imrulcays, the prince of the Chindini and Maaddeni, and only serond.irily to the Homeritae and Ethiopians, probably in the last yearsof Elcsbaan's reign. Nonnosus theenvoy belonged to a family of diplomatists. But Photius does not state the purpose or result of this journey ; only teUing of the great herd 19 290 ELEUSIUS of 5,000 elephants which Nonnosus saw be- tween Adulis and Axum, and the pigmy negroes who met him on an island as he sailed away from Pharsan (Photii, Biblioiheca, Bekker's ed. pp. 2, 3). The story of Elesbaan's abdication and se- clusion is told in the Acta S. Arethae. Having accepted the fealty and recognized the royalty of Abrahah, and having confirmed the faith of Christ in Homeritis, he laid aside his crown and assmned the garb of a solitary. His cell is still shewn to the traveller ; it was visited in 1805 by Henry Salt, and has been elaborate- ly described by Mendez and Lefevre. There the king remained in solitude and great asceticism ; and the year of his death is un- known. His crown he sent to Jerusalem, praying that it might be hung " in conspectu januae vivifici sepulchri." [f-p-] Eleuslus (2), bp. of Cyzicus, a prominent semi-Arian in the 2nd half of the 4th cent., intimately connected with Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, Sophronius of Pom- peiopolis, and other leaders of the Macedonian party. He is uniformly described as of high personal character, holy in life, rigid in self- discipline, untiring in his exertions for what he deemed truth, and, according to St. Hilary, more nearly orthodox than most of his associates (Hilar, de Synod, p. 133). The people of his diocese are described by Theo- doret as zealous for the orthodox faith, and well instructed in the Holy Scriptures and in church doctrines, and he himself as a man worthy of all praise (Theod. H. E. ii. 25 ; Haer. Fab. iv. 3). Though usually found acting with the tyrannical and unscrupulous party, of which Macedonius was the original leader, and sharing in the discredit of their measures against the holders of the Homo- ousian faith, Eleusius was uncompromising in opposing the pronounced Arians, by whom he was persecuted and deposed. He held office in the Imperial household when sud- denly elevated to the see of Cyzicus by Macedonius, bp. of Constantinople, c. 356 (Soz. H. E. iv. 20; Suidas, s.v. 'EXeiytrtos). He signalized his entrance on his office by a vehe- ment outburst of zeal against the relics of paganism at Cyzicus. He shewed no less de- cision in dealing with the Novatianists, with whom a community of persecution had caused the Catholics to unite. He destroyed their church, and forbade their assemblies for wor- ship (Socr. H. E. ii. 38 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 21; v. 15). He soon acquired great influence over his people by his religious zeal and the gravity of his manners. He established in his diocese a large number of monasteries, both for males and females (Suidas, M.S.). He took part in the semi-Arian council at Ancyra 358 a.d. (Hilar, de Synod, p. 127), and was one of the members deputed to lay before Constantius at Sirmium the decrees they had passed, con- demnatory of the Anomoeans (Hilar, m.s. ; Soz. H. E. iv. 13; Labbe, Concil. ii. 790). At the council of Seleucia, a.d. 359, he replied to the proposition of the Acacians to draw up a new confession of faith, by asserting that they had not met to receive a new faith, but to pledge themselves for death to that of the fathers (Socr. H. E. ii. 39, 40). Being commissioned with Eustathius of Sebaste, ELEUTHERUS Basil of Ancyra, and others, to communicate the result of the synod to Constantius, Eleusius denounced the blasphemies attributed to Eudoxius so vigorously that the latter was compelled by the emperor's threats to re- tract (Theod. H. E. ii. 23). [Eudoxius ; Eustathius of Sebaste.] The wily Acacians, however, speedily gained the ear of Constan- tius, and secured the deposition of their semi- Arian rivals, including Eleusius, a.d. 360. The nominal charge against him was that he had baptized and ordained one Heraclius of Tyre, who, being accused of magic, had fled to Cyzicus, and whom, when the facts came to his knowledge, he had refused to depose. He was also charged with having admitted to holy orders persons condemned by his neigh- bour. Maris of Chalcedon (Soz. H. E. iv. 24 ; Socr. H. E. ii. 42). His old patron, Mace- donius of Constantinople, who had been got rid of at the same time, wrote to encourage him and the other deposed prelates in their adherence to the Antiochene formula and to the " Homoiousian " as the watchword of their party (Socr. H. E. ii. 45 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 27). The subtle Anomoean Eunomius was intruded into the see of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, who had succeeded Macedonius (Socr. H. E. iv. 7 ; Philost. H. E. v. 3). Eunomius failed to secure the goodwill of the people who re- fused to attend where he officiated, and built a church for themselves outside the town. On the accession of Julian, a.d. 361, Eleusius, with the other deposed prelates, returned to his see, but was soon expelled a second time by J ulian, on the representation of the heathen inhabitants of Cyzicus, for his zeal against paganism (Soz. H. E.v. 15). At Julian's death Eleusius regained possession. He took the lead at the Macedonian council of Lampsacus, a.d. 365 (Socr. H. E. iv. 4). At Nicomedia, A.D. 366, he weakly succumbed to Valens's threats of banishment and confiscation, and accepted the Arian creed. Full of remorse, he assembled his people on his return to Cyzicus, confessed and deplored his crime, and desired, since he had denied his faith, to resign his charge to a worthier. The people, devotedly attached to him, refused to accept his re- signation (ib. 6; Philost. H. E. ix. 13). In 381 Eleusius was the chief of 36 bishops of Macedonian tenets summoned by Theodosius to the oecumenical council of Constantinople in the hope of bringing them back to Catholic doctrine. This anticipation proved nugatory ; Eleusius and his adherents obstinately refused all reconciliation, maintaining their heretical views on the Divinitv of the Holy Ghost (Socr. H. E. V. 8 ; Soz. H'. E. vii. 7). Similarly at the conference of bishops of all parties in 383, to which Eleusius was also invited as chief of the Macedonians, the differences proved irre- concilable, and the emperor manifested his disappointment by severe edicts directed against the Macedonians, Eunomians, Arians, and other heretics (Tillem. Mem. Eccl. vol. vi. passim). [e.v.] Eleutherus (1), bp. of Rome in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, during 15 years, 6 months, and 5 days, according to the Liberian catalogue. Eusebius {H. E. v. prooem.) places his accession in the 17th year of Antoninus Verus [i.e. Marcus Aurelius), viz. ELEUTHERUS A.D. 177 ; whicli wiuikl make 192 the date of his death. But the consuls given in the Liberian catalogue as contemporary with his election and death are those of 171 and 185. Hegesippus, quoted by Husebius (//. E. iv. 22), states that when he himself arrived in Kome, Eleutherus was deacon of Anicetus, who was then bishop, and became bishop on the death of Soter, the successor of Anicetus (cf. Iren. adv. Haeres. iii. 3, and Jerome, de V'ir. lllu^tr. c. 22). Eleutherus was contemporary with the Aurelian persecution ; and after the death of Aurelius the Christians had peace, in conse- quence, it is said, of the favour of Marcia, the concubine of C\>mmodus ; the only recorded exception in Rt)me being the martyrdom of ApoUonius in the reign of Commodus (Eus. H. E. V. 21 ; Jerome, Catal. c. 42). The chief sufferers under Aurelius were the churches of Asia Minor and those of Lyons and Vieune in Southern Gaul, a.d. 177. In letters to Eleutherus by the hand of Irenaeus the latter churches made known, " for the sake of the peace of the churches " (H. E. v. 3), their own judgment, with that of their martyrs while in prison, respecting the claims of Montanus to inspiration. The fact of the bp. of Rome having been especially addressed on this occasion has been adduced as an acknowledgment in that early age of his supreme authority. But the letters of the martyrs to Eleutherus do not appear, from Eusebius, to have had any different purport from those sent also to the churches of .^sia and Phrygia, nor does their object seem to have been to seek a judgment, but rather to express one, in virtue, we may suppose, of the weight carried in those days by the utterances of martyrs. Their having addressed Eleutherus, as well as the churches where Montanus himself was teaching, is suffi- ciently accounted for by the prominence of the Roman bishop's position in the West, about which there is no dispute. Of the course taken by Eleutherus with respect to Montanus no- thing can be alleged with certainty. Besides the heresy of Montanus, those of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, and Marcion were then at their height, and gained many adherents in Rome. V'alentinus and Cerdo had ctJine there between 138 and 142 ; Mar- ci.jn a little later. There is, however, some difficulty in placing the sojourn in Rome of these heresiarchs in the episcopate of Eleu- therus ; Valentinus, according to other ac- counts, having died previously (see Tillem. On Eleutherus). Florinus and Blastus also, two degraded presbyters of Rome, broached during the episcopate of Eleutherus certain heresies, of which nothing is known except what may be gathered from the titles of certain lost treatises written against them by Ire- naeus (Eus. H. E. V. 14, 15, 20, Pacian, Ep. i.). The visit of Irenaeus to Eleutherus gave the latter opportunity to become acquainted with the prevalent heresies, against which he be- came the most distinguished champion. Especially interesting to Englishmen is the story connecting Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity (Bede, H. E. c. iv.). [Lucius (16)]. This account, written some 500 years after the event, is the earliest men- ELIAS 291 tion of it in any historian. It mchis pretty certain that it was from a Roman catalogue that Bede got his information, (iildas, his usual authority, being silent on the subject. In the hands of chroniclers after Bede the story receives several and growing additions. The story is first found in its simplest form in the Pontifical annals at Rome, in the Oth cent. ; is introduced into Britain by Bede in the 8th ; grows into the conversion of the whole of Britain in the 9th ; and appears full-fledged, enriched with details, and con- nected with both Llandaff and (Wastonbury, in the 12th. There is, however, nothing improbable in the original story itself, and it is more likely to have had some fact than pure invention for its origin, and the Welsh tradi- tions about Lleirwg, though unnoticed by Gildas, may have been ancient and genuine ones, independent of Bede's account. Lin- gard takes this view, laying stress on the dedication of churches in the diocese of Llan- daff to Lleirwg and the saints associated with him, and supposing him to have been an independent British prince outside the Roman pale. In confirmation of the story is alleged further the fact that, shortly after the time of Eleutherus writers first begin to speak of British Christianity. For Tertullian, Origen, and .\rnobius are the first to allude to the triumphs of the Gospel, though partial, in this remote island. What they say, how- ever, is quite consistent with the earlier, and other than Roman, origin of the British church ; and it may be that it was the very fact of their having borne this testimony that suggested Eleutherus, a pope shortly anterior to their date, as one to whom the mission might be assigned. [j.b — v.] Ellas (1) I., bp. of Jerusalem, a.d. 494-^13 ; an Arab by birth who was educated with Martyrius, in one of the Nitrian monasteries. Driven from Egypt by Timothy Aelurus, the two friends took refuge, a.d. 457, in the laura of St. Euthymius, who received them with great favour, and predicted that they would both be bishops of Jerusalem. After a time they quitted the laura, and Elias constructed a cell at Jericho. In 478 Martyr- ius succeeded Anastasius as bp. of Jerusalem, and was followed by Sallustius in 486, and in 494 by Elias. Moschus records that Elias practised total abstinence from wine both as monk and bishop {Frat. Spiritual, c. 25). His residence became the nucleus of a collection of cells of ascetics, which de\eloped into a monastery adjacent to the church of the Anastasis (Cyril. Scythop. \'il. S. Sabae, c. 31). When Elias succeeded to the patriarchate, the Christian world exhibited a melancholy spec- tacle of discord. There were at least four great parties anathematizing one another. When the Monophysitcs (.Acephali) in Syria, under the leadershij) of Xenaias of Hierapolis, broke into open insurrection, treating as heretics all who acknowledged the two natures, Elias was one of the diief objects of their attack. In 509 they demanded a confession of his faith, and Anastasius required him to convene a council to repudiate the decrees of Chalcedon. Elias declined, but drew up a letter to the emperor, containing a statenunt of his belief, accompanied by anathemas ul 292 ELKESAl, ELKESAITES Nestorius, Eutvches, Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. This was entrusted to members of the AcephaH to convey to Con- stantinople. When opened, it was found to contain an anathema against the two natures. Elias reproached the bearers with having falsified the document and thus laid him open to the charge, which he found it very hard to refute, of having condemned the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii. 31 ; Theod. Led. p. 561 ; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 129, 130). Macedonius having been deposed A. D. 511, and Timotheus, an unscrupulous Monophysite monk, appointed to the see of Constantinople, Elias, whose principle appears to have been to accept the inevitable and to go the ut- most possible length in obedience to the ruling powers, seized on the fact that he had ab- stained at first from anathematizing the coun- cil of Chalcedon, as a warrant for joining com- munion with him and receiving his synodical letter. Elias could not contend against his many unscrupulous enemies, and in 513 was driven from his see, dying in 518 in banish- ment at Aila on the Red Sea shore, aet. 88. Tillem. Metn. Eccl. xvi. ; Cyril. Scythop. Vita S. Euthymii ; and other authorities cited above. [e.v.] Elkesai, Elkesaites (HXxao-a/, Hippolytus ; HXfa/, 'EXK-fo-fforoi, Epiphanius ; 'EXAecraiTa/, Origen). A book bearing the name of Elkesai and purporting to contain angelic revelations, was, at the end of the 2nd cent., in high repute among certain Ebionite sectaries, who were most numerous in the district E. of the lower Jordan and the Dead Sea. This book first became known to orthodox writers in the 3rd cent., and we have accounts of it from three independent primarv sources, Hippolytus, Origen, and Epiphanius. Hippolytus (Ref. ix. 12, p. 292) gives severalextracts, and statesthat it was brought to Rome by a certain Alcibiades, a native of Apameia in Syria, and indicates that the time was during, or immediately after, the episcopate of Callistus— i.e. c. a.d. 222. The great controversy then agitating the church of Rome was whether, and with what limitations, forgiveness might be bestowed on grievous post-baptismal sin. Hippolytus took the side of rigour and Callistus of leniency. This book of Elkesai announced a new method of forgiveness of sin, asserted to have been revealed in the third year of Trajan, by which any person, no matter of what sins he might have been guilty (some of the very grossest are expressly mentioned), might obtain for- giveness by submitting to a new baptism with the use of a certain formula of which we shall speak presently. A similar baptism was prescribed as a remedy for the bite of a mad dog or a serpent or for disease. Hippolytus takes credit for resisting the teaching of Alci- biades, and blames Callistus for having, by the laxity of his doctrine and practice con- cerning church discipline, pre-disposed men's minds to the easv methods of forgiveness expounded in this' book. Origen, in a frag- ment of a homily on the 82nd Psalm, pre- served by Eusebius {H. E. vi. 38) and assigned by Redepenning to a.d. 247, speaks of the teaching of the Helcesaites, some specimens of which he gives, as having then but lately troubled the churches, Epiphanius, though ELKESAI, ELKESAITES a later witness, professes to speak from per- sonal acquaintance with the book, and this is confirmed by his coincidence in a number of details with the other authorities. We may count the Pseudo-Clementine writings as a fourth source of information concerning the books of Elkesai. Hippolytus states that the book, according to its own account, had been obtained from Seres, in Parthia, by a righteous man named Elkesai ; that its contents had been revealed by an angel 96 miles high, accompanied by a female of corresponding size ; that the male was Son of God, and the female was called Holy Spirit. Epiphanius speaks of Elkesai as a false prophet. Pro- bably this Elkesai was an imaginary person- age, and we must reject the account of Epiphanius who assigns to him a certain part in the history of the Ebionite sects. The book is evidently of Jewish origin. Jerusalem is made the centre of the world's devotion, and the right rule of prayer is to turn not necessarily to the East, but towards Jerusalem. The names of the book are formed from Hebrew roots. A further mark of Aramaic origin is the representation of the Holy Spirit as a female. The book ordered compliance with ordinances of the Jewish law, but condemned the rite of sacrifice, so involving the rejection of parts of O.T., and of the eating of flesh. The superiority of the forgiveness of sinsby the washing of water over that by the fire of sacrifice is based on the superiority of water to fire (Hipp.ix. 14; Epiph. Haer. 19, p. 42 ; Clem. Rec. i. 48 ; Horn. xi. 26). It is taught that Christ is but a created being, but the greatest of creatures, being Lord over angels as well as over every other created thing. The name Great King is applied to Him (Epiph. Haer. 19, p. 41 ; Hipp, ix. 15 ; Horn. viii. 21). The formula of baptism runs. In the name of the Most High God and of His Son, the Great King ; but this Great King is not exclusively identified with Jesus of Nazareth, for He appeared in the world in successive incarnations, Adam being the first. The book agreed with the Clementines in complete rejection of St. Paul. It taught the lawfulness of denying the faith under per- secution (Eus. vi. 38 ; Epiph. 19), thus getting rid of the class of offences as to the forgiveness of which there was then most controversy. The statement of the book that the revela- tion was made in the 3rd year of Trajan is of no historic value. The work, however, which was the common groundwork of the Clement- ine Recognitions and Homilies [Clementine Literature] asserts that a new gospel was published (the Homilies add " secretly ") after the destruction of the Holy Place ; and it seems on other grounds probable that a number of Essenes, who had always held the Temple sacrifices in abomination, were brought to recognize Jesus as the true Pro])het when the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of its sacrifices fulfilled His prediction. At this time, then, probably arose those Ebionite sects which combined a certain reverence for our Lord's utterances, and an acknowledgment of Him as a divine prophet, with the retention of a host of Essene usages and doctrines. Hence the book of Elkesai may have been, as it professed to be, a considerable time in secret ELPIDIUS circulation among the Ebionite sects before Alcibiades brought it to Rome, though it is also possible that it may have been then of quite recent manufacture. It would seem to be long before the sect of Elkesaites disappeared. En-hedim, an Arabic author (c. a.d. 987) quoted by Chwolson (Die Sabier. i. 112, ii. 543), tells of a sect of Sabeans of the Desert who practised frequent religious washings, and who counted one El-Chasaiach as their founder. See Ritschl, Zcitschrift fur histor. Theol. (1853), pp.573 sqq., E^/x/Wnoigrftfr altkatholischenKirche,-pY'-2},A?'(\q-\ Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test, extra Canonem Receptum, iii. 153, where all the fragments of the book are col- lected; Uhlhorn, Horn. u. Ki'cog. dcs Clem. Rom. p. 392 ; and Lightfoot's Dissertation on the Essenes. "Hp. to Colossians."pp. iiSsqq. [r,.s.| Elpidlus (8), bp. of Laodicea in Syria at the close of the 4th cent, and opening of the 5th. He was originally a priest of Antioch under Meletius, whose confidence he enjoyed and with whom he resided {ffvaK■l^l'os) (Theod. H. E. V. 27). He shared in his master's suffer- ings under Valens, and accompanied by Fla- vian, attended him at the council of Con- stantinople A.D. 381 (Labbe, ii. 955)- We next find him as bishop at a council at Con- stantinople A.D. 394 (Labbe, ii. 1151), 'ind again at Constantinople at the close of a.d. 403, as a member of the council summoned by Chrysostom's enemies, and issuing in his deposition. Elpidius had been an intimate friend of Chrysostom at Antioch, and now- lent the weight of his age and well-deserved reputation to the defence of his old associate. When the validity of the canons of the council of .\ntioch, of suspected orthodoxy, used by Chrysostom's enemies as an instrument to secure their object, came into question before the emperor, Elpidius adroitly turned the tables on Acacius and his party by proposing that the advocates of the canons should de- clare themselves of the same faith with those who had promulgated them (Pallad. Dial. c. 9, p. 80). After Chrysostom's deposition and exile, Elpidius exerted himself strenuously in his behalf, dispatching letters to bishops and faithful laity in all parts of the world, exhort- ing them to remain true to Chrysostom, and encouraging them to bear up against perse- cution. Chrysostom wrote to Elpidius shortly after his arrival at Cucusus in 404, thanking him most warmly, and giving him information concerning the place of his banishment, his companions, and his health (Chrys. Ep. 114). Four other letters from Chrysostom to El- pidius are extant, all written from Cucusus (Epp. 25, 138, A.D. 405 ; Ep. 131, A.D. 406; Ep. 142, A.D. 407). Elpidius suffered for his fidelity to his friend in the persecution against the Joannite party under Atticus and Porphyry. In 406 he was deposed from his see, and was closely im- prisoned in his house for three years (Pallad. Dial. p. 195). In 414 Alexander, succeeding Porphyry as bp. of Antioch, restored Elpidius to his see in a manner which testified deep reverence for his character, and pope Innocent heard of it with extreme satisfaction (Baron. 408, §§ 35, 37 : Tillem. xi. 274)- [k.v.j Emllianus (8) {.Aemilianus, San Millan), solitary ; claimed by the Spanish Benedictines ENCRATITES 203 as joint patron of Sjiain with St. James (San- doval. Fundaciones de San Benito en Espana, Madrid, 1601). The onlv original smirre of information about liim is his Life by St. Braulio bp. of Saragossa, written abo»it 50 years after his death, on the testimony of four of his disciples. St. Braulio gives no dates and no names of parents, but the common tradi- tion is that St. Emilianus was born c. 473, and died c. 572. His birthplace and the site of his oratory have caused much controversy, Castile claiming him as born at Berceo, close to the existing monastery of San Millan, while Aragon urges V'erdeyo, near Calatayud. He began life as a shepherd, and while following his flock over the mountains had the dream which caused his conversion. He betook himself to St. F"elix, a neighbouring hermit, for instruction in Catholic belief and practice. He soon left Verdejo for the mountains, wandering N.VV. into the remotest parts between Burgos and Logrono. For 40 years he lived a hermit's life there, mostly on or near the peak of La CogoUa (according to the tradition of the monastery ; there is no mention of the Cogolla of St. Braulio's life), whence the after-name of the monastery which commemorated him — San Millan de la Co- golla. Didymus, bp. of Tarrazona (Turiasso), much against the saint's will, ordained him presbyter, and gave him the cure of Vergegitmi. Here his entire unworldliness drew upon him the hatred of his brother clergy. He was accused before Didymus of wasting the goods of the church, and deprived of his cure. Thus released from an unwelcome oflficc, Emilianus passed the rest of his life at an oratory near Vergegium. During this second retirement, although his personal asceticism increased rather than diminished, he allowed himself to be surrounded by a small circle of disciples, and became widely famed for charity and tenderness towards the poor. St. Braulio no where speaks of him as monachus, but only as presbyter. Tamayo de Salazar, Martyr. Hisp. vi. 109 ; Esp. Sagrada, 1. 2 ; Mabillon, saec. i. ; Yepes, Chron. Beuedictin. i. ann. 572 ; Sanchez, Poesias Cast. ant. al Siglo XV. vol. ii. [M.A.W.] Encratites ('¥.-yKpaT(h, Ircnaeus ; 'V.-^Kparv Tai, Clem. Alex. ; 'EyxpaTiTai, Hippol.), heretics who abstained from flesh, wine, and the mar- riage bed, believing them essentiallv impure. Persons who so abstained called themselves continent {iyKpareU, Iren. i. 28, p. 107) ; and the slightly modified form, Encratites, soon became a technical name to denote those whose asceticism was regarded as of a heretical character (Clem. Alex. Paed. ii. 2, p. 182 ; Strom, i. i-j, p. 3S9. vii. 17, P- 9oo ; Hippol. Ref. viii. 20, p. 276). We are not bound to suppose that all who were known by the name formed a single united sect. Irenaeus, e.g. (I.e.), savs that some of the earliest of them were followers f>f Saturninus and Marcion ; and it is reasonable to understand by this, not that they united in a single heretical body, but that, independently using the same mode of life and making the same boast of continence, they were known to the orthodox by the same name. The practice of such abstinence was older than Christianity. Not to speak of the Indian ascetics (to whom Clement of .Mexandria refers 294 ENCRATITES as predecessors of the Encratites), the ab- stinence of the Essenes, both in respect of food and of marriage, is notorious. Josephus's account of the Essenes is referred to by Por- phyry, who, like them, objected both to the use of animal food and to animal sacrifices. An interesting specimen of Pythagorean doctrine on this subject is his work irepi dtroxv^ T'2'v efi\pvx'^v, addressed to a friend who after trial of abstinence had wickedly relapsed into the use of flesh diet. He insists on the im- portance of keeping the soul, as far as possible, free from the bonds of matter, to which animal food tends to enslave it ; on the wisdom of avoiding everything over which evil demons have power, viz. all material things, and especially animal food ; and on the injustice of depriving of life for our pleasure animals akin to ourselves, having reason, emotions, sentiments, completely like ours. The account given by Hegesippus of James the Just (Eus. H. E. ii. 23) shews that right- eousness of the Essene type was clearly held in admiration in the Christian church'; and I. Tim. iv. 3-6 shews that teachers had already arisen who inculcated such abstinence as a duty. But it does not appear that they held the Gnostic doctrine, that matter is essentiallv evil, and its creation the work of a being in- ferior or hostile to the Supreme ; for the apostle's argument assumes as common ground that the things they rejected were creatures of the good God. We find from the Clemen- tines that the Ebionite sects which arose out of Essenism permitted marriage, but dis- allowed flesh meat and wine ; and that their doctrine respecting God's work of creation was quite orthodox. Hippolytus, too, who takes his account of the Encratites from his own acquaintance with them as a then existing sect, describes them as orthodox in doctrine concerning God and Christ; and differing from the church only in their manner of life. But the Gnostic teachers named by Irenaeus (I.e.) undoubtedly based their asceticism on the doctrine of the evil of matter, denying it to be the work of God, and consequently deemed it wrong, by generation, to bring new souls under the dominion of death, and expose them to the miseries of this hfe. A full discussion of their arguments occurs in the third book of Clement's Stromateis (though the name Encratites does not occur here), the principal writers whom he combats being Marcion, Tatian, already mentioned by Irenaeus as a leader of that sect, and Julius Cassianus. The Gospel according to the Egyptians con- tained alleged sayings of our Lord, which they used in support of their doctrines. Epipha- nius mentions that thev used other apocrvphal writings, such as the Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas. This controversy seems to have been activelv carried on in the last quarter of the 2nd cent. Eusebius [H. E. iv. 28) relates that Musanus, a writer early in that period, addressed a very effective dissuasive argument to certain brethren who had turned aside to that sect, then newly come into exist- ence ; and Theodoret {Haer. Fab. i. 21) men- tions that another writer of the same date, Apollinaris, wrote against the Severian En- cratites. Eusebius (iv. 29) derives this name ENCRATITES Severians from a certain Severus, who became an Encratite leader shortly after Tatian. He adds that these Severians received the O.T. and the Gospels, only putting their peculiar interpretations on them, but reviled Paul, rejecting his epistles and also Acts. This shews Ebionite features, and these Severians may have been of Ebionite origin, for great diversity probably existed between the teach- ing of persons classed together as Encratites. The Severians are described by Epiphanius {Haer. 45) with all the features of an Ophite sect ; but evidently from hearsay only, as he speaks of the sect as having almost died out ; and Lipsius (Q.-K. des Epiph. 215) gives good reason for thinking that he found no article on them in previous heretical treatises. Epiphanius describes {Haer. 48) the Encratites as widely spread, enumerating seven different countries where they were then to be found. Evidently, therefore, there were in these countries heretics leading an ascetic life, though it would be unsafe to assert an absolute identity in their teaching. We may con- clude Epiphanius mistaken in placing the Encratites after the Tatianites, as if they were a branch of the latter sect, the true relation being just the opposite. Some additional information about the Encratites is in the work of Macarius Magnes, pub. in Paris, 1876. He wrote c. 400, and enumerates (iii. 43, p. 151) some countries where the Encratites (whom he also called Apotactites and Eremites) were to be found. He was thus, probably, acquainted with the work of Epiphanius. But he adds that a defence of their doctrines in eight books had been pub- lished by a leader of theirs, Dositheus, a Cili- cian, in which he inveighed against marriage and the tasting of wine or partaking of flesh meat. In his account of the Samaritan Dositheus, Epiphaniusintroducessome Encra- tite features not attested by other authorities, and may have allowed his knowledge of the doctrine of the one Dositheus to affect his account of the other. We cannot give much weight to the account of Philaster, who (72) assigns the name and doctrine of the Encra- tites to the followers of Aerius ; and we may wholly disregard the inventive " Praedestin- atus " (who represents the Encratites as refuted by an Epiphanius, bp. of Ancyra), except to repeat his distinction between Encratite and Catholic abstainers — viz. the former asserted the food they rejected to be evil ; the latter owned it to be good, too good for them. Canons of St. Basil on En- cratite baptism (clxxxviii. can. i ; cxcix. can. 47) have given rise to some dispute, but it seems clear that St. Basil wished to reject the baptism of these Encratites, not because the orthodox formula of baptism was lacking, but because, regarding them as tainted with Marcionite error, he could not accept the verbal acknowledgment of the Father in the baptismal formula as atonement for the insult offered to the Creator, Whose work they looked on as evil. For a reference to these canons, as well as to the law of the Theodosian code (a.d. 381) against the Manicheans, who sheltered themselves under the name of Encratites, see Apostolici. Not many years I earlier the Encratites were an existing sect in ENNODIUS MAGNUS FELIX Galatia ; for Sozonuni (v. ii) reconls the siirterinfjs of Busiris, at that time one of tliom, in the persecution under luliau. [c.s.] Ennodius (1) Magnus Felix, bp. of Tavia, born at Aries (Ennod. Ef>. lib. vii. 8) c. 473 ; connected with Romans of distinction (ib. iv. 25). The invasion of the Visigoths, and tlie consequent loss of his patrimony, caused him to migrate at an early age to Milan, where he was educated in the house of an aunt. In 480. the year in which Theodoric invaded Italy, his aunt died, and he was saved from beggary by marriage (Eucharist, de Vit.). A dangerous sickness (£/>. viii. 2^) led him to serious thought and suggested the compt>sition of his Eucharisticon. in which he reviews with penitence his past life. He was subsequently ordained deacon by Epiphanius bp. of Pavia, whose exhortations determined him to re- nounce his marriage, with the consent of his wife, who retired into a convent. In 494 he accompanied Epiphanius {Ennod. Vit. Epi- phan. 234 a) on a mission to Gundebaud, king of the Burgundians, to procure the ransom of certain Ligurian prisoners. Upon the death of Epiphanius two years later he visited Rome, and gained reputation by composing an apology for pope Symmachus and the synod which acquitted him, as well as by a public panegyric in honour of Theodoric. The former of these was inserted in the Acta Con- ciliorum ; the latter is generally included in collections of the Panegvrici Veteres. Under the next pope, Hormisdas, he succeeded Maxi- mus II. in the see of Pavia, and was sent in 515, and again in 517, on an embassy to the emperor Anastasius to oppose the spread of the Eutychian heresy. Both embassies were unsuccessful. Anastasius, failing to corrupt or bend the bishop, had him placed on board an unseaworthy vessel. Ennodius, however, arrived safely in his diocese, which he continued to administer for four years. He died at the age of 48, and was buried in the church of St. Michael at Pavia, July 17, 521. His writings exempUfy throughout a pro- fane tendency of thought and expression which Christian writers in Gaul were slow to abandon. Many of his letters suit the pen of a heathen rhetorician rather than of a Chris- tian bishop. His illustrations arc commonly drawn from (ireek mythology. He speaks of divine grace as descending " de Superis," and sets the Fates side by side with Jesus Christ. His style is turgid, involved, and affected. He seems to shrink from making himself intel- ligible lest he should be thought commonplace, and the result is unattractive. His works are reprinted with notes in Migne's Patr. vol. Ixiii. For his Life see Sirmond's ed. ; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr. et eccles. x. 569 ; for a just estimate of his literary merits. Ampere, Hixi. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. vii. [e.m.y.] Ephraim (4) the Syrian, usually called Ephrem Syrus, from the Syriac form of his name .\phrem. was born in Mesopotamia, for he describes his home as lying between the Tigris and the Euphrates {Opp- Syr. i. 23), probably at Kisibis. As Edcssa became the chief scene of his labours, he is generally styled the Edessene. It is comparatively certain that he died, as stated by St. Jerome, EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 2\K: " in oxtroine old age." t. a.h. 37 i, .ukI there- fore was probably born c. a.d. 3()N.» The story of iiis parents seeking to tiain him in idolatry is at variance with his own statements. In his Confession (Opp. dr. i. 129) he says, " When I sinned, I was alre.idy a partaker of grace : I hafl been earlv taught about Christ i)y my parcMits ; they who had begotten me after the flesh had trained nie in the fear of the l.onl. I had seen my neigh- bours living jiiously ; I had heard of many sulTering hiv Christ. My own parents were confessors before the Judge: yea, I am the kindred of martyrs." Or again, in his Syriac works (Opp. Syr. ii. 499) : " I was b.irn in the way of truth ; and though my boyhootl under- stood not the greatness of the benefit, I knew it when trial came." In 337 Constantine the Great died, and Sa- por, king of Persia, seized the opportunity of invading Mesopotamia. He commenced the siege of Nisibis m 338, and in 70 days had brought it to the verge of surrender. But Ephrem induced the aged bishop James to mount the walls and pray for the Divine suc- cour. Shortly afterwards swarms of mos- quitoes and horse-flies made the horses and elephants unmanageable, anil Sajior withdrew his forces lest he should bring upon himself heavier chastisement. Before the end of 338 St. James died, when Ephrem probably left Nisibis, and after a short stay at Amid, to which city his mother is said to have belonged, travelled towards Edessa, the chief seat both of Christianity and of learning in Mesopotamia. Knowing no handicraft and having no means of living, Ephrem there entered the service of a bath-keeper, but devoted his spare time to teaching and reasoning with the natives. While so engaged one day his words were overheard by an aged monk who had descended from his hermitage into the city, and being rebuked by him for still mingling with the world, Ephrem withdrew into a cavern among the mountains, adopted the monastic dress, and commenced a life of ex- treme asceticism, giving himself up to study and to writing. His works were widely diffused, and disciples gathered round him, of whom many rose to eminence as teachers, and several of whom he commemorates in his Testament. The growing fame of Basil, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, inspired Ephrem with a strong desire to visit one who had been shewn him in a dream as a column of fire reaching from earth to heaven. His journey to Caesarea is vouched for by Basil's brother Gregory, and by Ephrem him- self in his Encomium on Basil, t Accompanied bv an interpreter, he arrived on the eve of the Epiphanv, and spent the night in the streets. The next morning they took their place in an obscure corner of the church, and Ejihrem groaned in spirit as he saw Basil seated in a magnificent pulpit, arraved in shining gar- ments, with a mitre sparkling with jewels on his head, and surrounded by a multitude of clergy adorned with almost equal splendour. " Alas ! " he said to his interpreter, " I fear • St. Jerome's expression must not be forced too much. t On the authenticity of this piece, which exists only in Greek, sec Prolcg. to Kphr. Opp. Cr. II. Ii. 296 EPHRAIM THE SYMAN our labour is in vain. For if we, who have given up the world, have advanced so little in holiness, what spiritual gifts can we expect to find in one surrounded by so great pomp and glory ? " But when Basil began to preach, it seemed to Ephrem as though the Holy Ghost, in shape like a dove, sat upon his shoulder, and suggested to him the words. From time to time the people murmured their applause, and Ephrem twice repeated sent- ences which had fallen from the preacher's lips. Upon this Basil sent his archdeacon to invite him into his presence, which, offended at the saint's ragged attire, he did reluctantly, and only after he had been twice bidden to summon him. After embracing one another, with many florid compliments, Basil asked him how it was that, knowing no Greek, he had twice cheered the sermon, and repeated sentences of it to the multitude ? And Ephrem answered, " It was not I who praised and repeated, but the Holy Ghost by my mouth." Under pressure from St. Basil, Ephrem consented to be ordained deacon. When Basil had laid his hands upon him, being suddenly endowed with the knowledge of Syriac, he said to Ephrem in that tongue, " O Lord, bid him arise," upon which Ephrem answered in Greek, " Save me, and raise me up, O God, by Thy grace." Doubtless Ephrem, travelling about with an educated companion, and having been an eminent teacher at Edessa, a place famous for its schools, had picked up some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, some evidence of which we shall later gather from his own writings. Two instances are given in the Acta of the influence of Ephrem's teaching on St. Basil. It had been usual at Caesarea in the Doxology to say, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, to the Holy Ghost ; but after Ephrem's visit Basil inserted and before the third clause. Whereat the people in church murmured, and Basil defended himself by saying that his Syrian visitor had taught him that the inser- tion of the conjunction was necessary for the more clear manifestation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The other instance is as follows : In Gen. i. 2 the LXX renders " The Spirit of God was borne upon the surface of the water." So St. Basil had understood it, but the Peshitta-SATriac version renders it, " The Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the waters," which Ephrem explained of the Spirit resting upon them with a warm and fostering influence as of a hen sitting upon her nest, and so endowing them with the power of bringing forth the moving creature that hath life. St. Basil gives two reasons for trusting his Syrian friend. First, that Ephrem led a very ascetic life ; " for in pro- portion as a man abandons the love of the world, so does he excel in that perfection which rises above the world." Secondly, that " Ephrem is an acute thinker, and has a thorough knowledge of the divine philosophy," i.e. of the general sense of Holy Scripture. There is nothing to suggest that any appeal was made to the Hebrew, as Benedict sug- gests, though, in fact, the S\Tiac and Hebrew words are the same ; and, curiously enough, in his own exposition {0pp. Syr. i. 8), Ephrem says that the words simply mean that a wind EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN was in motion ; for the waters were instinct, he argues, with no creative energy till the fourth day. From Caesarea, Ephrem was recalled to Edessa by the news that the city was assailed by numerous heresies. On his journey he rescued the people of Samosata from the influence of false teaching by a miracle, and on reaching home sought to counteract heresy by teaching orthodoxy in hymns. The fatalistic tenets of Bardesan, a Gnostic who flourished at the end of the 2nd cent., had been embodied in 150 psalms, a number fixed upon in irreverent imitation of the Psalter of David. His son Honorius had set these hymns to music, and so sweet were both the words and tunes that they were known by heart even by children and sung to the guitar. To combat their influence Ephrem composed numerous hymns himself, and trained young women, who were aspir- ants after the conventual life, to sing them in chorus. These hymns have no rhyme, nor do they scan, but are simply arranged in parallel lines, containing each, as a rule, seven syllables. Their poetry consists in their ele- vated sentiments and richness of metaphor, but their regular form was an aid to the memory, and rendered them capable of being set to music. The subjects of these hymns were the Life of our Lord, including His Nativity, Baptism, Fasting, and chief incidents of his ministry. His Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. He wrote also on Repent- ance, on the Dead, and on Martyrs. Upon the Festivals of our Lord, we read, on the first days of the week, and on the days of martyrs, Ephrem gathered round him his choirs, and the whole city flocked to hear them, and the poems of Bardesan lost their influence. While thus occupied Basil endeavoured to persuade him to visit Caesarea again, intending to make him a bishop, but the saint even feigned madness rather than consent. Meanwhile he wrote upon the devastation committed by the Persians, the Maccabean martyrs, the Life of Constantine, and so on, until the accession of Julian rudely distiurbed his studies. On his expedition against the Persians Julian had advanced as far as Haran, a town so famous for obstinate adherence to heathenism that Haranite in Syriac is equivalent to pagan, and there determined to hold a great sacrifice, to which he commanded the Edessenes to send chosen citizens to do him homage, and to grace by their presence his restoration of the old cult. But this met with such fierce opposition on the part of the people, and such an eager desire for martyrdom, that the embassy withdrew in haste, and Julian threatened Edessa with bitter vengeance upon his return. Ephrem, who had exerted him- self to the utmost in this crisis, resumed his hermit life, quitting the mountains only for controversy with heretics or for charitable services. As a controversialist, Gregory of Nyssa relates of him with great approbation an act contrary to modern views of morality : The " insane and irrational ApoUinaris " had written a treatise in two volumes containing much that was contrary to Scripture. Tliese he had given in charge of a lady at Edessa, from whom Ephrem borrowed them, pretend- ing that he was a disciple of ApoUinaris and EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN was preparing to defend his views. Before returning them he glued the leaves together, and then challenged the heretic to a public disputation. Apollinaris accepted the chal- lenge so far as to consent to read from these hooks what he had written, declining more on account of his great age ; but he found the leaves so firmly fastened together that he could not open them, and withdrew, deeply mortified by his opponent's unworthy victory. Far more creditable is the last act recorded of Ephrem. While withdrawn in his rocky cavern he heard that Edessa had been visited by a severe famine. He came down to the city, and induced the richer citizens- to bring out their secret stores of food, on con- dition, however, that Ephrem should himself take charge of them. He managed them with such skill, pr\idenee, and honesty that they sufficed for the Edessencs and for numerous strangers also. The next year was one of great plenty, and Ephrem resumed his solitary life amidst the prayers and gratitude of all classes. His death followed shortly afterwards, fully foreseen by himself, as his Testament proves. In this hvmn, written in heptasyllabic metre, after playing upon his own name and pro- fessing his faith, he commands his disciples not to bury him beneath the altar, nor in a church, nor amongst the martyrs, but in the common burying-ground of strangers, in his gown and cowl, with no spices nor waxlights, but with their prayers. It ends with an account of Lamprotata, daughter of the prefect of Edessa, who earnestly soiight permission to be buried in due time at Ephrem's feet. The works of Ephrem were most volumin- ous. Sozomen {Ecd. Hist. iii. i6) says that he wrote three million lines, but a large pro- portion has perished. What remains is said by Bellarmine to be " pious rather than learned." The great edition of his works is that in six vols, fol., pub. at Rome in 1732-1743, under the editorship of the Maronite Peter Mobarek, better known by the Latin transla- tion of his surname Benedict, and completed after his death by J. S. E. Asseman, titular bp. of Apamaea, who is answerable, however, for the translation of only vol. vi. pp. 425-687. The first three vols, consist of sermons and discourses in Greek with a Latin translation. Many of these are probably genuine, for Sozo- men says that already in his lifetime works of Ephrem were translated into Greek, and as both Chrysostom and Jerome were acquainted with them, and Gregory of Nyssa quotes his Testament, it is certain that several of his writings were very soon thus made available for general use. But some pieces must be re- ceived with caution, and one {0pp. Gr. ii. 356 seq.) is almost certainly not genuine. The other three vols, contain his Syriac works, the most important being his Exposi- tion of O.T. Of the commentary upon the (iospels few traces remain, but Dionysius Barsalibi, bp. of Amid, says that Ephrem had followed the order of the Diatcssaron of Tatian. As copies of Dionysius's own com- mentary exist in the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, and elsewhere, some por- tions of Ephrem's work, as well as some idea of Tatian's arrangement, might be obtained EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN 2I»7 from it. A cnlUction of Armenian trans- lations of Ephrem's works, pub. in 4 vols. 8vo by the Merhitarists at Venice in 1836, includes one (in vol. iii.) of his commentary on St. Paul's epistles. Following upon the commentary arc 12 metrical expositions of portions of Scripture, such as the creation of man in God's image, the temptation of Eve, the translation of Enoch, etc., occupying pp. 316-310. Some <if these, esi^ecially that upon the mission of Jonah and the repentance of the Ninevites, have been translated into English by the Kev. H. Burgess (l.ond. 1856), the author also of Select Metrical Hymns and Hotnilics of Ephraem Synis (two vols. Lond. 1853). These expositions are followed by 13 metrical homi- lies upon the Nativity, pp. 3(16-436. Next come 56 homilies against false doctrines (pp. 437-560) ; chiefly against Bardesan, Marcion, and Manes. In vol. iii., after the Acta S. Ephracmt (i.-lxiii.), the first place is held by 87 homilies on the Faith, in answer to freethinkers. The last seven of these are called sermons upon the Pearl, which Ephrem takes as an emblem of the Christian faith, working out the idea with great beauty, though with that difluseness which is the common fault of his writings. Three very long controversial homilies (pp. 164-208) follow, repeating many of the same thoughts. A sermon against the Jews, preached on Palm Sundav (pp. 209-224), has been trans- lated bvthe Rev. J. B. Morris into English.* Then follow 85 hvmns (pp. 225-359) to be used at the burial of bishops, presbyters, deacons, monks, princes, rich men, strangers, matrons, women, youths, children, in time of plague, and for general use. These are trans, into Eng. in Burgess's Select Metrical Hymns. Next come four short homilies on Free-will (PP- 359-366), partly following the order of the Svriac alphabet ; then 76 homilies on Repent- ance (pp. 367-561). Next, 12 sermons on the Paradise of Eden (pp. 562-598) ; and finally, 18 sermons on miscellaneous subjects (pp. 599-687). Considerable activity has been displaved in editing other Svriac works of Ephrem— <>.?. bv Dr. J. J. Overbeck, in S. Ephraemi Svri. Rabulae, Balaci, ahorumque Opera Selecta (Oxf., Clarendon Press, 1865). Almost more important is " S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena, ed. bv Dr. G. Bickell, Lipsiae, 1866." Of these hymns, the first 21 treat of the long struggle between Sapor and the Romans for the possession of Nisibis, from its siege in 350 to just before its miserable surrender bv Jovian in 363. The next 5 hvmns have perished ; in Nos. 26-30 the scene is Edessa, and the subject the schism there m the bishopric of Barses, A.n. 361-370. Bickell thinks these were writt. 11 c. 370, towards the close of Ejihrem's life. Hymns 31-34 treat of Haran and the man v troubles its bishop, Vitus, endured from the pagans there. The other hvnuis (35-77) treat of the Overthrow of Death and Satan bv our Lord, of the Resurrection of the Body in refutation of Bardesan and Manes, • Morris (Select H'ofAs 0/ Ephr. Syrus. Oxf. 1847) translated i ;? rhvthms on the Nativity, this nRnmst the Jews, the 80 rhythms on the I-aith, 7 on the Pearl, and 3 long controversial homiliw. 298 EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN of Dialogues between Death, Satan, and Man, and of Hymns upon the Resurrection, not of a controversial but of a consolatory character. From the directions for singing given with each hymn, and the existence in most of them of a response or refrain noted in the MS. in red, the collection was evidently for liturgical use. Bertheau edited a Syriac homily of St. Ephrem from a MS. at Rome (Gottingen, 1837), and another from the Museum Borghianum was pub. by Zingerle and Mosinger in Monumenta $yriaca (Innsbruck, 1869), vol. i. pp. 4-12 ; in vol. ii. (pub. 1878) numerous fragments from MSS. at Rome are found, pp. 33-51. In most Chrestomathies specimens of Ephrem's writ- ings are given, and that by Hahn and Sieffert consists entirely of them. As a commentator Ephrem holds a middle place between the literal interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the allegorical method of Origen. As Basil and Gregory were both strongly influenced by Origen, Ephrem's independence is the more remark- able. In commenting on Is. xxv. 7 (vol. ii. 61), he gives a statement of his method as follows : " Though the prophet is speaking of Sennacherib he has a covert reference to Satan. For the spiritual sense is usually the same as the ecclesiastical. The words there- fore of the prophets concerning those things which have happened or were about to happen to the Jews are mystically to be referred to the future propagation of the church, and the providence of God and His judgments upon the just and upon evil-doers." Benedict, followed by Lengerke, instead of ecclesiastical translates historical ; what Ephrem really says is that there is first the literal interpre- tation, and secondly a spiritual one, which generally refers to the church. The question has often been asked whether he really possessed any competent acquaint- ance with Hebrew and Greek. He had not had a learned education, but nevertheless displays considerable knowledge, including some of physical science, and in his discourses on fate, freewill, etc., he manifests, without parade, a sufficient mastery of Greek philo- sophy to refute the Gnostic errors prevalent in the East. We need not be surprised, therefore, that Sozomen says (H. E. iii. 16) that Basil wondered at his learning. The chief places which suggest some know- ledge of Hebrew are as follow. Commenting on the creation of whales in Gen. i. 21 (Opp. Syr. i. 18), he says that they and leviathan inhabit the waters, behemoth the land ; quoting not only Job xl. 15, but Ps. 1. 10, which he translates, " And behemoth upon a thousand hills." Ephrem's rendering is perfectly possible, and must have been ob- tained from some Jewish source. On I. Sam. iii. ir he rightly says that both the Syr. and Heb. names for cymbal resemble the verb so translated. In I. Sam. xxi. 7 he correctly explains the word " detained " by noting that the Heb. word fieasar signified pressed or bidden awav. In II. Kings iii. 4 he rightlv says that the Syr. nokdo is really a Heb. word, and means " head shepherd." These points might have been picked up from conversation with others, and there is a EPHRAIM THE SYRIAN marked absence of acquaintance with the language in his commentary as a whole. Of Greek he also shews but a very moderate knowledge, though a more real acquaintance with it than with Hebrew. His own words in Opp. Syr. ii. 317 are to the point: " Not from the rivulet of my own thought have I opened these things for thy drinking, for I am poor and destitute alike of meat and drink; but, like a bottle from the sea or drops from a caldron, I have begged these things from just men, who were lords of the fountain." An example will shew him much more at home in Greek than in Hebrew. In I. Kings xiv. 3 lOpp. Syr. i. 480) the Syriac version has, instead of cracknels, a rare word signifying sweetmeats. Ephrem notices that the Greek has grapes, and gives this as an explanation of the Syriac ; but makes no reference to the Hebrew word, which certainly signifies some kind of cakes, such as might rightly be called sweetmeats, but certainly is no kind of fruit. From his intense devotion and piety, his hymns were largely adopted into the services of the church, and prayers also composed by him are found in most Oriental liturgies. His personal character deserves high praise. He was an extreme ascetic, passing his whole life in poverty, raggedness, humility, and gentle- ness. His gentleness has been denied on account of the fierce language sometimes used in controversial writings. We may, however, take his words in his Testament as literally true (Opp. Gr. ii. 396) : " Throughout my whole life, neither by night nor day, have I reviled any one, nor striven with any one ; but in their assemblies I have disputed with those who denv the faith. For if a wolf is entering the fold, and the dog goes not out and barks, the master beats the dog. But a wise man hates no one, or if he hates at all, he hates only a fool." "His words reach the heart, for they treat powerfully of human joys and cares ; they depict the struggles and storms of life, and sometimes its calm rest. He knows how to awaken terror and alarm, as he sets forth be- fore the sinner his punishment, God's right- eous judgment, his destined condemnation ; he knows, too, how to build up and comfort, where he proclaims the hopes of the faithful and the bliss of eternal happiness. His words ring in mild, soft tones when he paints the happy rest of the pious, the peace of soul enjoyed by those who cleave to the Christian faith ; they thunder and rage like a storm wind when he scourges heretics, or chastises pride and folly. Ephraim was an orator possessed of spirit and taste, and his poetical gifts were exactly those calculated to give weight and influence to his authority as a teacher among his countrymen " (Roediger). As such they venerated him, giving him especially the title of Malphono, the teacher; but one of his greatest services to the church was the marvellous variety and richness which he gave to its public worship. Ephraim's quotations from the Gospels have been col- lected by F. C. Burkitt {Texts and Studies, vol. vii. No. 2, Camb. Univ. Press). His Com- mentary on the Diatessaron was trans, into Latin by J. B. Aucher, and pub. in this form by G. Mosinger (Venice, 1876). See EPHRAIM also J. H. Hill, A Dis.u-rtdlioit oti the Gosfyell Commentary of S. Ef^hraim (Edinburgh. 1896). The Fragments of S. Ephraim luu e been ed. bv I. K. Harris for the (Cainb. Univ. Press). [R.P.S.] Ephraim (6) (Ephrem, Ephraemius, or, as Theophaiies gives the name, Euphraimius), bp. of Autioch and patriarch, a.d. 527-545. The title, 6 "A/ui5ios. given him bvTheophancs, indicates that he was a native of Amida in Armenia. He devoted the early part of his life to civil employments, and became Count of the East in the reign of Justin I. The city of Antioch having been nearly destroyed in A.D. 525 and 526 by earthquake and conflag- ration, Ephraim was sent by Justin as com- missioner to relieve the sufferers and restore the city. The high qualities manifested in the fulfilment of these duties gained the affection and respect of the people of Antioch, who unanimously chose hiiu bishop on the death of Euphrasius (Evagr. H. E. iv. 5, 6). His consecration is placed in a.d. 357. As bishop he exhibited an unwavering firmness against the heretical tendencies of his day. Theophanes says that he shewed " a divine zeal against schismatics" {Chronogr. p. 118). Moschus tells a story of his encounter near Hierapolis with one of the pillar ascetics, a follower of Severus and the Acephali (Prat. Spiritual, c. 36). Ephraim examined synod- ically the tenets of Syncleticus, metropolitan of Tarsus, who was suspected of Eutychian leanings but was acquitted (Phot. Cod. 228). In 537, at the bidding of Justinian, he repaired with Hypatius of Ephesus and Peter of Jeru- salem to (iaza to hold a council in the matter of Paul the patriarch of Alexandria, who had been banished to that city and there deposed. In obedience to the emperor Justinian, Ephraim held a synod at Antioch, which re- pudiated the doctrines of Origen as heretical (Liberat. c. 23, apud Labbe, Concil. v. yyy seq. ; Baronius, Annul. 537, 538). He was the author of a large number of theological treatises directed against Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, and the Acephali, and in defence of the decrees of Chalcedon. In 546, yielding to severe pressure, he subscribed the edict Jus- tinian had put forth condemning " the three chapters" (Facund. Pro Defens. Trium Capit. iv. 4). He did not survive the disgrace of this concession, and died in 547. His copious theological works have almost entirely perished, and we have little know- ledge of them save through Ph<itius (Biblioth. Cod. 228, 229), who speaks of having read three of the volumes, but gives particulars of two only. Some few fragments of his defence of the council of Chalcedon, and of the third book against Severus, and other works, are given by Mai (Bibl. Nov. iv. 63, vii. 204) and are printed by Migne (Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. par. 2, pp. 2099 seq.). Theophanes, Chronogr. ad ann. 519, p. 118 d ; Moschus, Prat. Spiritual. cc. 36, 37; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 507; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c. 38 ; Le Quien, Oriens Christ, ii. 733). [e-v.] Epiphanes, a Gnostic writer about the middle 'if the 2nd cent., or earlier. Clement of Alexandria (Strom, iii. p. 511) gives the following account of him. He was the son of Carpocrates, by a mother named Alexandria, EPIPHANES 209 a native of Cephallenia. He died at the ago of 17, and at Same, a city of Cephallenia, a liandsome temple and other buildings were raised in his memory; and at the new moon the Cephallenians were wont t<> cele- brate his apotheosis as a god by sacrifices, libations, banquets, and the singing of hymns. He had been instructed by his father in the ordinary circle of arts and sciences, and in the Platonic philosophy. He was the founder of the " Monadic Gnosis," and from him flowed the heresy of those afterwards known as Car- pocratians. He was the author of a work on Justice, which he made to consist in equality. He taught that, God having given His benefits to all alike and in common, human laws are censurable which instituted the distinction of mcum and tuum, and which secure to one as his peculiar possession that to which all have an equal right. This connuunistic doctrine he extended to the sexual relations. What- ever may have been the origin of the jihrase " Monadic Gnosis," the doctrine here described seems the direct opposite of Dualism. In- stead of accounting for the existence of evil as the work of a hostile principle, this theory would represent moral evil as a mere fiction of human laws, perversely instituted in op- position to the will of the Creator. There is a passage in Irenaeu= (I. xi. 3, p. 54) which, it has been contended, gives us another specimen of the teaching of Epiphanes. In giving an account of the doctrines of some followers of Valentinus, after stating the theory of Secundus, he goes on to mention the description which another " illustrious teacher of theirs " (clarus magister) gives of the origin of the primary Tetrad. In this the first prin- ciple is stated to be one existing before all things, surpassing all thought and speech, which the author calls Oneliness (ixovdr-ni). With this Monotes co-existed a power which he calls Unity (ivdrTjs). This Monotes and Henotes constituting absolute unity (t6 ty ovcrai) emitted (though not in any proper sense of that word) a principle the object of thought onlv, which reason calls Monad. And with this Monad co-existed a power consubstan- tial with it, which the author calls Unit (rd h). From this Tetrad came all the rest of the Aeons. Pearson conjectured (see Dodwell, Dissert, in Iren. iv. §§ 25) that the " clarus magister" of the old Latin translation re))re- sented lin(t>o.vr)% 5iS(i<rKa\os, and that this Epiphanes was a proper name, or at least that there was a play upon words referring to that name. The doctrine of the extract, then, which seems an attempt to reconcile the theory of a Tetrad with strong belief in the unity of the First Principle, might well be a part of the Monadic Gnosis, of which Ejiiphanes was said to be the author. Pearson's restoration of the (Ireek has since been pretty nearly verified by the recovery <4 the passage as reproduced by Hippolvtus (Ref. vi. 38). where it runs &X\o^ bi Ti% (Tri(t>avr]f St5daKa\of ai'Twi-. Here the word in question is plainly an ad- jective, and Tertullian so understood it. who translates (adv. Valent. 37) " insignioris apud eos magistri." On the other hand, Epiphanius understood the passage of Epiphanes. On examining what he tells of that heretic (Haer. 300 EPIPHANIUS 32), it is plain that Epiphanius has been follow- ' ing Irenaeus until, on coming to the words iiTKpai'rjs diddaKaXos, he goes off to Clement of Alexandria, and puts in what he there found about Epiphanes. But Neander has made it almost certain that the person to whom Iren- aeus really refers is Marcus (17). He points out that these four names for the members of the primary Tetrad, Monotes, Henotes, Monas, and Hen, which the " illustrious teacher " (c. 11) speaks of as names of his own giving, occur again with a Kad' & irpodp-qTai in a pas- sage cited from Marcus by name (Iren. i. 15, P- 74)- [G.S.] Epiphanius (1), bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, zealous champion of orthodox faith and monastic piety, was born at Besanduke, a village near Eleutheropolis in Palestine. As in 392, twelve years before his death, he was an aged man, we mav conjecturallv date his birth between 310 and 320. Much of his early lifetime was spent with the monks of Egypt, among whom he not only acquired a burning zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy and the forms of ascetic life then coming into favour, but also first came in contact with various kinds of heretics. When twenty years old he re- turned home and built a monastery near Besanduke, of which he undertook the direc- tion. He was ordained presbyter by Eutv- chius, then bp. of Eleutheropolis. With St. Hilarion, the founder of Palestinian mon- asticism, Epiphanius early stood in intimate relation, and at a time when the great majority of Oriental bishops favoured Arian or semi- Arian views, he adhered with unshaken fidelity to the Nicene faith, and its persecuted champions, Eusebius of Vercelli and Paulinus of Antioch, whom Constantius had banished from their sees. In 367 he was elected bp. of Constantia, the ancient Salamis, in Cyprus, where for 36 years he discharged the episcopal office with the zeal he had shewn in his monas- tery. The whole island was soon covered with monastic institutions. With the monks of Palestine, and especially of his own monastery at Eleutheropolis, he continued as bishop to hold uninterrupted communication. People consulted him on every important question. Some years after his elevation to the episco- pate, he addressed a letter to the faithful in Arabia, in defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, afterwards incorporated in his great work. Against all Heresies {Haer. Ixxviii.). Soon after, several presbyters of Suedra in Pamphylia invoked his assistance in their controversy with Arians and Macedonians. Similar applications came from other quarters ; e.g. by an Egyptian Christian named Hypa- tius, and by a presbyter, Conops, apparently a Pisidian, who, with his co-presbyters, sought instruction in a long series of disputed doc- trines. This was the origin of his AyKvpuiros (Ancoratus) in 374, an exposition of the faith, which, anchor-like, might fix the mind when tossed by the waves of heresy. A similar occasion produced his great heresiologicalwork, written in the years 374-377, the so-called Ylavapi.ov, on which his fame chiefly rests. He wrote this at the request of Acacius and Paulus, two presbyters and heads of monas- teries in Coele-SvTia, and in it attacks the Gnostic sects of the 2nd and 3rd cents., EPIPHANIUS and the Arians, semi-Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Origenists, of his own time. About 376 he was taking an active part in the Apollinarian controversies. Vitalis, a pres- byter of Antioch, had been consecrated bishop by Apollinaris himself ; whereupon Epipha- nius undertook a journey to Antioch to recall Vitalis from his error and reconcile him to the orthodox bp. Paulinus. His efforts, how- ever, proved unsuccessful. Though not him- self present at the oecumenical council of Constantinople, 381, which ensured the triumph of the Nicene doctrine in the Oriental churches, his shorter confession of faith, which is found at the end of his Ancoratus (c. 120) and seems to have been the baptismal creed of the church of Salamis, agrees almost word for word with the Constantinopolitan formula. He took no part in the synod held at Con- stantinople in 382 ; but towards the end of that year we find him associated with St. Jerome, Paulinus of Antioch, and the three legates of that synod, at a council held under bp. Damasus at Rome, which appears to have dealt with the Meletian and Apollinarian con- troversies. At Rome he was domiciled in the house of the elder Paula, who, under the spiritual guidance of St. J erome, had dedicated her ample fortune to the poor and sick, and Epiphanius seems to have strengthened her in a resolution to forsake home and children for an ascetic life at a great distance from Rome. Early in 383, when the bishops were returning to their sees, Paula went on pilgrim- age to the Holy Land. She stayed with Epiphanius in Salamis about 10 days. Some- what later St. Jerome also visited Epiphanius, on his way to Bethlehem, bringing a train of monks to Cyprus, to salute " the father of almost the whole episcopate, the last relic of ancient piety." Thenceforward we find Epiphanius in almost unbroken intercourse with Jerome, in alliance with whom he began his Origenistic controversies. He had indeed already, in his Ancoratus (c. 54) and still more in his Panarion, attacked Origen as the ancestor of the Arian heresy. On hearing that Origenism had appeared in Palestine, he hastened thither, in old age (a.d. 394), to crush it. His appearance sufficed to drive the ci-devant Origenist Jerome into the bitterest enmity with his former friends, who refused to repudiate their old attachment. Epiphanius, received with all honours by the bp. of Jerusalem, preached in the most violent manner in the church of the Resurrection. Bp. John, after expressing his disapproval by gestures only for a time, sent his archdeacon to beg him to abstain from speaking further on these topics. The sermon being over, Epiphanius, as he walked by the side of John to the church of the Holy Cross, was pressed upon by the people, as Jerome tells us, from all sides with tokens of veneration. Bp. John, irritated by the sermon, evidently preached against himself, took the next opportunity to preach against certain simple and uneducated persons who represented God to themselves in human form and corporeity. Whereupon Epiphanius rose, and expressing his full con- currence with this, declared that it was quite as necessary to repudiate the heresies of Origen as of the Anthropomorphists. He then EPIPHANIUS hastened to join Jerome at Bothlehoni, and required the monks there to renounce at once all church fellowship with the bp. of Jeru- salem ; but they entreated him to return to John. Epiphanius went back to Jerusalem the same evening, but immediately regretting the step, and without so much as speaking to the bishop, left Jerusalem again at midnight for his old monastery of Eleutiieropolis. From tlure he continued to press the monks of Bethlehem to renounce church fellowship with the Origenist bp. John, and finally availed himself of the occasion provided by a depu- tation from Bethlehem, to ordain as jiresbyter Jerome's brother Paulinianus, and impose him on the community, as one who should administer the sacraments among them. This intrusion into the rights of another bishop Epiphanius endeavoured subsequently to e-xcuse in a letter to John. His excuses were far from satisfying the bishop, who reported to other bishops this violation of the canons, and threatened the monks of Bethlehem with ecclesiastical penalties so long as they should recognize Paulinianus or persist in separation. Epiphanius and Jerome, continuing to insist on J ohn publicly purging himself of Origenistic heresy, proceeded to invoke the mediation of Theophilus bp. of Alexandria. Thcophilus's legate, a presbyter named Isidore, openly sided with John, and Theophilus himself, who at that time was reckoned an Origenist, desig- nated Epiphanius, in a letter to the bp. of Rome, a heretic and schismatic. According to another account, Theophilus accused him, as well as John, of Anthropo- morphism. Epiphanius certainly received in this controversy little or no support from other bishops. He returned to his diocese, followed by Paulinianus. In this w^ay the chief source of dispute between John and the monks of Jerusalem was removed, and Jerome pro- visionally renewed communion with the bp. of Jerusalem, as well as with his old friend Rufinus. A few years after the close of this first Origenist controversy, Epiphanius found himself involved in much more unpleasant transactions. Among the monks of Egypt the controversy between Anthroponiorphists and Origenists continued to rage. Theophilus of Alexandria having in 398 directed a paschal epistle against the Anthroponiorphists, a wild army of monks from the wilderness of Scete rushed into Alexandria, and so frightened the bishop that he thought his life depended on immediate concession. From that time Theophilus appears as a strong opponent of Origenism. In his paschal epistle of 399 he opposes the heresies of Origeu in the most violent manner. [Tiieophii-us (9)] Great joy was expressed by Ejuiihanius. " Know, my beloved son," he writes to Jer- ome, " that -Amalek is destroyed to the very root ; on the hill of Rephidim has been erected the banner of the cross. God has strength- ened the hands of His servant Theophilus as once He did those of Moses." Epiphanius was soon drawn yet more deeply into these transactions. The bishops began on all sides to speak against the heresies of Origen. Theophilus having involved himself in a separate conflict of his own with Chrysostom at Constantinople and finding his cause there EPIPHANIUS 301 opposed by the "Long Brotlurs" fmrn Egypt [Chkysostom], made strenuous efforts to gain the assistance of I'pijihanius against the ac tion of those Origenistic monks, calliuR upon him to pass judgment upon Origen and his heresy by means of a Cypriote syniKi. Epiphanius assembled a synod,' prohibited the works of Origen. and called on Chrysostom to do the same. He was then moved by Theo- philus to a|)i)ear personally, as an ancient combatant of heresy, at Constantinople. In the winter of 402 Epiphanius set sail, con- vinced that only his appearance was required to destroy the last remains of the Origenistic poison. Accompanied by several of his cli rgy, he landed near Constantiufiple. Chrysustom sent his clergy to give him honourable recep- tion at the gates of the city, with a friendly invitation to take up his abode in the episcopal residence. This was rudely refused by the passionate old man, who declared himself unable to hold church connnunion with Chry- sostom until he had expelled the " Loiig Brothers," and had subscribed a condemna- tion of the writings of Origen. This Chrysos- tom gently declined, with a reference to the synod about to be holden ; whereupon Eiiiphanius at once assembled the many bishops already gathered at Constantinople, and required them all to subscribe the decrees of his own provincial council against the writings of Origen. Some consented willingly, others refused. Whereupon the opponents of Chrysostom urged Epiphanius to come forward at the service in the church of the Apostles, and openly preach against the Origenists and their protector Chrysostom. Chrysostom warned Epiphanius to abstain, and the latter may by this time have begun to suspect that he was but a tool in the hands of others. On his way to the church he turned back, and soon after, at a meeting with the " Long Brothers," confessed that he had passed judgment upon them on hearsay only, and, growing weary of the miserable business, determined to return home, but died on board ship in the spring of 403. His story shews him as an lu)nest, but credu- lous and narrow-minded, zealot for church orthodoxy. His frequentjourneysandex tensive reading enabled him to collect a large store of historical information, and this he used with much ingenuity in defending the church orthodoxy of his time. But he exercised really very small influence on dogmatic theo- logy, and his theological polemics were more distinguished by pious zeal than by penetrat- ing intelligence. His refutation of the doc- trine of Origen is astoundingly superficial, a few meagre utterances detached from th»'ir context being all he gives us, and yet he boasted of having read 6,000 of Origen's works, a much larger number, as Rufinus remarks, than Origen had written. Those of his time regarded Epiphanius as a saint ; wherever he appeared, he was sur- rounded by admiring disciples, and crowds waited for hours to hear him preach. His biography, written in the name of I'olybius, ] an alleged companion of the saint (printed in the edd. of Petavius and Dindorf), is little ' more than a collection of legends. I Among his writings the most important are the Ancoratus and Panarion. The Ancoralus 302 EPIPHANIUS comprises in 121 sections a prolix exposition, f uUof repetitions, of thedoctrinesof the Trinity, the true humanity of Christ and the resurrec- tion of the body, with a constant polemic against Origen and the heresiarchs of his own time, especially Arians, Sabellians, Pneuma- tomachi, and Dimoirites (ApoUinarians). The whole concludes with the Nicene creed in a twofold form with various additions. This work is chiefly of interest as a witness to the orthodoxy of its time. The Panarion is of much greater importance. It deals in three books with 80 heresies. The catalogue is essentially that already given in his Ancoratus (cc. II and 12). He begins with heresies existing at the time of our Lord's birth — Barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism, Samaritanism. The last three are sub- divided ; Hellenism and Samaritanism into four each, Judaism into seven. Then follow 60 heresies after the birth of Christ, from the Simonians to the Massalians, including some which, as Epiphanius acknowledges, were rather acts of schism than heresies. The extra- ordinary division of pre-Christian heresies is founded on a passage he often quotes (Col. iii. 11). Barbarism lasted from Adam to Noah, Scythianism from Noah to the migra- tion of Peleg and Reu to Scythia. Hellenism, he thinks, sprang up under Serug, understand- ing thereby idolatry proper. Of the various Greek schools of philosophy, which he regards as particular heresies belonging to Hellenism and offers a complete list of them in the con- clusion of his work, he shews himself but poorly informed. His communications con- cerning the various Jewish sects are for the most part worthless ; and what he says of the Nasarenes and Ossenes (Haer. xviii. and xix.) is derived purely from respectable but mis- understood narratives concerning the Ebion- ites and Elkesaites. His accounts of the Jewish-Christian and Gnostic sects of the 2nd and 3rd cents, mingle valuable traditions with misunderstandings and fancies of his own. His pious zeal to excel all previous heresiologers by completing the list of heretics led him into strange misunderstandings, adventurous combinations, and arbitrary assertions. He often frames long narratives out of very meagre hints. The strangest phenomena are combined with a total absence of criticism, and cognate matters are arbitrar- ily separated. Yet he often copies his author- ities with slavish dependence, and so enables critical commentators to collect a rich abund- ance of genuine traditions from his works. For the section from Dositheus to Noetus {Haer. xiii.-lvii.) he used a writing now lost, but of very great importance, which is also used by a contemporary writer, Philastrius of Brixia — viz. the work of Hippolytus, Against all Heresies. Besides this he used the well- known work of Irenaeus of Lyons. These narratives are often pieced together in very mechanical fashion, resulting in frequent re- petitions and contradictory statements. Besides these two, he had access to many original works of heretics themselves and numerous trustworthy oral traditions. Very valuable are his extracts (Haer. xxxi.) from an old Valentinian work, the Ep. of Ptolemaeus to Flora, which is quoted entire (xxxiii.), and the EPIPHANIUS copious extracts from Marcion's gospel (xlii.). Against the Montanists (xlviii.) he uses an anonymous controversial work of great anti- quity, from which Eusebius also (H. E. v. 17) gives large extracts ; in his article on the Alogi (Haer. li.) he probably uses the work of Porphyry against the Christians. In the sec- tion against Origen (xliv.) copious extracts are introduced from Methodius, irepl d^ao-rdo-ewj. Several notices of heresies existing in Epi- phanius's own time are derived from his own observation. The last main division of the Panarion (Haer. Ixv.-lxxx.), where he carefully notes the different opinions of Arians, semi- Arians, Photinians, Marcellians, Pneumatomachi, Aerians, Aetians, Apollinar- ists, or Dimoirites, is one of the most important contemporary authorities for the Trinitarian and Christological controversies since the beginning of the 4th cent. Although a fana- tical partisan, and therefore not always to be relied on, Epiphanius speaks almost every- where from his own knowledge and enhances the value of his work by the literal transcrip- tion of important documents. Of far inferior value are his attempted refutations, which are further marred by fanatical abuse, mis- representation of opinions, and attacks on character. He takes particular pleasure in describing real or alleged licentious excesses on the part of heretics ; his refutations proper contain sometimes really successful argument, but are generally weak and unhappy. The work concludes with the section irtpl Tr/trTewr, a glorifying description of the Holy Catholic Church, its faith, its manners, and its ordin- ances, of great and manifold significance for the history of the church at that time. Each section is preceded by a short summary. An 'ApaKe(f>a\aiioffis, probably the work of Epi- phanius himself (preceded by a short extract from an epistle of Epiphanius to Acacius and Paulus, and followed by an extract from the section setting forth the Catholic faith), almost literally repeats the contents of these sum- maries. This 'AvaKf<pa\aLw(m, a work used by St. Augustine and St. John Damascene, apparently circulated as an independent writing, as did bk. x. of the Philosophumena and the summary added to Hippolytus's ffvvrayfxa against all heresies and preserved in a Latin translation in the Praescriptiones of Tertullian. Of another more copious epitome- midway between the brevity of the '\vaK€(pa, Xaiuaii and the details of the Panarion, a large fragment was pub. by Dindorf from a Paris MS., No. 854, in his ed. of Epiphanius, vol. i. PP- 339-369. from a transcript made by Fr. Duebners (cf. also the various readings given by Dindorf from a Cod. Cryptoferrar. vol. iii. p. 2, praef. pp. iv.-xii.). The best ed., that of W. Dindorf (Leipz. 1859-1862, 5 vols. sm. 8vo), contains all the genuine writings (the Ancoratus, Anacepha- laeosis, Panarion, and deMensuriset Ponderibus in the Gk. text, de Gemmis in all three text forms, and the two epistles in Jerome's trans.), and also the spurious homilies, the epitome, and the Vita Epiphanii of Polybius. Of works and treatises concerning Epipha- nius may be mentioned the book attributed to the abbe Gervais, L'Hisloire et la vie de St. I EPIPHANIUS Epiphane (Paris, 1738) ; TilloiiKnit, Mitnoires, t. X. pp. 484 scq., 822 seq. ; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. cd. Harl. viii. pp. 261 seq. ; Schrockh, Christlichc Kirchengeschichte, t. x. pp. 3 iT. ; liberharcl. Die Betheiligintg ties Epiphunius an dem Streilc iibe-r Origenes (Trier, 1850) ; I.ip- sius, Zur Qtiellenkritik des Epiphanios (Wien, 1805). [R.A.I..] Eplphanlus (17), i6th bp., 5th patriarch of Constantinople, a.d. 520-535, succeeding I John 11. I The eastern empire was now rising to great splemiour through the victories of its generals, Beiisarius and Narses. Idolatry was univer- sally suppressed, heathen books were burnt, pagan images destroyed, the professors of the old religion imprisoned and flogged. At Constantinople the zeal of Justinian for a church policy was shewn during the patri- archate of Epiphanius by laws {e.g. in 528 and 529) regulating episcopal electit'ns and duties. These enactments, and the passivity of Epi- phanius and his clergy, are remarkable proofs of the entire absence as yet of any claims such as the clergy later asserted for exclusively clerical legislation for the spirituality. The ftrst conspicuous office of Epiphanius was the charge of the catechumens at Con- stantinople. In 519, the year before his election, he was sent with bp. John and count Licinius to Macedonia to receive the docu- ments " libellos," or subscriptions of those who wished reunion with the Catholic church, at the request of the apocrisiarius of Dorotheus bp. of Thessalonica. On Feb. 25, 520, he was elected bishop by the emperor Justin, with the consent of bishops, monks, and people. He is described in the letter of the synod of Constantinople to pope Hormisdas as "holding the right faith, and maintaining a fatherly care for orphans" (Patr. Lat. Ixiii. 483). He accepted the conditions of peace between East and West concluded by his predecessor, the patriarch John, with pope Hormisdas ; ratifying them at a council at Constantinople, where he accepted also the decrees of Chalcedon. Dioscorus, agent of Hormisdas at Constantinople, writes of his fair promises, but adds, " What he can fulfil we don't know. He has not yet asked us to communion" (ib. 482). Four letters remain of Epiphanius to Hormisdas, telling him of his election, sending him his creed, and de- claring that he condemned all those whose name the pope had forbidden to be recited in the diptychs. Epijihanius adopts the symbf)l of Nicaea, the decrees of Ephesus, Constanti- nople, and Chalcedon, and the letters of pope Leo in defence of the faith. His second letter was accompanied by a chalice of gold sur- rounded with precious stones, a patina of gold, a chalice of silver, and two veils of silk, which he presented to the Roman church. In order to make the peace general, he advises the pope not to be too rigorous in exacting the extrusion of the names of former bishops from diptychs. His excuse for the bishops of Pontus, Asia, and the East is composed in very beautiful language. The answers of Hormisdas are given in the Acts of the Council of Constanti- nople held under Mennas. He trusts to the prudence and experience of Epiphanius, and recommends lenity towards the returning. EPIPHANIUS SCHOLASTICUS 303 severity to the ol),liirat<-. Epii'h.mius is to complete the reunion himself. (I. abbe, ConciL >^'- I53-). 1537. 1545. I54<>, 1555. fd. 1671 ; Patr. Lat. Ixiii. 407, 507, 523.) The severe measures by which I ustin was establishing the supremacy of the Catholics in the East were arousing theodoric. the Arian master of Italy, to retaliation in tin- West. Pope John I., the successor of Hormisdas, becanu- thoroujihly alarmed ; and in 525, at the demand of Theodoric, proceeded to Constantinople to obtain the revocation of the edict against the Arians and get their churches restored to them (Marcellin. Chron. ann. 525 ; Labbe, Conctl. iv. 1600). (ireat honour was paid to pope John in the eastern capital. The people went out twelve miles to receive him, bearing cereiuonial tapers and crosses. The enii)eror Justin prostrated himself before him, and wished to be crowned by his hand. The patri- arch Epiphanius invited him to perform Mass; but the pope, mindful of the traditional policy of encroachment, refused to do so until they had offered him the first seat. With high solemnity he said the office in Latin on Easter Day, communicating with all the bishops of the East except Timothy of Alex- andria, the declared eneiuy of Chalcedon (Baron. 525, 8, 10; Pagi, ix. 349, 351 ; AA. SS. May 27 ; Schrockh, xvi. 102, xviii. 214- 216 ; Gibbon, iii. 473 ; Milman, Lat. Christ. i. 302). In 531 the dispute between Rome and Constantinople was re\ived by the appeal of Stephen, metropolitan of Larissa, to pope Boniface, against the sentence of Epiphanius. Stephen was eventually deposed, notwith- standing his appeal. On June 5, 535, Epi- phanius died, after an episcopate of 14 years and 3 months (Theojih. a.d. 529 in Pair. Gk. cviii. 477). All that is known of him is to his advantage. Besides his letters to Hormisdas. we have the sentence of his council against Severus and Peter (Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 783-786). Forty-five canons are attributed to him (Assemani, Bibl. Orient. 619). [w.m.s.] Epiphanius (39) SohoIastiOUS, an ecclesiastic c. A.D. 510, of whom we know scarcely any- thing except tiiat he was the friend of Cassio- DORUS, the celebrated head of the Monaslertum Vivariense. He api)arently bore the name Scholasticus, not so much because of any devotion to literature or theology, but in the sense that word frequently had in the middle ages, meaning a chaplain, amanuensis, or general assistant of any dignitary of the church (Du Cange. Glossariutn, s.v.). In this relationship, in all probability. Epiphanius stood to his distinguished master, by whom he was summf)ned to take a part in urging his monks to classical and sacred studies, and especially to the transcription of nianusc ripts. To Epiphanius was assigned the translation into Latin of the histories of Socrates. S020- men, and Theodoret. Cassiodorus revised the work, corrected faults of style, abridged it, and arranged it into one continuous history of the church. He then published it for the use of the clergy. The book attained a high reputation. It was known as the Tripartite History; and. along with the translation of Eusebius by Rufinus, it became the manual of church history for the clergy of the West for 304 ERACLIUS many centuries. The book is generally pub. as if Cassiodorus were its author, under the title of Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae Epitome. Epiphanius translated several additional works, such as the commentaries of Didymus upon the Proverbs of Solomon and the seven Catholic Epistles, those of Epiphanius bp. of Cyprus upon the Canticles, and perhaps others, of which one survives, and may be found in Labbe(Co«c.t. v.), namely, his Co(/M.E«cydtcw5, a work to which he was also urged by Cassio- dorus. It is a collection of letters addressed by different synods to the emperor Leo in de- fence of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon against Timotheus Aelurus. [w.m.] Eraclius (1) {Hemclius, in the older edi- tions Eradius), deacon of the church of Hippo A.D. 425, had inherited considerable property, part of which he spent in raising a " memoria " of the martyr [Stephen] ; the rest he offered as a gift to the church. St. Augustine, fearing that the absolute acceptance of such a gift from so young a man might be the subject of future reproval or regret, caused Eraclius first to invest the money in land, which might be given back to him should any unforeseen reason for restitution arise. On becoming one of Augustine's clergy, Eraclius made his poverty complete by setting free a few slaves whom he had retained (Aug. Servi. 356, vol. V. 1387). In 426 .\ugustine was summoned to Milevis, to obviate some threatened dis- sensions. Severus, the late bishop, had designated his successor in his lifetime, but had made his choice known to his clergy only. This caused discontent, and the interference of Augustine was judged necessary to secure the unanimous acceptance of the bishop so chosen. Augustine, then in his 72nd year, was thus reminded of the expedience of securing his own church from similar trouble at his death, and he made choice of Eraclius, then apparently the junior presbyter of the church, to be his coadjutor and designate successor (D. C. A. i. 228). Only, though he had himself been ordained bishop in the life- time of his predecessor, Valerius, he now held that this had been an unconscious violation of the Nicene canon against having two bishops in the same church, and therefore resolved that Eraclius, while discharging all the secular duties of the see, should remain a presbyter until his own death. To obviate future dispute, he assembled his people (Sept. 26, 426) to obtain their consent to the arrange- ment, having the notaries of the church in attendance to draw up regular " gesta " of the proceedings, which those present were asked to subscribe [Ep. 213, vol. ii. p. 788). The capture of Hippo by the Vandals pre- vented the arrangements from taking effect, and Augustine does not appear to have had any successor in his see. Eraclius, in 427, held a private discussion with Maximinus, the Arian bishop, which led to a public disputation between Maximinus and Augustine (Coll. cum Max. viii. 650). Two sermons by Eraclius are preserved, the first of which, preached in Augustine's presence, is almost all taken up with compliments and apologies (v. 1523 and 72, Append, p. 131). [g.s.] Ethelbert (1) I. (properly Aethelberht or Aethelbriht; Bede, Aedilberct), king of Kent, ETHELBERT [I. son of Irminric, and great-grandson of Oeric, surnamed Oisc, the son of Hengist, suc- ceeded ^to the kingdom of the Kentishmen as the heir of the " Aescingas " in 560 (the date, 565, in the Chronicle is inconsistent with Bede's reckoning given below). Some years after his accession he provoked a conflict with Ceawhn, the West Saxon king, and Cutha, his brother, was defeated at Wimbledon with the loss of two ealdormen and driven back into Kent (Sax. Chron. a. 658). Ethelbert had already married Bertha or Berhte, daughter of Charibert, king of Paris, on the understanding that she should be free to practise " the rites of her own Christian religion," under a bishop named Liudhard, chosen by her parents (Bede, i. 25). Ethelbert faithfully observed this compact, but shewed no curiosity about his wife's creed. She and her episcopal chaplain worshipped undisturbed in the old Roman- British church of St. Martin, on a hill E. of Ethelbert's city of Canterbury (Bede, i. 26). Ethelbert succeeded, on the death of Ceawlin in 593. to that i>re-eminence among the Saxon and Anglican kings usually described as the Bretwaldadom (see Freeman, Norm. Conq. i. 542). Four years later, in the spring of 597, he was brought face to face with a band of Christian missionaries, headed by Augustine, whom pope Gregory the Great had sent to " bring him the best of all messages, which would ensure to all who received it eternal life and an endless kingdom with the true and living God " (Bede, i. 29). Ethelbert had sent word to the foreigners to remain in the Isle of Thanet, where they had landed, and " supplied them with all necessaries until he should see what to do with them." He soon came into the isle, and sitting down with his " gesiths " or attendant thanes in the open air (for he feared the effect of spells under a roof) listened attentively to the speech of Augustine. [Aug- GUSTiNUS.] Then he spoke in some such words as Bede has rendered immortal. " Your words and your promises are fair ; but seeing they are new and uncertain, I cannot give in to them, and leave the rites which I, with the whole race of the Angles, have so long observed. But since you are strangers who have come from afar, and, as I think I have observed, have desired to make us share in what you beUeve to be true and thoroughly good, we do not mean to hurt you, but rather shall take care to receive you with kindly hospitality, and to afford you what you need for your support ; nor do we forbid you to win over to your faith, by preaching, as many as 3'ou can." He gave them a dwelling in Canter- bury, N.W. of the present cathedral precinct. They began to make converts, as Bede tells us, through the charm of their preaching, and the still more powerful influence of consistent lives. Shortly afterwards Ethelbert expressed his belief in the truth of those promises which he had described as unheard-of, and was baptized ; the time, according to Canterbury tradition, was June i, the Whitsun-eve of 597, the place, undoubtedly, was St. Martin's. The king proved one of the truest and noblest of royal converts. He built a new palace at Regulbium or Reculver, abandoning his old abode to Augustine, now consecrated as archbishop, and adding the gift of various ETHERIA "needful possessions" (Hcde, i. 26). He assisted Ausustineinconvertinfjanold Koinan- built church into " the cathedral church of the Holy Saviour," and also built, " after exhortation," a monastery outside the E. wall of the city, dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul, but afterwards known as " St Aupustine's." He received by the hands of Mellitus, who, with others, joined the mission in 601, a letter of congratulation and exhortation from pope Gregory ; and lent his aid as Bretwalda to arrangements for a conference, near the Bristol Channel, between his archbishop and some bishops of the ancient British church. Among the many " good services which he rendered to his people," Bede reckons those " dooms " or decrees which, " after the example of the Romans, he framed with the consent of his wise men," and among which he first of all set down what satisfaction {bot) was to be made by any one who robbed the church, tlic bishop, or the clergy. For he was " minded to afford his protection to those whose doc- trine he had received " (Bede, ii. 5). For these doonis, 90 in number, extant in the Textus Roffensis, see Th(jrpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, p. i. Ethelbert's nephew Sabert, the son of his sister Ricula, held the dependent kingship of the East Saxons, and embraced the faith under the persuasion of his uncle and overlord, who built a church of St. Paul in London for Mellitus as bishop of that kingdom. He also built at " Hrof's Castle," i.e. Rochester, a church of St. Andrew for a bishop named Justus ; " gave many gifts to both prelates, and added lands and possessions for the use of those who were with them." It was doubt- less in Ethelbert's reign and under his influence that Redwald, king of the East Angles, while visiting Kent, received baptism, although, as his after-conduct shewed, his convictions were not deep (Bede, ii. 19). After Bertha's death, Ethelbert married a young wife whose name is unknown. His last days must have been saddened by anxiety as to the future reign of his son Eadbald, who refused to receive the faith of Christ. Ethelbert died, after what Bede describes as a most glorious reign of 56 years, on Feb. 24, a.d. 616, and was buried beside his first wife in the " porticus " or transept of St. Martin, within the church of SS. Peter and Paul, leaving behind a memory held in grateful reverence as that of the first English Christian king (Hardy, Cat. Mat. i. 176, 214-216, 259). Cf. The Mission of St. Augustine, according to the Original Documents, by A. J. Mason, D.D. (Camb. 1897). [w.b.] Etheria. [Sylvia.] Eucherius (1), St., bp. of Lyons, prob. born late in 4th cent. ; except perhaps St. Irenaeus the most distinguished occupant of that see. Authorities. — Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. lib. iii. 8. ; St. Isidorus, de Ecclesiasticis Scriptori- bus, cap. XV. i Gennadius, de Illustribus Eccle- siae Scriptoribus, cap. Ixiii. ; Cassianus, some of whose Collationes (xi.-xvii.) are addressed to Eucherius and Honoratus. [Cassianus (It).] Born in a high social position, he married Galla, a lady of his own station. Their two sons, Salonius and Veranius, received an ecclesiastical education in the monastery of Lerinum under St. Honoratus and Salvanius ; EUCHERIUS 30.1 and both appear, from the title of the com- mentary on Kings, falsely ascribed to Eucher- ius, to have become bishops during the lifctiuie of their father. The civic duties of Eucherius (whatever they were) appear to have been discharged con- scientiously and vigoroiLsly. Sidonius Apol- linaris is loud in the [iraise of his friend as a layman, and compares him {Ep. viii.) to the Bruti and Torquati of old. But the world, then in a very turbulent and unsettled con- dition, palled upon Eucherius, and while still in the vigour of life he sought a retreat from its cares and temptations on the island of Leriniun, the smaller of the two isles now known as the l.erins, oO Antibes ; and sub- sequently on the larger one of Lero, now called Sainte Marguerite. Here he pursued an ascetic life of study and worship, devoting himself also to the education of his children. During this period he composed the two un- doubtedly genuine works which we possess. Intercourse, both personal and by corre- spondence, with eminent ecclesiastics tended to make widely known his deserved reputation for sanctity and for a varied and considerable learning, and c. 434 the church of Lyons unanimously, unsought, elected him bishop. He brought to the discharge of this office the influence and experience acquired in lay government, as well as the spiritual training and erudition won in his retirenit iit. He was bishop some 16 years, the remainder of his life, and Claudianus Mamertus speaks of him as " magnorum sui saeculi pontificum longe maximus." He was succeeded by his son Veranius, while Geneva became the see of his other son Salonius. Works. — I. Epistola, seu Libellus, de laude Eretni. This short treatise, addressed to St. Hilary of Aries, is assigned, with proba- bility, to A.D. 428. The Collationes of Cassian, composed at the request of Eucherius, had given so vivid a picture of the hermits of the Thebaid as to call forth this epistle. The author calls attention to the blessings recorded in Holy Scripture as connected with lonely spots {e.g. the law was givt-n in the wilderness and the chosen race fed with bread from heaven) and to the sanction given to retire- ment bv the examples of Moses, Elijah, St. John Baptist, and our Lord Himself. In re- ference to this last he exclaims, " O laus magna deserti, ut diabolus, qui vicerat in Paradiso, in Eremo vinceretur " ; and notices the withdrawal of Christ to solitude for prayer, and the fact of the Transfiguration taking place on a mountain. 2. Epistola Paraenetica ad Valenanum cog- natum. " De contemptu tnundi et saeculans philosophiae." Its date is probably c. a.I). 432. Eucherius evidently desires his highly- placed and wealthv kinsman to follow him m retirement from the world. Valerian is re- minded of the many saintly doctors of the church who had once occupied an exalted secular position ; e.g. Clement of Rome, Gregorv Thaumaturgus, (.regory Nazianzen, Basil. Paulinus of Nola, Ambrose, etc. The Latin of this epistle won the approbation of Erasmus, who published an edition, accom- panied by scholia, at Basle, a.d. 1520. 3. Liber jormularum spintalts inlelltgenttat 20 306 EUCHITE3 [al. de formd spiritalis intellectus] ad Veranium filium. This is a defence of the lavvfuhiess of the allegorical sense of Scripture, pleading the testimony of Scripture itself ; e.g. Ps. Ixxvii. [Ixxviii. A. v.] 2, and the use of such phrases as " the hand of God," " the eyes of the I.ord," etc., which cannot be taken ad literam. It displays a very extensive acquaintance with the Bible and anticipates many favourite usages of mediaeval mystics and hymn- writers ; such as the term anagoge (avayoo'^i]) for the application of Scripture to the heavenly Jerusalem, identification of the digitus Dei with the Holy Spirit (St. Luke xi. 20, with St. Matt. xii. 28) and the like. 4. Instruciionum Libri Duo ad Saloninm filium. Of this treatise, the former book dis- cusses difficulties in the O. and N.T., such as the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity ; the permission of polygamy to the patriarchs ; the existence of evil, which (with many other divines) he makes simply the privation of good, etc. The second book deals with Hebrew names, but does not display a very profound acquaintance with Hebrew. Eucherius quotes with much re- spect the version of the O.T. by Aquila. There are also Homilies by him, and some other works are ascribed to him of doubtful authenticity. Editions. — There is no complete edition of the writings of Eucherius. For this art. the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (Lugduni), a.d. 1677 (t. vi. p. 822), has been used. Cf. A. Gouillond, 5^ Eucher. Lerins et V Eglise de Lyon au V' Siecle (Lyons, 1881). [j.g.c] Euohites. Doctrines and Practices. — At the beginning of the last quarter of the 4th cent, or a little earlier, fanatics made their appear- ance in Syria, whose manner of life was said to have been introduced from Mesopotamia, and who were known by the SjTriac name of Messalians or Massalians (V^^'O), praying people. X^y oravit is found in the Chaldee (Dan. vi. n ; Ezra vi. 10). Epiphanius, whose account of them is the last article (80) of his work on heresies, translates the name (ei)x<5M«i'oi), but in the next generation the Messalians had obtained a technical name in Greek also, and were known as Euchites {evxnTai or evxirai). They professed to give themselves entirely to prayer, refusing to work and living by begging ; thus differing from the Christian monks, who supported themselves by their labour. They were of both sexes, went about together, and in summer weather slept in the streets pro- miscuously, as persons who had renounced the world and had no possession or habitation of their own. Epiphanius dates the commence- ment of this sect from the reign of Constantius {d. A.D. 361). Theodoret (H. E. iv. 11 ; Haer. Fab. iv. 10 ; Rel. Hist, iii., Vit. Marcian. vol. iii. 1 146) dates its beginning a few years later under Valentinian. There seems no founda- tion for the charge that the Euchites were derived from the Manichees. Epiphanius con- nects them with heathen devotees whom he calls Euphemites, and who it seems had also been known as Messalians. The Euchites appear never to have made any entrance into EUCHITES the West, but in the East, though probably at no time very numerous, they are heard of for centuries ; and when the Bogomiles of the i2th cent, appeared, the name Messalian still survived, and the new heretics were accounted descendants of the ancient sect. In the time of Epiphanius the Messalians scarcely were a sect, having no settled system nor recognized leader ; and Epiphanius im- putes to them no error of doctrine, but only criticizes their manner of life. Two accounts of Euchite doctrine are apparently of greater antiquity than the authors who preserve them. One is given by Timotheus (de Receptione Haer. in Cotelier's Mon. Ecc. Gr. iii. 400). This writer was a presbyter of Constantinople in the 6th cent. His coincidences with Theodoret are too numerous to be well explained except on the supposition of common sources. These sources probably were the Acts of the councils of Antioch and Side, which contained sum- maries of Messalian doctrine. Theodoret may possibly also have used a Messalian book called Asceticus, the doctrines of which, Photius tells us, had been exposed and anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 431. Probably that book furnished the " heads of the impious doctrine of the Mes- salians taken from their own book " given by Joannes Damascenus {de Haer. ap. Cotelier, Mott. Ecc. Gr. i. 302, and 0pp. Le Quien, i. 95), but which would seem also (see Wolf, Hist. Bogomil. p. 11) to have been separately pre- served in two MSS. at Leipzig {.Acta Erudit- orum, 1696, p. 299 ; 1699, p. 157 ; and in the Bodleian, Cod. Barocc. 185). They held that in consequence of Adam's sin every one had from his birth a demon, substantially united to his soul, which incited him to sin, and which baptism was ineffectual to expel. Dealing only with past sin, baptism did but shear off the surface growth, and did not touch the root of the evil. The true remedy was intense, concentrated prayer, continued till it produced a state from which all affections and volitions were banished {airdtleia). In this the soul felt as sensible a consciousness of union with its heavenly bridegroom as an earthly bride in the embraces of her husband. Then the demon went out in the spittle or in the mucus of the nose, or was seen to depart in smoke or in the form of a serpent, and there was in like manner sensible evidence of the entrance of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine {Haer. 57), who had some source of information independent of Epiphanius, ascribes to them a fancy that the Holy Spirit might be seen to enter in the appearance of innocuous fire, and the demon to pass out of the man's mouth in the form of a sow with her farrow. Possibly language intended by them metaphorically was misunderstood ; for they described the soul of him who had not Christ in him as the abode of serpents and venomous beasts. They further thought that he who had arrived at the passionless state could see the Holy Trinity with his bodily eyes ; that the three hypos- tases of the Trinity coalesced into one, which united itself with worthy souls. This doctrine no doubt furnishes the key to the account given by Epiphanius of the effacement of the sense of distinct personality in members of this EUCHITES sect. Theyheldthepossibilityiu the passionless state of a perfection ill which sin was impossible; such a man needed neither instruction for his soul nor fasting to discipline his body, for delicate food and luxurious living could stir no evil desire in him. It is probably a mis- conception to suppose that they claimed that he could be guilty of licentious conduct with- out falling from perfection. The soul of him who was " spiritual," as they boasted them- selves to be, was changed into the divine nature ; he could see things invisible to ordinary men ; and so some of them used to dance by way of trampling on the demons which they saw, a practice from which they were called Choreutac. The things they saw in their dreams they took for realities, and boasted that they then acquired a knowledge of future events, could see the condition of departed souls, and could read men's hearts. Both sexes might partake of this divine il- lumination, and they had female teachers, whom they honoured more than the clergy. The use of the Lord's Supper they regarded as a thing indifferent : it could neither benefit the worthy nor harm the unworthy receiver ; but there was no reason for separating from the church by refusing it. They disparaged all the ordinary forms of Christian charity as compared with the merit of bestowing alms on one of their members. They had specula- tions about our Lord's humanity, of which the most intelligible is that the body which He assumed had been full of demons wlji.ch it was necessary for Him to expel. History. — The first whom we read of as a leader of the sect is .\delphius ; hence " Adel- phians " was one of their many names. He was a layman of Mesopotamia. Epiphanius speaks of them in his time as having no recog- nized leader. Theodoret tells that Flavian bp. of Antioch sent monks to bring the Messalian teachers at Edessa to Antioch. They denied their doctrines, and charged their accusers with calumny. Flavian then used an artifice afterwards repeated by Alexius Comnenus in the case of the Bogomiles. He atTected to take their part, treated the aged Adelphius with great respect, and led him to believe that he would find in an aged bishop one able to understand and sympathize with views which younger men rejected only from want of experience. Adelphius, having been thus enticed into a full disclosure of his senti- ments, was rebuked in the words addressed by Daniel to the wicked elder (Susaima, 52) and punished as onvicted out of his own mouth. He and his party were beaten, excommunicat- ed, and banished, and were not allowed, as they wished, the alternative of recantation, no confidence being felt in their sincerity, especially as they were found communicating in friendly terms with Messaliaiis whom they bad anathematized. Probably it was on this occasion that Flavian held a synod against them (Photius, 52), attended by three other bishops (Bizus of Seleucia, a Mesopotamian bishop, Alaruthas, described by Pliotius as bp. of the Supharenians, and Samus) and by about 30 clergy. With Adelphius there were condemned two persons named Sabas, one of them a monk and a eunuch, Eustathius of Edessa, Dadoes, Hermas, Symeon, and others. EUCHITES :ju7 Flavian informed the bishops of Edessa and neighbourhood what had been done, and received an approving reply. The Messalians banished from Syria went to Pamphylia, and there n\et new antagt)nists. They were also condemned by a council of 25 bishops held at Side and presided over by Ampiiii.ociiii's of Iconium, which sent a synodical letter to Flavian, informing him of their proceedings. In their Acts .Vmphilnchius gave a full state- ment of the Messalian tenets expresseil in their own words. Photius reprtsents the synod at Antioch just mentioneil as having been called in conse(]uence of the synodical letter from Side, but this is more than doubtful, though Theodoret also, in his Eccl. Hist., mentions the proceedings in Pamphylia before mentioning those which resulted in the banishment of the Messalians to Pamphylia. We cannot fix the year of these proceedings, but c. 390 will probably not be far wrong. Measures were taken against the Messalians in Armenia also. Letoius bp. of Melitene obtained information from Flavian as to the i>roceedings in Antioch. Finding some mr>nasteries in his diocese in- fected by this heresy, he set fire to them, and hunted the wohes from his sheepfold. A less zealous Armenian bishop was rebuked by Flavian for favour shewn to these heretics. In Pamphylia the contest lasted for several years. The orthodox leaders were another Amphilochius, bp. of Side, and Verinianus bp. of Perga, who were stimulated by energetic letters from Atticus bp. of Constantinople, and later, in a.d. 426, from the synod held for the consecration of Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus, in which Theodotus of Antioch and a bishop named Neon are mentioned by Photius as taking active parts. Messalianism had probably at that time given some trouble in Constantinople itself. Nilus (de Vol. Paup. ad Magnam, 21) couples with Adelphius of Mesopotamia, Alexander, who polluted Con- stantinople with like teaching, and against whom he contends that their idleness, instead of aiding devotion, gave scope to evil thoughts and passions and was inimical to the true spirit of praver. Tillemont has conjectured that this was the .Alexander who about this time founded the order of the Acoimetae (see D. C. A. S.V.), but the identification is far from certain. There is no evidence that the latter was a heretic save that his name has not been honoured with the prefix of saint ; and his institution would scarcely have met with the success it did if it could have been repre- sented as devised by a notorious Messalian to carry out the notions of his sect as to the duty of incessant prayer. Between the accession of Sisinnius and the council of Ephesus in 431. J^^hn of Antioch wrote to Nestorius about the Messalians, and Theodosius legislated against them (xvi. Cod. Tbeod. deHaer. vol. vi. p. 187)- At Ephesus Valerian of Iconium, and Amphilochius of Side, in the name of the bps. of Lycaonia and Pamphvlia, obtained from the council a confirmation of the decrees made against the Euchites at Constantinople in 426 and the anathematization of the Messalian book. Asceticus, passages from which Valerian laid bef.jre the svnod (Mansi, iv. 14 77)- Fabritius names Agapius, and Wakh Adeli)hius, as the 308 EUCHITES author of this book, but the writer is really unknown. These proceedings at Ephesus were unknown to Gregory the Great (Ep. vi. 14, ad Narsem, vol. vii. p. 361), but are men- tioned by Photius, and the decree was read at the second council of Nicaea (Mansi, xii. 1025). The cause of Gregory's oversight may have been that his correspondent cited to him as Ephesine the Acts of the council of Antioch. We learn from the Ephesine decree that Mes- salianism had also been condemned at Alex- andria, and Timotheus mentions Cyril as an antagonist of these heretics. In the Ep. ad Calosyrium (prefixed to the tract adv. A nthro- pomorph. vii. 363) Cyril rebukes certain monks who made piety a cloak for laziness, but there is no evidence that they were Euchites. The articles of the Asceticus were the subject of 24 anathemas by Archelaus (bp. of Cae- sarea in Cappadocia some time between the two Ephesine synods of 431 and 449), and of two letters by Heracleidas of Nyssa (c. 440). The next Euchite leader of whom we read is Lampetius, after whom his followers were called Lampetians, and who is said to have been the first of the sect to attain the dignity of priesthood. He had been ordained by Alypius, bp. of Caesarea (Cappadocia) in 458. He was accused to Alypius by the presbvter Gerontius, superior of the monks at Glitis, of undue familiarity with women, unseemly language, scoffing at those who took part in the musical services of the church as being still under the law when they ought to make melody only in their hearts, and of other Euchite doctrines and practices. The exam- ination of the charges was delegated by Aly- pius to Hormisdas bp. of Comana, and Lam- petius was degraded from the priesthood. He wrote a work called the Testament, answered by the Monophysite Severus, afterwards bp. of Antioch. A fragment of this answer is preserved in a catena belonging to New Col- lege, Oxford (Wolf, Anecdnta Graeca, in. 182). It insists on the duty of praising God both with heart and voice. The same catena con- tains an extract from another work of Severus against the Euchites, an epistle to a bp. Solon. Photius tells that in Rhinocorura two persons named Alpheus, one of them a bishop, de- fended the orthodoxy of Lampetius, and were in consequence deposed. He learned this from a letter written by Ptolemv, another bishop of the same district, to Timotheus of Alexandria. There have been at Alexandria several bishops of that name, but probably the Timotheus in- tended is the one contemporary with Lam- petius (460-482). The next Messalian leader of whom we read (in Timotheus) is Marcian, a money-changer, who lived in the middle of the 6th cent., and from whom these sectaries came to be called Marcianists. The correspondence of Gregory the Great, akeady referred to, arose out of the condemnation under this name, unknown in the West, in 595, of one John, a presbvter of Chalcedon. He appealed to the pope, who pronounced him orthodox, complaining that he had not even been able to make out from his accusers what the heresv of Marcianism was. In the 7th cent. Maximus, in his scholia on the Pseudo-Dionysius (II. 88), charges those whom he calls indifferently EUDOXIUS Lampetians, Messalians, Adelphians, or Mar- cianists, with giving but three years to ascetic life and the rest of their life to all manner of debauchery. We hear no more of the Messalians till the Bogomile heresy arose in the 12th cent. Of modern writers, the most useful are Tillemont, viii. 530 ; Walch, Hist, der Ketz. iii. 418 ; and Neander, Ch. Hist. iii. 323. [g.s.] Eudoxius (2), 8th bp. of Constantinople (360-370), previously bp. of Germanicia and of Antioch, one of the most influential Arians. Between 324 and 331 St. Eustathius was bp. of Antioch. Eudoxius came to him seeking holy orders. Eustathius found his doctrine unsound and refused him. But when Eusta- thius was deposed, the Arians or Eusebians had everything their own way, and admitted Eudoxius to orders and made him bp. of Germanicia, on the confines of Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia. This bishopric he held at least 17 years, the dark period of the principal intrigues against Athanasius, and of the reigns of the sons of Constantine. In 34 1 was held, at Antioch, the council of the Dedication or Encaenia, under Placillus. Eudoxius of Ger- manicia attended. He was an Arian pure and simple, a disciple of Aetius, a friend of Eunomius. The council produced four creeds, in which the Eusebian party succeeded in making their doctrine as plausible as might be, and the second of these became known as the " Creed of the Dedication." Athanasius says that Eudoxius was sent with Martyrius and Macedonius to take the new creed of Antioch to Italy. This new creed may, how- ever, have been the Macrostich, or Long Formula, drawn up at a later council of Antioch. In 343 or 347 the rival councils of Sardica and Philippopolis were held. At the latter was drawn up a creed more Arian than those of Antioch, and it was signed by Eudoxius. At the end of 347 Eudoxius was in attendance on the emperor in the West, when news came of the death of Leontius of Antioch. Excusing himself on the plea that the affairs of Germanicia required his presence, he hastened to Antioch, and, representing himself as nominated by the emperor, got himself made bishop, and sent Asphalus, a presbyter of Antioch, to make the best of the case at court. Constantius wrote to the church of Antioch : " Eudoxius went to seek you without my sending him. ... To what restraint will men be amenable, who impu- dently pass from city to city, seeking with a most unlawful appetite every occasion to enrich themselves ? " Meanwhile the new prelate was preaching open Arianism and persecuting the orthodox. In the first year of his episcopate at Antioch he held a council, which received the creed of Sirmium. An idea may be formed of his sermons from three different sources. Hilary of Poictiers, then in the East, heard Eudoxius in his cathedral, and wished his ears had been deaf, so horribly blasphemous was the language. Theodoret and Epiphanius report him as boasting that he had the same knowledge about God as God had about Himself. A council was held at Seleucia in Sept. 359, the orthodox forming a very small minority. The majority signed the " Creed of the Dedi- EULALIUS cation " ; Eudoxius, who was present, was deposed by the less heretical party, and ap- pears to have soupht the shelter of the court at Constantinople. Here, by the aid of the Acacians, he secured his appointment as patri- arch on the deposition of Macedonius, and on Jan. 2 7, 360, took possession ol his throne in the presence of 72 bishops. On Feb. 15 the great church of Constantinople, St. Sophia, begun in 342 by the emperor Constantius, was dedicated. Eudoxius, mounting his episcopal throne before the expectant multitude of courtiers, ecclesiastics, and citizens, began with the words : " The Father is a<Tt^r)$, the Son is eiVe/ijjs." A great tumult of indigna- tion arose on all sides in St. Sophia. The orator, unabashed, explained : " The Father is aa(}ir)% because He honours nobody ; the Son is eiVff^;;? because He honours the Father." The new cathedral echoed with peals of uncontrollable laughter. Thus, says Socrates (ii. 43), these heresiarchs tore the church to pieces by their captious subtilties. Eudoxius consecrated his friend Eunomius to the see of Cyzicus ; but such complaints were brought to the emperor that he ordered Eudoxius to depose him. Eudoxius, terrified by menaces, persuaded him quietly to retire. In 365 an attack was made on Eudoxius by the semi-.\rians, now called Macedonians. Holding a meeting at Lampsacus, they signed the " Creed of the Dedication," cited E;udoxius and his party before them, and, as they did not come, sentenced them to deprivation ; but Valens refused to confirm the proceedings. In 367 Valens, as he was setting out for the Gothic war, was induced by his wife to receive baptism from Eudoxius. In the same year he issued, doubtless under the advice of Eudoxius. an order that such bishops as had been banished bv Constantius and had re- turned under Julian should again be exiled. The years during which Eudoxius and Valens acted together were troubled by por- tents, which many attributed to the anger of Heaven at the cruelty of Valens in banishing bishops who would not admit Eudoxius to \ their communion. Eudoxius died in 370. He well deserves the character given him by Baronius, " the worst of all the Arians." Soz. H. E. iv. 26 ; Socr. H. E. ii. iq, 37, 40, 43 ; Theoph. Chronogr. ^ 38 ; Niceph. Callist. H. E. xi. 4 : Theod. H. E. ii. 25 ; Haer. Fab. iv. 3 ; Epiph. de Haeres. Ixxiii. 2 ; Athan. ad Solit. in Patr. Gk. xxvi. 572, 219, 589, 274, 580, 713, 601 ; Hilarius, de Synod., Patr. Lai. X. 471, etc. ; Liber contr. Const. Imp. §§ 665, 680, 573. etc. [w.M.s.] EulaliUS fl), an antipope, elected and or- dained as bp. of Rome after the death of Zosimus at the close of 418, in opposition to Boniface I., who was finally established in the see, Eulalius being expelled from Rome by the emperor Honorius in April 419. The official letters which passed have been pre- served in the Vatican, and are quoted at length bv Baronius (A. E. ann. 418, Ixxix. 419, ii.- xxxii.). They throw light on the conflicts attending the election of bishops, and on the powers exercised by the emperors in connexion therewith. First we have a letter (Dec. 29, 418) to Honorius at Ravenna from Symmachus the Praefectus Urbis, stating that, after he EULALIUS 309 had warned the people to proceed to a new election without disturbance, Eulalius the archileacon had been taken to the I.atrran church bv the clergv and people, duly elected, and ordaineil ; while certain presbyters, ac- companied by a crowd, had gone with Moni- facius, a presbyter, to the church of Theodora, and, though warned t<i do nothing rashly, had ordained him in the church of St. Marcellus, and thence took him to St. Peter's basilica. He requests the instructions of the emperor, with whom, he says, it rests to give judgment in such a case. Honorius replies (Jan. 3, 419) by ordering Boniface to be expelled from the city, and the authors of the sedition in his favour punished, Eulalius having been duly appointed according to the rule of Catholic discipline (conipetens numerus ordinantium, solemnitas tem;»>ris, locique qualitas) and the rival electinn being deficient in these respects. Symmachus replies (Jan. 8) that he has carried out the emperor's order, not without resistance on the part of Boniface, who had caused a messenger sent to forbid a procession to be beaten by the people ; had held the proces- sion ; and had forcibly entered the city, but had been expelled by an opj^osing mob ; while Eulalius had celebrated service in the basilica of St. Peter amid the acclamations of almost the whole city. Meantime the presbyters who supported Boniface had sent a different account. They had been unable, they say, to assemble in the customary jilace, the Lateran church, because of its being occupied by Eulalius with a very small number of presbyters and an excited mob ; they were the great majority of the clergy, supported by the better part of the laity ; amid general acclamation they had elected Boniface, in whose ordination 70 priests and 9 bishops of divers provinces had concurred ; whereas the bp. of Ostia, a sick old man almost at the point of death, had been brought against his will to assist in the ordina- tion of Boniface's rival. Having received this counter-statement, Honorius writes to Symmachus (Jan. 15), revoking his former edict ; commanding the attendance at Ravenna (Feb. 8) of Boniface and Eulalius, with their respective supporters, before a svnod. The documents shew that the members of this svnod were divided, and unable to come to a decision before Easter (Mar. 30), when custom required a bishop to celebrate in Rome. Honorius therefore decided to refer the case after Easter to a fuller synod, and commis- sioned Achilleus bp. of Spoleto to celebrate Easter in Rome, forbidding both claimants to be present there. He exacts obedience in a high tone of authority, and threatens with summarv punishment all disturbers of the peace. The synod was to be held at Spoletuni on June 13. Honorius sent private letters to several of the more important prelates. t.R. Paulinns of Nola, Augustine, and Aurelius <>f Carthage, and circular letters to the bishops of Africa and (iaul. The proposed assend>ly. I however, never took place. Eulalius and his '• party, disregarding the imperial orders, en- i tered Rome at mid-day. Mar. 18, and came into violent collision with Achilleus and his I supporters, Symmachus and the Vicarius 310 EULOGIUS Urbis narrowly escaping with their lives. Thereupon the emperor ordered (Mar. 25) Eulalius to be immediately expelled from the city. Eulalius refused to comply, and took violent possession of the Lateran church, but was eventually dislodged thence and expelled from Rome, an imperial edict (Apr. 3) exclud- ing him from the see and confirming Boniface as bp. of Rome. The latter was welcomed as bishop by the whole population with joy and gratitude to the emperor. Eulalius retired to Antium, near Rome, expecting the death of Boniface, who fell sick after his accession, but this hope failing, he made no further attempt to recover the see, though invited to do so by his partisans in Rome on the death of Boniface in 423. Ac- cording to the Liber Pontificalis, he afterwards became bp. of Nepete. From this account, extracted from contem- porary documents, the following facts are evident. First, that with the ancient custom of election of a new bishop by the clergy, with the assent of the laity, and confirmation by provincial bishops, there was no desire on the part of the civil power to interfere. Secondly, that elections had come to be conducted in an irregular and tumultuous manner, giving rise [Damasus] to violent conflicts, with blood- shed even in the churches. Thirdly, that it was the necessity of restoring order, and adjudicating between rival claims, that led to the interposition of the emperor. Fourthly, that in this case the emperor did not insist on a right to decide on the validity of either election without first submitting the question to an episcopal synod. Fifthly, eventually, serious provocation being given, he settled the question on his own authority, without the sanction of a synod or regard to the canoni- city of the original election. A statement in the Liber Pontificalis that Eulalius was de- posed by a synod of 252 bishops is inconsistent with the contemporary evidence given above, and, as such, Baronius rejects it. [j.b — v.] Eulogius (4), bp. of Edessa. When a pres- byter there he suffered in the persecution by Valens. Barses the bishop having been deposed and exiled, the orthodox refused to communicate with an Arian prelate, intruded into the see. Modestus the prefect com- manded the leading ecclesiastics to obey the emperor and communicate with the new prelate. The whole body, led by Eulogius, offered so firm a resistance that Modestus sentenced them, 80 in number, to transporta- tion to Thrace. The confessors received so much honour there that Valens relegated them, two and two, to distant localities, Eulogius with a presbyter Protogenes being sent to Antinous in the Thebaid. Though there was a Catholic bishop here the popu- lation was almost entirely pagan, and the two presbyters commenced missionary work among them. On the cessation of the perse- cution Eulogius and Protogenes returned to Edessa, where, Barses being dead, Eulogius was consecrated bishop bv Eusebius of Samo- sata (Theod. H. E. iv. 18, v. 4). He attended the councils held at Rome in 369 (Labbe, ii. 894), Antioch in 379, and Constantinople in 381 (ib. 955). See Soz. vi. 34; and Migne's note 61, Patr. Gk. Ixvii. 1394. [e.v.] EUNOMIUS Eunomius (3) of Cappadocia, bp. of Cyzicus (360-364) after the expulsion of Eleusius. As the pupil and secretary of Aetius, he formu- lated his master's system with a preciseness which stamped the name of Eunomians instead of that of Aetians on the Anomoean heretics. He was distinguished by " a faculty of subtle disputation and hard mechanical reasoning " (Newman, Avians, c. iv. § 4), which subjected the Christian verities to strict logical pro- cesses, and rejected every doctrine that could not be shewn to be consistent with human reason. Neander further describes him as the decided enemy of asceticism, and of the growing disposition to worship saints and relics — in fact, the " Rationalist " of the 4th cent. (Ch. Hist. iv. p. 78, Clark's trans.). The name of his birthplace is given as Dacora by Sozomen and Philostorgius, and as Oltiseris by Gregory Nyssen, who correctly places it on the confines of Cappadocia and Galatia (Soz. H. E. vii. 17 ; Philost. H. E. x. 6, xi. 5). Eunomius came of an honest, in- dustrious stock. His father, an unpretending, hard-working man, supported his family by the produce of his land and by teaching a few neighbours' children in the winter evenings (Greg. Nys. in Eunoni. i. p. 291). Eunomius inherited his father's independent spirit. He learnt shorthand, and became amanuensis to a kinsman and tutor to his children. The country becoming distasteful to him, he went to Constantinople, hoping to study rhetoric. Gregory Nyssen, who endeavours to blacken his character as much as possible, hints that his life there was not very reputable, but specifies no charges. It was reported that he worked as a tailor, making clothes and girdles. Before very long he returned to Cappadocia. The fame of Aetius, then teaching at Alex- andria, reaching Eunomius, he proceeded thither c. 356, and placed himself under his in- struction, acting also as his amanuensis (Socr. H. E. ii. 35, iv. 7 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 27 ; Philost. H. E. iii. 20 ; Greg. Nys. in Eunnm. i. p. 290). He accompanied Aetius to Antioch at the beginning of 358, to attend the Arian council summoned by Eudoxius, who had through court favour succeeded to the see of Antioch. The bold front displayed by the Arians at this council, and the favour shewn to the flagrant blasphemies of Aetius and Eunomius, who did not scruple to assert the absolute unlikeness {avotioiov) of the Son to the Father, excited the strong opposition of the semi-Arian party, of which George of Laodi- cea, Basil of Ancyra. and Macedonius of Constantinople, were the highly respectable leaders. Under colour of the dedication of a church, a council was speedily held by them at Ancyra at which the Anomoean doctrines and their authors were condemned. A synodical letter was sent to the emperor denouncing the teaching of Eunomius and his master and charging the latter with being privy to the conspiracy of Gallus (Philost. H. E. iv. 8). These proceedings struck dismay into the Arian clique at Antioch, and Eunomius, now a deacon, was sent to Constantinople as their advocate. But, apprehended in Asia Minor by some imperial officers, he was banished by the emperor's orders to Midaeus or Migde in Phrygia ; Aetius to Pepuza. Eudoxius found EUNOMIDS it prudent to retire to his native Armenia till the storm had blown over (Greg. Nys. ih. p. 291), but found means to reinstate himself in j the emperor's favour, and at the close of 359 was chosen successor of Macedonius in the imperial see. Constantius hail the utmost | abhorrence of the Anomoeans aiid their teach- ing. Aetius was therefore sacrificed by the Arians as a scapegoat, while Eunoniius was persuaded to separate himself reluctantly from his old teacher and conceal his heterodoxy, that he might secure a position of influence from which to secretly disseminate his views. Eudoxius procured for him from the emperor the bishopric of Cyzicus, vacant by the de- position of the semi-Arian Elf.usius ; but after a while, weary of dissimulation, he began to propound his doctrines, at first privately, and then in public assemblies. Complaints of his heterodoxy were laid before Eudoxius, who, forced by Constantius. summoned Eunomius before a council of bishops at Constantinople, but sent him a secret message counselling flight. Eunomius, not appearing, was con- demned in his absence, deposed, and banished (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv. 3 ; H. E. ii. 29 ; Phil- ost. H. E. vi. i). On this he broke altogether with his former associates, and headed a party of his own, called after him Eunomians, pro- fessing the extreme Anomoean doctrines of the general comprehensibleness of the Divine Essence, and the absolute unlikeness of the Son to the Father. The accession of Julian in 361 recalled Eunomius and Aetius among the other bishops banished by Constantius. They both settled in Constantinople during the reigns of Julian and his successor Jovian (Philost. H. E. vi. 7, vii. 6). The growing popularity of Eunomianism at Constantinople caused jealousy in Eudoxius, who took advan- tage of the commotions caused by the rebel- lion of Procopius on the accession of Valens in 364 to expel Eunomius and Aetius from the city. Eunomius retired to his country house near Chalcedon. Procopius having also taken refuge there in Eunomius's absence, Euno- mius was accused of favouring his designs, and was in danger of being capitally condemned. Sentence of banishment to Mauritania was actually passed upon him, a.d. 367. But on his way thither, passing through Mursa, the Arian bishop Valens, by personal applica- tion to the emperor Valens, obtained the repeal of his sentence {ib. iv. 4-8). He was, the same year, again sentenced to banishment by Modestus, the prefect of the Praetorian guards, as a disturber of the public peace (ib. ix. 11). But he was again at Constantinople, or at least at Chalcedon, early in the reign of Theodosius, a.d. 379, to whom in 383 he, with other bishops, presented a confession of faith which is still extant. The next year Theodosius, finding some officers of the court infected with Eunomian views, expelled them from the palace, and having seized Eunomius at Chalce- don, banished him to Halmyris in Moesia, on the Danube. Halmyris being captured by the Goths, who had crossed the frozen river, Eunomius was transported to Caesarea in Cappadocia. The fact that he had attacked their late venerated bishop, Basil the (Jreat, in his writings, made him so unpopular there that his life was hardly safe. He was there- EUNOMIUS nil fore permitted to retire to his pat.m.il .st.itr at Dac.nra, where he died in extreme old aRe soon after a.d. 392, when, according to Jerome (Fir. Illust. c. 120), he was still living, and writing much against the church. His body was buried there, but transferred to Tyana, by order of Eutrojiius, c. 396, and there care- fully guarded by the monks — to prevent its being carried by his adherents to Constanti- nople and buried beside his master Aetius. to whom he had himself given a siilendid funeral (Soz. H. E. vii. 17 ; Philost. H. E. ix. 6. xi. s). Eunomianism, a cold, logical svstem, lacked elements of vitality, and notwithstanding its popularity at first, did not long survive its authors. In the following century, when Theodoret wr(He, the body had dwindled to a scanty remnant, compelled to conceal them- selves and hold their meetings in such obscure corners that thev had gained the name of "Troglodytes" (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv. 3). St. Augustine r'Miiarked that in his time the few Anomoeans existing were all in the East and that there were none in Africa (Aug. de Past. Cur. c. 8, p. 278). Eunomius endeavoured to develop Arianism as a formal doctrinal system ; starting with the conception of God as the absolute simple Being, of Whom neither self-communication nor generation can be predicated. His es- sence is in this, that He is what He is of Him- self alone, underived, unbcgotten — and as being the only unbegotten One, the Father, in the strict sense of Deity, is alone God ; and as He is unbegotten, inasmuch as begetting necessarily involves the division and impar- tation of being, so it is impossible for Him to beget. If that which was begotten shared in the Hf6T7)s of the Deity, God would not be the absolute unbegotten One, but would be divided into a begotten and an unbegotten God. A communication of the essence of God, such as that in\olved in the idea of generation, would transfer to the Absolute Deity the notions of time and sense. An eternal generation was to Eunomius a thing absolutely inconceivable. A begetting, a bringing forth, could not be imagined as with- out beginning and end. The generation of the Son of God must therefore have had its beginning, as it must have had its termination, at a definite point of time. It is, therefore, incompatible with the predicate of eternity. If that can be rightly asserted of the Son, He must equally, with the Father, be unbegotten. This denial of the eternal generation of the Son involved also the denial of the likeness of His essence to that of the Father, from which the designation of the party, " Ano- moean," was derived. That which is be- gotten,' he asserted, cannot possibly resemble the essence of that which is unbegotten ; hence, equality of essence, " Homoousian,'' or even similarity of essence, " Honioiousian.' is untenable. Were the begotten to resemble the unbegotten in its essence, it must cease I to be unbegotten. Were the Father and the I Son equal, the Son must also be unbegotten, a consequence utterlv destructive of the fun- damental doctrine of g<neration and subordin- 1 ation. Such generation, moreover, Eunomius ; held to be essentially impossible. If then. i according to the teaching of the church, the 312 EUNOMIUS Son, Who is begotten, were of the same essence as the Father Who begets, there must be both an unbegotten and a begotten element in God. The essence of the Father and of the Son must therefore be absolutely dissimilar. And as Their essence, so also is Their knowledge of Themselves different. Each knows Himself as He is, and not as the other. The one knows Himself as unbegotten, the other as begotten. Since, therefore, the Son did not share in any way the essence of the Father, what is His relation to God, and to what does He owe His origin ? Eunomius's answer lay in a dis- tinction between the essence {ovaia) and the energy [ivepyeia) of God. Neither movement nor self-communication being predicable of the Divine Essence, it is to the Divine Energy, conceived as separable from the Oe^rTj?, that we must ascribe the calling into existence out of nothing of all that is. In virtue of this ivepyeia only can God be called Father, as it is by this that all that is, besides Himself, has come into being. Of these creations of the Divine Energy the Son or Logos holds the first place, as the instrumental creator of the world. In this relation likeness to the Father is pre- dicable of the Son. The Son may in this sense be regarded as the express image and likeness of the evepyela of the Father, as He conferred on Him divine dignity in the power of creation. This made the immeasurable difference between the Son and all other created beings. He was produced by the Father, as an alone Being, the first or most perfect of all Beings, to be, by His will, His instrument in the creation of ail other existences. God called Him into being immediately, but all other creatures mediately throua;h Him. This teaching in- troduced a dualism into the essence of God Himself, when it drew a distinction between His essence and His will — the one being in- finite and absolute, and the other relative and limited to finite objects. On the ground of this dualism Eunomius is charged by Gregory Nyssen with Manicheism. Eunomius regarded the Paraclete as sharing in the Divine nature in a still more secondary and derived sense, as no more than the highest and noblest produc- tion of the Only-begotten Son, given to be the source of all light and sanctification. The entire want of spiritual depth and life in Eunomius is shewn by his maintaining that the Divine nature is perfectly comprehensible by the human intellect, and charging those who denied this with an utter ignorance of the first principles of Christianity. He accused them of preaching an unknown God, and even denied their right to be called Christians at all, since without knowledge of God there could be no Christianity ; while he denied to those who did not hold his views as to the nature of God and the generation of the Son the pos- session of any true knowledge of the Divine Being. He held that Christ had been sent to lead other creatures up to God, the primal source of all existence, as a Being external to Himself, and that believers should not stop at the generation of the Son, but having followed Him as far as He was able to lead them, should soar above Him, as above all created beings, whether material or spiritual, to God Himself, the One Absolute Being, as their final aim,' that in the knowledge of Him they might EUNOMIUS obtain eternal life. Eunomius's poor and low idea of the knowledge of God placed it merely in a formal illumination of the understanding and a theoretical knowledge of God and spiritual truth, instead of in that fellowship with God as made known to us in Christ and that knowledge which comes from love, which the church has ever held to be the true life of the soul. In harmony with this formal, intellectual idea of knowledge, as the source of Christian life, Eunomius assigned a lower place to the sacraments than to the teaching of the word, depreciating the liturgical, as compared with the doctrinal, element of Christianity. As quoted by Gregory Nyssen, he asserted that "the essence of Christianity did not depend for its ratification on sacred terms, on the special virtue of customs and mystic symbols, but on accuracy of doctrine " (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p. 704). For fuller statements of the doctrinal system of Euno- mius, see Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. pp. 264 ff., Clark's trans. ; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 77 ff., Clark's trans. ; Herzog, Real-Encycl. " Eunomius und Eunomianer " (from which works the fore- going account has been derived) ; Klose, Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomius (1833) ; Bauer, Dreieinigkeit, i. pp. 365-387 ; Meyer, Trinitdtslehre, pp. 175 ff. • Lange, Ariamsmus in seiner weileren Entwickelung. Eunomius, as a writer, was more copious than elegant. Photius speaks very depre- ciatingly of his studied obscurity, the weakness of his arguments, and his logical power. Soc- rates estimates his style no less unfavourably {H. E. iv. 7). Notwithstanding these alleged defects, his writings, which Rufinus states were very numerous and directed against the Christian faith (H. E. i. 25), were much es- teemed by his followers, who, according to Jerome, valued their authority more highly than that of the Gospels (Hieron. adv. Vigil. t. ii. p. 123). The bold blasphemies in these books caused their destruction. Successive imperial edicts, one of Arcadius, dated not more than four years after his death a.d. 398 [Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 152 ; lib. xvi. 34), com- manded that his books should be burnt, and made the possession of any of his writings a capital crime. Little of his writing remains, save some few fragments preserved in the works of his theological adversaries. His Exposition of Faith and his Apologeticus are the only pieces extant of any length. (i) eKdeais Tricrrews, Fidei libellus. A con- fession of faith presented to Tbeodosius, a.d. 383 (Socr. H. E. vii. 12), first printed by Valesius in his notes to Socrates, afterwards by Baluze in Conciliorum Nov. Collect, i. 89, and in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca, v. 23. (2) Apologeticus, in 28 sections. This is his, most famous work, in which, with much subtlety, he seeks to refute the Nicene doc- trine of the Trinity, especially the co-eternal and consubstantial divinity of Christ. Basil the Great thought the book worth an elaborate refutation, in five books, adversus Eunomium (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxx. 835). An English trans, was pub. by Whiston in his Eunomianismus Redivivus (Lond. 1711, 8vo). Cave, Hist. Lit, h p. 219; Fab. Bibl. Graeca,^ ^ EUPHEMITAE viii. p. 26r; Phot. Cod. 137. 138; Tillcm. Mem. Eccl. vi. 501 ff. [e.v.1 Euphemitae, also known as Messalians, " prayins people." and therefore reckoned by Epiphanius (Haer. So) as predecessors of the Christian sect so called. Epiphanius, our sole informant, tells us that they were neither Christians, Jews, nor Samaritans, but heathen, believing in a plurality of gods, but offering worship only to one whom they called the Almi£;hty. They built oratories, some of which exactly resembled Christian churches ; in these they met at evening and early morn, with many lights, to join in hymns and prayer. We learn from Epiphanius with some surprise that some of the magistrates put several of these people to death for per\-ersion of the truth and luiwarranted imitation of church customs, and that in particular I.upicianiis, having thus pimished some of them, gave occasion to a new error, for they buried the bodies, held services at the spot, and called themselves martyriani. Epiphanius also charges a section of the Eupheniites with calling themselves Sataniaiii and worshipping Satan, thinking that by such service they might disarm his hostility. It does not ap- pear that Epiphanius means to assert that the Christian Euchites were historically de- rived from these heathen Euphemites, but merely that there was a general resemblance of practices between them. Tillemont conjec- tured (viii. 320) that the Euphemites of Epi- phaniusmight be identical with the Hypsistarii of Greg. Naz., or less probably with the CoELTCoi.AE of Africa. [Euchites.] [g.s.] Euphemius (4), 3rd patriarch of Constanti- nople, succeeding Fravitta and followed by Macedonius II. He ruled six years and three months, A.D. ^?,c)-^<)6, and died in 515. Theo- phanes calls him Euthymius. He was a pres- byter of Constantinople, administrator of a hospital for the poor at Ncapolis, untinged with any suspicion of Eutychian leanings, and is described as learned and very virtuous. Finding that Peter Mongus, the patriarch of Alexandria, anathematized the council of Chalcedon, he was so indignant that before he took his seat on the patriarchal throne he solemnly separated from all communion with him, and with his own hands effaced his name from the diptychs, placing in its stead that of Felix III. of Rome. For a year the strife between Mongus and Euphemius was bitter. Each summoned councils against the other ; Euphemius even thought of persuading a council to depose Mongus ; but at the end of Oct. 490 Mongus died. To pope Felix the patriarch sent letters, as was usual, to announce his election, but re- ceived the reply that he might be admitted as a private member of the church Catholic, but could not be received in communion as a bishop, because he had not removed from the diptychs the names of his predecessors, Acacius and Fravitta. At the death (probably in 489) of Daniel the Stylite on the pillar where he had lived for 33 vears, Euphemius came with others to the foot of the pillar to attend his last moments. Anastasius, the future emperor, then an aged officer of the emperor Zeno, held Eutychian views, and, according to Suidas, formed a sect EUPHEMIUS 313 ■ which met in some dnir. h ..f CnsLintinopir-. j The patriarch appeared before the convrntirje j with menacing gestures and drove them from the spot. " If you must frequent the church." he exclaimed, " agree with her ! or else no more enter into her gates to pervert men more I simple than yourself." Hencefijrth, savs the I annalist, Anastasitis kept quiet, for the sake [ of the glory that he coveted. As the emperor Zeno died in 491, this must have occurred within two years after the consecralif)n of Eui^hemius, and it witnesses alike to his intrepidity and his influence. After the death of Zeno, the empress Ariadne procured the election of Anastasius, on the understand- ing that he was to marry her. The patriarch ' openly called him a heretic, unworthy of reign- ing over Christians, and refused to crown him, despite the entreaties of the empress and the senate, until Anastasius would give a written profession of his creed, promise under his hand to keep the Catholic faith intact, make no innovation in the church, and follow as his rule of belief the decrees of Chalcedon. Anas- tasius gave the writing under most solemn oaths, and Euphemius put it in charge of the saintly Macedonius, chancellor and treasurer of the church of Constantinople, to be stewed ; in the archives of the cathedral (Evagr. iii. 32). ! At the end of 491, or on Feb. 23, 492, pope Felix died. HissuccessorGelasius immediate- ly announced his elevation to the emperor Anastasius, but took no notice of Euphemius, who had written at once to express his con- gratulations, and his desire for peace and for the reunion of the churches. Not obtaining an answer, he wrote a second time. Neither 1 letter remains, but the reply of Gelasius shews j that Euphemius, in congratulating the Roman j church on its pontiff, added that he himself I was not sufficiently his own master to do what he wished ; that the people of Constantinople would never agree to disgrace the memory of their late patriarch Acacius ; that if that were t necessary, the pope had better write to the people about it himself, and send someone to try and persuade them ; that .Acacius had never said anything against the faith, and that if he was in communion with Mongus, it was I when Mongus had given a satisfactory account of his creed. Euphemius subjoined his own I confession, rejecting Eutyches and accepting Chalcedon. It seems also that Hiupheniius spoke of those who had been baptized and ordained by Acacius since the sentence |)ro- nounced against him at Rome, and pointed out how embarrassing it would be if the memory of Acacius must be condemned (Ceillier, x. 486). Replying to these tem- perate counsels, Gelasius allows that in other circumstances he would have written to an- nounce his election, but sourly observes that the custom existed only among those bishops who were imited in communion, and was not to be extended to those who, like I'uphemius, preferred a strange alliance to that f>f St. Peter. He allows the necessity of gentleness and tenderness, but remarks that there is no need to throw yourself into the tlitch when you are helping fithers out. As a mark < f , condescension he willingly grants the canonical remedy to all who had been baptized and or- ' dained by Acacius. Can Euphemius possibly 314 EUPHEMIUS wish him to allow the names of condemned | heretics and their successors to be recited in the sacred diptychs ? Euphemius professed to reject Eutyches ; let him reject also those who have communicated with the successors of Eutyches. Was it not even worse for Acacius to know the truth and yet communi- cate with its enemies ? The condemnation of Acacius was ipso facto according to the decrees of ancient councils. If Peter Mongus did i purge himself, why did not Euphemius send ' proofs of it ? He is much vexed with Euphe- mius for saying that he is constrained to do things which he does not wish ; no bishop I should talk so about that truth for which he ought to lay down his life. He refuses | to send a mission to Constantinople, for it i is the pastor's duty to convince his own flock. At the tribunal of Jesus Christ it will be seen which of the two is bitter and hard. The high spirit of the orthodox patriarch was fired by this dictatorial interference. He even | thought of summoning the pope himself to , account ; and as Gelasius was certainly even more suspicious of the emperor Anastasius, who was, despite the recantation which Euphemius had enforced, a real Eutychian at heart, it is very likely that, as Baronius asserts, the patriarch did not attempt to conceal the pope's antipathy to the emperor. ] Nothing cooled the zeal of Euphemius for the council of Chalcedon. Anastasius har- boured designs against its supporters ; the patriarch gathered together the bishops who were at Constantinople, and invited them to confirm its decrees. According to Theophanes and Victor of Tunis, this occurred in -(92 (Vict. Tun. Chron. p. 5) ; but in Mansi (vii. 1180) the event is placed at the beginning of the patriarchate of Euphemius, and the decrees are said to have been sent by the bishops to pope Felix III. Various jars shewed the continued rupture with Rome. Theodoric had become master of Italy, and in 493 sent Faustus and Irenaeus to the emperor Anas- tasius to ask to peace. During their sojourn at Constantinople the envoys received com- plaints from the Greeks against the Roman church, which they reported to the pope. Euphemius urged that the condemnation of Acacius by one prelate only was invalid ; to excommunicate a metropolitan of Con- stantinople a general council was necessary {ib. viii. 16). Now occurred that imprudence which unhappily cost Euphemius his throne. Anastasius, tired of war against the Isaurians, was seeking an honourable way of stopping it. He asked Euphemius in confidence to beg the bishops at Constantinople (there were always bishops coming and going to and from the metropolis) to pray for peace and thus furnish him with an opportunity of entering on negotiations. Euphemius betrayed the secret to John the patrician, father-in-law of Athenodorus, one of the chiefs of the Isaurians. John hurried to the emperor to inform him of the patriarch's indiscretion. Anastasius was deeply offended, and thenceforth never ceased to persecute his old opponent. He accused him of helping the Isaurians against him, and of corresponding with them (Theoph. Chronog. a.d. 488). An assassin, either by Anastasius's own order or to gain his favour, EUPREPIUS drew his sword on Euphemius at the door of the sacristy, but was struck down by an attendant. Anastasius sought other means to get rid of Euphemius. Theodorus speaks of the vio- lence with which he demanded back the pro- fession of faith on which his coronation had depended (Theod. Lect. ii. 8, 572 seq. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi.). He assembled the bishops who were in the capital and preferred charges i against their metropolitan, whom they ob- ' sequiously declared excommunicated and de- posed. The people loyally refused to surrender him, but had soon to yield to the emperor. I Meanwhile Euphemius, fearing for his life, retired to the baptistery, and refused to go out I until Macedonius had promised on the word i of the emperor that no violence should be done him when they conducted him to exile. With a proper feeling of respect for the fallen great- ness and unconquerable dignity of his prede- cessor, Macedonius, on coming to find him in I the baptistery, made the attendant deacon take off the newly-given pallium and clothed himself in the dress of a simple presbyter, " not daring to wear " his insignia before their canonical owner. After some conversation, Macedonius (himself to follow Euphemius to the very same place of exile under the same emperor) handed to him the proceeds of a loan 1 he had raised for his expenses. Euphemius was taken to Eucaites in 495, the fifth year of ] Anastasius. His death occurred 20 years later at Ancyra, whither, it is thought, the j Hunnish invasion had made him retire. Elias, metropolitan of Jerusalem, himself afterwards expelled from his see by Anasta- sius, stood stoutly by Euphemius at the time of his exile, declaring against the legality of his sentence (Cyrillus, \'ita S. Sabae, c. 69, apud Sur. t. vi.). In the East Euphemius was always honoured as the defender of the Catholic faith and of Chalcedon, and as a man of the highest holiness and orthodoxy. Great I efforts were made at the fifth general council to get his name put solemnly back in the diptychs (Mansi, viii. 1061 e)." The authori- I ties for his Life are. Marcel. Chron. a.d. 491- 495 in Patr. Lat. li. p. 933 ; Theod. Lect. } Eccl. Hist. ii. 6-15 in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. pt. i. 185-189; Theoph. Chronog. a.d. 481-489 in Patr. Gk. cviii. 324-337 ; St. Niceph. Constant. Chronog. Brev. 45 in Patr. Gk. c. p. 1046 ; Baronius, a.d. 489-495 ; Gelas. Pap. Ep. et Decret. i. in Patr. Lat. lix. 13. [w.m.s.] ! Euprepius (4), bp. of Bizya in Thrace ; one of 68 bishops who demanded that the opening of the council of Ephesus should be postponed until the arrival of John of Antioch. He J signed on this occasion also for Fritilas bp. ! of Heraclea (Synod, adv. Tragoed. cap. 7, in Theod. 0pp. t. v. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxiv. 591). He nevertheless attended the council when it opened, signed the sentence against Nestorius and the " decretum de fide " (Mansi, iv. 1225 c, 1364 e). Euprepius is chiefly of interest from the memorial termed " Supplex libellus," which he and Cyril, bp. of Coele in the same province, jointly addressed to the fathers of the council {ib. 1478), stating that by an ancient custom in the European pro- vinces a bishop sometimes had more bishoprics than one under his charge ; that Euprepius was then administering the see of Arcadiopolis EURIG in addition to that of Bizya, while Cyril was I actins similarly. The council was requested to rule that this custom might not he dis- turbed, and that Fritilas, bp. of Heraclea. might be forbidden to appoint bishops in those cities of Thrace which were then without bishops of their own. The prayer was granted, and it was decreed that the custom of the cities in question should be respected (Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 1136, 114 5). [e.v.] EUTlc (1) (F.varich, Evorich, Euthonk, Evarix), king of the \'isigothic kingdom of Toulouse from 466 to 484, and from 477 on- wards master of almost the whole of Spain. Under him the \'isigoth power reached its highest point. In the reign of his successor it was curtailed by the Franks, while in that of his father, Theodoric or Theodored I. {d. 431) and his brothers, Thorismund and Theodoric II.. the country occupied by the Goths had still been reckoned as an integral part of the empire {" auxiliamini reipublicae," says Aetius to the Goths before the battle of Chalons, " cujus membrum tenetis," Jord. c. 36), while the Gothic state had found it necessary to submit again and again to the foedus with Rome. " Euric, therefore, king of the Visi- goths," says Jord. c. 45, " seeing the frequent changes of the Roman princes " (and the weakness of the Roman kingdom, " Romani regni vacillationem," as he says in c. 46), " attempted to occupy the Gauls in his own right, sun jure.'" And again, " Totas His- panias Galliasque sibi jam proprio jure tenens." Thus the pretence of the foedus was finally set aside, and in the interval between the fall of the western empire and the rise of the Ostro- goths and Franks, Euric appears as the most powerful sovereign of the West (Dahn, v. 100). In 466, the year of his accession, Euric sent legates to the Eastern emperor Leo, perhaps with a last thought of renewing the foedus. The negotiations came to nothing, and in 4.67 the Goths and \'andals made a defensive league against Leo, Anthemius, and Rikimir, who were about to attack Genseric. Beside his Vandalicau.xiliaries in Gaul, Euric also had the support of a certain party among the provincials themselves, as is shewn by the evidence given at the trial of Arvandus, pre- fect of the Gauls, for treasonable correspond- ence with the (ioths fSidon. Apoll. i. 7), and in 468 he attacked the newly made Western emperor Anthemius simultaneously in Gaul and Spain, with the result that by 474 the Gothic dominion in (iaul would have extended from the Atlantic to the Rhone and Mediter- ranean, and from the Pyrenees to the Loire, but for one obstacle — the vigorous defence of Auvergne by Ecdicius, son of the emperor Avitus, and the famous bp. of Clermont, Sidonius Apollinaris (Sid. Apoll. vii. i). The history of this dramatic struggle, preserved in the letters of Sidonius, throws valuable light on the politics of the 5th cent. It is the last desperate efTort of the provincial nobility to avoid barbarian masters, and it is a fight, too, of Catholicism against Arianism. But it was unsuccessful. After besieging Clermont in 474, Euric withdrew into winter quarters, while Sidonius and Ecdicius, in the midst of a devastated country, organized fresh resistance. But with the spring diplomacy intervened. EURIC 3IS Glycerins, fearful fur Italv, and hoping to purchase a renewal of the foedus. had in 473 formally ceded the country to Euric, a com- pact rejected by Ecdicius and Sidonius; and now \epos, for the same reasons, sent legates to Euric, amongst them tlie famous Epipha- nius of Pavia (lumod. Vita S. Ef^iph. A A. SS. Jan. ii. p. 36()), to treat for peace. Euric persisted in the demand for Auvergne. and accordingly, in return for a rcne\\al of the f<)edus (" tidelibus aniinis foederal)Untur," Sid. Apoll. ix. 5), Ecdicius and Sidonius were ordered to submit, and the district was given over to the revenge of the (;oths. Ecdicius fled to the Burgundians, while Sidonius (see Ep. vii. 7, for his invectives against the peace — " Pudeat vos hujus foederis, nee utilis nee decori ! "), having vainlv attempted to make favourable terms for the'Catholics with Euric, was banished to Livia, near Narbonne (Sid! Apoll. viii. 3). By the influence of Euric's minister, Leo, he was released after a vear's imjirisonment, and appeared at the Gothic court at Bordeaux, where, during a stay of two months, he succeeded in obtaining only one audience of the king, so great was the crowd of ambassadors, and the pressure of important business awaiting the decision of Euric and his minister. In Epp. viii. 9, Sidon- ius has left us a brilliant picture of the Gothic king, surrounded by barbarian envoys, Roman legates, and even Persian ambassadors. The Gothic territory in Gaul was now bounded by the Loire, the Rhone, and the two seas, while in Spain a great many towns were already held by Gothic garrisons. Euric's troops easily overran the whole country at their next great advance. In 475 came the fall of Nepos and Augustulus, and tlie suspension of the empire of the West. The news aroused all the barbarian races in Gaul and Spain. Euric, with an Ostrogothic reinforcement under Widimer, crossed the Pyrenees in 477, took Pampelona and Saragossa, and annihilated the resistance of the Roman nobility in Tarraconensis. By 478 the whole peninsula had fallen to the Goths, except a mountainous strip in the N.W., relinquished probably by treaty to the Suevi. By this complete conquest of the peninsula, " a place of refuge was provided for the Goths . . . destined in the following generation to fall back before the young and all-subduing power of the Franks, called to a greater work than they " (Dahn, Ktniige der Gfrmanen, v. 98). Fresh successes in (iaul followed close upf)n the Si)anish campaign. Aries was taken, 480, I^Larseilles, 481, and ultimately the whole of Provence up to the Maritime Alps (Prf)c. b. G. i. I, quoted by Dahn, I.e.), and the exiled Nepos, indeed, seems to ha\'e formally sur- rendered almost the whole of southern Roman Gaul to Euric. Ivuric was now sovereign from the Loire to the Straits of (libraltar. and appears as the jirotector of the neighbouring barbarian races against the encroaching Franks (Cass. Var. iii. 3), taking the same position towards them as Theodoric the Great took later in the reign of Euric's son Alaric, Theo(lr)ric's son-in-law. Euric survived the accession of Chlodwig (Clovis) three years, dying before Sept. 485. Euric's Personal Character, and his Persecu- 316 EURIC iions of the Catholics. — His commanding gifts and personality cannot be doubted. Even his bitterest enemy, Sidonius, speaks of his cour- age and capacity with unwilling admiration. " Pre-eminent in war, of fiery courage and vigorous youth," says Sidonius (" armis po- tens, acer animis, aiacer annis," Ep. vii. 6), " he makes but one mistake — that of suppos- ing that his successes are due to the correctness of his religion, when he owes them rather to a stroke of earthly good fortune." Euric was much interested in religious matters and a passionate Arian, not merely apparently from political motives, though his persecution of the Catholic bishops was dictated by sufficient political reasons. The letter of Sidonius quoted above throws great light upon Euric's relation to the Catholic church, and upon the state of the church under his government. "It must be confessed," he says, " that although this king of the Goths is terrible because of his power, I fear his attacks upon the Christian laws more than I dread his blows for the Roman walls. The mere name of Catholic, they say, curdles his countenance and heart. like vinegar, so that you might almost doubt whether he was more the king of his people or of his sect. Lose no time," he adds, ad- dressing his correspondent Basilius, bp. of .-Xix, " in ascertaining the hidden weakness of the Catholic state, that you may be able to apply prompt and public remedy. Bordeaux. Peri- gueux, Rodez, Limoges, Gabale, Eause, Bazas, Comminges, Auch, and many other towns, where death has cut off the bishops [" summis sacerdotibus ipsorum morte truncatis," a passage misunderstood later by Gregory of Tours, who speaks of the execution of bishops, Hist. Franc, ii. 25], and no new bishops have been appointed in their places . . . mark the wide boundary of spiritual ruin. The evil grows every day with the successive deaths of the bishops, and the heretics, both of the present and the past, might be moved by the suffering of congregations deprived of their bishops, and in despair for their lost faith." The churches were crumbling ; thorns filled the open doorways ; cattle browsed in the porches and on the grass round the altar. Even in town churches services were rare, and " when a priest dies, and no episcopal bene- diction gives him a successor in that church, not only the priest but the priest's office dies " (" sacerdotium moritur, non sacerdos "). Not only are vacancies caused by death : two bishops. Crocus and Simplicius, are mentioned as deposed and exiled by Euric. Finally, Sidonius implores the aid of Basilius, the position of whose bishopric made him dip- lomatically important (" per vos mala foed- erum currunt, per vos regni utriusque pacta conditionesque portantur ") towards obtain- ing for the Catholics from the Gothic govern- ment the right of ordaining bishops, that " so we may keep our hold upon the people of the Gauls, if not ex foedere, at least ex fide." Gregory of Tours in the next cent, echoed and exaggerated the account of Sidonius, and all succeeding Catholic writers have accused Euric of the same intolerant persecution of the church. The persecution must be looked upon, to a great extent, as political. The Catholic bishops and the provincial nobility EUSEBIUS were the natural leaders of the Romanized populations. The ecclesiastical organization made the bishops specially formidable (see Dahn's remarks on the Vandal king Huneric's persecutions, op. cit. i. 250). Their opposition threatened the work of Euric's life, and did, in fact, with the aid of the orthodox Franks, destroy it in the reign of his successor. But the persecution has a special interest as one of the earliest instances of that oppression in the name of religion, of which the later history of the Goths in conquered Spain is every- where full (Dahn, v. loi). Euric, however, did not oppress the Romans as such. His minister Leo (Sid. Apoll. viii. 3), and count Victorius, to whom was entrusted the govern- ment of Auvergne after its surrender {ih. vii. 17; Greg.Tiu". ii. 35), were of illustrious Roman families. It was probably by Leo's help that Euric drew up the code of laws of which Isidore and others speak {Hist. Goth, apud Esp. Sagr. vi. 486); Dahn, Konige der Gernianen, VteAbth. pp. 88-ior, see list of sources and literature prefixed. For the ultra-Catholic view of the persecution, see Gams's Kirchengesch. von Spanien. ii. i, 484. [m.a.w.] Eusebius (1), succeeded Marrellus as bp. of Rome, A.D. 309 or 310. He was banished by Maxentius to Sicily, where he died after a pontificate of four months (Apr. 18 to Aug. 17). His body was brought back to Rome, and buried in the cemetery of Callistus on the Appian Way. Hardly anything was known with certainty about this bishop till the dis- coveries of de Rossi in the catacombs. That he was buried in the cemetery of Callistus rested on the authority of the Liberian De- posit. Episc. and the Felician catalogue. But ancient itineraries, written by persons who had visited these tombs, described his resting- place as not being the papal crypt in that cemetery, where all the popes (with two excep- tions) since Pontianus had been laid, but in a separate one some distance from it. De Rossi found this crypt, and therein discovered, in 1852 and 1856, fragments of the inscription placed by pope Damasus over the grave, and known from copies taken before the closing of the catacombs. But it was previously uncer- tain whether it referred to Eusebius the pope or to some other Eusebius. All such doubt was now set at rest by the discovery, in the crypt referred to, of 46 fragments of a slab bearing a copy of the original inscription, and of the original slab, identified by the peculiar characters of Damasine inscriptions. The inscription is as follows : — " Damasus Episcopus feci. Heraclius vetuit lapses peccata dolere Eusebius miseros docuit sua crimina flere Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore Seditio caedes bellum discordia lites Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni Integra cum rector servaret foedera pacis Pertulit exilium domino sub iudice laetus Litore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit. Eusebio Episcopo et martyri." We thus have revealed a state of things at I Rome of which no other record has been pre- I served. It would seem that, on the cessation I of Diocletian's persecution, the church there was rent into two parties on the subject of I the terms of readmission of the lapsed to EUSEBIUS coiuinuriion : that one Horaclius headed a party who were for readinission without tlie penitential discipline insisteil on by Eusebius ; that the consequent tumults and bloodshed caused " the tyrant " Maxentius to interpose and banish the leaders of both factions ; and that Eusebius, dying during his exile in Sicily, thus obtained tlie name of martyr. It ap- pears further, from the similar Damasinc inscription on Marcellus, that tiie contest had begun before the accession of Eusebius, who, like Marcellus, had required penance horn the laf>si. [Marcellus (3).] The way in which the name of Heraclius occurs in the inscription on Eusebius suggests that he may have been elected as an antipope (so Lipsius, Chronologic der romischen Bischofe). At any rate, the subject of dispute was the same as had led to the tirst election of an antipope, viz. Novatian, after the Decian persecution, some 50 years before ; though on the earlier occasion the question was whether the lapsi were to be re- admitted to communion at all or not, the schismatics being on the side of severity ; on the later occasion the question was only about the conditions of their readinission, the dis- sentients being on the side of laxity. In both instances the church of Rome, as represented by her lawful bishops, seems to have held a consistent and judicious course, [j.b — y.] Eusebius (5), of Alexandria, a writer of sermons, about whom Galland says "all is uncertain ; nothing can be affirmed on good grounds as to his age or as to his bishopric " (Bibl. Pair. viii. p. xxiii.). It isuncertainwhether he belongs to the 5th or the 6th cent. A com- plete list of sermons is given by Mai, as follows : I. On Fasting. 2. On Love. 3. On the Incar- nation and its Causes. 4. On Thankfulness in Sickness. 5. On Imparting Grace to him that Lacks it. 6. On Sudden Death, or. Those that Die by Snares. 7. On New .\Ioon, Sabbath, and on not Observing the Voices of Birds. 8. On Commemoration of Saints. 9. On Meals, at such festivals. lo. On the Nativity, n. On the Baptism of Christ. 12. On " Art thou He that should come ?" 13. On the Coming of John into Hades, and on the Devil. 14. On the Treason of Judas. 15. On the Devil and Hades. 16. On the Lord's Day. 17. On the Passion, for the Preparation Day. 18. On the Resurrection. 19. On the Ascension. 20. On the Second Advent. 21. On " Astronomers." 22. On Almsgiving, and on the Rich Man and Lazarus. He adheres to the Catholic doc- trines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. He uses the ordinary Eastern phrase, " Christ our God," speaks of Him as Maker of the world, as Master of the creation, as present from the beginning with the prophets, and as the Lord of Isaiah's vision. He calls the Holy Spirit consubstantial with the Father and the Son ; in the sermon on Almsgiving he calls the Virgin Mother " Ever- Virgin," " Theotokos," and " our undefiled Lady." He insists on free will and responsibility. " God . . . saith, ' If you do not choose to hear Me, I do not compel you.' God could make thee good against thy will, but what is involuntary is unrewarded. ... If He wrote it down that I was to commit sin, and I do commit it, why does He judge me ? " If a man means to please God, " God holds out a hand to him EUSEBIUS 317 straightway," etc. Hef^ire a man rrni>unrr» the worUl (by a monastic vow), let him try himself, know his own soul. He who fasts must fast with " tongue, eyes, hands, feci " ; his whole " body, soul, and spirit " must be restrained from all sinful indulgence. " Fast, as the Lord said, in cheerfiilness, with sincere love to all men. Hut when you have d>Mie all this, do not think v>)u are better than A. <>r M. Say you are uni>ri>htal)lc servants." IVople are not t(j blame wine, but those who drink it to excess ; nor riches, but the man who administers them ill. Abraham had riches, but they harmed him not, etc. Some sen- tences shew a true spiritual insight : " What sort of righteousness exceeds the rest ? Love, for without it no good comes of any other. What sin is worst ? All sin is dreadful, but none is worse than covetousncss and remem- brance of injuries " (Serm. On Love). He has humour, too, which must have told : " On Sundavs the herald calls people to church ; e\erybody says he is sleepy, or unwell. Hark ! a sound of harp or pipe, a noise of dancing : all hasten that wav as if on wings " (How. on the Lord's Day, Galland. viii. 253)- He depicts vividly the extravagance of Alexandrian wealth ; the splendid houses glistening with marble, beds and carpets wrought with gold and pearls, horses with golden bridles and saddles, the crowds of servants of various classes— some to attend the great man when he rides out, some to manage his lands or his house, building, or his kitchen, some to fan him at his meals, to keep the house quiet during his slumber:— the varieties of white bread, the pheasants, geese, peacocks, hares, etc., served up at his table. The Christian should look forward to Sunday, not simply as a day of rest fr(jm labour, but as a day of prayer and Communion. Let him come in early morning to church for the Eucharistic service (the features of it are enumerated : the psalmodv, the reading of Prophets, of St. Paul, of the Gospels, the Angelic and Seraphic hymns, the ceaseless Alleluia, the exhortations of bishops and presbyters, the presence of Christ " on the sacred table." the " coming of the Spirit). " If thy conscience is clear approach, and receive the Body and Bh^od of the Lord. If it condemns thee in regard to wicked deeds, decline the Communion until thou hast corrected it by repentance, but stav through the prayers [i.e. the communion service], and do not go out of the church unless thou art dismissed " ; or again. " before the dismissal." He severely blames a layman who tastes food before the Liturgy is over, whether he communicates or not ; but denounces those who communicate after eating (as many do on Easter Day itself) as if guilty of a heinous sin. (In this case, as in regard to premature departure from church, he does not scruple to refer to Judas.) He blames th-se wh<. do not cnrnmunicate when a priest, km.wn to be ol ! bad life, is the celebrant ; for " G..d lurneth not away, and the bread becomes the Body. He reproves those who arc disorderly at the I vigil services of a saint's festival, and at day- break rise and cause great disturbances. i " Inside the church, the priest is presenting the supplication . . . having set forth {irpoTi Otmwf) I the Body and the Blood ... for the salvatiou 318 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA of the world : while, outside, amusements go on." He refers to the different functions of priest, deacon, reader, chanter, and sub- deacon {vwripirris)- He encourages invoca- tion of saints. Mai calls him a writer delightful from his " ingenuitas," his "Christian ac pastoralis simplicitas," and his " nativum dicendi genus" (Patrum Nov. Biblioth. ii. 499). [w.b.] Euseblus (23) of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. Of extant sources of our knowledge of Eusebius the most important are the scattered notices in writers of the same or immediately succeeding ages, e.g. Athanasius, Jerome, Socrates, Sozomen, andTheodoret. At a later date some valuable information is con- tained in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea (Labbe, Cone. viii. 1144 seq. ed. Colet.), and in the Antirrhetica of the patriarch Nicephorus {Spicil. Solesm. i. pp. 371 seq.) like- wise connected with the Iconoclastic contro- versy. The primary sources of information, however, for the career of one who was above all a literary man must be sought in his own works. The only edition of them which aims at completeness is in Migne's Pair. Gk. vols. xix.-xxiv. See also the standard works of Cave (Hist. Lit. i. pp. 175 seq.), Tillemont [Hist. Eccl. vii. pp. 39 seq., 659 seq., together with scattered notices in his account of the Arians and of the Nicene council in vol. vi.), and Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vii. pp. 335 seq. ed. Harles). The most complete monograph is Stein's Eusebius Bischof von Cdsarea (Wiirzburg, 1852). There is a useful English trans, of the History in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, by Mr. Giffert; cf. A. C. Headlam, The Editions or MSS. of Eusebius, in Journal of Theol. Studies, 1902, iii. 93-102. The references in his own works will hardly allow us to place his birth much later than A.D. 260, so that he would be nearly 80 at his death. All notices of his early life are con- nected with Caesarea ; and as it was then usual to prefer a native as bishop, everything favours this as the city of his birth. Of his parentage and relationships absolute- ly nothing is known, but here, as a child, he was catechized in that declaration of belief which years afterwards was laid by him before the great council of Nicaea, and adopted by the assembled Fathers as a basis for the creed of the universal church. Here he listened to the Biblical expositions of the learned Dorotheus, thoroughly versed in the Hebrew Scriptures and not unacquainted with Greek literature and philosophy, once the superintendent of the emperor's purple factory at Tyre, but now a presbyter in the EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA giving freely to all in want ; he multiplied copies of the Scriptures, which he distributed gratuitously (Eus. in Hieron. c. Rufin. i. 9, Of), ii. 465) ; and to the sympathy of the friend he united the courage of the hero. He had also the power of impressing his own strong convictions on others. Hence, when the great trial of faith came, his house was found to be not only the home of students but the nursery of martyrs. To one like Eusebius, who owed his strength and his weakness alike to a ready susceptibility of impression from those about him, such a friendship was an inestimable blessing. He expressed the strength of his devotion to this friend by adopting his name, being known as " Eusebius of Pamphilus." Eusebius was in middle life when the last and fiercest persecution broke out. For nearly half a century — a longer period than at any other time since its foundation — the church had enjoyed uninterrupted peace as regards attacks from without. Suddenly and unexpectedly all was changed. The city of Caesarea became a chief centre of persecution. Eusebius tells how he saw the houses of prayer razed to the ground, the holy Scriptures com- mitted to the flames in the market-places, the pastors hiding themselves, and shamefully jeered at when caught by their persecutors [H. E. viii. 2). For seven years the attacks continued. At Tyre also Eusebius saw several Christians torn by wild beasts in the amphi- theatre [ib. 7, 8). Leaving Palestine, he visited Egypt. In no country did the persecution rage more fiercely. Here, in the Thebaid, they perished, ten, twenty, even sixty or a hundred at a time. Eusebius tells how he in these parts witnessed numerous martyrdoms in a single day, some by beheading, others by fire ; the executioners relieving each other by relays and the victims eagerly pressing forward to be tortured, clamouring for the honour of martyrdom, and receiving their sentence with joy and laughter {ib. 9). This visit to Egypt was apparently after the imprisonment and martyrdom of Pamphilus, in the latest and fiercest days of the persecution. It was prob- ably now that Eusebius was imprisoned for his faith. If so, we have the less difficulty in explaining his release, without any stain left on his integrity or his courage. Not long after the restoration of peace (a.d. 313) Eusebius was unanimously elected to the vacant see of Caesarea. Among the earliest results of the peace was the erection of a magnificent basilica at Tyre under the direc- tion of his friend Paulinus, the bishop. Euse- bius was invited to deliver the inaugural church of Caesarea (H. E. vii. 32)'. Here, in address. This address he has preserved and due time, he was himself ordained a presbyter, I inserted in his History, where, though not probably by that bp. Agapius whose wise fore- mentioned, the orator's name is but thinly thought and untiring assiduitv and open- ' concealed (H.E. ix. 4). This oration is a handed benevolence he himself has recorded paean of thanksgiving over the restitution of {ib.). Here, above all, he contracted with I the Church, of which the splendid buildmg the saintly student Pamphilus that friend- at Tyre was at once the firstfruit and the ship which was the crown and glory of his life, ! type. The incident must have taken place and which martyrdom itself could not sever. ' not later than a.d. 315. For more than 25 Eusebius owed far more to Pamphilus than ' years he presided over the church of Caesarea, the impulse and direction given to his studies, winning the respect and affection of all. He Pamphilus, no mere student recluse, was a died bp. of Caesarea. man of large heart and bountiful hand, above | When the Arian controversy broke out, the all things helpful to his friends {Mart. Pal. 11), , sympathies of Eusebius were early enlisted on EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA the side of Arius. If his naiuosako of Nico- inedia may be trusted, he was especially zealous on behalf of the Arian doctrine at this time (Eus. Nicom. in Theod. //. E. i. 5. v tov 5((nr6rov /xov Ki'cre/itoi' ffwovdij 17 virip a.\r]Oovs \6yov). But the testimony of this strong partisan may well be suspected ; and the attitude of Eusebius of Caesarea throughout suggests that he was influenced rather by personal associations and the desire to secure liberal treatment for the heresiarch than by any real accordance with his views. What- ever his motives, he wrote to Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, remonstrating with him for deposing Arius and urging that he had mis- represented the opinions of the latter (Labbe, Cone. viii. 1 14S, ed. Colet). The cause of Arius was taken up also by two neighbouring bishops, Theodotus of Laodicea and Paulinus of Tyre. In a letter addressed to his name- sake of Constantinople, Alexander complains of three Syrian bishops, " ajipointed he knows not how," as having fanned the flame of sedi- tion (Theod. H. E. i. 3) ; while .\rius himself claims"all thebishopsintheEast," mentioning by name Eusebius of Caesarea with others, as on his side {ib. i. 4). Accordingly, when he was deposed by a synod convened at Alexandria by Alexander, Arius appealed to Eusebius and others to interpose. A meeting of Syrian bishops decided for his restoration, though wording the decision cautiously. The synod thought that .\rius should be allowed to gather his congregation about him as heretofore, but added that he must render obedience to Alexander and entreat to be admitted to communion with him (Soz. H. E. i. 15). At the council of Xicaea (a.d. 325) Eusebius took a leading part. This prominencehe cannot liave owed to his bishopric, which, though important, did not rank with the great sees, "the apostolic thrones" {ib. 17) of Rome, .•\ntioch, and .Alexandria. But that he was beyond question the most learned man and most famous living writer in the church at this time would suffice to secure him a hearing. Probably, however, his importance was due even more to his close relations with the great emperor, whose entire confidence he enjoyed. He occupied the first seat to the emperor's right (V. C. iii. 11), and delivered the opening address to Constantine when he took his seat in the council-chamber {ib. i. prooem., iii. 11 ; Soz. H. E. i. 19). The speech is unfortunately not preserved. Eusebius himself has left us an account of his doings with regard to the main object of the council in a letter of explanation to his church at Caesarea. He laid before the council the creed in use in the Caesarean church, which had been handed down from the bishops who preceded him, which he him- self had been taught at his baptism, and in which, both as a presbyter and bishop, he had instructed others. The emperor was satisfied with the orthodoxy of this creed, inserting however the single word o/xoovaiov, and giving explanations as to its meaning which set the scruples of Eusebius at rest. The assembled Fathers, taking this as their starting-point, made other important insertions and altera- tions. Moreover, an anathema was appended directly condemning .'^rian doctrines. Euse- EUSEBIUS OP CAESAREA SIO bins took time to consider b< (..r.- sulismbinR to this revised formula. The three expres- sions which caused dillicultv were: (i) "of the substance of the Father " (e\ t>> oi'vias roi TorpAs) ; (2) "begotten, not made" {ytyrtt- Oivra. ov TTM-qdh'Ta) ; (3) " of the same sub- stance " (o^ooi'-trtoi-) ; and <if these he de- manded explanations. The explanations were so far satisfactory that for the sake of peace he subscribed to the creed. He had the less scruple in assenting to the final anathema, because the Arian expressions which it con- demned were not scriptural, and he considered that " almost all the confusion and disturb- ance of the churches " had arisen from the use of unscriptural phrases. This letter, he concludes, is written to the Caesareans to ex- plain that he would resist to the last anv vital change in the traditional creed of his church, but had subscribed to these alterations, when assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing contentious (d(^i\o«'*uws). See Hort's Two Dissertations, pp. 55 seq. The settlement i>f the dispute respecting the time of observing I'laster was another import- ant work undertaken by the council. In this also a leading part has been assigned to Euse- bius by some modern writers {e.g. Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 182, following Tillemont, H. E. vi. p. 668). The hopes which Eusebius with others had built upon the decisions of the Nicene council were soon dashed. The final peace of the church seemed as far distant as ever. In three controversies with three distinguished antago- nists, Eusebius took a more or less prominent part ; and his reputation, whether justly 1 ir not, has suffered greatlv in consequence. (i) Synod of Antioch. — Eustathius, bp. of .\ntioch, was a staunch advocate of the Nicene doctrine and a determined foe of the Arians. He had assailed the tenets of Origen (Socr. H. E. vi. 13), of whom Eusebius was an ardent champion, and had charged Eiusebius himself with faithlessness to the doctrines of Nicaea. He was accused in turn of Sabellianism by Euse- bius (rt.i. 23; Soz. //.£. ii. 19)- Tothehistorian Socrates the doctrines of the two antagonists seemed practically identical. Nevertheless they were regarded as the two principals in the quarrel (Soz. H. E. ii. 18). A synod, mainly composed of bishops with .\rian or semi-Arian sympathies, was assembled at .Antioch, a.d. 330, to consider the charge of Sabellianism brought against Eustathius, who was deposed. The see of .Antioch thus became vacant. The assembled bishops proposed Eusebius of Caesarea as his successor, and wrote to the emperor on his behalf, but Flusebius declined the honour, alleging the rule of the Church, regarded as an " apostolic tradition," which forbade translations from one see to another ; and liuphronius was elected. (ii) Synods of Caesarea, Tyre, and Jerusalem. — The next stage of the Arian controversy ex- hibits Eusebius in conflict with a greater than Eustathius. The disgraceful intrigues of the Arians and Meletians against Athanasius, which led to his first exile, are related in our art. Athanasius. It is suflicient to say here that the emperor summoned .Athanasius to appear before a gathering of bishops at Caesarea, to meet the charges brought against 320 EUSEBiUS OJ" CAESAREA him. It is stated by Theodoret (H. E. i. 26) that Constantine was induced to name Caesarea by the Arian party, who selected it because the enemies of Athanasius were in a majority there {(vOa 5?; 7r\eioi;s fjaav oi dvff/jLeyeis) , but the emperor may have given the prefer- ence to Caesarea because he reposed the greatest confidence in the moderation (e■7^^e/^•ela) of its bishop. Athanasius excused himself from attending, believing that there was a conspiracy against him, and that he would not have fair play there (Festal Letters, p. xvii, Oxf. trans. ; Theod. H. E. i. 26 ; Soz. H. E. 11.25). This was in 334. Athanasius does not mention this synod in his Apology. The next year (a.d. 335) Athanasius re- ceived a peremptory and angry summons from Constantine to appear before a synod of bishops at Tyre. Theodoret (I.e.) conjectures (ws oluaL) that the place of meeting was changed by the emperor out of deference to the fears of Athanasius, who " looked with suspicion on Caesarea on account of its ruler." Athanasius, or his friends, may indeed have objected to Eusebius as a partisan ; for the Egyptian bishops who espoused the cause of Athanasius, addressing the synod of Tyre, allege " the law of God " as forbidding " an enemy to be witness or judge," and shortly afterwards add mysteriously, " ye know why Eusebius of Caesarea has become an enemy since last year" (Athan. Ap. c. Arian. 77, Op. i. p. 153). The scenes at the synod of Tyre form the most picturesque and the most shameful chapter in the Arian controversy. After all allowance for the exaggerations of the Athanasian party, from whom our know- ledge is chiefly derived, the proceedings will still remain an undying shame to Eusebius of Nicomedia and his fellow-intriguers. But there is no reason for supposing that Eusebius of Caesarea took any active part in these plots. Athanasius mentions him rarelv, and then without any special bitterness.' The " Eusebians" [oi nepl Eiiaejiiof) are always the adherents of his Nicomedian namesake. But, though probably not participating in, and possibly ignorant of their plots, Eusebius of Caesarea was certainlv used as a tool by the more unscrupulous and violent partisans of Anus, and must bear the reproach of a too easy compliance with their actions. The proceedings were cut short bv the withdrawal of Athanasius, who suddenly sailed to Con- stantinople, and appealed in person to the emperor. The svnod condemned him by default. While the bishops at Tyre were in the midst of their session, an urgent summons from the emperor called them to take part in the ap- proaching festival at Jerusalem (Eus. V. C. ly. 41 seq. ; Socr. H. E. i. 33 seq. ; Soz. H. E. 11. 26 ; Theod. H. E. i. 29). It was the tricen- nalia of Constantine. No previous sovereign after Augustus, the founder of the empire, had reigned for thirty years. Constantine had a fondness for magnificent ceremonial, and here was a noble opportunity (V. C. iv. 40, Kaipbs fvKaipos). The occasion was marked by the dedication of Constantine's new and splendid basilica, built on the site of Calvary. The festival was graced by a series of orations from EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA ] the principal persons present. In these Euse- bius bore a conspicuous part, finding in this dedication festival a far more congenial at- mosphere than in the intrigues of the synod at Tyre. He speaks of the assemblage at Tyre as a mere episode of the festival at Jerusalem (65o0 5rj Trdpfpyof). The emperor, he says, preparing for the celebration of this festival, was anxious to end the quarrels which rent the church. In doing so he was obeying the Lord's injunction, " Be reconciled to thy brother, and then go and offer thy gift " (cf. Soz. i. 26). This view of the emperor's motive is entirely borne out by Constantine's own letter to the synod at Tyre. Eusebius was greatly impressed by the celebration ; but Tillemont, who shews strong prejudice against Eusebius throughout, altogether misstates the case in saying that he " compares or even prefers this assembly to the council of Nicaea, striving to exalt it as much as he can, for the sake of effacing the glory of that great council," etc. (vi. p. 284). But Eusebius says distinctly that " after that first council " this was the greatest synod assembled by Con- stantine (F. C. iv. 47) ; and so far from shewing any desire to depreciate the council of Nicaea, he cannot find language magnificent enough to sing its glories (iii. 6 seq.). Arius and Euzoius had presented a confession of faith to the emperor, seeking readmission to the church. The emperor was satisfied that this document was in harmony with the faith of Nicaea, and sent Arius and Euzoius to Jerusalem, requesting the synod to consider their confession of faith and restore them to communion. Arius and his followers were accordingly readmitted at Jerusalem. Of the bishops responsible for this act, some were hostile to Athanasius, others would regard it as an act of pacification. The stress which Eusebius lays on Constantine's desire to secure peace on this, as on all other occasions, suggests that that was a predominant idea in the writer's own mind, though perhaps not unmixed with other influences. (iii) Synod of Constantinople. — Athanasius had not fled to Constantinople in vain. Con- stantine desired pacification but was not insensible to justice ; and the personal plead- ings of Athanasius convinced him that justice had been outraged (A p. c. Arian. 86). The bishops at the dedication festival had scarcely executed the request, or command, of the emperor's first letter, when they received another written in a very different temper [ib. ; Socr. H. E. i. 34 ; Soz. H. E. ii. 27). It was addressed " to the bishops that had assembled at Tyre " ; described their proceedings as "tumultuous and stormy"; and summoned them without delay to Constantinople. The leaders of the Eusebian party alone obeyed ; the rest retired to their homes. Among those who obeyed was Eusebius of Caesarea. Of the principal events which occurred at Constanti- nople, the banishment of Athanasius and the death of Arius, we need not speak here. But the proceedings of the synod then held there (a.d. 336) have an important bearing on the literary history of Eusebius. The chief work of the synod was the condemnation of Marcellus, bp. of AncjTa, an uncompromising opponent of the Arians. He had written a book in reply to EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA the Arian Asterivis " tho soi>hist," in wliicli Ins zeal against Arian tenets goatlcd him into ex- pressions that had a rank savour of Sabellianisni. The proceedinss ac:aiiist iiiin had commenced at Jerusalem and were continued at Constanti- nople, where he was condemned of Sabellianism, and deposed from his bishopric (Socr. H. E. i. 36 ; Soz. H. E. ii. 33). Eusebius is especially mentioned as taking part in this synod (Athan. Al>. c. Arian. 87 ; cf. Eus. c. Marc. ii. 4, p. 115). Not satisfied with this, the doniinant party urged Eusebius to undertake a refuta- tion of the heretic. Two works against Mar- cellus were his response. Ivuscbius foimd also more congenial employment during his sojourn at Constantinople. The celebration of the emperor's tricennalia had not yet ended, and Eusebius delivered a panegyric which he afterwards appended to his Life of Constaittine. The delivery of this oration may have been the chief motive which induced Eusebius to ac- company the Arian bishops to Constantinople. It must have been during this same visit, though on an earlier day, that he delivered before the emperor his discourse on the church of the Holy Sepulchre, probably previously spoken also at the dedication itself. This ora- tion has unfortunately not survived. It does not appear that Eusebius had any personal interview with Constantine before the council of Xicaea. Here, however, he stood high in the emperor's favour, as the prominent position assigned to him shews ; and there seems thenceforward no interruption in their cordial relations. The emperor used to enter into familiar conversation with him, relating the most remarkable incidents in his career, such as the miraculous appearance of the cross in the skies (V. C. i. 28), and the protection afforded by that emblem in battle (ii. 9). He corre- sponded with him on various subjects, on one occasion asking him to see to the execution of fifty copies of the Scriptures for his new capital, and supplying him with the necessary means (iv. 36) ; and he listened with patience, and even with delight, to the lengthy and elaborate orations which Eusebius delivered from time to time in his presence. Constantine praises his eulogist's gentleness or moderation (iii. 60). NorwasConstantine theonlymemberof the im- perial family with whom Eusebius had friendly relations. The empress Constantia, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, wrote to him on a matter of religious interest. In his reply we are especially struck with the frank- ness of expostulation, almost of rebuke, with which he addresses her (Spicil. Solesm. i. 383). The great emperor breathed his last on May 22, A.D. 337 ; and Eusebius died not later than the close of 339 or the begirming of 340. In Wright's Ancient Syrian Martyrology, which cannot date later than half a century after the event, " the commemoration of Eusebius bp. of Palestine " is pla( ed on May 30. If this represents the day of his death, as probably it does, he must have died in 339, for the notices will hardly allow so late a date in the following year. His literary activity was unabated to the end. Four years at most can have elapsed between his last visit to Constantinople and his death. He must have been nearly 80 years old when the end came. Yet at this advanced age, and within this short period, he composed EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA :i2l the Piini-);yric. the l.t/f of t .iiisUmliiir. th.- treatise Af^aittst Maridlus. and the romp.ini..M treatise On the Theoloj^v 0/ the ( hiirch; pli- ably he had in hand at the same tune othir unfinished works, such as the Theophanta. There are no signs of failing mental vigour m these works. The two doctrinal treatises arc perhaps his most forcil)le and lucid writings. The Panegyric and the Life of Constantine are disfigured by a too luxuriant rhetoric, but in vigour equal any of his earlier works. Of his death itself no record is left. Acacius, his successor, had been his pupil. Though more decidedly Arian in bias, he was a devoted admirer of his master (Soz. H. E. iii. 2). He wrote a Life of Eusebius, and apparently edited some of his works. Literary Works. — The literary remains of Eusebius are a rich and, excepting the Chrnttn tc and the Ecclesiastical History, a comparatively unexplored mine of study. They may be ( l.iss.d as : A. Historical ; 13. .4 polo^etic ; C. Critical and Exegetical; D. Doctrinal; E Orations; F. Letters. A. Historical. — (i) Life of Pamphilus. — Eusebius {Mart. Pal. 11), speaking of his friend's martyrdom, refers to this work as follows : " Tiie rest of the triumphs of his virtue, requiring a longer narration, we have already before this given to the world in a separate work in three books, of which bis life is the subject." He also refers to it 3 times in his History (//. E. vi. 32, vii. 32, v'iii. 13). The Life of Pamphilus was thus written before the History, and before the shorter ed. of — (2) The Martyrs of Palestine. — This work is extant in two forms, a shorter and a longer. The shorter is attached to the History, com- monly between the 8th and 9th books. The longer form is not extant entire in the original Greek. In the BoUandist Acta Sanctorum (Jun. t. i. p. 64) Papebroch pub. for the first time in Greek, from a Paris MS. of the Metaphrast, an account of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and others, pro- fessedly " composed by Eusebius Painphili." It had appeared in a Latin version before. The Greek was reprinted by Fabricius, Hippo- lytus, ii. p. 217. This is a fuller account of the incidents related in the Mart. Pal. 11 attached to the History. Their common matter is ex- pressed in the same words, or nearly so. Hence one must have been an enlargement or an abridgment of the other. Nor can it reasonably be doubted that the shorter form of the Palestinian Martyrs is Eusebius's own. It retains those notices of the longer form in which ICusebius speaks in his own person ; and, moreover, in the pas- sages peculiar to this shorter form, Eusebius is evidently the sjieaker. Thus (c. 11) lie mentions having alreaily written a s()ecial work in three books on the life of Pamphilus ; and when recording the death of Silvanus, who had had his lyes i)ut out (c. 13), inentions his own astciiiishinciit when he once heard him reading the Scriptures, as he supposed, from a book in church, but was told that he was blind and was repeating them by heart. Moreover, other incidental notices, inserted from time to time and having no place in the longer form, shew the knowledge of a contem- porary and eyewitness. The longer edition seems to be the original 21 322 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA form. It is an independent work, apparently written not very long after the events. It betrays no other motive than to inform and edify the readers, more especially the Chris- tians of Caesarea and Palestine, to whom it is immediately addressed. " Our city of Cae- sarea " is an expression occurring several times (pp. 4 twice, 25, 30). " This our country," " this our city," are analogous phrases (pp. 8, 13). In the shorter form the case is different. The writer does not localize himself in the same way. It is always " the city," never " this city," of Caesarea. The appeal to the Caesareans in recounting the miracle is left out (c. 4). The hortatory beginning and ending are omitted, and the didactic portions abridged or excised. The shorter form thus appears to be part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of themartyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors. The object would thus be the vindication of God's right- eousness. This idea appears several times elsewhere in Eusebius, and he mayhave desired to embody it in a separate treatise. (3) Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms. — Of this work Eusebius was not the author, but merely, as the title suggests and as the notices require, the compiler and editor. The nar- ratives of martyrdoms were, in the eyes of Eusebius, not only valuable as history but instructive as lessons {H. E. v. praef.). Hence he took pains to preserve authentic records of them, himself undertaking to record those of his own country, Palestine, at this time; while he left to others in different parts of the world to relate those " quae ipsi miserrima vider- unt," declaring that only thus could strict accuracy be attained {H. E. viii. 13, with the whole context). But he was anxious also to preserve the records of past persecutions. Hence this collection of Martyrologies. The epithet " ancient " (apxa-la) must be regarded as relative, applying to all prior to the " per- secution of his own time " (6 KaD' ^)/j.ds 5iu)y/j.6s, according to his favourite expression). He himself refers to this collection for the martyr- dom of Polycarp and others at Smvrna under Antoninus Pius a.d. 155 or 156 (iv. 15), for the documents relating to the sufferers in Gaul imder M. Aurelius a.d. 177 (v. i, seq.), and for the defence of Apollonius under Commodus A.D. 180-185 (v. 21). But it would probably comprise any martyrdoms which occurred before the long peace that preceded the out- break of the last persecution under Diocletian. [(4) Chronicle.— This work mav be described in words suggested by the author's own ac- count of it at the beginning of his Eclogue Propheticae, as " chronological tables, to which is prefixed an epitome of universal history drawn from various sources." The epitome occupies the first book, the tables the second. The tables exhibit in parallel columns the successions of the rulers of different nations, so that contemporary monarchs can be seen at a glance. Notes mark the years of the more remarkable historical events, these notes constituting an epitome of history. The in- terest which Christians felt in the study of comparative chronology arose from heathen opponents contrasting the antiquity of their rites with the novelty of the Christian religion. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA Christian apologists retorted by proving that the Grecian legislators and philosophers were very much later than the Hebrew legislator and later than the prophets who had testified of Christ and taught a religion of which Christi- anity was the legitimate continuation. In the Praeparatio Evangelica (x. 9) Eusebius urges this, quoting largely from preceding writers who had proved the antiquity of the Jews, e.g. Josephus, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and especially Africanus. This last writer had made the synchronisms between sacred and profane history his special study, and his chronological work, now lost, gave Eusebius the model and, to a great extent, the materials for his own Chronicle. The Greek of Eusebius's own work has been lost, and until recent times it was only known through the use made of it by successors, par- ticularly Jerome, who translated it into Latin, enlarging the notices of Roman history and continuing it to his own time. In 1606 Scaliger published an edition of the Chronicle, in which he attempted to restore the Greek of Eusebius, collecting from Syncellus, Cedrenus, and other Greek chronologers, notices which he believed himself able, mainly by the help of Jerome's translation, to identify as copied from Euse- bius ; but his restoration of the first book, where he had but little guidance from Jerome, did not inspire confidence, and has been proved untrustworthy. An Armenian trans, of the Chronicle, pub. in 181 8, enables us now to state the contents of bk. i. After pleading that early Greek and even Hebrew chronology present many difficulties, Eusebius, in the first section, gives a sketch of Chaldee and Assyrian history, subjoining a table of Assyrian, Median, Lydian, and Per- sian kings, ending with the Darius conquered by Alexander. The authors he uses are Alexander Polyhistor, and, as known through hmi, Berosus ; Abydenus, Josephus, Castor, Diodorus, and Cephalion. He notes the coin- cidences of these writers with Hebrew history and suggests that the incredible lengths as- signed to reigns in the early Chaldee history may be reduced if the " sari," said to be periods of 3,600 years, were in reality far shorter periods, and in like manner, following Africanus, that the Egyptian years may be in reality but months. An alternative sug- gestion in this first book is that some Egyptian dynasties may have been, not consecutive, but synchronous. The second section treats of Hebrew chronology, the secular authorities used being Josephus and Africanus. Eusebius notices the chronological difference between the Heb., LXX., and Samaritan texts, and conjectures that the Hebrews, to justify by patriarchal example their love of early mar- riages, systematically shortened the intervals between the birth of each patriarch and that of his first son. He gives other arguments which decide him in favour of the LXX, especially as it was the version used by our Lord and the apostles. In the period from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham, which Eusebius makes the initial point of his own tables, he follows the LXX, except that he omits the second Cainan, making 942 years ; and thus placing the birth of Abraham in the year from the Creation 3184. He reckons 480 EOSEBIUS Of CAESAREA years bi'twoeii tlie Ilxi'diis ami Snl.nnon s : temple, as in I. Kiti^s. In the pit faee to his i second book, he states that his predecessors had made Moses contemporary with Inachus, | and 700 years earlier than tlie Troj.m War. His own computation made Inaclnis contem- porary with Jacob, and Moses with (.■e('ro|>s. but he contends that this leaves Moses still nearly 400 years older than the capture of Troy, and older than Deucalion's Deluge, Phaethon's Conflagration, Bacchus, Aescu- lapius, Castor and I'ollux, Hercules, Homer and the Seven Wise Men of Greece, and Pytha- goras the first philosopher. Eusebius counts 442 years from the foundation of Solomon's temple to its destruction under Zedekiah. He reckons two prophetic periods of 70 years of captivity. One begins with the destruction of the temple, and ends with the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis and the rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel. The other is from the first prophesying of Jeremiah in the 13th year of Josiah to the ist year of Cyrus, when an altar was set up at Jerusalem and the foundations of the temple laid. In the tables Eusebius gives an alternative for this period, viz. from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the 19th of CvTus. From the 2nd year of Darius, which he counts as the ist year of the 65th olympiad, Eusebius counts 548 years to the preaching of our Lord and the '15th year of Tiberius, which he reckons as the 4th year of the 201st olympiad, and as the year' 5228 from the creation of the world. There is every reason for thinking that more editions of the Chronicle than one were published by Eusebius in his lifetima. In its latest form it terminates with the Viceunalia of Constantine. Jerome says in his preface that as far as the taking of Troy his work was a mere translation of that of Eusebius ; that from that date to the point at which the work of Eusebius closes, he added notices, from Suetonius and others, relating to Roman history ; and that the conclusion from where Eusebius breaks off to his own time was entirely his own. c.s.] (5) Ecclesiastical History. — From many considerations it seems clear that the History was finished some time in a.d. 324 or 325 — before midsummer in the latter year, and probably some months earlier ; and the earlier books even some years before this. The work contains no indications that it was due to any suggestion from without, as some have supposed. If the author had been prompted to it byConstantine, he would hardly have been silent about the fact, for he is only too ready elsewhere to parade the flatteries of his imperial patron. Moreover, it was pro- bably written in great measure, or at least the materials for it collected, before his relations with Constantine began. His own language rather suggests that it grew out of a previous work, the Chronicle. He begins by enumerating the topics with which it is intended to deal : (i) the succes- sions of the apostles with continuous chrono- logical data from the Christian era to his own time ; (2) the events of ecclesiastical history ; (3) the most distinguished rulers, preachers, and writers in the church ; (4) the teachers of heresy who, like " grievous wolves," have ravaged the flock of Christ; (5) the rctribu- EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 323 tion which li.id Ixf.dl.-ii the |.wish race; (0) the persecutions of the church and the vic- tories of the martyrs and <-i>n(<ssi>rs, cnti- eluding with the great and final di-liverance wrought by the S.iviour in the author's own ilay. He prays for guidance, since he is entering upon an untroilden way, where he will lind no ft>otpriiits, though the works of predecessors may serve as beacon-lights here and there through the waste. He considers it absolutely necessary (d>'07\oi6rara) to undertake the task, because no one else before him had done so. The work, he concludes, must of necessity commence with the Incar- nation and Divinity {oUovofilat rt koI 0fo\o-)lat) of Christ, because from Him we all derive our name. Accordingly he proceeds to shew that Christianity is no new thing, but has its roots in the eternal past. The VV<jrd was with (khI before the beginning of creation. He was recognized and known by righteous men in all ages, especially among the Hebrews ; His advent, even His very names, were foretold and glorified ; His society — the Christian church— was the subject of prophecy, while the Christian type of life was never without e.xamples since the race began (i. 4, cf. ii. i). " After this necessary preparation " {nfrd ttjc Shi'iTav TTponaTajKeniy, i. 5), he proceeds to speak of the Incarnation, its chronology and synchronisms in external history, the Herodian kingdom, the Roman empire, the Jewish priesthood, including a discussion of the Saviour's genealogy ; thus shewing that it came in the fulness of time as a realization of prophecy (cc. 5-10). A chapter is devoted to the Baptist as the first herald (c. 11), another to the appointment of the Twelve and the Seventy (c. 12) ; a third to the mission sent by Christ Himself to Edessa, as recorded in the archives of that city (c. 13). We are thus brought to the time of the Ascension, and the first book ends. The second comjirises the preaching of the apostles to the destruction of Jerusalem, the writer's aim being not to repeat the accounts in the N.T., but to supplement them from external sources. The third book extends to the reign of Trajan, and covers the sub-apostolic age, ending with notices of Ignatius, Clement, and Papias. The fourth and fifth carry us to the close of the 2nd cent., including the Montanist, Quartodeciman, and Monarchian disputes. The sixth contains the period from the persecution of Severus (a.d. 203) to that of Decius (a.d. 250), the central figure being Origen, of whom a full account is given. The seventh continues the narrative to th • outbreak of the great persecution under Diocletian, and is largely composed of quota- tions from Dionysius of Alexandria, as the preface states, it is significant that the last forty years of this period, though contem- porary with the historian, arc dismissed in a single long cha|)ter. It was a period of very rapid but silent progress. wh«n the church ft)r the first time was in the h.ippv ondilii'ii of having no history. The eighth book gives the history of the persecution of Diocletian till the "palinode," the edict of (.alerius (a.d. 3«")- The ninth relates the sufferings of the ll.istern Christians until the victorv over .Maxentius at the Milvian bridge in the West, and the d.ath 1 of Maxiinin in the East, left Constantine and 324 EUSEBIUS OF CAESARfiA Licinius sole emperors. The tenth and last book, dedicated to Paulinus, gives an account of the rebuilding of the churches, the imperial decrees favourable to the Christians, the sub- sequent rebellion of Licinius, and the victory of Constantine by which he was left sole master of the Roman world. A panegyric of Constantine closes the whole. Eusebius thus had a truly noble conception of the work which he had undertaken. It was nothing less than the history of a society which stood in an intimate relation to the Divine Logos Himself, a society whose roots struck down into the remotest past and whose destinies soared into the eternal future. He felt, moreover, that he himself lived at the great crisis in its history. Now at length it seemed to have conquered the powers of this world. This was the very time, therefore, to place on record the incidents of its past career. Moreover, he had great opportunities, such as were not likely to fall to another. In his own episcopal city, perhaps in his own official residence, Pamphilus had got together the largest Christian library yet collected. Not far off, at Jerusalem, was another valuable library, collected a century earlier by the bp. Alexander, and especially rich in the correspondence of men of letters and rulers in the church, " from which library," writes Eusebius, " we too have been able to collect together the materials for this undertaking which we have in hand " {H. E. vi. 20). Moreover, he had been trained in a highly efficient school of literary industry under Pamphilus, while his passion for learning has rarely been equalled, perhaps never surpassed. The execution of his work, however, falls far short of the conception. The faults indeed are so patent as to have unjustly obscured the merits, for it is withal a noble monument of literary labour. We must remember his plea for indulgence, as one setting foot upon new ground, " nuUius ante trita solo " ; and as he had no predecessor, so he had no successor. Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, all commenced where he ended. The most bitter of his theological adversaries were forced to confess their obligations to him, and to speak of his work with respect. If we reflect what a blank would be left in our knowledge of this important chapter in history if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out, we shall appreci- ate our enormous debt of gratitude to him. Two points require consideration : (i) the range and adequacy of his materials, and (2) the use made of them. (i) The range of materials is astonishing when we consider that Eusebius was a pioneer. Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as read. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose, thus involving enormous labour. This then is his strongest point. Yet even here deficiencies may be noted. He very rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs them- selves, being content to give their opinions through the medium of their opponents' refutations. A still greater defect is his considerable ignorance of Latin literature and EUSEBIUS OF CAE3AREA of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he knows nothing of TertuUian's works, except the Apologeticum, which he quotes (ii. 2, 25, iii. 20, 33, V. 5) from a bad Greek translation (e.g. ii. 25, where the translator, being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, destroys the sense). Of Tertullian himself he gives no account, but calls him a " Roman." Pliny's letter he only knows through Tertullian (iii. 33) and he is unacquainted with the name of the province which Pliny governed. Of Hippolytus again he has very little informa- tion to communicate, and cannot even tell the name of his see (vi. 20, 22). His account of Cyprian, too, is extremely meagre (vi. 43, vii. 3), though Cyprian was for some years the most conspicuous figure in Western Christendom, and died (a.d. 258) not very long before his own birth. He betrays the same ignorance with regard to the bps. of Rome. His dates here, strangely enough, are widest of the mark when close upon his own time. Thus he assigns to XystusII. (fA.D. 258) eleven years (vii. 27) instead of months ; to Eutychianus (fA.D. 283) ten months (vii. 32) instead of nearly nine years ; to Gains, whom he calls his own contemporary, and who died long after he had arrived at manhood (a.d. 296), " about fifteen years " (vii. 32) instead of twelve. He seems to have had a corrupt list and did not possess the knowledge necessary to correct it. With the Latin language he appears to have had no thorough acquaintance, though he sometimes ventured to translate Latin documents (iv. 8, 9 ; cf. viii. 17). But he must not be held responsible for the blunders in the versions of others, e.g. of TertuUian's Apologeticum. The translations of state documents in the later books may be the semi-official Greek versions such as Con- stantine was in the habit of employing persons to make [V. C. iv. 32). See on this subject Heinichen's note on H. E. iv. 8. (2) Under the second head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his materials or not ? The sar- casm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi.) is well known : " The gravest of the ecclesias- tical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has sup- pressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion." The passages to which he refers (H. E. viii. 2 ; Mart. Pal. 12) do not bear out this imputation. There is no indirectness about them, but on the contrary they deplore, in the most emphatic terms, the evils which disgraced the church, and they represent the persecution under Diocletian as a just retri- bution for these wrongdoings. The ambi- tions, intriguing for office, factious quarrels, cowardly denials and shipwrecks of the faith — " evil piled upon evil " (KaKO. xaKoh fTTiTeixi-^ovTes) — are denounced in no meas- ured language. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins and shortcomings in general terms, without entering into de- tails ; declaring his intention of confining himself to topics profitable (irpbi w^eXei'ar) to his own and future generations. This treat- ment may be regarded as too great a sacrifice to edification ; but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Nor again can the special EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA charges against his honour as a narrator be sustained. There is no ground wliatever for the surmise that Eusebius forged or inter- polated the passage from Josephus relating to our Lord, quoted in H. E. i. ii, though Heini- chen (iii. pp. 623 seq., Melet. ii.) is disposed to entertain the charge. The passage is con- tained in all our extant MSS., and there is sufficient evidence that other interpolations (though not this) were introduced into the text of Josephus long before this time (See Orig. c. Cels. i. 47, Dclarue's note). Another interpolation in Josephus which Eusebius quotes (ii. 23) was certainly known to Origcn (I.e.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death (H. E. ii. 10) was already in some texts of Josephus (.-Itit. xix. 8, 2). The manner in which Euse- bius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, suffi- ciently vindicates him from this unjust charge. Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful to collect the best evidence accessible, and also to distinguish between different kinds of evidence. " Almost every page witnesses to the zeal with which he collected testimonies from writers who lived at the time of the events which he describes. For the sixth and seventh books he evidently rejoices to be able to use for the foundation of his narrative the contemporary letters of Dionysius ; ' Diony- sius, our great bp. of Alexandria,' he writes, ' will again help me by his own words in the composition of my seventh book of the history, since he relates in order the events of his own time in the letters which he has left ' (vii. praef.). ... In accordance with this in- stinctive desire for original testimony, Euse- bius scrupulously distinguishes facts which rest on documentary from those which rest on oral evidence. Some things he relates on the authority of a 'general' (iii. 11, 36) or ' old report ' (iii. 19, 20) or from tradition (i. 7, ii. 9, vi.2, etc.). In the lists of successions he is careful to notice where written records failed him. ' I could not,' he says, ' by any means find the chronology of the bps. of Jerusalem preserved in writing ; thus much only I received from written sources, that there were fifteen bishops in succession up to the date of the siege under Hadrian, etc' (iv. 5)." [w.] " There is nothing like hearing the actual words " of the writer, he says again and again (i. 23, iii. 32, vii. 23 ; cf.' iv. 23), when introducing a quotation. His general sincerity and good faith seem, therefore, clear. But his intellectual qualifications were in many respects defective. His credulity, in- deed, has frequently been much exaggerated. " Undoubtedly he relates many incidents which may seem to us incredible, but, when he does so, he gives the evidence on which they are recommended to him. At one time it is the express testimony of some well-known writer, at another a general belief, at another an old tradition, at another his own observa- tion (v. 7, vi. g. vii. 17, 18)." [w.] In the most remarkable passage bearing on the question he recounts his own experience during the last persecution in Palestine {Mart. Pal. 9). " There can be no doubt about the occurrence which Eusebius here describes, and it does not appear that he can be reproached EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 325 for adiliiig the interpretation which his countrymen placed upon it. Wh.it he vouches for we ran accept as truth ; wh.it he records as a popular comment leavfs Ins histori- cal veracity and judgment unimpaired." [w.) Even Gibbon (c. xvi.) describes the rhararter of Eusebius as " less tinctured with credulitv. and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries." A far more serious drawback is the h)ose and uncritical spirit in whi( h he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways, (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents. As regards the canon of Scripture indeed he takes special pains; lays down certain principles which shall guide him in the production of testimonies ; and on the whole adheres to these principles with fidelity (see Contemp. Rev. Jan. 1875, pp. 169 seq.). Yet elsewhere he adduces as genuine the correspondence of Christ and Abgarus (i. 13), though never treating it as canonical Scripture. The unworthy suspicion that Eusebius forged this correspondence which he asserted to be a translation of a S\Tiac original found in the archives of Edessa has been re- futed by the discovery and publication of the original Syriac {The Doctrine of Aiidai the Apostle with an English Translation and Kotes by G. Phillips, Lond. 1876 ; see Zahn, dotting. Gel. Am. Feb. 6, 1877, pp. 161 seq. ; Contemp. Rev. May 1877, p. 1137; a portion of this work had been published some time before in Cureton's .A ncient Syriac Documents, pp. 6 seq., Lond. 1864). Not his honesty, but his critical discernment was at fault. Yet we cannot be severe upon him for maintaining a position which, however untenable, has commended itself to Cave {H. L. i. p. 2), Grabe {Spic. Patr. i. pp. I seq.), and other writers of this stamp, as defensible. This, moreover, is the most flagrant instance of misappreciation. On the whole, considerine the great mass of spurious documents current in his age, we may well admire his discrimination, as e.g. in the case of the numerous Clementine writings (iii. 16, 38), alleging the presence or absence of «x- ternal testimony for his decisions. Pearsf>n's eulogy {Vind. Ign. i. 8) on Eusebius, though exaggerated, is not undeserved. He is gener- ally a safe guide in discriminating bet\yeen the genuine and the spurious, {b) He is often careless in his manner of quoting. His quo- tations from Irenaeus, for instance, lose much of their significance, even for his own purpose, by abstraction from their context (v. 8). His quotations from Papias (iii. 39) and fronj Hegesippus (iii. 32, iv. 22) are tantalizing by their brevity, for the exact bearing of the words could only have been learnt from th<ir context. But, except in the passages from Josephus (where the blame, as we have seen, belongs elsewhere), the quotations themselves are given with fair accuracv. (c) He <lraws hasty and unwarranted inferences from his authorities, and is loose in interpreting their bearing. This is his weakest point as a critical historian. Thus he quotes Josephus respecting the census of Qiiiriniis and the insurrections of Theudas and of Judas the Galilean, as if he agreed in all respects with the accounts in St. Luke, and dots not notire 326 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA the chronological difficulties (i. 5, 9 ; ii. 11). He adduces the Jewish historian as a witness to the assignment of a tetrarchy to Lysanias (i. 9), though in fact Josephus says nothing about this Lysanias in the passage in question, but elsewhere mentions an earlier person bearing the name as ruler of Abilene (Ant. xx. 7.1; 5. /. ii. II. 5). He represents this same writer as stating that Herod Antipas was banished to Vienne (i. 11), whereas Josephus sends Archelaus to Vienne {H. J. ii. 7. 3) and Herod Antipas to Lyons {Ant. xviii. 7. 2) or Spain {B. J. ii. 9. 6). He quotes Philo's description of the Jewish Therapeutae, as if it related to Christian ascetics (ii. 17). He gives, side by side, the contradictory accounts of the death of James the Just in Josephus and Hegesippus, as if they tallied (ii. 23). He hopelessly confuses the brothers M. Aure- lius and L. Verus (v. prooem., 4, 5) from a misunderstanding of his documents, though in the Chronicle (ii. p. 170) he is substantially correct with regard to these emperors. INIany other examples of such carelessness might be produced, {d) He is very desultory in his treatment, placing in different parts of his work notices bearing on the same subject. He relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season, according as it is recalled to his memory by some accidental connexion. " Nothing can illus- trate this characteristic better than the manner in which he deals with the canon of the N.T. After mentioning the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, he proceeds at once (iii. 3) without any further preface to enumerate the writings attributed to them respectively, distinguishing those which were generally received by ancient tradition from those which were disputed. At the same time he adds a notice of the Shepherd, because it had been attributed by some to the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul.' After this he resumes his narrative, and then having related the last labours of St. John, he gives an account of the writings attributed to him liii. 24), promising a further discussion of the Apocalypse, which, however, does not appear. This catalogue is followed by some fragmentary discussions on the Gospels, to which a general classification of all the books claiming to have apostolic authority is added. When this is ended, the history suddenly goes back to a point in the middle of the former book (ii. 15). Elsewhere he repeats the notice of an incident for the sake of adding some new detail, yet so as to mar the symmetry of his work." [w.] Ex- amples of this fault occur in the accounts of the first preaching at Edessa (i. 13, ii. i), of the writings of Clement of Rome (iii. 16, 38 ; iv. 22, 23, etc.), of the daughters of Philip (iii. 30, 39 ; cf. V. 17, 24), etc. (6) Life of Constantine, in four books.— The date of this work is fixed within narrow limits. It was written after the death of the great emperor (May 337) and after his three sons had been declared Augusti (Sept. 337I — see iv. 68 ; and Eusebius himself died not later than a.d. 340. Though not professing to be such, it is to some extent a continuation of the Eccle- siastical Historv. As such it is mentioned bv Socrates (H. E. i. i), to whom, as to other historians, it fiurnishes important materials EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA for the period. For the council of Nicaea especially, and for some portions of the Arian controversy, it is a primary source of infor- mation of the highest value. As regards the emperor himself, it is notoriously one-sided. The verdict of Socrates will not be disputed. The author, he says, " has devoted more thought to the praises of the emperor and to the grandiloquence of language befitting a paneg^Tic, as if he were pronouncing an encomium, than to the accurate narrative of the events which took place." But there is no ground for suspecting him of misrepresent- ing the facts given, and with the qualification stated above, his biography has the highest value. It is a vivid picture of certain aspects of a great personality, painted by one familiar- ly acquainted with him, who had access to important documents. It may even be set down to the credit of Eusebius that his praises of Constantine are much louder after his death than during his lifetime. In this respect he contrasts favourably with Seneca. Nor shall we do justice to Eusebius unless we bear in mind the extravagant praises which even heathen panegyrists lavished on the great Christian emperfir before his face, as an in- dication of the spirit of the age. But after all excuses made, this indiscriminate praise of Constantine is a reproach from which we should gladly have held Eusebius free. B. Apologetic — (7) Against Hierocles. — Hicrocles was governor in Bithynia, and used his power ruthlessly to embitter the persecution which he is thought to have instigated (Lactant. Div. Inst. v. 2 ; Mort. Pers. 16 ; see Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, pp. 58, 108). Not satisfied with assailing the Christians from the tribunal, he attacked them also with bis pen. The title of his work seems to have been 6 ^CKa\ri0-r)$, The Lover of Truth. It was a ruthless assault on Christianity, written in a biting style. Its main object was to expose the contradictions of the Christian records. Eusebius, however, confines himself to one point — the comparison of Apollonius, as de- scribed in his Life by Philostratus, with our Saviour, to the disparagement of the latter. There is much difference of opinion whether Philostratus himself intended to set up Apol- lonius as a rival to the Christ of the Gospels [Apollonius of Tyana], but Hierocles at all events turned his romance to this use. Eusebius refutes his opponent with great moderation, and generally with good effect. He allows that Apollonius was a wise and virtuous man, but refuses to concede the higher claims advanced on his behalf. He shews that the work of Philostratus was not based on satisfactory evidence ; that the narrative is full of absurdities and contra- dictions ; and that the moral character of Apollonius as therein portrayed is far from perfect. He maintains that the supernatural incidents, if they actually occurred, might have been the work of demons. In conclu- sion (§§ 46-48) he refutes and denounces the fatalism of Apollonius, as alone sufficient to discredit his wisdom. (8) Against Porphyry, an elaborate work in 25 books : Hieron. Ep. 70 ad Magn. § 3 (i. p. 427, Vallarsi) ; Vir. III. 81.— No part of this elaborate refutation has survived. Yet EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA we may form stniie notion of its contents from the Praeparatio and Demonstratio F.van- gelica, in considerable portions of which Eusebius obviously has Porphyry in view, even where he does not name him. To Jerome and Socrates the refutation seemed satisfactory. Philostorgius (//. E. viii. 14) preferred the similar work of Ajiollinaris to it, as also to the earlier refutation of Method- ius, but himself added another replv to Porphyry (//. E. x. 10). All the four refuta- tions have alike perished, with the work which gave rise to them. (9) Praeparatio F.vangelica. — So Eusebius himself calls a treatise, which more strictly ought to have been called Praeparatio Demon- strationis Evangelicae. for it is an introductory treatise leading up to — (10) The Demonstratio Evangelica. — These two treatises, in fact, are parts of one great work. They are both dedicated to Theodotus, an adherent of the Arian party, who was bp. of Laodicea for some thirty years. In the absence of more direct testimony, we may infer that these works were begun during the persecution, but not concluded till S'une time after. Tiie Preparation is extant entire, and comprises 15 books. Tiie Demonstra- tion, on the other hand, is incomplite. It con- sisted <if 20 books.of which only the first ten are extant in the MSS. The Preparation sketches briefly what the Gospel is, and then adverts to the common taunt that the Christians accept their religion by faith without investi- gation. The whole work is an answer to this taunt. The object of the Preparation is to justify the Christians in transferring their allegiance from the religion and philosophy of the Greeks to the sacred books of the Hebrews. The object of the Demonstration is to shew from those sacred books themselves that Christians did right in not stopping short at the religious practices and beliefs of the Jews, but in adopting a different mode of life. Thus the Preparation is an apology for Christianity as against the Gentiles, while the Demonstra- tion defends it as against the Jews, and " yet not," he adds, " against the Jews, nay, far from it, but rather /or the Jews, if they would learn wisdom." In the first three books of the Preparation he attacks the mythology of the heathen, exposing its absurdity, and refutes the physio- logical interpretations put upon the myths ; in the next three he discusses the oracles, and as connected therewith the sacrifices to demons and the doctrine of fate ; in the third three explains the bearing of " the Hebrew Oracles," and adduces the testimony of heathen writers in their favour ; in bks. X. xi. xii. and xiii. he remarks on the plagiar- isms of the (ireek philosophers from the Hebrews, dwelling on the priority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and shews liow all that is best in (ireek teaching and speculation agrees with them ; in bk. xiv. he points to the cfin- tradictions among (ireck philosophers, shewing how the systems opposi-d to Christian belief have been condemned by the wisest (jentile philosophers themselves ; and lastly, in bk. XV., he exposes the falsehoods and errors of the Greek systems of philosophy, more especially of the Peripatetics, Stoics, and EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 327 materialists of M schools. Ilr cl.iims t.. Ii.ive thus given a complete answer tn those who charge Christians with transferring thrir allegiance from Hellenism to Hebraism blindly and without knowledge. In the Demon- stralion, bks. i. and ii. arc introductory (iii. i. I, Tu;v TTfioXiyofiivwv). In bk. i. a sketch is given of the G(^si>el teaching and reasons alleged why Christians, while adopting the Hebrew Oracles, should depart from the Jew- ish mode of life ; a distinction b<ing drawn between Hebraism, the religion of all godly men from the beginning, and Judaism, the temporary and special system of the lews, so that Christianity is a continuation of the former, but a departure froni the latter. In bk. ii. testimonies from the prophets shew that the two great phenomena of the Christian Church had been long foretold — the general ingathering of the Gentiles and the general falling away of the Jews — so that the Chris- tians " were only laying claim to their own " (iii. I. i). Bk. iii. begins the main subject of the treatise. He promises to speak of the humanity of Christ, as corresponding to the predictions of the prophets ; but the tf>pics are introduced in a desultory way {e.g. that Christ was not a sorcerer, that the Apostles were not deceivers, etc.) without any very obvious connexion with the main theme. Bks. iv. and v. pass on to the divinitv of Christ, both as the Son and as the Logos (sec V. prooem. i. 2), this likewise having been announced by the prophets. From bk. vi. onward to the end he treats of the Incarnation andlife {^ iTLdvuia) oi our Lord as a fulfilment of prophecy, andof the manner of Christ's appear- ing, the place of His birth, His parentage and genealogv, the time of His advent and His works as in like manner foretold. In bk. x., the last which is extant, he reaches the Pas- sion, treating of the traitor Judas and the incidents of the Crucifixion. What were the topics of the remaining ten books we have no data for determining, but mav conj.M ture with Stein (p. 102) that they dealt with th«' burial. resurrection, and ascension, and perhaps also with the foundation of the Christian church and the Second Advent. The extant fragmt nt of bk. XV. relates to the four kingdoms of Daniel ii. Jerome (Comm. in Hos. Praef. Op. vi. p. 18) speaks of Eusebius as " discussing some matters respecting the prophet Hosea " in bk. xviii. This great apologetic work ex- hibits the merits and defects which we find elsewhere in Eusebius ; the same greatness of conception marred by inadequacy of execu- tion, the same profusion of learning combined with inability to control his materials, which we have seen in his History. The topics arc not kept distinct; vet this is probablv the most important apologetic work of the early church. Its frequent, forcible, and true conceptions, more especially on the theme of "God in history," arrest our attention now. and must have impressed his contemporaries still more strongly ; while in learning and comprehen- siveness it is without a rival. It exhibits the same wide acquaintance with (Ireek profane writers which the History exhibits with Chris- tian literature. The number of writers <|iiotrd or referred to is astonishing (see Fabric. lUbt. Grace, vii. p. 346), the names of some bcmg 328 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA only known to us through Eusebius, while of several others he has preserved large portions not otherwise extant. He quotes not less than 21 works of Plato, and gives more than 50 quotations from the Laws alone. The impression produced by this mass of learning led Scaliger to call the work " divini com- mentarii," and Cave " opus profecto nobilis- simum " (H. L. i. p. 178). An admirable ed. oiihQ PreparatiowAs-pnh. in 1903 at the Oxford Press under the learned and accurate editorship of the late Dr. Gifford, with trans, and notes. (11) The Praeparatio Ecclesiastica ('E\-kX7;- uiaaTCKT) UpoTrapatTKevrj) is not extant, nor is (12) the bemonstratio Ecclesiastica ('EvkXt;- a-iaaTLKT} 'A-rrodeL^is), but both are mentioned by Photius {Bibl. ir, 12.) The names suggest that these two works aimed at doing for the society what the Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica do for the doctrines of which the society is the depositary. (13) Two Books of Objectionand Defence, only known from Photius {Bibl. 13). (14) The Divine Manifestation (0eo'/>dveia). in five books, was long supposed to be lost, but fragments of the Greek original were published by Mai from Vatican MSS. in his Script. Vet. 'Nov. Coll. i. (1831), viii. (1833), and in 1842 the work was printed entire in a Syriac version by Dr. S. Lee, who in 1843 pub. an Eng. trans, with intro. and notes {Euse- bius, bp. of Caesarea, on the Theophania, etc., Camb. 1843). By the aid of this version Mai (a.d. 1847) in his Bibl. Nov. Patr. iv. p. 310 (cf. p. no) rearranged his Greek fragments. The subject is, as the name Theophania suggests, the manifestation of God in the Incarnation of the Divine Word. The con- tents are : (i) An account of the subject and the recipients of the revelation. The doctrine of the Word of God is insisted upon. His person and working set forth. Polytheist and pantheist are alike at fault. The Word is essentially one. His relation to creation, and especially to man, and the pre-eminence, characteristics, destiny, and fall of man are dealt with, (ii) The necessity of the revelation. The human race was degraded by gross idolatry with its accompanying immoralities. The philosophers could not rescue it. Plato had the clearest sense of the truth, yet even he was greatly at fault. Meanwhile the demons of polytheism had maddened man- kind, as shewn by human sacrifices and the prevalence of wars. The demons, too, had shewn their powerlessness ; they could not defend their temples or foresee their over- throw, (iii) The proof of the revelation. Its excellency and power is seen in its effects. For this it was necessary that the Word should be incarnate, put to death, and rise again. The change which has come over mankind in consequence is set forth, (iv) The proof of the revelation, from the fulfilment of Christ's words — His prophecies respecting the extension of His kingdom, the trials of His church, the destinies of His servants, and the fate of the Jews, (v) The common heathen 06/ec/ton that Christ was a sorcerer and a deceiv^er, achieving His results by magic, is answered. The place of writing of the Theophania is Caesarea (iv. 6), and it was plainly \vritten after the triumph of Constantine and the EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA restoration of peace to the church. The persecution is over, and the persecutors have met with their punishment (iii. 20, v. 52). Polytheism is fast waning, and Christianity is spreading everywhere (ii. 76, iii. 79). (15) On the Numerous Progeny of the An- cients. — This lost treatise is mentionedin Praep. Ev. vii. 8. 29. It is doubtless the same work to which St. Basil refers {de Spir. Sanct. 29, Op. iii. p. 61) as Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. It would seem to have been an apologetic work, as it seems to have aimed at accoimting for the polygamy of the patriarchs and the Jews generally, and reconciling it with the ascetic life, which in his own time was regarded as the true ideal of Christian teaching. This problem occurs again and again in his extant apologetic writings. In the reference in the Praeparatio Eusebius speaks of having discussed in this work the notices of the lives of the patriarchs and " their philosophic endurance and self- discipline," whether by way of direct narrative or of allegorical suggestion. C. Critical and Exegetical — i.e. all works directed primarily to the criticism and eluci- dation of the Scriptures. (16) Biblical Texts. — In his earlier years Eusebius was occupied in conjunction with Pamphilus in the production of correct Greek texts of the O.T. A notice of his later years shews him engaged in a similar work {V. C. iv. 36, 37). The emperor writes to Eusebius, asking him to provide 50 copies of the Scrip- tures for use in the churches of Constantinople, where the Christian population had largely multiplied. The manuscripts must be easily legible and handy for use, written on carefully prepared parchment, and transcribed by skil- ful caligraphers. He has already written, he adds, to the procurator-general {Kaflo\iK6s) of the district {rrjs 8i.oiKri(X€io^), charging him to furnish Eusebius with the necessary appli- ances and has placed at his disposal two public waggons to convey the manuscripts, when complete, to the new metropolis. Euse- bius executes the commission. The manu- scripts were arranged, he tells us, in ternions and quaternions {Tpiaaa nal rerpaffad) and care- fully prepared at great cost. The emperor wrote expressing his satisfaction with them. (17) Sections and Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus prefixed. — Eusebius explains the origin and method of these sections and canons in the prefatory letter. Ammonius of .Alexandria (c. 220) had constructed a Har- mony or Diatessaron of the Gospels. He took St. Matthew as his standard, and placed side by side with it the parallel passages from the other three. The work of Ammonius suggested to Eusebius the plan which he adopted, but Eusebius desired to preserve the continuity of all the narratives. He therefore divided each gospel separately into sections, which he numbered continuously, and con- structed a table of ten canons, containing lists of passages : canon i, common to all the four evangelists ; canon ii, common to Mat- thew, Mark, Luke ; canon iii, common to Matthew, Luke, John ; canon iv, common to Matthew, Mark, John; canon v, common to Matthew and Luke ; canon vi, common to Matthew and Mark ; canon vii, common to EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA Matthew and John ; cannn viii, rommon to Luke and Mark ; canon ix, common to Luke and John; canon x, passaa;cs peculiar to a single evangelist, so that this last canon con- tains four separate lists. The sections of the several gospels were numhcred in black, and beneath each such number was a second number in vermilion, specifying the canon to which the section belonged. By turning to the canon so specified, the reader would see the numbers of the parallel sections in the other evangelists. For the history of the sections and canons in the MSS. see Scrivener's Inirod. to the Criticism of the N.T., pp. 34 seq. and passim. The sections and canons arc marked in many editions of the Gk. Test., e.g. those of Tischen- dorf and Tregelles. (iS) Under the head of Biblical exegesis may be ranged several togographical works undertaken at the instance of Paulinus, bp. of Tyre. — (a) Interpretation of the Ethno- logical Terms in the Hebreiv Scriptures ; {b) Chorography of Ancient Judaea, with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes ; (c) A Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple. This was accompanied with memoirs relating to the different localities, (d) On the Names of Places in Holy Scripture, entitled in the head of Jerome's version de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum. but elsewhere (Vir. III. 81) Topica. The first tliree, which perhaps should be regarded as parts of the same work, are mentioned in the preface to the fourth, which alone is extant. All were written at the instance of Paulinus, to whom {d) is dedicated. This last professes to give alphabetically " the designations of thecities and villagesmentioned in Holy Scripture in their original language," with adescriptionof thelocalityandthemodern names. The names are transliterated with various success from the Hebrew. The value of this treatise arises from the close acquaintance which Eusebius had with the geography of Palestine in his own day. The work had already been translated into Latin by some unskilful hand before Jerome's time, but so unsatisfactorily that he undertook a new ver- sion. He omitted some important notices and made several changes, justified by his personal knowledge of Palestine. (19) On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets. — This work contains a brief account of the several prophets and the subjects of their prophecies, beginning with the minor prophets and following the order of the LXX. (20) In Psalmos. a continuous commentary on the Psalms, which stands in antiquity and intrinsic merit in the first rank of patristic commentaries. The historical bearing of the several psalms is generally treated sensibly ; the theological and mystical interpretations betray the extravagance common to patristic exegesis. The value of the work is largely increased by frequent extracts frf)m the Hexaplaric versions and by notices respecting the text and history of the Psalter. The avithor possessed some acquaintance with Hebrew, though not always sufficient to prevent mistakes. This commentary had a great reputation, and was translated into Latin within a very few years of its iiublication by Eusebius of Vercellae. (21) Commentary on Isaiah. — This work EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 320 exhibits the same cliar.x tcristics as tlir Com- mentary on the Psalms. Jemmc is largely indebted to Eusebius, whom he smnctimcs translates almost word for word without acknowledgment. Eusebius occasionally in- serts interesting traditions on the authority of a Hebrew teacher : e.g. that Shebna be^ came high-priest and betrayed the people to Sennacherib ; that Hezekiah was seized with sickness for not singing (iod's praises, like Moses and Deborah, after his victory. Sometimes he gives Christian traditions : e.g. that Judas Iscariot was of the tribe of Ephraim. This commentary is mentioned by Procopius in his preface, and is freely used by him and by later (Ireek commentators. (22) Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. — Not mentioned bv Jerome or Photius. Some extracts remain. {23) Commentary on I. Corinthians. — Such a work seems to be implied by Jerome's language, Ep. xlix., though he does not men- tion it in his Catalogue. (24) Commentaries on other Books of Scrip- ture. — Extracts are given from, or mention is made of, commentaries on Proverbs. Song of Songs. Daniel, Hebrews, and several other books (see~ Fabric, op. cit. p. 399). It is doubtful, however, whether such extracts (even when genuine) are from continuous commentaries or from exegetical or dogmatical wf>rks. (23) On the Discrepancies of the Gospels. — This work consists of two parts, really separate works, and quoted as such : (i) Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of the Saviour, addressed to Siephanus ; (ii) Questions and Solutions concerning the Passion and Resur- rection of the Saviour, addressed to .Marinus. The difficulties do not always turn upon discrepancies — e.g. he discusses the question why Thamar is mentioned, and difficulties with respect to Bathsheba and Ruth. But the discrepancies occupy a sufficiently large space to give the name to the whole. The work exhibits the characteristic hesitation of Eusebius in a somewhat aggravated form. Alternative solutions are frequently offered, and he does not decide between them. But it is suggestive and full of interest. It is valuable also as i-'reserving large fragments of Africaiuis, besides some important notices, such as the absence of Mark xvi. 9-16 from the most numerous and best MSS. Frf>m this st«irehousc of information later harmonists plundere<l freelv, often without acknowledgment. D.' Doctrinal.— (26) General Elementary Introduction.— Five fragments of this work have been published by Mai. All deal with analogous topics, having reference to general principles of ethics, etc. It seems to have been a general introduction to theology, and its contents were very miscellaneous, as the extant remains shew. (27) Prophetical Extracts.— Thif. work ron- tains prophetical passages from OT. relating to our Lord's person and work, with explan- atory comments, and emprises f<.ur books, of which the first is devoted to the historical books, the second to the Psalms, the third to the remaining poetical books and the other prophets, the fourth to Isaiah. The author explains that his main object is to shew that the prophets spoke of Jesus Christ as the pre- 330 EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA existent Word, Who is "a second cause of the j Scripture is against him. Having done this, universe and God and Lord," and that they he will expound the true theology respecting predicted His two advents. Thus the per- our Saviour, as it has been handed down in sonality of the Logos is here the leading idea the church from the beginning. Thus, as ex- in his treatment of the prophecies. plained by its author, the aim of this second (28) Defence of Origen. — This was the Joint treatise is refutation, as that of the first was workof PamphilusandEusebius. The original exposure. The first was mainly /^ersona/, the has perished, but the first book survives in second is chiefly dogmatical. the translation of Rufinus (printed in Origen, The two treatises were first edited by bp. Op. iv. App. pp. 17 seq. Delarue). Eusebius ! R. Montague (Montacutius) with trans, and (H.E. v-i. 3) says that the work was undertaken j notes (Paris, 1628) at the end of the Demon- to refute " captious detractors " ; probably stratio, and this ed. was reprinted(I.ips. 16S8). referring especially to Methodius, who had written two works against Origen (Hieron. Vir. III. 93 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 13) and was attacked by name in the sixth book (Hieron. c. Riifin. i. 11). It was dedicated to the confessors of Palestine, especially Patermuthius (Phot. Bibl. 118), who was martyred the year after Paraphilus (Eus. Mart. Pal. 13). The first book contains an exposition of Origen's principles, especially of his doctrines respecting the Trinity and the Incarnation ; then nine special charges against him are refuted, relating to the nature of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, metem- psychosis, etc. In one of the later books the doctrine of fatalism was discussed (Rutin. Apol. i. II, in Hieron. Op. ii. p. 582). Else- where also it was shewn that Origen in his mystical explanation of Adam and Eve, as referring to Christ and the church, only fol- lowed the traditional interpretation (Socr. H. E. iii. 7). In the same spirit precedents were quoted for his doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul and the restitution of all things (Anon. Synod. Ep. ig8). The Apology also contained a full account of the life of Origen (Phot. Bihl. 118). Eusebius himself refers to bk. ii. for accounts of the controversy about Origen's ordination to the priesthood and his contributions to sacred letters (H. E. vi. 23), and to bk. vi. for the letters which Origen \vrote to Fabianus and others in defence of his orthodoxy (ib. 36), and to the work generally for thp part taken by Origen in theological controversy (ib. 33). Socrates (H. E. iv. 27) states that the panegyric of Gregory Thauma- turgus on Origen was given in this .Apology. (29) Against Marcellus, bp. of .4ncyra, in two books. — The occasion of writing is ex- plained by Eusebius himself (c. Marc. ii. 4, pp. 55 seq.). Marcellus had been condemned for Sabellianism, and deposed by a synod of Constantinople (a.d. 336), composed chieflv of the Arian friends of Eusebius. This work was undertaken at the wish of these friends to justify the decision. Certain persons con- sidered that Marcellus had been unfairlv The best ed. is that of Gaisford (Oxf. 1852), where they are in the same vol. with the work .i gainst Hierocles. He revised the text and reprinted the trans, and notes of Montague. The fragments of Marcellus are collected by Rettberg [Marcelliana, Getting. 1794). The monographs on Marcellus. especially Zahn's M. von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867), are useful aids. (31) On the Paschal Festival. — Eusebius {V'it. Const, iv. 35, 36) states that he addressed to Constantine " a mystical explanation of the significance of the festival," upon which the emperor wrote (c. 335), expressing himself greatly delighted, and saying that it was a difficult undertaking " to expound in a be- coming way the reason and origin of the Paschal festival, as well as its profitable and painful consummation." A long fragment of this treatise was discovered and published by Mai. The recovered fragment contains: (i) A declaration of the figurative character of the Jewish Passover. (2) An account of its in- stitution and of the ceremonial itself. (3) An explanation of the typical significance of the different parts of the ceremonial, with refer- ence to their Christian counterparts. (4) A brief statement of the settlement of the ques- tion at Nicaea. (5) An argument that Chris- tians are not bound to observe the time of the Jewish festival, mainly because it was not the Jewish Passover which our Lord Himself kept. E. Oratio.vs and Sermons. — (32) At the Dedication of the Church in Tyre. — This oration is inserted by Eusebius in his History (x. 4.) The new basilica at Tyre was a splendid building, and Eusebius addresses Paulinus, the bishop, as a Bezaleel, a Solomon, a Zerubbabel, a new Aaron or Melchizedek. He applies to the occasion the predictions of the Jewish prophets foretelling the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of the polity. He gives thanks for the triumph of Christ, the Word of God, Who has proved mightier than the mightiest of kings. This magnificent temple, which has arisen from the ruins of its predecessor, is a token of His power. Then treated, and Eusebius, being partly respon- j follows an elaborate description of the building, sible for the decision, felt bound to uphold its j which, continues the orator, is a symbol of the justice. The work aims simply at exposing j spiritual church of Tyre, of the spiritual the views of Marcellus. [Marcellus (4).] (30) On the Theology of the Church, a Refu tation of Marcellus, in three books. — Eusebius had at first thought it sufficient merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, leaving them to con- demn themselves. But on reflection, fearing lest some might be drawn away " from the theology of the chtirch " by their very length and pretentiousness, he undertook to refute them, and to shew that no single Scripture favours the view of Marcellus, but that, church throughout the world, in its history, its overthrow, its desolation, its re-erection on a more splendid scale, and in the arrange- ment of its several parts. But the spiritual church on earth is itself only a faint image of the heavenly Zion, where adoring hosts un- ceasingly sing the praises of their King. (33) .At the Vicennalia of Constantine, a.d. 325. — This oration, which is not extant, is mentioned Vit. Const, prooem. iii. 11. It seems to have been the opening address at the according to the approved interpretations, all council of Nicaea, see supra. EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (34) On the Sfpiilchn- of tin- Saviour, a.d. 335. — This is mentioned V'it. Const, iv. 33, 46 seq. The circumstances of its delivery have been already described. It has been lost. (35) At the Tricennalia of Constantine, a.d. 335 <'r 336. — This oration is commonly called de Laudibus Constantini. The orator, taking occasion from the festival, speaks of the Almighty Sovereign, and the Divine Word through Whom He administers the universe (§ i). The emperor is a sort of reflection of the Supreme W<^rd. The monarchy on earth is the counterpart of that in heaven (§§ 2, 3). The Word is the interpreter of the Invisible (iod in all things (§ 4). An emperor who, like Constantine, is sensible of his depend- ence on God. is alone tit to rule (§ 3). Periods and divisions of time are from God, as is all order throughout the universe. The number thirty {3 \ 10) has a special symbolic significance, reminding us of the kingdom of glory (§6). The i^owers of wickedness and the sufferings of the saints were ended by Con- stantine, the champion and representative of God (§ 7). He waged war against idolatry, profligacy, and superstition (§ 8). What a change has been suddenly wrought ! The false gods did not foresee their fate. The emperor, armed with piety, overthrew them. Churches rise from the ground everywhere (§ 8). The truth is proclaimed far and wide (§ 9). " Come now, most mighty victor Constantine," says the orator, " let me lay before thee the mysteries of sacred doctrines in this royal discourse concerning the Supreme King of the Universe." Accordingly he speaks of the person and working of the Divine Word, as mediator in the creation and government of the universe. Polytheism is condemned. As (iod is one, so His Word is one (§§ 11, 12). Humanity, led astray by demons and steeped in ignorance and sin, needed the advent of the Word (§ 13). It was necessary too that He should come clothed in a body {§ 14). His death and resurrection also were indispensable for the redemption of men (§ 15). The power of the Divine Word was evinced by the establishment of the church and the spread of the gospel (§ 16). It was manifested in our own time by the faith of the martyrs, by the triumph of the church over oppression, and by the punishment of the persecutors (§ 17). We have evidence of the divine origin of our faith in the prophetic announcements of Christ's coming, and in the fulfilment of His own predictions ; more especially in the coincidence in time between the establishment of the Roman empire and the publication of the (;ospel (§ 18). (36) In Praise of the Martyrs. — This discourse is short and of little value ; but the orator mentions, among thcjse whom he invites his hearers to commemorate, almost every bishop of .•\ntioch frf)m the end of the 2nd cent, to his own time, so that it would seem to have been delivered at Antioch. (37) On the Failure of Rain, mentioned by Ebedjesu, but apparently not elsewhere. F. Letters. — (38) To Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, on behalf of Arius and his friends, complaining that they have been misrepresented. (39) To Euphration (sometimes written in- EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA 331 correctly Euphrasion), bp. of M.il.im -a in Syri-i, a strong opponent of the Arians (Athan. de hug. 3, Op. i. p. 254 ; Hist. Ar. ad Mon. s, *h. p. 274), who was present at the council of Nicaea. Athanasius refers to this letter as declaring plainly that Christ is not true C(h.\ {de Synod. 17, Op. i. p. 584). An extract (con- taining the passage to which doubtless Athan- asius refers) is quoted at the s<'cond council of Nicaea {I.e.). It insists strongly on the subordination of the Son. (40) To Constantia Augusta {Op. ii. 1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, who was closely allied with the Arians. Con- stantia had asked Husebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had I heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged bv her to represent St. Paul and the Saviour. He had detained them lest thev should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of " knowing Christ no longer after the flesh." This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy. (41) To the Church of Caesarea, written from Nicaea (a.d. 325) during or immediately after the council to vindicate his conduct. This letter is preserved by Athanasius as an appendix to the de Dccret. Svn. Nic. {Op. i. p. 187 ; cf. § 3, ib. p. 166) ;■ in Socr. H. E. i. 8 ; in Theod. H. E. i. 11 ; in Gelasius Cyz. Hist. Cone. Nic. ii. 34 seq. (Labbe, Cone. ii. 264 seq. ed. Colet.) ; in the Historia Tripar- tita, ii. II ; and in Niceph. H. E. viii. 22. A passage towards the end (§§ 9, 10) which savours strongly of Arianism is wanting in Socrates and in the Historia Tripartita, but appears in the other authorities, and seems certainly to be referred to by Athanasius in two places {de Deer. Syn. Nic. 3, I.e. ; de Synod. 13, Op. i. p. 581). It is condenmed, however, by Bull {Def. Fid. Nic. iii. g. 3) and Cave {Diss. Tert. in Joh. Cleric, p. 58, printed at the end of his Hist. Lit. vol. ii.) as a spurious addition, probably inserted by some Arian. The letter is translated and annotated by Newman in Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, pp. 59 seq. (Oxf. 1833). In reviewing the literary history of Eusc- bius, we are struck first of all with the range and extent of his labours. His extant works, voluminous as they are, must have formed somewhat less than half his actual writings. No field of theological learning is untouched. He is historian, apologist, topographer, exe- gete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn, and, if permanent utility may be taken as a test of literary ex< ellence, Eusebius will hold a very high i>lace indeed. The EcclestaUical History is absolutely unique and indispens- able. The Chronicle is a vast storehouse «t informatiffU as to ancient monarchies. The Preparation and Demonstration are the most important contributions to theology in their own province. Even minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine, the Ltfe of Constan- 332 EUSEBIDS OF CAESAREA Hne, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to Marinus, and others, would leave an ir- reparable blank if they were obliterated. His more technical treatises have the same permanent value. The Canons and Sections have not been superseded for their particular purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the most important contribution to our knowledge in its own department. In short, no ancient ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under heavier obligations than has Eusebius by his great erudition. In the History, Chronicle, and Preparation, he has preserved a vast amount of early literature in three several spheres, which would otherwise have been irrecoverably lost. Moreover, he deserves the highest credit for his keen insight as to what would have permanent interest. He, and he only, has preserved the past in all its phases, in history, in doctrine, in criticism, even in topography, for the instruction of the future. This is his real title to greatness. As an expositor of facts, an abstract thinker, or a master of style, it would be absurd to compare him with the great names of classical anti- quity. His merits and his faults have been already indicated. His gigantic learning was his master rather than his slave. He had great conceptions, which he was unable adequately to carry out. He had valuable detached thoughts, but fails in continuity of argument. He was most laborious, yet most desultory. He accumulated materials with great diligence ; but was loose, perfunctory, and uncritical in their use. His style is especially vicious. When his theme seems to him to demand a lofty flight of rhetoric, as in his Life of Constantine, his language becomes turgid and unnatural. He is before all things an apologist. His great services in this respect are emphasized by Evagrius (H. E. i. i, ireideiv oUs re dvai Toi)s evTvyxdvofras dprjiXKevdi' ret Tj/xirepa) ; and doubtless his directly apologetic writings were much more effective than at this distance of time we can realize. Whatever subject he touches, his thoughts seem to pour instinctive- ly into this same channel. If he treats of chronology, a main purpose is to shew the superior antiquity of the Hebrew oracles to the wisdom of the Greeks. If he writes a history of the church, it is because he sees in the course of events a vindication of the Divine Word. Even in an encomium of a sovereign, he soars aloft at once into the region of theology, for he sees in the subject of his paneg^Tic the instrument of a higher power for the fulfilment of a divine economy. In so essentially technical a task as the division of the Gospels into sections, his underlying desire is to vindicate the essential unity of the evangelical narratives against gainsayers. This character as an apologist was due partly to the epoch in which he lived, and partly to his individual temper and circumstances. He stood, as it were, on the frontier line between two ages, with one foot in the Hel- lenism of the past and the other in the Christianity of the future, and by his very position was constrained to discuss their mutual relations. He was equally learned in the wisdom of the Greeks and in the Scrip- tures, while his breadth of sympathy and EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA moderation of temper fitted him beyond most of his contemporaries for tracing their con- flicts and coincidences. Like St. Paul on Mars' Hill, he sought the elements of truth in pre-existing philosophical systems or popular religions ; and thus obtaining a foothold, worked onward in his assault upon paganism. The Greek apologists of the 2nd and 3rd cents, all, without exception, took up this position. Eusebius, through his illustrious spiritual ancestors, Origen and Pamphilus, had inherited this tradition from Alexandria. It was the only method which could achieve success in apologetics while Christianity stood face to face with still powerful forms of heathen worship. It is the only method which can hope for victory now, when once again the Gospel is confronted with the widespread religions of India and the farther East. If we may judge from the silence of his contemporaries — and silence in this case is an important witness — Eusebius commanded general respect by his personal character. With the single exception of the taunt of Potammon, mentioned already, not a word of accusation is levelled against him in an age when theological controversy was peculiarly reckless and acrimonious. His relations to Pamphilusshew a strongly affectionate disposi- tion ; and it is more than probable that he was drawn into those public acts from which his re- putation has suffered most by the loyalty of private friendship. His moderation is especially praised by the emperor Constantine ; and his speculative opinions, as well as his personal acts, bear out this commendation. His was a life which was before all things laborious and self-denying. He was not only the most learned and prolific writer of his age ; but he adminis- tered the affairs of an important diocese, and took an active part in all great questions which agitated the church. His admiration for Constantine may be excessive, but is not difficult to understand. Constantine was unquestionably one of the very greatest emperors of Rome. His com- manding personality must have been irresist- ible ; and is enhanced by his deference to- wards the leading Christian bishops. He carried out a change in the relations between the church and the state incomparably great- er than any before or after. Eusebius de- lighted to place Augustus and Constantine in juxtaposition. During the one reign the Word had appeared in the flesh ; during the other He had triumphed over the world. The one reign was the counterpart and complement of the other. A discussion of the theological opinions of Eusebius is impossible within our limits. Readers are referred to Baronius {ad ann. 340, c. 38 seq.), Petavius [Dogm. Thenl. de Trin lib. i. cap. xi. seq.), Montfaucon (Praelim. in Comm. ad Psalm, c. vi.), and Tillemont (H. E. vii. pp. 67 seq.) among those who have assailed, and Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. ii. 9. 20, iii. 9. 3, 11), Cave (Hist. Lit. ii. app. pp. 42 seq.), and Lee (Theophania, pp. xxiv. seq.) among those who have defended his opinions, from the orthodox point of view. A convenient summary of the controversy will be found in Stein, pp. 117 seq. His orthodoxy cannot be hastily denied. Dr. Newman, who cannot be accused of unduly EUSEBlUS OF CAESAREA favouring Eusebius, says that " in liis own writings, numerous as they are. there is very little which fixes on Eusebius any charge, beyond that of attachment to the Platonic phraseology. Had he not connected himself with the Arian party, it would have been un- just to have suspected him of heresy " (A rians, p. 262). If we except the works written before the council of Nicaea, in which there is oc- casionally much looseness of expression, his language'is for the most part strictly orthodox, or at least capable of explanation in an orthodox sense. Against the two main theses of Arius, (i) that the Word was a creature (Kri<r/ua) like other creatures, and (2) that there was a time when He was not, Eusebius is explicit on the orthodox side (e.g. c. Marc. i. 4, p. 22, de Eccl. Theol. i. 2, 3, pp. 61 seq., ih. i. 8, 9, 10, pp. 66 seq.). He states in direct lan- guage that the Word had no beginning [Theoph. ii. 3, cf. de Laud. Const. 2). If elsewhere he represents the Father as prior to the Son (e.g. Dem. Ev. iv. 3. 5, 6 6e irarr)p ■jr poi'wdpxei- tov vloO Kal tt)s yevecrewi avrou irpov<pe<TTTji;€i>), this priority is not necessarily intended to be temporal, and his meaning must be interpreted by his language in other passages. Nor, again, do such expressions as " second existence," " second cause," neces- sarily bear an .\rian sense ; for they may be taken to imply that subordination which has ever been recognized by the orthodox. But though his language might pass muster, " his acts," it is said, " are his confession." This is the strongest point in the indictment. His alliance with the Arian party is indisputable ; but the inference drawn from it may be questioned. He may have made too great concessions to friendship. His natural temper suggested toleration, and the cause of the Arians was, or seemed to be, the cause of comprehension, and he had a profound and rooted aversion to the Sabellianism of Marcellus and others, who were acting with Athanasius. Where we have no certain information as to motives, it seems only fair to accept his own statements with respect to his opinions.* ,* " The remark has been made," writes Dr. New- man {Arians, p. 263), "that throughout his Eccle- siastical History, no instance occurs of his expressing abhorrence of the superstitions of Paganism, " and that his custom is either to praise, or not to blame, such heretical writers as fall under his notice. Nothing could be more erroneous as a statement of facts than Dr. Newman's language here. Even if it had been true, that there is no abhorrence of paganism expressed in the History, great parts of the F'raeparatio and Theophaiiia, the Tricennial Oration and the Life of Constatitine, are an elaborate indict- ment of the superstitions and horrors of heathendom ; so that the comparative silence in the History must be explained by the fact that this was not, except incidentally, his theme. On the attitude of ICusebius towards heresies, Newman's statement is still wider of the mark. It is difficult to see how language could surpass such expressions as, «.?. , i. i ; ii. i, 13 ; iii. 26, 27, 28, 29, 32; iv. 7, 29, 30; V. 13, J4, 16-20, etc. , " grievous wolves," " most abominable heresy," "like a pestilent and scabby disease," "incurable and dangerous poison," " most foul heresy, over- shooting anything that could exist or be conceived, mure abominable than all shame," " double-mouthed and two-headed serpent," "like venomous reptiles," "loathsome evil-deeds " : these and similar expres- sions form the staple of his language when he comes athwart a heresy. EUSEBIUS OP CAESAREA 333 While tlie .Vri.ui conlruvrrsv w.is still fresh, the part taken bv Ilusebius was remembered against him in the Creek church, and the orthodox Fathers are generally depreciatory. But as the direct interest of the dispute wore out, the tide turned and set in Ins favour. Hence from the 5th cent, onwards we find a disposition to clear him of any complicity in Arian doctrine. Thus Socrates {H. E. ii. 21) is at some pains to prove him orthodox ; and I r.elasius of Cyzicus (H. 5. A', ii. i) stoutly [ defends this " most noble tiller of ecclesiastical I husbandry," this "strict lover of truth" 6 (pi\a\rjO((TTaTos), and says that if there be any suggestion, however faint, of Arian heresy (niKpJy Ti rd 'Apeiov inrovovfieua) in his sayings or writings, it was due to " the inadvertence of simplicity," and that Eusebius himself pleaded this excuse in self-defence. Accordingly he represents him as a champion of orthodoxy against Arian ojiponcnts. The tide turned again at the second council of Nicaea. As the Iconoclasts alleged his authority for their views, the opposite party sought to disparage him. " His own books," says Photius, " cry aloud that he is convicted of .\rianism " {Ep. 73). A lasting injury was inflicted on his reputation by dragging him into the Icono- clastic dispute. In the Latin church he fared somewhat better. Jerome indeed stigmatizes the teacher to whom he was more largclv indebted than perhaps to any other as " the chief of the Arians," " the standard- bearer of the Arian faction," " the most flagrant champion of the impiety of .\rius." But the eminent services of Eusebius to Christian literature carried the day in the western church. Two popes successively vindicated his reputation. Gelasius declined to place his History and Chronicle on the list of proscribed works (Decret. de Libr. Apocr. 4). Pelagius II., when defending him, says: " Holy Church weigheth the hearts of her faithful ones with kindliness rather than their words with rigour" (Ep. 5. 921). Neither Gelasius nor Pelagius refers directly to the charge of Arianism. The offence which seemed to them to require apology was his defence of the heretic Origen. A more remarkable fact still is the canon- ization of Eusebius, notwithstanding his real or supposed Arian opinions. In an ancient Svrian Martvrology, translated from the Greek, and already referred to, he takes his rank among the honoured martyrs and con- fessors of the church. Nor was it only in the East that this honour awaited him. In the Martyrologtum Hieronymiamim for xi. Kal. Jul. we find the entry " In Caesarea Cappa- dociae depositio sancti Eusebii " (Hieron. Op. xi. 578). The person intended was Eusebius, the predecessor of St. Basil [Eisebius (24)], as the addition " Cappadociae " shews, but the transcendent fame of the Eusebius of the other Caesarea eclipsed this comparatively obscure person and finally obliterated his name from the Latin calendars. The word " Cappadociae " disappeared. In Usuard the notice becomes " In Caesarea Palestinae sancti Etisebii historiographi " (with a v. I.) ; and in old Latin martyrologies, where he is not dis- tinctly specified, the historian Eusebius is I doubtless understood. Accordingly, in several 334 EUSEBIUS Gallican service-books the historian is com- memorated as a saint (see Valois, Testimonia pro Eusebio) ; and in the Martyrologium Romanum itself he held his place for many centuries. In the revision of this Martyrology under Gregory XIII. his name was struck out, and Eusebius of Samosata substituted, under the mistaken idea that Caesarea had been substituted for Samosata by a mistake. The Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which con- tained the true key to the error, had not then been discovered. The Eccl. Hist., according to the text of Burton, with intro. by Dr. Bright, is pub. by Oxf. Univ. Press, and a valuable Eng. trans, both of the History and of the Life of Constantine by Dr. McGiffert is in the Post-Nicene Lib. of the Fathers. A cheap trans, with life, notes, chronol. table, etc., is in Bohn's Library (Bell). The works of Eusebius have been ed. by T. Gaisford (Clar. Press, 9 vols.); and a revised text of the Evang. Prep, with notes and Eng. trans, by E. H. Gifford (Clar. Press, 4 vols.). The Bodleian MS. of Jerome's version of the Chronicle oi Eusebius has been reproduced in collotype with intro. by J. K. Fotheringham (Clar. Pressj [l.] Eusebius (24), bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia. by whom Basil the Great was ordained to the presbyterate. Eusebius was a layman, and unbaptized at the time of his elevation to the episcopate, A.D. 362. On the death of Dianius, the church of Caesarea was divided into two nearly equal factions, and the choice of a lay- man universally known and respected was the readiest way out of the dilemma. Military force had to be employed to overcome his reluctance and to compel the prelates to consecrate. No sooner were they free than the bishops endeavoured to declare their consecration of Eusebius void. But the counsels of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus prevailed (Greg. Naz. Orat. xix. 36, pp. 308, 309). Eusebius proved a very respectable prelate, but quite unequal to the circumstances of severe trial in which he soon found himself. One of the earliest acts of his episcopate was to ordain Basil priest. A coldness grew up between Eusebius and Basil, leading to Basil's three years' retirement to Pontus. [Basilius OF Caesarea.] (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 31-53 ; Ep. 19, 20, 169, 170.) In 366 Basil returned to Caesarea. Each had learnt wisdom from the past (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 57-59), and harmonious relations existed unbroken to the death of Eusebius, a.d. 370. Fleury states that Eusebius is reckoned by some as a martyr (Fleury, xv. 13, 14 ; xvi. 9, 14, 17), but Usuard probablv confounds Euse- bius of Cappadocia with Eusebius the historian. See Papebrochius in A A. SS. Boll. Jun. iv. 75 ; and on the other side, Tillem. Mem. vii. 39. [Eusebius of Caesarea.] [e.v.] Eusebius (34), bp. of Dorylaeumin Phrvgia Salutaris, the constant supporter of orthodoxy against Nestorius and Eutyches alike. About Christmas a.d. 428, when Nestorius was assert- ing his heresy in a sermon at Constantinople, there stood up in church a layman of excellent character, distinguished for erudition and orthodox zeal, who asserted in opposition to Nestorius that the " eternal Word begotten before the ages had submitted also to be born a second time " {i.e. according to the flesh of Eusebius the Virgin). This bold assertion of the faith caused great excitement in the church. (Cyril. Alex. adv. Nestor, i. 20 in Migne, vol. ix. p. 41 D ; Marius Mercator, pars ii. lib. i. ; Pair. Lat. xlviii. p. 769 b.) This was certainly, as Theophanes [Chron. p. 76) expressly says, our Eusebius, who thus was the first to oppose the Nestorian heresy (Evagr. Hist. i. 9 in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 2445). He was also the first to protest against the heretical utterances of Anastasius, the syncellus of Nestorius (Theo- phan. Chron. p. 76). He was a "rhetor" (Evagr. I.e.) distinguished in legal practice (Leont. Byzant. cont. Nestor, et Eutych. lib. iii. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 1389) and an " agens in rebus " to the court [Gesta de Nom. Acacii, cap. i. in Galland. Biblioth. x. 667 ; cf. Tillem. xiv. n. xi. on Cyril of Alex.). Theophanes [I.e.) calls him a axo\oi<TTiKo% of the empress. After the sermon of St. Proclus against Nestorius, and before the orthodox had separated from the communion of Nestorius, in consequence of the council of Ephesus, there appeared, fixed in a public place, a document exposing the identity of Nestorius's doctrine with that of Paul of Samosata. This document common opinion attributed to Eusebius (Leont. Byzant. M.S.). It begins by conjuring its readers to make its contents known or give a copy of it to all bishops, clergy, and laity in Constantinople. It draws out the parallel between the doctrines of Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who both deny that the child born of Mary was the Eternal Word ; and ends with an anathema on him who denies the identity of the Only- begotten of the Father and the child of Mary. Eusebius must have been a priest at the time when St. Cyril wrote his five books against Nestorius (Cyril. Alex. u.s. — so much is implied in the reXuiv ^ti iv XatAots), i.e. c. 430. He was certainly bp. of Dorylaeum in 448. He himself states that hewaspoor (Labbe, Cone. iv. 221 D.). Common hostility to Nestorius had hitherto united Eusebius and Eutyches ; but about this time Eusebius, perceiving the hereti- cal tendencies of his friend, frequently visited him, and exhorted him to reconsider his ways (ib. 154 d). Finding him immovable, Eusebius presented a " libellus " against Eutyches at a council at- Constantinople under Flavian, Nov. 8, 448 (ib. 151). He deplores the persist- ency of Eutyches in error, and demands that he should be summoned before the council to answer charges of heresy. His petition was granted, though with unwillingness. At the second session of the council (Nov. 12), Eusebius requested that the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius and his letter to John of Antioch should be read as representing the standard of orthodoxy. This led to a pro- fession of the orthodox faith from Flavian, assented to by the other bishops. At the third session (Nov. 15) Eusebius found that Eutyches had refused to come, alleging a determination never to quit his monastery, and saying that Eusebius had been for some time (TrdXai) his enemy. [Eutyches (4).] Only on the third summons was he induced to appear. Meanwhile Eusebius pressed his point persistently and even harshly, behaving with such warmth that, as Flavian said, " fire itself seemed cold to him, in his zeal for EUSEBIUS orthodoxy." Finding that Eutyches had attempted to secure the adhesion of the otlier arrliiiii.uulrites to his views [Fai'stvs (2811, Husehius uri^cd that he sliould be iiniiicdiattly treated witli the rigour he deserved (Labbe, iv. 211). Flavian still urged patience and moderation. At last, on Nov. 22, Eutyches appeared with a large monastic and imperial escort, and was examined. Eusebius said of Eutyches : " I am poor, he threatens me with exile ; he has wealth, he is already depicting (d»'aj"arypa0et) the oasis for me." He feared also lest Eutyches should turn round and assent to the orthodox faith — thus causing him to be sus- pected of making calumnious charges (ib. 221, C, D, e). The crucial question he put to Eutyches was : " My lord archimandrite, do you confess two natures after the Incarnation, and do you say that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the flesh or not ? " To the first part Eutyches would not assent; he was condemned by all the bishops, and sentence of deposition was passed. He at once wrote to pojie Leo I. in his own defence (l.eo Mag. Ep. xxi. 739), complaining of the "machinations" of Eusebius. We next hear of Eusebius in Apr. 449 at the examination of the .\cts of the council of Constantinople, which Eutyches had declared to have been falsified. With him were 14 of the 34 bishops who had condemned Eutyches (Labbe, iv. 235). Eutyches was represented by three delegates ; Eusebius and others remonstrated against his absence, but the emperor's orders overruled them. Eusebius insisted that all examination into the case of Eutyches, and into any question other than the authenticity of the .\cts, should be referred to a general council [ib. 268). The examina- tion of the Acts does not seem to have brought to light any inaccuracy of importance. When Eusebius arrived in Ephesus early in Aug. 449, toattend the council, he apparentlylodged with Stephen of Ephesus {ib. in d,'e), but was not permitted to attend the meetings of the council, on the ground that the emperor had forbidden it (ib. 145 a, b). Flavian urged that he should be admitted and heard, but Elpidius, one of the imperial commissioners, opposed it (Hefele, Concil. ii. 355), and the same wish or command of the emperor was urged by Dioscorus at the council of Chalcedon also. When the passage in the acts of Constantinople was read where Euse- bius pressed Eutyches to acknowledge the two natures after the Incarnation, the council burst forth, " Off with Eusebius ! burn him ! " (Labbe, iv. 224 a). Sentence of deposition was pronounced against Flavian and Eusebius, and they were imprisoned (l.iberat. cap. xii. ; (ialland, xii. p. 140) and tlien sent into exile (Gest. de Xom. Acac. Galland, x. 668). Euse- bius escaped to Rome, where Leo welcomed him and granted him communion. He was there till Apr. 481 (Leo Mag. Ep. Ixxix. Ixxx. 1037, 1041). Leo commends him to the care of Anatolius of Constantinople, the successor of Flavian, as one who had suffered much for the faith. Eusebius left Rome to attend the council of Chalcedon. He had addressed a formal petition to the emperor Marcian against Dioscorus, and appears in the council as his accuser. He complains more than once of the EUSEBIUS EMESENUS 335 conduct of Hicscrus in . X. hidii.n him from the c.iuncil uf Ephesus (L.ibl).-, iv. 14s, 156). His innoience, with that of St. Flavian, was fully recogiii/td at the close of the ist session of the couu( il of Chalcedon (16. 322. 323) ; but at the 3rd session, on Oct. 13, he presented a further petition against Dioscorus, on behalf of himself, of Flavian {rov ty d-)/«j). and of the orthodox faith. He urges the iniciuities of Dioscorus at Ephesus, and begs for coniplete exculpation for himself and condemnation for Dioscorus (1^. 381). In the 4th session Eusebius took part in thecaseof certain Egyptian bishops who declined to condemn Eutvches. alleging that they were bound to follow their patriarch {i.e. Dioscorus), in accordance with the council of Nicaea. Eusebius has but one word to say, " ^ei'Sovrat" {ib. 513 a). Wc find him later (5th session, Oct. 22) siding at first against the imperial officers, and the wishes of the Roman legates for making no addition to the council's definition of faith ((6. s.^H d; cf. Bright, Hint, of the Church, p. 409). After- wards, however, he assisted at the revision which made that definition a completer ex- pression of the doctrine of Leo's tome. In the nth session he (Labbe, iv. 699 a) voted for the deposition of both claimants to the see of Ephesus, Bassian and Stephen, as being both alike irregularly consecrated. In the 15th session (Oct. 23) he signed the much-contested 28th canon of the council on the position to be held by the see of Constantinople. [Leo I.] The last time his name appears is in the rescript of the emperor Marcian, June 452, which had for its special object to rehabilitate the memory of Flavian, but which secured also that the condcnmation of the robber council should in no way injure the reputation of Eusebius and The'odoret {ib. 866). His name appears in the list of bishops signing the decrees of the council at Rome in 503, but this list certainly belongs to some earlier council (cf. Baron, ann. 503, ix.). Comparing him with Flavian, we cannot but feel his want of gener- osity in his treatment of Eutyches, whose supericr in logical power and theological per- ception he undoubtedly was. But none cm deny him the credit of having been a watchful guardian of the doctrine of the Incarnation all through his life, and a keen-sighted and persistent antagonist of error, whether on the one side or the other, who by his sufferings for the orthodox f.iitli im rits the title of ron- fessor. [cc] Eusebius (35) Emesenus, bp. of Emcsa, now Hems, in Svria, c. 341-359- He was born at Edessa, of a noble family, of Christian parents, and from his earliest years was taught the Holv Scriptures. His education was contin- ued in Palestine and subsequently at Alex- andria. In Palestine he studied theology under Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, from whom he contracted the Arian leanings which distinguished him to the end of his life. Jerome terms him " signifcr Arianae factionis " {Chron. sub. ann. x. Con- stantii), and his Arian tenets are spoken of by Theodoret as too well known to admit question (Theod. Eranist. Dial. iii. p. 257. ^d. Schuize). About A.D. 331 he visited Antioch. Eusta- thius had been recently banished, and the sec was occupied by one of the short-lived .Arian 336 EUSEBIUS EUSEBIUS intruders, Euphronius, with whom Eusebius I Valerian, when Alexandria was in revolt, a.D. lived on terms of intimacy. Eusebius's high ' 262, Aemilianus, who had assumed the purple, personal character and reputation for learning | was driven into the strong quarter of the city marked him out for the episcopate, and to 1 called Bruchium, and besieged. Eusebius avoid the office he repaired to Alexandria, ' without, and his friend Anatolius within, the where he devoted himself to philosophy, besieged quarter secured escape for all useless Returning to Antioch, Flaccillus (otherwise i hands, including a large number of Christians, Placillus), the Arian bishop, received him into I whom Eusebius received kindly, supplying his episcopal residence and admitted him to I them with food and medicine, and carefully his confidence. The Arian synod which met I tending the sick. Tothesynodof Antioch, a. d. at Antioch a.d. 340, under the predominant [ 264, summoned to deal with Paul of Samo- influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to nomin- I sata, Dionysius bp. of Alexandria, being ate a successor to the newly deposed Athan- j unable to be present through age, sent Euse- asius offered the vacant throne to Eusebius, bius as his representative. The see of who, well knowing how Athanasius was be- Laodicea was then vacant, and the Laodiceans loved by the Alexandrians, resolutely declined, demanded Eusebius for their bishop, taking and Gregory was chosen in his stead. Euse- ! no refusal. As bp. of Laodicea he sat at the bius however, allowed himself to be created | synod when Paul of Samosata was deposed, bp. of Emesa. This city, on the Orontes to ; a.d. 270. He was succeeded by his old friend the N.E. of the Libanus range, some distance I Anatolius. Ens. H. E. vii. 11, 32; Tillem. N. of Laodicea, was famous for its magnificent temple of Elagabalus, the Syrophoenician sun-god. A report, based on Eusebius's astronomical studies, had reached the excit- able inhabitants that their new bishop was a sorcerer, addicted to judicial astrology. His Mem. Eccl. iv. 304 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 792 ; Neale, Patriarchate of Alex. i. 77. [e.v.] Eusebius (60), bp. of Nicomedia. Our knowledge of his character is derived almost exclusively from the bitter language of his theo- logical antagonists. He wielded an extraordin- approach aroused a violent popular commo- I ary influence over the fortunes of some of the tion before which he fled to his friend and | great partyleaders of the4th cent. Thefasciua- futu're panegyrist, George, bp. of Laodicea. j tion he exercised over the minds of Constantine By George's exertions, and the influence of j and Constantius, his dexterity in utihzing both Flaccillus of Antioch and Narcissus of Nero- secular andecclesiastical law topunish his theo- the Emesenes were convinced of^ the logical enemies, his ingenuity in bhnding the judgment of those not alive to the magnitude of the problem, and in persuading the unwary of the practical identity of his own views with those of the Catholic church, together with the political and personal ascendancy he achieved, reveal mental capacity and diplomatic skill worthy of a better cause. During 20 years his shadow haunts the pages of the ecclesiastical historians, though they seldom bring us face to face with the man or preserve his words. Even the chronology of his life is singularly uncertain. It is difficult to understand the pertinacity and even ferocity with which Eusebius and his party pursued the Homoousian leaders, and to reconcile this with their well-accredited compromises, shiftings of front, and theo- Newman (Arians of groundlessness of their suspicions, and Euse- bius obtained quiet possession. He was a great favourite with Constantius, who took him on several expeditions, especially those against Sapor II., king of Persia. It is singular that the charge, which Sozomen attributes to mere malevolence, of Sabellian- ism was brought against one whose Arian leanings were so pronounced. Eusebius died before the end of a.d. 359- He was buried at Antioch (Hieron. de Vir. III. loi), and his funeral oration by George of Laodicea ascribed to him miraculous powers. He was a very copious writer. Jerome, who speaks somewhat contemptuously of his productions, particularizes treatises against the Jews the Gentiles, and the Novatianists, an logical evasions. Dr exposition of Gfl/a<Ja«s in ten books, and a large Fourth Cent. p. 272) admits their consistency number of very brief homilies on the Gospels, in one thing, " their hatred of the sacred The greater part of his works is lost. Theo- mystery." He thinks that this mystery, doret quotes with high commendation in his " like a spectre, was haunting the field and £mnf's/es (Dial. iii. p. 258, ed. Schulze) two pas- [ disturbing the complacency of their intellec- sages on the impassibility of the Son of God, a ; tual investigations." Their consciences did truth for which he says Eusebius endured many not scruple to " find evasions of a test." They and severe struggles." Theodoret also speaks of j undoubtedly compromised themselves by works of his against Apelles [Haer. Fab. i. 25) | signature ; yet they did not treat as unim- - • ' portant that which they were wont to declare such but set all the machinery of church and empirein motion toenforce their latitudinarian view on the conscience of the church. The Arian and the orthodox agreed as to the unique and exalted dignity of the Son of God; both alike described the relation between the first and second hypostasis in the Godhead as that which is imaged to us in the paternal and filial relation. They even agreed that the Son was " begotten of His Father before all worlds" — before the commencement of time, in an ineffable manner — that the Son was the originator of the categories of time and place, and Manes [ib. 26). All the extant remains of Eusebius are printed bv Migne, Pair. t. Ixxxvi. i. pp. 461 ff. Socr. H. E. 11. 9 ; Soz. H. E. iii. 6; Niceph. H. E. ix. 5 ; Tillem. Mem. Eccl. t. vi. p. 313 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p. 207 ; Oudin, t. i. p. 389-) t^.v.] Eusebius (48), bp. of Laodicea, in Syria Prima ; a native and deacon of Alexandria. In the persecution under Valerian, a.d. 257, when the venerable bp. Dionysius had been banished from Alexandria, Eusebius remained, minister- ing to those in prison and burying the martyrs, a faithful service gratefully commemorated in a letter of Dionysius (apud Eus. H. E. " II) During the civil strife at the death of that " by His own will and counsel He has EUSEBIUS subsisted before time and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable" {Letter of Arius to Eus. of Nic. preserved by Theodoret, i. 3). They agreed that He was " God of God," " Light of Light," and worthy of all honour and worship. The orthodox went further, and in order to aftirm that the Deity of the Son of God was absolute and not relative, intinite and not finite, asserted that He was of the same ovaia with the Father. There Arius and Eusebius stopped, and, press- ing the significance of the image of Father and Son by materialistic analogies into logical conclusions, argued that " generation " im- plied that " there was [a period, rather than a ' time '] when He was not," that " He was not before He was begotten." The one element, said they, which the Son did not possess by His generation was the eternal, absolute oiV/a of the Father. "We affirm," said Eusebius, in his one extant authentic letter, addressed to Pauliiuis of Tyre (Theod. i. 6), that " there is One Who is unbegotten, and that there also exists Another, Who did in truth proceed from Him, yet Who was not made out of His substance, and Who dues not at all participate in the nature or substance of Him Who is unbegotten." * H we follow out the logical conclusions involved in the denial of the orthodox state- ment on this transcendental theme, it is more easy to understand the abhorrence with which the dogmatic negations of the Arians were regarded by the Catholic church. The position of Arius and Eusebius involved a virtual Ditheism, and opened the door to a novel Polytheism. After Christianity had triumphed over the gods of heathendom, Arius seemed to be reintroducing them under other names. The numerical unity of God was at stake ; and a schism, or at least a divarication of interests in the Godhead, shewn to be possible. Moreover, the " Div- inity " of the Incarnate Word was on this hypothesis less than God ; and so behind the Deity which He claimed there loomed another Godhead, between Whom and Himself anta- gonism might easily be predicated. The Gnosticism of Marcion had already drawn such antagonism into sharp outline, and the entire view of the person of the Lord, thus suggested, rapidly degenerated into a cold and un- christian humanitarianism. The exigencies of historic criticism and of the exegesis of the N.T. compelled the Arian party to discriminate between the Word, the power, the wisdom of God, and the Son. They could not deny, since God could never have been without His " Logos," that the Logos was in some sense eternal. So they took advan- tage of the distinction drawn in the Greek schools between X.yot (voidOtTos, identifiable with the wisdom, reason, and self-conscious- ness of God, and \070s irpo(f>opiKus, the setting forth and going out at a particular epoch of the divine energy. The latter they regarded as the X670S which was made flesh and might be equated with the Son. " The external (prophoric) word was a created Being made in the beginning of all things as the • This phrase seems to class him with Heter- ousians or even Anomoeaas, at that early period. EUSEBIUS XM visible emblem of the internal (endiathrtic) word, and (used as) the instrument «>» Goti's purposes towards His creation" (Ni-wmaii, I.e. 199; cf. Athan. Hist. Cone. Artm. et Seleuc. cap. ii. § 18). The orthodox partv admitted the double use of the word \(i-)oj, allowed that it answered to the eternal wisdom and also to the clcrn.il manifestation of God, and disc arduif^ the trammels of the figurative exi'r<ssi..n bv wInc h the internal relations of the Cindhead can al.ine be represented to us, tleclared that they ( ould not carry the matcriali^lii- i>r temporal accom- paniments of our idea of Father and Son into this " generation," and boldly accepted the sublime paradox with which Origen had refu- ted Sabellianism — viz. the "eternal generation of the Son." To suppose the relation between the Father and Son other than eternal was to be involved in the toils of a polytheistic ema- nation and Gnostic speculation. Compelled to formulate expressions about the infinite and eternal God, they concluded that any formula which divided the essence of God left infinity on the one side, and the finite on the other, i.e. that there would be, on this hypt)tliesis, an infinite difference even in majesty and glory between the Father and the Son. This was blasphemy in the eyes of those who held the Divinity of the Son of God. The controversy was embittered by the method in which Arius and Eusebius appealed to Holy Scripture. They urged that Godhead and participation in the divine nature were attributed to Christ in the same terms in which similar distinctions are yielded by God to other creatures, angelic, human, or physical (Theod. H. E. i. 6, 8). Thus Christ's rank in the universe might be indefinitely reduced, and all confidence in Him ultimately proved an illusion. The argument had a tone of gross irreverence, even if the leaders can be quite acquitted of blasphemous levity or intentional abuse. One of the tactics of the Arian or Eusebian party was to accuse of Sabellianism those, like Athanasius, Eustathius, and Marcellus of Ancyra, who refused their interpretation of the relation between the Father and the Son. Doubtless many not versed in philosophical discussion were incapable of discrimin.iting between the views of Sabellius and an orthodoxy which vehemently or unguardedly condemned the Arian position. Eusebius re- pudiated violently the Pantheistic tendency of the Sabellian doctrine. He is the most promi- nent and most distinguished man of the entire movement, and it has been plausibly argued that he was the teacher rather than the dis- ciple of Arius. Athanasius himself made the suggestion. We learn on good authority, that of Arius himself, that they were f. llowdisciples of Lucian of Antioch (ib. 5). Lucian after- wards modified his views and became a martyr for the faith, but his rationalizing S|)irit had had a great effect on the schools of .Antioch. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius was a distant relative of the emperor Julian, and therefore possibly of Constantine. It may have been through the wife of Licinius and sister of Constantine that he received his first ecclesiastical ap|. ointment. This was the bishopric of Berytus (Beirout) in 22 338 EUSEBIUS Syria. We cannot say under what pretext he was translated to the see of Nicomedia, a city which was still the principal seat of the imperial court. In Nicomedia his ambitious spirit and personal relations with the imperial family gave him much influence. " He was," says Sozomen (//. E. i. 15), " a man of con- siderable learning, and held in high repute at the palace." Here were spun the webs by which the Arian conspiracy for a while pre- vailed over the faith and discipline of the church. One of the most authoritative docu- ments of Arianism is a letter sent by Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, after his first suspen- sion from presbyteral functions at Baukalis, Alexandria, in which he reminds Eusebius of their ancient friendship and briefly states his own views. [Arius.] Arius boasts that Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of T>Te, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, Aetius of Lydda, and all the bishops of the East, if he is condemned, must be condemned with him (Theod. H. E. i. 5). The alarm created by the conduct of Arius and his numerous friends in high quarters induced Alexander of Alexandria to indite his famous letter to Alexander of Constantinople, which is of an encyclical character and was sent in some form to Eusebius of Nicomedia and other prelates. Exasperated by its tone, Eusebius called a council in Bithynia (probably at Nicomedia itself) of the friends of Arius, who addressed numerous bishops, desiring them to grant communion to the Arians and requiring, Alexander to do the like (Soz. i. 15). These proceedings drew from Eusebius a written expression of his views, in a letter to Paulinus of Tyre, preserved by Theodoret (i. 6). Euse- bius believed Alexander of Alexandria to be in doctrinal error, but not yet so far gone but that Paulinus might put him right. He tacitly assumed that the party of Alexandria asserted " two unbegotten beings," a position utterly denied by themselves. He repudiated strongly the idea that the Son was made in any sense out of the substance of God ; declaring the Son " to be entirely distinct in nature and power," the method of His origination being known only to God, not even to the Son Himself. The verb " created," in Prov. viii. 22-26, could not, Eusebius said, have been used if the " wisdom " of which the prophet was speaking was i^ dnoppolat rrji oiVt'as : " For that which proceeds from Him Who is unbegotten cannot be said to have been created or founded either bv Him or bv another." The effect of the word " begotten " is reduced to a minimum by saying that the term is used of " things " and of persons entirely different in nature from God. " Men," " Israel," and " drops of dew " are in different scriptures said to be " begotten " of God. Therefore, Eusebius argued, the term cannot and does not carry similarity, still less identity of nature. At first the emperor Constantine treated the conflict as if capable of easy adjustment by a wise exercise of Christian temper. In 324 he wrote a joint letter, which he entrusted to Hosius of Cordova (Soz. H. E. i. 16), in which he called upon Alexander and Arius, for the sake of peace, to terminate their controversy. The dispute was a " trifling and EUSEBIUS foolish verbal dispute," and differenceof judg- ment was, he urged, compatible with union and communion. Constantine had probably been led to this step by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the strong pressure put upon Alexander to receive Arius into communion corresponds with the subsequent persistent demand of the Euse- bians. The effort at mediation failed, al- though conducted with skilful diplomacy and tact by the venerable Hosius. As the dispute was no mere verbal quibble, but did in reality touch the very object of divine worship, the ground of religious hope, and the unity of the Godhead, the well-meant interference of the emperor merely augmented the acrimony of the disputants. Arius was again condemned by a council at Alexandria, and the entire East was disturbed. The angry letter of Constantine to .\rius, which must have been written after his condemnation by the Alex- andrian council and before the council of Nicaea, shews that the influence of Eusebius must now have been in abeyance.* Constan- tine was no theologian, but hated a recalcitrant subordinate in church or state, and hence the undoubted vacillation of his mind towards Alexander, Arius, Eusebius, and Athanasius. At the oecumenical council of Nicaea in 325, Eusebius defended the excommunicated pres- byter and was the advocate and interpreter of his opinions before the council. We must give him credit for moral courage in risking his position as bishop and as court favourite for the sake of his theological views, and opposing himself almost single-handed to the nearly unanimous judgment of the first representative assembly of the Christian episcopate — a judg- ment fanned into enthusiasm by martyrs and monks from the African monasteries and accepted hurriedly but passionately by the emperor. The courage was of short duration, and made way for disingenuous wiles. Euse- bius soon displayed an inconsistent and temporizing spirit. Whether or no they still held that the difference was merely verbal, when the Arian bishops in the council found that the Godhead of the Redeemer was de- clared by the vast majority to be of the very essence of Christian doctrine, they made every effort to accept the terms in which that God- head was being expressed by the council, making signs to each other that term after term, such as " Power of God," " Wisdom of God," " Image of God," " Very God of very God," might be accepted because they could use them of such divinity as was " made " or constituted as such by the divine appoint- ment. Thus they were becoming parties to a test, which they were intending to evade. The term Homoousion, as applied to the Son of God, rallied for a while their conscience, and Eusebius declared it to be untenable. Ac- cording to Theodoret (i. 8), the " formulary propounded by Eusebius contained undis- guised evidence of his blasphemy ; the reading of it occasioned great grief to the audience on account of the depravity of the doctrines ; the writer was covered with shame, and the impious writing was torn to pieces." The • Tillemont, ies .4r!>us, note 5. The letter is pre- served by Gelasius of Cyziciis (iii. i) in Greek, and given by Baronius in I^atin from a MS. in the Vatican. Bar. Ann. 319, vi. EUSEBIUS inconsistency of the Arian party is exaggerated by Theodoret, for he adds, " the Arians unanimously signed the confession of faith adopted by the council." This is not precisely the case. There were 17 bishops (Soz. i. 20) ♦ who at first refused tiieir signatures, among them both the Eusehii, Theognis of Nicaea, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonas, I'atrophihis, Narcissus, Maris, and others, luisebius of Caesarea, after long discussion, signed the symbol, which was in fact an enlargement of a formal creed that he had himself presented to the council, on the ground that the negative dogmata of the .\rian party which were anathematized by the council could not be found in Scripture. Others of his party followed. According to Theodoret (i. 9). all, except Secundus and Theonas, joined in the condemnation of Arius ; and Sozomen (i. 21) declares explicitly that Eusebius of Nicomedia, with others, " sanc- tioned " the decision of the synod as to the consubstantiality of the Son, and the excom- munication of those who held the Arian formulae ; but Sozomen goes on to say that " it ought to be known that Eusebius and Theognis, although they assented to the exposition of faith set forth by the council, neither agreed nor subscribed to the deposition of Arius." Sozomen, apparently, makes this refusal to sign, on the part of Eusebius and Theognis, to have been the reason or occasion of their own exile, and of the filling up by Constantine of their respective sees with Amphion and Chrestus. Philostorgius admits that the whole .A.rian party, except Secundus and Theonas, signed the symbol, but that they did it deceitfully [ev SuXw), with the mental reservation of huoiovcriov (of similar substance) for b^oov<nov (of the same substance). He adds, according to his editor, that they did this under the direction of Constantina, the sister of Constantine ; and fiu-ther he relates that " Secundus, when sent into exile, re- proached Eusebius for having signed, saying that he did so in order to avoid going into exile, and that Secundus expressed a confident hope that Eusebius would shortly be exiled, an event which took place three months after the council." Moreover, Athanasius (de Decretis Syn. Nic. cc. 3, 18) expressly says that Euse- bius signed the formulary. Notwithstanding their signature, for some reason Eusebius and Theognis were banished for nearly three years from their respective sees. Theodoret (H. E. i. 20) preserves a portion of a letter written by Constantine against Eusebius and Theognis, and addressed to the Nicomedians. The document displays bitter animosity, and, for so astute a prince, a curious simplicity. Constantine reveals a private grudge against Eusebius for his con- duct when I.icinius was contending with him, and professes to have seized the ai (omplicfs of Eusebius and to have possessed himself of damaging papers and trustworthy evidence against him. He reproaches Eusebius with having been the first defender of Arius and with having deceived him in hope of retaining his benefice. He refers angrily to the conduct of Eusebius in urging Alexandrians and others • Philostorgius mentions 22 names, but Hefele, following Socrates and Sozomen, limits them to 17. EUSEBIUS S39 to communicate witii the Arians. This pi-r- tinacity is suggested by Constantim- as the actuating cause and occasion of his exile. Epiphanius (Haer. Ixviii.) details the cir- cumstances of the union of the Mdetian schismatics with the Arians. and the disin- genuous part taken by ICusebius in promisinK his good offices with the emperor, if they in their turn would promote the return of .Arius to Alexandri.i, .ind would promise inter-coin- munion with him and his party. The terms of hatred and disgust with which Constantine speaks of Eusebius render his early return to Nicomedia very puzzling. Sozomen (ii. 16) and Socrates (i. i.() both record a letter (a.d. 328) from Eusebius and Theognis to " the Bishops," explaining their views, in which they say, " We hold the same faith that you do, and after a diligent exam- ination of the word onooiaioi, are wholly intent upon preserving peace, and arc seduced by no heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the church such suggestions as occurred to us, and having certified what we deemed requisite, we signed the confession of faith. We did nut certainly sign the anathemas — not because we impugned the confession of faith, but because we did not believe the accused to be what he was represented to us. . . . So far from opposing any of the decrees enacted in your holy synod, we assent to all of them — not because we are wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert all suspicion of heresy. . . . The accused having justified himself and having been recalled frotri exile, . . . we beseech you to make our supplications known to our most godly em- peror, and that you immediately direct us to act according to your will." If this letter is genuine, it demonstrates the fact of their partial and incomjilete signature of the symbol of Nicaea, and that the incompleteness turned on personal and not on doctrinal grounds. Other statements of Sozomen (ii. 27) are in harmony with it, but there are reasons for hesitating to receive these statements, and the letter itself is in obvious contradiction with the evidence of Phihjstorcius (i. 9) and Epiphanius (Ixviii. 5) that Eusebius and Theognis signed the symbol, anathemas and all. .\re we to believe these writers against the testimony of Sozomen and Socrates, who expressly give a consistent representation undoubtedly more favourable to Eusebius ? The most powerful argument of Ue Broglie and others against the genuineness of the letter, as being written from the exile of Eusebius, is the silence of Athanasius, who never uses it to shew the identity of the position and sentiments of .\rius and Euse- bius. Philostorgius recounts a rumour that after the council Eusebius desired to have his name expunged from the list oi signatures, and a similar statement is repeated by Sozoiiieu (ii. 21) as the possible cause of the banishment of Eusebius. The fact may, notwithstanding the adverse judgment of many historians, have been that Eusebius signed the formulary, ex- pressing the view he took of its meaning, and discriminating between an anathema of eertain positions and the persec ution of an individual. A signature, thus qualified, may have saved hini I from immediate banishment. In the (nurse of I three months his sympathy with Anus and his 340 EUSEBIUS underhand proceeding with the Meletians may have roused the emperor's indignation and led to his banishment. The probability that Arius was recalled first, as positively stated in what purports to be a contemporary docu- ment, is certainly greater than that merely d priori probability on which De Broglie insists. Moreover, if Arius had been restored to favour, the vacillating mind of Constantine may have been moved to recall the two bishops. At all events, c. 329, we find Euse- bius once more in high favour with Constantine (Socr. H. E. i. 23), discharging his episcopal functions and persuadiiig Constantine that he and Arius held substantially the creed of Nicaea. Thenceforward Eusebius used his great power at court and his ascendancy over the mind of Constantine to blast the character and quench the influence of the most distin- guished advocates of anti-Arian views. He put all the machinery of church and state into operation to unseat Athanasius, Eustathius, Marcellus, and others ; and, by means open to the severest reprehension, steadily and un- scrupulously strove to enforce his latitudin- arian compromise on the Catholic church. It is not diflScult to trace his hand in the letter of Constantine threatening Athanasius, now archbp. of Alexandria, with deposition if he did not admit those anxious for communion. Moreover, .A.thanasius assures us that Eusebius wrote to him personally with the same object. The answers Athanasius gave to Eusebius and the emperor madeit clearthat the project could never succeed so long as Athanasius remained at Alexandria. Meanwhile, considerable controversy had occurred between Eusebius of Caesarea and Eustathius of Antioch on the true meaning of the term Homoousios. Eustathius [Eus- tathius (3)], in his zeal for the Nicene faith, had strenuously refused to admit Arians into communion, and laid himself open, in the opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea, to the charge of Sabellianism (Soz. ii. 18). This provided the opportunity for Eusebius of Nicomedia to j strike a blow at Eustathius, and nothing can 1 exceed the treachery shewn by Eusebius on this occasion. His apparently friendly visit to Eustathius on his way to Jerusalem (Soz. ii. 19 ; Theod. i. 21), the gathering of his Arian supporters on his return to Antioch, shew the scheme to have been deeplv laid. Here, a.d. ' 330 or beginning of 331, the council of his friends was held, at which the charge of Sabelhanism was, according to Theodoret (i. 21) and Philostorgius (li. 7), aggravated bv the accusation brought by a woman, that Eustathius was the father of her child — a not uncommon device of the enemies of eccle- , siastics. The upshot was that through this, and other vamped-up charges of disrespect to the emperor's mother, Eustathius was deposed and exiled by the Eusebians. The letter of Constantine upon the affair, and against heretics generally, brought the controversy to a lull, until the first attack upon Athanasius. The career of Eusebius of Nicomedia during j the remaining ten vears of his life is so closelv i mtertwined with the romantic sufierings of Athanasius that it is difficult to indicate the part he took in the persecution of Athanasius j without reproducing the story of this great I EUSEBIUS hero of the Catholic faith. The first charge which Eusebius encouraged the Meletians to bring against Athanasius concerned his taxing the people of Egypt for linen vestments, and turned upon the supposed violence of Macarius, the representative of Athanasius, in overthrowing the altar and the chalice, when reproving (for uncanonical proceedings) Ischyras, a priest of the Colluthian sect. These charges were all absolutely disproved by Athanasius before Constantine at Nicomedia. On his return to Alexandria, Athanasius had to encounter fresh opposition. The prepos- terous story of the murder of Arsenius, with its grotesque accompaniments, was gravely laid at his door. [Athanasius.] To this, at first, he disdained to reply. Eusebius de- clared even this to be a serious charge, and made much capital out of the refusal of Athanasius to attend the council at Caesarea, which was summoned, among other causes, to investigate it (Theod. i. 28). In 335, the partisan council of Tyre passed a sentence of deposition upon Athanasius, who had fled to Constantinople to appeal to the emperor, who summoned the whole synod of T>Te before I him. Eusebius and a few of his party, Theog- nis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius, obeyed the summons, and confronted Athanasius ; but abandoning the disproved charges upon which the sentence of deposition rested, they met him with new accusations likely to damage him in the view of the emperor. Constantine yielded to the malicious inven- tions of Eusebius, and banished Athanasius to Treves, in Feb. 336. The cause of banishment is obscure, but twice over {Ap. § 87, Hist. Ar. § 50) Athanasius declares that Constantine sent him to Gaul to deliver him from the fury of his enemies. While Athanasius was in I exile, Eusebius and his party impeached Mar- ! cellus of Anc\Ta for refusing to appear at the I council of Dedication at Jerusalem, a.d. 335, and for Sabellianism, an implication of heresy j to which he exposed himself while zealously ; vindicating his refusal to hold communion [With Arians. [Asterius (1); Marcellus.] Marcellus was deposed by the Eusebians, and not restored till the council of Sardica. At the council of Dedication at Jerusalem, Arius propounded a view of his faith which was I satisfactory to the council, was received into j communion there, and sent by Eusebius to Alexandria, whence, as his presence created great disturbance, he was summoned to Con- stantinople. There Arius died tragically on the eve of the public reception which Eusebius had planned. The death of Alexander of Con- stantinople followed very shortly, and the effort to elect Paul [Paulus (18)] in his place (without the consent of the bp. of Nicomedia) roused the ire of Eusebius, who intrigued to secure his first deposition. Eusebius musi still have retained the favour of Constantine, as he appears to have administered baptism to the dying emperor, May 337. Jerome says that by this act Constantine avowed himself an Arian. " But all history protests against the severity of this sentence " (de Broglie). Hefele supposes that Constantine regarded Eusebius as the great advocate of Christian unity. Moreover, in the eyes of Constantine, Eusebius was one who had signed the Nicene EUSEBIUS symbol, and had reiiouiiccd the negations of Arius. The ecclesiastical historians give divergent statements as to when Eusebius was raised to the episcopate of Constantinople. Theodoret (i. 19) accuses Husebiiis of unlawful translation from Nicomedia to Constantinople, " in direct violation of that canon which pro- hibits bishops and presbyters from going from one city to another," and asserts that this took place on the death of Alexander. There is, however, proof that Paul, who was twice banished through the influence of Eusebius, was the immediate successor of Alexander. Paul was nominated by .-Mexandcr, but the Eusebian party put forward Macedunius (Soz. iii. 4), and were defeated. The dispute roused ■ ' the indignation of Constautius, and " through the machination of the enemies of Paul a synod was convened, and he was expelled from the church, and Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, was installed in the bishopric of Constanti- nople " ; with this statement Socrates (ii. 7) agrees. For a while the education of Julian was entrusted to Eusebius, who had unbounded influence over Constautius. In 340 the Eusebians held a synod at An- tioch, at which Athanasius was once more condemned. In 341 (.May) the council developed into the celebrated council in Encacniis, held also at .A.ntioch, at which, under the presidency of Eusebius or Placetus of Antioch, and with the assent and presence of Constantius, divers canons were passed, which are esteemed of authority by later oecumenical councils. These two councils are confounded and identified by Socrates (ii. 2) and Sozomen. The cruel injustice to which Athanasius was subjected by long exile is freely attributed to Eusebius, as its mainspring and constant instigator. Nevertheless the last thing we are told about Eusebius by Socrates (ii. 13) is that he appealed from the council of Antioch to Julius, bp. of Rome, to give definite sen- tence as to Athanasius, but that before the sentence of Julius reached him, " immediately after the council broke up, breath went out of his body, and so he died," a.d. 342. In addition to authors already cited, the following may be consulted : The Orations of St. Athanasius against the Arians, according to the Benedictine Text, with an Account of his Life, by William Bright, D.D. ; Hefcle, His- tory of the Christian Councils, translated by Prebendary Clark and Mr. Oxenham, vols. i. and ii. ; Mohler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit (1844) ; William Bright, D.D., History of the Church from 313 to 451 (1869) ; Albert de Broglie, L'Egliseet I' Empire (1856), t. ii. ; The Arians of the Fourth Cenlurv, by J. H. Newman (4th ed. 1876). Fh.r.r.] ' Eusebius (71), bp. of Pelusium, between .A.mmonius and Georgius. He was present at the council of Ephesus in 431 (.Mansi, iv. 1127 a, 1 2 19 B, 1366 D ; v. 615 c). His contemporary Isidore, abbat of Pelusium, depicts him in the darkest colours, as a man of some taste and some ability, an " agreeable " preacher (£/>. i. 112 ; of. v. 301), but hot-tempered (v. 196; cf. iii. 44) and easily swayed by men worse than himself (ii. 127 ; v. '451) ;' his hands were not clear of simoniacal gain, which he cm- ployed in building a splendid church (i. 37 ; EUSEBIUS nn 11. 246); he "eiitiustid til.- flork to d'.KS, wolves, foxes" (v. 147), "the nionastcrirs to herdsmen and runaway sl.ives " (i. 262) ; he was forgetful of the po..r. and inaccessible to remonstrance (iii. 260). His confidants w«tc Lucius the archdeacon, who was said to take money for ordinations (i. 29) ; Zosimus a priest, who disgraced his grey hairs by vices (i. 140 ; ii. 73. 205, etc.) and retained contri- butions meant for the poor (v. 210) ; and three deacons, Eustathius, Anatolius, and Maron (i. 223 ; ii. 28, 29, etc.), with whom (iotthius (ii. 10), Simon, and Chaeremon (v. 48, 373) are associated. The greediness of those who ad- ministered the church property was insatiable (v. 79). The offences of these men, or of some of them, were so gross that men cried out against them as effective advocates of Epicureanism (li, 153. 230), and Isidore had to tell his corre- spondents that he had done his best (as, indeed, many of his letters shew, e.g. i. 140, 436 ; ii. 28, 39, etc.) to reclaim the offenders, but that the physician could not compel the patient to follow his advice, that " God the Word Himself " could not save J udas (iv. 205.) that a good man should not soil his lips by de- nouncing their conduct (iii. 229 ; v. 116), and that nothing remained but to pray for their conversion (v. 2, 103, etc.), and in the mean- time to distinguish between the man and the office (ii. 52), and toremember that the unworthi- ness of the minister hindered not the effect of the sacraments (ii. 32). But the fullest account of the misgovernmen toft he church i>f Pelusium is given in the story of Martinianus (ii. 127), whom Eusebius had ordained, and made " oeconomus " or church steward. He played the knave and tvTant, treated the bishops as his tool, was more than once in peril of his life from the indignation of the citizens, went to Alex- andria, was menaced by archbp. Cyril with ex- communication, but returned and imputed to Cyril himself a participation in simony. Such things ind\iced many to leave Pelusium in disgust ; " the altar lacked ministers " (i. 38) ; a pious deacon, such as Eutonius, was oppressed by Zosimus (ii. 131) and attacked by the whole clergy, to some extent out of sub- serviency to the bishop (v. 564). Eusebius is not mentioned among the Fathers of the council of Chalcedon in 451. In 457 he and Peter, bp.of .Majiima, assisted at thcrdinatiin of Timotheus Aelurus to the see of .Alexandria (Evagr. H. E. ii. 8), and those who were parties to that proceeding are stated by Theodorus Lector (//. E. i. 9) to have been deposed bishops. The epistle of the ER>T)tian bishops to Anatolius {Cod. Encyc. in Mansi, vii. 533 a) represents the two bishops (here unnamed) who ordained Timotheus as having no com- munion with the Cathnlic church. Le (Juien. Or. Chr. ii. 533 ; Tillem. AUm. xv. 747. 748, 782-788. [W.n. A.ND C.H.] Eusebius (77), bp. of Samosata (360-373). the friend alike of Basil the (Ireat, Mclriius, and Gregory Nazianzen. All that isihlinitrlykiinwn of Eusebiusis gathered from the epistles o( Basil and of Gregory, and from some im idents in the Ecclesiastical History of Thcixloret. 1 Jic fervent and laudatory phrases applied to him might suggest hyperbole if they were not so constant {Epp. xxviii. xxix. Greg. Naz. Opp. ed. Prunaeus. Colon, vol. i. 792 ; Ep. xxiiv. 342 EUSEBIUS Basilii opera, ed. Par. t. iii.)- As bp. of Samo- sata in 361, he took part in the consecration of Meletius to the see of Antioch. Meletius was then in communion with the Arians, and a coalition of bishops of both parties placed the document affirming the consecration in the hands of Eusebius. Meletius soon pro- claimed explicitly his Nicene Trinitarianism, and was banished by Constantius on the charge of Sabellianism. Meanwhile Eusebius had returned to Samosata with the written record of the appointment of Meletius to Antioch. The Arians, anxious to destroy this proof of their complicity, persuaded Constan- tius to demand, by a public functionary, the reddition of the document. Eusebius rephed, " I cannot consent to restore the public de- posit, except at the command of the whole assembly of bishops by whom it was com- mitted to my care." This reply incensed the emperor, who wrote to Eusebius ordering him to deliver the decree on pain of amputation of his right hand. Theodoret says the threat was only meant to intimidate the bishop ; if so, it failed, for Eusebius stretched out both hands, exclaiming, " I am willing to suffer the loss of both hands rather than resign a document which contains so manifest a demonstration of the impiety of the Arians." Tillemont hesitates to claim for Eusebius, as many writers have done, the honour of being the Christian confessor in the persecutions under Julian. According to Greg. Naz. (Oral. c. Julianum, i. p. 133 B.C.), when suffer- ing on the rack and finding one part of his body not as yet tortured, Eusebius complained to the executioners for not conferring equal honour on his entire frame. The death of Julian and the accession of Jovian gave liberty to the church. During and after this temporary lull in the imperial patronage of the Arian party, the great exertions of Eusebius probably took place. He is represented as travelling in the guise of a soldier (Theod. iv. 13) through Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining presbyters and deacons, and must thus have become known to Basil, who on the death of Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to Gregory (Bas. Ep. xlvii. Paris ed.), the father of Gregory of Nazianzus, advising the selection of Eusebius of Samosata for the vacant bishopric. The Paris editors of Basil plausibly suggest that the letter thus numbered was written by Gregory to Eusebius concerning Basil, rather than by Basil concern- ing Eusebius. The part which Eusebius did take in the election of Basil is well known. Basil's appointment gave Gregory extreme satisfaction (Greg. Naz. Ejy. xxix.). He dilates on the delight which the visit of Eusebius to Caesarea had given the community. The bed- ridden had sprung from their couches, and all kinds of moral miracles had been wrought by his presence. Thereafter the correspondence between Basil and Eusebius reveals the pro- gress of their joint lives, and throws some light upon the history of the church. The two ecclesiastics were passionately eager for one another's st^iety, and appear to have formed numerous designs, all falling through, for an interchange of visits. In 372 Eusebius signed, with Meletius. Basil, and 29 others, a letter to the Western bishops, EUSEBIUS in view of their common troubles from Arian opponents. The letter (Basil, Ep. xcii. Paris ed.), a melancholy Jeremiad, recounts disaster and disorder, uncanonical proceedings and Arian heresy. The Eastern bishops look to their brethren in Italy and Gaul for sympathy and advice, paying a tribute to the pristine purity which the Western churches had pre- served intact while the Eastern churches had been lacerated, undermined, and divided by heretics and unconstitutional acts. Later in 372 Basil entreats Eusebius to meet him at Phargamon in Armenia, at an assembly of bishops {Ep. xcv.). If Eusebius will not or cannot attend the conference, neither will Basil ; and (xcviii.) he passionately urges him to visit him at Caesarea. Letters from Eusebius appear to havebeen received by Basil, who once more (c.) begs a visit at the time of the festival of the martyr Eupsychius, since many things demanded mutual consideration. At the end of 372 Basil (cv.) managed the laborious journey to Samosata, and secured from his friend the promise of a return visit. This promise, said he, had ravished the church with joy. In 373 Basil urged Eusebius to fulfil his promise, and (cxxvii.) assured him that Jovinus had answered his expectations as bp. of Nicopolis. Jovinus was a worthy pupil of Eusebius, and gratified Basil by his canonical proprieties. Everywhere the 6pe/jLfiara of Eusebius exhibit the image of his sanctity. Other authorities (Tillem. Art. iii.) record that Jovinus relapsed afterwards into Arianism. The good offices of Eusebius were solicited by Eustathius of Sebaste, who had quarrelled with Basil. Basil's principle of " purity be- fore reconciliation " convinced Eusebius of his wisdom and moderation. At the council of Gangra, probably in 372 or 373, Eustathius of Sebaste was condemned for Arian tendencies and hyperascetic practices. There is a difficulty in deciding who was the Eusebius mentioned prima loco without a see in the synodal letter. It may have been the bp. of Samosata, and as Basil entreated his advice as to Eustathius, he may have joined him, Hypatius, Gregory, and other friends whose names occur in this pro- nunciamiento. His age and moral eminence wouldgivehimthisprominent position. The 20 canons of Gangra are detailed with interesting comment by Hefele, who thinks the chronology entirely uncertain. We venture the above sug- gestion, which would throw considerable light on thepracticalcharacterofthebp. of Samosata. In 373 a letter of Basil {Ep. cxxxvi.) shews that EusebiushadsuccessfuUysecuredtheelectionof a Catholic bishop at Tarsus. In consequence, he was eagerly entreated to visit Basil at Caesarea. He may have done so, and presided at the council of Gangra. An encyclical which Eusebius proposed to send to Italy was not prepared, but Dorotheus and Gregory of Nyssa were induced to visit Rome in 374. The Paris editors assign to 368 or 369 Basil's letters (xxvii. xxxi.) descriptive of his illness, and the famine that arrested his movements, but whensoever written, they reveal the extra- ordinary confidence put by Basil in his brother bishop. He had been healed by the intercessions of Eusebius, and now, all medical aid having failed Hypatius his brother, he sends him to Samosata to be under the care and prayers of EUSEBIUS Euscbius and his brethren. It is remarkable that Eusebiiis was left undisturbed during the bitter jiersecutions of the orthodox by the emperor Valens. At length his hour came. EUSEBIUS .113 nous hints are n..t unfre.|uentlvdr.>i>pr-d as to the sentiment entirtained at Rome with refer- ence to himself, Ivusebius, and Meletius. In 377 porotheus foun<l that the two latter were. and few pages in the history of the time are 1 to the horror of Basil, reckoned at Konic ,s more vivid than those which portray the cir cuinstances of his exile. Valens promised the Arian bp. Eudoxius, who had baptized him, that he would banish all who held con- trary opinions. Thus Eusebius was expelled from Samosata (Theod. iv. 13). The imperial sentence ordered his instant dejiarture to Thrace {ib. i.\). Ceillier (v. 3) places this in 374. The officer who served the sum- mons was bidden by Eusebius to conceal the cause of his journey. " For if the multitude (said Eusebius), who are all imbued with divine zeal, should learn your design, they would drown you, and I should have to answer for your death." After conducting worship, he took one domestic servant, a " pillow, and a book," and departed in the dead of night. The effect of his departure upon his flock is graphically described by Theodorct. The clamour, the weeping, the pursuit, the entreat- ies to return to Samosata and brave the wrath of the emperor, the humble submission of the bishop to the will of the prince on the ground of the authority of St. Paul, the refusal of costly gifts, the parting of the old man from his people, and the disappearance of the ven- erable confessor on his long and perilous journey to the Danube, are all told in a few striking sentences. Eusebius had excited a persistent and intense antagonism to the views of the Arians which assumed very practical forms. The .Arian bp. Eunomius was avoided as if smitten with deadly and contagious pest. The very water he used in the public bath was wasted by the populace as contaminated. The repugnance being invincible, the poor man, inoffensive and gentle in spirit, retired from the unequal contest. His successor, Lucius, " a wolf and a deceiver of the flock," was received with scant courtesy. The children spontaneously burned a ball upon which the ass on which the Arian bishop rode had acci- dentally trodden. Lucius was not conquered by such manifestations, and took counsel with the Roman magistracy to banish all the Catholic clergy. Meanwhile Eusebius by slow stages reached the Danube when " the Goths were ravaging Thrace and besieging many cities." The most vigorous eulogium is passed upon his power to console others. At this dark time his faithfulness was a joy to the P'astern bishops. Basil congratulated Antiochus, a nephew of Euscbius, on the privi- lege of having seen and talked with such Arians. Euscbius suffered less fmrn the b.ir- barian ravages nl the (^.tlis than from this momentary assault on his honour. In 378 the persecuting policy of Valens was rli>sed by his death. C.ratian recalled the banished prelates, and gave peace to the ICastern chnrch. Theodorct (//. /C. v. 4, ^] expressly mentions the permission to luisebius to return. Not- withstanding the apparently non-canonir.il character of the proceeding. Eusebius ordaitud numerous bishops on his way from Thrace to the Euphrates, including Acacius at Beroea. Theodotus at Hierapolis, Isidore at Cyrus, and Eulogius at Edessa. All these names were appended to the creed of Constantinople. When taking part in the ordination of Maris at the little town of Dolica (Theod. H. E. v. 4). a woman charged with Arian passion hurled at Eusebius a brick, which ff^ll \ipon his head, and wounded him fatally. Theodorct records that the aged bi«hop, in the spirit r)f the proto- martyr and his Divine Lord, extorted promises from his attendants that they would make no search for his murderess. On June 22 the Eastern churches commemorate his Sf>-caUed martyrdom. His nephew Antiochus probably succeeded to the bishopric of Samosata. Tillem. viii. 326 ; Ceillier, v. 5. fH.R.R.] Eusebfus '93), St., bp. of Vercellae (Vercelli), known for his zeal and sufferings in the cause of orthodoxy. He was born in Sardinia, or- dained a " reader" at Rome, and in 340 con- secrated bp. of Vercelli. St. Ambrose, in a letter to the church there iEp. 63), especially commends him as the first Western bishop who joined monastic discipline with the dis- charge of episcopal duties. He took several of his clergy to live with him, and adopted a kind of monastic rule for their daily life. In 354 (Jaffe, RcR. Pontif. p. 15) he was asked by Liberius, bp. of Rome, to go with Lucifer of Cagliari and others to Constantius, to suggest the summoning of a council on the disputes between the Arians and the orthodox. The council was held in the next year at Milan. At first Eusebius absented himself, but ulti- mately yielded to the united solicitations of the Arian party, of Lucifer and I'ancratius, the orthodox delegates of Liberius, and of the emperor. The proceedings were somewhat disorderly, and the action of the bp. of Milan was undecided. The practical question was whether the bishops present should sign a condemnation of Athanasius. Eusebius was man (Ep. clxviii.), and Gregory thought his 1 so peremptory m refusing as to excite the anger pravers for their welfare must be as efficacious ! of the Arianizing emperor, who banished \ as those of a martyr. For Eusebius, concealed together with some priests an in exile, Basil contrived means of communica tion with his old flock. Numerous letters passed between the two, more in the tone of young lovers than of old bishops, and some interesting hints are given as to difficulty of communica- tion. Eusebius was eagerly longing for letters, while Basil protested that he had written no „ -in • 11 fewer than four, which never reacherl their treatment at S< vthopolis. Me was a trouni destination. To Eusebius (ccxxxix.) Basil some prisoner, having twice all but starved complains bitterly of the lack of fair dealing , himself to death because he would not .iccept on the part of the Western church, and payste- 1 provisions from Anan hands. Alter a whii'- lie and deacons, to ScVthopolis in Syria. I'atrophilus. a leading Arian, was bp. there, and Eusebius calls him his " jailer." During his confinement here, two messengers arrived with money and assurances of goodwill from the churches of Vercelli and n.ighbourhood. In his reply Eusebius gave full particulars of his annoying 344 EUSEBIUS was removed to Cappadocia, and thence to Egypt. From theThebaid in Eg^-pt he wrote to Gregory, bp. of Elvira in Spain, praising his anti-Arian constancy. Julian, succeeding Constantius in 361, permitted all banished bishops to return. Eusebius went to Alex- andria to consult with Athanasius. The two bishops convoked a council in 362 at Alexand- ria. One of its objects was to end a schism at Antioch, and after it was over Eusebius went thither to bear a synodal letter or " tome " from the council to the Antiochenes. But Lucifer of Cagliari had preceded him and aggravated the schism by the hasty consecra- tion of Paulinus as a rival bishop ; and Eusebius immediately withdrew from Antioch. [Meletius : Paulinus (6).] Lucifer re- nounced communion with Eusebius and with all who, in accordance with the decree of the Alexandrian council, were willing to receive back bishops who repented their connexion with Arian heresy. Leaving Antioch, Eusebius visited Eastern churches to confirm them in the orthodox faith. Thence he passed into lUyria, and so to Italy, which, in the words of Jerome, " put off its mourning on Eusebius's return." He now joined the zealous Hilary of Poictiers in endeavours to re-establish orthodoxy in the West. With this view they stirred up opposition to the Arianizing Auxentius, bp. of Milan, but were foiled by his profession of orthodoxy. This was in 364 ; nothing more is recorded of Euse- bius until his death, placed by Jerome in 371. His extant wTitinss are three letters : one a brief reply to Constantius, that he would attend the council at Milan, but would do there whatever should seem to him right and according to the will of God ; and the two to the church at Vercelli and to Gregory of Elvira. They are in Galland, Bibl. Patrum, and Migne, Pair. Lat. t. xii. Jerome savs that Eusebius translated, omitting what was hetero- dox, the commentaries on the Psalms by his namesake of Caesarea ; and also names him, with Hilary of Poictiers, as atranslator of Origen and the same Eusebius; but nothing further is known of these translations. A famous Codex Vercellensis is thus described by Tregelles : " A MS. of the 4th cent., said to have been written by the hand of Eusebius bp. of Vercelli, where the codex is now preserved. The text is defective in several places, as might be supposed from its very great age. It was transcribed and pub. by Irici, at Milan, in 1748. . . . This MS. is probably the most valuable exemplar of the old Latin in its unaltered state." The chief authority for his Life is St. Jerome, who places him amongst his Viri Illtistres, and alludes to him in his letters and elsewhere. There are several letters addressed to him by Liberius, and allusions to him in .\thanasius. He is men- tioned also by Rufinus, Theodoret. Sozomen, and Socrates. The Sermones relating to him among the works of Ambrose are admittedly spurious. In the Journ. of Theol. Studies, vol. i. p. 126, Mr. C. H. Turner raised the two questions whether Eusebius of Vercelli was the author of the Seven Books on the Trinity by the Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, and whether he could have been the author of Qui- cunque Vult ; and subsequently in the same EUSEBIUS vol. the Rev. A. E. Burn offered proof that Eusebius was the author of the work of Pseudo- Vigilius, but that there are strong reasons against supposing that he could have written Quicunque, although he says the latter theory throws new light on the history of the theo- logical terms used in the creed. [j.ll.d.] Eusebius (96), Aug. 14, presbyter, confessor at Rome a.d. 358. and by some styled martyr. From the earliest times his fame has been every- where celebrated. A church dedicated to him is mentioned in the first council held at Rome under pope Symmachus, a.d. 498 (Mansi, viii. 236, 237). It was rebuilt by pope Zacharias, c. 742 (Anastas. Lib. Pontif. art. "Zacharias," No. 226). The facts of his history are very ob- scure. His Acts (Baluz. A/j'scf//. t. ii. p.'i4i) relate that upon the recall of pope Liberius by Constantius, Eusebius preached against them both as Arians ; and since the orthodox party, who now supported Felix, were ex- cluded from all the churches, he continued to hold divine service in his own house. For this he was brought before Constantius and Liberius, when he boldly reproved the pope for falling away from Catholic truth. Con- stantius thereupon consigned him to a dungeon four feet wide, where he continued to languish for seven months and then died. He was buried b}- his friends and co-presbyters Orosius and Gregory, in the cemeter}' of Callistus, with the simple inscription " Eusebio Homini Dei." Constantius arrested Gregory for this, and consigned him to the same dungeon, where he also died, and was in turn buried by Orosius, by whom the Acts of Eusebius profess to have been written. The BoUandist and Tillemont point out grave historical difificulties in this narration, especially that Constantius, Libe- rius, and Eusebius never could have been in the city together. The whole matter is a source of trouble to Roman Catholic writers, because the saintly character of St. Eusebius, guaranteed by the Roman martyrology as revised by pope Gregory XIII., seems neces- sarily to involve the condemnation of Liberius. The Bollandists at great length vindicate the catholicity of Felix II., and are equally zealous champions of St. Eusebius. Tillemont and Hefele (Hist, of Councils, ii. § 81, " Pope Libe- rius and the Third Sirmian Formula ") are equally decided opponents of Felix, [g.t.s.] Eusebius (99), of Cremona, presbyter, a friend of St. Jerome, through whose writings he is known. He was with Jerome at Bethlehem in 393, and became the unconscious means of ex- tending into Italy the strife concerning Origen- ism which had begun at J erusalem. Epiphanius had written to John, bp. of Jerusalem, in vindi- cation of his conduct on his recent visit to- Palestine, .\.d. 394. Eusebius, not knowing Greek, begged Jerome to translate it. This Jerome did in a ciursory manner [ad Pammach- ium, Ep. 57, § 2, ed. Vail.), and the document was stolen from the cell of Eusebius by one whom Jerome believed to be in the service of Rufinus (cont. Ruf. iii. 4). Rufinus apparently sent the translated letter to Rome, accusing Jerome of having falsified the original. Euse- bius remained at Bethlehem till Easter, 39S, when he was obliged to return hastily to Italy. On arriving in Rome, he became an agent of Jerome's party ia the Origenistic controversy. EUSEBIUS He lived at first on good torms with Ktifiiuis, who, however, afterwards accused him of having come to Rome " to bark against him." Rufinus was then engaged in translating the wepi apx'^v of Origen for the use of his friends, leaving out some of the most objectionable passages. Eusebius sent a copy of this to Bethlehem, where Jerome denounced it as a mistranslation. Rufinus replied that Eusebius had obtained an imperfect copy, either by bribing the copyist or by otlier wrcMig means, and had also tampered with the MS. St. Jerome, however, vehemently defemis his friend from these accusations {c'ont. Ruf. iii. 5). Pope Anastasius being entirely ignorant of Origen and his teaching, Eusebiiis, together with Marcella and Pammachius, brought be- fore him certain passages from Origen's writings (.\nastasius ad Simplicianum in Jerome, Ep. 95, ed. Vail.), which so moved him that he at once condemned Origen and all his works. Eusebius being about to return to Cremona in 400, the pope charged him in the letter just quoted to Simpliciauus, bp. of Milan, and he there set forth the same passages of Origen which he had laid before the pope. He was confronted, however, by Rufinus, who declared these passages to be false ; and Eusebius continued his journey without having induced Simplicianus to condemn Origen. After this we hear nothing of Eusebius for some 20 years. He appears to have remained in Italy supporting Jerome's interests and corresponding wuth him. At the extreme end of Jerome's life we still find Euse- bius writing to him and sending him books relating to the Pelagian heresy (ad Alyp. et .A.ug. Ep. 143), and receiving from Jerome the last of his Commentaries, that on Jeremiah (Prol. to Cnmm. on Jer. in vol. iv. 833). [w.h.f.1 Eus:)bius (126), eunuch, and grand chamber- lain under Constantius II. Socrates (ii. 2, ift) relates that, after the death of Constantine in 3^7, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, bestirring themselves on behalf of the Arians, made use of a certain presbyter in high favour with Constantius, who had before been instrumental in recalling Arius from exile. He persuaded Eusebius the head chamberlain to adopt Arian opinions, and the rest of the chamberlains followed, and prevailed on the empress also. In 359 Eusebius was the mainspring of the plan of Eudoxius and others for dividing the council to be held on the sub- ject of Arianism, making the Western bishops sit at Rimini, the Eastern at Seleucia ; part of those in the secret were to sit at each council, and try to gain over their opponents to Arian views. Laymen of influence favoured the plan in order to please the chamberlain (Soz. H. E. iv. 16). On the death of Constantius in 361 Eusebius tried to curry favour with Julian by assuring him of the'loyalty of the East (.A.mm. xxi. 15, § 4) ; but was unable to avert what Ammianus and Philostorgius re- present as the just reward of his deeds. One of the first acts of Julian was to condemn him to death {ib. xxii. 3, § 12). Ammianus describes him as the prime mover of all the court intrigues of his day, and sarcastically calls the emperor one of his favourites {ib. Xviii. 4, § 33). fw.M.S. AND M.r.A.] Eustathius (3), bp. of Berrhoea in Syria, EUSTATHIUS 3(5 then of .Vntioch, c. a.d. 324-331, designated by j Theodoret (//. E. i. 7) " the Great," one ,,{ the earliest and most vigorous opponents of Arian- j ism, venerated for his learning, virtues, and I eloquence (Soz. H. E. i. 2, ii. 19; Thc.Kl. , H. L. I. 20), recognized by Athanasius as a worthy fellow-labourer for the orth(Klox faith (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). He was a native of Side in Pamphylia (llieron. de Vir. JUus. c. 85). The title of " confessor" given him by Athanasius more than once (t. i. pp. 702, 812) indicates that he svilTered in the i>ersecution of Diocletian. As bi^. of IJerrhoea he was one of the orthodox prelates to whom Alexander of Alexandria sent a cojiy of his letter to Alex- ander of Constantinople, concerning Arius and his errors (Thcod. H. E. i. 4). His translation from Berrhoea is placed bv Sozomen after the council of Nicaea (Si>z. H. E. i. 2). Theodoret states more correctly that he sat at that council as bp. of Antioch, and that his election to that see was the unanimous act of the I bishops, presbyters, and faithful laitv of the city and province (Theod. H.E. i. 7). 'Accord- I ing to Theodoret he was the immediate suc- cessor of Philogonius ; but, according to the Chronicle of Jerome, Theophanes, and others, a I certain Paulinus, not the Paulinusof Tntc, in- tervened for a short time (Tillem. vol.vii'. p.' 22, n. i. p. 646). At thecouncilof NicaeaEustathius occupied one of the first, if not the very first place among the assembled prelates (Facund. viii. 4). That he occupied the seat ol honour at the emperor's right hand and pronounced the panegyrical address to Constantine is asserted by Theodoret (H. E. i. 7), but ctmtra- dicted by Sozomen (//. E. i. 19)! who assigns the dignity to Eusebius of Caesarea. Euse- bius himself maintains a discreet silence, but he evidently wishes it to be inferred that the place of honour was his own (Eus. de V'tt. Const, iii. 11). On his return to Antioch Eustathius banished those of his clersy sus- pected of Arian tenets and resolutely rejected all ambiguous submissions. Among those whom he refused to receive were Stephen, I.eontius, 6 ciTrovon-os, and Eudoxius (who successively occupied his episcopal seat after his deposition), George of Laotlicea, Theo- dosius of Tripolis, and Eustathius of Sebaste (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). In his writings and sermons he lost no opportunity of declaring the Nicene faith, and shewing its agreement with Holy Scripture. Theodoret (//. E. i. 8) specially mentions one of his sermons on Prov. viii. 22, and gives a long extract. The troubled relations of Eustathius with the two Eusebii may be dated from the council of Nicaea. At this syn(jd Eusebius of Caesarea and Eustathius were rivals both in theological views and for favour with the emperor. To one of Eustathius's uncompromising ortho- doxy, Eusebius appeared a foe to the truth, the mrjre dangerous on account of his ability and the subtlety which veiled his heretical proclivities. Eustathius denounced him as departing from the Nicene faith. Eusebius retorted with the charge of Sabellianism. accusing Eustathius of holding one only per, sonality in the Deitv (Socr. H. E. i. 23 ; Soz- H. E. ii. 18 ; Theotl. H. E. i. 21). Eusebius of Nicomedia anrl Theognis of Nicaea, in their progress of almost royal magnificence to 346 EUSTATHIUS Jerusalem, passed through Antioch, and had a fraternal reception from Eustathius, and left with every appearance of friendship. Their inspection of the sacred buildings over, Eusebius returned to Antioch with a large cortege of partisan bishops — Aetius of Lydda, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Eusebius of Caesarea. The cabal entered Antioch with the air of masters. The plot had been maturing in their absence. Witnesses were prepared with charges against the bishop of incontinency and other gross crimes. Eustathius was summoned before this self-constituted tribunal, and, despite the opposition of the better-minded bishops and the absence of trustworthy evidence, was condemned for heresy, profligacy, and tyran- nical conduct, and deposed from his bishopric. This aroused the indignation of the people of Antioch, who took up arms in defence of their beloved bishop. Some of the magistrates and other officials headed the movement. An artfuUv coloured account of these disturbances and Eustathius's comphcity in them was transmitted to Constantine. A count was dispatched to quell the sedition and to put the sentence of the council into execution. Eus- tathius submitted to constituted authority. Accompanied bv many of his clergy, he left Antioch without resistance or manifesting any resentment (Socr. H. E. i. 24 ; Soz. H. E. ii'. iQ ; Theod. H. E. i. 21 ; Philost. H. E. ii. 7 ; Eus. Vit. Const, iii. 59). He appears to have spent the larger part of his exile at Philippi, where he died, c. 337. The date of his de- position was probably at the end of 330 or beginning of 331 (Tillem. Mem. eccl. vol. vii. note 3, sur Saint Eustathe ; Wetter, Resti- tutio verae Chronolog. rerum contra A rian. Gest. ; de BTnp,\ie, L'Eglise et I' Empire, c. vii.). The deposition of Eustathius led to a lamentable schism in the church of Antioch, which lasted nearly a century, not being completely healed till the episcopate of Alexander, a.d. 413-420. Eustathius was a copious writer, and is much praised by early authorities (Soz. H. E. ii. 19 ; Hieron'. Ep. 70 [84], ad Magnum). We possess only scattered fragments and one entire work, named by Jerome de Engas- trimytho adv. Origenem. In this he attacks Origen with great vehemence, ridicules him as a TToKvtcTTwp, and controverts his idea that the prophet Samuel was actually called up bv the witch of Endor (Gall. Vet. Patr. Bihl. vol. iv., and Migne, Patr. vol. xviii. pp. 614 ff.). In Texte und Untersiichungen{iS86), ii. 4, a new ed. of this treatise was edited by A. Zahn. Fabr. Bibl. Grace, vol. ix. pp. 131 ff. ed. Harles ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 187 ; Migne, Patr. t. ix. pp. 131 ff. ; Tillem. u.s. pp. 21 ff. ; De Broglie, op. cit. t. ii. pp. 294 ff- [E-v.l Eustathius (4), bp. of Sebaste (the modern Siwas) in Pontus, on the N. bank of the Halys, the capital of Armenia Minor (c. a.d. 357-380). j Eustathius occupies a place more conspicuous than honourable in the unhappy dissensions between the adherents of the orthodox faith and the various shades of Arian. semi-Arian, and Anomoean heresy during the middle of the 4th cent. Originally a disciple of Arius, after repeated approaches to the Nicene faith, j with occasional professions of accepting it, he probaby ended his days as a Eunomian I EUSTATHIUS heretic (Basil. Ep. 244 [82], § 9). Few in that epoch of conflicting creeds and formularies ever signed more various documents. Basil enumerates his signature of the formularies of Ancyra, Seleucia, Constantinople, Lampsacus, Nice in Thrace, and Cyzicus, which are sufficiently diverse to indicate the vagueness of his theology (Basil. I.e.). Eustathius thus naturally forfeited the confidence of all schools of theology. His personal character appears to have been high. There must have been something more than common in a man who could secure the affection and respect for many years of Basil the Great, as, in Basil's own strong language, " exhibiting something more than man" (£^ 212 [370I, § 2). As bishop he manifested his care for the sick and needy, and was unwearied in the fulfilment of duty. The system of coenobitic monasticism intro- duced by him into Asia Basil took as his model (Soz. H. E. iii. 14 ; Basil. Ep. 223 [79], § 3). Eustathius was born in the Cappodocian Caesarea towards the beginning of the 4th cent. He studied at Alexandria under the heresiarch Arius (c. a.d. 320) (Basil. Ep. 223 [79]. § 3 : 244 [82], § 9 ; 263 [74l. § 3). On leaving Alexandria he repaired to Antioch, where he was refused ordination on account of his Arian tenets by his orthodox namesake (Athan. Solit. p. 812). He was afterwards ordained by Eulalius (c. 331), but very speed- ily degraded by him for refusing to wear the clerical dress (Socr. H. E. ii. 43, Soz. H. E. iv. 24). From Antioch Eustathius returned to Caesarea, where he obtained ordination from the orthodox bp. Hermogenes, on de- claring his unqualified adhesion to the Nicene faith (Basil. Ep. 244 [82], § 9 ; 263 [74I, § 3)- On the death of Hermogenes, Eustathius repaired to Constantinople and attached him- self to Eusebius, the bishop there, " the Cory- phaeus of the Arian party" (Basil, ll.cc.). By him he was a second time deposed (c. a.d. 342) on the ground of some unspecified act of unfaithfulness to duty (Soz. H. E. iv. 24). He retired again to Caesarea, where, carefully concealing his Arian proclivities, he sought to commend himself to the bishop, Dianius. His subsequent history till he became bp. of Sebaste is almost a blank. We must, how- ever, assign to it the theological argument held by him and Basil of Ancyra with the audacious Anomoean, Aetius, who is regarded by Basil as in some sense Eustathius's pupil (Basil. Ep. 123, § 5). It was certainly during this period that Eustathius and his early friend the presbyter Aerius founded coenobitic monachism in Armenia and the adjacent provinces (Epiphan. Haer. 75, § 2). The rule laid down by him for the government of his religious communities of both sexes contained extravagances alluded to by Socrates and Sozomen, which are not unlikely to have been the cause, otherwise unknown, of his excom- munication by the council of Neo-Caesarea (Socr. H. E. ii. 43 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 24K While Eustathius was regulating his coenobitic foun- dations (c. 358) he was visited by Basil, who records the delight with which he saw the coarse garments, the girdle, the sandals of undressed hide, and witnessed the self-denying and laborious lives of Eustathius and his fol- lowers. His admiration for such a victory EDSTATHIUS over the world and the flesh dispelled all suspicions of Arian sentiments, and the desire to spread them secretly, which had heen rumoured (Basil. Ep. 223 [79], § 3)- After Basil had retired to the banks of the Iris and commenced his own monastic life, he and his brother (iregory received frequent visits from Eustathius, who, with them, would visit An- nesi, the residence of their mother Macrina, and spend there whole days and nights in friendly theological discussion (ib. § 3). Eustathius's episcopate must have begun before 357, when Athanasius speaks of him as a bishop (Athan. Orat. in Arian. i. p. 200 ; Solit. p. 812). He was made bp. of Sebaste, according to the same authority, by the Arian party, who hoped to find him an able and facile instrument. His early companion Aerius was a candidate for the bishopric, and felt very mortified by his failure. Eustathius shewed him the utmost consideration, ordained him presbyter, and appointed him manager of a refuge for the poor, the foundation of which was one of the first acts of his episcopate. The final rupture between them is detailed under Aerius. Somewhere about this time we may place Eustathius's conviction of perjury in the council of Antioch (see Socr. H. E. iv. 24). and his deposition by the obscure council of Melitcne in Armenia c. a.d. 357 (Basil. Ep. 263 [74])- Neither of these events appears to have entailed any lasting consequences. Eustathius was one of the prelates at the semi-Arian synod summoned at Ancyra by George of Laodicea, before Easter a.d. 358. to check the alarming spread of Anomoean doctrines, and he, with Basil of Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus, conveyed the synodal letter, equally repudiating the Ano- moean and Homoousian doctrines, and de- claring for the Homoiousion, to Constantius at Sirmium (Soz. H. E. iv. 13, 14 ; Basil. Ep. 263 [74], § 3). When the council met at Seleucia on Sept. 27, 339, Eustathius occupied a prominent place in its tumultuous and in- decisive proceedings, and was the head of the ten episcopal deputies, Basil of Ancyra, Sil- vanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicus being other chief members, sent to Constantinople to lay their report before Constantius. Stormy discussions followed, in which Eustathius led the semi-Arians as against the pure Arians. He vehemently denounced the blasphemies of the bold Anf)moean, Eudoxius. bp. of Antioch, and produced a ff)rmulary of faith declaring the dissimilarity rif the Father and the Son, which he asserted to be by liudoxius. All seemed to augur the triumph of orthodoxy when the arrival of Valens and Ursacius from Ariminum announcing the subjugation of the Western bishops and the general proscription of the Homoousi'^)n suddenly changed the scene. Constantius was overjoyed at the unexpected success, and after a protracted discussion, compelled Eustathius and the other Seleucian deputies to sign the fatal formulary. It was then, in Jerfime's words, " ingemuit totus orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est " (Hieron. in Lucif. 19). This base concession profited the recreants little. The emperor summoned a svnod, of which Acacius was the ruling spirit, at Constantinople in Jan. 360. Eustathius was deposed in a tyrannical manner, with Cyril of EUSTATHIUS 347 J erusnlem, Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cvzirus, and other imix.rtant prelates. Eustathius was not even allowed to defend himself. His former deposition by Eulalius was held sufTicirnt (Sort. H. /•:. ii. 41-43 ; Soz. H. /•.". iv. 24). Cnstan- tius confirmetl the sentence, exiled the bishops, and gave their sees to otliers. The death of Constantius in 361 and the accession of Julian witnessedtherecallof Ilustathius with the other banished bishops. He immediately repudiated his signature to the creed of .Arimiiium, and did all he cmild ti>shew his horror of pure Arianism. Sozomen tells list hat, withlMeusi us, Sophronius, and (Jthers of like mind, he held several svno<ls, condemning the partisans of Acaci>is, denounc- ing the creed of Ariniintnn, and asserting the Homoiousion as the true mean betwfen the Homoousion of the West and the Anomoe..n of Aetiusand his followers (//. E. v. 14). With the accession of Valens in 364, Arianism once more assumed ascendancy in the East. The semi- .\rian party, or Macedonians as they now began tobecallcd, met by imperial permission in coun- cil at I.ampsacus A.D. 363, untler the presidency of Eleusius and repudiated the .Acacian council of Constantinople (360) and the creed of Ari- minum, renewed the confession of Antioch (In Encaeniis), and pronounced sentence of de- position on Eudoxius and Acacius (Socr. H. E. iv. 2-4 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 7). These proceedings irritated \'alens, who required them to hold commmiion with Eudoxius, and, on their refusal, sentenced them to fine and banish- ment, giving their sees to others. To escaj>e annihilation, the Macedonians sent deputies, Eustathius being one, to the Western emperor Valentinian and Liberius, bp. of Rf)me, who had repented his lapse in a.d. 337, offerinc to unite with them in faith. Before they ar- rived, Valentinian had left ft)r Gaul, and Liberius, at first looking coldly on them as Arians, refusedtoreceisethem. On theirpiving a written adhesion to tlie Nicene Creed and the Homoousion, he received them in to communion, and gave them letters in his name and that of the Western church to the prelates of the Ivast, expressing his satisfaction at the proof he had receivedof the identitvofdoctrinebetween East and West (Socr. //. £.'iv. 12; Soz.//. E. vi. 11). No mention was made of the new Macedonian heresy concerning the Holy Spirit, now in- fecting the Eastern church, of which Eustathius and the other deputies were among the chief l^romulgators. Eustathius and his companions at once repaired to Sicily, where a synod of ' bishops, on their profession of orthf>doxy, gave themlettersof communion. Theythenreturned to their own country. A synod of orth<KU)X , bishops was assembled in 367 at Tyana. to re- ; ceive the letters of communion from the West and other documents (Soz. I.e. ; Basil. Ep. 244 [82!, § 3). Eustathius and his fellow-<leleKatcs, now recognized as true Catholics, were ac- knowledged as the rightful bishops of their sees. A council sununoned at Tarsus to con- solidate this happy reunion was prohibited by Valens, who, having committed himself to the : Arian party, issued an edict expelling all bishops restored by Julian. Eustathius, tosave himself, signed a formula at Cyzicus of Homoiousian I character, which also denied the divinity of the I Holy Spirit. Basil says tersely of Eustathius ; and his party, "they saw Cyzicus and returned 348 EUSTATHIUS with a different creed" (Basil, ii.s. and § 9; 226 [73l)- ... On Basil's elevation to the episcopate in 370 Eustathius exhibited great joy, and pro- fessed an earnest desire to be of service to his friend. He recommended persons as fellow- helpers who, as Basilbitterly complains, turned out to be spies of his actions and words, inter- preting all in a malevolent sense and reporting to their chief {ib. 223 [79], § 3)- For their subsequent bitter relations, see Basilius OF Caesarea. Eustathius heaped calumnies on the head of his former associate, openly charging him with ApoUinarian and other heretical views, and encouraged the clergy of his diocese and province to form a rival communion. Demosthenes, the Vicar of the Prefect, an old enemy of Basil, strenuously forwarded this object. In 376 he visited Sebaste and other chief places in the province, oppressing Basil's adherents, whom he com- pelled to undertake onerous and costly public duties, and loading the followers of Eustathius with the highest honours {ib. 237 [264], § 2). Eustathius, seeing Arianism in the ascendant, openlv sought communion with those whom he had repeatedly denounced. His deposition at Constantinoplewas not forgottenby the Arians, who had not hitherto recognized him as a canon- ical bishop. He now sought their goodwill by humiliating concessions. He had overthrown thealtarsofBasilides,bp.ofGangra,asanArian, but now begged admission to his communion. He hadtreatedthepeople of Amasea as heretics, excommunicating Elpidius for holding inter- course with them, and now earnestly sought their recognition. At Ancyra, the Arians refusing him public recognition, he submitted to communicate with them in private houses. When the Arian bishops met in synod at Nyssa he sent a deputation of his clergy to invite them to Sebaste, conducted them through the pro- vince with every mark of honour, allowed them to preach and celebrate the Eucharist in his churches, and withheld no mark of the most intimate communion {ib. 257 [72], § 3)- These humiliations had but tardy and partial success in obtaining his public acknowledgment by the dominant ecclesiastics. His efforts to secure Arian favour and his effrontery in trading upon his former recognition by Liberius extorted from Basil a vehement letter of remonstrance, addressed to the bp. of Rome and the other Western bishops, depicting the evils inflicted on the Eastern church by the wolves in sheep's clothing, and requesting Liberius to declare publicly the terms on which Eustathiushadbeen admitted to communion {ib. 263 [74!- § 3)- All Basil's efforts to obtain this mark of sympathy and brotherlv recognition from the West were fruitless. He continued to be harassed by the unscrupulous attacks of Eustathius till his death in 379. If the see was vacated by his death, and not, as Hefele holds, with much probability.byhis deposition at Gangra, Eusta- thius died soon after. In 380 Peter became bp. of Sebaste, and thus Basil's brother replaced Basil's most dangerous enemy. The svnod of Gangra, of uncertain date [D. C. A., S.V.], is intimately connected with the name of Eustathius. The identity of the Eustathius there condemned with the bp. of Sebaste, though affirmed by every ancient EUSTATHIUS authority, has been denied by Blondel {De la primaute, p. 138), Baronius {Anna!, iii. ann. 361, n. 53), Du Pin {Nouvelle bibliotheque, ii. 339), and called in question by Tillemont {Mem. eccl. ix. note 28, S. Basile) ; but on careful investigation Hefele {Hist, of the Church Councils, ii. 325 ff. Engl, trans.) scouts the idea that another Eustathius is intended. C. F. Loots, Bust, of Seb., Halle, 1898. [e.v.] Eustathius (22), bp. of Berytus (Beyrout), a time-serving prelate attached to the court, who kept steadily in view the aggrandizement and independence of his see of Berytus, then suffragan to Tyre. As a bishop of some consideration for theological knowledge, he was appointed commissioner, with Photius of Tyre and LTranius of Himera, by Theodosius II., A.D. 448, to examine the tenets of Ibas of Edessa, charged by the monastic party with favouring the Nestorian heresy. This com- mission, dated Oct. 26, 448, and addressed to Damasus, the secretary of state (Labbe, Cone. iv. 638), was opened at Berytus, Feb. i, a.d. 449, in the residence of Eustathius, recently erected by him near his magnificent new church. Ibas indignantly disclaimed the blasphemies attributed to him, and produced a protest, signed by a large number of his clergy, that they had never heard him utter words contrary to the faith {ib. p. 637). The accusation broke down. But the investiga- tion was revived a week or two afterwards at Tyre {ib. 635). Eustathius and his brother commissioners drew up a concordat, which was signed, Feb. 25, by Ibas and his accusers, and countersigned by Eustathius and Photius {ib. 632). At the second council of Ephesus, the disgraceful " Robbers' Synod," Aug. 8, 449, Eustathius, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil of Seleucia were the imperial commissioners {ib. 1079). Eustathius lent all his influence to Dioscorus and the dominant party against the venerable Flavian, voting for the rehabilita- tion of Eutyches and declaring that he had stated the true faith in perfect conformity to the doctrine of godliness {ib. 262). In 450, through the influence of pope Leo and his legates at Constantinople, Eustathius's name was erased from the diptychs of the church as an accomplice in Flavian's violent death. He and his associates, however, were allowed to re- tain their sees, in the hope that this leniency might lead them to repent (Leo Magn. Ep. 60). The feebleTheodosius II. being nowreplaced by the orthodox and vigorous Marcian, Eustathius found it politic to change bis camp, and at the council of Chalcedon promptly abandoned Dios- corus, declaring his agreement in faith with Flavian, and with exaggerated expressions of penitence asking pardon for his share in the acts of the recent synod (Labbe, iv. 141, 176, 177). The abject humiliation of Eustathius and his party prevailed with the orthodox bishops, who acquitted them as mere tools of Dioscorus and received them as brothers (ib. 508-509). At a later session of the council, Oct. 20, the issue between Eustathius and Photius of Tyre was discussed {ib. 539). As a reward for his sup- port of the court party at the " Latrocinium," Eustathius had obtained from Theodosius a decree giving metropolitical rank to Berytus (Lupus, in Canon. 950). Flavian's successor Anatolius, together with Maximus of Antioch EUSTOCmUM and other court bishops, luul consequently, at the close of 440, dismenibered the diocese of Tyre and assigned live churches to the for- merly suffragan see of Berytus (l.abbe, iv. 542-546). Photius, disregarding this, and continuing to consecrate l>ishops for these churches, was exconiinuiiicateil by Anatolius, and the prelates he had consecrated were deposed and degraded by Eustathius («6. 530). Photius submitted to this interference on the threat of deposition, protesting that he did so by constraint. The council supjiorted hin\, maintained the ancient prerogatives of the metropolitical see of Tyre, and pronounced the acts of Eustathius void. When in 457 the emperor Leo, anxious to give peace to the church of Alexandria, dealt with the intrusion of Timothy Aelurus, Eustathius was consulted, and joined in tlie condemnation of that intruding patriarch (ift. 8<)o). The church built by Eustathius at Herytus is described by Zacharias Scholasticus as lie mundiopificio. Tillem. Mem. eccl. xv. ; Le guien, Orieiis Christ, ii. 818 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 440. [E.V.] Eustochium, 3rd daughter of Paui.a, the friend of Jerome, from whose writings all that is known of her is gathered. Born probably c. 370, she had shared from her earliest days the ascetic views of her mother, and was confirmed in them by frequenting the house of Marcella (Hieron. i.952,ed. Vallarsi). Her uncle Hymet- tius, with his wife Praetextata (see Thierry's St. Jerome, i. 161), endeavoured to wean her from these by inviting her to their house, changing her attire, and placing her among the mirrors and the flattery of a patrician recep- tion-room (Hieron. i. 394, 683) ; but she re- sisted their seductions and took the vow of per- petual virginity, being the first Roman lady of noble birth to do so (i. 394). Jerome addressed to her his celebrated treatise de Virginitate Ser- vanda (i. 88), in which vivid pictures of Roman society enforce the superior sanctity of the state of virginity. This treatise excited great animosity against Jerome, and was one cause of his leaving Rome and returning to Pales- tine. Paula and Eustochium resolving to go there also, embarked in 385 at Portus. At Bethlehem they built and managed the hospice and convent, and from her mother's death in 404 Eustochium was its head till her own death in 418, two years before that of Jerome. Many passages in Jerome's writings give a picture of her character and manner of life. Small in stature (i. 290), she had great courage and de- cisis in of character (i. 394). and followed the ascetic teaching of Jerome and her mother with unwavering confidence and enthusiasm (i. 402, 403). She spoke Greek and Latin with equal facility, and learnt Hebrew to sing the Psalms in the original (i. 720). Jerome praises her skill in the training of virgins, whom she led in all acts of devotion (i. 290) and to whom she set an example by undertaking all menial offices (i. 403). She was eager to increase her knowledge of the Scriptures, and to her im- portunity Jerome ascribes the writing of many of his commentaries, which were dedicated to her and her mother, and afterwards to her and her niece the younger Paula, who, with the | younger Melania, was her coadjutor in her 1 convent work and her study of Scripture. She I EUTHAUUS S49 is reckoned a saint in the Roman church, her festival being Sept. 28. (w.m.f.1 EustOOhiuS (6), patriarch of Jerusalem, in succession to Peter, and, according to Papc- broch, from a.d. 544 to 556. On the death of Peter, Eustochius, oecononius of the church of Alexandria but residing at Constantinople, was favoured by the eniixror Justinian in preference to Macarius, an Origenist, who had been first elected. At the synod of Con- stantinople, 553, Eustochius was represented by three legates, Stephanus bp. of Raphia. Georgius bp. of Tiberias, Damasus bp. of Sozusa or Sozytana (Mansi, ix. 173 c.) ; and when the acts in condemnation of Origenism were sent by the emperor to Jerusalem, all the bishops of Palestine except Alexander of Abila confirmed them. But in the monasteries of that province, and especially in that named the New Laura, the partisans of the proscribed opinions grew daily more powerful, notwith- standing the resolute efforts of the patriart h against them. In 555, after eight months <>f persistent admonition, Eustochius went in person, with the dux AnastasiuF, to the New Laura, and forcibly expelled the whole body, replacing them by 60 monks from the prin- cipal laura and 60 from other orthodox mon- asteries of the desert, under the prior Joannes. Origenism was thus rooted out of Palestine. According to Victor Tununensis, Eustochius was removed from the patriarchate, and Macarius restored. Cyrillus Scythopol. in Coteler. Monum. Eccles. Graec. iii. 373 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 37, 38 ; Victor Tunun. in Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 962 A ; Theoph. Chronog. a..m. 6060 ; Papebroch, Patriarch. Hierosol. in Boll. Acta SS. Intro, to vol. iii. of May, p. xxvii. ; Le Quien, Or. Chr. iii. 210. Pagi (ann. 561 iii.) discusses the chronology. See also Clinton, F. R. 5 37. 557- [cn.l Euthalius (5), a deacon of Alexandria, after- wards bp. of Sulca ; fl. a.d. 459. This date is confirmed by the fact that his works are dedicated to Athanasius the Younger, who was bp. of Alexandria about that time. Euthalius appears to have been then a deacon, devoted to the study of the N.T. text. He is now best known as the author of the Euthalian Sections. The books of N.T. were written without any division into chapters, verses, or words. The first steps towards such a convenient di\ ision seem to have proceeded from the wish for easy reference to parallel passages. This was done bv what are known as the Ammonian Sections, together with the EusebianCanons. [ErstBirs OF Caesarea.] Annnonius of Alexandria, in the 3rd cent., is generally credited with divid- ing the gospels into sections, but the principle had not been applied to other books of N.T. Euthalius introduced a system of division into all those not yet divided, except the Apocalvpse.whichspread rapidly over the whole (;reek church and has become, by its presence or absence, a valuable test of the antiquity of a MS. In the Epp. of St. Paul, Euthalius tells us. he adopted the scheme of a certain " lather," whose name is nowhere given. But by his other labours, and the further critical appar- atus which he supplied, Euthalius procured for it the acceptance it so<.n obtained. In Romans there were 19 capitula; in Galattans, 12; in Ephesians, 10 ; in /. Thessalontans, 7 ; ^5ft EUTHALIUS in //. Thessalonians, 6 ; in Hebrews, 22 ; in Philemon, 2 ; and so on. Three points in connexion with the text especially occupied Euthalius. (i) The Larger Sections or Lessons. Fixed lessons for public worship no doubt passed from the synagogue into the Christian church, at least as soon as the canon was settled. But there seems to have been little or no uniformity in them. Individual churches had divisions of their own. The scheme proposed by Euthalius, however, speedily became general in all Greek-speaking churches. The whole N.T., except the Gospels and Apocalypse, was divided into 57 portions of very varying length (in /I c/s there were 16; in the Pauline Epp. 31 ; 5 in Rom. ; 5 in /. Cor. ; 4 in //. Cor. ; in the Catholic Epp. 10; 2 in James; 2 in/. Pe.; i in //. Pe., etc.) Of these, 53 were for Sundays, which seem alone to have been provided for in the Alexandrian Syntaxes, and Millsupposes that the other 4 were for Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Epiphany (Proleg. in N.T. p. 90). (2) The smaller divisions were the well- known cTTixoi. — i.e. " lines " (Lat. versus), each containing either a few words complete in themselves, or as much as it was possible to read without effort at one breath. Like that of the capitula formerly spoken of, the plan of these " verses" was not introduced by Eutha- lius. It had already been adopted in some of the poetical books, and in poetical parts of the prose books of the O.T. The LXX had occasionally employed it. It had been sanc- tioned by Origen. The Vulgate had used it, and it is found in the psalms of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. It had been partially applied to N.T., for Origen speaks of the 100 ffrlxoL of //. and ///. John, of a few in St. Paul's Epistles, and very few in /. John ; while Eustathius of Antioch, in the 4th cent., is said to reckon 135 from John viii. 59 to x. 31 (Scrivener, Intro, to Codex D, p. 17). But these figures shew that many of these divisions cannot have been (ttLxoi in the strict sense, but of very unequal length, and generally much larger. What was before partially and im- perfectly done Euthalius extended upon better principles and with greater care. In Rom. he made 920 such a-rixoi. ; in Gal. 293 ; in Eph. 312 ; in /. Thess. 193 ; in //. Thess. 106 ; in Heb. 703 ; in Philemon, 37 ; and so on. (3) The third part of his labour was an enumeration of all the quotations from O.T., and even from profane writers, found in those books of N.T. of which he treated. These he numbered in one catalogue ; assigned to the various books whence they were taken in a second ; and quoted at length in a third. If we may look upon the Argumenta as really the work of Euthalius, and not, as Zacagnius argues [Praef. p. 60), as the production of a later hand, he went also into the substance and meaningof thebookseditedbyhim, asthe.^ygjt- wenia contain short and excellent summaries of them. Euthalius also wrote a short Life of St. Paul, prefixed to his work on the 14 epistles of that apostle, but it is bald and meagre. It has been said that he also wrote comments on Acts and Luke ; and that in an ancient catena on Romans there were fragments of his writings; but these statements seem to be ncorrect [ib. p. 71). EUfttERlUS In later life he became a bishop, and was known as EpiscopusSulcensis. Scrivener sug- gests Sulci in Sardinia as the only see of that name (Intr. p. 53, n. i), but so distant a place is unlikely. Zacagnius thinks that Sulca may represent Psilca, a city of the Thebaid near Syene ; but Galland throws doubt on this, and the point must be left unsolved. His works remained long unknown, but in 1698 they were ed. andpub.at RomebyLauren- tius Alexander Zacagnius, praefect of the Vatican Library, in vol. i. of his Collectanea Monumeniorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac Latinae, in the long preface of which different questions relating to Euthalius are discussed with much care. This ed. has been printed in Galland (Biblioth. Pat. x. 197) and in Migne {Patr.Gk.\x\xv.62i). Noticesof Euthaliusmay be found in the Prolegomena of N. T. of Wetstein and Mill, and in Scrivener ' s Intro, to the Criticism of N.T. But much light has recently been thrown on Euthalius by Dean Armitage Rob- inson in his " Euthaliana " {Texts and Stud. iii. 3), and in an article "Recent Work on Eutha- lius " in the Journ. of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. p. 87, Oct. 1904. In the latter art. the recent work on the subject by Von Soden and Zahn is noticed. [w.m.] Eutherius (2), bp. of Tyana, a leader of the Nestorians at the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431, and for some time afterwards. Beff)re the council he was in active correspondence with John of Antioch, about the alleged Apollin- arianism of Cyril of Alexandria and his adherents (Theod. Ep. 112 ; Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxiii. 1310). His name occurs in the various documents addressed to, and issued by, the members of his party collectively at this council. On July 18 John and his adherents were deposed and excommunicated, and Eutherius among them {Act. Co. Eph. acta V. 654) ; his sentence being confirmed at Constantinople before the end of the year. After his return home we find him in friendly correspondence with Firmus of Caesarea, notwithstanding the part Firmus had taken in his excommunication (Firm. Ep. 23 ; Pair. Gk. Ixxvii. 1498). Firmus was sent to Tyana to ordain a successor to Eutherius, and met with great opposition from the citizens, who were much attached to their bishop. Longras also, the imperial officer in command of the Isaurian troops there, interfered ; and both Firmus and the person whom he had ordained were compelled to flee. The newly ordained bishop renounced his orders, and seems to have returned to lay life (Theod. Ep. Hypomnesticon Alex. Hierapolis Synodi- con, c. 45). After the reconciliation of Cyril and John of Antioch, Eutherius wrote to John to remonstrate with him on his incon- sistency and want of loyalty to what he once contended for (/'ft. c.73, u.s. 681) ; to Alexander of Hierapolis, who was opposed to the recon- ciliation, a long letter ablv defending the posi- tion which thev and others were still determined to maintain {ib. c. 201, u.s. 815) ; and to Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who had also written to Alexander, to encourage him in his oppo- sition, expressinggreat joy at what he had done {ib.c. 74, U.S. 684). Eutherius was ultimately banished to Scythopolis, and from thence to Tyre, where he died {ib. c. 190, M.S.). EUTHYMIUS He is the author of a treatise in 17 chapters, with a prefatory letter addresseil to livista- thius bp. of I'aruassus, which Photius ascribed to Theodoret (Phot. Bihlioth. c. xlvi. Migne, Patr. Gk. ciii. 79), and which has since been attributed by some to Maxinius the Martyr, and by others to Athanasius (darner's notes on Marius Mercator in Patr. Lat. xlviii. 759, 1086, 1087 ; F^abricius, Biblioth. Grace, ed. Harles, viii. 304), in which he subjects the " Scholia" of Cyril of Alexandria, " de Incar- natione Unigeniti " (Mar. iMerc. u.s. 1066) to elaborate and searching criticism, [t.w.d.] Euthymius (4), abbat in Palestine, born in 377, at Melitene in Armenia, and placed at an early age under the direction of its bishop, Otreius. After his ordination as priest he was placed in charge of all the monasteries in and near the place. Finding this too great an interruption to his meditations, in his 29th year he escaped to Jerusalem to visit the holy places, and found a home with a community of separate monks at Pharan, 6 miles from Jerusalem. With another hermit. Theoc- tistus, he used to take long walks into the desert of Cutila at sacred seasons. On one of these occasions, in the 5th year of his stay at Pharan, they came to a tremendous torrent with a cavern on one of its banks. Here they determined to live, lost to the world. They were, however, discovered by some shepherds, who sent them gifts. The fathers of Pharan also found them out, and came at times to see them. About 411 Euthymius began to receive disciples. They turned the cavern into a church, and built a monastery on the side of the ravine. Theoctistus had charge of it. In 420 Euthymius erected a laura, like that of Pharan, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, where he would see inquirers on Saturdays and Sundays, and his advice was always given with captivating sweetness and humility. In 428 the church of his laura was consecrated by Juvenal, the first patriarch of Jerusalem, accompanied by the presbyter Hesychius and the celebrated Passarion, governor of a monastery in Jerusalem. A new turn was given to thelife of Euthymius by a cure which he effected for Terebon, son of Aspebetus, prince of the Saracens, who, hear- ing of his fame, brought the afflicted boy to his gloomy retreat with a large train of followers. The prayers of Euthymius are said to have rest'Ted health to the patient, and the whole company believed on the Lord Jesus. Euthy- mius ordered a little recess for water to be hollowed out in the side of the cave, and baj)- tized them on the spot, the father taking the name of Peter. His brother-in-law Maris joined the community of anchorets, bestowing all his wealth for the enlargement of the build- ings. The st<jry spread over Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and Euthymius was besieged with applications for medical assist- ance and prayer. Peter, bp. of the Saracens, on his way to the council at Ephesus, a.d. 431, visited Euthymius, who exhorted him to unite with Cyril'of Alexandria and Acacius of Melitene, and to do in regard to the creed whatever seemed right to those prelates. When the council of Chalcedon issued its decrees (451). two of his disciples, Stephen and John, who EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 3.M had been pr.s.iit, l>r..iiKlit tli.iii t.> their master. The report of his approval spread through the desert, and all the recluses w..uld have shared it but for the influence of the monk Theodosius, whose life and dortrinc ajijiear to have been equally unsatisfactorv, who even tried hard to jiersuade Euthymius to reject Chalcedon, but without success. The empress Ihidoxia. an energetic Euty- chian, after the death of her husband in 450, went to Jerusalem, and being urged by her brother Valerius to become reconciled to the Catholic church, determined to consult Euthymius. She built a tower about 4 milis S. of his laura, and sent to him Cosnias, guarclian of the so-called True Cross at Con- stantinople, and Anastasius, a bishop. Euthy- mius came ; and after giving his blessing to the empress, advised her that the violent death of her son-in-law, Valentinian, the irruption of the Vandals, the captivity of her daughter Eudoxia and of her grandchildren, might all be attributed to her Eutychian opinions. She should abjure her schism, and embrace the communion of Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem. The empress obeyed, and her example was followed by a multitude of monks and laymen. A celebrated anchoret also, tlerasimus, owed his separation from Euty- chianism to Euthymius. Euthymius died in 473 ; his obsequies were celebrated by the patriarch Anastatius and a large number of clergy, among whom are mentioned Chrysip- pus, guardian of the Cross, and a deacon named Fidus. See Cotelier's ed. of the Vita Euthymii by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus (Cot. Eccl. Graec. .Monum. iv. i, Paris, if^tz). [w.M.s.j Eutyohes (4) and Eutychianism. Eutyches was arciiimandrite of a monastery near Con- stantinople. For 70 years (as he told pope Leo) he had lived a nionastic life, and during 30 out of them had presided over his 300 monks. He was a staunch upholder of the views and conduct of Cyril of Alexandria, who had even sent him,' as a special mark of favour, a copy of the Acts of the council of Ephesus, A.D. 431. By whom he was first accused, whether by Theodoret in his Eran- istes, or by his former friend, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, or by Domnus of Antioch, it seems difficult to decide (cf. Hefele. ii. 319; Martin, 75-78) ; but it is clear that to Eusebius are due the definite charges first brought against him at Constantinople in 448. Flavian, who succeeded Proelus in 447 as archbishop, convened a synod in Constanti- nople on Nov. 8, 448, to consider some ques- tions between the metropolitan of Sardis and two of his suffragan bishops. Eusebius ()f Dorvlaeum was present, and at its conclusion complained that Eutyches defamed " the holy F"athers and himself, a man who had never been suspected of heresy." alleging himself prepared to convict Eutyches of being untrue to the orthodox faith. Flavian listened in astonishment, and suggested that Eusebius should first privately discuss with Eutyches the points in dispute. Eusebius retorted that he had already done this unsuccessfully ; he, therefore, implored the synod to summon Eutyches before them, not only to induce him to give up his views, but to prevent infection spreading further. Two deputies, a priest 352 EUTYCHES, EUTYCfflANISM and a deacon, were instructed to read to Eutyches the complaint, and to invite him to attend the synod, which met again on Nov. 12. Eusebius asked first for the recital of (a) Cyril's first letter to Nestorius, lb) the appro- bation of that letter by the council of Ephesus, and (c) Cyril's letter to John of Antioch ; secondly, that all present should express acceptance of these documents as true exposi- tions of the Nicene Creed. Flavian and the bishops present accepted these propositions, and a resolution to the same effect was sent to the absentees for their approval and signature. The synod professed its belief in " Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body subsisting, begotten before all ages, without j beginning ; of the Father according to the Godhead, but in these last davs for our sake and for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood ; consubstantial with the Father, as touching His Godhead, and ' consubstantial with the mother, as touching His manhood." " We confess that Jesus Christ, after the Incarnation, was of two natures in one Hypostasis and in one Person; one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Whosoever asserts other- wise, him we exclude from the clergy and the church " (Mansi, vi. 679). At the third session, Nov. 15, the deputies announced that Eutyches refused to appear before the synod, alleging that Eusebius had long been his enemy, and had grossly slandered him, for he (Eutyches) was ready to assent to and subscribe the statements of the holy F'athers at Nicaea and Ephesus. Certain expressions used by them : were, in his opinion, mistakes ; in such cases he turned to Holy Scripture, as a safer guide than the Fathers. He worshipped one nature, and that the nature of God incarnate. Read- ing from a little book which he fetched, Eutyches then, according to the deputies, first protested against a statement falselv ascribed to him — viz. that the Logos had brought His body from heaven — and next asserted his inability to find in the writings of the Fathers their belief that our Lord Jesus Christ subsisted of two Persons united in one Hypostasis ; adding, that even if he did find such a statement, he must decline to accept it, as not being in Holy Scripture. In his belief. He Who was born of the Virgin Mary was very God and very man, but His body was not of like substance with ours. Eusebius struck in, " This is quite enough to enable us to take action against Eutyches ; but let him be summoned a second time." Two priests were now sent to tell Eutyches that his replies had given great offence ; he must come and explain them, as well as meet the charges originally brought against him. They took with them a note saying that if he still refused to appear, it might be necessary to deal with him according to canonical law', and that his determination not to leave his cell was simply an evasion. During their absence, Eusebius brought forward a further charge. Eutyches, he asserted, had written and circulated among the monks a little book on the faith, to which he had requested their signatures. The state- ment was evidently an exaggeration, but was of sufficient importance for priests and deacons to be at once sent to the neighbouring mon- EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM asteries to make inquiries. Meanwhile Mamas and Theophilus returned. They reported that they had encountered many obstacles. The monks round the door of the monastery had affirmed the archimandrite to be ill ; one Eleusinius had presented himself as represent- ing Eutyches ; and it was only on the assur- ance that the letter, of which they were the bearers, contained neither hard "nor secret messages that they at last procured an audience. To the letter Eutyches replied that nothing but death should make him leave his monastery, and that the archbishop and the synod might do what they pleased. In his turn, he wished them to take a letter ; and on their refusal announced his intention of sending it to the synod. Eusebius at once broke out, " Guilty men have always some excuse ready ; we must bring Eutyches here against his will." But at the desire of Flavian, two priests (Memnon and Epiphanius) and a deacon (Germanus) were sent to make another effort. They took a letter exhorting Eutyches not to compel the synod to put in force canonical censure, and summoning him before them two days later (Nov. 17). The synod met on Nov. 16. During the session, infor- mation was brought to Flavian that certain monks and deacons, friends of Eutyches, and Abraham, archimandrite of a neighbouring monastery, requested an audience. They were at once admitted. Abraham informed the archbishop that Eutyches was ill, and had deputed him to speak for him. Flavian's reply was paternal and conciliatory. He re- ; gretted the illness of Eutyches, and, on behalf of those present, expressed their willingness to wait till he was restored. " Let him remem- ber," he continued, " that he is not coming among strangers, but among men who would receive him with fatherly and brotherly affection, and many of whom have hitherto been his friends. He has pained many, and must defend himself. Surely if he could leave his retirement when the error of Nestorius imperilled the faith, he should do as much ; when his own orthodoxy is in question. He has but to acknowledge and anathematize his error, and the past shall be forgiven. As regards the future, he must give assurance to us that he will only teach conformably to the doctrines of the Fathers." The archbishop closed with significant words : " You (monks) know the zeal of the accuser of Eutyches. Fire itself seems to him cold in comparison with his burning zeal for religion. God knows I have besought him to desist ; but, as he persisted, what could I do ? Do you suppose that I have any wish to destroy you, and not rather gather you together ? It is the act of an enemy to scatter, but the act of a father to gather." \ The fifth session opened on Wed. Nov. 17, ■ and as the result of its deliberations, Eutyches ' was informed that he would be expected on Nov. 22, and, if he failed to appear, would be deprived of his clerical functions and monastic dignity. A sixth session met on Sat. Nov. 20, and agreed that Eutyches might be accompanied on the Monday following by four friends. Eusebius said that when Mamas and Theophilus had visited Eutyches, the I archimandrite used expressions not reported eutycheJs, eutychianism to the synod, but whicli throw ciriMt lij^lit on his opinions. At the request o£ tlie bishops, Theophilus narrated wliat had occurred. Eut>-ches, he said, had wished to argue with them, and in the presence of several of his monks had put these questions : " Where, in Holy Scripture, is there any mention of two natures ? Which of the Fathers has declared that God the Word has two natures ? " Mamas had replied that the argument from silence was insufficient. " The word ofioovaioi does not occur in Holy Scripture ; we owe it to the definitions of the Fathers. And simi- larly we owe to them the affirmation of the two natures." Theophilus had then asked if Euty- ches believed that God the Word was " perfect (r^Xftos) in Christ," and " Do you believe that the man made flesh was also perfect (in Him) ? " He answered "Yes" to both questions, where- upon Theophilus urged, " If in Christ be perfect God and perfect man, then do these perfect (natures) form the one Son. Why will you not allow that the one Son consists of two natures ? " Eutyches replied : " God forbid that I should say that Christ consists of two natures, or dispute about the nature of God. Let the synod depose me, or do what they please. I will hold fast by the faith which I have received." Mamas substantiated the truth of this report, adding that what led to the discussion was a remark of Eutyches : " God the Word became flesh to restore fallen human nature," and the question which he (Mamas) had put : " By what nature, then, is this human nature taken up and restored ? " Flavian naturally asked why this conversation had not been reported before : it was a lame but thoroughly Oriental answer to reply : " Because we had been sent, not to question Eutvches about his faith, but to summon him to the synod. We gave you his answer to the latter point. No one asked us about the former, and therefore we held our peace." The seventh, last, and weightiest session met on Mon. Nov. 22. Eutyches at last pre- sented himself, accompanied by a multitude of soldiers, monks, and others, who refused to allow him to enter till assured that he should depart as free as he entered. A letter from the emperor (Theodosius II.) was presented. " I wish," it said, " for the peace of the church, and steadfast adherence to the orthodox doctrinesof the Fathers at Nicaeaand Ephesus. And because I know that Florentius the patrician is a man approved in the faith, I desire that he should be present at the sessions of a synod which has to deal with matters of faith." The synod received the letter with shouts, " Long live the emperor ! His faith is great ! Long live our pious, orthodox, high- priest and emperor {riii apxiffxi /iao-iXerj." Florentius was conducted to his seat, the accuser (Eusebius) and the accused (Eutyches) took their places, and the session began by the recital of all the papers bearing on the point at issue. Cyril's letter to John of .^ntioch was again read, in which occurred the follow- ing : " We confess our Lord Jesus Christ . . . consubstantial with the F'ather, according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood ; for a union of the two natures was made ; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And in accord- EUTYCHE5, EUTYCHIANISM 353 ance with the i)cricptiMii ,,f the uncunfusod union (Ti)v TTJt liavfXiTov •Vwufoit /»Koio»), we confess the Holy Virgin tf,ord»ot, because t.od the Word was made flesh, and became man and uniteil to Himself by conception the teinple t.iken from her." Eusebius ex. I.iinjcd, " Certainly luityches does not acknowledne this ; he has never believed it, but taujjhl the very opposite to every one who came to him." Florentius desired that liutyches should be asked if he assented to these documents or not. Eutyches was interrogated ; and when the archbishop put the plain question : " Oo you confess that Christ is of two natures? " I Eutyches answered, " I have never yet pre- sumed to dispute about the nature of my God ; that He is consubstantial with us have I never j said. I readily admit that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that our God was born of her flesh." Flavian, Florentius, Basil of Seleucia, and others, pressed upon him : " If you admit that Mary is consubstantial with us, and that Christ took His manhood from her, it naturally follows that He, accord- ing to His manhood, is consubstantial with us." Eutyches answered : " I do not say that the body of man has become the bodv of GckI ; but in speaking of a human bodv of (khI I sav that the Lord became flesh of the Virgin. If you wish me to add that His bodv is consub- j stantial with ours, I will do so ; but I cannot use the word consubstantial in such a manner as to deny that He is the Son of C.od." Fla- I vian's retort was just : " You will then admit this from compulsion, and not because it is your belief." Finally, the synod desired Eutyches to make a full explanation, and to pronounce an anathema on opinions opposed to the documents which had been recited. Eutyches replied that he would, if the synod desired it, make use of language (viz. consub- stantial with us, and of two natures) which, in his opinion, was very much open to ques- j tion ; " but," he added, " inasmuch as I do not find such language either in Holy Scripture or in the writings of the Fathers, I must decline to pronounce an anathema on those who do not accept it, lest — in so doing — I should be [anathematizing the Fathers." F'lorenlius ! asked : " Do you acknowledge two natures in j Christ, and His consubstantiality with us ? " " Cyril and Athanasius," answered Eutyches, j " speak of two natures beft)re the union, but of one nature after the union." " If you do not acknowledge two natures after the union," said Florentius, " you will be condemned. Whosoever refuses the formula ' of two I natures ' and the expression ' two natures ' is unorthodox ; " to which the synod responded 1 with the cry, " And to receive this under com- I pulsion (as would Eutyches) is not to believe I in it. Long live the emperor ! " The scn- ( fence was pronounced : " Eutyches, formerly priest and archimandrite, hath proved himself affected by the heresy of \'alentinus and Apollinaris, and hath refused — in spite of our admonition — to accept the true faith. There- fore we, lamenting his perverseness, have decreed, through our Lord Jesus Christ, blas- phemed by him, that he be excluded from all priestly functions, from our communion, and from his primacy in his monastery." Ex- communication was pronounced upon all wlig 23 354 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM should consort with and abet him, and the sentence was signed by 32 (? 28) bishops, and 23 archimandrites. Eutyches left the council- chamber muttering an appeal to Rome. The monks rallied round Eutyches, and the influence of the minister Chrysaphius, his godson, was exerted in his behalf. Eutyches himself wrote to the emperor and to many of the bishops, and placarded notices about Con- stantinople, protesting against his sentence and justifying his teaching. Of his letters the most important is to pope Leo. In it he ac- cuses Eusebius of acting at Satan's bidding, not in the interests of orthodoxy, but with the intention of destroying him. He repeats that he could not accede to the demands of the synod, acknowledge two natures in Christ, and anathematize all who opposed this doctrine, because Athanasius, Gregory, Julius, and Felix had rejected the expression " two natures," he himself having no wish to add to the creed of Nicaea and Ephesus, nor to define too particularly the nature of God the Word. He adds that he had desired the synod to lay the matter before the pope, promising to abide by his decision ; but this not having been granted, he, being in great danger, now implored the pope to give an unprejudiced judgment, and to protect him. Flavian, on his part, circulated the decree of excommunication. He charged the monks to obey it, and communicated it to the em- peror, the pope, and provincial bishops. His interviews with the emperor were marked by great suspicion on the part of the latter ; and his letter to Leo was forestalled by that of Eutyches and a second was required before the pope was satisfied. Leo eventually gave Eutyches his answer in the celebrated Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum. Court favour inclined to Eutyches ; and early in 449 the emperor appointed a commis- sion to examine a charge of falsification of the acts of the late synod of Constantinople, proffered by Eutyches against Flavian. No such falsification was proved, and the com- mission had no choice but to confirm the sen- tence pronounced by the synod ; but an agitation was thereby advanced, which was productive of the greatest misery. A council had already been summoned by the emperor to meet at Ephesus. Eutyches and Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, had demanded it, and their position had been supported by Chrysaphius. The imperial sum- mons was in the names of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., and was dated May 30, 449. It stated the cause of the summons to be the doubts and disputes which had arisen concern- ing the faith ; it invited Dioscorus to present himself with ten metropolitans and ten bishops at Ephesus on Aug. i ; and it extended the invitation to other bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus (Kars) being exempted unless specially sum- moned by the council. The synod — the " Latrocinium," or " Rob- ber Synod," as posterity was taught to call it by Leo — first met on Aug. 8, 449. " Flavian was presented as an oppressor and Eutyches as a victim, and terrible was the day on which it opened. The true faith received in the East a shock from which it has never completely recovered since. The church witnessed the EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM separation from herself of nations which have never returned to her, and perhaps never will " (Martin). Leo was not present except by his legates, who brought the famous tome, or doctrinal letter, to Flavian, and letters to the emperor, the archimandrites, the council, and others. In his letter to Theodosius (June 13, 449) Leo expresses his regret that " the foolish old man " (Eutyches) had not given up opinions condemned by the synod of Con- stantinople, and intimates his wish that the archimandrite should be received again if he would keep his promise to the pope, and amend what was erroneous in his views. In the letter to Pulcheria (same date), the pope con- siders Eutyches to have fallen into his error " through want of knowledge rather than through wickedness " ; to the archimandrites of Constantinople he states his conviction that they do not share the views of Eutyches, and exhorts them to deal tenderly with him should he renounce his error ; and to the synod he quotes the confession of St. Peter, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God " (Matt. xvi. 16) as embodying belief in the two natures, and argues that if Eutyches had rightly understood these words, he would not have swerved from the path of truth. In most of these Leo refers to the tome as containing the true teaching of the church. A synod stigmatized as " a gang of robbers " was not likely to permit the recital of a document condemnatory of Eutyches, the man they were pledged to acquit. It was presented, but shelved. For the history of the synod, in its relation to Eutyches, see Dioscorus. The Christian world was rent in pieces by its proceedings. Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine ranged them- selves with Dioscorus and the emperor ; Syria, Pontus, Asia, Rome, protested against the treatment of Flavian and the acquittal of Eutyches. Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, Leo Dioscorus. Theodosius applauded and confirmed the decisions of the synod in a decree which denounced Flavian, Eusebius, and others as Nestorians, forbad the elevation of their followers to episcopal rank, deposed them if already bishops, and expelled them from the country. Leo wrote to the emperor Theodosius, to the church at Constantinople, and to the anti-Eutychian archimandrites. He asked for a general council. The wrangle was suddenly silenced by the death of Theodosius (July 450). Under Mar- cian orthodoxy triumphed again : " Euty- chianism, as well as Nestorianism, was conquered " (Leo). Marcian assented at once and cordially to the pope's request for a council. Anatolius convened a synod of such bishops, archimandrites, priests, and deacons as were at Constantinople, and in the presence of the Roman legates subscribed the tome, and, together with the whole assembly, anathematized Eutyches, Nestorius, and their followers. Leo's wish for a council was not now so urgent. The danger had passed away. Eutychianism and Nestorianism had been anathematized ; his own tome had been everywhere accepted ; of more immediate importance, in his opinion, was the practical question, how best and most speedily to reconcile the penitent and to punish the EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM obstinate. The war in the West, the invasion of Gaul by Attila, would prevent the bishops of the West from attending a council in Italy, where he wished it to be. Nestorianisni was still powerful among the bishops of Syria, and would unquestionably bias the views of many, should a council be called in the East, as the emperor desired. He feared that the men who would unite for the condemnation of Eutychianism would find means for a triumph of Nestorianism over orthodoxy. But, in deference to the emperor's convictions, he consented to send representatives to the future council, while he ursed that no fresh discus- sion should be allowed whether Eutyches was heretical or not, or whether Dioscorus had ' judged rightly or not, but that debate should turn upon the best means of reconciling and dealing mercifully with those who had gone wrong. For a similar reason he urged the emperor's wife, Pulcheria, to cause the remo- val of Eutyches from the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and to place an orthodox abbat at the head of his monastery. The fourth great council of the church met at Chalcedon on Oct. 8, 451. For its general history see Dioscori's. During the first session the secretaries read the documents descriptive of the introduction of Eutyches at the synod of Ephesus (the Latrocinium) and the reading of his paper. .\t words attributing to Eutyches the statement, " The third general ct)uncil (that of Ephesus, 431) hath directly forbidden any addition to the Nicene Creed," Eusebius f)f Dorylaeum exclaimed, " That is untrue." "You will find it in four copies," retorted Dioscorus. Diogenes of Cyzicus urged that Eutyches had not repeated the Nicene Creed as it then stood ; for the second general council (Constantinople, 381) had certainly appended (against Apollinaris and Macedo- nius) to the words " He was incarnate," the words " by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," though he considered this an explan- ation rather than an addition ; but the Egyptian bishops present disclaimed (as Cyril had previously done) any such revised version of the Nicene confession and greeted the words of Diogenes with loud disapproval. Angry words were again interchanged when the reader continued : " I (Eutyches) anathema- tize all who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven." " True," interrupted Eusebius, " but Euty- ches has never told us whence Christ did take His manhood ; " and Diogenes and Basil of Seleucia affirmed that Eutyches, though pressed upon this point at Constantinople, had refused to speak out. Dioscorus now, and to his honour, protested : " Let Eutyches be not only punished, but burnt, if he holds heterodox opinions. I only care to preserve the Catholic faith, not that of any individual man " ; and then he turned upon Basil for having said one thing at Constantinople and another at Ephe- sus. " I did so," pleaded Basil, " out of fear of the majority. Before a tribunal of magis- trates I would have remained firm even to martyrdom ; but I did not dare oppose (a tribunal of) the Fathers (or bishops)." This plea for pardon was adopted by the others. " Yes, we all sinned (at Ephesus) ; we all implore forgiveness." EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM 3.-.5 At Ih.' 4th scsMoii ((), t. i7t 18 .inti-Futv- chian priests and archimandrites, headed by Faustus, were admitted. They were qurs- tioned about a petition addressed to M.»rcian previous to the opening of the council, by Carosus and other Eutychians, who styled themselves archimandrit<'s. Faustus replied that only two of the petitioners (Carosus and Dorotheus) were archimandrites, the rest were men who lived in martyries or were unknown to them. The imperial conuuissioners cm- manded that Carosus and the others should be summoned. Twenty came, and then the petition was read. It was an impassi(.n.-d appeal to the emperor to prevent an outbn-.ik of schism, to summon a council, and im an- while forbid the expulsion of any man Ir.mi his church, monastery, or martyry. In a second document the Eutychians excused themselves for not having previously attended, on the ground that the emperor had forbidden it. " The emp.eror," it proceeded, " had assured them that at the council the creed of Nicaea only should be established, and that nothing should be undertaken previous to this." It urged that the condemnati<in of Dioscorus was inconsistent with the imperial promise ; he and his bishops should therefore be again called to the council, and the present schism would be removed. If not, they de- clared that they would hold no communion with men who opposed the creed of the 318 Fathers at Nicaea. To prove their own ortho- doxy they appended their signatures to that creed and to the Ephesian canon which con- firmed it. .A.etius, archdeacon of Constanti- nople, reminded these petitioners that church discipline required monks to accept from the bishops instructions in matters of faith. In the name of the council he demanded, " Do you assent to their decision or not ? " "I abide by the creed of Nicaea," answered Carosus ; " condemn me and send me into exile. . . . If Eutyches doth not believe what the Catholic church believes, let him be anathema." The appeal of Faustus and other anti-Eutychian archimandrites to the emperor was now ordered to be read. The Eutychian archimandrite Dorotheus imme- diately asserted the orthodoxy of luityches. The commissioners retorted, " Eutyches teaches that the body of the Redeemer is not of like substant e to ours. What say you to that ? " Dorotheus avoided a direct answer by quoting the language of the Constantino- politan creed in this form, " Incarnate of the Virgin and made man," and interpreting it in an anti-Nestorian sense ; but he declined to attest the language used on this jxiint by I.eo in his tome. The commissioners were now on the point of passing judgment, when the Eutychians asserted that the emperor had promised them an opportunity of fair debate with their opponents in his presence. It was necessary to ascertain the truth of this, and the sitting of Oct. 17 ended. On 0<t. 20 the council met again. .Mixander, the priest and periodeutes (" visitor," see Suicer, J he- saur. i. n.), who had been deputed to see the emperor, informed the coun< ii that he and the decurion John had been sent by the emperiT to the monks, with a message to the eflect that had he (the emperor) considered hims. If ablo 356 EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM to decide the point in dispute, he would not have convened a council. " I now charge you," continued the emperor, " to attend the council and learn from them what you do not yet know. For what the holy general council determines, that I follow, that I rest in, and that I believe." The imperial language was greeted with loud acclamations. The Euty- chians were granted 30 days' consideration, after which, should they remain contumacious, they would be deprived of ecclesiastical rank and office. From Leo's correspondence (Epp. 136, 141, 142) it would seem that Carosus and Dorotheus persisted in their views and were ejected by Marcian from their monastery. On Oct. 22, in the 5th session, the memorable " Definition of faith agreed upon at the council of Chalcedon " was recited and received with the unanimous cry, " This is the faith of the Fathers ; this is the faith of the Apostles. We all assent to it. We all think thus." It was signed by the metropolitan and by the imperial commissioners. After declaring " the sufficiency of the wise and saving creed " of Nicaea and Constantinople, inas- much as that creed taught " completely the perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and fully explained the Incarnation of the Lord to those who received it faithfully," it goes on to admit that some " dare to corrupt the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation, others (i.e. the Euty- chians) bring in a confusion and mixture (cr 1/7 x; ''<'■"' xo-'- KpaaLv), and absurdly imagine the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead to be one, and teach the monstrous doctrine that the Divine nature of the Only-begotten was a commixture capable of suffering . . . Therefore the present holy, great, and oecumenical council . . . has added for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, the letter of Leo written to Flavian for the removal of the evil opinions (KaKovola) of Eutyches. For it is directed against those who attempt to rend the mystery of the Incarnation into a duad of Sons ;' it repels from the sacred congregation those who dare to say that the Divinity of the Only-begotten is capable of suffering ; it is opposed to those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ ; it drives away those who fancy that the form of a servant which was taken by Him of us is of an heavenly or any other substance ; and it condemns those who speak of two natures of the Lord before the union, and feign one after the union. . . . We then," was the con- clusion, " following the holy Fathers, all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ ; the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in man- hood : truly God and truly man, of a reason- able soul and body ; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and con- substantial with us according to the manhood ; in all things like unto us without sin ; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, according to the Manhood ; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only- begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, in- separably (iy 5vo (pvatai-v d(n'7xi'''"'<'S; drpeirTus. EUTYCHES, EUTYCHIANISM dSiatp^Tcoj, i\ix}plcrrci]i yvcopi^ofievov), the dis- tinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one hypostasis, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has delivered to us." " Writing, composing, devising, or teaching any other creed " was declared unlawful, with penalties : " bishops and clergy were to be deposed, monks and laymen anathematized." On Oct. 25 Marcian, accompanied by Pul- cheria and the court, opened and closed the sixth session. In his address he explained that he appeared in person, as Constantine had done before him, not to overawe and co- erce any, but to strengthen and confirm the faith : his efforts and prayers were alike directed to one end, that all might be one in true doctrine, hold the same religion, and honour the true Catholic faith. The arch- deacon Aetius recited in his presence the confession of faith approved at the previous session, and when the emperor asked if it expressed the opinion of all, shouts arose from all sides, " This is the belief of us all ! We are unanimous, and have signed it unanimously ! We are all orthodox ! This is the belief of the Fathers ; this is the belief of the Apostles ; this is the belief of the orthodox ; this belief hath saved the world ! Long live Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David ! Long live Pulcheria, the new Helena ! " Imperial edicts speedily followed the close of the council (Nov. i). One, dated Mar. 13, 452, was especially directed against the Euty- chians. They had persisted in disseminating their " foolishness " in spite of the council and the emperor. Marcian warned them that their contumacy would be sharply punished ; and on July 28, Eutychians and Apollinarians were deprived of their priests and forbidden to hold meetings or live together in monas- teries ; they were to be considered incapable of inheriting property under a will or devising property to their co-sympathizers ; and were to be reckoned unfit for military service. Eutychian priests who had seceded from their post in the church and the monks from Euty- ches's own monastery were banished from Roman territory. Their writings were to be burnt, and the composer and circulator of such works was to be punished with confiscation of goods and with exile. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled, but the latter died probably be- fore the sentence was carried into effect. " With none of those who have been the authors of heresies among Christians was blas- phemy the first intention ; nor did they fall from the truth in a desire to dishonour the Deity, but rather from an idea which each entertained, that he should improve upon his predecessors by upholding such and such doctrines." These words of the church his- torian Evagrius (i. 11) follow his account of the second (i.e. the Robber) synod of Ephesus, which restored Eutyches. They express the EUTYCHIANUS belief of a judicially-trained mind within little more than loo years after the events in ques- tion, and are in substance reproduced by "judicious" Hooker {Eccl. Pol. v. c. 52). Cyril " had given instance in the body and soul of man no farther than only to enforce by example against Nestorius, that a visible and invisible, a mortal and an immortal substance, may united make one person." Eutyches and his followers took those words of CvTil " as though it had been his drift to teach, that even as in us the body and the soul, so in Christ God and man make but one nature. . . . He became unsound (in belief) by denying the difference which still continueth between the one and the other nature." It was " real, though erring reverence " which led him, in the first instance, to broach his opinions. His " narrow mind, stiffened by seclusion, and bewildered by harassing excite- ment " (Bright) was in no state in the day of his trial before the synod of Constantinople to perceive to what his teaching logically conducted, nor to accept the qualifications or paraphrases kindly offered. He passed away, but Eutychianism exists still (Pusey, Councils of the Church, p. 25). It never has and never will yield to edicts like those of Marcian. The right faith has been defined by the great council which opposed both it and Nestorian- ism. " We must keep warily a middle course, shunning both that distraction of Persons, wherein Nestorius went away, and also this latter confusion of natures, which deceived Eutyches " (Hooker). [mongphvsitism.] { Consult Mansi, Sacr. Cone. CoUectio, vi. vii.; j Tillem. Memoires, etc. xv. ; Bright, History of ■ the Church (313-451) ; and other works men- tioned above. fj.M.F.'! Eutyohlanus (3). bp. of Rome from Jan. 275 to Dec. 283. during a period of 8 years, j II months and 3 days, and buried in the: cemetery of Callistus. The truth of the record in the Liberian Catalogue has been confirmed 1 by the disco%^ery by De Rossi {Rom. Sot. ii. 70), in the papal crvpt of the cemeterv, of fragments of a slab inscribed EYTYXIANOC E n I C (Eutychianus episcopus). Ten decreta I appear as his in the collections of Gratian, { Ivo, and others. [j.b — v.] i Eutyohlus (18), St., patriarch of Constan- I tinople. His biography, composed by his chaplain Eustathius, has been preserved entire. Eutychius was born at Theium in Phrvgia c. 512. His father .-Mexander was a general under Belisarius. Eutychius took the monastic \ habit at Amasea at the age of 30, c. 542. j As an archimandrite at Constantinf)ple he ! stood high in favour with the patriarch Men- nas, at whose death in 552 he was nominated by Justinian to the vacant chair. At the beginning of 553 Eutychius wrote to pope Vigilius, making his profession of the Catholic faith, declaring his acceptance of the four councils and the letters of St. Leo, and requesting Vigilius to preside over the council that was to be held on the question of the j Three Chapters. Vigilius refused, and Euty- ' chius shared the first place in the assembly with the patriarchs .^pollinarius of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch. At the second session the pope excused himself again, on the ground of ill-health. The subscription of EUTYCHIUS 357 Eutychius to the Acts ..f this svn<Kl. which s.it from May 5 to June 2, 5^^, is a sumn^ry of the decrees against the Three Chapters. Eutychius came into vi..lcnt collisinn with Justinian in ■;(>.(, when the emperor adopted the tenets of the Aphlhartodocelae. Euty- chius, in a long address, demonstrated the incompatihiiitv of that theorv with Srripturr ; but Justinian insisted on his subscribing to it, and finding him uncompromising, ordered his arrest. On Jan. 22. .«i6.s, Eutvrhius was at the holy table celebrating the feast-dav of St. Timotheus in the church adjoining the Horrnisdas palace (cf. du Cange, Cpolts. Chr. lib. ii. p. 96, lib. iv. p. 93, cd. 1729), when soldiers broke into the patriarchal resid<iire, entered the church, and carried the patriarch away, first toamonastervcalledChoracudis, and thenextdaytothat ofSt.OsiasnearChaice<ion. The 8th day after this outrage Justinian called an assembly of princes and prelates, to which he summoned Eutychius. The charges against him were trifling and absurd: that he used oint- ments, ate delicate meats, and praved long. Cited thrice, Eutychius replied that he wf>uld only come if he were to be judged canonicallv, in his own dignity, and in command of his clergy. Condemned by default, he was sent to an island in the Propontis named Prinripus, and afterwards to his old monastery at Amasea, where he spent 12 years and 5 months. On the death of Joaimes Sch<v lasticus, whom Justinian had put in the pat- riarchal chair, the people of Constantinople loudly demanded the return of Eutychius. Justin II. had succeeded Justinian, and had associated with himself the young Tiberius. The emperors immediately sent an honourable deputation to .Amasea to bring back Eutv- chius, who returned with great joy to Con- stantinople in Oct. 577. An immense con- course met him, shouting aloud, " Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord," and " Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace." In questionable imitation of our Lord he entered on an ass's colt, over garments spread on the ground, the crowd carrying palms, dancing, and singing. The whole city was illuminated, public banquets were held, new- buildings inaugurated. Next day he was met by the two emperors with conspicuous honour at the church of the Virgin in Blachernae. He then proceeded to the great church, which was filled from end to end, mounted the pulpit, and blessed the multitude. He was six hours distributing the communion, as all wished to receive from his own hands. Towards the end of his life Eutychius main- tained that after the resurrection the body will be more subtle than air, and no longer palpable. Gregorv the Great, then residing at Constantinojile as delegate of the Roni.in church, felt himself bound to oppose this opinion. The emi)eror Tiberius talked to the disputants separately, and tried to reconcile them ; but the breach was persistent. Eutv- chius breathed his last quietly on Sundav after Easter Dav, Apr. s, S«2, age<l 70 years. Some of his friends told Gregorv that, a few minutes before his end, he touched the skin of his hand, saving, " I confess that in this flesh we shall rise again" (Paul. Piac. Vtt. Greg. Mag. lib. i. capp. 9, 27-30 ; f'«'- f"*^- 358 EUZOIUS ex ejus Script, lib. i. cap. 5, §§ 6-8 ; Greg. Mag. Moral, xiv. §§ 72-74)- The chronology of his life here followed is that fixed by Henschen in his introductory argument to the Life by Eustathius (Boll. Acta SS. 6 Ap. i. 550). His literary remains are his letter to pope Vigilius already mentioned, printed in Greek and Latin by Mansi (ix. 186), and by Migne (Patr. Lat. Ixix. 63 ; Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 2401), and some fragments of a Dis- course on Easter and the Holy Eucharist (Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 2391). In this treatise Eutychius argues against the Quartodeci- mans, against the Hydroparastatae who used water instead of wine at communion (he says that the only apostolic tradition is the mixture of both), against certain schismatic Arme- nians who used only wine, and against some Greeks and Armenians who adored the elements as soon as they were offered and before consecration. The lost work of Euty- chius was a discourse on the manner of exist- ence of reasonable natures in space, a sort of physical theory of the future life. Pair. Gk. Ixxxix. §§ 2270-2389; Holland. AA. SS. Ap. i. 548 ; ib. App. p. lix. in Greek ; Surius, de Prob. Hist. SS. Apr. p. 82 ; Evagr. iv. 37 ; Theoph. Chronogr. 193, 201, 202, 203, 210, 211, 212, 213 ; Cave, i. 527. [w.m.s.] Euzolus (1), Arian bp. of Antioch, the com- panion and intimate friend of Arius from an early age. He was one of 11 presbyters and deacons of that church, deposed together with Arius by Alexander bp. of Alexandria, c. 320 (Socr. H. E. i. 6; Soz. H. E. i. 15 ; Theod. H. E. i. 4, ii. 311 ; Athan. de Syn. p. 907). He was again condemned and banished, with Arius, by the council of Nicaca, a.d. 325. When Arius was recalled from banishment, and summoned to the emperor's side in 330, he was accompanied by Euzoius, by this time a priest. Both regained the emperor's con- fidence by an evasive declaration of their faith and a professed acceptance of the creed of Nicaea (Socr. H. E. i. 2.'i, 26 ; Soz. H. E. ii. 27). He accompanied Arius to Jerusalem at the great gathering of Eusebian bishops for the dedication of the church of the Anastasis, Sept. 13, 335, and with him was received into communion by the council then held (Soz. I.e. ; Athan. de Synod, p. 891). In 361 Constantius, having banished Meletius, bp. of Antioch, summoned Euzoius from Alexandria, and com- manded the bishops of the province to conse- crate him. A few months later Constantius, being seized with a fatal fever, summoned the newly appointed bishop, Euzoius, to his bedside on Nov. 3, 361, and received from him the sacrament of baptism. Whether this was at Antioch or Mopsucrene in Cilicia is uncertain (Athan. ib. 907 ; Philost. H. E. vi. 5). On the accession of Valens, Euzoius was urged by Eudoxius to convene a synod of bishops at Antioch to take off Aetius's sentence, and this he ultimately did, c. 364 {ib. vii. 3). On the death of Athanasius in 373, Euzoius was. at his own petition, dispatched by Valens, with Magnus the imperial treasurer and troops, to instal the imperial nominee, the Arian Lucius of Samosata, instead of Peter the duly elected and enthroned bishop. This commission was carried out with shameless brutality and per- secution of the orthodox (Socr. H. E. iv. 21 ; EVAGRIUS Theod. iv. 21, 22). EuzoTus's death is placed by Socrates in 376 at Constantinople {H. E. iv. 35). Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 713 ; Baron. Ann. ad ann. 325, Ixxix. ; 335, xlix. [e.v.] Evagrius (5), known as Evagrius of Antioch, was consecrated bishop over one of the parties in Antioch in 388 or 389, and must have lived until at least 392. Socr. H. E. v. 15 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 15 ; Theod. H. E. v. 23 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. cap. 25 ; Ambrose, Ep. Ivi. Evagrius belonged to the Eustathian divi- sion of the orthodox church at Antioch, of which he became a presbyter. After the schism at Antioch caused by Lucifer's con- secration of Paulinus, Evagrius left Antioch, and accompanied Eusebius of Vercelli to Italy in 363 or 364. Here he zealously co-operated with Eusebius in restoring peace to the churches distracted by the results of the council of Ariminum, and re-establishing orthodoxy on the terms laid down by the synod of Alexandria in 362. He also afforded pope Damasus important aid against Ursicius and his faction, a.d. 367. At Milan he re- solutely withstood the Arian bp. Auxentius. After nine or ten years he returned to the East, with Jerome, with the view of healing the schism that still divided the church of Antioch. He called at Caesarea to visit Basil in the autumn of 373, and found him suffering from ague. He was commissioned by the Western bishops to return to Basil the letters he had sent them, probably relating to the Meletian schism, as unsatisfactory, and to convey terms dictated by them, which he was to embody in a fresh letter to be sent into the West by some duly authorized commis- sioners. Only thus would the Western pre- lates feel warranted in interfering in the Eastern church, and making a personal visit (Basil. Ep. 138 [8]). On his return to Antioch, Evagrius wrote in harsh terms to Basil, accusing him of a love of controversy and of being unduly swayed by personal partialities. If he really desired peace, let him come himself to Antioch and endeavour to re-unite the Catholics, or at least write to them and use his influence with Meletius to put an end to the dissensions. Basil's reply is a model of courteous sarcasm. If Evagrius was so great a lover of peace, why had he not fulfilled his promise of communicating with Dorotheus, the head of the Meletian party ? It would be far better for Evagrius to depute some one from Antioch, who would know the parties to be approached and the form the letters should take {ib. 156 [342]). On the death of Paulinus. A.D. 388, Evagrius manifested the hollowness of his professed desire for peace by becoming himself the instrument of prolonging the schism. He was ordained by the dying bp. Paulinus, in his sick-chamber, without the presence or consent of any assisting bishops, in direct violation of the canons. Flavian had been consecrated by the other party on the death of Meletius, a.d. 381. Thus the hope of healing the schism was again frustrated (Socr. H. E. V. 15 ; Theod. H. E. v. 23). A coimcil was summoned at Capua, a.d. 390, to deter- mine whether Flavian or Evagrius was lawful bp. of Antioch, but found the question too knotty, and relegated the decision to Theo- philus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops. EVAGRIUS PONTIC US The death of Evagrius deprived Flavian of liis rival. This was not before 39::, in wiiich year Jerome speaks of him as still alive {de I'ir. III. c. 123). Jerome praises treatises on various subjects which he heard Evagrius read while still a presbyter, but which he had not yet published. He translated into Latin the Life of St. .\nthony by St. .\thanasius (Migne, Pair. Gk. xxvi. 835-076). Its genuineness has been much disputed, but the balance of critical judg- ment seems in its favour. [j.c.g. and f.v.1 Evagrius (12) Pontious, anchoret and writer, born at Ibora in Pontus t'.alaticus. according to Tilleinont, in 345. He was ordained reader by Basil, and deacon by Gre- gory Nyssen, who took him to the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, Irstc his pupil Palladius (Hist. Lausiac. c. 86, p. loio). Gregory Nyssen thought so highly of Evagrius as a theologian and dialectician that he left him behind in Constantinople to aid the newly appointed bishop, Nectarius (who, before his consecration, was a layman destitute of theo- logical training) in dealing with heretics. The imperial city proved a dangerous home for the young deacon. The wife of an ex- prefect conceived a guilty passion for him, which he returned. The husband's jealousy was awakened, and Evagrius only escaped assassination by a timely flight, being warned of his peril by a dream (Soz. H. E. vi. 30). Jerusalem was the place of his retreat. Here he was hospitably received by Melania the elder, by whom he was nursed during a severe attack of fever, and who, perceiving the weakness of his disposition, led him to embrace an ascetic life as the only safeguard against the temptations of the flesh. Evagrius went to Egypt, where, after two years spent in great austerities in the Nitrian desert, he plunged still deeper into the solitude, and practised severer mortifications in the cells of Scetis. Here the two Macarii were his in- structors and models in the ascetic life. After enduring many terrible temptations, recorded by Palladius, and having obtained mastery over his bodily passions, he became qualified to instruct others in asceticism. Palladius became his companion and disciple in 391. Among his other disciples were Rufinus, and Heraclides of Cvprus, afterwards bp. of Ephesus (ib. viii. 6). Palladius gives several anecdotes illustrative of the height of ascetic virtue attained by Evagrius and his fellow- hermits. On one occasion he threw into the fire a packet of letters from his parents and other near friends lest their perusal should re-entangle him in worldly thoughts (Cassian, v. 32 ; Tillem. x. 376). Theophilus, the metropolitan of Alexandria, desired to make him a bishop, and Evagrius fled to resist his importunities (Socr. H. E. iv. 23). Evagrius remained in the cells of Scetis until he died, worn out with austerities, in the 17th year of his recluse life, a.d. 398, at the age of 54, " signis et prodigiis pollens " (Gcnnad. Illust. Vir. c. xi.). He was a zealous champion of the doctrines of Origen, for which he fell under the lash of Jerome, whose enmity had also been aroused by his having been the instructor of Rufinus during his sojourn in Egypt and having enjoyed the patronage of Melania. Jerome speaks in contemptuous terms of his EVAGRIUS 3r.9 writings {ad CUstph.), especially of bis bo.,k TTifi oTro^'fiaj, when coinb.itiiig the teiirl ascribed to the Origenists that a man rould raise himself to a superiority t<i temptation (i.e. as Jerome says, *' becoming either a stone or god ") and live without sin. He also charges him with being a precursor of Pela^ius (in Pelafi. p. 260), and including in his book de Motiachis many who never were monks at all, and also Origenists who had been condemned by their bishops. The existing remains of his writings are printed by (.alland. liihl. Pair. vii. 551-381, and Migne, Pair. vol. R6. Socrates, Gennadius, Palladius, and Suidas, sub voc. " Macarius," mention as bv him : (i) Monachus, on " active virtue," in loo chapters. (2) Gnosticus. (3) .inttrrheticus. a collection of passages of Scripture against the eight divisions of evil thoughts. (4) A Century of Prayers. (5) 600 Gnostic Problems. (6) A Letter to Melania. (7) A book, irtpl awa»tia%. (8) 100 Sentences for the Use of .-inchnrets living simply. (9) Short Sentences. (10) ^nxvpii, in two books, one addressed to monks, and the other to a virgin dedicated to Gr)d. (11) l.iber de rerum monaclialium rationibus. (12) Scho- lion de tctragrammato Dei nomine. Oudin. i. 8S3 ; Tillem. Man. cccl. x. pp. 36". ff. ; Fabr. Bibl. Grace, ix. 284, ed. Harles ; Hupin, Hist. Feci. iii. I ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 275 ; cf. O. Zickler, F.vai;rius Ponticus (Munich, 1893) ; J. Draseke, "Zu Evag. -Pont." in Z<-i7sf /in// /ur wissensch Theol. 1894, xxxvii. 125 ff. [e.v.1 Evagrius (17), an ecclesiastical historian, who wrote six books, embracing a period of 163 years, from the council of Ephesus a.d. 431 to the i2th year of the emperor Mauricius Tiberius, a.d. 594. He was born at Epiphania in Coelesyria a.d. 536 or 537, but accompa- nied his parents to Apamea for his education, and from Apamea seems to have gone to Antioch, the capital of Svria, and entered the profession of the law. He received the sur- name of Scholasticus, a term then applied to lawyers (Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v.j, gained great favour with Gregory bp- of .■\ntioch, and was chosen by him to assist in his judgments. He seems to have won general esteem and goodwill, for on his second marriage the city was filled with rejoicing, and great honours were paid him by the citizens. He accom- panied Gregory to Constantinople, and suc- cessfully advocated his cause when he was summoned to answer there for heinous crimes. He also wrote for him a book containing " reports, epistles, derrees, oratifins, disi'Uta- tions, with sundry other matters." whi< h led to his appointment as quaestor bv Tiberius Constantinus and by Mauricius Tiberius as master of the rolls, " where the lieutenants and magistrates with their monuments are registered " (Evagr. vi. 23). This is his own account of his promotion. His death must have occurred after 504. in which year he wrote his history at the age of 58 (iv. 28). His other works have perished. The historv was intended as a continuation of those of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. He sought all sf)urces of informa- tion at his command — the writings of Eusta- thius the Syrian, Zosimus. Priscus, Joannes Rhetor, Procopius of Caesarea. Agathus, and other good authors— and resolved to bring 360 EVARISTUS their scattered information together " that the famous deeds which slumbered in the dust of forgetfulness might be revived ; that they might be stirred with his pen, and presented for immortal memory" (Pref. to his Hist.). Despite his unnecessarily inflated style, he largely attained his end. He is a warm, often an enthusiastic writer, orthodox in his sentiments, and eager in his denunciations of prevailing heresies- Jortin indeed has condemned him as "in points of theological controversy an injudicious prejudiced zealot " {Remarks on Eccl. Hist. ii. p. 120) ; but Evagrius was a lawyer, not a theologian, and we must look to him for the popular rather than the learned estimate of the theological controversies of his time. His credulous enthusiasm led him to accept too easily the legends of the saints, but in other respects he shews many of the best qualities of an historian. Not a few original documents, decrees of councils, supplications to emperors, letters of emperors and bishops, etc., are preserved in his pages, forming most important authorities for the events to which they relate. Goss (in Herzog) especially praises his defence of Con- stantine against the slanders of Zosimus. In his general arrangement he follows the reigns of the emperors of the East from Theodosius the Younger to Maurice ; but the arrangement of details is faulty. There is often great spirit in the narrative, an excellent specimen of which is his account of the council of Chalce- don (ii. 18). The work is chiefly valuable in relation to the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, and the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The first ed. of the History is that of Valesius, with notes (Paris, 1673) re- printed at Camb. in Hist. Eccl. Scriptorcs cum notis Valesii et Reading, and repub. by the Clar. Press. The latest and best ed. is by Bidez and Parmentier (Lond. 1849) in Byzantine Texts edited by J. B. Bury. See also Krum- bacher's Gesch. der Byz. Lit. and ed. p. 246. There is a fair Eng. trans, by Meredith Hanmer (Lond. 1619) along with a trans, of Eusebius and Socrates, and more recent ones pub. by Bagster in 1847 and in Bohn's Lib. (Bell). [w.M.l EvaristUS (called Aristus in the Liberian Catalogue), bp. of Rome at the beginning of the 2nd cent. With respect to the exact date and duration of his episcopate, as well as the names and order of succession of his prede- cessors [Linus; Cletus; Clement], ancient accounts are greatly at variance. Eusebius {H. E. iii. 34, iv. i) gives Clemens as his immediate predecessor, the third year of Trajan (loi) as the date of his accession, and 9 years as the duration of his episcopate ; but in his Chronicle he makes the latter 7 years (Chron. iv. i). Irenaeus, an older authority, who probably got his information when at Rome in the time of Eleutherus towards the end of the cent., also makes Clemens his predecessor, but gives no dates (adv. Haeres. iii. 3, 3). The Liberian (a.d 354) and sub- sequent Roman Catalogues, as well as Augustin and Optatus, represent him as succeeding Anacletus, and the former author- ities give A.D. 96 as the commencement of his episcopate, and between 13 and 14 years as its duration. The best and probably final EZNIK authority on the order and dates of the early era of Rome is Bp. Lightfoot's Apostolical Fathers, part i. [j.b — v.] Evodius (1), according to early tradition, first bp. of Antioch (Eus. Chron. ann. Abr. 2058 ; H. E. iii. 22). His episcopate has indirectly the older testimony of Origen, who speaks of Ignatius as the second bishop after Peter {in Luc. Horn. 6, vol. iii. p. 938 ; see also Eus. Quaest. ad Steph. ap Mai, Scr. Vet. i. p. 2). This tradition has all the appearance of being historical. Ignatius early acquired such celebrity that it is not likely the name of an undistinguished person would have been placed before his, if the facts did not require this arrangement. The language used about episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles agrees with the conclusion that Ignatius was not the first at Antioch to hold the office. As time went on, the fitness of things seemed to demand that Ignatius should not be separated from the Apostles. Athanasius [Ep. de Synodis, i. 607) speaks of Ignatius as coming after the Apostles without mention of any one inter- vening ; Chrysostom makes him contemporary with the Apostles {Horn, in Ignat. vol. ii. p. 593) ; the Apostolic Constitutions (vii. 46) have- recourse to the expedient adopted in the parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypo- thesis of a double ordination, Evodius being said to have been ordained by Peter, Ignatius by Paul. Theodoret {Dial. I. Immutab. iv. 82, Migne) and others represent Ignatius as ordained by Peter. The authorities are given at length by Zahn {Patres Apostol. ii. 327). There is reason to believe that the earliest tradition did not include an ordination even of Evodius by Peter ; for the chronicle of Eusebius places the departure of Peter from Antioch three years, or, according to St. Jerome's version, two years before the ordi- nation of Evodius. The chronology of the early bishops of Antioch has been investigated by Harnack {Die Zeit des Ignatius). He in- fers that the earliest list must have contained only names of bishops of Antioch without any note of lengths of episcopates, but still that Eusebius must have had the work of some preceding chronologer to guide him. We may well believe, as Harnack suggests, that Euse- bius got his chronology of early bishops of Antioch from Africanus, to whom he acknow- ledges his obligation, and whose chronicle has generally been believed to be the basis of that of Eusebius. If the belief had been enter- tained at the beginning of the 3rd cent, that Evodius had been ordained by Peter, it is incredible that Africanus would have assigned a date which absolutely excludes an ordina- tion by Peter. The date assigned by the chronicle of Eusebius to the accession of Evodius appears to have no historic valu(?, and tlius, while we accept the episcopate of Evodius as an historic fact, we have no data for fixing his accession, but may safely place it considerably later than a.d. 42. [g.s.] Eznik {Eznig, Esnig), an Armenian doctor of the church in the 5th cent. His native place was Koghb or Kolp (whence he was called the Kolpensian), and he was a disciple of the patriarch Sahak (Isaac) and Mjesrop, the praeceptor Armeniae. Besides his mother tongue he understood Persian, Greek, and FABIANUS S>Tiac. During long journeys through Syria, Mesopotamia, and Greece he added to his theological learning, becoming thoroughly acquainted with ecclesiastical literature. Later he was made a bishop, and as such took part in the synod of Artashast, a.d. .jso, which repelled the demands of the Persian viceroy, Mihr-Nersh, that the Armenians should adopt Zoroastrianism, in an epistle marked with dignity, courage, and faith. He died an aged man, as bp. of Bagrewand (Pakrewand) in the province of Airerat (cf. Neumann, Geschichte der Armenischcn Lite- ratur, pp. 42 seq.). His main work is The Destruction of False Doctrines, still preserved in the .Armenian original (pub. by the Mechit- arists of St. Lazarus in the collection of Armenian classics, Venice, 1826). There is a good German trans, by J. M. Schmid (Leipz. iqoo), Biblioth. der alten armen. Lit. i. The whole is divided into 4 books — the ist combats the Gentile doctrine of the eternity of matter, the 2nd the Zoroastrian religion, the 3rd Greek philosophy, the 4th the Gnostic | sect of the Marcionites. The immediate , occasion of the work was the conflict between [ Armenian Christianity and Parsism. The 4th : book is of value for the history of heresy. The representation given of the Marcionitc doctrine of Prinoipias, and the various myths i concerning the origin of the human race, its corruption by matter, the mission of Christ, \ His crucifixion, descent into hell, and victory j over the Demiurge, contain much peculiar and [ characteristic, but much also belonging to the later developments, not the original forms of Marcionitism. fR.A.L.] FABIOLA 3tU Fabianus (1) (called bv the Greeks and in the Liberian Catalogue Fabius. by Eutychius and in the Alexandrian Chronicle Flavianus), bp. of Rome from early in Feb. 236 to Jan. 20, 250, and a martyr. Eusebius relates that, the brethren being assembled in the church to choose a successor to Anteros, Fabianus, a layman lately come from the country, being indicated as the chosen of Heaven by a dove settling on his head, the people acclaimed him as worthy and placed him on the episcopal throne (H. E. vi. 20). That the choice proved a good one is witnessed by Cyprian, who rejoices that " his honourable consummation had corresponded to the integrity of his adminis- tration " iEp. 39, cf. 30). In the Liberian Catalogue (a.d. 354) he is said to have divided the regions of the city among the deacons, and to have been mar- tyred Jan. 20, 250. In the Felician Catalogue (a.d. 530) and in later editions of the Liber Pontificalis it is added that he made also seven subdeacons to superintend the seven notaries appointed to record faithfully the acts of the martyrs ; also that he caused to be brought to Rome by sea the body of Pon- tianus (the predecessor of his predecessor Anteros), martyred in Sardinia, and buried it in the cemetery of Callixtus on the Appian Way ; in which cemetery he too was buried. It is remarkable that, though the Roman calendar designates all the first 30 bislmp* of Rome except two as saints and martyrs, Fabianus is the first, except Telesphorns and Pontianus, whose martvrdom rests on any good authority (cf. also Ens. H. E. vi. 3.,; Hieron. de 111. Vir. c. ^4 ; Cypr. Epp 30, 30). Fabianus was among the earliest victims of the Decian persecution. Fragments <>f a slab bearing the inscription «^AtJlANOC-» Em + VP (Fabianus episcopus niartvr), to- gether with others inscribed with the names of .Anteros, Lucius, and Eutychiantis, Roman bishops of the same period, have been found in what is called the papal crypt of the cemetery i of Callixtus, tiius attesting the accounts given of the place of his burial (A'oma Sntterranea, by Northcote and Brownlow). Fabianus is specially named by Eusebius (//. E. vi. 36) as one among many bishops to whom Origen wrote in defence of his own orthodoxy. Cyprian mentions him {Ep. 50) as having, with Donatus bp. of Carthage, written a letter severely censuring one Pri- vatus, an heretical bp. of Lambaesa in Numidia, who had been condemned by a synod of go bishops at Lambaesa for " many and grievous faults." Nothing more is known about Fabianus with certainty. Great doubt rests on the story (accepted by Andreas du Chesne, in V'it. Pontif., and in the main by the liollandists) of his having been the founder of the seven Gallic churches of Toulouse, Aries, Tours, Paris, Narbonne, Clermont, Limoges ; to which he is said to have sent respectively Saturninus, Trophimus, Gratianus, Diunysius, Paulus, -Astremonius, and Martialis as mis- sionary bishops. The story is absent from early records, and is disputable also on other grounds. Still more improbable is the story, accepted by the Bollandists and Baronius, and resting mainly on the authority of the Acts of St. Pontius, that the emperor Philip and his son became Christians, and were baptized by Fabianus. [Philippvs (5).] Three spurious decretals are attributed to Fabianus. There are also ten decreta assigned to him by Gratian and others, on matters of discipline, [j.b — v.l Fabiola (1), a noble Roman lady, a friend of St. Jerome, who wrote for her two disser- tations (Ep. Ixiv. and Ixxviii. ed. Vail.) on the dress of the high priest, and on the stations of the Israelites in the desert ; and also a memoir of her in his touching letter to Occanus (Ep. Ixxvii. ed. Vail.) in the vear of her death, 300- Thierrv (St. Jerome, ii. 11) has worked up the intimations about her into an interesting and dramatic storv. She was descended from Julius Maximus and extremely wealthy; a woman of a livelv and passionate nature, married to a man whose vires romi>elled ht-r to divorce him. She then ai repte<l a seconil husband, the first being still alive. It is prob- able that this step separated her from Paula and the other friends of Jerome, and from church connnunion, and may account for the fact that we hear nothing of her during Jerome's stay at Rome. Aft<r the death of her second htisband she voluntarily went through a public penance. Having publicly renewed her communion with the church, she sold all her possessions, and determined to administer the vast sums thus acnuired for the good of the poor. She supported monasteries 362 FAUSTUS in various parts of Italy and the adjacent islands, and joined Pammachius in the insti- tution of a hospital {I'ocoKO/j.floi'), where she gathered in the sick and outcasts, and tended them with her own hands. In 395 she suddenly appeared at Bethlehem, making the journey with her kinsman Oceanus. Several causes prevented Bethlehem from becoming her home. The Origenistic strife divided Jerome and his friends from Rufinus and Melania, and the new-comers did not escape the discord. Oceanus warmly espoused the side of Jerome ; Fabiola seems to have stood aloof. But efforts were made, if we may believe Jerome {coni. Ruf. iii. 14), to draw them into the camp of the adversary. Letters in which Rufinus was praised, fraudulently taken from the cell of Jerome's friend Euse- bius, were found in the rooms of Fabiola and Oceanus. But this proceeding failed to cause a breach between Fabiola and Jerome. Jerome bears witness to the earnestness with which she attached herself to his teaching. The two treatises above mentioned are the results of her importunity (Ep. xiv. ed. Vail.). Jerome was seeking a suitable dwelling-place for her, and engaged in writing his treatise on the mystical meaning of the high priest's garments, when the inroad of the Huns caused a panic in Palestine. Jerome and his friends hurried to the sea-coast at Joppa, and had hired vessels for flight, when the Huns aban- doned their purpose and turned back. Jer- ome, with Paula and F;ustochium, returned to Bethlehem ; but Fabiola went on to Rome. The last three years of her life were occupied with incessant activity in good works. In conjunction with Pammachius she instituted at Portus a hospice (xenodochium), perhaps taking her model from that established by Jerome at Bethlehem ; and it was so success- ful that, as Jerome says, in one year it become known from Parthia to Britain. But to the last her disposition was restless. She found Rome and Italy too small for her charities, and was purposing some long journey or change of habitation when death overtook her A.D. 399. Her funeral was celebrated as a Christian triumph. The streets were crowded, the hallelujahs reached the golden roof of the temples. Jerome's book on the 42 stations (mansiones) of the Israelites in the desert was dedicated to her memory. [w.h.f.] Faustus (11), sometimes called " the Breton," from having been born in Brittany, or (as Tillemont thinks) in Britain, but more generally known as Faustus of Riez from the name of his see. Born towards the close of the 4th cent., he may have lost his father while he was young, for we only hear of his mother, whose fervid piety made a great impression on all who saw her. Faustus studied Greek philosophy, but in a Christian spirit ; mas- tered the principles of rhetoric, and may have pleaded for a time at the bar. While still youthful (probably c. 426 or a little later) he entered the famous mon- astery of Lerins, then presided over by St. Maximus. Here he became a thorough ascetic and a great student of Holy Scripture, without, however, giving up his philosophic pursuits. Here he probably acquired the reputation, assigned to him by Gennadius, of FAUSTUS an illustrious extempore preacher. He be- came a presbyter, and c. 432 or 433 succeeded Maximus as abbat of Lerins. His tenure was marked by a dispute with his diocesan Theodore, bp. of Frejus, concerning their respective rights. The third council of Aries was convened by Ravennius, bp. of Aries, for the sole purpose of settling this controversy. The decision left considerable ecclesiastical power in the hands of the abbat. The epistle of Faustus to a deacon named Gratus (al. Gratius or Gregorius), who was heretical on the union of the two natures in the Person of Christ, belongs also to this period. Faustus next succeeded St. Maximus in the episcopate of Riez in Provence. Baronius places this as late as 472, but Tillemont (Mem. vi. p. 775) as early as 462 or even 456. Faustus continued as bishop the stern self- discipline which he had practised as monk and abbat. He often retired to Lerins, becoming known throughout and beyond his diocese as one who gave succour to those sick whether in body or mind. He seems to have taken a stern view of late repentances, like those so prevalent at an earlier period in the church of N. Africa. In the councils of Aries and of Lyons a presbyter named Lucidus, accused of having taught fatalism through misunder- standing Augustine, was induced to retract ; and Leontius, bp. of Aries, invited Faustus to compose a treatise on grace and free choice. Faustus appears from Sidonius to have had some share in the treaty of 475 between the emperor Nepos and Euric king of the Visi- goths, which Tillemont and Gibbon agree in regarding as discreditable to the Roman empire. It wrested Auvergne and subse- quently Provence from an orthodox sovereign, and gave them to an Arian. This was unfortunate for Faustus, who c. 481 was banished, probably because of his writings against Arianism. His banishment is natur- ally attributed to king Euric, on whose death in 483 he returned to Riez. His life was prolonged until at least a.d. 492, possibly for some years later. His writings have not come down to us in a complete and satisfactory condition. The following are still accessible : — (i) Professio Fidei. — He opens with a severe attack on the teaching of Pelagius as heretical, but expresses a fear of the opposite extreme, of such a denial of man's power as a free agent as would virtually amount to fatalism. (2) Epistolaad Lucidum Presbyterum. — Here, too, he anathematizes the error of Pelagius ; but also any who shall have declared that Christ did not die for all men, or willeth not that all should be saved. (3) De Gratia Dei et Humanae Mentis libera Arbitrio. — After again censuring Pelagius, the writer argues strongly on behalf of the need of human endeavour and co-operation with the Divine aid. In his interpretation of passages of Holy Scripture {e.g. Exod. iv. 21, vii. 13 ; Rom. ix. 11-26) which favour most Augus- tinianism, he is most extreme and least success- ful. Many passages might almost have come from the pen of some Arminian controversial- ist at the synod of Dort. In cap. x. of bk. ii., which is entitled Gentes Deum Naturaliter Sapuisse, Faustus calls attention to the Ian- FELICISSIMUS guage of Maniel towards N'clnicliadnozzar and his censure of Belshazzar, as a heathen recogni- tion of God (Dan. iv. and v.). He also appeals for the same purpose to the first chapter of Jonah, the repentance of the Ninevites (Jon. iii.) and the language of Jeremiah (xviii. 7-10). Perhaps the famous expression in the apology of Tertullian, O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae, might be considered to favour the view of heathendom here taken by Faustus. (4) Ad Monachos Scrmo. — The tone of this short letter resembles that of his other writings. He refers to excommunication as a terrible weapon only to be used in the last resort. It is sad to see monks go back to the world, especially if. after doing so, they retain their monastic dress. As usual, he is energetic in his appeals to the human element in religion. " Use your will. Resist the devil. Cherish all graces, especially obedience and humility." (5) DeRatione Fidei Catholicae. — Theformer part is a brief statement of the case against Arianism. It explains the distinction between Persona and Xatura in reference to our Lord's Incarnation, and appears to be addressed to an orthodox but perplexed friend, whom the author treats as a superior. The second portion is metaphysical, and discusses the nature of the soul, which Faustus seems to pronounce material. Claudius Mamertus, in his de Statu Animae, wrote against Faustus on this point. F'austus may, however, not have meant to do more than draw a marked distinction between the Creator and the creature ; arguing, as he does, nihil credendum incorporeum praeter Deum. (6) Homilia de S. Maximi Laudibus. — A eulogy of his predecessor. I7) Epislolae. — Two have already been described. The other 17 epistles touch upon problems of metaphysics and theology. Faustus was of unimpeachably good char- acter : of an earnest, active, ascetic life ; orthodox on the central doctrine of the Christian faith and suffering exile for it as a confessor ; but stigmatized as a semi- Pelagian, and consequently by manv authorities, both ancient and modern, denied the title of saint. But his own flock at Riez. deeply moved by his life and preaching, and warmlv attached to his memory, insisted on giving him a local canonization as Sanctus Faustus Reiensis ; they erected a basilica, dedicated in his name, and kept Jan. 18 as his festival. The first complete ed. of his works was pub. by A. Engelbrecht in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. vol. xxi. ; cf. other publications of Engelbrecht on the same subject. [j.o.c.] FeliclSSlmus (1), deacon of Carthage, whom N'ovatus associated with himself in the man- agement of a district called Mons (Cyp. Ep. 41). He was the chief agent {signifer sedi- tionis, Ep. 50) of the anti-Cvprianic partv, which combined the five presbyters originally opposed to Cyprian's election with the later- formed party for the easv readmission of the lapsed {Epp. 43, 43). Cyprian {Ep. 52) de- finitely states that Felicissimus had been, when the persecution arose, on the point of being tried before the presbytery on charges of homicidal cruelty to his father and wife. Like other African and Spanish deacons (Neander, vol. i. p. 324, ed. Bohn), he acquired influence FELICITAS 303 through his .idministr.ilii'H of churcii property and was able to threaten with rxc<inuiumira> tion any who accepted rtlirf or ofTuc from Cyprian's commissioners. The latter rxrom- municated him (Ep. 42) with Cyprian's consent. The mild resolution of the council of j^j, making easy the readmissi<>n of the lapsed on earnest repentance [CvPRiANrs], destroyed hi» locus standi. The party then cn.ilcsced with that of pRivATi'S (2), wiio consecrated F<>rtu- natus anti-bishop; and Fclicissinuis sailed for Rome to conciliate or intimidate Curnelius into recognizing him {Ep. y}). Failing here, the partv melted quietly awav. [f.w.b.i Felicitas (1), commemorated on Nov. 23 ; martvr at Rome with her seven sons, under .Antoninus Pius, and, according to their Acts, at his personal command, Publius being pre- fect of the city, c. a.d. iso. It is almost certain that there was no authorized persecu- tion under Antoninis Pus, but public I calamities stirred up the mob to seek for the I favour of the gods bv shedding Christian blood (Julii Capitolini, \'ita Aninnint Pti, c.q). Doubtless, in some stich way, Feliritas and her children suffered. In her Acts Publius the Prefect is represented as conmianded by Antoninus to compel her to sacrifice, but in vain, though he appeals to her maternal affection as well as her fears. He then calls upon each of her sons, Januarius, Felix, Philippus, Svlvanus, Alexander, Vitalis, Mar- tialis, with a similar want of success, the mother exhorting them, " Behold, my sons, heaven, and look upwards, whence you expect Christ with His saints." The prefect, having tortured some of them, reported to the emperor, at whose command they were be- headed. Their martyrdom is commemorated by Gregory the Great, in Horn. 3 super Evang. where, preaching in a chtirch dedicated to her, he lauds Felicitas as " Plus quam martyr quae septem pignoribus ad regnum praemissis, toties ante sc mortua est. Ad poenas prima venit sed pervenit octava " {Mart. Vet. Rom. Hieron., Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi). [o.t.s.) Felicitas (2), Mar. 7 ; martyr at Carthage with IVrpetua, Revocatus, Saturninus, and Secundinus, all catechumens, and baptized after their arrest. Felicitas and her com- panions having been interrogated by Hila- rianus, the proconsul, and remaining steadfast, were condemned to be thrown to the beasts on the anniversary of the young (ieta's accession. Felicitas, being in the eighth month of her pregnancy, and the law not permitting women in fier condition to be executed, was greatlv distressed at the delay of her martvrdom. Prayer was therefore made that God might grant her an earlier deliverv, and this accordingly took place a few davs after. While the pangs of labour were upon her, the jailer, hearing some ex- clamations of pain, said, " If thy present sufferings are so great, what wilt thon do when thou art thrown to the wild beasts ? This thou didst not consider when thou refuscdst to sacrifice." Whereupon she answered, " What I now suffer I suffer myself, but then there will be another Who will sufier for me because I also shall suffer f«jr Him." They I were all put to death together in a. p. 202 or I 203, during the reign of Sevcrus, whose latter 364 FELIX I. years were marked by a very rigorous perse- cution (Ael. Spart. Sever. Imp. § 27 in Hist. August. Scriptt.). Few martyrdoms are better attested than this. The ancient Roman calendar, pub. by Bucherius, and dating from c. 360, mentions only three African martyrs, viz. Felicitas, Perpetua, and Cyprian. Their names are in the canon of the Roman Mass, which mentions none but really primitive martyrs. Their martyrdom is mentioned byTertuUian in de Anima, Iv., and treated at length in three sermons (280, 281, 282) by St. Augustine, while their burial at Carthage, in the Basilica Major, is asserted by Victor Vitensis, lib. i. de Pers. Vandal. There are three texts of these Acts — the original Lat. text, an ancient Gk. version, and a shorter Lat. text, probably an excerpt from the Gk. version. For all three texts see the ed. of Dean J. A. Robinson in Texts and Studies, i. 2 ; cf. also von Gebhardt's Acta. [g.t.s.] Felix (1) I., bp. of Rome, probably from Jan. 5, 269, to Dec. 30, 274, in the reigns of Claudius and Aurelian. The Liberian Cata- logue (354) names the consuls of the years above mentioned as those contemporary with his accession and death, and gives 5 years, 11 months, and 25 days as the duration of his episcopate ; while the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum gives Dec. 30 as the date of his death. Later and less trustworthy author- ities, including the Liber Pontificalis, differ as to the date and duration of his episcopate. He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint and martyr, his day being May 30. His martyrdom is asserted, not only in the later editions of the Liber Pontificalis, but also in the early recension of 530, known as the Felician Catalogue. Notwithstanding this testimony, his martyrdom seems inconsistent with the silence of the Liberian Catalogue, and with his name appearing in the Depositio Episcoporum, not the Depositio Martyrum of the same date. Nothing is known with certainty of his acts, except the part he took in the deposition of Paul of Samosata from the see of Antioch. A synod at Antioch (a.d. 290) having deposed this heretical bishop and appointed Domnus in his place, announced these facts in letters addressed to Maximus and Dionysius, bps. of Alexandria and Rome, and to other Catholic bishops. Felix, who had in the meantime succeeded Dionysius, addressed a letter on the subject to Maximus and to the clergy of An- tioch, fragments of which are preserved in the Apologeticus of C\'ril of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the council of Ephesus, and which is also alluded to by Marius Mercator, and by Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium ; cf . Harnack, Gesch. der alt. Ch. Lit. i. 659. Three decretals, undoubtedly spurious, are assigned to him (Harduin, Concil.). [J-b.] Follx (2) II., bp. of Rome after the exile of pope Liberius (a.d. 355). He has a place in the Roman calendar as a saint and martyr, and in the Pontifical and in the Acts of St. Felix and St. Eusebius as a legitimately elected and orthodox pope, persecuted by the emperor and the Arian faction. Contem- porary and other ancient writers (Faustus and Marcellinus, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Ru- finus, Sozomen, and Theodoret) linanimouslv FELIX II. represent him, on the contrary, as an inter- loper placed in the see violently and irregularly by the emperor and the Arians, and do not allude to his martyrdom. The following is the account given by Marcellinus and Faustus, two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of Rome, who must have had good opportunity of knowing the truth. It occurs in the preface to their Libellus Preciim addressed to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arca- dius during the pontificate of Damasus, who succeeded Liberius, and by whom the writers complain of being persecuted. Immediately on the banishment of Liberius all the clergy, including the archdeacon Felix, swore to ac- cept no other bishop during the life of the exiled pope. Notwithstanding, the clergy afterwards ordained this Felix, though the people were displeased and abstained from taking part. Damasus, pope after Liberius, was among his perjured supporters. In 357 the emperor visited Rome, and, being solicited by the people for the return of Liberius, consented on condition of his complying with the imperial requirements, but with the intention of his ruling the church jointly with Felix. In the third year Liberius returned, and the people met him with joy. Felix was driven from the city, but soon after, at the instigation of the clergy who had perjured themselves in his election, burst into it again, taking his position in the basilica of Julius beyond the Tiber. The faithful and the nobles again expelled him with great ignominy. After 8 years, during the consulship of Valeii- tinianus and Valens {i.e. a.d. 365), on the loth of the Calends of Dec. (Nov. 22), Felix died, leaving Liberius without a rival as bp. of Rome till his own death on the 8th of the Calends of Oct. (Sept. 24), 366. The other writers mentioned tell us that the election and consecration of Felix took place in the imperial palace, since the people debarred the Arians from their churches ; that three of the emperor's eunuchs represented the people, the consecrators being three heretical bishops, Epictetus of Centumellae, Acacius of Caesarea, and Basil of Ancyra ; and it was only the Arian section of the clergy, though apparently a large one, that supported Felix. A very different account is given in the Pontifical and in the Acts of St. Felix and of St. Eusebius ; the former account is un- doubtedly to be preferred. But though Felix, as well as Liberius, has obtained a place in the list of lawful popes, and has even been canonized, it is thus evident that his claim is more than doubtful. Accordingly, Augus- tine, Optatus, and Eutychius (as did Athanasius, Jerome, and Rulinus) exclude him from their lists of popes. In the Roman church, however, his claim to the position appears to have remained unquestioned till the 14th cent., when, an emendation of the Roman Mart\Tology having been undertaken in 1582, under pope Gregory XIII., the question was raised and discussed. Baronius at first op- posed the claims of Felix ; a cardinal, Sanc- torius, defended them. The question was decided by the accidental discovery, in the church of SS. Cosmas and Damian in the forum, of a coffin bearing the inscription, " Corpus S. Felicis papae et martyris, qui PEUx m. damnavit Constantium." In the face of this, Baronius was convinced, and retracted all he had written (Baron, ad Liberium, c. Ixii.). Accordingly Felix retained his place in the Martyrology, though the title of pope was afterwards expunged from the oratio for his day in the breviary. What became of the inscribed slab is not known, and in the ab- sence of any knowledge of its date, its testimonv is valueless. Tj.b — v.] Felix (3) III. (otherwise II.), bp. of Rome from .Mar. 483 to Feb. 492. The clergy having met in St. Peter's church to elect a successor to Simplicius, Basilius (Praefectus Praetorio and Patrician) interposed in the name of his master Odoacer the Herulian, who since 476 had ruled the West as king of Italy, alleging, as a fact known to his hearers, that Simplicius before his death had conjured the king to allow no election of a successor without his consent ; and this to avoid the turmoil and detriment to the church that was likely to ensue. Basilius expressing surprise that the clergy, knowing this, had taken independent action, proceeded in the king's name to propound a law pro- hibiting the pope then to be elected and all future popes from alienating any farms or other church possessions ; declaring invalid the titles of any who might thus receive ecclesiastical property ; requiring the resti- tution of alienated farms with their proceeds, or the sale for religious uses of gold, silver, jewels, and clothes unfitted for church pur- poses ; and subjecting all donors and recip- ients of church property to anathema. The assembled clergy seem to have assented to this, and to have been then allowed to proceed with their election, their choice falling on Caelius Felix, the son of a presbyter also called Felix. The Roman synod under pope Symmachus (498-514) protested against this interference of laymen with the election of a pope, and Symmachus consented to declare it void, but required the re-enaction of the law against the alienation of farms, etc. The pontificate of this Felix was chiefly remarkable for the commencement of the schism of 35 years between Rome and the Eastern patriarchates. In 451 the council of Chalcedon had condemned the Monophy- site or Eutychian heresy, adopting the de- finition of faith contained in the famous letter of pope Leo I. to Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople. The council had also enacted canons of discipline, the Qth and the 17th giving to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople the final determination of causes against metropolitans in the East ; and the 28th assigning to the most holy throne of Constantinople, or new Rome, equal privileges with the elder Rome in ecclesiastical matters, as being the second after her, with the right of ordaining metropolitans in the Pontic and Asian and Thracian dioceses, and bishops among the barbarians therein. This last canon the legates of pope Leo had protested against at the council, and Leo himself had afterwards repudiated it, as contrary (so he expressed himself) to the Nicene canons, and an undue usurpation on the part of Constantinople. In connexion with the heresy condemned by the council of Chalcedon and with the privileges assigned by its canons to Constantinople, the FELIX in. 305 schism between the ICist .iiul West ensued I durmg the pontificate t.f Felix. The condemnation of Monophvsitism at Chalcedon by no means silenced its abettors, who in the church of .\lcxandria were cspeti- ally strong and resolute. They supported I'eter Mongus as patriarch ; the orthiniox supporting first Timotheus Solofacialus. and on his death Jt)hn Talaia. [Acacids (7); JOAN.VES (11).] Felix, in a synod at kome. renewed his predecessor's excommunication <>f Peter Mongus, addressed letters to the emperor Zenoand .\cacius, patriarch of Constantinople. Acacius is urged to renounce Peter Monnus. and induce the emperor to do the same. Felix sent also a formal summons for Acacius to appear at Rome and answer the charge of having disregarded the injunctions of Sim- plicius. The letter to Zeno implored the emperor to refrain from rending the seamless garment of Christ, and to renew his support of the one faith which had raised him to the imperial dignity, the faith of the Roman church, against which the Lord had said that the gates of hell should not prevail ; but both the emperor and .Acacius c>intiinied to support Peter. The papal legates having returned to Rome, Felix convened a synod of 67 Italian bishops, in which he renewed the excommu- nication of Peter Mongus, and published an irrevocable sentence of deposition and ex- communication against Acacius himself. The sentence of excommunication was served on Acacius by one of those zealous champions of Felix, the Sleepless Monks (" Acoemetae "), who fastened it to the robe of the patriarch when about to officiate in church. The patriarch discovered it, but proceeded with the service, and then, in a calm, clear voice, ordered the name of Felix, bp. of Rome, to be erased from the diptychs t)f the church. This was on Aug. i, 484. Thus the two chief bishops of Christendom stood mutually excommunicated, and the first great schism between the East and West began. The emperor and the great majority of the prelates of the East supported Acacius ; and thus the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as Constantinople, remained out of communion with Rome. Another noted Monophysite, called Peter Fullo (i.e. the Fuller), had excited the orthodox zeal of Felix, patriarch of Antioch. He had added to theTersanctus the clause, " Who wast crucified for us," and was charged with thus attributing passibility to the Godhead. To him, therefore, from a Roman symxl, Felix addressed a synodical letter in which, in the name of Peter, the chief of the apostles and 1 the head of all sees, he pronounced his de- position and excommunication. j In 489 .Acacius died, and was succeeded by I Flavitas, or Fravitas. Felix, on hearing of the vacancy of the see, wrote t(J Thalasius, an archimandrite of Constantinople, warning him and his monks (who appear throughout to have espoused the cause of Rome) to commu- nicate with no successor till Rome had been fully apprised of all proceedings and had declared the church of Constantinople restored to its communion. Flavitas having died within four months after his accession, the popes' letter to him was received by hi* 366 FELIX IV. successor Euphemius. Felix, though satisfied as to the faith of Euphemius, insisted on the erasure of the name of Acacius, which condi- tion being demurred to, the breach continued. After his rupture with the East, Felix helped to reconstitute the African church, which had cruelly suffered at the hands of the Arian Vandals. This persecution, which had raged under king Hunneric, who died in 484, ceased under his successor Gundamund, when a number of apostates sought readmission to catholic communion. A synod of 38 bishops held at Rome under Felix in 488 issued a synodical letter dated Mar. 15, laying down terms of readmission. Felix died Feb. 24, 492. His extant works are 15 letters {Migne, Pair. Lat. Iviii. 893 ff.). Gratian gives also a decretum as his, to the effect that the royal will should yield to priests in ecclesiastical causes. The ancient authorities for his Life are his letters and those of his successor Gelasius, the Breviarium of Liberatus Diaconus, and the Histories of Evagrius and Nicephorus Callistus. [j.B — Y.] Felix (4) IV. (otherwise III. ; see Felix II.), bp. of Rome (July 526 — Oct. 530) during 4 years, 2 months, and 14 or 18 days (Anastas. Biblioth.). The same authority states that he built the basilica of SS. Cosmas and Damian, restored that of the martyr St. Saturninus, and was buried, on Oct. 12, in the basilica of St. Peter. There is little to be told of him, except the circumstances of his appointment. His predecessor, John I., had died in prison at Ravenna, into which he had been thrown by Theodoric the Ostrogoth, who then ruled the West as king of Italy. Theodoric took the unprecedented step of appointing his successor on his own authority, without waiting for the customary election by clergy and people. This high-handed proceeding seems to have been at length acquiesced in. No subsequent king or emperor laid claim to a like power of interference in the appointment of popes, though the confirmation of elections by the civil power was insisted on, and continued till the election of Zachary in 752, when the con- firmation of the exarch of Ravenna, as repre- senting the Eastern emperor, was first dis- pensed with under the Carlovingian empire. The same freedom of election by clergy and people continued to be the theory till the appointment was given to the College of Cardinals during the pontificate of Nicholas II., A.D. 1059. For previous interventions of the civil power see Bonifaciiis II., Eulalius (1), Felix III., Svmmachus, Laurentius (10). The only further event known as marking the pontificate of Felix is the issue of an edict by Athalaric, the successor of Theodoric, requir- ing all civil suits against ecclesiastics to be preferred before the bishop and not the secular judge. The edict was called forth by Felix, with the Roman clergy, having complained to the king that the Goths had invaded the rights of churches and dragged the clergy before lay tribunals. It extended only to the Roman clergy, "in honour of the Apostolic see" (Cassiodor. lib. 8, c. 24). Justinian I. after- wards extended it, though with an appeal to the civil tribunal, to all ecclesiastics (Justin. Novel. S3, 123). For this pope's letter, esp. letter to Caesarius FELIX. of Aries, requiring probation from candidates for the priesthood before their ordination, see Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixv., An important decretum of this pope was made known by Amelli in 1882, and edited by Mommsen in Neuer Archiv fur alter deulsch. Gesch. Kunde, 1886. See Duchesne, La Succession du pape Felix IV. (Rome, 1883). [j.b— v.] Felix (26) L, bp. of Aptunga, in proconsular Africa. Felix was one of those who laid hands on Caecilian as bp. of Carthage, if not the sole officiating bishop, a.d. 311 (Aug. Brevie. Coll. iii. 14, 26; 16, 29). The Donatist party, having failed in the Court of Inquiry at Rome, under Melchiades, Oct. 2, 313, to establish their case against Caecilian, turned their attack on Felix, whom they sought to convict of the infamous crime of " tradition " in the persecution of Maximus, a.d. 303. The emperor gave orders to Aelianus, the procon- sul of Africa, to hold an inquiry on the spot, which took place on Feb. 15, 314 (Aug. Post. Coll. 38, 56 ; Ep. 43, 3-14 ; 88 ; c. Cresc. iii. 61) at Carthage, in the presence of many who had held municipal offices at the time of the persecution. In vain the prosecution relied on a chain of fraudulent evidence elaborately concocted. The proconsul pronounced the complete acquittal of Felix, which was con- firmed by the emperor, and repeated in a letter to Verinus, or Valerius, the vicar of Africa, a.d. 321. The whole case was brought up again at Carth. Conf., a.d. 411, when Augustine argued that there was no doubt of the completeness of the imperial decision. Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 81, iv. 79 ; de Unic. Bapt. 28 ; Brev. Coll. 41, 42 ; Post. Coll. 56 ; Mon. Vet. Don. iii. pp. 160-167 and 341-343, ed. Oberthiir ; Bruns. Concil. i. 108 ; Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. 92. [h.w.p.] Felix (174), bp. of Tubzoca (perhaps Thibaris in Numidia). His story illustrates the first edict of persecution issued by Diocletian in Feb. 303, and the special severity with which it was worked in the West under the emperor Maximian. This edict did not authorize death as a punishment, but simply prohibited the assembly of Christians for religious worship ; ordered the destruction of churches and sacred documents, and authorized torture. Official notice of its publication arrived at Tubzoca on June 5, and the overseer of the city, Magnel- lianus, summoned first the clergy and then the bishop, and demanded the sacred writings. Felix replied, " It is better that I should be burned rather than the Holy Scriptures, since it is better to obey God rather than man." Three days were given him for reconsidera- tion, during which time he was committed to the private custody of Vincentius Celsinus, a leading citizen. Upon his continued refusal he was sent to the proconsul Anulinus at Carthage, June 24. By him the bishop was twice examined. With the edict there seems to have been sent by Maximian the praetorian prefect or commander of the emperor's guard, to secure its due execution. To him, upon his final refusal, Felix and his companions were delivered for transporation into Italy, arriving after four days' sail in Sicily. At Agrigentum, Catana, Messana, and Taurominium they were received with great honour by the Christians. Thence they were carried by the prefect to FELIX OF NOLA W'luisia, in Apulia, wlu-rc, having again callod upon Felix to surrender the sacred writings, he condemned him to death for disobedience. ' Felix suffered by beheading, Aug. 30, on which j day he is commemoratetl by Bede. There is considerable confusion as to tletails in different ' versions of the Acts, which dWchery and Baluze have in vain endeavoured to remedy. I .\[urtvr. ]'ft. Roman. Bedae, Adonis, Usuardi ; 1 B.ironius, Annul, a.d. 302, cxvii.-cxxiii. ; Ruin.irt, Ada Sinccra; Surius ; d'Acherii S/iai/i'i,'. t. xii.634 ; Baluz. Miscell. t. ii. p. 77 ; Tlllein. v. 202. [g.t.s.] Felix (186) of Nola. [P.\ulinus (8).] Felix 1212). [SciLLiTAN Martyrs.] Firniilianus(l),St.,bp.ofCaesareainCappa- docia, one of the greatest prelates of his time. In 232 lie already occupied his see (Eus. vi. 26, 27), though Cave (Hist. i. p. 123) speaks of 233 as the year of his elevation. When Origen soon after left Egypt, Firmilian induced him to visit Cappadocia ; subsequently he paid Origen long visits in Judaea to advance his own knowledge of theology (Eus. I.e.). He urged Dionysius of Alexandria to attend the councilof Antioch, held to repudiate Nova- tianism (ib. vi. 46 ; cf. Routh, R. S. iii. 31). In 256 he is addressed by Cyprian in a letter now lost as to the Asiatic practice of rebaptizing those baptized by heretics. In his long reply (Cyp. Ep. 75) Firmilian describes it as impossible to add much to the strength of Cyprian's arguments. He is clear as to the antiquity of the practice in Asia, which he regards as ratified by the action of the council of Iconium in the case of the Montanists. He speaks of several meetings of the Cappadocian bishops, one immediately before his writing. Baronius, Labbe, and other Roman writers have been anxious to prove that the baptismal dispute originated with Firmilian and the East, but the attempt is against the whole tenor of Cyprianic correspondence as well as the express statement of Eusebius (vii. 3). To Firmilian the see of Jerusalem appears to be the central see, so far as such an idea arises. He presided at Antioch, a.d. 266, in the first synod held to try Paul of Samosata, and visit- ed Antioch twice on this business (Concil. Antioch. contr. Paul. Samos. in Routh, R. S. iii. 304; Eus. vii. 30). Imposed upon by Paul's promises, he procured the postponement of a decision against him. But when it was necessary to convene another synod in 272, Firmilian, who was to have again presided, died on his journey, at Tarsus. To his contemporaries his 40 years of influential episcopate, his friendship with Origen and Dionysius, the appeal to him of Cyprian, and his censure of Stephanus might well make him seem the most conspicuous figure of his time. Routh (vol. iii. p. 149) points to him as one of the oldest authorities who states with pre- cision the anti-Pelagian doctrine. Basil {de Spiritu Sancto, xxix.) speaks of his discourses as early testimonies to the exactness of his own doctrine, and quotes his agreement with Cyprian on baptism in the epistle to Amphi- lochius lEp. 188). [e.w.b.1 Flavlanus (4) I., bp. of Antioch, 381-404. Born at .-Vntioch, of a distinguished family, he was still very young when his father's death left him heir of his considerable property. As FLAVIANUS 807 bishop hi- continued to ..ccupv tin- (.iinilv mansion at Antioch, whi< h he d.vtited to th«r reception of the sick and distressed ^>l his no< k. Chrysostoni, in his highly coloured oiiloRium pronounced on receiving jiricst's orders at hi» hands, records that ho was remarkable from his earliest ve.irs for temiieraiice and contempt of luxury, alth-uigh earlv deprived ..( parental control and exposed to t.nipt.itiMiis in< ideiit to youth, wealth, and good birth. The.KlMrrt (//. E. ii. 24) relates that, when a half-con( ealed Arianisni was triumjihing, Flavian, with his friend Diodorus (afterwards bp. of Tarsus), left his home and adopted the life of a solitary. The necessities of the times soon recalled them to Antioch, where as laymen thev kept alive an orthodox remnant. I.eontius was then the intruding bp. of Antioch, and, while a Eusc- bian at heart, sought by temporizing to pre- serve a hollow peace in his church. The counsel of the orthodox bp. Eustathius. before he was expelled frdii .Antioch (f. 328). was that his adherents should maintain the unity of the church and continue in communion with his successors in the see ; but there was no small risk of their being thus gradually absorbed by the Eusebians and losing hold of the Catholic faith. This danger was strenuously met by Flavian and Diodorus. They rallied the faith- ful about them, accustomed them to assemble round the tombs of the martyrs, and exhorted them to adhere steadfastly to the faith. They are said byTheodoret to have revived the anti- phonal chanting of the Psalms, which tradition ascribed to Ignatius {ib. ii. 24 ; Socr. H. E. vi. 8). I.eontius endeavoured to check the growing influence of these gatherings by causing them to be transferred from the martyries without the walls to the chure hes of the city, but this only increased their popu- larity and strengthened the cause of ortho- doxy. Flavian and Diodorus became all- powerful at Antioch ; Leontius, being unable to resist them, was compelled to retrace his steps (Theod. ii. 24). Leontius was succeeded by Eudoxiiis. then by the excellent Meletius, who was depi sed, and in 361 by Euzoius, the old comrade of Arius. Euzoius was repudiated with horror by all the orthodox. Those who had till now remained in communion with the bishops re- cognized by the state, separated themselves and recognized Meletius as their l)isl)op. The old Catholic body, however, who b..re the name of Eustathians, would not submit to a bishop, however (orthodox, consecrated by Arians. and continued to worship apart from their Meletian brethren, as well as from Euzo- ius, having as leader Paulinus, a presbvter highly esteemed by all parties. This schism between two orthodox bodies caused much pain to Athanasius and others. A council at Alexandria, early in 362, wisely advised that Paulinus and his flock should unite with Meletius, who hail now retiirnetl from exile ; but the precipitant y of I.uc ifer of Caitliari per- petuated the schism by ordaining Paulinus ' bishoj). The .Arian emperor Valens came to I reside at .Antioch in June 370; and this was j the signal for a violent persecution of the I orthodox. .Meletius was banished a third I time, and the duty of ministering to the i faithful under their prolonged trials devol\ td 368 FLAVIANUS I. on Flavian and Diodorus. The Catholics, having been deprived of their churches, took refuge among ravines and caverns in the abrupt mountain ranges overhanging the city. Here they worshipped, exposed to the assaults of a rude soldiery, by whom they were re- peatedly dislodged. The persecution ceased with the death of Valens in 378. The exiles were recalled, and Meletius resumed charge of his flock. His ofticial recognition as the Catholic bp. of Antioch was more tardy. Gratian had commanded that the churches should be given up to prelates in communion with Damasus, bp. of Rome, and that Arian intruders should be expelled. But here were two bishops with equal claims to orthodoxy, Paulinus and Meletius, and a third, Vitaliaii, who held Apollinarian views. Sapor, a high military officer, to whom Gratian had com- mitted the execution of the edict, was much perplexed. Flavian convinced him that the right lay with Meletius. The separation, however, still continued. Paulinus declined the proposal of Meletius that they should be recognized as of equal authority and that the survivor should be sole bishop. The Oriental churches recognized Meletius, the West and Egypt Paulinus {ib. v. 1-3). In 381 Flavian accompanied Meletius to the council of Constantinople, during the session of which Meletius died. Gregory of Nazianzus entreat- ed his brother-bishops to heal the schism by recognizing Paulinus as orthodox bp. of Antioch (Greg. Naz. de Vita Sac. v. 1572 seq. p. 757). But this, however right in itself, would have been a triumph for the Westerns. The council was composed of Oriental bishops, and, in spite of the remonstrances of Gregory, Flavian was elected to succeed Meletius. Flavian cannot be altogether excused for this continuance of the schism ; and the less so if, as Socrates (v. 5) and Sozomen (vii. 3, 11) state, he was one of the six leading clergy of Antioch who had sworn not to seek the bishopric themselves at the death of Meletius or Paulinus, but to acknowledge the survivor. This charge, however, is rendered very doubt- ful by the absence of reference to it in the letters of Ambrose or any contemporary documents published by adherents of Paulinus during the controversy. Flavian was con- secrated by Diodorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beroea with the ratification of the council. Paulinus remonstrated in vain (Theod. v. 23), but his cause was maintained by Damasus and the Western bishops and those of Egypt ; while even at Antioch, though most of the Meletians welcomed Flavian with joy (Chrys. Horn, cum Preshyt. fuit ordinatus, § 4), some, indignant at his breaking an engagement, real or implied, separated from his communion and joined Paulinus (Soz. vii. 11). The West refused all intercourse with Flavian, and the council at Aquileia in Sept. 381 wrote to ! Theodosius in favour of Paulinus, and re- | quested him to summon a council at Alex- [ andria to decide that and other questions. Theodosius acquiesced, but selected Rome. The Eastern prelates declined to attend, and held a synod of their own at Constantinople ; in 382. Even here the bishops of Egypt, j Cyprus, and Arabia recognized Paulinus, and i demanded the banishment of Flavian, who was FLAVIANUS I. supported by the bishops of Palestine, Phoe- nicia, and Syria (Socr. v. 10). A synodal letter was, however, dispatched to Damasus and the Western bishops, recognizing Flavian's con- secration as legitimate (Theod. v. 9). Paulinus himself attended the council at Rome, accom- panied by Epiphanius and his ardent supporter Jerome. At this council the West refused to acknowledge Flavian as canonically elected. It is said that they even excommunicated him and his two consecrators (Soz. vii. 11). The two rivals continued to exercise episcopal functions for their respective flocks. Conse- quently church discipline became impossible. Early in his episcopate Flavian exercised his authority against the Syrian sect of perfec- tionists known as Euchites or ]\Jessalians, and to make himself acquainted with their doctrines, which it was their habit to conceal, he con- descended to an unworthy act of deception. In 386 Flavian ordained Chrysostom pres- byter, and Chrysostom preached a eulogistic inaugural discourse (Chrys. u.s. §§ 3, 4). The sedition at Antioch and the destruction of the Imperial Statues, 387, shewed Flavian at his best. When the brief tit of popular mad- ness was over and the Antiochenes awoke to their danger, Flavian at their entreaty became their advocate with the emperor, starting immediately on his errand of mercy (Chrys. de Statuts, iii. i, xxi. 3). The success of his mission was complete. Though Paulinus died in 388, the schism continued ; for on his death- bed he had consecrated Evagrius, a presbyter of his church, as his successor (Socr. v. 15 ; Soz. vii. 15 ; Theod. v. 23). Theodosius sum- moned Flavian to meet him at a synod at Capua. Flavian excused himself as winter was setting in, but promised to obey the emperor's bidding in the spring (Theod. v. 23). Ambrose i and the other leading Western prelates urged Theodosius to compel Flavian to come to Rome and submit to the judgment of the church. Flavian replied to the emperor that if his episcopal seat only was the object of attack, he would prefer to resign it altogether. The knot was before long cut by the death of Evagrius. Flavian's influence prevented the election of a successor. The Eustathians, however, still refused to acknowledge Flavian, and continued to hold their assemblies apart (Soz. vii. 15, viii. 3 ; Socr. v. 15). This separation lasted till the episcopate of .Alexander, 414 or 415. The division between Flavian and Egypt and the West was finally healed by Chrysostom, who took the oppor- tunity of the presence of Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, at Constantinople for his con- secration in 398, to induce him to become reconciled with Flavian, and to join in dispatching an embassy to Rome to supplicate Siricius to recognize Flavian as canonical bishop of Antioch. Their mission was entirely successful (Socr. v. 15 ; Soz. viii. 3 ; Theod. V. 23). To shew that all angry feeling had ceased, and to conciliate his opponents, Flavian put the names of Paulinus and Evagrius on the diptychs (Cyril. Alex. Ep. 56, p. 203). Flavian lived long enough to see the deposition and exile of Chrysostom, against which he protested with his last breath. His death probably occurred in 404 (Pallad. Dial. p. 144 ; Soz. viii. 24 ; Theophan. p. 68). He governed PLAVIANUS the church of Antioch for 23 years ; and Tillemont thinks it probable that he lived to the age of 95. The Greek church com- memorates him on Sept. 26. He left behind certain homilies, of which a few fragments are preserved. Theodoret, in his Erauistfs, quotes i>ne on John i. 14 {Dial. i. p. 46), another on St. John the Baptist {ih. p. 66), on Easter, and the treachery of Judas {Dial. iii. p. 250) or the Theophania, and a passage from his commentary on St. Luke (Dial. ii. p. 160). [e.v.I Flavianus (8), i8th bp. of Constantinople, between Proclus and Anatolius, for about two or three years. He is described by Niceph- orus as being at his election guardian of the sacred vessels of the great church of Constan- tinople, with a reputation for a heavenly life. At the time of his consecration Theodosius II. was staying at Chalcedon. Chrysaphius his minister immediately plotted against the new patriarch. Foiled in an attempt to extort a present of gold to the emperor for acknow- ledging his elevation, Chrysaphius, with the empress Eudocia for an ally, planned two methods of attack against Flavian — the direct subversion of the authority of the emperor's sister Pulcheria ; and the support of Eutyches, to whom the archbishop was opposed. Pul- cheria had devoted herself to a religious life ; let the emperor order the prelate to ordain her a deaconess. Flavian, receiving the emperor's command to this effect, and beyond measure grieved, sent a private message to Pulcheria, who divined the scheme, and to avoid a struggle retired to Hebdomum, where for a time she led a private life (Theoph. u. infr.). Flavian having assembled a council of 40 bishops at Constantinople Nov. 8, 448, to compose a difference between the metropolitan bp. of Sardis and two bishops of his province, Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum, appeared and presented his indictment against Eutyches. The speech of Flavian remains, concluding with this appeal to the bp. of Dorylaeum : " Let your reverence condescend to visit him and argue with him about the true faith, and if he shall be found in very truth to err, then he shall be called to our holy assembly, and shall answer for himself." For the particulars of this great controversy see Dioscorus and Eutyches. When, on Aug. 8, 449, the Latro- cinium assembled at Ephesus, Eutyches violently attacked the archbishop. On Aug. II, 449, Flavian expired at Hypepe in Lydia from the effects of the barbarous ill-usage which resulted from this attack. When Pulcheria returned to power, after her brother's death, she had Flavian's remains, which had been buried obscurely, brought with great pomp to Constantinople. It was more like a triumph, says the chronicler, than a funeral procession. Among the documents which touch on the career of Flavian are the reply of Petrus Chrysologus, archbp. of Ravenna, to a circular appeal of Eutyches, and various letters of Theodoret. Leo wrote Flavian a beautiful letter before hearing that he was dead. Leo. Mag. Epp. 23, 26, 27, 28, 44 ; Facund, Pro Trib. Capit. viii. 5 ; xii. 5 ; Flvagr. ii. 2. etc. ; Liberatus Diac. Breviar. xi. xii. ; Soz. FLAVIANUS n. 309 >lian. Chfonogr. pp. 84-88, (w. - H. F. ix. I : The. etc.; Nil. ph. Constant, xiv. 47. [w.m.s.] Flavianus (16) II., bp. of Anti<»ch. 408-512, previ.iuslv a monk in the monastery of Til- mognon, in CocKsyria (Ivvagr. H. E. iii. 32J, and at tiie time of his consci-ration " aporri»i- arius " or nuncio of the church of Antioch at the court of Constantinople (Vict. Tiuiun. Chron. ; Theoplian. Chronogr. p. I2i). Be- fore his consecration Flavian passed for an opponent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and on his appointment he sent to annoimce the (act to John Haemula, bp. of Alexandria, with letters of commimion, and a request for the same in return (Evagr. iii. 23). He sp<edily, however, withdrew from intercourse with the patriarchs of Alexandria, and joined the opposite party, uniting with Elias of Jeru- salem and Nlacedonius of Constantinople (Liberat. c. 18, p. 12S). Flavian soon found a bitter enemv in the turbulent Monophysite Xenaias or Philoxenus, bp. of Hierapolis. On Flavian's declaring for the c<iuncil of Chalce- don, Xenaias denounced his patri.irch as a concealed Nestorian. Flavian made no diffi- culty in anathematizing Nestorius and his doctrines. Xenaias demanded that he should anathematize Diodorus, Theodore, Theodoret, and others, as necessary to completely prove that he was not a Nestorian. On his refusing, -Xenaias stirred up against him the party of Dioscorus in Egypt, and charged Flavian before Anastasius with being a Nestorian (Evagr. iii. 31 ; Theophan. p. 128). Anastasius used pressure, to which Flavian yielded par- tially, trusting by concessions to satisfy his enemies. He convened a synod of the pre- lates of his patriarchate which drew up a letter to Anastasius confirming the first three councils, passing over that of Chalcedon in silence, and anathematizing Diodorus, Theo- dore, and the others. Xenaias, seeking Flavian's overthrow, required of him further a formal anathema of the council of Chalcedon and of all who admitted the two natures. On his refusal, Xenaias again denounced him to the emperor. Flavian declared his acceptance of the decrees of Chalcedon in condemning Nestorius and Eutyches, but not as a rule of faith. Xenaias having gathered the bishops of Isauria and others, induced them to draw up a formula anathematizing Chalcedon and the two natures, and Flavian and Macedonius, refusing to sign this, were declared excom- municate, A.D. 509 (Evagr. U.S. ; Theophan. p. 131). The next year the vacillating Havian ! received letters from Severus, the uncompri>- mising antagonist of Macedonius, on the sub- ject of anathematizing Chalcedon, and the reunion of the Acephali with the church (Liberat. c. 19, P- I35)- This so irritated Macedonius that he anathemati/«(l his former friend, and drove with indignation from his presence the apocrisiariiof Antioch (Theo|)han. p. 131). On the expulsion of Macedonius. A.D. 511, Flavian obeyed the emperor in re- 1 cognizing his successor Tiinotheus, on beiiiu convinced of his orthodoxy, but without dis- j guising his displeasure at the vi<ilent and un- canonical measures bv which Macedonius had been depr>sed. This exasperated An.aslasius. 1 who readilv acceded to the request of Xenaias and Soterichus that a council should be con- 24 370 FLORENTIUS vened, ostensibly for the more precise declara- tion of thefaith on the points at issue, but really to depose Flavian and Elias of Jerusalem ; but it was broken up by the emperor's mandate, to the extreme vexation of Soterichus and Xenaias, without pronouncing any sentence (Labbe, Con- di, iv. 1414, vii. 88 ; Theophan. u.s. ; Coteler. Monum. Eccl. Graec. iii. 298). Flavian's per- plexities were increased by the inroad of a tumultuous body of monks from Syria Prima, clamouring for the anathematization of Nestorius and all supposed favourers of his doctrines. The citizens rose against them, slew many, and threw their bodies into the Orontes. A rival body of monks poured down from the mountain ranges of Coele- syria, eager to do battle in defence of their metropolitan and former associate. Flavian was completely unnerved, and, yielding to the stronger party, pronounced a public anathema in his cathedral on the decrees of Chalcedon and the four so-called heretical doctors. His enemies, determined to obtain his patriarchate for one of their own party, accused him to the emperor of condemning with his lips what he still held in his heart. The recent disturb- ances at Antioch were attributed to him, and afforded the civil authorities a pretext for desiring him to leave Antioch for a time. His quitting Antioch was seized on by the emperor as an acknowledgment of guilt. Anastasus declared the see vacant, sent Severus to occupy it, and banished Flavian to Petra in Arabia, where he died in 518. Eutych. Alex. Annul. Eccl. p. 140 ; Marcell. Chron. ; Theo- phan. p. 134 ; Evagr. H. E. iii. 32. [e.v.] Florentius (50), a chief minister of state at Constantinople under Theodosius II. and Marcian, a man of the highest reputation for soundness of faith, purity of life, and states- manlike wisdom (Labbe, Concil. iv. 220). He was consul in a.d. 429, patrician in 448, pre- fect of the praetorian guards, and the high dignity of prefect of the East was bestowed on him a seventh time by Marcian in 450. In 448, when Flavian had resolved to put Eutyches on his trial for heretical doctrine, Theodosius demanded that Florentius should have a seat at the synod as his representative. Hitherto the ostensible reason for the presence of imperial officers at ecclesiastical synods was the preservation of order. The ground ex- pressly assigned by the emperor for requiring the admission of Florentius, viz. that the matters under discussion concerned the faith, was a startling innovation which Flavian withstood as long as he dared (Acac. Hist. Brevicul. p. 112; Liberat. Breviar. c. xi. ; Labbe, Concil. iv. 247). On the opening of the trial Florentius took his seat among the metropolitans, next to Seleucus, bp. of Amasea (Labbe, 238 ; Liberat. p. 60), and disclaimed all desire to dogmatize, or to forget his posi- tion as a layman ; but he took a very leading and authoritative part in the discussion, and manifested a strong leaning towards the acquittal of Eutyches. But his efforts to induce Eutyches to acknowledge the two natures in Christ or to adopt language which might satisfy the council were fruitless, and the interests of orthodoxy compelled him to assent to his condemnation (Labbe, 507, 517). As Eutyches left the hall he lodged with FORTUNATUS Florentius an appeal against his condemnation to the churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The bishop availed himself of the plea that the trial was closed to exclude the registration of the appeal [ih. 244). When the council of Chalcedon met, Florentius was present with other high civil dignitaries ; but there is no record of the part he took. We have letters to Florentius from Theodoret (Ep. 89), Isidore of Pelusium {Ep. lib. i. 486), and Firmus of Caesarea (Ep. 29). [e.v.] Florinus (l), for some time in the latter half of the 2nd cent, a presbyter at Rome, deprived for falling into heresy. He is known from two notices (v. 15, 20) in Eusebius, taken from writings of Irenaeus against Florinus. One is an interesting fragment of a letter to Florinus, in which Irenaeus records his youthful recol- lections of Polycarp, representing how that bishop, whose good opinion Florinus had once been anxious to gain, would have been shocked at his present opinions. The fragment con- tains unmistakable internal evidence of genuineness. The title of the letter to Flor- inus was On Monarchy, or that God is not the Author of Evil, and Eusebius remarks that Florinus seems to have maintained the op- posite opinion. Later writers have naturally followed the report of Eusebius. Philaster (79) refers to an unnamed heretic, who taught that things which God made were in their own nature evil. Augustine (66) calls the anony- mous heretic Florinus and, with little prob- ability, makes him the founder of a sect of Floriniani. He probably arrived at this re- sult by combining the notice in Eusebius with Philaster's mention in another place of Floriani. The work of Irenaeus which we possess does not mention Florinus, and has no trace of the letter, nor does Tertullian, in dealing with the same subject, employ the i letter to Florinus. If Florinus ever in a j heretical sense made God the author of evil, his errors afterwards took the opposite direc- 1 tion, and he became a Valentinian. In reply ' to him Irenaeus composed his work On the Ogdoad. If the controversy of Irenaeus with Florinus was earlier than the publication of the treatise on heresies, we should expect some trace of it therein ; and the fact that, after the publication of a treatise dealing so fully with Valentinianism, a separate treatise on the Ogdoad was necessary, may point to the controversv having arisen later. In favour of the later date is also the fact that there is extant a S\Tiac fragment (Harvey, ii. 457), purporting to be an extract from a letter of Irenaeus to Victor of Rome concerning Florinus, a presbyter, who was a partisan of the error of \'alentinus, and had published an abominable book. Florinus is not named by Epiphanius, Philaster, or Pseudo-Tertulhan who has so manv notices of Roman heretics ; and it is likely,' therefore, that he was not named in the earlier work of Hippolytus, nor in the lectures of Irenaeus, on which that work was founded ; he is not named in the later work of Hippolytus, nor by Tertullian. This silence is not easily explained if either Florinus or any school of Floriniani were any source of danger after his exposure by Irenaeus (cf. Zahn, Forschiingen, iv. 28^^08). [o.s.] Fortunatus (17), Venantius Honorlus Cle- FORTUNATUS mantianus, bii- of Poictiers, ami thelastrcpre- seiitative of Latin poetry in tiaul, was burn c. 330 at Ceneta, the modern Ceneda, near Tarvisium (Treviso) (I'it. Sauct. Martin, lib. iv. 668). He seems to have resided at an early age at Aquileia, where he came under the influence of one Paulus, who was instrumental in his conversion. Paulus Diaconus {Hisl. Langobard. lib. ii. 23) relates that he studied grammar, rhetoric, and poetry at Ravenna. In gratitude for his recovery from blindness, he set out on a pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Martin of Tours c. 565. Crossing the .\lps and passing into Austrasia, he visited king Sieg- bert, for whom he composed an epithalamium on his marriage with Brunehault, couched in terms of extravagant flattery. Euphronius bp. of Tours and Fortunatus became close friends {Miscell. iii. 1-3). After completing his pil- grimage, he continued to travel in Gaul, because of the disturbed state of Italy, due to the incursions of the Lombards, but finding an additional inducement in the society of Rhadegund of Poictiers, for whom he conceived a Platonic attachment. She was the daughter of Bertharius, king of the Thuringians, and had been espoused against her will to Lothair I., king of Xeustria, but had separated from him, and retired in 550 to Poictiers, where she founded the convent of St. Croix, more for literary than for religious seclusion, appointing her own domestic Agnes the first abbess. At what date Fortunatus visited Poictiers is uncertain, but he was induced to become chaplain and almoner to the convent. Rha- degund employed her poet-chaplain in corre- spondence with the prelates of Gaul, and despatched him from time to time on delicate missions. He thus became intimate with Gregory of Tours, Syagrius of Autun, Felix of Nantes, (iermanus oi Paris, Avitus of Cler- mont, and many others, to whom his poems are addressed. He also composed Lives of the saints, theological treatises, and hymns, including the famous Vexilla Regis, composed for a religious ceremony at Poictiers. The Pange Lingua, though generally ascribed to his pen, was more probably composed, as Sirmond has shewn (in Notis ad Epist. Sidon. Apollin. lib. iii. Ep. 4), by Claudianus Mamer- tus. Fortunatus was ordained priest, and, subsequently to the death of Rhadegund in 597, succeeded Plato in the bishopric of Poictiers ; but died early in the 7th cent. His works comprise : (i) Eleven Books of Miscellanies, chiefly in elegiac verse, interest- ing for the light they throw upon the manners of the time and the history of art {Miscell. i. 12 ; iii. 13), but as literature all but worthless. (2) The l.ife of St. Martin of Tours in four books, consisting of 2,245 hexameter lines, hastily composed, and little more than a metrical version of Severus Sulpicius's incom- parably better prose. (3) .A.n elegiac poem in three cantos, written in the character, and evidently under the inspiration, of Rhadegund. The first, de Excidio Thuringiae, is dedicated to her cousin Amalfred (or Hermanfred) ; the second is a panegyric of Justin II. and his empress Sophia, who had presented Rhadegund with a piece of the true cross. (4) A collection of 150 elegiac verses ad- | FORTY MARTYRS, THE 371 dressed to Rh.idegund and Agnes, and a sh..rt epigram ad Theuchildem. (5) The Lives of eleven saints— Hilary «>( Poitiers, Germain of Paris, Aubin of AuKcrs, Paternusof .Vvranrhcs, Rhadegundof Poictnrs. Amant of Rodez, Medard of Novon. Ri-mv ..( Rheims, I.nbin of Chartres. Mauri! of AnK'<-rs, and Marcel of Paris— but the first book of tlic Life of Hilary and the Lives of the three l.isl- namcd saints ought probably to be attributed to another Fortunatus. To these must be added an account of the martyrdom at Paris of St. Denys, St. Rusticus, and St. ICIeuthenus. His style is pedantic, his taste bad, his grammar and prosody seldom correct for many lines together, but two of his longer poems display a simplicity and path<is foreign to his usual style — viz. that on the marriage of Galesuintha, sister of Brunehaut, with Chil- peric, and his Elegy upon the Fall of Thuringia. The latest and best ed. of his works is by Leo and Krusch {Berlin, 1881-1S85). A good earlier ed. by Luchi is reprinted in Migne's Pair. /.at. Ixxxviii. .\ugustin Thierry, H^ctt.t merovingiens, t. ii. Rccit. vi. ; and .\mpere. Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. 13. [e.m.v.] Fortunatus (18), a bp. who has been con- founded with Vfuaiitius Fortunatus, bp. of Poictiers. B<irn at NiTicllae, he migrated into Gaul, and bccanut intimate with St. Germanus, who induced him to write the Life of St. Marcellus. He was probablv the author of bk. i. of the Life of St. Hilary of Poictiers, and of three other Lives of saints ascribed to his more distinguished namesake. He died at Celles, in the diocese of Sens, c. 569. Rivet, Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii. p. 298. [e.m.y.] Forty Martyrs, The. Three groups occur as such : — (i) Forty soldiers, who suffered under Licinius, 320, at Sebaste in Armenia. A list of their names is given in the martyrology of Ado under March 11. [See Sebaste, Forty Martyrs of, in D. C. A.] They were young, brave, and noted for their services. The emperor having ordained that the military police of the cities should offer sacrifices, the governor called upon these forty to comply. They refused, and withstood both bribes and threats. Thereupon a new punishment was devised. They were immersed for a whole night in a frozen pond, a hot bath being placed within sight for any who might choose to avail themselves of it, their doing so, however, being the sign of apostasv. The trial was too great for one. He left the pond and flmig himself into the bath, but as soon as he touched the hot water he died. The number of forty was not, however, broken. The sentinel who watched the bath saw in a vision angels descend and distribute rewards to all in the pond. The guard at once stripped of! his clothing and took the vacant place in the pond. Next morning they were all flung into fires. There was one Meiito, younger and more vigorous than the rest, whose reS(jlution they thought they might shake. His mother, however, who was present, herself placed him in the exoiij. tioner's cart, saying : " Go, my son, finish this happy voyage with thy comrades, that thoii mayst not be the last presented to (iod." Their relics were carefully preserved and carried to various cities, where many churchet 372 FRAVITTA were built in their honour. The mother Emmelia, and the sister Macrina, of St. Basil obtained some for their monastery near the village of Annesi in Pontus, where already a church had been built in their honour (Greg. Nys. Vit. S. Macrin.). Sozomen (H. E. ix. 2) tells a strange story about another set of their relics. In addition to the authorities quoted, consult Pitra, Analect. Sacr. t. i. p. 599, in Spicil. Solesmense. Their popularity through- out the entire East has ever been very great (cf. Dr. Zirecek, Geschichte der Bulgaren). In Burton's Unexplored Syria, App. ii., a church in their honour is noted at Huns, near Dam- a,scus ; cf. also Melchior de Voglie, Les Eglises de la terre sainte, p. 367. (2) Another set of Forty Martyrs in Persia, 375, is commemorated on May 20 (Assemani, Mart. Orient, i. 141). Among them were the bishops Abdas and Ebed-Jesu. Ceillier, iii. 82, 336 ; Bas. Menol. (3) Under Dec. 24 Forty Virgin Martyrs under Decius at Antioch in Syria are noted in Mart. Hieron., Adon., Usuard. [g.t.s.] Fravltta, 23rd bp. of Constantinople a. p. 489. Our chief authority is Nicephorus Callis- tus, who relates that on the death of .\cacius, the emperor Zeno placed on the altar of tht- great church of Constantinople two sheets of paper. On one was written a prayer that God would send an angel to inscribe on the blank sheet the name of him whom He wished to be the patriarch. A fast of 40 days with prayer was ordered. T^he church was given into the custody of a confidential eunuch, the imperial chamberlain, and the imperial seal set on the casket containing the papers. A pres- byter named Fravitta was in charge of the suburban churcli of St. Thecla. Fired with ambition, he paid the eunuch large suras, and promised him more, to write his name on the blank sheet. .\i the end of the 40 days the casket was opened ; the name of Fravitta was found, and he was enthroned amid universal acclamations. Within 4 months he died, and the powerful eunuch was pressing his executors for the promised gold. They revealed the odious tale to the emperor. The forger was turned out of all his employments and driven from the city. Zeno, ashamed of his failure, entrusted the election of the new patriarch to the clergy. Such is the account of Nicephorus Callistus. In the correspondence between Zeno, Fravitta, and pope Felix on the appointment there is no trace of this story. Fravitta at one and the same time wrote let- ters to Peter Mongus asking for his communion, and a synodal to pope Felix begging his sanc- tion and co-operation. This document was carried to Rome by Catholic monks of Constan- tinople who had always kept separate from Acacius and his friend Mongus. An accom- panying letter of Zeno showed great affection for Fravitta; Zeno had only laboured for his appointment because he thought him worthy and to restore peace and unity to the churches. Pope Felix, delighted with the letters, had Zeno's read aloud to the deputation and all the clergy of Rome, who expressed loud ap- proval. When the pope, however, wished the monks from Constantinople to undertake that the names of Acacius and Mongus should be PRUCTUOSUS rejected from the diptychs, they replied that they had no instructions on that point. The joy of the pope was finally destroyed by the arrival at Rome of a copy of the letter which Fravitta had sent to Mongus. Directly con- trary to that which Felix had received, it actu- ally denied all communion with Rome. The pope would not hear a word more from the nionks. Whether the story of Nicephorus Callistus be true or not, Fravitta stands dis- graced by this duplicity. Niceph. Callist. xvi. 10, Pair. Gk. cxlvii. § 684. p. 152 ; Joann. Zonar. Annul, xiv. iii. Patr. Gk. cxxxiv. § 53, p. 12 14 ; Liberat. Diac. Brev. xviii. Patr. Lat. Ixyiii. ; Felicis Pap. Ep. xii. and xiii. Patr. Lat. Iviii. p. 971 ; Evagr. iii. 23, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. part ii. ; Theoph. Chronogr. 114, Patr. Gk. cviii. p. 324. [w.M.s.] Fructuosus (1), M., bp. of Tarragona in the 3rd cent. The Acta of his martyrdom and of his two deacons and fellow-sufferers, Eulogius and Augurius, are the most ancient Spanish Acta, and marked by a realistic simplicity which contrasts very favourably with many of the Acta of Diocletian's persecution. Pru- dentius made use of them in his hymn to the martyrs {Felix Tarraco Fructuose vestris, etc., Peristeph. vi.), and they are largely quoted by St. Augustine (Serm. 273, Migne, Patr. Lat. xxxviii.). Under Valerian and Gallienus in the consulate of Aemilianus and Bassus (a.d. 259), Aemilianus Praeses of Tarragona issued an edict against the Christians, com- pelling all to sacrifice to the gods. Hearing this, bp. Fructuosus and the whole church of Tarragona gave themselves to unceasing prayer. One night, after Fructuosus had retired, four apparitores appeared at his gate and summoned him and his deacons before the Praeses. This was Sunday, and they remained in prison till Friday, enjoying, however, some intercourse with the brethren outside. Fruc- tuosus even baptized a catechumen within the prison. Appearing before the Praeses, all three simply and steadfastly avowed their faith. Finally the Praeses asked Fructuosus, " Art thou the bishop of the Christians ? " He answered, " I am." The Praeses retorted, " Thou wast," and gave orders for them to be scourged and burnt alive. On their way to the amphitheatre Christians and heathens alike crowded around in sympathy. Some offered Fructuosus a cup of aromatic strength- ening drink. He refused, saying, " It is not yet time to break the fast " (it being Friday, and ten o'clock ; the Friday fast lasting till three). At the gate of the amphitheatre Fructuosus addressed the people. "Be of good cheer ; a pastor shall not be wanting to you, nor shall the love and promise of God fail you, either here or hereafter. For this which you behold is but the infirmity of an hour." After the flames were kindled, the ligatures binding their hands were quickly burnt ; then Fructuosus, consuetudinis memor, fell on his knees and so passed away. This is the account of the Acta printed by Tamayo in the Martyr. Hisp. (vol. i. Jan. 21) from a i4th-cent. calendar in the library of the cathedral of Astorga. It omits important points contained in the Bollandist Acta (A.A. S.S. Jan. ii.), which are the same as those printed by Florez (Esp. Sag. xxv.). [m.a.w.] FRUMENTIUS Frumentlus. [Edesius, 3.] Fulgentius (3), Fabius Claudius Gordianus, bp. of Ruspe, b. 468, d. 533. His life was mostly spent in the provinres of N.W. Africa ruled by the Vandal kings, Genseric, Hunnorir, and Thrasimund, and he suffered from their persecutions. The writings of Fulgentius himself, a biographical memoir prefixed to his works and addressed to bp. Felicianus, his successor, supposed to be by Ferrandus, a deacon of Carthage, and a treatise de Perse- cutione Vandalica, by Victor X'itensis in 487 (Migne, Pair. Lot. t. Iviii.), are the principal sources of information for the Vandal perse- cution in Africa. Every refinement of cruelty seems to have been visited upon the presby- ters, bishops, and virgins of the N. African church during the reigns of Genseric and Hunneric. At the first incursion of the Vandals the whole country was desolated, houses of prayer and basilicas razed, neither age nor sex spared, the tombs of the martyrs rifled for treasure, bishops banished from their sees, virgins basely used, and every effort made to alienate the people from the Catholic faith. At the commencement of Hunneric's reign (Victor, lib. ii.) a gleam of sunshine cheered the church, during which the vacant see of Carthage was filled by Eugenius, whose extraordinary virtues are duly recorded by his biographers. His popularity excited the rage and animosity of the conquerors, who forbade their own people to enter his church. Those who disobeyed were submitted to torture ; some were blinded, and many died of the inhuman treatment. Women were scalped, stripped, and paraded through the streets. Victor says, " We knew many of these." Nor did the orthodox alone suffer. Jocundus, the Arian patriarch, was burned alive, and Manicheans were hunted down like wild beasts. At the end of his 2nd year Hunneric refused all position in the court or executive to any but Arians, and banished to Sardinia all who refused to conform ; heavy pecuniary fines were imposed whenever a bishop was ordained ; many Christian women died under inhuman cruelties, and many were crippled for life. In 486 the bishops and priests were exiled into the desert, and in his 8th year Hunneric issued an edict, still preserved (ib. iii.), summoning the Homoousians to renounce their faith, fixing a date for their submission and for their churches to be destroyed, books burned, and pastors banished. The conse- quences of this edict are detailed with hor- rible circumstantiality by Victor, and even Gibbon considers them inhumanly severe. The cruelties of the Diocletian persecution were equalled, if not surpassed, by these efforts to extirpate the Homoousian faith, (iordian, the grandfather of Fulgentius, a senator of Carthage, was exiled by (ienseric. His two sons returned home during an interval of grace to find their property in the hands of Arian priests. Not being allowed to remain at Carthage, they settled at Telepte in the province of Byzacene. One of them, Claudius, married Maria Anna, a Christian lady, who gave birth in 468 to Fulgentius. His mother was careful that he should study the Greek language, and would not allow him to read Roman literature until he had committed FULGENTIUS 373 to memory the greater part of the pfwms o( Homer and of the plays of Menandcr. He displayed great talent for busirirss and much versatility. His fine rhararter riToninirndrd him to the court, and he was appointrd fisi al procurator of the province. Hut after perus- ing Augustine's comment on I's. xxxvi. (xxxvii. Heb.), he was attracted bv the " plea- sures of a mind at peace with (i<Kl, which fears nothing but sin." Hunneric h.iving ban- ished the bishops to the neighbouring deserts, young Fulgentius began to retire from s<>rietv and devote himself io prayer and various austerities. One of these exiled bishops, Faustus, had formed a little monastery not far from Telepte, to which Fulgentius bet(K«k himself. Owing to the persecution, and at the advice of Faustus, Fulgentius removed to another small monastery, under abbat Felix, between whom and Fulgentius sprang up an enduring friendship. They divided the super- intendence of the monastery between them, Fulgentius undertaking the duties of teacher. Troubles from an incursion of the Nuniidians compelled them to settle at Sicca \ lui ria or Siccensis {Vita. c. ix.). An Arian presbyter in the neichbourhood, alarmed at the influence exercised by the saintly Felix and Fulgentius. laid a plot to rob and torture them. The little company again migrated to Ididi in Mauritania, and here Fulgentius, reading the Institutinnes Cassiani, resolved to go to Egypt and the Thebaid to follow a more severe rule of mortification. At Syracuse he was kindly received by bp. Eulalius, who discouraged his going to the Thebaid, as it was separated by a " perfidious heresy and schism from the com- munion of St. Peter," i.e. the Monophysite doctrine and the schism to which that led in the Egvptian church after the council of Chalcedon', a.d. 451- The advice was followed, and for some months he resided near Syracuse. In 500 he visited Rome, was present at the gorgeous reception given to Theodoric, and that vear returned to .\frica. He received from Sylvester, primarius of Byzacene, a site for a spacious monastery which was at once crowded ; thence he retired to a lonely island, which la( ked wood, drinkable water, and access to the mainland. Here he occupied himself with manual toil and spiritual exercises. Felix, having discovered his retreat, persuaded Faustus to ordain Fulgentius a presbyter, and, under pain of excommunication, to compel a return to his monastery. This was shortly after the death of Hunneric and accession of Thrasimund, who, though an Arian, was more liberal than his predecessors (Gibbon, Smith's ed. vol. iv. c. 37). The little seaport of Ruspe, on a projecting spur of the co.nst near the Syrtis Parva, had remained without a bishop, and desired Fulgentius. who was taken by force from his cell to Victor the prunate of Byzacene and consecrated as its bishop m 508. when 40 years old. He made n<> change in his costume or daily regimen. His first demand from his people was a site for a monas- tery, and his old friend Felix was summoned to preside over it. But Thrasimund dismissed Fulgentius and other newly electe.l bishops to Sardinia. Here, in the name of the 60 exiles, he wrote important letters on questions of theological and ecclesiastical importance. 374 FULGENTIUS His literary faculty, knowledge of Scripture, and repute as a theologian, probably induced Thrasimund to summon him to Carthage, and ten objections to the Catholic faith were pre- sented to him. His reply was his earliest treatise, viz. One Book against the Arians, Ten A nswers to Ten Gbjections. The third objection resembles a common argument of the earlier Arians, viz. that Prov. viii. 22, John xvi. 29, Ps. ii. 7, and other passages imply that the Son is " created," " generated in time," and therefore not of the same substance with the Father, to which Fulgentius replied that they all refer to the Incarnation, and not to the essence of the Son of God. He used the argument of Athanasius, which makes the customary worship of the Son of God verge either on Polytheism or Sabellianism if we do not at the same time recognize the consub- stantiality of the Son. To deny, said Fulgen- tius, the Catholic position, produces the dilemma that the Son of God was either from something or from nothing. To suppose that He was made " out of nothing " reduces Him to the rank of a creature ; while to suppose that He was made " from something," in essence different from God, involves a co- eternal Being, and some form of Manichean dualism. Fulgentius laid the greatest empha- sis on the unity of God's essence, and assumed, as a point not in dispute, that Christ was the object of Divine worship. This throws some light upon the later Arianism. The reply was not considered satisfactory by Thrasimund, who sent another group of objections, which were to be read to Fulgentius. No copy was to be left with him, but he was expected to return categorical answers : a statement vouched for by the opening chapters of the ad Trasimundum Regem Vandalorum Libri tres (cf. Schroeckh, Christliche Kirchenge schtchte, xviii. 108). Bk. i. treats " of the Mystery of the Mediator, Christ, having two natures in one person " ; bk. ii. " of the Immensity of the Divinity of the Son of God " ; bk. iii. " of the Sacrament of the Lord's Passion." In bk. i. Fulgentius displays great familiarity with Scripture, and endeavours to establish the eternal generation of the Logos, and the birth in time of the Christ, when the Logos took flesh, and endeavours to shew that by " flesh " is meant the whole of humanity, body and reasonable soul, just as occasionally by " soul " is denoted not only reasonable soul but body as well. In bk. i. he shews that the whole of humanity needed redemption, and was taken into union with the Eternal Word ; in bk. ii. that nothing less than Deity in His supreme wisdom and power could effect the redemption. In many ways he argues the immensity of the Son and of the Spirit of God. In bk. iii. he opposes strongly not only Patripassianism, but all theopathia, Qeoiraax^- Tia-fx6t and the supposition that the Deity of Christ felt substantialiter the sorrows of the Cross. The dyophysite position is urged with remarkable earnestness, and held to be com- pletely compatible with the unity of the person of Christ. The personality of the Christ the Son of God is distinguished from the person- ality of the Father, with an almost semi-Arian force, while he holds that the nature and sub- stance of the Father and the Son are one and FULGENTIUS the same. " Sicut inseparabilis est unitate naturae sic inconfusibilis permanet proprietate personae" (lib. iii. c. 3). (Cf. " unus omnino; non confusione substantiae ; sed unitate per- sonae," of the Athanasian Creed.) Yet though Christ emptied Himself of His glory. He was full of grace and truth. The two natures were united, not confused, in Christ. But as there was taken up into His one personality the reasonable soul and flesh of man, not a human personality, but human nature, He could weep at the grave of Lazarus and die upon the Cross. Chap. 20 shews conclusively that Ful- gentius must have read as the text of Heb. ii. 9, x'^P^^ ^f°^ rather than xap'^' BeoO, as he lays repeated emphasis on the sine Deo. The author of the Vita assures us that Thrasimund secured the assistance of an Arian bishop, Pint a, to repl)' to these three books, and that Ful- gentius rejoined. The existing work entitled Pro Fide Catholica adv. Pintam Episcopum Arianum, liber unus (0pp. Migne's ed. pp. 708-720) cannot be the work of Fulgentius. The indignation of the Arian party at Carthage led to what is called his second exile. In the dead of night Fulgentius was hurried on board a vessel bound for Sardinia. On reaching Calaris (Cagliari) in Sardinia, he was received by the exiles with great enthusiasm and rever- ence. Here he remained until the king died in 523, and displayed extraordinary energy in literary, polemical, and monastic work. With the assistance of Brumasius, the " antistes " of the city, he built another monastery, where more than 40 monks lived under a strict rule of community of property. The equity, benevolence, and self-abnegation of these coenobites are extolled in high terms, and Fulgentius is especially commended for his sweetness and gentleness to the youngest and weakest, which was never disturbed except when bound by his office and vows to act with severity towards insubordination or sin. Symmachus, bp. of Rome, wrote a letter of congratulation to these valiant champions of Christ (Anast. in Symmacho, Baron, ann. 504). During this period the majority of his extant letters were penned, for the most part in answer to difficult theological questions, and then also Fulgentius revealed his strong agree- ment with Augustine on predestination, grace, and remission of sin, at a time when these doctrines were being called in question by the semi- Pelagians of S. Gaul and N. Africa. Cf. Neander, General Church History, Clark's trans, vol. iv. 417 fi. ; Shedd, Hist, of Christian Doctrine, vol. ii. 104 ff. ; Wiggers, Augustinismus und Pelagianismus, II. Theil, 369-393 ; Schroeckh, xviii. The most extended of these dissertations is ad Monimum, libri tres. I. De duplice prae- destinatione Dei. II. Complectens tres quaes- tiones. III. De vera expositione illius dicti : et verbmn erat apud Deum. Monimus was an intimate friend of Fulgentius, and, on perusing Augustine's de Perfectione Justitiae Hominis, had thought that that Father taught pre- destination to sin as well as to virtue. Fulgentius assured Monimus that God does not predestinate men to sin, but only to the punishment merited by sin, quoting Ezk. xviii. 30. " Sin," said he, " is not in Him, so sin is not from Him. That which is not His work rULOENTIUS FULGENTIUS 375 cannot be His predestination." No constraint entire deferent of the will is meant by predestination, but the the hnnibhst disposition of Divine grace by which (.od pardons one, though He may punish another, gives grace to one who is unworthy of it, even if He find another worthy of His anger. Hk. ii. is occupied with Arian questions as to the Trinity, and the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The rigidity of his ecclesiastical theory is here [ but confirmed bv ' IrUx, tc.k Ihr p.vMt,,,,, of phvte, and nnjy StiftKeMrd nmre vi>;iir<«us wcrk f>>T thr rlerirs, m.-n- frr- quent fasting for the m.-nks. In si^ a r..un< il was held at J <niccnsis, apparcntlv t<> «-nfi>rre a more rigid attention t<> the canons, l-ulgrn- tius was called to preside. His preredmce was disputed by a bishop called <Jnc>dvultdcu», his brethren. After the conspicuous. The charity, the sacrifices, the council, Fulgentius besought out r.f rharity services of heretics are of no avail, since they I that his brethren would transfer this nominal are separated from the Catholic Church. Bk. | precedence to his rival, thus heaping on his iii. replies to the Arian interpretation of head coals of fire. The primate of Carthage, " apud Deum " in John i. i ; to their theory Boniface, sought the jiresence r>f Fulgiiums at that if it had been said " verbum est in Deo," the dedication of a new church, and wept tear* we might have thence deduced the identitv of joy under his powerful discourse. During of the two natures, that "apud" imiilies this period Fulgentius wrote his great work separation and dissimilarity. His argument- against Fabianus, fragments onlv of which um ad homiitem is very ingenious ; the exe- i remain. They discuss a varietv of interestmg getical argument which follows is feeble. I problems bearing on the Divinity of the During this period Fulgentius wrote the ] Holy Spirit and other elements of Trini- Liber ad Donatum de Fide Orthodoxa et Diversis 1 tarian doctrine. The Sermones which remain, Erroribus Haereticorum (Ep. viii. Migne), else- by their flowing eloquence, antithetic style where described as a letter to the Cartha- I and tender sensibility, attest the power of ginians. His object was succinctly to char- | Fulgentius. He powerfully discriminates be- acterize Sabellian, Arian, Macedonian, and tween the Son and the Trinity, and clearly Manichean heresy; he condemns Photinus, implies the double procession of the Holv and the errors of Eutyches and Nestorius by i Spirit. He claims that the Father had created name, declaring that the true doctrine of the , everything by the Son. Men are only wound- church was to assert the two natures, as 1 ed by the poison and malice of creatures by against Eutyches, and to repudiate the two reason of their sins. The mightiest beings are persons, against Nestorius. During his resi- submitted to man. There is no evil in nature, dence in Sardinia an important letter was \ He draws weighty distinctions between the written to Euthymius, de Remissione Pecca- sins of the just and the wicked. torum (§ xiv. Ceillier, p. 527, Mignc). The question was asked by Euthymius, a devout laic, whether remission of sins was possible after death. After a broad description of Ferrandus the deacon asked whether be might count upon the salvation of an Ethio- pian, who had come as a catechumen eagerly desiring baptism, but had died at the moment what remission of sin is, Fulgentius declares | of baptism. Fulgentius starts with the thesis the human conditions to be "faith," "good that faith is the indispensable condition of works," and "time," but it can only be ' ' " secured in the Catholic church, w-hich has power to remit all sin except the sin against the Holy Ghost, which he declares to be " final salvation, baptism or no baptism. Heretics and enemies of the church will not be saved bv baptism. The Ethiopian had given evid- ence of faith, and was baptized, though then impenitence." The utmost stress is laid upon I unconscious, both conditions beinc indispens ... ^jjjg ^1^ salvation. He is therefore saved. But he reprobates baptism of the really dead. for baptism removes the stain and curse of original sin, the seat of which is the soul. H the soul is severed from the body, baptism is worthless. He decides that the benefits of the Eucharist are contained in baptism, and hence, he savs, for many centuries past, infants are not fed with the Eucharist after their baptism. In another correspondence Fulgentius argues that the passion was Christ's qud His whole person, but qua nature it was the of His flesh onlv. His soul and the irreversible condition of the soul at death. All merits are attributed to Divine grace (Wiggers, op. cit. p. 382). The 3 books, de Veritate Praedesiinaiioms et Gratia Det (Migne, p. 604), are addressed to John and V'enerius, to whom other letters were also sent during the 2nd exile (Ep. xv. Ceillier, § x.) on the doctrines of Faustus of Rhegium (de Riez, Riji, sometimes Galliarum). Fulgentius lays down, in opposition to Faustus, that grace can neither be known nor appreciated until given ; that so long as man is without it, he resists it by word or deed. Faustus had spoken of an imperishable grain experience of good in everv man which is nourished by bodv were separated at de.ath. His smil went grace. Free will is this spark of heavenlv fire, 1 to Hades, His body to the gr.ive b'jt "•* not obliterated bv the fall. Fulgentius urged Divine nature at that very moment M\v<.\ jx\\ that there mav be free will, but not free will space and time, tr.gethcr with the Father and to that which is good. the Holy Spirit. „„,,„^ In 523 Thrasimund died, and his successor, Many of th«f me arguments are rrpe.^^^^^^^ Hilderic. allowed the return of the Catholic in the LW/.r ^rf<r«s*rfro /A<r A^.HA5o^VA,«, bishops, and the election of new ones in the who accepted al the rf*''-'*";"^ "' V'-;^' •'!'"• churches still vacant. The bishops were anathematized » >'^^r' .^ .1 ?" li T. Th? received at Carthage with transports of joy, Faustus and asked '"«■ '"'■'•'•■'^,, '^'''•. . ,^" and none with greater enthusiasm than Ful- ■ reply of Fulgentius an.l S otb. r b shop> gentius. who was welcomed with triumphal consists of 67 chapters. .T'"*' P" " * ' J^^c Irches. lamps, torches, and banners. On I interest are that Fulgentms denied that th. arriving at Ruspe. he yielded in the monastery i Virgin was conceived immaculate, and that 376 FULGENTIUS FERRANDUS when speaking of the eternal generation of the Son, he used the bold expression, "ex utero Patris." He laid the strongest emphasis on the Monergistic hypothesis of regeneration, and weakened the universalism of God's love by declaring that " all " does not mean " all men," but "all kinds of men." While pursuing his literary work with such industry, Fulgentius retired from his monas- tery at Ruspe to another on the island of Circina, and redoubled his self-mortifications. Here his health gave way. When told that a bath was absolutely necessary to prolong his life, he obstinately refused to break his rule. He died in Jan. 533, in his 65th year and the 25th of his episcopate, and Felicianus was elected his successor the same day. The most complete ed. of his works wasissued in Paris (1684) by L. Mangeant. The whole, with many letters to which he replied, is in Migne, Pair. Lai. t. Ixv. ; Schroeckh, Kirchen- geschichte, xvii. xviii. 108 ff. [h.r.r.] Fulgentius (4) Ferrandus, a disciple and companion of Fulgentius of Ruspe (3) ; shar- ing his exile to Sardinia during the persecution by the Arian kings of the Vandals. Ferrandus received the hospitality of St. Saturninus at Cagliari, and on the death of Thrasimund, A.D. 523, returned to Carthage, where he be- came a deacon. In all probability he was the author of the Vita prefixed to the works of Fulgentius of Ruspe, and dedicated to Felici- anus. Hoffmann, Lex. s.n. ; Herzog, Encycl. art. by Wagenmann ; Petrus Pithaeus, in preface Lectori, prefixed to Breviatio Canonum Ferrandi, Cod. Canonum, p. 303. Two letters of Ferrandus to Fulgentius are extant (Migne, Patr. Ixv. pp. 378-435), with the lengthy and careful replies of the latter. For the former see Fulgentius (3). The second asked concerning : — i. The Separa- bility of the Persons of the Trinity. 2. Whether the Divinity of the Christ suffered on the cross, or the Divine Person suffered only in the flesh. The fifth question con- cerned the double gift of the cup to the apostles, as mentioned in St. Luke's gospel. Ferrandus was often appealed to for his own theological judgment. His collected writings {Biblioth. Patr. Chiffietius, 1649) preserve one entitled de Dttahus in Christo naturis, and an Episiola Anatolio de qiiaestione an aliquis ex Trinitate passus est. He is also the author of a Breviatio canonum ecclesiasticorum {Codex Canonum, F. Pithaeus, and Miscellanea Eccle- siastica, Petrus Pithaeus, pp. 303 ff.), a collec- tion and digest of 232 canons of the earliest councils, Nicaea, Laodicea, Sardica, Constanti- nople, Carthage, etc., chiefly appertaining to the election, ordination, and character of bishops, presbyters, and deacons ; the feasts of the church ; the duties of virgins, cate- chumens, etc. It is thought to have been compiled during the reign of Anastasius (d. 518). Ferrandus appears to have had his knowledge of the Greek councils through a translation and digest of such canons as had been previously in use in Spain. The mention of later synods and writings has led others to believe that the Breviatio was compiled c. 547. [Canon Law, D. C. A.] Ferrandus took a not unimportant part in the violent dis- cussions produced by the edict of Justinian I. | GALERIUS (the Capitula Tria), which condemned cer- tain passages from Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Ibas of Edessa. Ferrandus was backed by the vehemently orthodox and dyophysite spirit of the N. African church, and in a letter (546) to Anatolius and Pelagius, two deacons of the Roman church, whom Vigilius instructed to communicate with him, declared against the reception of the edict of Justinian. The most complete ed. of his works is by Chiffletius (Dijon, 1649). The two letters to Fulgentius of Ruspe are in Sirmond's and Migne's edd. of Fulgentii 0pp. [h.r.r.1 Fundanus (1) Minucius, proconsul of Asia in the reign of Hadrian. He received the imperial instructions applied for by his pre- decessor Granianus as to how Christians were to be dealt with (Justin. Mart. Apol. i. § 69 ; Bus. H. E. iv. 9). [Hadrianus (l).] This rescript seems to shew that a Christian was not to be tried merely for being a Christian, but only for some definite breach of the law. As this might be due to principles, Christianity would remain still punishable, but only in overt act. [ch.] Galenus, Claudius, physician, born a.d. 130 at Pergamus, flourished chiefly at Rome under the Antonines, and died in 200 or 201. For a full account see D. of G. and R. Biogr. He belongs to church history only because of a few incidental words referring to Christianity that occur in his voluminous writings. Thus in his de Pulsuum Differentiis (lib. iii. cap. 3, suh. fin. in 0pp. t. viii. p. 657, ed. Kiihn) he writes : " It is easier to convince the disciples of Moses and Christ than physicians and philosophers who are addicted to particular sects" ; and (lib. ii. cap. 4, p. 579) he condemns the method of Archigenes, who requires bis dicta to be received absolutely and without demonstration, " as though we were come to the school of Moses and of Christ." In the de Renum Affectuum Dignotione (Kiihn, t. xix.) there are other references, but that treatise is spurious. An Arabic writer has preserved a fragment of Galen's lost work, de Republicd Platonis, which reads : " We know that the people called Christians have founded a religion in parables and miracles. In moral training we see them in nowise in- ferior to philosopiiers ; they practise celibacy, as do many of their women ; in diet they are abstemious, in fastings and prayers assiduous ; they injure no one. In the practice of virtue they surpass philosophers ; in probity, in continence, in the genuine performance of miracles (vera miraculorum patratione — does he mean the Scripture miracles, on which their religion was based ?) they infinitely excel them " (Casiri, Biblioth. Arabico-Hispatia, vol. •• P- 253). For apologetic remarks on Galen's testimony see Lardner's Credibility {Works, vol. vii. p. 300, ed. 1838). [ch.] Galerius, emperor. (Gaiv.s Galerius Valerius Maximianus on his coinage ; called Maximus in some Acts of martyrs, that having appar- ently been his name until Diocletian changed it ; see Lact. Mart. 18 ; nicknamed Armen- tarius from his original occupation.) He was a native of New Pa;cia, on the S, of the GALERIUS Danube. His mother Romula had fled thither for refuge from the predatory Carpi, who pillaged her own country on the N. side (Lact. Mort. q ; Aur. Vict. Eptt. xl. 17). As a youth he was a neatherd, but soon joined the armv under Aurelian and Probus. Without education or virtues, he raised himself bv undoubted military gifts, until he was selected (together with Constantius) by Diocletian to fill the office of Caesar of the East in Diocle- tian's famous scheme for the reorganizati<n\ of the empire, a.d. 292. He married Valeria, the Christian daughter of Diocletian. There were no children of the marriage, which was anything but happy, but the gentle Valeria adopted her husband's bastard son Candidian. Galerius had none of the gifts of a ruler, nor any appreciation of his father-in-law's policy, but his authority with the army made him a useful coadjutor. Five years after his call to the Caesarship (a.d. 297) he was sent to con- duct the chief war of the reign of Diocletian, the last which ever gave the Capitol a triumph, against Narses, king of Persia. After an im- successful first campaign, he utterly routed Narses, and forced him to purchase peace at the cost of five provinces near the source of the Tigris. The year 303 brought Galerius prominently into contact with the church. He had con- ceived a hatred for the Christians, originating (so far as we can see) almost whollv in his fanatical superstition and aversion to Chris- tian morality. His mother was a noted votaress of the Phrygian orgies, and plied her son continually with entreaties to demolish Christianity. She was supported by the magician and so-called Platonist Theo- TECNUS (Cedr. vol. i. p. 47, ed. Bonn), who had also acquired an ascendancy over Galerius. The winter of 302-303 was spent by Galerius at Xicomedia. where he used every effort to compel the reluctant Diocletian to annul the legislation of Gallienus, to break the forty years' amity between the empire and the church, and to crush Christianity. Step by step he gained his points, until Diocletian consented to proscribe the open profession of Christianity and to take all measures to sup- press it, short of bloodshed (Lact. Mort. 11, " rem sine sanguine transigi "). The first edict of Diocletian, however, was not strong enough to content Galerius. The demolition of buildings which proclaimed the power of the church, the prohibition of synaxis, the burning of the books used in the Christian ritual, the civic, social, and military degradation of Christians, were too slow ways of abolishing it. His one desire was to remove Diocletian's expressive clause, that " no blood was to be shed in the transaction." A fire broke out in the part of the palace where Diocletian lived. Lactantius, then resident at Nice- media, asserts that it was set alight by Galerius, whose object was to persuade the Augustus that his trusty Christian chamber- lains were conspiring against him ; but on application of torture to the wh(jle household, they were acquitted. A fortnight later an- other occurred, and Galerius (who, ostensibly to escape assassination, perhaps really to avoid discovery, immediately departed) convinced Diocletian of the existence of a Christian plot, GALERIUS 377 and the empcrcr si^ncl his scmnd rdic t, ordering the mcarceralmn of the fnltre clrrgy, though even now there w;is to be no bl<MKl<thrd. I In putting these edicts into rxrruti<«n I Galerius shews occasional signs of a reluctant intention to adhere to the principles of Dn>- I cletian's legislation. His return tc. his own province in 304 was marked by a sudden cr<>wd ■ of martyrdoms where the edicts had before I not even been published, but his condurt in the case of St. Komams shews that, when directly appealed to, he felt bound to forbid I the capital punishment of even obstreperous Christians (Eus. Mart. Pal. ii.). The time I was coming, however, when (lalerius was to have more liberty of action. In 304, probably j during a total collapse of Diocletian's health, i the so-called Fourth Edict was issued bv I Maximian, no doubt in conjunction with I Galerius, making death the penalty of Chris- j tianity. Diocletian began to recover in Marrh I 305, and abandoned his long-held intention j of abdicating on May i in that year, not I improbably because of the commotion which j had been caused by the Fourth Edict. Gal- erius, who had long coveted the promised diadem, would brook no more delav. and with much violence compelled the enfrebUd Augustus to retire, leaving himself nominally second to Constantius, whose death in July 306 left Galerius supreme. Political troubles which followed did not divert Galerius from persecution. On Mar . 31, 308. he issued, in conjunction with his nephew Maximin, a bloody edict against the I Manicheans ICod. Greg. ed. Hiinel, lib. xiv. p. 44*). For the date see the present wTiter's essay on The Persecution of Diocletian, p. 279. The same year saw an order to substitute mutilation for death in cases of Christianity ; as Euscbius says (Mart. Pal. ix ), " The con- flagration subsided, as if quenched with the streams of sacred blood." But the relaxation was only for a few months. The autumn of 308 saw a new edict issued, which began a perfect reign of terror for two full vears, the most prolific in bloodshed of any in the history of Roman persecutions ; and the vast major- ity of persons who in the East (for the perse- cution in the West had ceased with the accession of Constantine and usurpation of Maxentius) are celebrated as " martyrs under Diocletian " really suffered between 308 and 311. This part of the persecution bears marks, however, of the influence of .Maxiniin Daza rather than of (Jalerius. Towards the close of 310 Galerius was seized with an incur able malady, partially caused by his vicious life. This gradually developed into the frightful disease vulgarly known as being " eaten of worms." The fact rests not onlv on the authority of the church historians (Eus. H. E. viii., xvi. 3 flf. ; Lact. Mnrt. 33). but also upon that of the pagan Aurdius Victor {Eptt. xl. 4) and the fragment known as Anonymous Valesii. (ialeriiis. face to (ace with so awful a death, thought (apparently) that a compromise might be efle( te<l with the God of the Christians, whom he undoubtedly recognized as an active and hostile power. From his dving-bed was issued his famous Edict of Toleration, bearing the signatures also of Constantine and of Licinius, which virtually 378 GALLA PLACIDIA put an end to the " Persecution of Diocletian." This most extraordinary document may be read in full in Eus. H. E. viii. 17, and Lact. Mort. 34. The origin of the persecution is ascribed to the fact that the Christians had wilfully departed from the " institutions of the ancients which had peradventure been first set on foot by their own forefathers," and had formed schismatical assemblies on their own private judgment. Primitive Christianity is here meant by the phrase institutaveterum, and the edicts were asserted to have had no object but to bring the Christians back to it. But Galerius was now determined, under certain unspecified conditions, to allow Christianity once more and to permit the building of churches. In return, the Christians are told to pray to their God for the recovery of Galerius. Thus did the dying persecutor try to pose as a kind reformer, and to lead the God of the Christians to remit his temporal punishment. " The Unknown God to Whom he had at last betaken himself gave no answer to his insolent and tardy invocation " (De Broglie, i. 207). The edict was posted at Nicomedia on April 30; he died on May 5 or 13, 311. [a.j.m.] Galla (5) Plaoidia, daughter of Theodosius I., by his second wife Galla. When in 410 Rome was captured by Alaric, Placidia was taken prisoner, but was treated with great respect (Olympiod. ap. Phot. Biblioth. Ixxx. ; Zos. Hist. vi. 12), and in Jan. 414, at Narbona in Gaul, married Ataulphus, who had suc- ceeded his uncle Alaric. After the death of Ataulphus, Placidia returned to Italy, a.d. 416, and dwelt with her paternal uncle Honorius, at Ravenna. In Jan. 417 she married Constan- tius. By him she had two children, Valentinian and Honoria (Olympiod. ti.s.) Her influence over Constantius was soon shewn in his active persecution of the Pelagians (Prosp. Chron. s.a. 418), when, in Feb. 421, Honorius admitted Constantius to a share of the empire. On Sept. II, 421, Constantius died. Placidia again took up her abode with Honorius at Ravenna, but their mutual affection being replaced by bitter hate, which occasioned serious disturb- ances in the city, she and her children were sent to Theodosius II. at Constantinople (Olympiod. m.s.). On the death of Honorius in Aug. 423, Theodosius declared for Valentinian. Valentinian being but a child, the author- ity of Placidia was now supreme, and among her first acts was the issue of three edicts in rapid succession for the banishment of all " Manicheans, heretics, and schismatics, and everv sect opposed to the Catholic faith " {Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 62, July 17 ; ib. 63, Aug. 4 ; ib. 64, Aug. 6, 425, all dated from Aquileia), meaning especially the adherents of the anti- pope Eulalius, who were still numerous in Rome. These edicts were soon followed by an- other of great severitv, directed against apos- tates {Cod. Theod. XVI. vii. 8, Apr. 7, 426). In 427 the machinations of Aetius put Placidia in conflict with her tried friend Boni- face, count of Africa, who, in despair, ap- pealed for help to the Vandals, and Africa was overrun by their forces. Placidia ex- plained matters to Boniface, and urged him to do his best to repair the injury which the empire had sustained. But it was too late ; the Vandals were masters of the country, and GALLIENUS Africa was lost (Procop. Bell. Vandal, i. 4 ; Augustine, Ep. 220 ; Gibbon, c. xxxiii.). In 449 Placidia was at Rome with Valen- tinian. The legates of Leo had just returned from the Robber Council of Ephesus. Leo bitterly bewailed the doings of that assembly to Placidia, who immediately wrote to Theo- dosius and his sister Pulcheria, intreating them to interfere in defence of the faith of their ancestors and to procure the restoration of Flavian, the deposed bp. of Constantinople (Cone. Chalced. pt. i. Ep. 26, 28, 30 ; Labbe, iv. 53, 55, 58). She died soon afterwards at Rome, and was buried at Ravenna (Idatius, Chr. s.a. ; Gibbon, M.S.). [t.w.d.] Gallienus, P. Licinius, emperor, son of Valerian, appointed by the senate coadjutor to his father very shortly after Valerian's suc- cession in Aug. 253. In 260 his father's captivity in Persia left him politically irre- sponsible. One great act brings him into church history. On his father's fall, he was legally bound to put every clergyman to death wherever found, and to deal in almost as summary a fashion with all other Christians. [Valerian.] Gal- lienus had had three years' experience of the difficulty and wearisomeness of this task. The " Thirty Tyrants," moreover, were foes formidable enough to attract what little attention could be spared from pleasure. Accordingly, in 261 he issued a public edict, by which Christianity was for the first time put on a clearly legal footing as a religio licita. This edict is the most marked epoch in the history of the church's relation to the state since the rescript of Trajan to Pliny, which had made Christianity distinctly a religio illicita. The words in which Eusebius describes the edict (the text of which is lost) imply no more than that actual persecution was stopped {H. E. vii. 13), which might have been done without a legal recognition of Christianity ; but Eusebius has preserved a copy of the encyclical rescript which the emperor ad- dressed to the Christian bishops of the Egyp- tian province, which shews that the position of " the bishops " is perfectly recognized by the pagan government. The rescript informs the bishops that orders have been issued to the pagan officials to evacuate the consecrated places ; the bishops' copies of the rescript will serve as a warrant against all interference in reoccupying. Thus formally, universally, and deliberately was done what Alexander Severus had done in an isolated case in a freak of generosity — i.e. the right of the Corpus Christianorum to hold property was fully recognized. If Christianity had not been explicitly made a religio licita, this would have been impossible. The great proof, however, of the footing gained by the church through Gallienus's edict lies in the action of his suc- cessor Aurelian in the matter of Paul of Samosata. Though Aurelian's bigoted sun- worship and hatred of the church were well known, and his death alone prevented a great rupture, the Catholics were so secure of their legal position as actually to appeal to the emperor in person to decide their dispute ; and Aurelian, as the law then stood, not only recognized the right of the church to hold property, but also to decide internal disputes GALLUS CAESAR (though they rdiirerned pruporty) according to her own nictliods. [a.j.m.] Gallus (1) Caesar, son of Julius Constantius (youngest brother oi Constantino the tlreat) and his first wife Galla ; born a.d. 325 at Massa X'eternensis near Siena in Tuscany (Amm. xiv. 11, 27). In the general massacre of the younger branches of the imperial family on the death of Constantine in 337, two young brothers were alone preservecl — (".alius wiio wa* ill of a sickness which seemed likely to be mortal, and Julian a child of seven. Both were brought up as Christians, and entered with apparent zeal into the externals of the Christian life. In 350 dallus received the dignity of Caesar, which the childless 1 Constantius bestowed upon him on succeed- ing to the sole government of the empire by the death of his brother Constans. In the West Constantius was distracted by the usurpation of Magnentius in Gaul, while in the East the Persians were a perpetual source ' of alarm. Callus had to make a solemn I oath upon the Ciospels not to undertake any- \ thing against the rights of his cousin, who similarly pledged himself to Ciallus. He received at the same time the strong-minded \ and unfeminine Constantina as his wife, and Lucilianus, the count of the East, as his general (Zos. 2, 45. Philost. iv. i refers to the oath between Constantius and Gallus; cf. Chron. Pasch. p. 540 ; Zonaras, xiii. 8). | The records of his short reign at Antioch j come to us chiefly from Ammianus flib. xiv.). ' They arc almost entirely unfavourable to him. His defence of the frontier against the Per- sians was indeed successful (Zos. 3, i ; Philost. iii. 28, speaks strongly on this point), but his internal policy was disastrous. Besides the report of his harsh and open misgovernment, accounts of secret treason meditated by him were conveyed to Constan- tius. The emperor, with his usual craft, sent an affectionate letter and desired his presence, as he wished to consult him on urgent public business (.Amm. xiv. 11, i). When he arrived at Petovio in Noricum, he was seized by the count Barbatio, deprived of his imperial insignia, and conveyed, with many protesta- tions that his life was safe, to Flanon in Dal- matia, where he was closely guarded. The all-powerful eunuch Eusebiiis was then sent to interrogate him upon his various crimes, (iallus did not deny them, but blamed his wife. Constantius ordered his execution, which took place towards the close of 354. His instruction had been Arian under the direction f>i Constantius. and he seems to have been influenced not a little by the Anomoean Aetius. This nf)torious man had been sent to him to be put to death as a heretic. Gallus spared him on the intercession of Leontius, bp. of Antioch, and became very friendly with him. According to Philostorgius, he made him his religious instructor, and attempted by his means to recall Julian to the faith, when he heard that he was wavering (Philost. H. E. iii. 27). There is no reason to df)ubt that the young Caesar was a zealous Christian after a sort, and that he was distressed by his brother's danger of apfistasy. fj-^^'-l Gallus (11), abbat, the apostle of Switzer- land. One primary authority is the Vita S. GAUDENTIUS 379 Gain, compiled bv Walafrid Slrabo, abbat of Reichenau (a.d. 842-840). and pub. bv Suriu* iV'itae Sand. Oct. 16. t. iv. jsj spq.. Colon. 161 7), by Mabillon (Acta SS. O.S.B. ii. 215 seq.), and Migne {I'atr. I.at. rxiii. 075 scq.). Another Vtia >. (,alU. .x .MS. St. (.,<ll. 55 ?. is published bv l'..rt/ {Mon. C.erm. Hiit. {i iSo). The original donnncnts are to hr found in Wartmann's Strkundfnhuch Jcr Ablet St. Gallm, vols, i.-iii. iHOs-i^.'^z. He undoubtedly was of Irish birth, and his original name was Cellach. Calech, or Caillerh. Trained at Bangor, in the famous sch<K>l of Si. Comgall. he accompanied Colunibanus into Gaul. A.D. 585, and in his exile from I.uxcuil along the Rhine into Switzerland, and, ap- parently from his aptness at learning the languages, proved a most useful assistant in preaching to the Suevi, Helvetii, and neighbouring tribes. [Colimbants.) When Colunibanus in 612 left Switzerland to escape the persecution of the Burgundian court, (iallus was detained at Bregenz by a fever, but as soon as he couUl, returned to his friend the priest Willimar, at Arbona on the S. shore of the Lake of Constance, and devoted his re- maining years to the conversion of the wild tribes inhabiting this eastern frontier of Austrasia. On the banks of the Steinaha or Steinach he built his cell and oratory, in the midst of a thick forest. Twelve others accompanied him. His collection of rude huts determined the site of the town and monastery of St. Gall. When the see of Constance became vacant in 616, the epis- copate was urgently pressed upon him, and again in 625, but he declined, and was allowed to nominate his deacon John, a native of the place. The sermon he preached at John's I consecration is extant in Latin — a wonderful specimen of Irish erudition, simple yet full of vigour, learned and devout, giving an abstract I of the history of God's dealings from the j creation, of the fall and redemption, of the mission of the apostles and calling of the Gen- tiles, and ending with a powerful appeal to I Christian faith and life, which gives some idea of the state of the corrupt and barbarous society he was seeking to leaven. Beyond these few incidents we know little. He died Oct. 16, 645 or 646, at .\rbona. aged 95, but ; some propose an earlier date. The oratorv of St. Gall gave rise to one of ■ the most celebrated monasteries of the middle ages, and its library to this day stands un- rivalled in the wealth and variety of its ancient manuscripts. (For an account of the schf>o| of St. Gall and its cultivation of the fine arts, see Htst. lit. de la France, iv. 243-246.) [j.r,.] GaudentiUS, bp. of Brescia (Brixia), suc- cessor of I'uii. ASTER (Philastrius) c. a.d. 387, Of the early life t.f Gaudentius nothing i* known for certain. He was probably a native of Brescia ; at any rate, he was well known there in his youth. From the language which ' he uses in reference to his predecessor he \ appears to have been intimately acquainted j with him (though Tillemont is wrong in hi* I interpretation of the words "ego . . . minima ejus pars "). He had a brother Paul, in <lpa- con's orders (" fraler carnis et spiritus ger- I manitate carissime" — though hismetaphoric-al I use of similar language in speaking of St. 380 GAUDENTIUS Peter and St. Paul as " vere consanguinei fratres, . . . sanguinis communione germanos " makes the point somewhat doubtful). While still a young man he went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land, as many of his contempor- aries did (cf. Hieron. Epp. 44, 48). His way lay through Cappadocia. At Caesarea he made the acquaintance of two nieces of St. Basil, " mothers " of a convent there, who gave him some ashes of the famous Forty of Sebastia, which had been given to them by their uncle. These ashes, or rather the Forty themselves, he says, were his " faithful com- panions " on the rest of the journey ; and at a later time he deposited them, with other relics which he had collected, in a basilica which he built at Brescia and called the Concilium Sanctorum. At Antioch, probably, he became acquainted with St. John Chrysostom, who never forgot the warmth of affection which he then shewed. Gaudentius was in the East when Philaster of Brescia died. The people of Brescia elected him to be their bishop. They were rash enough to bind themselves with an oath, so Gaudentius says, that they would have him and no other. A deputation of them was sent out to him, reinforced by urgent letters from St. Ambrose and other bishops of the province. Gaudentius resisted, but the Eastern bishops among whom he was sojourning went so far as to threaten to ex- communicate him if he would not comply. At last his resistance broke down. He returned, and was consecrated to the vacant see, pre- sumably by St. Ambrose himself. The address which was delivered on that day, according to custom, by the newly consecrated bishop has been preserved (Serm. xvi.). St. Ambrose was present at the delivery of it, and was expected to follow it up with an address of his own. The episcopate of Gaudentius was not, so far as we know, eventful. But there was one remarkable adventure in the course of it. In the year 404 or 405 he was chosen, along with two other bishops and two Roman priests, to bear to the Eastern emperor Arcadius an epistle from his Western colleague Honorius. and from Innocent I. of Rome and the Italian bishops, urging that an oecumenical council should be convened, to examine the case of St. John Chrysostom, who had been deposed and banished from Constantinople. Palla- dius (Dial. c. 4\ who accompanied the envoys and who gives us this information, does not, indeed, mention the see of the envoy Gaud- entius ; but no other bearer of the name is so likely to have been chosen as the bp. of Brescia. The mission was ineffectual, and such sufferings were inflicted upon the envoys as might well earn for Gaudentius his title of " Confessor." He received a warm letter of thanks from St. Chrysostom {Ep. 184) for his exertions on his behalf. The letter probably refers to exertions preparatory to the mission, or the reference to the fate of the mission would have been more explicit. How long Gaudentius held his see is not certain. In his sermon on Philaster he men- tions that it is the fourteenth time that he has pronounced his yearly paneg>Tic ; but as the date of his consecration to the episcopate is conjectural, this indication is not decisive. That he was still bishop in 410 appears from GAUDENTIUS the fact that the learned Rufinus dedicated to him, in or about that year, his trans, of the Clementine Recognitions, in which he describes him as " nostrorum decus insigne doctorum," and says that every word that fell from him deserved to be taken down for the benefit of posterity. Rufinus refers particularly to his knowledge of Greek ; and though he does not directly name the see which he held, the identification is aided by his statement that the Gaudentius to whom his work was dedi- cated was heir to the virgin Silvia — probably the Silvia, sister-in-law of Rufinus the well- known praefectus orientis, to whom Gamur- rini attributes, though probably without good reason, the Peregrinatio he discovered in 1884. This Silvia is known to have been buried at Brescia (Gamurrini, Peregrinatio, p. xxxvi ; Butler, Lansiac Hist. i. p. 296, ii. pp. 148, 229). Gaudentius was buried in a church at Brescia, which is thought to be the same as his own Concilium Sanctorum. Gaudentius was not a writer. The most modest of men, he thought it enough if he might instruct the flock committed to him by word of mouth (Praefatio ad Benivolum). But there was a leading magistrate of Brescia named Benivolus, who had formerly (in 386) thrown up his situation in the imperial service rather than abet the attacks of Justina upon St. Ambrose. This man, one year, was hindered by sickness from attending the Easter services. He begged Gaudentius to wTite down for him the addresses which he had failed to hear. Gaudentius complied. In addition to the eight discourses on the directions in Exodus concerning the Passover and two on the Marriage at Cana, which had been delivered during that Eastertide, he sent also four on various Gospel texts, and a fifth on the Maccabean martyrs. Besides these fifteen sermons sent to Benivolus, four occa- sional sermons of his are in existence, taken down in shorthand and published (apparently) without his consent. They were delivered re- spectively on the day of his own consecration, at the dedication of his new basilica, at Milan by desire of St. Ambrose on the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, and on the anniversary of his predecessor's death. To these sermons are added two expository letters, one to a man named Serminius on the Unjust Steward, the other to his brother Paul on the text "My Father is greater than I." Gaudentius felt himself bound, like others of his time, to give "spiritual," i.e. allegorical, interpretations of his texts. These are often in the highest degree fantastic, and have drawn upon their author the severe criticism of Du Pin (Bibl. eccl. siecle v. pt. i.). But Gaudentius generally prepares for them by a literal interpretation, and when he does so, the exegesis is usually marked by good sense. Gaudentius is interested in textual criticism, and more than once remarks on the corre- spondence or conflict between the Latin text, as he knows it, and the Greek. He is an independent interpreter himself {Serm. xix., " Ego tamen pro libertate fidei opportunitatem dictorum secretus traxi ad." etc.), and vin- dicates the like freedom for others {Serm. xviii. " Nulli praejudicaturus, qualiter inter- pretari voluerit "). When dealing with moral GAUDENTIUS subjects there is a line elevation in his utter- ance. As a theologian he has a firm grasp on the Nicene doctrine as taught by St. Ambrose. Arianism is a defeated foe (Serm. xxi. " Fur- entein eo tempore Ari.iu.mi pertidiam "), but one that still needs \igorous refutation. In regard to other doctrinal points, it may be observed that, however strongly (.iaudentius expresses himself about the Holy Eucharist '. in the terms of his age (Serm. ii. 244), he insists | chiuracteristically that the Flesh and Blood of i Christ are to be spiritn.illy understood {ib. .141, " Agni carnes, id est, doctrinae ejus viscera "). He puts much faith in the inter- cessions of the saints, though he does not directly speak of invoking them (Serm. xvii. XX. xxi. ad fin.). He dwells with emphasis on the supernatural character of our Lord's birth, not only of His conception {e.g. Serm. viii. 270, ix. 281). His style is easy ; his sen- tences often admirably terse and pointed {e.g. Pnief. 227, "Si autem Justus es, nomen quidem justi praesumcre uon audebis ; Serm. vii. 265, " Quod Deus majorem causara tunc ulcis- cendi habeat, si in exiguis rebus, ubi nulla difficultas est observandi, pervicaci tantum spiritu contemnatur "). His sermons pre- serve a good many interesting notes of the life of the time {e.g. Serm. xiii., the beggars at the church door, the dread of the barbarian invasions, the landowner who leaves his labourers to be supported by the church, the horses and mules adorned with gold and silver, the heathen altar allowed to remain on a Christian man's estate). His vocabulary is rather interesting ; he uses popular words (e.g. brodium) on the one hand, and recherche words {e.g. peccamen, victorialis) on the other. It has been made the subject of a special study by Paucker {Zeitschr. f. d. osterreich. Gymnasien, xxxii. pp. 481 ff.). The chief ed. of his works is that of Paolo Gagliardi (Galeardus), canon of Brescia, pub. at Padua in 1720, or rather the second and improved ed. of 1738, printed at Brescia. This is reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. xx. Accounts of Gaudentius and his works will be found in Tillemont, t. x. pt. 2 ; in Nirschl, Lehrbuch d. Patrologie (Mainz, 1883), ii. pp. 488 ff. ; in Hauck-Herzog Realencycl. vi. (by Leimbach); and in VVetzer and Welte, Kirchen- lex. v. (bv Hefele). [a.j.m.1 Gaudentius (7), Donatist bp. of Thamugada (Temugadi), a town of Numidia, about 14 Roman miles N.E. of Lambesa (Ant. Itin. 34, 2), one of the seven managers on the Donatist side in Carth. Conf., a.d. 411 (Mon. Vet. Don. pp. 288, 408, ed. Oberthiir). His name is chiefly known by his controversy with St. Augustine, c. 420. Dulcitius had informed him what was the course intended by the. imperial government towards the Donatists. Gaudentius replied in two letters, which Dul- citius sent to Augustine, whose reply to them in two books entitled contra Gaudentium (Aug. 0pp. vol. ix. 707-751, ed. Migne) may be regarded as representing the close of the Donatist controversy (vol. i. p. 895). The Donatist cause, already languishing, from this time fell into a decay, to which these trea- tises of St. Augustine materially contributed. Sparrow Simpson, S. Aug. and African Ch. Divisions (1910), pp. i33-i37- [h.w.p.] GELASIUS 381 Gelasius (l) I., bp. of Rome after Felix III. (or II.) from Mar. 4<)2 to Nov. 496, during about 4i years. M the time of his accession the schism between the Western and Eastern churches, which had begun under his prede- cessor, had lasted more than 7 years. Its occasion had been the excommunication, by pope Felix, of Acacius, patriarch of Constan- tinojile, for supporting and communicatinn; with Peter Mongus, the once Monophysite patriarch of .\lexandria, who had, however, satislied .\cacius by subscribing the Henoticon, and afterwards the Nicene creed. There had been other grounds of complaint against Acacius, notably his disregard of the authority of the Roman see ; but the above had been the original cause of quarrel. [Felix III. ; Acacius (7).] .\cacius being now dead, the dispute con- cerned only the retention of his name in the diptychs of the Eastern church. Felix had demanded its erasure as a condition of inter- communion with his successors, but they had refused to comply. The patriarch of Con- stantinople was now Euphemius ; the emperor Anastasius. On his accession Gelasius wrote a respectful letter to the emperor, who did not reply. To Euphemius the new pope did not write, as was usual, to inform him of his accession. Euphemius, however, wrote twice to Gelasius, expressing a strong desire for reconciliation between the churches, and a hope that Gelasius would, through condescen- sion and a spirit of charity, be able to restore concord. He insisted that Acacius himself had been no heretic, and that before he communicated with Peter Mongus the latter had been purged of heresy. He asked by what synodical auth(jrity Acacius had been condemned ; and alleged that the people of Constantinople would never allow his name to be erased ; but suggested that the pope might send an embassy to Constantinople to treat on the subject. Gelasius, in his reply, couched in a tone of imperious humility, utterly refuses any compromise. He speaks of the custom of the bishops of the apostolic see notifying their elevation to inferior bishops as a condescension rather than an obligation, and one certainly not due to such as chose to cast in their lot with heretics. He treats with contempt the plea of the determined attitude of the people of Constantinople. The shep- herd ought, he says, to lead the flock, not the flock control the shepherd. The letter thus asserts in no measured terms the supremacy of the see of Rome, and the necessity of sub- mitting to it. " We shall come," he con- cludes, " brother Euphemius, without doubt to that tremendous tribunal of Christ, with those standing round by whom the faith has been defended. There it will be proved whether the glorious confession of St. Peter has left anything short for the salvation of those given to him to rule, or whether there has been rebellious and pernicious obstinacy in those who were unwilling to obey him." In 493 Gelasius wrote a long letter to the Eastern bishops. Its main drift was to justify the excommunication of .Acacius by asserting that he had exceeded his powers in absolving Peter Mongus without the authority of the Roman see, and plainly asserts the supremacy 382 GELASttIS of the apostolic see over the whole church as due to the original commission of Christ to St. Peter, and as having always existed prior to, and independent of, all synods and canons. He speaks of " the apostolical judgment, which the voice of Christ, the tradition of the elders, and the authority of canons had supported, that it should itself always deter- mine questions throughout the church." As to the possibility of Acacius being absolved now, having died excommunicate, he says that Christ Himself, Who raised the dead, is never said to have absolved those who died in error, and that even to St. Peter it was on earth only that the power of binding and loosing had been given. Such a tone was not calculated to conciliate. The name of Gelasius himself was therefore removed from the diptychs of the Constantinopolitan church. Gelasius wrote a long letter to the emperor in a similar vein, and exhorted him to use his temporal power to control his people in spiritual as well as mundane matters. This letter is note- worthy as containing a distinct expression of the view taken by Gelasius of the relations between the ecclesiastical and civil jurisdic- tions. Each he regards as separate and supreme in its own sphere. As in secular things priests are bound to obey princes, so in spiritual things all the faithful, including princes, ought to submit their hearts to priests ; and, if to priests generally, much more to the prelate of that see which even supreme Divinity has willed should be over all priests, and to which the subsequent piety of the general church has perpetually accorded such pre-eminence. Gelasi\is also wrote on the same subjects to the bishops of various provinces, including those of East lUyricura and Dardania. In his address to the last he enlarges on its being the function of the Roman see, ncjt only to carry out the decisions of synods, but even to give to such decisions their whole authority. Nay, the purpose of synods is spoken of as being simply to express the assent of the church at large to what the pope had already decreed and what was therefore already binding. This, he says, had been the case in the instance of the council of Chalcedon. Further, instances are alleged of popes having on their own mere authority reversed the decisions of synods, absolved those whom synods had condemned, and condemned those whom synods had absolved. The cases of Athanasius and Chrysostom are cited as examples. Lastly, any claim of Constantinople (contemptuously spoken of as in the diocese of Heraclea) to be exempt from the judgment of " the first see " is put aside as absurd, since " the power of a secular kingdom is one thing, the distribution of ecclesiastical dignities another." In 495 Gelasius convened a synod of 46 bishops at Rome to absolve and restore to his see Misenus of Cumae, one of the bishops sent by pope Felix to Constantinople in the affair of Acacius, who had been then won over, and in consequence excommunicated. Before re- ceiving absolution this prelate was required to declare that he " condemned, anathema- tized, abhorred, and for ever execrated Dios- corus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter Fullo, Acacius, and all their successors, accomplices, GELASIUS abettors, and all who communicated with them." Gelasius died in Nov. 496. A curious treatise of his called Totnus de Anathematis Vinculo refers to those canons of the council of Chalcedon, giving independent authority to the see of Constantinople, of which pope Leo had disapproved, setting forth that the fact of this council having done some- thing wrongly did not impair the validity of what it had rightly done, and that the ap- proval of the see of Rome was the sole test of what was right. The tract contains further arguments as to Rome alone having been competent to reconcile Peter Mongus or to absolve Acacius, and in reference to the idea of the emperor having had power in the latter case without the leave of Rome, the same distinction between the spheres of the ecclesi- astical and civil jurisdictions is drawn as in the letter to the emperor. Melchizedek is referred to as having in old times been both priest and king ; the devil, it is said, in imitation of him, had induced the emperors to assume the supreme pontificate ; but since Christianity had revealed the truth to the world, the union of the two powers had ceased to be lawful : Christ, in consideration of human frailty, had now for ever separated them, leaving the emperors dependent on the pontiffs for their everlasting salvation, the pontiffs on the emperors for the administration of all tem- poral affairs. Milman {Lat. Christ.) remarks on the contrast between the interpretation of the type of Melchizedek and that given in the 13th cent, by pope Innocent IV., who takes Melchizedek as prefiguring the union in the pope of the sacerdotal and royal powers. Two other works are attributed to Gelasius in which views are expressed not easily recon- ciled with those of his successors. One is a tract, the authenticity of which has not been questioned, against the Manicheans at Rome, in which the practice, adopted by that sect, of communion in one kind is strongly condemned. His words are, " We find that some, taking only the portion of the sacred body, abstain from the cup of the sacred blood. Let these (since I know not by what superstition they are actuated) either receive the entire sacra- ments or be debarred from them altogether ; because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege." Baronius evades the obviously general application of these words by saying that they refer only to the Manicheans. The treatise de Duabus Naturis. arguing against the Eutychian position that the union of the human and divine natures in Christ implies the absorption of the human into the divine, adduces the Eucharist as the image, similitude, and representation of the same mystery, the point being that as, after conse- cration, the natural substance of the bread and wine remains unchanged, so the human nature of Christ remained unchanged notwithstand- ing its union with divinity. His words are : " The sacraments of the body and blood of Christ which we take are a divine thing, inas- much as through them we are made partakers of the divine nature ; and yet the substance or nature of bread and wine ceases not to be." This language being inconsistent with the I doctrine of transubstantiation, Baronius first GELASIUS disputes the authorship of the treatise, and secondly, seeks to explain iht- words away. But if the authoritatively enunciated views of Gelasius on the relations between civil and ecclesiastical authority, on communion in one kind and on transubstantiation, are incon- sistent with those subsequently endorsed by Rome, yet, on the other hand, few, if any, of his successors have gone beyond him in their claims of supreme and universal authority be- longing by divine institution to the Roman see. Among iiis works is a treatise Decretum de Libris Rcci[^iendis, fixing the canonical books of Scripture, and distinguishing between ancient ecclesiastical writers to be received or rejected. It bears signs of a later date, having been tirst assigned to Gelasius by Hincmar of Rheims in the 7th cent. The most memorable of the works attributed to him is the Gelasian Sacramentary, which was that in use till Clregory the Great revised and abbreviated it. A new ed. was edited bv H. A. Wilson (Oxf. 1894). See also C. H. Turner, in the ]l. of Theol. Studies (igoo-iqoi), i. 556 ft. [Sacramentary in D. C. A.] A Sacramentary in several books found in the queen of Sweden's library, and published by Thomasius in 1680, is supposed to be the Gelasian one. The main authorities for his Ijfe, besides the Liber Pontificalis, are the letters of himself and his contemporaries, and his other extant writings. [j.b — v.] Gelasius (13) of Cyzicus, in 2nd half of the 5th cent., author of a work on the history of the council of Nicaea, entitled by Photius The Acts of the First Council in Three Books. Our only knowledge of the author is derived from himself. Photius acknowledges his inability to determine who he was. We learn from Gelasius's own words that he was the son of a presbyter of Cyzicus, and, while still residing in his father's house, fell in with an old parchment volume which had belonged to Dalmatius, bp. of Cyzicus, containing a long account of the proceedings of the council of Nicaea. This document not supplying all the information he desired, Gelasius examined the works of other writers, from which he hlled up the gaps. He mentions the work of an ancient writer named John, a presbyter other- wise unknown, the works of Eusebius of Caesarea and Rutinus (whom he calls a Roman presbyter), who were both eye-witnesses, and many others. From these and other sources Gelasius compiled his history of the Nicene council. It is sometimes taken for granted that it contains a complete collection of the synodal acts of the council. There is, how- ever, no evidence of the existence of such a collection, or of any one having seen or used it. Athanasius had none such to refer to (cf. Athan. de Decret. Syn. Nic. I. 2), and cer- tainly we do not possess it in Gelasius (cf. Hefele, Hist, tf Councils, Eng. trans. 263, 264). From the work itself we learn that it was composed in Bithynia. As an historical authority it is alin<ist worthless. Its prolix disputations and lengthy orations are, as Cave has justly remarked, evidently the writer's own composition. Uupin's verdict is still more severe. " There is neither order in his narra- tive, nor exactness in his observations, nor elegance in his language, nor judgment in his CENNADIUS SAS selection of facts, n..r g.uKl s.nso in his judg. ments." Instances <.J his untrustwi.rthinr»i are seen in his statements that thr mnnnl wjt summoned by pope Svlvister. ami that Mosiii* of Cordova presided as his drh-Kate ; and he devotes many chapters (ii. 11-24) t« disputa- tions on the divinity <>f the H..lv Spirit, which had not then come into controversy at j||. The work is in vol. ii. cif I. abbe's colirrti..n (col. 103-286) and in those <.f Harduin and Mansi. Phot. Biblioth. Codd. 15, «8, 8q ; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. v. 24. vi. 4 ; Cave' Hist. Lit. i. 454 : Dupin. iv. 1H7 ; Le yuien' Or. Christ, iii. s68. ft. v.) Gennadlus (10), 21st bp. of Constantuu.i.lr. 45''<-47i. between .Anatolius and Aca< uis. His first public appearance was in an attack on Cyril, in two works, c. 431 or 432. Against the A nathemas of Cyril, and Two Books to Parthe- nius. In the latter he exclaims, " Mow nianv times have I heard blasphemies fmm Cvnl ..f Egypt ? Woe to the scourge ..f Alexandria ! " In 433 Gennadius was probablv one of th»»se who became reconciled with Cvril. In 458 he was a presbyter at Coiistanlinoplr and designated by I.eo to fill the see as a man of spotless reputation, on whom no suspim.n had ever breathed, and of holy life and con- spicuous learning. From the beginning of his episcopate Clennadius proved his zeal for the Catholic faith and the maintenance of dis- cipline. His discretion was before h>ng tested. Timothy Aelurus, chased from the see of Alexandria by order of the emperor, had obtained leave to come to Constantinople, intending, by a pretence of Catholic ism, to re-establish himself on his throne. Gennadins, urged by I.eo, bp. of Rome, June 17, 460, did his utmost to prevent the voyage of Timothy, and to secure the immediate C4)nse< ration of an orthodox prelate for Alexandria. .Ml happened as Leo desired ; Timothy .Aelurus was banished to the Chersonese, and Timothy Solofaciolus was chosen bp. of Alexandria in his stead. An appointment which Ciennadius made about this time, that of Marcian, who had been a Novatianist, but had come tiver to the orthodox church, to the important post of chancellor of the goods of the church of Constantinople, shewed his liberality, pene- tration, and desiri- for order. Two Egyptian solitaries told John Mos( hus a story whiih is also told by Theodorus Lector. The chur< h ol St. Eleuthirius at Constantinople w.ts served by a reader named Carisius, wholeda disorderlv life. Gennadius severely reprimanded hini in vain. According to the rules of the church, the patriarch had him flogged, which was also ineffectual. The patriarch sent one of his officers to the church of St. Eleutherus to beg 'that holy martyr either to correct the un- I worthy reader or to take him from the w..rld. j Next day Carisius was found deati, to the terror of the whole town. TheiKlorus also relates how a painter, presuming to deout the Saviour under the form of Jupiter, had his hand withered, but was healed by the prayers of Ciennadius. (Jennadius ordained Daniel the Stylite presbyter, as related in that saint's life, at the request of the emperor Leo, standing at the foot of the Fhan^ and performing the ceremonies there. The buying and selling ol 384 GENNADIUS MASSILIENSIS holy orders was a crying scandal of the age. Measures had been taken against simony by the council of Chalcedon. In 459 or 460 Gennadius, finding the evil practice unabated, held a council at Constantinople to consider it. An encyclical was issued, adding ana- thema to the former sentence. Gennadius died in 471, and stands out as an able and successful administrator, for whom no historian has anything but praise, if we except the criticism naturally aroused by his attack in his younger days against Cyril of Alexandria, an attack which the un- measured language of Cyril perhaps excuses. Gennadius wrote a commentary on Daniel and many other parts of O.T. and on all the epistles of St. Paul, and a great number of homilies. Of these only a few fragments remain. The principal are on Gen., Ex., Ps., Rom., I. and II. Cor., Gal., and Heb., and are interesting specimens of 5th-cent. exegesis. That on Romans, a series of explanatory re- marks on isolated texts, is the most important. He fails to grasp the great central doctrine of the epistle, but shews thought and spiritual life. Gennadius, CP. Patr., Patr. Gk. Ixxxv. p. 1611, etc. ; BoUand. AA. SS. Aug. 25, p. 148 ; Ceillier, x. 343. [w.m.s.] Gennadius (11) Massiliensis, presbyter of Marseilles, who died in 496. If we accept his de Viris Illustribus as it is commonly pubhshed, we are warranted in classing Gennadius of Marseilles with the semi- Pelagians, as he censures Augustine and Prosper and praises Faustus. Moreover, the very laudatory account of St. Jerome at the commencement of the book seems inconsistent with the hostile reference to that father under the art. Rufinus in the same catalogue. The de Viris Illustribus in its most common- ly accepted form was probably published c. 495, and contains, in some ten folio pages, short biographies of ecclesiastics between 392 and 495. .Although lacking the lively touches of his great predecessor, Jerome, the catalogue of Gennadius exhibits a real sense of propor- tion. The greater men stand out in its pages, and it conveys much real and valuable infor- mation. With due allowance for the bias referred to, it may be regarded as a trust- worthy compilation. His other treatise, entitled Epistola de Fide med, or de Ecdesiasticis Dogmatibus Liber, begins with a profession of faith in the three creeds, interwoven with the names of those who are considered by the writer (with occasionally questionable accuracy) to have impugned this or that article of belief. Gen- nadius considers (like later writers, e.g. Aquinas) that all men, even those alive at the second Advent, will have to die (7). But this conviction, though derived from a widespread patristic tradition, is, he admits, rejected by equally catholic and learned Fathers. Of the theories concerning the soul of man subse- quently known as the creationist and the traducianist views, he espouses the creationist. He will not allow the existence of the spirit as a third element in man besides the body and the soul, but regards it as only another name for the soul (19). Heretical baptism is not to be repeated, unless it has been admin- istered by heretics who would have declined GENOVEPA to employ the invocation of the Holy Trinity (52). He recommends weekly reception of the Eucharist by all not under the burden of mortal sin. Such as are should have recourse to public penitence. He will not deny that private penance may suffice ; but even here outward manifestation, such as change of dress, is desirable. Daily reception of holy communion he will neither praise nor blame (53). Evil was invented by Satan (57). Though celibacy is rated above matrimony, to condemn marriage is Manichean (67). A twice-married Christian should not be or- dained (72). Churches should be called after martyrs, and the relics of martyrs honoured (73). None but the baptized attain eternal life ; not even catechumens, unless they suffer martyrdom (74). Penitence thoroughly avails to Christians even at their latest breath (80). The Creator alone knows our secret thoughts. Satan can learn them only by our motions and manifestations (81). Marvels may be wrought in the Lord's name even by bad men (84). Men can become holy without such marks (85). The freedom of man's will is strongly asserted in this short treatise, but the commencement of all goodness is assigned to divine grace. The language of Gennadius is here not quite Augustinian ; but neither is it Pelagian, and the work was long included among those of St. Augustine. The de Viris Illustribus is given in most good edd. of the works of St. Jerome, and is ed. by Dr. Richardson in the Lib. of Nicene and Post- Nicene Fathers ; the Liber de Ecdesiasticis Dogmatibus is in the .\ppendix to t. viii. of the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine (p. 75). Cf. C. H. Turner in /. of Theol. Studies (1905), vii. 78-99, who prints a new text of the Liber de Eccl. Dogm. [j.g.c] Genovefa [Genevih'e), patron saint of Paris and of France. The most ancient records tell the story of her life as follows : About A.D. 430 St. Germanus of Auxerre and St. Lupus of Troyes, proceeding to England to combat the Pelagian heresy, stayed one evening at Nanterre, then a village, about 7 miles from Paris. The villagers assembled to see the two renowned prelates, and a little girl attracted the notice of St. Germanus. He learnt that her name was Genovefa, her parents' names Severus and Gerontia. The parents were summoned, and bidden rejoice in the sanctity of their daughter, who would be the means of saving many. Addressing himself to the child, he dwelt on the high state of virginity, and engaged her to consecrate herself. Before departing St. Germanus reminded her of her promise, and gave her a brazen coin marked with the cross, to wear as her only ornament. Henceforth miracles marked her out as the spouse of Christ. When St. Germanus arrived in Paris on a second journey to Britain, he asked tidings of St. Genovefa, and was met with the murmurs of her detractors. Disregarding their tales, he sought her dwelling, hiunbly saluted her, shewed the people the floor of her chamber wet with her secret tears, and commended her to their love. When the rumour of Attila's merciless and irresistible progress reached Paris, the terrified citizens were for fleeing with their families and goods. But Genovefa 6ENSER1C assembled the matrons and bade theni srck deliverance by prayer and fasting rather tlian by flight. The Huns were diverted through the ethcacy of her prayers, as after-ages be- lieved (c. 448). Her abstinence and self-in- flicted privations were notable. From her 15th to her 50th year she ate but twice a week, and then only bread of barley or beans. Thereafter, by command of her bishops, she added a little fish and milk. Every Saturday she kept a vigil in her church of St. Denys, and from Epiphany till Easter remained immured in her cell. Before her death Clovis, of whose con- version a later legend has made her the joint author with Clotilda, began to build for her the church which later bore her name. Un- finished at his death, it was completed by Clotilda, and dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul. Upon Genovefa's death (Jan. 3, 512) she was buried in it. The chief authority for her history is an anonymous author, who asserts that he wrote 18 years after her death, therefore c. a.d. 530. This life was first published by Jean Ravisi, of Nevers, in his Des Femmes illustres (Paris, 1521), and then by Surius, with corrections in the style (Jan. 3); again, by the Bollandists, in 1643, from better MSS., together with an- other Life differing only in unimportant par- ticulars (Acta SS. Jan. i, 138 seq.). The Life of St. Germanus of Auxerre by Constantius (c. 3, Boll. ActaSS. Jul. vii. 211), and that part of St. Genovefa's which relates to him, almost certainly have a common source, or else one is taken from the other, with slight alterations. That episode being subtracted, there is nothing in the remainder which might not be the work of a later age. The history, therefore, must be accepted with great doubt. Innumerable Lives of St. Genovefa have appeared in France in modern times, mostly of a devotional character, and useless for critical or historical purposes. Saintyves, Vie de Ste. Genevieve ; Baillet, Vies des saints, Jan. 3, t. ii. 417 ; BOdouet, Hist, el culte de Ste. G. (Paris, 1866) ; Lefeuve, Hist, de Ste. G. c. xiii. (Paris, 1842) ; Fleury, Hint, eccles. Ixix. 22, Ixxiv. 39 ; Uulaure, Hist, dc Paris, i. 240-241. [s.a.b.1 Genseric, king of the Vandals, the illegiti- mate son of king Godigiselus, reigned in Spain jointly with his legitimate brother Gu.vderic, and on the death of the latter, a.d. 428, became sole sovereign. He is said to have been originally a Catholic, but early in life em- braced the .\rian heresy. Before the death of Gunderic, Boniface, count of .\frica, forced to seek safety in revolt, invited the Vandals to invade Africa. Gen- seric readily accepted, and in May 429, according to Idatius (in 427 according to Prosper), crossed into Africa with 50,000 warriors, who poured over the fertile and defenceless provinces. Carthage, Cirta, and Hippo Regius alone withstood the tide of invasion. The Vandals especially ravaged the churches, basilicas, cemeteries, and mon- asteries. Bishops and priests were tortured to compel them to disclose the church trea- sures. Victor mentions two who were burnt alive — the venerable Papinian, one of his predecessors in the see of Vita, and Man- suetus, bp. of Urci. Hippo was besieged, but through the efforts oi count Boniface, who had GENSERIC 38& returned to his allegiance, supported by an army of allied (.oths, the Vandals were obiijird by famine, after a siege of 14 months, lo aband.in tiie attempt. St. AuKustine died m .Aug. A.D. 430, in the 3r(l month of the sirRo (Possidius, Life of St. Aug. in Migne, I'atr. Lilt, xxxii. 59). Soon afterwards Bnnifaee, defeated with great loss, returned to Italy. Genseric concluded at Hippo, on Feb. 10, 43<i, a peace with Valentinian, undertaking to pay a tribute for the territories he had conquered, and to leave unmolested those still held by Valentinian, sending his son Hnnnerir as a hostage. In 437 Cienseric began to perse- cute the Catholic bishops in the ceded terri- tories, of whom Possidius Novatus and Severianus were the most illustrious, and not oniv took their chunhes from them, but banished tiiem from tiuir sees. Four Span- iards, Arcadius, Pmbus, I'aschasius, and Eutychius, who were faithful servants of Genseric, but who refused at his command to embrace Arianism, were tortured and put to death. Paulillus, a younger brother of Paschasius and Eutychius, was cruelly scourged and reduced to slavery. Genseric, after procuring the restoration of his son, took Carthage by surprise, Oct. 19, 439. The bishops and noble laity were stripped of their possessions and offered the alternative of slavery or exile. Ouodvultdeus, bp. of Cartilage, and a number of his clergy were compelled to embark in unseawortliy ships, but reached Naples in safety. All the churches within the walls of Carthage were handed over from the Catholics to the Arians, and also many of those outside, especially two dedicated to St. Cyprian. The Arians in this were, however, only meting out to the Cath- olics treatment such as they received where the latter party was the stronger. Genseric ordered funeral processions of the Catholics to be conducted in silence and sent the remainder of the clergy into exile. Some of the most distinguished clergy and laity of these pro- vinces petitioned the king to be allowed to live in peace under the Vandals. He replied, " I have resolved to let none of your race and name escape. How then do you dare to make such a demand ? " and was with diffi- culty restrained by the entreaties of his attendants from drowning the petitioners in the adjoining sea. The Catholics, deprived of their churches, were obliged to celebrate the divine mysteries where and as best they could. In 440 Genseric equipped a fleet, with which he ravaged Sicily and besieged Palermo. At the instigation of Maximus, the leader of the .\rians in Sicily, he persecuted the Catholics, some of whom suffered martyrdom. Accord- ing to Prosper, he was recalled by news of the arrival in Africa of count Sebastian, son-in-law of count Boniface, but Idatius places his arrival ten vears later. Sebastian had come as a friend to take refuge at his c<»urt, but Genseric, wiio feared his renown as a statesman and general, tried to convert him to Arianism, that his refusal might supply a pretext fc.r putting him to death. Sebastian evaded his demands by a dexterous reply, which Gen- seric was unable to answer, but some other excuse for his execution was shortly found, lu A.D. 441 a new peace was concluded, by 386 6ENSERIC which Valentinian retained the three Mauri- ] tanias and part of Numidia, and ceded the remainder of his African dominions to Gen- seric, who divided the Zeugitane or procon- sular province, in which was Carthage, among the Vandals and kept the rest in his own j possession. Universal oppression of the 1 natives followed. Then Genseric discovered a plot among his nobles against himself, and tortured and executed many of them. Prob- ably from alarm at this conspiracy, he began a new and severer persecution. The Cath- olics were allowed no place for prayer or the ministration of the sacraments. Every allu- sion in a sermon to Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, or Holofernes was regarded as aimed at the king, and the preacher punished with exile. Among the bishops now banished, Victor mentions Urbanus of Girba, Crescius, a metro- politan who presided over 120 bishops, Habet- deus of Teudela, and Eustratius of Suffectum. Felix of Adrumetum was banished for receiv- ing a foreign monk. Genseric prohibited the consecration of new bishops in place of those banished. In 454, however, he yielded to Valentinian's requests so far as to allow Deo- gratias to be consecrated for Carthage. The see had remained vacant since the banishment of Quodvultdeus 15 years before. In 455 Genseric, at the invitation of Eudoxia, Valentinian's widow, sailed to Italy, and took Rome without a blow. At the intercession of Leo the Great, he abstained from torturing or massacring the inhabitants and burning the city, but gave it up to systematic plunder. For 14 days and nights the work of pillage continued, the city was ransacked of its remaining treasures, and Genseric then returned unmolested to Africa, carrying much booty and many thousand captives, including the empress Eudoxia and her two daughters. The elder became the wife of his son Hun- neric ; the younger, with her mother, was eventually surrendered to the emperor Leo. The whole of Africa now fell into the hands of Genseric, and also Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and the Balearic Islands. His fleets yearly sailed from Carthage in the early spring, and ravaged all the Mediterranean coasts. When leaving Carthage on one of these expeditions, the helmsman asked Genseric whither he should steer. " Against those," he replied, " who have incurred the wrath of God." His object was not only to plunder, but to per- secute. Spain, Italy, Dalmatia, Campania, Calabria, Apulia, Bruttium, Venetia, Lucania, Epirus, and the Peloponnese all suffered from his ravages. After the death of Deogratias, A.D. 457, Genseric did not allow any more bishops to be consecrated in the proconsular ■province, the peculiar domain of the Vandals, so that of the original number of 164 only three were left in Victor's time. One Pro- culus was sent to compel the bishops to give up all their books and the sacramental vessels. When they refused, they were seized by force and the altar-cloths made into shirts for the soldiers. St. Valerian, bp. of Abbenza, was expelled from that town. No one was allowed to receive him into their house or permit him to remain on their land, and he was long obhged to lie by the roadside. At Kegia the Catholics had ventured at Easter GENSERIC to take possession of their church. The Arians, headed by a priest named Adduit, attacked the church, part forcing an entrance with drawn swords and part shooting arrows through the windows. The reader was killed in the pulpit by an arrow, and many wor- shippers slain on the altar-steps. Most of the survivors were executed by Genseric's orders. Genseric, by the advice of the Arian bishops, commanded all officials of his court to embrace Arianism. According to Victor's account, Armogast, one of the number, refused, and was tightly bound with cords, but they broke like a spider's web ; and when he was hung head downwards by one foot, he seemed to sleep as peacefully as if in his bed. His persecutors, unable to overcome his resolution, were about to kill him, but were dissuaded by an Arian priest, lest he should be reverenced as a martyr. He was accordingly compelled to labour in the fields and afterwards to tend cattle near Carthage. The emperor Majorian in 460 assembled a fleet of 300 vessels at Carthagena to recover Africa. His plans were betrayed to the Vandals, who surprised and carried off the greater part of his ships. Genseric, however, in alarm, concluded peace with Majorian. In 468 Leo collected a mighty armament of 1,113 ships, each containing 100 men (Cedrenus, 350, ed. Dindorf.), under the command of his brother-in-law Basiliscus. The main arma- ment landed at the Hermaean promontory (Cape Bon), about 40 miles from Carthage. Genseric, by means, it was generally believed, of a large bride, induced Basiliscus to grant a truce for five days. He used this time to man all the ships he could, and, the wind becoming favourable, attacked the Romans and sent fire-ships among their crowded vessels. Panic and confusion spread through the vast multitude, most of whom tried to fly, but a few fell fighting gallantly to the last. After this victory Genseric regained Sardinia and Tripoli, where the Roman arms had met with success, and ravaged the Mediterranean coasts more cruelly than before, till a peace was concluded between him and the emperor Zeno. Genseric, at the request of the em- peror's ambassador Severus, released those prisoners who had fallen to his own or his sons' lot, and allowed him to ransom as many others as he could (Malchus, de Legationibus, 3, ed. Dindorf), and, at Leo's entreaty, allowed the churches of Carthage to be reopened and the exiled bishops and clergy to return. Soon afterwards he died, on Jan. 24, 477. According to the description of Jornandes {de Gothorum Origine, c. 33, in Cassiodorus, i. 412, in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixix. 1274), Genseric was of moderate stature and lame from a fall from his horse. He was a man of few words, and thus better able to conceal the deep designs he had conceived. He scorned luxury, was greedy of empire, passionate, skilful in intrigue, and cruel ; but it must be remembered that all our informants are writers who hated and dreaded himself and his nation both as heretics and enemies. With every allowance for Salvian's rhetoric {de Guber- natione Dei, vii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. liii.), it must be admitted that his description of the morals of the Vandals and those of the GEORGIUS dissolute Cartliafjinians slmw tlio foruuT in a more favourable light than the latter. Geiiseric's name is variously spelt Ciizericus, Gaisericus, Geisericus, and Zinzirichus. The sources for the above account are the Chron- icles of Prosper and Idatius (in Migne, Fair. Lat. li.) ; Procopius, de Bi-llo \'audalico, i. 3-7 ; Isidorus, de Regibus Gotltorum (Isid. Oft^- ^'i- 130-133. i" -Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxxiii. 1076) ; and Victor Vitensis, de Persecutiom- I'audalica, i. (in Migne, Pair. Lat. Iviii.)- Gibbim, cc. xxxiii. xxxvi. and xxxvii., may also be con- sulted ; and Ruinarfs dissertation in his appendix to Victor V'itensis, and Ceillier, Histoire des auteurs sacri's, x. c. 28. [fd.] Georgius (3), bp. of Laodicea ad mare in Syria Prima (335-347), who took part in the Trinitarian controversies of the 4th cent. At tirst an ardent admirer of the teaching of Arius and associated with Eusebius of Nico- media, he subsequently became a semi-Arian, but seems ultimately to have united with the Aiiomoeans, whose uncompromising opponent he had once been, and to have died professing their tenets (Newman, .4rians, pt. ii. p. 275). He was a native of Alexandria. In early life he devoted himself with considerable distinc- tion to the study of philosophy (Philost. H. E. viii. 17). He was ordained presbyter by Alexander, bp. of Alexandria («b. ; Eus. Vil. Const, iii. 62). Having gone to Antioch, he endeavoured to mediate between Arius and the Catholic body. To the Arians he shewed how, by a sophistical evasion based on I. Cor. xi. 12 [to. de Trdvra fV rod BeoC), they might acc,;pt the orthodox test Qeof eK HfoD (Socr. H. E. ii. 45 ; Athan. de Synod, p. 887). The attempt at reconciliation completely failed, and resulted in his deposition and ex- communication by Alexander, on the ground of false doctrine and of the oiien and habitual irregularities of his life (Athan. ib. p. 886 ; .■ipol. ii. p. 728 ; de Fug. p. 718 ; Theod. H. E. ii. 9). Athanasius styles him " the most wicked of all the Arians," reprobated even bv his own party (de Fug. 7x8). After his excommunication at Alexandria, he sought admission among the clergy of Antioch, but was steadily rejected by Jiustathius (Athan. Hist. Arian. p. 812). On this he retired to Arethusa, where he acted as presbyter, and, on the expulsion of Eustathius, was wel- comed back to Antioch by the dominant .\riati faction. He was a[)pointed bp. of I.aodicea on the death of the Arian Theo- doius (Athan. de Synod, p. 886 ; Or. i. p. 290 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 25). As bishop he took a leading part in the successive synods sum- moned by the Arian faction against Athan- asius. He was at the councils of Tyre and Jerusalem in 335 (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 728 ; Eus. Vil. Const, iv. 43), and that of the Dedication at Antioch in 341 (Soz. H. E. iii. 5). Fear kept him from the council of Sardica in 347, where the bishops unanimously de- posed him and many others as having been previously condemned by Alexander, and as holding Arian opinions (Theod. H. E. iii. 9 ; Labbe, Concil. ii. 678 ; Athan. Apol. ii. p. 765 ; de Fug. p. 718). Of this deposition George took no heed, and in 358, when Eudox- ius, the newly appointed b[). of Antioch, openly sided with Aetius and the Anomoeans, GEORGIUS 387 George carmslly appcil.il t.. .M.i< cdouius of Constantinople and other bishops, who were visiting H.isil at Ancyra to ronsccratc a newly tret t.d rhurc h, to lose no time in sum- moning a ouncil to (cndtnin tlie .\nc>in>H-.in heresy and eject Aetius. His letter is pre- served by Sozomon (//. /•.". iv. 13; l.alil>e. Concil. ii. 790). At Sehiu ia, in 350, when the semi-Arian party was split into two, George headed the more numerous faction opposed to that of Acacius and luidoxius, whom, with their adherents, they deposed (Swr. H. E. ii. 40). On the expulsion of Anianus from the see of Antioch, George was mainly responsible for the election of Meletius, believing him to hold the same opinions as himself. He was speedily undeceived, for on his first entry intt) Antioch Meletius startled his hearers by an unetpiivocal declaration of the truth as laid down at Nicaca. Indignant at being thus entrapped, (ieorgc and his fellows lost no time in securing the deposition and expulsion of a bishop of such uncompromising orthodoxy (Theod. H. E. ii. 31 ; Philost. H. E. v. i ; Socr. H. E. ii. 44 ; Soz. H. E. iv. 28). (ireg- ory Nyssen mentions a letter by George relating to Arius (in Eunotn. i. 28). and Soc- rates quotes a panegyric composed by him on the Arian Eusebius of Emesa, who was his intimate friend and resided with him at Laodicea after his expulsion from Emesa and by whose intervention at Anti<Kh he was restored to his see (Socr. H. E. i. 24, ii. 9)- He was also the author of some treatises against heresv, especially that of the Mani- cheans (Theod. Haer. Fab. i. 28 ; Phot. Bibl. c. 85 ; Niceph. H. E. vi. 32). [k.v.] Georgius (4), c(jnimonly called of Cappa- docia (Athan. Ep. ad Episc. 7) ; .\rian intruding bp. of Alexandria (356-361). He was born, according to Anunianus Marcellinus, at Epiphania in Cilicia (xxii. 11, 3), and, if so, must have been Cappadocian only by descent. Gregory Nazianzen describes him as not purely free-born {Oral. xxi. 16), and as " unlearned," but he undoubtedly collected a library which Julian, no bad judge, describes as " very large and ample," richly stored with philosophical, rhetorical, and historical authors, and with various works of " (ialilean " or Christian theology {Epp. 9, .^f>)- •" ^-Vb. 356, after Athanasius had retired from .Alexandria in consequence of the attack on his church, which all but ended in his seizure, he heard that lieorge was to be intruded into his throne, as Gregory had been 16 years previously, lieorge arrived in Alexandria, escorted by soldiers, during Lent 356 (de Fug. 6). His installati<.n was a signal for new inflictions on Alexandrian church-people. " After Easter week," says Athanasius (ib.). "virgins were imprisoned. bishops led away in chains" (some 26 are named in Hist. Arian. 72); "attacks made on houses " ; and on tin' first Sunday evening after Pentecost a number of people who had met f.)r prayer in a se( luded place were cruelly maltreated by the commander, Sebastian, ai " pitiless Manicluan," for refusing to communicate with George. The intruding bishop was a man of resolu- tion and action (Soz. iii. 7)- (ifegorv of Nazianzus, who disparages his abilities, admits that he was like a " hand " to the Arians, while S88 6E0RG1US he employed an eloquent prelate — probably Acacius — ^^as a " tongue." He belonged to the Acacian section of the party, and was con- sequently obnoxious to the semi-Arians, who " deposed him " in the council of Seleucia. He allowed the notorious adventurer Aetius, founder of the Anomoeans or ultra- Arians, to officiate as deacon at Alexandria, after having been ordained, as Athanasius tells us (de Synod. 38), bv Leontius of Antioch, although he afterwards " compelled " the Arian bishops of Egypt to sign the decree of the Acacian svnod of Constantinople of 360 against Aetius (Philost. iii. 2). He induced Theodore, bp. of Oxyrynch\is, to submit to degradation from the ministry and to be reordained by him as an Arian bishop (Lib. Marcell. et FaiLstini, Sirmond. i. 135)- He managed to keep the confidence of Constantius, who congratulated the Alexandrians on having abandoned such "grovelling teachers" as Athanasius and entrusted their " heavenward aspirations " to the guidance of " the most venerable George " (Athan. Apol. to Const. 30, 31). But George was far from recommending his form of Christianity either to the orthodox or to the pagans of Alexandria. " He was severe," savs Sozomen, " to the adherents of Athan- asius," not onlv forbidding the exercise of their worship, but " inflicting imprisonment and scourges on men and women after the fashion of a tyrant " ; while, towards all alike, " he wielded his authority with more violence than belonged to the episcopal rank and character." He was " hated by the magistrates for his supercilious demeanour, by the people for his tvranny" (Soz. iv. 10, 30). He stood well with Constantius, who was guided theologic- ally by the Acacians; and it was easy for the " pope " of Alexandria to embitter his sovereign (as Julian says he did, Ep. 10) against the Alexandrian community, to name several of its members as disobedient subjects, and to suggest that its grand public buildings ought by rights to pay tax to the treasury (Ammian. etc.). He shewed himself a keen man of business, " buying up the nitre- works, the marshes of papyrus and reed, and the salt lakes " (Epiph. Haey. Ixxvi.). He manifested his anti-pagan zeal by arbitrary acts and insulting speeches, procured the banishment of Zeno, a prominent pagan physician (Julian, Ep. 45), prevented the pagans from offering sacrifices and celebrating their national feasts (Soz. iv. 30), brought Artemius, " duke " of Egypt, much given to the destruction of idols (Tlieod. iii. 18), with an armed force into the superb temple of Serapis at Alexandria, which was forthwith stripped of images, votive offerings, and ornaments (Julian, I.e. ; Soz. I.e.). On Aug. 29, 358, the people broke into the church of St. Dionysius, where George was then residing, and the soldiers rescued him from their hands with difficulty and after hard fighting. On Oct. 2 he was obliged to leave the city ; and the " Athanasians " occupied the churches from Oct. 11 to Dec. 24, when they were again ejected by Sebastian. Probably George returned soon after he had quitted the Seleucian council, i.e. in Nov. 359. The news of Julian's accession arrived at Alexandria Nov. 30, 361. George was in the height of his pride and power : GEORGIUS he had persecuted and mocked the pagans (Socr. iii. 2 ; Maff. Frag. ; Ammian.), who now, being officially informed that there was an emperor who worshipped the gods, felt that the gods could at last be avenged. The shout arose, " Away with George ! " and "in a moment," says the Fragmentist, they threw him into prison, with Diodorus and Dracon- tius, the master of the mint, who had over- thrown a pagan altar which he found standing there (Ammian.). The captives were kept in irons until the morning of Dec. 24. Then the pagan mob again assembled, dragged them forth with " horrible shouts " of triumph, and kicked them to death. They flung the mangled body of George on a camel, which they led through every part of the city, dragging the two other corpses along with ropes, and eventually burned the remains on the shore, casting the ashes into the sea. The Arians, of course, regarded George as a martyr ; and Gibbon took an evident pleasure in representing " the renowned St. George of England " as the Alexandrian usurper " transformed " into a heroic soldier- saint ; but bp. Milner (Hist. Inquiry into the Existenee and Character of St. George, 1792) and others have shewn that this assumption of identity is manifestly false, the St. George who is patron saint of England being of an earlier date, though of that saint's life, country, or date we have no certain informa- tion, such traditions as we possess being given in the next art. [w.b.] GeorgiUS (43), M., Apr. 23 (Sle'yaXoiudpTvs, Bas. Men.) ; traditionally the patron saint of England, a military tribune and martyr under Diocletian at Nicomedia, a.d. 303. He was a native of Cappadocia and of good birth. Some time before the outbreak of the great perse- cution he accompanied his mother to Lydda, in Palestine, where she possessed property. As soon, however, as he heard of the publica- tion of the first edict (Feb. 23, 303), he re- turned to Nicomedia, where, as some think, he was the celebrated person who tore down the imperial proclamation, and then suffered death by roasting over a slow fire (Eus. H. E. viii.5). [Diocletian.] The earliest historical testimony to the existence and martyrdom of St. George is an inscription in a church at Ezr'a or Edhr'a, in S. Syria, copied by Burck- hardt and Porter, and discussed by Mr. Hogg in two papers before the Royal Society of Literature (Transactions, vi. 292, vii. 106). This inscription states that the building had been a heathen temple, but was dedicated as a church in honour of the great martyr St. George, in a year which Hogg, by an acute argument, fixes as 346. (For another view, however, which assigns the inscription to 499, see Bockh's Corp. Inscript. Graee. ed. Kirch- hoff, t. iv. No. 8627.) His name occurs again in another inscription in the church of Shaka, 20 miles E. of Ezr'a, which Hogg dates A.D. 367. (Bockh, I.e. No. 8609, cf. 8630 ; for other instances of transformations of heathen temples into churches and hospitals in the 4th and 5th cent., see Bockh, I.e. 8645, 8647.) The council assembled at Rome by pope Gelasius, a.d. 494 or 496 (Hefele, Concil. i. 610, iii. 219, ed. Paris, 1869), con- demned the Acts of St. George, together with OEORGIUS those of Cyricus and Julitta, as oorruptcd by heretics, but expressly asserted that the saints themselves were real martyrs and worthy of all reverence (cf. IMtra^ S/>»ci7. SoUsmen. iv. jgi, for a repetition, three cen- turies later in the East, of this condemnation by the patriarch Nicephorus, in his Constil. Eccl.). Thenceforward the testimonies to liis existence rapidly thicken, but decrease in i value. Gregory of Tours in the 6th cent. ^ mentions him as highly celebrated in France, i while in the East his cultus became universally j established (cf. Fleury, H. E. xxxiv. 46) and churches were erected in all directions in his I honour, one of the most celebrated beinp that built, probably by Justinian, over his tomb at Lydda, whither his relics had been transfern d after his mart\Tdom. This church still ; exists. (For an engraving of it, see Thom- 1 son's Land and Book, ii. 292 ; cf. Robinson's ! Biblical Researches, iii. 51-55, \vith I,e Quicn, [ Oriens Christian, iii. 1271, for full particulars of St. George's connexion with Lydda.) j .Another is at Thessalonica ; described in , Texier and Pullan, Byzantine Architecture,] pp. 132-142, where strong reasons are given for assigning its erection to Constantine (cf. Procopius, de Aedif. iii. 4, ed. Bonn). The Medieval Legends. — The .\rians of the 5th cent, seem to have corrupted his acts for their own purposes. Their story is that he was arrested by Datianus, emperor of Rome, or, according to others, of Persia, by whom he was in vain ordered to sacrifice to .\pollo. The magician Athanasius under- took to confound the saint. After various attempts the magician was converted and baptized, as well as the queen Alexandra. .A.fter many miracles and various tortures, St. George was beheaded. It is strange that, notwithstanding the decrees of Rome and Constantinople, this .A.rian corruption became the basis of all subsequent legends, and even found its way into the hymns of St. John Damascene in honour of St. George (Mai. Spicil. Rom. t. ix. p. 729 ; Ceillier, xii. 89). The addition of a horse and a dragon to the story arose out of the imaginations of medie- val writers. The dragon represents the devil, suggested by St. George's triumph over him at his martyrdom (cf. Bus. Vita Constant, iii. 3). When the race of the Bagratides as- cended the throne of Georgia at the end of the 6th cent., they adopted St. George slaying the Dragon as part of their arms (Malan, Wis/, of Georgian Ch. pp. 15, 29). The horse was added during the Frankish occupa- tion of Constantinople as suitable, according to medieval ideas, to his rank and character as a military martyr. St. George was de- picted on a horse as early as 1227, according to Nicephorus Gregoras (Hist. Byzant. viii. 5), where will be found a curious story concerning a picture in the imperial palace at Constan- tinople, of St. George mounted upon a horse, which neighed in the most violent style when- ever an enemy was about to make a successful assault upon the city. The earliest trace we can now find of the full-grown legend of St. George and the dragon, and the king's daugh- ter Sabra, whom he delivered, is in the Historia Lombardica, popularly called the Golden Legend, of Jacobus de Voragine, arch- OEOROIUS SAO bp. of Genn.i, ^.,^. liS... .md in the brrvl.iry service for St. (.eorKc's Dav. til! rrviv.l by pope Clement VIII. Thrnrr it brr.imr lUr foundation of the slorv as told in J->hnson'« Historie of the Seven ( hamf^ions of ( hnslrndnm. and the old ballad of St. (renrge and the DraRnn, reprinted in the third volume of IVr< v'» Reliques, manv features of which Sprnsrr reproduces in his I'afrv Queen. Miisbrrq in the i6th cent, found in the heart of Asia Minor a legend of the Turkish hero Chcdorlr*. to whom were ascribed ex|>loits similar to those of St. George (/•/>. i, pp. 03, 05, cd. 1633). and hefotmd Georgian Christ i.ins venerating above every image that of St. George on horseback. regarding him as having conquered the evil one {Efy. 3, p. 209). Connexion with England. — St. (ieorge's story was well known in England from the 7th cent., most probably through the Roman mission- aries sent by Gregorv. .ArcuK, the early traveller, when returning to his bishopric in France, was carried northward to lona, c. 600, where he told the monks the storv of St. (ieorge, whence, through Adamnan and Medr, it became widely known in Britain. St. Ger.rcp has a place in the .\nglo-Saxon ritual of Dur- ham assigned to the early part of the nth rent., pub. by the Surtees Society a.d. 1840, and among the publications of the Percy Society we have an Anglo-Saxon Passion of St. George, the work of Aelfric. archbp. of York a. p. 1020- 1051, ed. by Hardwick a.d. 1850, in whose preface is much interesting information on this point. His special fame, however, in this country arose immediately out of the early Crusades. William of Malmesbury {Gesia Reg. Angl. ed. Sir T. D. Hardy, ii. 559) tells us that, when the Crusaders were hard pressed by the Saracens at the battle of Antioch, J une 28, 1089, the soldiers were encouraged bv seeing " the martyrs George and Demetrius hastily approaching from the mountainous districts, hurling darts against the enemy, but assisting the Franks" (cf. Gibbon, cap. I\iii. ; Michaud's Hist. 0/ Crusades, i. 173, cd. I.ond. ; on the military fame of St. Demetrius see Bockh, Corp. Inscrip. iv. 8642 ; Du Cange. Gloss, i. 974 ; Texier, op. cit. pp. 123-132). This timely apparition at the very crisis of the campaign led the Crusaders, among whom were a large contingent of Normans under Robert, son of William the Conqueror, t<> adopt St. George as their patron. During the campaigns of Richard I. in Palestine. St. George appeared to him .ind so became a special favourite with the Normans and English (Itin. of Richard I. in Chron. of Crusades, ed. Bohn, p. 239). In 1222 a national council at Oxford ordered his feast to be kept as a lesser holiday throughout England. He was not, however, formally adopted as patron saint of llngland till the time of Edward III., who foundeil St. Ge. rge's chapel at Windsor in 1348- In 1340 Edward joined battle with the French near Calais, when, " moved bv a sudden impulse." savs Thomas of Walsingham. " he drew his sword with the exclamation. Ha ! St. Edward. Ma ! St. George, and muted th<- French " (c(. Smith's Student's Hume, cip. x. § H). From that time St. George replaced St. lulward the Con(«-ssor as patron of England. In 1350, according to 390 GERMANUS some authorities, the order of the Garter was instituted under his patronage, and in 1415, according to the Constitutions of archbp. Chichely, St. George's Day was made a major double feast, and ordered to be observed like Christmas Day. In the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. St. George's feast was a red-letter day, and had a special epistle and gospel. This was changed in the next revision (Ash- mole, Order of the Garter • Anstis, Register ; Pott, Antiquities of Windsor and History of Order of Garter, a.d. 1749). The influence of the Crusades also led to St. George becoming the patron of the republic of Genoa, the king- doms of Aragon and Valencia, and to the institutions of orders of knighthood under his name all over Europe (cf. A A. SS. Boll. Apr. iii. 160). In N. Svria his day is still observed as a great festival (Lyde, Secret Sects of N. Syria, Lond. 1853, p. 19). Controversy- — ^The consentient testimonv of all Christendom till the Reformation attested the existence of St. George. Calvin first questioned it. In his Institutes, lib. iii. cap. 20, § 27, when arguing against invocation of saints, he ridiculed those who esteem Christ's intercession as of no value unless " accedant Georgius aut Hippolytus aut similes larvae," where, unfortunately for himself, he places Hippolytus in the class of ghosts or phantoms together with St. George. Dr. Reynolds, early in the 17th cent., was the first to confuse the orthodox martyr of Lydda with the Arian bp. of Alexandria. [Georgius (4).] Against him Dr. Heylin argued in an exhaustive treatise (Hist, of St. George of Cappadocia). giving (pp. 164-166) a very full list of all earlier authors who had referred to St. George, including a quotation from a reputed treatise by St. Ambrose, Liber Praefationuni, which is not now extant. The controversy was con- tinued during the i8th cent. Dr. Milner wrote in defence of the historical reality of St. George, provoked doubtless by Gibbon's well- known sneer in c. xxiii. of his history. See further Mart. Vet. Rom., Mart. Adon., Mart. Usuard., which all fix his martyrdom at Dios- polis in Persia (cf. Herod, ed. Rawlinson, i. 72, V. 49, vii. 72) ; Hogg, however, well suggests the Bithynian town of that name, which was in the Persian empire under C>tus (Pasch. Chron. ed. Bonn, p. 510; Sym. Metaphrast. ; Magdeburg. Centtir. cent, iv.'cap. xii. ; Ceillier, xi. 404, xii. 58, 89, 297 ; Alban-Butler, Lives of Saints ; Malan, Hist, of the Georgian Church, pp. 28, 5t, 54, 72 ; E. A. Wallis Budge, The Martyrdom and Miracles of St. George of Cap- padocia : the Coptic texts ed. with an Eng. trans., Lond. 1888). [g.t.s.] Germanus (8), St., bp. of Auxerre, born probably c. 378, at Auxerre, near the S. border of what was afterwards Champagne. The parents of German caused him to be baptized and well educated. He went to Rome, studied for the bar, practised as an advocate before the tribunal of the prefect, on his return married a lady named Eustachia, and rose to be one of the six dukes of Gaul, each of whom governed a number of provinces (Gibbon, ii. 320), Auxerre being included in German's district. German, having been ordained and nominated as his successor by Amator, bp. of Auxerre, was, on the latter's death, unan- GERMANUS imously elected, and consecrated on Sun. July 7, 418. His wife became to him as a sister ; he distributed his property to the poor ; he became a severe ascetic, and, as his biographer Constantius says, a " persecutor of his body," abstaining from salt, oil, and even from vegetables, from wine, excepting a small quantity much diluted on Christmas Day or Easter Day, and from wheat bread, instead of which he ate barley bread with a prelimin- ary taste of ashes (cinerem praelibavit). He wore the same hood and tunic in all seasons, and slept on ashes in a framework of boards. " Let any one speak his mind," says Constan- tius, to whom some details of German's life must have come down not free from exag- geration, " but I positively assert that the blessed German endured a long mart>Tdom." Withal he was hospitable, and gave his guests a good meal, though he would not share it. He founded a monastery outside Auxerre, on the opposite bank of the Yonne, often crossing in a boat to visit the abbat and brethren. Pelagianism had been rife in its founder's native island of Britain ; and the British clergy, unable to refute the heretics, requested help from the church, we may say from their mother church, of Gaul. Accordingly a numerous synod unanimously sent to Britain German and Lupus, bp. of Troyes, both going the more readily because of the labour involved. So says Constantius, who is followed closely by Bede (i. 17). But Prosper of Aquitaine, a con- temporary, in his Chronicle for a.d. 429, says that pope Celestine, " at the suggestion of the deacon Palladius, sent German as his repre- sentative " (vice sua) into Britain ; and in his contra Collatorem, written c. 432, speaks of Celestine as " taking pains to keep the Roman island " (Britain) "Catholic" (c. 21 or 24). The truth probably lies in a combination of the pope's action with the councils, at any rate as regards German. Lupus is not in- cluded by Prosper — of him evidently Celes- tine took no thought, but, we may reasonably believe, gave some special commission to German either before (so Tillemont, Memoites, xiv. 154) or at the time of the Gallic synod : it is not probable that, as Lingard supposes, the synod's commission was only to Lupus and German " sent " by the pope alone (Angl. Sax. Ch. i. 8). When the two prelates reached Nanterre near Paris, German saw in the crowd which met them the girl Genovefa, whom he bade live as one espoused to Christ, and who became " St. Genevieve of Paris." Arrived in Britain, the bishops preached the doctrines of grace in churches and on the country roads with great effect ; till the Pelagian leaders challenged them to a discussion, apparently near Veru- 1am. A great multitude assembled : the two bishops, appealing to Scripture in support of the Catholic position, silenced their opponents, and the shouts of the audience hailed their victory. German and Lupus then visited the reputed tomb of the British protomartyr Alban ; and Constantius adds the famous tale of the Alleluia Victory. The Britons were menaced by Picts and Saxons ; German and Lupus encouraged them to resist, catechized and baptized the still heathen majority in their army, and then, shortly after Easter 430, I GERM ANUS stationing them in a narrow plen, bade them at the invaders' approach rejioat thrice the Paschal Alleluia. The Britons sent the shout ringing through the defile ; the enemy was seized with panic, and " faith without the sword won a bloodless victory." I In 447 German was again entreated by ] British churchmen to aid them against ' Pelagianism. He took with him Severus, bji. of Treves, a disciple of Lupus, and having on his way vindicated Genovefa against calum- niators, landed in Britain, triumphed again \ over the Pelagians, and procured their banishment from the island. Welsh tradi- , tions record his manv activities on behalf of | the British church. They lay the scene of the I .\lleluia victory at Maes-garmon near Mold ; I they speak of colleges founded by German, of national customs traced to his authority ; and although much of this is legendary and the stories in Nennius about his relations with 1 king Vortigem apocryphal, he probably did more for Briti-ih Christianity than Constantius records. He had no sooner returned home than another occasion for his himiane inter- vention arose. The Armoricans, whose country had not yet acquired (through British immigration) the name of Brittany, were in chronic revolt against the empire, hoping to obtain favourable terms for Armorica. Ger- man set forth at once for Italy, and on June iq, 44S, reached Milan ; proceeding to Ravenna, he obtained pardon for the Armori- cans, but unfortunately news came that they had again revolted, and his mission proved in vain. German was soon afterwards taken ill. His lodging overflowed with visitors ; a choir kept up ceaseless psalmody by his bedside. He died July 31, 448, having been bishop 30 years and 25 davs. His body was embalmed, and a magnificent funeral journey to Gaul attested the reverence of the court. He was buried in a chapel near Auxerre on Oct. i. Constantius's Life is in Surius, d'e Prnhafis Sanctorum Htstnriis, vol. iv. A metrical Life and a prose account of his " miracles," both bv a monk named Hereric, are in Ada Sanc- torum. Julv 31. [W.B.] Germanus (18) {Germain), St., 20th bp. of Paris, born at Autun of parents of rank named Eleutherius and Eusebia (r. 496), and educated at Avalon and Luzy (Lausia). In due time he was ordained deacon, and three years later priest. He was next made abbat of the monastery of St. Symphorian at Autun, by bp. Nectarius. In 555, being present at Paris r)n some mission to Childebert, when that see was vacant by the death of Eusebius. he was raised to the archbishopric. His great object seems to have been to check the unbriilled licence of the Frank kings, and to ameliorate the misery produced by constant ci\il war. In 557 he was present at the third council of Paris, and appears to have exercised consider- able influence over Childebert, whose edict against pagan revelry on holy days may have been due to St. Germanus (Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 1 121), and likewise the building by Childebert of the church of St. Vincent to receive the stole of that martyr which he had broueht from Spain. (See the charter given by Aimoin, de Gest. Franc, ii. 20, cd. Jac du Brcvi, Paris, 1602, and cf. Hist. Lilt, de la GERVASIDS v^\ France, iii. 270). This churdi was said toli.ivr been consecrated bv St. <;ernianus on tlir dav Childebert died (Dec. 23. 5!SR). Childrberf-i successor Clotairewas. according to Wnantitis Forlunatus, at first not equallv amenable, but a sickness changed his disposition. Grr- manus'sdeath is variously dated S7's, ^76, and 577- He was buried in an oratoritim near the vestibule of the church of St. Vincent ; and in 754 his bodv was removed with Kr»-,it ceremony into the church itself, in the presence of Pipjnn and his son Charles the Great, then a child. The church hrn<rf<rlh was called St. Germain des Pr^s. There is extant by St. Germanus a treatise on the Mass, or exposition of the old Gallic Liturgy {Pair. Lat. Ixxii. Ro ; cf. Ceilli.r, xi. 30R seq., for the reasons for ascribing it to him). Among his writings is also generally counted the privilege which he granted to his monastery exempting it from all episcopal jurisdiction (r. .sft-i). Its authenticity has been vehemently attacked and defended (see Migne. Patr. Ln/. Ixxii. 81 w. and the authorities there referred to). St. Germanus's Life was written by Venantius Fortunatus. his cr>n- temporary and friend, but the work is little else than a string of miracles. It niav be found in Mabillon's Acta SS. Ord. S. Bened. i. 234-245 (Paris, 166R-1701). See also Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vi. 774 sqq. ; Gall. Christ, vii. 18-21 ; Mansi, ix. 747, 805, 867. 860: and, for the monastery, the Dissertatio of Ruinartins, in Bouquet, ii. 722. fs.A.n.l GervaslUS (1), June 10 (Us.) ; Oct. 14 (Bas. Menol.). Martvr with Protasius at Milan, under Nero. These two brothers were sons of Vitalis, whose martyrdom at Ravenna and mythical acts are recorded in Mart. Adon. Apr. 28. After 300 years, and when their memory had entirely faded, God is said to have revealed their place of burial to St. Ambrose in a dream. [Ambrosus.] The empress Justina was striving to obtain one of the churches of Milan for Arian worship, and help was needed to sustain the orthodox in their opposition to the imperial authority. Just at this time a new and splendid basilica was awaiting consecration. The people, as a kind of orthodox demonstration, wished it (<>nse- crated with the same pomp and ceremonial as had been used for another new church near the Roman Gate. Ambrose consented, if he should have some new relics to place therein. He therefore ordered excavations t<> be made in the church of St. Nabor and St. Felix, nr.ir the rails which enclosed their tomb. The search was rewarded by the dis< nvcrv "f the bodies of " two men of wondp'US size, such as ancient times produced " (Anib. Fp. xxii. § 2). with all their bones entire and very much blood. They were removed to the church of St. Fausta, and the next day t<> the new Ambrosian church, where they were duly enshrined. At each different stage St. Am- brose delivered impassioned and fanciful harangues. In that on their enshrinenient he claims that they had already expelled demons, and restored to sight a blind butcher, one Severus, who was cured bv touching the pall that covered the relics. The Arians ridi< ul< <l the matter, asserting that Ambrose had hired persons to feign themselves demoniacs. The 392 GILDAS whole story has afforded copious matter for criticism. Mosheim (cent. iv. pt. ii. c. 3, § 8), Gibbon (c. xxvii.), Isaac Taylor {Ancient Christianity, vol. ii. 242-272), consider the thing a trick got up by the contrivance and at the expense of St. Ambrose himself. Two distinct points demand attention : ist, the finding of the bodies ; 2nd, the reputed miracles. The discovery of the bodies may have been neither a miracle nor a trick. Churches were frequently built in cemeteries, and excavation might easily chance upon bodies. Some, moreover, have fixed Diocle- tian's persecution as the time of their martyr- dom, and St. .\mbrose, as the official custodian of the church records, might therefore have some knowledge of their resting-place, and in times of intense theological excitement men have often imputed to dreams or supernatural assistance that for which, under calmer cir- cumstances, they would account in a more commonplace way. It is hardly possible to read through the epistle of St. Ambrose to his sister Marcellina {Ep. xxii.), in which he gives an account of the discovery, and still imagine that such genuine enthusiasm could go hand in hand with conscious knavery and deceit. There remains the question of the miracles to which St. Ambrose and St. Augustine testify (de Civit. Dei. xxii. 8 ; Confess, ix. 7 ; Ser. 2 86 and 318). These were of two kinds : the restoration of demoniacs and the healing of a blind man. As to the demoniacs, we cannot decide. At times of religious excitement such cases have occurred, and can be accounted for on purely natural grounds. They belong to an obscure region of psychological phenomena. The case of the blind man, whose cure is reported by St. Augustine, then resident at Milan, as well as by St. Ambrose, stands on a different footing, and is the one really import- ant point of the narrative with which Taylor fails effectively to grapple. We must observe, also, in favour of the miracle that St. Ambrose called immediate attention to it, and that no one seems to have challenged the fact of the blindness or the reality of restoration to sight ; and further Severus devoted himself in consequence as a servant of the church wherein the relics were placed, and continued such for more than 20 years. On the other hand, we have no means of judging as to the nature of the disease in the man's eves. He was not born blind, but had contracted the disease, being a butcher by trade. He might therefore have only been affected in some such way as powerful nervous excitement might cure, but for which he and St. Ambrose would naturally account by the miraculous power of the martyrs. In the Criterion of Miracles, by bp. Douglas (pp. 130-160, ed. 1803), there are many acute observations on similar reputed miracles in the i8th cent. Mart. Rom. Vet., Adon., Bedae, Usuard. ; Kal. Carthag. ; Kal. Front. ; Tillem. Mem. ii. 78, 498 ; Fleurv, H. E. viii. 49, xviii. 47 ; CeiU. v. 386, 490, ix. 340. [G.T.S.] Gildas (Gildasius, Gildus, Gillas). com- memorated Jan. 29. In medieval Lives Gildas appears in a well-defined individuahtv, but a more critical view detects so many anachronisms and historical defects that it has been questioned, first, whether he ever GILDAS lived, and secondly, whether there were more Gildases than one. Though he is mentioned by name, and his writings quoted from by Bede, Alcuin, William of Newburgh, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and Giraldus Cambrensis, there is no memoir of him written within se\-eral centuries of his supposed date, and the two oldest, on which the others are based, are ordinary specimens of the unhistorical tone of mind of the nth and 12th cents. Tosurmount the chronological and historical difficulties, Ussher, Ware. Bale, Pitseus, Golgan, and O'Conor have imagined at least two of the name, perhaps even four or six, about the 5th and 6th cents. These have received distin- guishing designations, and thus have obtained a recognized position in history. But the more probable and more generally received opinion is that there is but one Gildas, who could not have lived earlier than about the end of the 5th cent, or later than that of the I 6th. The oldest authority is Vita Gildae, auctore monacho Rttyensi anonytno, ed. by the Bollandists {Acta SS. Jan. 29, iii. 573 seq.), and attributed to the nth cent, or earlier. The other was wxitten by Caradoc of Llan- carvan in the 12th cent. (Engl. Hist. Soc. 1838). (For pub. and MS. Lives see Hardy's Descript. Cat. i. pt. i. 151-156, pt. ii. 799.) With what seems more or less a common groundwork of fact, these Lives have much that is irreconcilable. " Nor need this seem so very strange," says O'Hanlon {Irish Saints, i. 473-474), " when both accounts had been drawn up several centuries after the life- , time of Gildas, and when they had been written in different centuries and in separate countries. The diversities of chronological events, and of persons hardly contempora- neous, will only enable us to infer that the sources of information were occasionally doubtful, while the various coincidences of narrative seem to warrant a conclusion that both tracts were intended to chronicle the life of one and the same person. It deserves remark, however, that " (quoting from Mon. Hist. Brit. i. pt. i. 59, n.) " both are said to have been born in Scotland. One was the son of N'au, the other of Cau : the eldest son f? brother] of one was Huel, of the other Cuil. iBoth lives have stories of a bell, both Gildases I go to Ireland, both go to Rome, and both I build churches. The monk of Ruys quotes several passages from Gildas's de Excidio, and assigns it to him : and Caradoc calls him ' Historiographus Britonum,' and say that he wrote Historiae de Regibus Britonum." Bp. Nicolson {Eng. Hist. Libr. 32, 3rd ed.) con- cludes that Gildas " was monk of Bangor about the middle of the 6th cent. ; a sorrowful spectator of the miseries and almost utter ruin of his countrymen by a people under whose banner they had hoped for peace." Those who believe there was only one Gildas do not entirely agree as to his dates, one for his birth being sought between a.d. 484 and 520, and one for his death between a.d. 565 and 602. In his de Excidio Britanniae he says he was born in the year of " obsessionis Badonici montis " (c. 26). The Annates Cambriae place the " bellum B adonis " in 516, and the An- nates Tigerna^hi Gildas's death in 570 : these dates are probably nearest the truth. By GLYCERIUS those who suppose there were two or more bearing the same name, " Albaniiis " is placed in the .sth cent. (425-512, Ussher), and " Ba- donicus " in the 6th (520-570, Ussher). The writing ascribed to Ciildas was long regarded as one treatise, </«• Exciilio Brilan- niae ; but is now usually divided into the Historia Gildae and EpistoUi Gildae. The former is a bare recital of the events of British history under the Rmnans. and between their withdrawal and his own time ; the latter a querulous, confused, and lengthy series of bitter inxectives in the form of a declamatory epistle addressed to the Britons, and relating specially to fixe kings, " reges sed t>Tannos," named Coustantinus, Aiirelius, Conan, \'orti- porus, Cuneglasus and Maglocunus.* Many, though probably without quite sufficient reason, regard the latter as the work of a later writer, and as intended in the ecclesiastical differences of the 7th and Sth cents, for purely polemical purposes, while others would place it even later still. See useful notes on both sides in Xotcs and Queries, 4th ser. i. 171, 271, 511, and on the side of genuineness and authenticity. Hist. lit. de la France, t. iii. 280 seq. Holland. Acta SS. Jan. 29, iii. 566- 582; Colgan, Acta SS. 176-203, 226-228; Lanigan, Eccl. Hist. Ir. i. c. 9 ; Ussher, Brit. Reel. Ant. cc. 13-17, and Ind. Chron. ; Wright, Biog. Brit. Lit. Ang.-Sax. per. 1 15-135. See Haddon and Stubbs, Councils, etc. vol. i. pp. 44-107 ; Th. Mommsen {Mon. Get.) ; Did. of Xat. Bioi:. vol. xxi. An Eng. trans, of Gildas's work is in Bohn's Lib. (O. E. Chronicles). [].€..] Glyoerius (5), a deacon in Cappadocia, who caused Basil much annoyance by his extra- vagant and disorderly proceedings c. 374. Being a vigorous young man, well fitted for the humbler offices of the church, and having adopted the ascetic life, he was ordained deacon by Basil, though to what church is doubtful. It is variously given ^s Venesa, Veesa, Venata, and Synnasa. His elevation turned the young man's head. He at once began to neglect the duties of his office, and gathered about him a number of young women, partly by persuasion, partly by force, of whom he took the direction, styling himself their patriarch, and adopting a dress in keeping with his pretensions. He was supported by the offerings of his female followers, and Basil charges him with adopting this spiritual directorship in order to get his living without work. The wild and disorderly proceedings of Glycerius and his deluded adherents created great scandal and caused him to be gravely admonished by his own presbvter, his rhorein- scopus, and finally by Basil himself. Gly- cerins turned a deaf ear, and having swelled his fanatical band by a number of young men, he one night hastily left the city with his whole troop against the will of many of the girls. The scandal of such a band wandering about under pretence of religion, singing hymns, and leaping and dancing in a disorderly fashion, was increased by the fact that a fair was going on, and the young women were exposed to the rude jests of the rabble. Fathers who came • Skene [Four Anc. Books of Wales, i. 63, 64) re- gards them as contemporary rulers, living, one in Devon and Cornwall, two in Walts, and two probably }n the N, or Ireland, GLYCERIUS 303 to rescue their dauglitirs (ri'in s»irh cli<if;r.ire were driven awav by Givrcrius with roiittinir- ly, and he carried off his whole band «<• .1 neighbouring town, of which an uni.lrntifi. <1 Gregory was bishop. Several of Basil's Irtlrrs turned on this matter, the further insur ot which is not known. [fv.] Glycerius (8), emperor of the West, after- wards bp. of Salona. In Mar. 473, bring th«n comes domesticorum. he assinnrd tlic iinprri.il title at Ravenna in succession to Olybrius; but the emperor of the Mast, I.eo 1. the Thracian. set up Julius Nep< s, who was pro- claimed at Ravenna late in 473 or earlv in 474, and marched against GIvcerins and took him prisoner at Portus. (See art. Gi.vfrmts in D. of G. and A'. Biogr.) Glycerius has been reckoned bp. of Portus, of Milan, and of Salona. The Chronicon of Marrellinus Comes under a.d. 474 states that G.lycerius " imperto expulsus, in portu urbis Romae ex Caesare episcopus ordinatus est, et obiit " {Patr. Lot. li. 931) ; on the strength of which he has been named bp. of P<irtus, as by Paulus Diacnmis, who writes : " Portuensis episcf>i>us ordina- tur " (Hist. Misc. lib. xv. in Patr. Lot. xrv. 973 b). Cappelletti and Ughelli (who rails him (iulcerius) assign him to that see between Petrus and Herennius (Ug. Hal. Sac. i. iii ; Capp. Le Chiese d' Hal. i. 497)- Evagrius, on the other hand, relates (//. E. ii. 16) that Nepos appointed Glycerius bp. of the Romans ^s SdXwj'a?, scarcely, however, intending to say, as Canisius understands him, that Glv- cerius was made bp. of Rome. He must mean (writing as a Greek) that Glycerius was <r- dained bp. for Salona by the Roman ecrli- siastical authorities, and that his see belonged to the Roman or western part of the empire and to that patriarchate rather than the Byzantine. Jornandes likewise states that Nepos " Glycerium ab imperio expellens, in Salona Dalmatiae episcoptmi fecit " (jorn. de Reg. Succ. in Muratori. Rer. Hal. Script. X. i. p. 239 b). It is therefore best to miderstand with Canisius (note on the passage in Evag- rius, vid. Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. pt. 2, p. 2546) that the deposition of Glycerius took place at Portus, where at the same time he was ap- pointed to Salona. Thus also Farlati (///vr. Sac. ii. 117-120). The principality of Dal- matia belonged to Nepos independently of the imperial title. Thither he retired before his successful competitor Orestes, and was brought into contact once m< re with (llvre- rius. Photius (Bihlioth. Cod. 7H) m<-ntions the now lost Byzantine History of Malchus the Sophist as stating that Nep<«. having divi-str<l (ilycerius of his Caesarian authority and invaded " the empire of the Romans." or- dained him, made him a bishop, and finally perished by his machinations (in.wrfii? f'eltlus), not " was assassinated," as stated by Gibbcin. Farlati assigns six years to his episcopate, placing his death in 480. The supposition that he was bp. of Mil.in rests on verv slender ground. Enn<Klius, bp. of Pavia, who dedicates short poems to several successive bishops of Milan, mscribes our to (ilycerius, whom he places bitwien Mar- tinianus and I.azarus (carm. Ki, in Patr. l.al. Ixiii. 349) ; but there is nothing in the verses to identify him with the cx-emperor. Eono- 394 GNOSTICISM dius, in his Life of Epiphanius, bp. of Pavia, mentions the emperor Glycerins as shewing so much veneration for that saint as to accept his intercession for some people in the diocese of Pavia, who had incurred the imperial dis- pleasure (Ennod. Vit. Epiphan. in Patr. Lat. Ixiii. 219 a). These are the sole grounds on which Gibbon hazards, doubtfully, the state- ment (Decl. and Fall, vol. iv. p. 295, ed. Smith) that Glycerins was promoted bv Orestes from Salona to the archbishopric of Milan in reward for his assassination of Nepos. [c.h.] Gnosticism. The zeal with which a learner commences the studv of ecclesiastical history is not unfrequently damped at an early stage, when he finds that, in order to know the history of religious thought in the 2nd cent., he must make himself acquainted with specu- lations so wild and so baseless that it is irksome to read them and difficult to believe that time was when acquaintance with them was count- ed as what alone deserved the name of " know- ledge." But it would be a mistake to think too disdainfully of those early heretics who go by the common name of Gnostics. In the first place, it may be said in their excuse that the problems which they imdertook to solve were among the most difficult with which the human intellect has ever grappled — namely, to explain the origin of evil, and to make it con- ceivable how the multiplicity of finite existence can all have been derived from a single abso- lute unconditioned principle. And besides, these speculators onlv did what learned theologians have constantly since endeavoured to do — namelv, combine the doctrines which they learned from revelation with the results of what they regarded as the best philosophv of their own day, so as to obtain what seemed to them the most satisfactory account and explanation of the facts of the universe. Everv union of philosophy and religion is the marriage of a mortal with an immortal : the religion lives ; the philosophy grows old and dies. When the philosophic element of a theological system becomes antiquated, its explanations which contented one age become unsatisfactory to the next, and there ensues what is spoken of as a conflict between religion and science ; whereas, in reality, it is a conflict between the science of one generation and that of a succeeding one. If the religious specula- tions of the 2nd cent, appear to us peculiarly unreasonable, it is because the philosophy incorporated with them is completely alien ti modern thought. That philosophy gave unlimited licence to the framing of hypotheses, and provided that the results were in tolerable accordance with the facts, no other proof was required that the causes which these hypo- theses assumed were reallv in operation. The Timaeus of Plato is a favourable specimen of the philosophic writings which moulded the Gnostic speculations ; and the interval be- tween that and a modern treatise on physics is fully as wide as between Gnosticism and modern scientific theology. So it has hap- pened that modern thought has less sympathy with heretical theories deeply coloured by the philosophy of their own time than with the plain common sense of a church writer such as Irenaeus, which led him to proceed by the positive historical method, and reject what GNOSTICISM was merely fanciful and speculative. And it may be said that deeply important as were some of the particular questions discussed in the conflict between the church and Gnos- ticism, an even more important issue of that conflict was the decision of the method by which religious knowledge was to be arrived at. The Gnostics generally held that the Saviour effected redemption by making a revelation of knowledge, yet they but feebly attempted to connect historically their teach- ing with his ; what was derived from Him was buried under elements taken freely from heathen mythologies and philosophies, or springing from the mere fancy of the specula- tor, so that, if Gnosticism had triumphed, all that is distinctively Christian would have disappeared. In opposition to them, church writers were led to emphasize the principle that that alone is to be accounted true know- ledge of things divine which can be shewn by historical tradition, written or oral, to have been derived from the teaching of Christ and His apostles, a principle the philosophic justice of which must be admitted if Christ be owned as having filled the part in the enlight- enment of the world which orthodox and Gnostics alike attributed to Him. Thus, by the conflict with Gnosticism reverence in the church was deepened for the authority of revelation as restraining the licence of human speculation, and so the channel was marked out within the bounds of which religious thought continued for centuries to flow. We deal here with some general aspects of the subject, referring to the articles on the chief Gnostic teachers for details as to the special tenets of the different Gnostic sects. Use of the Word Gnosticism. — In logical order we ought to begin by defining Gnostic- ism, and so fixing what extension is to be given to the application of the term, a point on which writers are not agreed. Baur, for instance, reckons among Gnostics the sectaries from whom the Clementine writings emanated, although on some of the most fundamental points their doctrines are diametrically op- posed to those commonly reckoned as Gnostic. We conform to more ordinary usage in giving to the word a narrower sense, but this is a matter on which controversy would be only verbal. Gnosticism not being a word which has in its own nature a definite meaning. There is no difficulty in naming common character- istics of the sects commonly called Gnostic, though perhaps none of them is distinctive enough to be made the basis of a logical definition. They professed to be able to trace their doctrine to the apostles. Basilides was said to have learned from a companion of St. Peter ; gospels were in circulation among them which purported to have been written by Philip, Thomas, and other apostles ; and they professed to be able to find their doctrines in the canonical scriptures by methods of allegorical interpretation which, however forced, could easily be paralleled in the pro- cedure of orthodox writers. If we made our definition turn on the claim to the possession of such a Gnosis and to the title of Gnostic, we should have to count Clement of Alexandria among Gnostics and /. Timothy among Gnostic writings ; for the church writers refused to GNOSTICISM surrender these titles to tlie lieretirs and, claiming to be the true linostirs, branded the heretical Gnosis as " falsely so called." If we fix our attention on the predominance of the speculative over the practical in (inosticism, which, as Baur truly remarks, led men to regard Christianity less as a means of salvation than as furnishing the principles of a philo- sophy of the universe, we must allow that since their time very many orthod<ix writings have been open to the same criticism. We come very close to a detinition if we make the criterion of Gnosticism to be the establishment of a dualism between spirit and matter ; and, springing out of this, the doctrine that the world was created by some power dilTerent from the supreme God, yet we might not be able to establish that this characteristic be- longs to every sect which we count as tlnostic ; and if we are asked why we do not count such sects as the Mauicheans among the (inostics, the best answer is that usage contines the word to those sects which arose in the ferment of thought when Christianity first came into contact with heathen philosophy, excluding those which clearly began later. A title of honour claimed by these sectaries for them- selves, and at first refused them by their opponents, was afterwards adopted as the most convenient way of designating them. We have no reason to think that the earliest Gnostics intended to found sects separated from the church and called after their own names. Their disciples were to be Christians, only elevated above the rest as acquainted with deeper mysteries, and called yva'aTiKoi, because possessed of a Gnosis superior to the simple faith of the multitude. Probably the earliest instance of the use of the word is by Celsus, quoted by Origen. v. 6i, where, speak- ing of the multiplicity of Christian sects, he says that there were some who professed to be Gnostics. Irenaeus (i. xxv. 5, p. 104), speaking of the Carpocratians and in particular of that school of them which Marcellina established at Rome, says that they called themselves Gnostics. It is doubtless on the strength of this passage that Eusebius (//. E. iv. 7), quoting Irenaeus in the same context, calls Carpocrates the father of the sect called that of the Gnostics. In the habitual use of the word by Irenaeus himself it does not occur as limited to Carpocratians. Irenaeus, in his first bo(jk, when he has gone through the sects called after the names of heretical teachers, gives in a kind of appendix an account of a number of sects in their general characteris- tics Ophite, but he does not himself use that name. He calls them " multitudo Gnostic- orum," tracing their origin to Simon Magus, and counting them as progenitors of the Valentinians. And constantly we have the expression Basilidians, Valentinians, etc., " et reliqui Gnostici," where, by the latter appella- tion, the Ophite sects are specially intended. The form of expression does not exclude from the title of Gnostic the sects named after their founders ; and the doctrine of the Valentin- ians is all through the work of Irenaeus a branch of " (inosis falsely so called " ; yet it is usually spoken of less as Gnosticism than as a development of Gnosticism, and the Valentinians are described as more Gnostic GNOSTICISM 39S than the Gnosti.s. nii-.iiiiiit; h\ tli.- l.ittrr w..rd the Ophite sects alre.i.lv nirntionrd. In the work of Hippolytus against hrrt-sics, the nainr is almost exclusively found in ronmxion with the sect of the Naassenes or Ophites, and thrre or four times it is repeated (v. 2. p. 0^; 4. p. 04 ; II, p. 12.^) that these people call them- selves Gnostics, claiming that thrv alone " knew the depths." The common soiinr of Epiphanius and I'hilastcr had an article on the N'icolaitancs, tracing the origin i>l the Gnostics to Nicolas the Deacon (see also Hippolytus, vii. ;^f), p. 258, and the statement of Irenaeus [II. ii. p. 188] that Nirolaitanism was a branch of Gnosis). Epiphanius divide* this article into two, making the (inostics a separate heresy (Haer. 26). Hence ancient usage leaves a good deal of latitude to modem writers in deciding which of the znd-cent. sects they will count as Gnostic. Classification 0/ Gnostic Sects. — Some general principles of philosophic classification may be easily agreed on, but when they come to be applied, it is found that there are some sects to which it is mU obvious where to assign a place, and that some sects are separated whose affinities are closer than those of others which are classed together. A very important, though not a complete, division is that made by Clement of Alexandria {Strom, iii. 5) into the ascetic and licentious sects : both parties agreeing in holding the essential evil of matter ; the one endeavouring bv rigorous abstinence to free as much as possible man's soul from the bondage to which it is subjected by union with his material part, and refusing to marry and so enthral new souls in the prisons of bodies ; the other abandoning as desperate any attempt to purify the hopelessly corrupt bodv. and teaching that the instructed soul ought to hold itself unaffected by the deeds of the body. All actions were to it indifferent. The division of Neander is intended to embrace a wider range than that just described. Taking the common doctrine of the Gnostic sects that the world was made by a Being different from the supreme God, he distinguishes whether that Being was held to have acted in subor- dination to the Supreme, and on the whole to have carried out his intentions, or to have been absolutelv hostile to the su|'rc-me God. Tak- ing into account the generally ac knowledged principle that the Creator of the world was the same as the God worshipped by the Jews, we see that C.nostics of the second class would be absolutelv hostile to Judaism, which thc«e of the former class might accept as one of the stages ordained bv the Sui'reme in the enlight- enment of the world. Thus Neander's divi- sion classifies sects as not unfriendly to Judaism or as hostile to it ; the former class taking its origin in those Alexandrian sch<«>ls where the authoritv of such teachers as I'hilo had weight, the latter among Christian con- verts from Oriental philosophy whose early education had given them no j.rejudices in favour of Judaism. Gieseler divides into Alexandrian (.nostics. whf«e teaching was mainlv influenced bv the Platonic phih-sophv. and S'vrian strongly affected by Parsism. In the former the emanation doctrine was pre- dominant, in the latter dualism. rnd.iiMed- ly the most satisfactory classification w.-uld 396 GNOSTICISM be if it were possible, as Matter suggested, to 1 have one founded on the history of the genera- [ tion of the sects, distinguishing the school where Gnosticism had its beginning, and naming the schools which successively in different places altered in different directions the original scheme. But a good classification of this kind is rendered impossible by the scantiness of our materials for the history of Gnosticism. Irenaeus is the first to give any full details, and he may be counted two generations later than Valentinus ; for Mar- cus, the disciple of Valentinus, was resisted by one whom Irenaeus looked up to with respect as belonging to the generation above his own. The interval between Valentinus and the i beginning of Gnosticism was, moreover, prob- ably quite as great as that between Valen- ; tinus and Irenaeus. The phrase used by I Hippolytus in telling us that the Naassenes boasted that they alone " knew the depths" ; was also a watchword of the false teachers reprobated in the Apocalypse (Rev. ii. 24). We can hardly avoid the inference that these I Naassenes inherited a phrase continuously in use among heretical teachers since before the publication of the Revelation. Of the writers who would deny the pastoral epistles to be St. Paul's, a large proportion date the Rd'ela- tion only 2 or 3 years after St. Paul's death ; therefore, whether or not it was St. Paul who wrote of the " falsely called knowledge," it remains probable that heretical pretenders to Gnosis had arisen in his lifetime. If the beginnings of Gnosticism were thus in apos- tolic times, we need not be surprised that the notices of its origin given by Irenaeus more than a century afterwards are so scanty ; and that the teachers to whom its origin has been ascribed, Simon, Menander, Nicolas, Cerin- thus, remain shadowy or legendary characters. It follows that conclusions as to the order of succession of the early Gnostic sects and their obligations one to another are very insecure. Still, some general facts in the history of the ev'olution of Gnosticism may be considered fairly certain ; and we are disposed to accept the classification of Lipsius and count three stages in the progress of Gnosticism, even though there may be doubt to what place a particular sect is to be assigned. The birth- place of Gnosticism may be said to be Syria, if we include in that Palestine and Samaria, where church tradition places the activity of those whom it regards as its founders, Simon and Menander. It may also be inferred from the use made of O.T. and of Hebrew words that Gnosticism sprang out of Judaism. The false teaching combated in Colossians. which has several Gnostic features, is also distinctly Jewish, insisting on the observance of sabbath's and new moons. The Epp. to Timothy and Titus, dealing with a somewhat later develop- ment of Gnosticism, describe the false teachers as " of the circumcision," " professing to be teachers of the law" and propounders of " Jewish fables." It is not unlikely that what these epistles characterize as "profane and old wives' fables " may be some of the Jewish Haggadah of which the early stages of Gnos- ticism are full. The story of laldahaoth, e.?., told by Irenaeus (i. 30), we hold to date from the very beginning of Gnosticism, if not in its GNOSTICISM present shape, at least in some rudimentary form, as fragments of it appear in different Gnostic systems, especially the representation of the work of Creation as performed by an inferior being, who still fully believed him- self to be the Supreme, saying, " I am God, and there is none beside me," until, after this boast, his ignorance was enlightened. The Jewish CablDala has been asserted to be the parent of Gnosticism ; but the records of Cabbalistic doctrine are quite modern, and any attempt to pick out the really ancient parts must be attended with uncertainty. Lipsius (p. 270, and Gratz, referred to by him) shews that the Cabbala is certainly not older than Gnosticism, its relation to it being not that of a parent, but of a younger brother. If there be direct obligation, the Cabbala is the borrower, but many common features are to be explained by regarding both as branches from the same root, and as alike springing from the contact of Judaism with the religious beliefs of the farther East. Jewish Essenism especially furnished a soil favourable to the growth of Gnosticism, with which it seems to have had in common the doctrine of the essential evil of matter, as appears from the denial by the Essenes of the resurrection of the body and from their inculcation of a disciplining of man's material part by very severe asceticism. (See Lightfoot, Colossians, 119 seq.) Further, the Ebionite sects which sprang out of Essenism, while they professed the strongest attachment to the Mosaic law, not only rejected the authority of the pro- phetical writings, but dealt in a very arbitrary manner with those parts of the Pentateuch which conflicted with their peculiar doctrines. We have parallels to this in theories of some of the early Gnostic sects which referred the Jewish prophetical books to the inspiration of beings inferior to Him by Whom the law was given, as well as in the arbitrary modes of criticism applied by some of the later sects to the books of Scripture. A form of Gnosticism thus developed from Judaism when the latter was brought into contact with the mystic speculations of the East, whether we suppose Essenism to have been a stage in the process of growth or both to have been independent growths under similar circumstances of development. Lipsius notes as the char- acteristics of those sects which he counts as belonging to the first stage of Gnosticism that they still move almost or altogether within the circle of the Jewish religious history, and that the chief problem they set themselves is the defining the relation between Christianity and Judaism. The solutions at which they arrive are very various. Those Jewish sects whose Essenism passed into the Ebionitism of the Clementines regarded Christianity as essen- tially identical with Judaism, either religion being sufficient for salvation. These sects are quite orthodox as to the Creation, their utmost deviation (if it can be called so) from the received belief being the ascription of Creation to the immanent wisdom of God. Other Jewish speculators came to think of the form- ation of matter as accomplished by a sub- ordinate being, carrying out, it may be, the will of the Supreme, but owing to his finiteness and ignorance doing the work with many GNOSTICISM imperfections. Tluii ( amc tlio theory that this subordinate lieinj; was the Ciuil of tlie Jews, to wliich nation he liaii issued many commandments that were not good, though overruled by the Supreme so as to carry out His ends. Lastly came the theory of the Cainites and other extreme Ophite sects, which represented the (.lod of the Jews as the deter- mined enemy of the Supreme, and as one whose commands it was tiie duty of every enlightened tlnostic to disobey. With all their variety of results, these sects agreed in the importance attached to the problem of the true relations of Judaism to Christianity. They do make use of certain heathen prin- ciples of cosmogony, but these such as already had become familiar to Syriac Judaism, and introduced not so much to elTect a reconcilia- tion between Christianity and heathenism as to give an explanation of the service rendered to the world by the publication of Christianity, the absolute religion. This is made mainly to consist in the aid given to the soul in its struggles to escape the bonds of tiniteness and darkness, by making known to it the super- sensual world and awaking it to the conscious- ness of its spiritual origin. Regarding this knowledge as the common privilege of Chris- tians, the first speculators would count their own possession of it as differing rather in degree than in kind ; and so it is not easy to draw a sharp line of distinction between their doctrine on the subject of Gnosis and that admitted as orthodox. Our Lord had de- scribed it as the privilege of His disciples to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven ; later when His follcnvcrs learned of a suffering Messiah, and of the fulfilment in Jesus of the types of the Mosaic law, they felt that the veil had been removed for them, and that they enjoyed a knowledge of the meaning of the O.T. Scriptures to which their unconverted brethren were strangers. This feeling per- vades the Ep. to the Hebrews, and still more that of Barnabas. Another doctrine which St. Paul describes aS a mystery formerly kept secret, but now revealed through his gospel, is the admission of the Gentiles on equal terms with the Jews to the inheritance of the king- dom of Christ. It w-as no part of orthodox Christian doctrine that all Christians [Jossessed the true Gnosis in equal degree. Some re- quired to be fed with milk, not with strong meat, and had not their senses exercised by reason of use to discern between good and evil. Clement of Alexandria distinguished between faith and knowledge. The difference, therefore, between the Gnostic doctrine and that of the church mainly depends on the character of what was accounted knowledge, much of the Gnostic so-called knowledge consisting in acquaintance with the names of a host of invisible beings and with the for- mulae which could gain their favour. Gnosticism, in its first stage, did not proceed far outside the limits of Syria. What Lipsius counts as the second stage dates from the migration of Gnostic systems to Alex- andria, where the myths of Syriac Gnosis came to be united to principles of Grecian philo- sophy. Different Gnostic systems resulted according as the principles of this or that Grecian school were adopted. Thus, in the GNOSTICISM 397 system of \,il.iitmiis, tin- rythagorran Pla- tonic phildsiiphy predommalis, the Slur in that of the Hasilidians as prcsfuled bv Hip- polytus. In these systems, tinRfd with Hellenism, the Jewish religion is not so nuu h controverted or disparaged as iRiiorrd. The mythological personages among whom in the older Gnosis the work of creation was distri- buted are in these Hellenic systems replai ed by a kind of abstract beings (of wlioin the Valentinian aeons are an example) whi( h personify the dilferent stages of the priKcss by which the One Infinite Spirit comnuinicates and reveals itself to derived existences. The distinction between faith and knowledge becomes sharpened, the persons to whom faith and knowledge respectively are to serve as guides being represented as essentially different in nature. The most obvious divi- sion of men is into a kingdom of light and a kingdom of darkness. The need of a third class may have first made itself fell from the necessity t)f finding a place for members of the Jewish religion, who stood so far above heathenism, so far below Christianity. The Platonic trichotomy of body, soul, and spirit afTorded a principle of threefold classification, and men are divided into earthly (v\tkoi or Xo'inoi), animal (ifvxtKoi), and spiritual (wvti- fxnriKoi). In these Hellenic Gnostic systems the second class represents not Jews but ordinary Christians, and the distinction be- tween them and the Gnostics themselves (who are the spiritual) rests on an assumed differ- ence of nature which leaves little room for human free will. Salvation by faith and corresponding works is disparaged as suitable only for the psychical, the better sort of whipni may, by this means, be brought to as high a position in the order of the universe as their nature is capable of ; but the really sjnritual need not these lower methods of salvation. It suffices for them to have the knowledge of their true nature revealed for them to become certain of shaking off all imprisoning bonds and soaring to the highest region of all. Thus ordinary historical Christianity runs the risk of meeting the same fate in the later Gnostic i systems that befell J udaism in the earlier. The I doctrines and facts of the religion are only I valued so far as they can be made subservient to the peculiar notions of Gnosticism ; and I the method of allegorical interpretation was I so freely applied to both Testaments that all the solid parts of the religion were in danger of being volatilized away. The natural consequence of this weakening of the historic side of Christianity was the removal of all sufficient barrier against the intrusion of heathen elements into the sys- tems ; while their moral teaching was in- ! juriously affected by the doctrine that the spiritual were secure of salvation by necessity of their nature and irrespectively of their conduct. Gnosticism, in its third stage, struggles in various w ays to avoid these faults, and so again draws nearer to the teaching of the Catholic cliun h. Thus the Docetaic of Hippolytus allow of immense variety of classes, corresponding to the diversity of ideas derived fr<»m the world of aeons, which each has received ; while again they deny to none a share in our Lord's redemption, but 398 GNOSTICISM own that members of different sects are en- titled, each in his degree, to claim kinship with Jesus and to obtain forgiveness of sins through Him. So again in one of the latest of the Gnostic systems, that of Pistis Sophia, there is no assertion of an essential diversity of nature among men, but the immense develop- ment of ranks and degrees in the spiritual world, which that work professes to reveal, is used so as to provide for every man a place according to his works. In the system of Marcion, too, the theory of essentially different classes is abandoned ; the great boast of Christianity is its universality ; and the redemption of the Gospel is represented, not as the mere rousing of the pneumatic soul to consciousness of privileges all along possessed, but as the introduction of a real principle of moral life through the revelation of a God of love forgiving sins through Christ. We add brief notes on a few main points of the Gnostic systems. Creation and Cosmogony. — Philo (de Op. Miind.) had inferred from the expression, " Let MS make man," of Genesis that God had used other beings as assistants in the creation of man, and he explains in this way why man is capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the origin of the latter to God, of the former to His helpers in the work of creation. The earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of creation to angels, some of them using the same passage in Genesis (Justin. Dial, cum Try ph. c. 67). Doctrine with respect to Judaism. — The doc- trine that the Creator of the world is not the supreme God leads at once to the question, What then is to be thought of the God of the Jews, who certainly claimed to have created the world ? This question is most distinctly answered in the doctrine of the Ophite system (Iren. i. 30). According to it he who claimed to be a jealous God, acknowledging none other, was led by sheer ignorance to make a false pretension. He was in truth none other than the chief of the creative angels, holding but a subordinate place in the constitution of the universe. It was he who forbad to Adam and Eve that knowledge by which they might be informed that he had superiors, and who on their disobedience cast them out of Paradise. Doctrine concerning the Nature of Man. — With the myth, told by Saturninus, of the animation of a previously lifeless man by a spark of light from above, he connected the doctrine, in wliich he was followed by almost all Gnostic sects, that there would be no resurrection of the body, the spark of light being taken back on death to the place whence it had come, and man's material part being resolved into its elements. Saturninus is said to have taught the doctrine, antagonistic to that of man's free will, that there were classes of men by nature essentially different, and of these he counted two — the good and the wicked. The doctrine became common to many Gnostic systems that the human frame contained a heavenly element struggling to return to its native place. Redemption and Christology. — The Gnostic systems generally represent man's spirit as imprisoned in matter, and needing release. The majority recognize the coming of Christ GORDIANUS as a turning-point in human affairs, but almost all reduce the Redeemer's work to the impar- tation of knowledge and the disclosure of mysteries. With regard to the nature of Christ, the lowest view is held by Justinus, who describes Jesus but as a shepherd boy commissioned by an angel to be the bearer of a divine revelation, and who attributes to Him at no time any higher character. Carpo- I crates makes Jesus a man like others, only of more than ordinary steadfastness and purity of soul, possessing no prerogatives which other men may not attain in the same or even higher degree if they follow, or surpass, His example. Besides furnishing an example. He was also supposed to have made a revelation of truth, to secret traditions of which the followers of Carpocrates appealed. At the opposite pole from those who see in the Saviour a mere man are those who deny His humanity altogether. We know from St. John's epistle that the doctrine that our Lord had not really come in the flesh was one which at an early time troubled the church. Authorities. — The great work of Irenaeus against heresies is the chief storehouse whence writers, both ancient and modern, have drawn their accounts of the Gnostic sects. It was primarily directed against the then most popular form of the heresy of Valentinus, and hence this form of Gnosticism has thrown all others into the shade, andmany modern writers when professing to describe Gnosticism really describe Valentinianism. Irenaeus was largely copied by Tertullian, who, however, was an independent authority on Marcionism ; by Hippolytus, who in his work against heresies adds, however, large extracts from his in- dependent reading of Gnostic works; and by Epiphanius, who also gives a few valuable additions from other sources. The Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria, though provokingly desultory and unsystematic, furnish much valuable information about Gnosticism, which was still a living foe of the church. The writings of Origen also yield much important information. The matter, not borrowed from Irenaeus, to be gleaned from later heresiolo- gists is scanty and of doubtful value. Modern works which have made valuable contributions to the knowledge of Gnosticism include Neander, Genetische Entwickelung (1818), and Church Hist. vol. ii. (1825 and 2nd ed. 1843, trans, in Clarke's series) ; Burton, Bampton Lectures (1829) ; Baur, Christliche Gnosis (1835) ; Die christliche Kirche der drei j ersten Jahrhunderte (1853, and ed. i860) ; and Mansel. The Gnostic Heresies (1875). [g.s.] GordianuS (7), father of pope Gregory the Great, was a noble Roman of senatorial rank, and descended from a pope Felix (Joann. Diac. in Vit. S. Gregorii ; Greg. Dialog. 1. 4, c. 16). John the Deacon says that Felix IV. (ace. 523) was his ancestor ; but this pope being described as a Samnite, whereas Gregory is always spoken of as of Roman descent, Felix III. (ace. 467) is more probable. A large property accrued to Gregory on his father's death. Gordianus is described as a religious man, and thus contributing to the eminently religious training of his son, though not canonized after death, as were his wife Silvia, and his two sisters, Tarsilla and GRATIANUS Aemiliana. John the deacon (op. cil. 1. 4. c. 83) describes two pictures of him and liis wife Silvia remaining to tlie writer's time (ytli cent.) in the Alrium of St. .\ndrew's monas- tery, where tliey liad been placed by St. Gregory himself, the founder of the nioii.istery. Gordianus is represented as standint^ before a seated figure of St. I'eter (who holds his right hand) and as clothed in a chestnut-coloured pianela over a dalmatic, and with caligae on his feet. Gordianus is designated " Region- arius," from which, as well as from his dress, Baronius supposes that he was one of the seven cardinal deacons of Rome, it having been not uncommon, he says, for married men, with the consent of their wives, to embrace clerical or monastic life. As to the dress, he adduces two of St. Gregory's epistles (£/>. 113, 1. i. ind. 2. and £/>. -28, 1. 7, ind. i) to shew that the dalmatic and caligae were then part of the costume of Roman deacons. But the meaning of the title " regionarius " is uncertain. It occurs in St. Ciregory's Efy. 5, 1. 7, ind. i, in Ep. 2 of pope Honorius I. (regionarius nostrae sedis) ; in .\imoiniis, de Gestis Francorum, pt. 2, p. 247 (regionarius primae sedis) ; in I'it. Ludovici Pit, anu. 835 (regionarius Romanae urbis) ; and in Anastasius, On Constantine (Theophanes regionarius). In two of these instances, those from Honorius and Aimoinus, the persons so designated are expressly said to be subdeacons. It seems to have denoted an office connected with the city of Rome and the apostolic see, but certainly not one con- lined to deacons. As to the dress, it is merely originally ordinary lay costume, the planeta, rather than the casula, having been worn by persons of rank. St. Gregory himself, in his portrait in the same monastery described by John the deacon, wears precisely the same dress, even to the colour of the planeta, only having the pallium over it, to mark his ecclesiastical rank. [j.b — v.] Gratianus (5) {Flavins Gtatiaiius Augustus), emperor 375-383, son of Valentinian, was born at Sirmium in 359, while his father was still an officer in the army. When Valentinian was chosen emperor by the soldiers in 364, Gratian was not five years old. On Aug. 24, 367, Valentinian, at Amiens, declared him " Augustus." When Valentinian died in 375, the infant child of his second wife Justina (Valentinian II.) was proclaimed Augustus by his principal officers (.•Kmm. xxx. 10), in reliance u[)on the youth and good nature of tlratian, who was at Treves, and who recognized his young brother almost immediately. Justina fixed licr court at Sirmium ; and the Western empire was perhaps nominally divided between the two brothers, Gratian having Gaul, Spain, and Britain, and Valentinian, Italy, Illyricum, and Africa (Zos. iv. 19). But this division must have been simply nominal, as Gratian con- stantly acted in the latter provinces (see Tillem. Emp. v. p. 140, and cf. the laws quoted infra). For the first years of his reign, till the death of his uncle Valens, Gratian resided chiefly at Treves, whence most of his laws are dated. His first acts were to punish with death some of the prominent instruments of the cruelties committed in the name of justice and discipline, which had disgraced his father's GRATIANUS 309 later years, especially the hatc.l .Maximinut. .Anollur ait, doubtless at tin- b.-gMinniK of his reign, shewed his determination to brr.ik with paganism more etiectually than his pre- decessors had done. This was his refusal «.| the robe of pontifex maximus, when it was brought to him according to cusl>.m by the ptmtifices ; thinking (as the heathen historian tells us) that it was unlawful for a Christi.ui (Zos. iv. 36). The title appears iiidieil toMunc extent on coins and inscriptions, but it is not easy to fix their ilate. The Eastern empire was, meanwhile, in the hands of the incompetent Valens, in great danger from Goths. In 378 the Alainanni Lentienses passed the Rhine in great fi>rce and threatened the Western empire, but were heavily defeated by Gratian at Argentana, near Colmar (.\iiini. xxxi. 10). This set him free to move towards the Mast ; and .«t Sirmium he heard of the defeat of his uiu le at Adrianople, Aug. 7, and of his ignoble death (i/j. 11,6; 12,10). ihesituation wasextreiiuly critical for an eiiH)eror not 20 years of age. The barbarians were in motion on all the frontiers. The internal condition of the West was in- secure, from the tacit antagonism between the two courts, and the East was now suddenly thrown upon his hands, as Valens had left no children. Gratian shewed his judgment by sending for the younger Theodosius, son of the late count Theodosius and about 13 years older than himself, who after his father's execution was living in retirement upon his estates in Spain (Victor, Ep. 72, 74, etc. ; cf. Themist. Orat. 14, p. 183 a). Theodosius, loyal and fearless like his father, was at once entrusted with command of the troops as magister militum. His successes over the barbarians (probably Sarniatians) encouraged Gratian to ajipoint him emperor of the East with general applause (Theod. v. 5, 0). Gratian returned frt)m Sirmium by way of Aquileia and Milan, at which i)la( es he passed some parts of July and Aug. 379. He had previously been brought into contact with St. Ambrose, and had received from him the two first books of his treatise de Fide, intended speciallv to preserve him against Arianism. This teaching had its due effect ; and he now addressed a letter to the bp. of Milan (sec infra). St. .Ambrose sent him two more books of his treatise, and probably had i>er- sonal intercourse with him. Gratian thni went on to his usual residtnce at Treves, but during the following years resided inu( h more frecjuentlv at and n.ar .Milan, especially in winter; his intercourse with St. Ambr<-se resulting in his confirmation in the Catholic faith. There was. however, another side to this !)ra( tical neglect of the (lallic provinces. The Western provincials — never very con- tented—felt the absence of the imperial court. If Gratian had continued to reside at Treves, the rebellion of .Magnus Maximus might never have taken place, and certainly would not have grown so formidable. The influence of St. Ambrt>sc is shewn by the ecclesiastical laws (see xnfra), and in the removal of the altar of Victory from the senate-house at Rome in a.u. 3H1 (St. Ambr. Ep. 17, 5 ; Svmiii. Ep. 61. ad init. et ad finem). The heathen senators, though m the 400 GRATIANUS minority, were accustomed to offer incense on this altar, and to touch it in taking solemn oaths (Ambr. £/>. 17,9). It had been removed or covered up during the visit of Constantius, but was again restored under Julian, and Valentinian's policy had been against inter- ference with such matters (Symm. I.e.). Its removal now caused great distress to the heathen party, who met in the senate-house and petitioned Gratian for its restoration. But the Christians, who had absented them- selves from the curia, met privately, and sent a counter-petition through pope Damasus to Ambrose, who presented it to the emperor (Ambr. I.e.). The weight of this document enabled the advisers of Gratian to prevent his giving the heathen party a hearing. This blow was soon followed by another even more telling — the confiscation of the revenues of the temple of Victory, and the abolition of the privileges of the pontiffs and vestals, a measure ex- tended to other heathen institutions {ib. 3-5 ; 18, II f. ; Cod. Theod. xv. 10, 20). These laws were followed by a famine in Italy, especially in Rome, which the pagans naturally ascribed to sacrilege (Symm. I.e.). A much more serious danger was the revolt of Magnus Maximus, a former comrade of Theodosius in Britain, who was probably jealous of his honours, and was now put for- ward as emperor by thesoldiers. [Maximus (2|.] This rising took place a.d. 383 in Britain, whence the usurper passed over to the mouth of the Rhine, gathering large bodies of men as he went. Gratian set out to meet him, with his two generals Balio and Merobaudes, the latter a Frank by birth. The two armies met near Paris, and Gratian was deserted by nearly all his troops (Zos. iv. 35 ; Ambr. in Ps. 61, 17). Only 300 horse remained faithful. With these he fled at full speed to Lyons. The governor received him with protestations of loyalty, and took a solemn oath on the Gospels not to hurt him. Gratian, deceived by his assurances, took his place in his imperial robes at a feast, during or soon after which he was basely assassinated (Aug. 25) at the age of 24, leaving no children. The traitor even denied his body burial (Ambr. I.e., and 23 f. ; Marcell. sub anno). Gratian was amiable and modest — in fact, too modest to be a good governor in these rough times. He was generous and kind- hearted, of an attractive disposition and beautiful person. His tutor Ausonius had taken pains to inspire him with tastes for rhetoric and versification. He was chaste and temperate, careful in religious conduct, and zealous for the faith. His great fault was a neglect of public business through devotion to sport, especially to shooting wild beasts with bow and arrows in his parks and preserves (Amm. I.e. ; Victor, Ep. 73). He once killed a lion with a single arrow (Aus. Epig. 6) ; and St. Ambrose alludes to his prowess in the chase, adopting the language of David's elegy over Jonathan — " Gratiani sagitta non est reversa retro " {de Obitu Valent. 73 ; cf. the old Latin of II. Sam. i. 22). The ecclesiastical policy of Gratian was 1 more important than his civil or military i government. His reign, coinciding with that | of Theodosius, saw orthodox Christianity for GRATIANUS j the first time dominant throughout the empire. His measures in behalf of the church I were often tainted with injustice towards the sects. But it is probable that the laws were ' very imperfectly carried out (see Richter, p. 327). His first general law against heretical sects is dated from Treves, May i, 376, and speaks of a previous law of the same kind [Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 4), which may, however, be one of Valens (and Valentinian). In 377, shortly before the death of Valens, he condemned rebaptism, and ordered the I Donatist churches to be restored to the Catholics and their private meeting-houses confiscated (Cod. Theod. xvi. 6, 2). The death of Valens was naturally the signal for I the disciple of St. Ambrose to restore the I Catholics of the East to their possessions. He recalled all those whom his uncle had ban- ished, and further issued an edict of toleration [ for all Christian sects, except the Eunomians (extreme Arians, see Soz. vi. 26), Photinians, I and Manicheans (Socr. v. 2; Soz. vii. i). Theodoret (v. 2) appears to confuse this with i the later edict of Gratian and Theodosius. I On the strong representations of Idacius of ' Merida, the Priscillianists, an enthusiastic sect of Gnostics numerous in Spain (Sulpicius Severus, Chron. ii. 47, 6), were also excepted. ] On his return from Sirmium, Gratian wrote ' the following affectionate and interesting auto- graph (Ambr. Ep. i, 3) letter to St. Ambrose : "I desire much to enjoy the bodily presence I of him whose recollection I carry with me, and I with whom I am present in spirit. Therefore, [ hasten to me, religious priest of God, to teach me the doctrine of the true faith. Not that I I am anxious for argument, or wish to know ; God in words rather than in spirit ; but that my heart may be opened more fully to receive the abiding revelation of the divinity. For He will teach me, Whom I do not deny. Whom I confess to be my God and my Lord, not raising as an objection against His divinity that He took upon Himself a created nature I like my own [non ei obiciens, quam in me video, creaturam]. I confess that I can add nothing to the glory of Christ ; but I should , wish to commend myself to the Father in ' glorifying the Son. I will not fear a grudging spirit on the part of God. I shall not suppose myself such an encomiast as to increase His divinity by my praises. In my weakness and frailty I utter what I can, not what is adequate to His divinity. I desire you to send me a copy of the same treatise, which you sent before [de Fide, i. ii.], enlarging it by a faithful dissertation on the Holy Spirit : prove that He is God by arguments of Scripture and reason. May the Deity keep you for many years, my father, and worshipper of the eternal God, Jesus Christ, Whom we worship." St. Ambrose replies, excusing his non-attend- ance upon the emperor, praising the expres- sions of his faith, and sending two fresh books of his treatise. For the new book, de Sptritu Saneto, he asks time, knowing (as he says) what a critic will read them. The subject was at this moment being largely discussed in the Eastern church. It is assumed by De Broglie that the bishop and the emperor did not meet at this time, but St. Ambrose writes in the letter just quoted, GRATIANUS § 7, " veniam plane et fcstinabo ut jubes," and two laws of Ciratian's are dated from Milan in July and Aug. 370 {Cod. Just. vi. 3::, 4, July 29, and Cod. Theod. xvi. 3, 5, Aug. 3, to Hesperius Pf. Praet. de haeretiris), the second of which may shew the influence of St. Ambrose. It forbids the heresies against which former imperial edicts had been di- rected, and especially that of rebaptism (the Donatists), and revokes the recent tolerant edict of Sirmiuni. About this time must be dated the occur- rences mentioned by St. .\mbrose in de Spiritu Sancto, i. §§ 10-21- The empress Justina, an Arian, had obtained from tiratian a basilica for the worship of her sect, to the great dis- tress of the Catholics. He restored it, how- ever, apparently of his own motion, to their equal surprise and delight, perhaps a.d. 380 (cf. Kichter, n. 30, p. 692 ; de Spiritu Sancto. § 20, neque enim aliud possumus dicere, nisi sancti Spiritus banc priore gratiam, quod j ignorantibus omnibus subito Basilicam red- | didisti). St. Ambrose also obtained another [ victory over the Arians in 380 in his journey to Sirmium, where Justina apparently also went. In spite of her vehement opposition, he succeeded in consecrating an orthodox bishop to the metropolitan see of Illyria, and thus laid the foundation for the suppression of heresy in that quarter of the empire (Paul- inus, V'ita Ambrosii, 11). Gratian evidently agreed in the important edict issued by his colleague Theodosius on Feb. 27, 380, from Thessalonica to the people of Constantinople. This remarkable docu- ment declared the desire of the emperors that all their subjects should profess the religion given by St. Peter to the Romans and now held by the pontiff Damasus, and Peter, bp. of .Alexandria — that is to say, should confess the one deity and equal majesty of the three persons of the Blessed Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; and further, that they alone who hold this faith are to be called Catholics, and their places of meeting churches ; while the rest are branded as heretics, and are threat- ened with an indefinite punishment (Cod. Theod. xvi. 1,2; cf. the law of the next year, which mentions various Catholic bishops of the East, whose communion was to be the test of orthodoxy, including Nectarius of Con- stantinople-^perhaps the reference to Dam- asus had given offence). De Broglie says of these laws, " It was impossible to abjure more decidedly the pretension of dogmatizing from the elevation of the throne, which had been since Constantine the mania of all the em- perors and the scourge of the empire " (vol. v. p. 365). But correct dogmatism is still dogmatism, and the definition of truth by good emperors kept up the delusion that the right of perpetual interference with religion ' was inherent in their office. j In May 383, at Padua, Gratian issued a penal law against apostates, and those who try to make others apostatize from Christianity. In 381 hf summoned the council of .Aquihia (which met on Sept. 5) to decide the cases of the Illyrian bishops Palladius and Securi- dianus, who were accused of Arianism. Their condemnation put an end to the official life of Arianism in that important district | GREGORIUS 401 (Ambr. £/>. 9). The records of (liis rounril are preserved bv St. Ambrose, ((oIIowihk hU 8th epistle in the Memdirtine ed.). who t<><.k the chief part in it. though he did a-.t technically preside. The same council t.n.k up the case of pt.pe Damasus ami besought the emperor to interfere against the j>artis.uis o( the antipope I'rsinus (1/). 11). liic relatii.n* of Gratian with the see of Rome are som.wh.it obscure, but some extension of its privilrgi* and pretensions dates from this reign. Ac- cording to the documents first published bv Sirmond, a synod held in Rome s>>on after Gratian's accession made large demands for ecclesiastical jurisdiction and particularly asked that the bp. of Rome should only be judged by a council of bishops or by the emperor in person, (iratian in his rescript to .\quilinus the vicar (of Rome ?) grants and confirms several privileges, but savs nothing of the latter request. Some doubt hangs over the whole of these documents. (See lnHlcfroy, Cod. Theod. vol. vi. appendix, pp. 17. iH; Baron. Annals, sub anno 381, §§ i. 2 ; Tillcm. Datnase, arts. 10 and 11. Grcenwo«Kl, Cathe- dra Petri, vol. i. pp. 239-242 ; Hefele. Councils. § 91, does not even hint at their existence.) In consequence of the success of the council of Aquileia St. Ambrose was anxi<jus to call together an oecumenical assembly at Rome to settle the dispute between Nectarius and .Maximus, who both claimed the see of Con- stantinople, and pressed the emperor Theo- dosius on the point {Epp. 13 and 14), who, however, naturally viewed this interference with coldness (Theod. v. 8, 9). A council, ne\ ertheless, met at Rome, but without doing much beyond condenuiing the ApoUinarians. Returning to Milan, St. Ambrose took leave of the young emperor for the last time. Their intercourse had always been tender and affectionate, and was the last thought of the emperor before his death. We may here mention an instance of their relations, which may have been at this or at any other period of their friendship (de Broglie, to make a point, puts it here. vol. vi. p. 45, but neither Paulinus. § 37, nor Sozomcn, vii. 25, gives any hint of date). A heathen of quality was condenmed to death for abusing Ciratian and calling him an unworthy son of Valentinian. As he was being led to execu- tion. .Ambrose hurried to the palace to inter- cede for him. One Macedonius. master of the offices, it would seem, ordered the servants to refuse him admittance, astiratian was engaged in his favourite sport. Ambrose went round to the park gates, entered unperceived bv the huntsmen, and never left Gratian till he had overcome his arguments and those of his courtiers and obtained remission of the s«-n- fence. "The time will come." he said to Macedonius, " when you will fly for asylum to the church, but the chun h doors will be shut against you." The anecdote of the criminal is told by Sozomeii. I.e. ; the words to Mace- donius are given bv I'aulinus. u.s. (jw.) GregoriUS (3). surnamed I haumaturgus. bp. of Ncoraesarea in Pontus. c. 233-270; born c. 210 at Neocaesarca on the Lycus. the modern Niksar ; the son of wealthy and noble heathen parents. Christianity had as ycl made little progress in that neighbourhood, 26 402 GREGORIUS there being only 17 Christians in the whole region (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum. ; Migne, Patr. Gk. xlvi. 954). The extraordinary success of the episcopal labours of the young missionary and the romantic details with which later hands embellished them secured for hirn the well-known title of Thaumaturgus. This re- pute cannot be set down as exclusively due to the credulousness of the age, for as Lardner {Cred. ii. 42, § 5) remarked, besides Gregory of Nyssa, such writers as Basil, Jerome, and Theodoret distinguished him, as above others, " a man of apostolic signs and wonders " (cf. Dr. J. H. Newman, Essays on Miracles, p. 263). No light is thrown upon his thauma- turgic renown by his extant writings, which are conspicuous for their philosophic tone, humility, self-distrust, and practical sense. He must have been a man of singular force of character and weighty judgment. Heretics claimed the sanction of his name for their speculations, thus indirectly revealing the confidence in which he was held by all parties. Gregory (originally Theodorus) stated that his father died and he himself passed through a remarkable spiritual crisis in his 14th year. He attributed the change of sentiment to " the Divine Logos, the Angel of the counsel of God, and the common Saviour of all." He left it, however, doubtful in what precisely the change consisted. His mother having suggested the pursuit of rhetoric, he was advised to study specially Roman law and become an alumnus of the celebrated school of jurisprudence at Berytus in Syria. His sister needed an escort to Palestine to join her husband in his high position under the Roman governor at Caesarea. The young Gregory and his brother Athenodorus took this opportunity to travel. " My guardian angel " (says he) " on our arrival at Caesarea handed us over to the care and tuition of Origen," and the brothers, abandoning their journey, remained there under the personal spell of the teacher for live years. The mental processes by which Gregory was led to Christ throw considerable light on the mind of Origen and the methods of Chris- tian education in the 3rd cent. These details are preserved in a panegyric on Origen, which before leaving Caesarea the young student pronounced to a great assembly in the presence of his master. They differ in several particu- lars from the account of Gregory of Nyssa (Greg. Nys. Vita Thaum. ; Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. xlvi. pp. 893-958). According to Gre- gory's own statements (Orat. de Orig. c. vi.), Origen enticed his pupils first to the study of philosophy, which he recommended as a duty to the Lord of all, " since man alone of all creatures is deemed by his Creator as worthy to pursue it." " A thoughtful man, if pious, must philosophize," says he, so " at length, like some spark lighting on our soul, love was kindled and burst into flame within us, a love to the Holy Logos, the most lovely object of all. Who attracts all to Himself by His unutter- able beauty." " Only one object seemed worthy of pursuit, philosophy and the master of philosophy, this divine (dflos:) man." His love to Origen was like that of Jonathan for David. Gregory praises Origen for his Socratic discipline, and for the way in which his teacher probed his inmost soul with GREGORIUS questions, pruned his native wildness and repressed his exuberance. He was taught to interrogate his consciousness, and critically to investigate reasonings and the meanings of words. Origen accustomed his pupils first to the dialectic method of inquiry, and then, in Aristotelian fashion, fed them to contemplate the " magnitude, the wondrousness, the mag- nificent, and absolutely wise construction of the world." He seems to have followed (strangely enough) the order of the sciences in Comte's classification of the branches of human knowledge. Thus, he began with " the immutable foundation of all, geometry, and then " (says Gregory) " by astronomy he lifted us up to the things highest above us." He reduced things to their " pristine ele- ments," " going over the nature of the whole and of each several section," " he filled our minds with a rational, instead of an irrational, wonder at the sacred oeconomy of the universe and the irreprovable constitution of all things." These words and much more that might be quoted from the Panegyric are a strange comment on the thaumaturgic actions freely attributed to Gregory. Morals followed physics, and emphasis is laid by Gregory on the practical experience by which Origen desired his pupils to verify all theories, " stim- ulating us by the deeds lie did more than by the doctrines he taught." He urged the study of Grecian philosophy for the direct culture of their moral nature. The end of the entire discipline was " nothing but this : By the pure mind make thyself like to God, that thou mayest draw near to Him and abide in Him." Origen advised Gregory to study all the writings of the philosophers and poets of old, except the Atheists, and gave reasons for a catholic and liberal eclecticism, and, with a modern spirit, disclaimed the force of pre- judice and the misery of half-truths and of fixed ideas, and the advantage of " selecting all that was useful and true in all the various philosophers, and putting aside all that was false." Gregory says of his master : " That leader of all {dpxv~tos iravruv) who speaks in undertones (l'ttijxwj') to God's dear prophets and suggests to them all their prophecy and their mystic and divine word, has so honoured this man Origen as a friend as to appoint him to be their interpreter." Evidently to Gre- gory the gift of interpretation was as much a divine charisma as prophecy itself. So great were the joys thus placed within his reach that he adds with rapture, " He was truly a paradise to us, after the similitude of the Paradise of God." He regrets his departure from Caesarea, as Adam might bewail his expulsion from Eden, having to eat of the soil, to contend with thorns and thistles, and dwell in darkness, weeping and mourning. He says, " I go away of my own will, and not by con- straint, and by my own act I am dispossessed, when it is in my option to remain." The influence of Origen's teaching upon Gregory and Athenodorus is confirmed by Eusebius {H. E. vi. 30), who adds that " they made such improvement that both, though very young, were honoured with the episco- pate in the churches of Pontus." Gregory of Nyssa describes Gregory of Neo- caesarea as spending much time in Alexandria, GREGORIUS and says that before his baptism, while resi- dent there, he displayed a hish tone of moral propriety. A residence in Alexandria may have occurred in the five years that tiregory and his brother were under the direction of Origen. These years were probably inter- rupted by the persecution uiuhr Maxiniinus Thrax (reigned July 2,15 to May 238), which was aimed especially at the leaders of the church. Origen may then have gone into retirement and left his pupils at liberty to travel into Egypt. If (.iregory's ba]>tism was deferred until Origen could return to Caesarea, it must have taken place at the close of their intercourse after the death of Maximin and the accession of Gordian in 238. Reckoning backwards the five years, Gregory did not reach Caesarea before 233, and probably later; and did not leave the " Paradise " until 238 at the earliest, when he pronounced his Pane- gyric. This document is of interest from the testimony it bears to the doctrine of the Trinity and the light it throws upon the faith i>f llregory. Bp. Bull has laid great emphasis upon the passage {Oral, de Origine, cap. iv.) in which Gregory offers his praise to the Father, and then to " the Champion and Saviour of t)ur souls, His first-born Word, the Creator and Governor of all things, . . . being the truth, the wisdom, the power of the Father Himself of all things, and besides being both in Him and absolutely united to Him {cLTix^uii i]Vil)aivoz), the most perfect and living and animate word of the primal mind." Bp. Bull rightly calls attention to the prae- Nicene character of these phrases, which yet substantially agree with the deliverance of the Nicene Fathers (Def. Nic. Creed, vol. i. p. 331). They are of importance in estimating the authen- ticity and significance of other documents. Immediately on his return to Neocaesarea Gregory received a letter from Origen (Philo- \ calia, c. 13), revealing the teacher's extra- i ordinary regard for his pupil, whom he de- scribes as " my most excellent lord and venerable son." Gregory is exhorted to study all philosophies, as a preparation for Christian- ity and to aid the interpretation of Holy Scripture. He is thus to spoil the Egyptian's of their fine gold, in order to make vessels for the sanctuary, and not idols of his own. He is then urged with some passion to study the Scriptures, and to seek from God by prayer the light he needs (see Ante-Nic. Library, Origen's works, vol. i. 388-390, for a transla- tion of this letter). Shortly after his return Gregory became bishop of his native city, and one of the most celebrated (5iafil>rfTo%) bishops of the age (Eus. H. E. vi. 30, and vii. 14). The curious details of his ordination are referred to in Basil's Me>wl. Graec. (Nov. 17), where it is stated that he was ordained by j Phaedimus, bp. of Amasea, when the two i were at a distance from each other. Our only j guide f<jr the subsequent details of his life is Gregory of Nyssa. Some of that writer's most extraordinary statements are in a ; measure vouched for by his brother Basil the j Great, and by Rufinus in his expansion of the \ history of Eusebius. As the later father tells the story, the young and saintly student, on reaching home, was entreated by the entire ; population to remain as their magistrate and GREGORIUS 4i):i legislator. Like Moses, he li>ok counicl of God, and retired into the wildrrn«ii«. hut, unlike Moses, he married n(» wife, and had virtue only for his spouse. Then wc are t.-ld that Phaedinnis, bp. of Amasea, sought l.» consecrate him bv guile, but failed, and adopted the expedient of electing .md ..rd.ini- iiig him by praver when he was distant a journey of three davs. We are assured tli.it this induced (.regory to vield to the summons, and to submit afterwards to the customary rites. (Iregory onlv demanded time for meditation on the truths of the Christian faith before accepting the commission. This medi- tation issued in the supposed divine revelation to him in the dead of the night of one of the most explicit formularies of the creed of the church of the 3rd cent., " after he had been deeply considering the reason of the faith, and sifting disputations of all sorts." (;reKory saw a vision of St. John and the mother of the Lord, and the latter conunanded the former to lay before Gregory the true faith. Apart from this romance, the formulary attributed to Gregory is undoubtedly of high antiquity, and Larduer (Credihiltty, vol. ii. p. 2()) diK-s not argue with his wonted candour in his endeavour to fasten upon it signs of later origin.* It is singularly free from the peculiar phrases which acquired technical significance in the 4th cent., and yet maintains a most uncompromising antagonism to Sabellian and Unitarian heresy. .Moreover, Gregory of Nyssa asserts that when he uttered his encomium, theautograidi .MS. of this creed was in possession of the church at .Veocaesarea. He adds that the church had been continually initiated (^iv.iTay(i};dTai) by means of this confession of (Iregory's faith. This statement Basil confirmed (Ep. 204, Bas. 0pp. Paris ed. t. iii. p. 303), saying that in his tender age, when residing in Neocaesarea, he had been taught the words of tiregory by his sainted grandmother Macrina, and (de Spir. Sanclo, c. 29, ib. p. 62) he declared the tenacity with which the ways and words of (iregory had been preserved by that church, even to the mode of reciting the doxology. Moreover, Basil attributed to his influence the orthotloxy of a whf)le succession of bishops from Gregory to the Musonius of his own day {Ep. 204). In addressing the Neocaesareans {Ep. 207. ib. p. 311), he warns them against twisting the words of Gregory. The formulary must be * The Creed is as follow* in Hulfs trarj'*. : - " There isoneC.od, Father of Him Who in the hvinu Word, subsisting Wis<loin and I'owcr and ICtcmal Im- press (xaptt/tT>)po« aiiiou), I'crfcct HcKCtl" "' Uic Perfect, Father of Ihc onl>-bcj{ottcn Son. Tlicrc is one I,ord, Alone of the alone, Oo<l of Crtxl. ImprcM and Image of the <".odhcad, the operative Word ; Wisdom comprehen^ivf of the system of the univcrte. and Power productive of the whole creation ; true Son of true Father, Invisible of Invisible, and Ini-or- ruptibkof Incornipliblcanil Immortal o( ImmoftuI, and litcrnal of i:ternal. And there is one Holy l'.h«»t. Who hath His luinK of God, Who liuth appeared (that is to mankind, cr|AiiJn '•>'* ii-^pwirox. a clause which f.reg. of Nvs^a gives, but which is not found in some of the codices) through the Son. Im.ige o( the Son, I'erfett of the Perfect ; I,i(e, the Cause of uU them that live: Holy Fountaui, lloline^^. the llc- stowtr of s;inclilication,in Whom is manilestetl God the Father Who is over all and in all, an<l C.ix\ the S<jn, Who is through all. A perfect Trinity, not divided nor alien in glory and eternity and dominion." 404 GREGORIUS distinguished from the ^Kdeati ttjs Kara /x^pos TTterreajs, which is now found among the dubious writings of Gregory, and which even Labbe confounded with it. A very important sen- tence which has been variously attributed to the saint and his biographer follows the formula as given in the Life. Dr. Burton referred it to Gregory of Nyssa. Modern editors call attention to the fact that Gregory of Nazianzus {Orat. lo) refers to the closing sentences as the substance of the formula it- GREGORIUS burner, as bishop over the neighbouring city of Comana. He was preferred to men of eloquence and station by reason of his humble self-consecration to God, and justified the choice by reason of his excellent discourse, holy living, and martyr death. The great missionary success of Gregory and the rapid growth of "the Church must have preceded the persecution under Decius, which began in 250 and 251. The edict was fero- cious, and, in the hands of sympathetic self. It runs as follows : " There is therefore ; governors, cruelly carried out. [Decius.] nothing created or servile in the Trinity ; nor I Gregory advised those who could do so to save anything superinduced, as though previously themselves and their faith by flight and non-existing and introduced afterwards, concealment. His enemies pursued him into Never therefore was the Son wanting to the | his retreat, but Gregory of Nyssa says that they Father, nor the Spirit to the Son ; but there 1 found in place of the bishop and his deacon two is ever the same Trinity, unchangeable and trees. This " prodigy " differs so profoundly unalterable " (cf. Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. x. I (as do others in the same writer) from the N.T. p. 988). Great difference of opinion has miracles, both in character and motive, that prevailed as to the genuineness of this docu- they form an instructive hint as to the ethnic ment ; thus Bingham, Bull, Cave, Tillemont and imaginative source of the whole cycle, (iv. 327), Ceillier, Hahn (cf. Dorner's Person In 257 Gregory returned to Neocaesarea, of Christ, A. ii. 482), Mohler {Athan. i. 105), and when, in 258, peace was restored to the have defended it, and Lardner, Whiston, church, he ordered annual feasts in commem- Miinscher, Gieseler, Herzog {A brtss der Kir- \ oration of the martyrs. He is credited by his chengesch.i. 122), contest it. Neander divided ! biographer with the doubtful wisdom of hoping it into two parts, the one genuine revealing its ' to secure the allegiance of those who had been Origenistic source, and the other of later in the habit of worshipping idols, by arranging growth. Dr. Caspari has, in an appendix to : ceremonials in honour of the martyrs re- his great work, Alte und neiie Quellen zur i sembling that to which they had been accus- Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaubens- ! tomed. This time-serving is an unfavourable regel (1879), defended it with great erudition, indication of character, and does something and concludes that there is nothing in the | to explain the melancholy defection from formula incompatible with its being the | moral uprightness and honour of many of his production of a pupil of Origen. He shews, I supposed converts. The conversion of the moreover, that it must have been produced heathen is said to have been greatly quickened between a.d. 260 and 265. by a fearful plague which was partly, at least, There can be little doubt that the missionary due to Gregory's miraculous powers, labourof Gregory was great and successful, and At his death the number of heathen who that his personal influence was extraordinary, now remained in his diocese is said to have A few of the marvellous occurrences detailedby dwindled to 17, the exact number of Christians Gregory of Nyssa are referred to by Basil and ! found there when Phaedimus consecrated him Rufinus. Basil tells us (de Spir. Sancto, I.e.) \ (Vit. Thaum. I.e. p. 954). But the Christianity " that Gregory was a great and conspicuous ' of the Neocaesareans must have been in many lamp, illuminating the church of God, and ' cases of a very imperfect kind, if we may that he possessed, from the co-operation of the ; judge from one of the most authentic docu- Spirit, a formidable power against the demons; ; ments referred to his pen, and entitled Epis- that he turned the course of rivers by giving i tola Canoniea S. Gregorii . . . de iis qui in them orders in the name of Christ ; that he ; harbarorum incursione idolothyta comederant, et dried up a lake, which was the cause of strife alia quaedam peccata comrniserant. Numerous to two brothers ; and that his predictions of , authorities, Dodwell (Dissertationes in Cypri- the future made him the equal of the other anunt), Ceillier (vol. ii. p. 444). question the prophets; . . . that by friends and enemies of j genuineness of the last, the eleventh, of the truth he was regarded, in virtue of his canons, but the conviction widely prevails that ■ "" the previous ten are genuine. They refer to the circumstances which followed the ravages of the Goths and Boradi in Pontus, and Asia Minor generally, during the reign of Gallienus. The prevailing disorder tempted numerous Christians in Pontus to flagrant acts of impiety and disloyalty. Some took possession of the goods of those who had been dragged into signs and prodigies, as another Moses." But Gregory of Nyssa expands into voluminous legend the record of these deeds. With the exception of a reference to the river Lycus, the Panegyric of Gregory of Nyssa contains no verifying element, giving neither names, dates, nor places for these astounding por- tents. They were, as Dr. Newman observes, ,^ wrought at such times and seasons as to lead I bondage. Others identified themselves with to numerous conversions. They were de- I the barbarians, actually helping the heathen scribed as well-known facts in a hortatory in their uttermost cruelty towards their address and in ecclesiastical style. But they brethren. These facts are gathered from contrast very forcibly with the philosophical the "canons" in which Gregory denounced bias of Gregory's mind, and they are not re- strenuously the commission of such crimes, ferred to until a century after their occurrence, and assigned to them their ecclesiastical One of the most interesting facts introduced i penalty. The bishop does not linger over the by his panegyrist refers to Gregory's selection i mere ceremonial uncleanness that might of an obscure person, Alexander the charcoal | follow from enforced consumption of meat GREGORIUS offered to idols, and exonerates from blame I or any ecclesiastical anathema women who I had, against their will, lost their chastity : [ but he lays great emphasis on the vices and i greed of those who had violated Christian ' morality for gain and personal advantage. ' Different degrees of penalty and exclusion from church privilege were assigned, and those were argued on ground of Scripture alone. The epistle containing these canons was ad- dressed tt> an anonymous bp. of Pontus, who had asked his advice, c. 238, towards the end of his episcopate. It reveals the imperfect character of the wholesale conversions that had followed his remarkable ministry. Other works have been wrongly attributed to Gregory ; e.g. (udean rrjs Kara fifpos irioTfws, which Vossius published in Latin in 1662, among the works of Gregory, and which Cardinal Mai (Scrip. I'et. vii. p. 170) has pre- sented in Greek from the Codex Vaticanus. It is given by Migne (I.e. pp. 1103-1123). The best interpretation of the title is, " A creed not of all the dogmas of the church, but only of some, in opposition to the heretics who deny them " (.4)tte-Xicene Library, vol. xx. p. 81). It differs from the former confession in its obvious and technical repudiation of Arianism, and its distinct references to the later Nestor- ian,andEutychianheresies. Othertreatisesand fragments given in edd. of his works, and also trans, in .-l.-.V. Z,., are: Capitula duodecim de fiitf, with interpretation, attributed by Gretser to Gregory (ed. Ratisbon. 1741). Ad Tatianum Disputatio de Atiimd, which must have been written by a medieval philosopher when the philosophy of Aristotle was beginning to exert a new influence (Ceillier). Four Homiliae. pre- served by \'ossius,on "the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary," and on "Christ'sBaptism," are totally unlike the genuine writing of Gre- gory; they are surcharged with the peculiar reverence paid to the Mother of our Lord after the controversy between Xestorius and Cyril, j and they adopt thetest-wordsof orthodoxycur- rent in the Arian disputes. Two brief fragments 1 remain to be added, one a comment on ^Iatt. vi. j 22-23, from a Catena, Cod. MS. and pub. by ; Galland. Vet. Pair. Bibl. xiv. 119. and a dis- course, in Omnes Sanclos, preserved with a long Epistola praevia by Mingarelli. j Gregory was present at the first council at | Antioch (264) to try Paul of Samosata. His brother Athenodorus accompanied him, and they are named among the most eminent members of the council (Eus. //. E. vii. 28). Gregory was buried in the church he had built in Xeocaesarea, and commemorated on Nov. 17 (Cal. Ethiop.) and Nov. 23 (Cal. Arm.). Editions of his Works. — The most noted have been those of Gerard Vossius, 1640, in 4to, and in 1622, in folio. They had been published in Bibl. Patr. Cologne in 1618. The Panegyric on Origen by Sirmond, 1605, 4to. De la Rue included it in his ed. of OrigoisJsO^^ra, vol. iv. The various fragments attributed to Gregory are all pub. by Migne (Pair. Gk. vol. X.). See esp. Rvssel, Gregonus Thaumaturgus (Leipz. 1880). His Address to Origen and Ori- gen's Letter to Gregory have been trans, with intro. and notes by W. Metcalfe (S.P.C.K.). There are also translations of his works in the Ante-\ic. Lib. vol. vi. [h.r.R.] GREGORIUS 405 GregorlUS(7), St., ••tl..- Illiin.in,it..r" {Gr<gor /,M,s<H()ri/fy:),"th.sun<.«.Arnii-nia."thpapf.»tlr. first i)atriarch and patron saint of Armenia, f- 302-331. Of his life and time* thr br»l if not the only authorities are AgathanKrlcs, who was secret ary to Tiridatrs king u( Annrnia, the persecutor .md afterwards the mnvrrl o( Gregory, and Simeon Metaphrastcs. A I-'renrh trans, of the former was printed in vol. i. <>( the Histonens del' Armi'nu (1H67), bv Victor I.ang- lois. The Life of St. (;regorv bv Metaphrasl.-s (Migne, Patr. Gk. cxv. <>4i-o<)6) is evidently drawn from Agathangelos. The sihiKr of all Greek writers about Gregory isremarkable. The Rev. S. C. Malan trans, the Life and Times of St. Gregory the Illuminator from the .Armenian work of the \artabed .Matthew, which is the main source of the following sketch. Gregory was born c. 257 i» Valarshabad. the capital of the province of Ararat in Armenia. His father Anak. or .Anag. a Parthian .-Xrsacid. of the province of Balkh. murdered, c. 2.S.S, Chosroes 1. of Armenia. The dying king com- manded the whole family of .Anak to be slain, but an infant was saved, carried to the Cappa- docian Carsarea, there brought up in the Christian faith, and baptized Gregorius. Tiridates III., son of Cht)sroes. recovered the kingdom c. 284 by the help of Diocletian, whose favour he had gained and whose hatred of Christianity he had imbibed. Gregory became his servant, and was raised to the rank of a noble. In the first year of his reign Tiridates went to the town of Hrez (Erzenga) in Higher Armenia, to make offerings to Ana- hid, the patron-goddess of Armenia ; but Gregory, refusing to take any part in this idolatry, endeavoured to turn the kiiig from his idols, and spoke to him of Christ as the judge of quick and dead. Then followed what are known as " the twelve tortures of St. Gregory," borne with unsurpassed fiTtitudc (but see Dowling's Arwentan t7ii<rc/i. S.P.t .K. 1910). After two years Tiridates ordered the saint to be thrown into a muddy pit infested with creeping creatures, into which malefactors were wont to be hurled, in the city of Ardashat, and there he lived for 14 years, being fed by a Christian woman named Anna. This is one of several traces in the story of an already- existing Christianity in Armenia. The king's barbarous treatment of a com- munity of religious women, who c. 300 t<M)k refuge within his domains and built a convent outside the city of \'alarshabad, brought a plague upon him and his people, whit h was only relieved when Gregory was fetched from the pit. Gregory instructed the peoplr. and at his order they built three churches where the King's criiiies had been perpetrated, and \\r called the place Etchniiadzin (the descent ' (the Onlv-begotten), its Turkish name iM-ing Utch- Kilise (Three Churches). Gregory w.is conse- crated bp. for Armenia c. 302. by I.eontius. bp. i of CacsareainCappadocia. Hiscathedral wasin Valarshabad. He destroyed the idol temples, "conquering the devils who inhabited them " — i.e. the pritsts and supporters of th<- old reli- gion — and baptized the king and his court in the Euphrates. This national coiivrrsif>n ' occurred before Cf>nstantine had established the church in the Roman empire, and .Armenia , was thus the first kiiigdf.ni to adopt t hnslian- 406 GREGORIUS ity as the religion of the state. ^ Gregory encouraged the reading of the Holy Scriptures, both of the O. and N. T. He wrote letters to St. James of Nisibis, requesting him to com- pose homilies on faith, love, and other virtues. In 325 Gregory is said to have been summoned to the council of Nicaea, but, being himself unable to go, sent his son, who brought back [ the decrees for the Armenian church. The venerable patriarch greatly rejoiced on reading them, and exclaimed, " Now let us praise Him Who was before the worlds, worshipping the most Holy Trinitv and the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, now and ever, world without end. Amen," which words are said after the Nicene Creed in the Armenian church (Malan. p. 327, n.). After filling the country with churches and ministers, schools and convents, he retired in 33 1 to lead a solitary life among the caves of Manyea in the province of Taran, having previouslyconsecrated his son Arisdages bishop in his stead. Gregory died in the wilderness a.d. 332, and the shepherds, finding his dead body without knowing whose it was, erected over it a cairn of stones. The Bollandists have printed Agathangelos andother Lives of Gregory. ActaSS. viii.Sept. pp. 295-413; Basil. Men. Sept. 30, in Migne, Patr. Gk. cxvii. ; Le Quien, Or. Chr. i. 1355, 1371. In honour of her founder the Arme- nian church has been called the Armeno- Gregorian. Saint-Martin (Mem. siir VArmenie, i. 436) and Langlois (Historiens, ii. 387) date his consecration a.d. 276. [l.d.] Gregorius (8), the Cappadocian, appointed by Arianizing bishops at Antioch in the beginning of 340 — not, apparently, of 339, as the Festal Index says, and clearly not at the Dedication Festival in 341 as Socrates says (ii. 20) — to supersede Athanasius in the see of Alexandria. As a student in the schools of Alexandria he had received kindness from Athanasius (Greg. Naz. Orat. xxi. 15)- He arrived on Mar. 23 (cf. Fest. Ind.), Athanasius having retired into concealment. That Gre- gory was an Arian may be inferred from his appointment. Athanasius says, in an en- cyclical letter of the time, that his sympathy with the heresy was proved by the fact that only its supporters had demanded him, and that he employed as secretary one Ammon, who had been long before excommunicated by bp. Alexander for his impiety (Encycl. c 7). Athanasius tells us that on Good Friday, Gregory having entered a church, the people shewed their abhorrence, whereupon he caused the prefect Philagrius publicly to scourge 34 virgins and married women and men of rank, and to imprison them. After Athanasius fled to Rome, Gregory became still more bitter (Athan. Hist. Ar. 13). We hear of him as " oppressing the city" in 341 [Fest. Ind.). Auxentius, afterwards Arian bp. of Milan, was ordained priest by him (Hilar. in Aux. 8). The council of Sardica, at the end of A.D. 343, pronounced him never to have been, in the church's eyes, a bishop {Hist. Ar. 17). He died, not by murder, as Theo- doret says (ii. 4) through a confusion with George, but after a long illness (Fest. Ind.), about ten months after the exposure of the Arian plot against bp. Euphrates — i.e. c. Feb. A.D. 345. This date, gathered from Athanasius GREGORIUS (Hist. Ar. 21) is preferable to that of the Index, Epiphi 2 = June 26, 346. [w.b.] Gregorius (12) Baeticus, St., bp. of Eliberi, Elvira, or Granada, c. 357-384 ; first men- tioned as resisting the famous Hosius of Cor- dova, when under the persecution of Constan- tius Hosius gave way so far as to admit Arian bishops to communion with him. This must have been in or before a.d. 357, the year of Hosius's death. At the council of Ariminum Gregorius was one of the few bishops who adhered to the creed of Nicaea, and refused to hold communion with the Arian Valens, Ursacius, and their followers. Our authority for this is a letter to Gregorius by Eusebius of Vercellae from his exile in the Thebaid (printed among the works of St. Hilary of Poitiers, ii. 700, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 713). Eusebius there acknowledges letters he had received from Gregorius, giving an account of his conduct, and commends him highly for having acted as became a bishop. Gams, however (Kirchengesch. ii. 256-259, 279-282), maintains that Gregorius was one of the bishops who fell into heresy at Ariminum, and further identifies him with the Gregorius in the deputation sent by the council to Con- stantius and headed by Restitutusof Carthage, who assented to and subscribed an Arian formula of belief at Nice, in Thrace, Oct. 10, 359, and held communion with the Arian leaders, Valens, Ursacius, and others (St. Hilary of Poitiers, ex Opere Historico Frag- mentum 8, in Migne, Patr. Lat. x. 702). Gregorius is generally supposed to have been one of the leaders of the schism origin- ated by Lucifer of Cagliari. This theory is supported by the terms of praise applied to him by the Luciferians Faustinus and Mar- cellus in their Libelltis Precum ad Imperatores (c. 9, 10, 20, 25, 27, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. 89, 90, 97, 100, 102) ; and also by the way St. Jerome, inhis Chrotiicle under the date 374 = A.D. 370 (in Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii. 695), couples him with Lucifer of Cagliari, saying that the latter with Gregorius a Spanish, and Philo a Libyan, bishop, " nunquam se Arianae miscuit pravitati." Florez, however (Esp. Sagr. xii. 121), maintains that no certain proof of this theory exists. Gams, on the other hand (op. cit. ii. 310-314), maintains that even before the death of Lucifer, Gregorius was the recognized head of the sect. On the authority of the Libellus Precum, c. 25, he considers that Gregorius, after Lucifer's return from exile in 362, visited him in Sardinia ; and he identifies with Gregorius the bishop mentioned in c. 63 as at Rome under the assumed name of Taorgius, and as having consecrated one Ephesius as bp. of the Luciferians there, an event which he dates between 366 and 371. From the Libellus Precum and the Rescript of Theodosius in reply addressed to Cynegius, Gregorius was apparently alive in 384. In none of the above passages is his see mentioned, as he is called only episcopus Hispaniarum or Hispaniensis, but it is supplied by St. Jerome, de Vir. Illust. c. 105 (Hieron. Op. ii. 937, in Migne, Pair. Lat. xxiii. 703). Opinions have been much divided as to the book de Fide, attributed to him by Jerome. The Bollandists (Acta SS. Ap. iii. 270) say " etiamnum latet." It was formerly supposed to be the de Trinitate now ascribed GREGORIUS to Faustinus. Gams (p. 314) thinks that this, though really written by Faustinus, is the work to which St. Jerome alludes. The materials for a Life of C.reporius are thus scanty, the LibellusPrecum bcingof verydoubt- ful authority, and widely dirterent estimates have been formed of him. But the two charges of .-Vrianism and I.uciferianism seem mutually destructive. [r-D-] Gregorlus (13) I., bp. of Nazianzus in Cap- padocia, fatlier of C.regorius Nazianzcnus. [(Iregorius (14).] Originally a member of the Hypsistarii, a sect numerous in Capi^adocia, he was converted to the Catholic faith, married a lady named Nonna, and was soon afterwards consecrated bp. of Nazianzus, c. 320. He was a pillar of the orthodox partv, though weak enough to sign the creed of Arimiiium in deference to Constantius, a.d. 360. He took part in the ordination of Basil to the sec of Caesarea [BasiliusI ; he opposed the attempts of the emperor Valcns, a.d. 371, to overthrow the Catholic faith ; yet he, as well as Basil, was spared the banishment inflicted on many bishops (Socr. iv. 11). After an episcopate of 45 years, he died a.d. 374. His son frequently mentions his good father, both in his sermons and his verses, and pronounced a funeral oration over him. Greg. Naz. Oratio xviii. in Migne, Pair. Gk. xxxv. 330 ; Le Quien, Oriens Christ, i. 411. [l.d.] Gregorlus (14) Nazianzenus, bp. (370-390) of Sasima and of Constantinople, has been fortunate in his biographers. He left them abundant materials in his works, especially in a large collection of letters and a long auto- biographical poem. St. Gregory takes his distinctive title from Nazianzus, a small town in S.W. Cappadocia, near which, in a district known as the Tibcrinc (Ep. ii. Op. ii. 2 ; Basil, Ep. iv.), at a village called Ariaiizus, where his father had an estate, he was born. Both his parents are known to us. His father bore the same name [(iRE- coRius (13)] and belonged in early life to the sect of the Hvpsistarii {Oral, xviii. 5 ; Op. i. 333). His mother's name was Nonna, a child of Christian parents (Philtatius and Gorgonia), and is praised by her son as a model of Chris- tian virtues. To her life and prayers he attri- butes his father's conversion. The date of his birth we may reasonably fix from his own words in 325-329. Nonna, in fulfilment of a vow, dedicated him to the Lord, but not by baptism. She taught him to read the Scriptures, and led him to regard himself as an Isaac offered in sacrifice to (iod, Who had given him to another Abraham and Sarah. He, as anf)ther Isaac, dedicated himself. He rejoices to tell of the examples set him at home and of the bent given to his studies by companionship with good men. The tutor to whose care the brothers were committed was Carterius, perhaps the same who was afterwards head of the monasteries of Antioch and instructor of Chrysostom (Tillem. Memoires, ix. 370). At Caesarea in Cappadocia probably was commenced Gregory's friendship with Basil, which, tried by many a shock, survived them all, and was the chief infliifnrc which moulded not only the life of both friends, but also the theology of the Christian church. GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 407 Gregory and his bmiher w.nt tn ( ae*.ir.M in Palestine to pursu<- the study of i.r.itnrv (Or.i/. vii.6. Op. ii. 201) ; CarsariusdrpartinR thrncr toAlex.mdria, and (iregorv remaining to study m the school made famous bv OriKru. I'am- philus, and Fusebius. Thesprsius was Ihm the master of greatest renown, an<l liuzolus was .i fellow-pupil with Gregr.ry (Hirron. de Frctef. Script, c. 113). From Palestine (Irrgorv wrnt to .Alexandria (Ora/. I.e.). Here Didvnius filli-d the chair of Pantaenus, Clement, and OriKm. and Athanasitis the episcopal throne, though probably an exile at the time. Gregory pre»sr<| on to Athens. A ship of Aegina oflrrrd him passage {Oral, xviii. ^i. Op. i. 351). ()([ Cyprus a fierce st..rm struck her. The thund.r, lightning, darkness, creaking of (he var<ls. shaking of the masts, criis of tluMrrw. apprals for help to Christ, even by those who l». f<irr had not known liirii, all added to the trrror of the scene. The storm continued 22 d.tvs, during which t hey saw no chance of deli vrr.inre. (Iregory's chief fear was lest he should di<- with- out baptism. In prayer he dedicated himself again to (lod, and sought for help. The prayer was answered, and the rescued crew were so affected that they all accepted C.rcgorv's Gr>d. Among the Athenian sophists of the dav, none were more famous than Himerius and Proaeresius, with whom Gregory continued the study of oratory. At Athens Ctregory ami Basil were together again (Oral, xliii. 15 ; Op. i. 7S1) ; (Iregory rendering the freshman Basil various friendly offices, such as exempting him from the rough practical joking whi< h all who joined the Athenian classes had to pass through. [Basii.u's.] The .Armenians, jealous of the newcomer, whose fame had pre- ceded him, and with some of the old feeling of antagonism against Cappadocia, tried to entrap him in sophistical debates. When they were being defeated, Gregfiry, feeling the honour of Athens at stake, came to the rescue, but soon saw their real object, and left them to join his friend {Oral, xliii. 16, 17 ; ib. 7>*2. 783). These things are trifles, but had impor- tant effects. The two friends, rendered obnoxious to their companions, were bound the more closely to each other. Their fellow- students, for various reasons, bore various names and surnames. The two friends were, and desired to be called. Christians ; they had all things in common, and " became as one mind possessing two bodies" {Oral, xliii. 20, 21; ib. 785, 786; Carm. xi. 221-235; Ot'. ii. 687). Among other students then at the university was Julian the Apt>state. Gregory claims that he had even then disremed his character in his very looks ; and that he used to warn their fellow-students that Rome was cherishing a serpent (Or«r. v. 2.\.Op. i. ih2). Gregory must have spent at Athens prob- ably not less than ten years. He went there a beardless youth ; he left about his 30th year. To the effect of those years the matter and form alike of his work bear witness. Leaving probably about the begmninR "I 356, Gregory went first to Constantinoplr. wishing to see the new Kome before his return to Asia. Here he uiiexpertedly met Ins brother Caesarius, journeying to Nazian/iis from Alexandria. The mother had long.d to see both her sons return together, and 408 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS Gregory has left a touching account of their meeting ; and at this point some of the biographers fix his baptism. Gregory himself tells us that he now laid down the plan of his life. Every power he possessed was to be devoted to God ; but the way seemed divided into two, and he knew not which to take. Elias, the sons of Jonadab, the Baptist, were types of the life that attracted him ; but on the other hand was the study of the Scriptures, for which the desert offered no opportunities ; and the advanced age of his parents presented claims which seemed to be imperative duties. He resolved to live the strict life of an ascetic and yet perform the duties of society (Carm. i. de Rebus suis, 1. 65 seq. ; Op. ii. 635), but denying himself even the pleasure of music (ib. 1. 69). But in the midst of various trifling irrita- tions of domestic duty, which went far to mar the life he had marked out for himself, Gregory heard from Basil, who had resolved to found a coenobitic system in Pontus, and asked his friend to join him. Gregory answered by proposing to Basil to join them' at the Tiberine, where the ascetic life in common could be followed and the duties of home performed {Ep. i. Op. ii. i). Basil did visit Arianzus, but remained only a short time. From Caesarea he again wTote to Gregory, after which Gregory set out for Pontus. One sub- stantial result of their joint labours is pre- served in the Philocalia, a series of extracts from the exegetical works of Origen. Gregory himself speaks of this work, which he sent as a present to his friend Theodosius of Tyana (Ep. cxv. Op. ii. 103). We know ifrom Gregory's own words also that he took part in ! composing the famous " Rules " of Basil. It is , not clear how long he remained in Pontus. Clemencet thinks two or three years, and the supposition agrees with Gregory's regret that he had but tasted enough of the lifethere to excite his longing for more (Orat. ii. 6, Op. , i. 14). The silence of Gregory with regard to his retiurn may be due to another cause, j Constantius had required the bishops through- ! out the empire to accept the creed of Rimini \ (a.d. 359-360), and the bp. of Nazianzus, though hitherto faithful to the Nicene doc- , trine, did so. The monks of his diocese were , devoted to Athanasius, and there followed a division in the church, which Gregory alone could heal. He induced the bishop to make a public confession of orthodoxy, and deliv- : ered a sermon on the occasion [Orat. vi. Op. i. 179 seq.). If this division at Nazianzus occurred in 360, we have the reason of Gregory's return (Tillem. Mem. ix. 345 ; Schrockh, Kirchengesch. xiii. 287 ; UUmann. Gregorius von Nazianz. s. 41). If with Clemencet and others {Op. i. pp. xciv. seq.) it is assigned to 363-364, we must suppose that the return was due to the general claim of filial duty. In any case he came to Nazianzus, and received letters from Basil asking him to return to Pontus (Ep. vi. ad fin.. Op. ii. p. 6). The aged bishop felt the need of support and help, and resolved to overrule the scruples which made Gregory shrink from the respon- sibilities of the priesthood. The ordination occurred on one of the high festivals, probably at Christmas, a.d. 361 (Nicetas, ii. 1021 ; , GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS Tillem. Mem. ix. 352^. Nicetas assumes that the congregation compelled Gregory to accept ordination (cf. Carm. xi. de Vitd sua, 345-348, Op. ii.) Such forced ordinations were not unknown (Bingham, Orig. Eccles. iv. 2-5 andix. 7, i). Basil was in the same way made priest. Gregory preached in the church at Nazian- zus on the Easter Day following his ordination, and had expected that a crowded church would have welcomed his return and have applauded his first sermon ; but the church was almost deserted. Gregory could not be ignorant of the cause of this' estrangement. His flight from the work of the priesthood demanded an explanation, and Gregory deter- mined to give an answer worthy of the question and of himself. It is contained in the second oration (Op. i. ii. 65). In no part of his writings do we find proof of greater study. It is practically a treatise on the pastoral office, and forms the foundation of Chrysostom's de Sacerdotio and of the Cura Pastoralis of Gregory the Great, while writers in all ages have directly or indirectly drawn largely from it. The earlier part treats of the reasons for his flight : (i) he was whoUv un- prepared for the ordination ; (2) he' had j always been attracted by the monastic life ; I (3) he was ashamed of the life and character I of the mass of the clergy ; (4) he did not at that time, he did not now — and this reason weighed with him most of all — think himself fit to rule the flock of Christ and govern the minds of men " (Orat. ii.g). He then discusses for 40 sections the duties and difficulties of the true pastor (ib. 10-49). " His first dutyis to preach the word, and this is so difficult that to fulfil it ideally would require universal knowledge. Theological knowledge is abso- lutely necessary, especially of the doctrine of the Trinity, lest he fall into the Atheism of SabelHus, or the Judaism of Arius, or the Polytheism too common among the orthodox. It is necessary to hold to the truth that there is one God, and to confess that there are three persons, and attributes proper to each ; but for this there is need of the Spirit's help. Much more is it difficult to expound it to a popular audience, both from the preacher's imperfection and the people's want of pre- paration. Zeal not according to knowledge leads men away from the truth. Then, there is the desire of vainglory, with inexperience, and her constant attendant, rashness, incon- stancy, based on ignorance of the Scripture ; and a subjective eclecticism which ends in an uncertain creed, and leads men to doubt of truth, as if a blind or deaf man were to place the evil not in himself but in the light of the sun or the voice of his friend. It is more easy to instruct minds wholly ignorant than those which have received false teaching ; but the work of weeding, as well as that of sowing, must be done. The work of a spiritual ruler is like that of a man trying to manage a herd of beasts, old and young, wild and tame. He must, therefore, be single in will to rule the whole body, manifold to govern each member of it. Some must be fed with milk ; some with more solid food. For all this who is sufficient ? There are spiritual hucksters who adulterate the word of truth ; but it is better to be led thau to lead others, and to learn than GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS attempt to tearli wliat one does not know. Men are foolish if they do not know their own iRnorance ; rash, if they know it, and vet lightly undertake this work. The Jews did not allow young men to read all parts of the Scriptures ; but in the church there is no such bound placed between teaching and learning. A mere boy, who does not know the verv names of the sacred writings, if he can babble a few pious words, and these caught by hear- ing, not by reading, becomes a teacher! Men spend more time and jiains in learning to dance or play the flute than teachers of things divine and human spend in studying them. The love of vainglory is at the root of this evil. The true ideal is to be found in the lives of discijiles like Peter or Paul, who became all things to all men that they might gain some. The false teachers incur great danger, and the pastor's sin causes the public woe. The prophets dwelt on the fearful position of the shepherds who feed themselves ; the apostles and Christ Himself taught what the true shepherds should be ; and His condemnation of Scribes and Pharisees includes all false teachers." Day and night did these thoughts possess Gregory. He was aware of the objec- tions of priests that the candle should be placed on the candlestick, and the talent not hidden ; but no time of preparation for the priesthood can be too long, and haste is full of danger. He dreaded both its duties and its dignity. " He who has not learned to speak the hidden wisdom of God, and to bear the cross of Christ, should not enter upon the priesthood. For himself, he would prefer a private life. A great man ought to undertake great things ; a small man small things. Only that man can build the tower who has where- with to build it." Such are the reasons Gregory gives for his flight. He adds those which led to his return. " (i) The longing he had for them and which he saw they had for him ; (2) the white hairs and feeble limbs of his holy parents — the father who was to him as an angel, and the mother to whom he owed also his spiritual birth. There is a time for yielding as for everything else ; (3) the example of the prophet Jonah — and this weighed most with him, for every letter of Scripture is inspired for our use — who deserved pardon, but he himself would not if he still refused. The denunciations of disobedience in Holy Scripture are no less severe than those against the unworthy pastor. On either side is danger. The middle is the only safe course —not to seek the priesthood, nor yet to refuse it. There is a merit in obedience ; but for disobedience there is hardly any remedy. Some holy men are more, others less, forward to undertake rule. Neither are to be blamed." Such is the general character of the famous Tofi AiVoO 'AiroXoyriTLKOi. Did it alone remain to us, Gregory must still have been thf)Ught of as one of the four pillars of the Greek church, and we should still read the chief traits of his personal character. It was writ- ten in 362. Julian the Apostate had entered Constantinople on Dec. 11, 361, and persuaded Gregory's brother Caesarius to remain at court. Gregory was then with Basil, who had indignantly rejected like advances, and he blushes that the son of a bishop should accept GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 400 them. It m.ulr thnr (..Ih. i wr.,rv..f iifr. .iml had to be iiiildcn fr..Mi thnr in..lli<r il-:f>. vil. Op. ii. 7). I he .•Ifert ..« this l.tt.r up.-n Car- sarins we may judge from his dr. |.irati<m before Julian : " In a w.-rd. I am a ( hrntian, and I m.-an to be om-," and from th<- rxrla- mation of the emperor : " O happy f.iihrr <>f such unhappy children!" {Oral. vii. i^, Op. i. 206 ; cf. He Hroglif. Con\lanrt. ii. 207). Gregory esteemed the victory of Caesarius as a more precious gift than the half of the emi>ire {Oral. vii. 14, nd intl.). But Julian had bitter revengi- in store. Mr ijrdered that no Christian should teach profane literature. This c.iuscd (in-gorv to coniposr many of the poems now r\t.uit, prof), ably as rea'ling-l)o..ks for I hristian schools. Towards the end of 36^ or the beginning of 364 he wrote two Invectives against Julian (Oral. iv. Op. i. 7'<-H7 ; Oral. v. tb. 147-17.O. The emperor had fallen, pierced by an arrow, in the iirevious June. The orator in ihvsr philippics held him up as the sum of all that was vile. In the first sentence he is called " the dragon, the apostate, the Assyrian, the common enemy, the great mind " (Is. x. la, LX\) ; and this sentence is typical. Thes* orations, looked at dispassionately, remind us rather of Demosthenes or Cicero than of a Christian bishop. The admirers of the saint find it still more difficult to explain the panegyric on the Arian Constantius, which these discourses contain. He is " the nmst divine and Christ-lo\ ine of emperors, and his great soul is summoned from heaven. The sin of his life was the inhuman humanity which spared Julian" {Oral. iv. 34 seq.. Op. i. 03 seq.). Gregory, indeed, speaks elsewhere of three things of which Constantius repented when dying : (il the murder of his relations ; (2) that he had named Julian Caesar ; (3) that he had given himself to the dogma of the newer creed {Oral. xxi. 26, Op. i. 403 a). Yet he knew that the emperor gave his support to impictv, and framed laws against the orthodox doctrine lOral. xxv. 0. Op. i. 461 a) ; nor could he have been ignorant that it was by Euzolus that baptism was admin- istered to the penitent. The character of Constantius is clearly used as an oratorical contrast to that of Julian. While Gregory was thus employed at Nazianzus, Basil returned from Ponlus to Caesarea, where Eusebius had been made bishop, and was ordained against his will. He informed his friend of this, and GrcRory replied in a letter which is important as shew- ing his thoughts about the p<«itioii in which both he and Basil had been placed. " .Now the thing is done it is necessary to fulfil one's (l„tv— such at least is the wav in wliich I l.w.k at it — especially in the present ilistress, whrn many tongues of heretics are raiseel against n«. and not to disappoint the hopes of th<«r who have put their faith in us and in our past life" {F.p. viii. Op. ii. 8). A difference arose ere long between Eusebius and Basil. It» origin is not known, and (.reg.ry thought it better that it should not be lOral. xliii. 28. Op. i. 702). It shews (Iregory in the character of peacemaker. The warm friend of Basil, he was no less an admirer of the bishop, .md an advocate for the rights ol authority. Invited 410 fiREGORlUS NAZIANZENUS by the bishop to fill the place vacated by Basil's retirement to Pontiis, he does not hesitate to assert that the treatment of Basil was unjust and to demand reconciliation with his friend as the price of his own influence {Epp. xvi.-xx. Op. ii. i6). An indignant reply from Eusebius only called forth stronger letters from the same standpoint [Epp. xvii. and xviii. Op. ii. 17. 18), and an equally plain letter to Basil, telling him that Eusebius was disposed to be reconciled to him, and urging him to be first in the victory of submission (Ep. xix. ib.). Hereupon Basil returned to Caesarea, and gave his powerful aid to the bishop in the dangers threatening the church, or rather became bishop in reality, while Eusebius was still so in name — " the keeper of the lion, the leader of the leader " (Oral. xliii. 33, Op. i. 796). When peace was thus established, Gregory returned again to Nazian- zus. Here new troubles awaited him. Cae sarius had been chosen by Valens to be treasurer of Bithynia, and once more his brother was distressed at seeing him among the servants of an adversary of the true faith. On Oct. II, 368, Nicaea was almost destroyed by an earthquake. Gregory made this the ground of an earnest appeal to Caesarius to abandon his office (Ep. xx. Op. ii. p. ig). He was on the point of yielding when he suddenly died. The funeral oration delivered by Gregory is placed by Jerome first in the list of the orator's celebrated works [Catal. Scrip. Eccles. 117). It narrates, in the language of fraternal love, the deeds of a noble life, and seeks in that of Christian submission to con- sole his parents and his friends [Orat. vii. Op. 198, et seq.). Sixteen epitaphs remain to shew how often Gregory mourned his loss [Ep. vi.-xxi. Op. ii. 1111-1115). The death of Caesarius brought trouble to Gregory from the administration of his estate which had been left to the poor. Against extortioners who tried to seize it he appealed to his friend Sophronius, prefect of Constantinople [Ep. xxix. Op. ii. 24) ; and his troubles called forth the kind offices of Basil. He himself tells us plaintively how he would gladly have fled these business worries, but felt it his duty to share the burden with his father [Carm'. xi. 375-380, Op. ii. 695). About the same time another loss befell the house of Nazianzus in the death of Gorgonia, and once again Gregory delivered a funeral discourse of most touching gracefulness (Orat. viii. Op. i. 218 et seq.). These sorrows weighed heavily on Gregory's spirit ; and while in public discourses he sought to console others, his private poems shew how hard he found it to console himself. " Already his whitening hairs shew his grief, and his stiffening limbs are inclining to the evening of a sad day " (Carm. de Rebus suis, i. 177-306, Op. ii. 641 sqq.). In 370 Eusebius died in the arms of Basil, who at once invited Gregory to Caesarea on the plea that he was himself in extremis. The latter regarded this as a pretext, and in a tone of mingled affection and reproach declined to go until after the election of the archbishop (Ep. xl. Op. ii. 34). The invitation to the bp. of Nazianzus to be present at the election was answered, as all the editors with almost certainty judge, by the hands of the son. He dwells upon the import- GREGORiUS NAZIANZENUS ance of the position and the special qualifica- tions for it possessed by Basil, and promises his assistance if they propose to elect him (Ep. xli. Op. ii. 35). He wrote also to Eusebius of Samosata by the hands of the deacon Eustathius, urging him to go to Caesarea and promote Basil's election (Ep. xlii. Op. ii. 37). Eusebius yielded to this request, but the vote of the aged bp. of Nazianzus was also needed. An illness he had disappeared as soon as he started. The son thought it prudent to remain at home, but sent by his father's hands a letter to Eusebius, expressing his esteem and excusing his ab- sence, and referring to the miracle of his father's restored health (Ep. xliv. Op. ii. 39). He did not go even after the election, but contented himself at first with writing letters which witness to his wisdom and affection (Epp. xlv. and xlvi. Op. ii. 40, 41). When the storm had subsided he went in person, but declined the position of first among the presbyters, or probably that of coadjutor bishop (rrivde ti]s Kadedpas riytti/i', Orat, xliii. 39, Op. i. 801), which Basil offered him. But in the opposition caused by the bishops defeated in the election, and in the persecution organized by the prefect Modestius at the command of Valens, Gregory was foremost as a personal friend and as a defender of the faith (Socr. iv. 11). In 370 Valens made a civil division of Cappadocia into two provinces, and in 372 Anthimus, bp. of Tyana, claimed equal rights with the bp. of Caesarea — i.e. the rights of metropolitan of Cappadocia Secunda, of which Tyana was the capital. Basil resisted this claim, and Gregory, who had returned to Nazianzus, offered, in a letter full of affection- ate admiration (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii. 40), to visit and support his friend and went to Caesarea. Thence they proceeded together to the foot of Mount Taurus in Cappadocia Secunda, where was a chapel dedicated to St. Orestes, and where the people were accustomed to pay their tithes in kind. On their return they found the mountain-passes at Sasima guarded by followers of Anthimus. A struggle took place, and Gregory implies that he was personally injured (Carm. xi. 453, Op. ii. 699). He seems soon afterwards to have returned to Nazianzus, whither he was followed by Basil, who had resolved (by way of securing his own rights) to make Sasima a bishopric, and Gregory the first bishop. In this he was aided by the elder Gregory, and the son yielded against his own will (Orat. ix. Op. i. 234-238). At the last moment he fled, but was pursued by Basil, and at length consecrated (Orat. x. Op. i. 239-241). But he still put off the duties of his see, until Basil sent Gregory of Nyssa to remonstrate. But Anthimus was again prepared to resist by armed force, and Gregory finally abandoned duties which he had never willingly accepted. Basil wrote reproaching him, and he replied in the same tone. " He would not fight with the warlike Anthimus, for he was himself little experienced in war, and liable to be wounded, and one, moreover, who preferred repose. Why should he fight for sucking-pigs and chickens, which after all were not his own, as if it were a question of souls and of canons ? And why should he rob GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS the metropolis of the illustrious Sasima ? " (Ep. xlviii. Op. ii. 44). The " illustrious Sasima " must be described in the words of the poem, de Vitd sua : " On a murh frequented road of Cappadocia, at a point where it is divided into tliree, is a halting-place, where is neither water nor grass, nor any mark of civilization. It is a frightful and detestable little village. Everywhere you meet nothing but dust, noises, waggons, howls, groans, petty officials, instruments of torture, chains. The whole population consists of foreigners and travellers. Such was my church of Sasima " {Carm. xi. 439-446, Op. ii. 696). Other letters were exchanged, but nothing could change his determination. He was at length iirevailed upon by his father to leave the mountains, whither he had fled ior refuge, and to become coadjutor at Nazianzus. This did not deliver him from the quarrel between Basil and Anthimus, for Nazianzus was in the new province of Cappadocia Secunda, and the bp. of Tyana soon visited the Gregories and sought to gain them to his cause. They held firm to Basil, but /\nthinms then asked the son to interfere between Basil and himself, and to seek a conference. The option of having one at all, its time and place if resolved upon, all was left to Basil's will, and yet he felt injured and expressed his dissatisfaction at Gregory's conduct. The latter felt and said, in plain terms, " that his friend was puffed up by his new dignity, and unmindful of what was due to others. He had himself offended Anthimus by his firm Basilism (/io^tXiffyuor). Was it just that Basil should be offended for the same reason ? " (£/>. 1. Op. ii. 44). He soon gave further proof of affection by taking an active part in the election of Euialius as bp. of Doaris, and by a remonstrance on the subject of Basil's teaching, which he felt was due from his friendship. He had heard men cavil at Basil's orthodoxy, and assert that he did not hold the Divinity of the Third Person in the Trinity ; and humbly asked him, for the sake of silencing his detractors — he him- self had no doubt — to express in definite words what he held as the true doctrine {Ep. Iviii. Op. ii. 50). Basil did not accept the friendly letter in the same spirit. Gregory saw from his reply that it had given pain, in'spite of his care. Yet he submits, and will place himself entirely in Basil's hands (Ep. lix. Op. ii. 53). The year 373 was an " annus mirabilis " for Nazianzus. and called forth two remarkable discourses from (iregory. An epidemic among their cattle, a season of drought, and a de- structive tempest in harvest reduced the people to absolute poverty. They turned in their need to the church, and compelled Gre- gory to address them. The discourse seems to have been impromptu. Gregory " regrets that he is the constrained speaker rather than his father — that the stream is made to flow while the fountain is dry — and then urges that divine punishments are all in mercy, and that human sins are the ordinary causes of public woes " ; then plainly puts before his hearers the special sins of their city and invites them to penitence and change of'life {Oral. xvi. Op. i. 299). The inability of the inhabitants to pay the imperial taxes led to an insurrection. At the approach of the prefect with a body of GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 411 troops they took refuge in the c hunb. and he consented to hear Gregory's pl.a. While ih« Invective against Julian renunds us <>i (he I'hilippics or the ilf ( orotui, wi- have here an oration which h.is borne without injury com- parison witii the pro Ltf^ano or pro MarceUo, or C lirysostom's plea for Mutropius or Havi.in (Briioit, p. 355). The first part p<.ints the al- tlicted people to the true source of comfort; the second is addressed to princes and magistrates. " Tile pr<f<( t was subj.rt to the authority of the teacher, which was liigh.r than his own. Did he wield the sword ? it was for ( hrist. Was he God's image ? so were the pm.r suffering people. The most divine thing wa» to do good ; let him not lose the opportunity. Did he see the white hair t-f the aged bishoji, and think of his long, unblemished pri«'stho<Kl. whom, it may be, the very angels found worthy of homage (Xar/.«iaj), and did not that movr him ? " "I adjure you by the name of Christ, by Christ's emptying Himself for us, by the sufferings of Him Who cannot suffer, by His cross, by the nails which have delivered me from sin, by His death and burial, resur- rection and ascension ; and lastly, by this common table where we sit together, and by these symbols of my salvation, which I con- sccrate with the same mouth that addresses to you this prayer— in the name, I say, of this sacred mystery which lifts us up to heaven ! " He concluded by praying " that the prefect may find for himself such a judge as he should be for them, and that all meet with merciful judgment here and hereafter " (Oral. xvii. Op. i. 317 et seq.) Early in 374 the elder Gregory died, and the son delivered a discourse, at which his mother Nonna and his friend Basil 1 were present, and wiiicii was an eulogy of both I his parents and of his friend (Oral, xviii. Op. I i. 327). Nonna survived her husband only a I few months, and died as she knelt at the Holy Table (Epil. Ixv.-c. Op. ii. 1133-1149). The brother and sister were already dead. Gre- gory was left alone. His first care was to devote his large fortune wholly to the poor, rescr\ing only a small i>lot of land at Arianzus; and then to invite the bishops to elect a suc- cessor to the see. Fear lest the church should be rent by heresy induced him to exercise the [ office temporarily. Two reasons determined j him not to preach at Nazianzus again — fi) that he may cause them to elect a bishop to I succeed his father ; {2) that his silence may 1 check the mania for theological discussion j which was spreading through the Eastern church and leading everybody to teach the things of the Spirit without the Spirit. For two years after the bishoji's death I Gregory in vain pressed for the election of a I successor. His love of retirement was now, as all through life, a powerful influence, and I towards the end of 375 he disappeared »ud- I denly, and found refuge f<'r 3 years at Sclrucia i in Isauria, at a monastery devoted to the j virgin Thecia (Carm. xi. 549. f>P- ii- 7oO- j In the beginning of 37o Basil died, and Gregory wrote to comfort his brother <.regory of Nyssa. He could neither visit Basil in 1 illness nor bi- present at his funeral, for he was himself then dangerously ill (/■/>. Ixxvi. I Op. ii. 65), but he expressed his love in 12 ! epitaphs. A letter from Gregory to Eudocius 412 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS the rhetorician, written soon after, speaks of the loss which made him regard death as " the only deliverance from the ills which weighed upon him " (Ep. Ixxx. Op. ii. 72). But the chief work of his life yet lay before him. At the Nicaean council, Alexander, then bp. of Constantinople, signed the decrees which condemned Arius. He was succeeded by Paul, who was devoted to the true faith, and suffered martyrdom in a.d. 351. For 30 years after the death of Paul, Constanti- nople was the battle-ground of a constant war with heresy. The followers of Manes and Novatus, Photinus and Marcellus, Sabellius and ApoUinaris, were numerous there ; and the adherents of the Nicene faith, few in number, humiliated, crushed, having neither church nor pastor, were obliged to conceal themselves in remote quarters of the city (Benoit, Greg, de Naz. p. 397)- They applied to Gregory to help them, and many bishops urged their plea. For a long time he was unwilling to leave his retirement, but then came the conviction that he dared not refuse this summons. The date of his arrival at Constantinople is not certain, but was pro- bably before Easter, 379 (Tillem. Mem. ix. 799). A prayer, in the form of a poem, indicates the spirit with which he entered upon his new work (Carm. iii. Op. ii. 667), and another poem shews what that work involved. New Rome " had passed through the death of infidelity ; there was left but one last breath of life. He had come to this city to defend the faith. What they needed was solid teaching to deliver them from the spider-webs of subtleties in which they had been taken " (Carm. xi. 562-611, Op. ii. 705. 6). In a pri- vate house, where he himself was lodged by relations, his work was begun. It was to him " an Anastasia, the scene of the resurrection of the faith " [Oral. xlii. 26, Carm. xi. 1079, Op. ii. 731) ; the house was too small for the multitudes that flocked to it, and a church was built in its place. His fame, as a theo- logian, rests chiefly on the discourses delivered at the Anastasia. ' His first work was to gather the scattered members of the flock and instruct them in the practical duties of Christianity and the danger of empty theo- logical discussions (Carm. xi. 1210-1231, Op. ii. 737-739). Again and again in the early discourses does he dwell on the truth that only through personal holiness can a man grasp any idea of the Holy One [Oral. xx. and Orat. xxii. Op. i. 376-384 and 597-603). Gregory was exposed to the attacks of all parties. His origin, person, clothing, were made objects of ridicule. They would have welcomed a polished orator with external graces ; but his manner of life had made him prematurely old, and his gifts to the poor had made him in appearance and reality a poor man. One night, a mob, led by monks, broke into the place of meeting and profaned the altar and sacred elements. Gregory escaped, but was taken before the judges as a homicide ; " but He Who knew how to save from the lions was present to deliver him" (Carm. xi. 665-678, Op. ii. 709). " He cared not that they attacked him — the stones were his delight ; he cared only for the flock who were thus injured" [ib. 725 et seq.). His chief sorrow GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS was to come from a division in the flock itself. This started from the schism of Antioch, which had spread through the whole church ; but the immediate question was one of competi- tion for the bishopric. Gregory had kept aloof from this quarrel, but some of his followers took an active part in it, and endea- voured to draw from him a decision for one or other of the rivals. Some seem to have favoured Paulinus, some Meletius. Gregory preached a sermon on Peace (Oral. xxii. Op. i. 414-425), dwelling " on its blessings, and the inconsistency of their faith, servants of the God of peace as they claimed to be, and their practice. Their duty was to remain united when the faith was not in question ; to weaken the present struggle by keeping out of it, and thus to do the rivals a greater service than by fighting for them " (ih. 14, p. 423). Soon afterwards the news of the establishment of peace reached Constantinople, and was fol- lowed by peace in the little church of the Anastasia. Gregory, though ill, preached almost certainly on this occasion another sermon on Peace [Orat. xxiii. Op. i. 425-434), I thankfully celebrating its return, and urging I those present who were divided from them by ; heresy " to be at peace with them by accept- ance of the true faith. It was the work of the j sacred Trinity to give the faithful peace among ' themselves. The sacred Trinity would heal also this wider breach." At the close of this sermon he promises to deal more fully with the questions -it issue between the followers of the Nicene faith and their opponents. This he did in the five theological discourses which soon followed (Orat. xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i. 487-577 ; vide infra). Other important discourses be- long to the same period, of which the most remarkable are a second on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, preached at Whitsuntide 1 381 (?) (Orat. xli. Op. ii. 731-744), and one on Moderation in Discussions — a frequent subject I with Gregory — in which heresy is traced to its I absence (Orat. xxxii. Op. ii. 579-601). He i delivered also three (?) panegyrics, the subjects of which were Cyprian, whose name was held in deserved honour in Constantinople (Orat. xxiv. Op. i. 437-450) ; Athanasius, whose memory was specially dear to Gregory as the champion of Nicene orthodoxy, and who had died but a few years before (a.p. 373) (Orat. xxi. Op. i. 3H6-411) ; and the MaccalDees (?), whose heroism might well have been specially intended for an example in the present struggle (Orat. XV. Op. i. 287-298). The last two, especially that on Athanasius, are counted by all judges, from Jerome downwards, among Gregory's noblest works [Script. Eccles. 117). Jerome became about this time a disciple of Gregory and loved to tell how much he had learned from his teacher. Another stranger who came to Constanti- nople professed himself a disciple of the now I famous theologian. He bore the name of Maximus, and represented himself as descend- ed from a line of martyrs, and as having suffered much through his adherence to the Nicene faith. Professing himself an ardent admirer of Gregory's sermons, this man was planning the overthrow of his teacher, and hoped even to establish himself in the epis- copal chair. He had an important ally in GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS Peter, bp. of Alexandria, wlui had recognized Gregory as practically bp. of the ortht>dox in Constantinople {('arm. xi. SsS-q^i), bnt now- joined in the plot against him. Gregory was ill in bed, when one night Maxiinns with his followers went to the chnrch to be consecrated by 5 suffragans sent from Alexandria for the purpose. While they were jireparing for the ceremony, day began to dawn, and a mob, excited by the sudden news, rushed in, drove them from the ciiurch, and compelled Maximus to tlee from Constantinople. Retiring to Alex- andria, he demanded that Peter should find him another bishoi)ric or relinquish his own. He was silenced by the prefect and banished. In connexion with the story of Maximus, Gregory tells us that he one day uttered the words, " My beloved children, keep intact this Trinity which I, your most happy father, have delivered to you, and preserve some memorial of my labours." One of the hearers saw the hint, and people of all ages, conditions, and ranks vied with each other in cries of affection for him and hatred for his foes (Carm. xi. 1037- II 13, Op. ii. 729-731), and one cried, " If you go, you will banish the doctrine of the Trinity as well as yourself" {ib. iioo). At this Gregory promised to remain until the arrival of some bishops who were expected at the council, but retired for a while to the country to recruit his shattered health. On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his formal entrv into Constantinople. One of his first cares was to restore to the orthodox the churches of which they had been deprived by the .\rians. Gregory was summoned, and early on the morning of Nov. 26, in the pre- sence of an immense crowd, Theodosius and Ciregory entered the church of the Holy Apostles. A thick fog enveloped the building, but at the first accents of the chants the rays of the sun fell ujion the vestments of the priests and the swords of the soldiers, and brought to Gregory's mind the glory of the Tabernacle of old. At the same time there arose a cry like thunder demanding that he should be bishop. " Silence ! — silence ! " he cried. " This is the time to give thanks to God. It will be time enough, hereafter, to settle other things." The service was con- tinued without further interruption. Only one sword was drawn, and that was put back unstained into its sheath (Carm. xi. 1325-1390). In no part of Gregory's life is his true excellence of character more clearly seen than here ; to his spirit oi moderation and forgiveness is it to be attributed that this great religious revolution was effected without shedding one drop of blood. He tells one incident which reveals his spirit towards his foes. While he was ill in bed an assassin who had attempted his life entered his room, and, stung by con- science, fell weeping and speechless at his feet. Gregory said to him, " May God preserve you ! It is nothing wonderful that I whom He hath saved should be merciful to you. Your bold deed has made you mine. Take care to walk, henceforth, worthy of God and of me." (Iregfiry adds that this deed softened the feeling of the citizens towards hirn. Not long after the entry into the metro- political church — perhaps the very next day — the enthusiasm of the multitude led them GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 4 I.I to attem|>t to place Gregory by force in the episcopal chair. Yet there were irares o( jealousy, and false motives were freely attri- buted to him. ,\lways sensitive, he delivrrr<l in the presence of TheiMlosius a srrnwin " concerning hinis<-lf, and to thi>»e who k^id that he wished to be bp. of Constantinople, anil concerning the favours which tin- pe«iplc had shewn towards him " {Oral, xxxvi. ()/>. '• 633-643). It is a forcible .-tpologta pro Vtid suti. " He would have been ashamed to seek that bishopric, bowed down as he was by old age and physical weakness. Thev s.iid th.it he had sought another's bride (Constantino- ple) : he had really refused his own (Sasinia) " {ih. vi. 638, 630). The emperor and the court were present ; <iuestions greater than personal ones arose to Gregory's mintl, and the discourse became an eloquent appeal to princes, sages, philosophers, |>rofess<irs, philo- logists, orators, to weigh their responsibiliti<-s and fulfil their duties. Another discourse preacheil before Theo- dosius is the only one of Gregory's extant discourses which is a homily in the narrower sense of a definite ex)>osition and application of a passage of Scripture {Oral, xxxvii. Op. i. 644-660). The text was .Matt. xix. 1-12. Gregory first shews that " the reason why Christ moved from place to place was that He might heal the more persons. For the salva- tion of the world He had moved from heaven to earth. This was the cause of His voluntary humiliation, which men who understood it not had dwelt upon as contradicting His divinity, though divine names and attributes are apjilied to Him. Christ answered some ques- tions (.Matt. xix. 3, 4) ; others He did not answer (Luke xx. 2, 4)- The preacher would follow Christ's examj)le " (16. v. 648, 64Q). " Christ answered fully their question about divorce. The preacher applying the teaching of Christ protests against the injustice of the Roman law, which distinguished between the adulterv of the woman and that of the man. Men made it, and therefore it w.as directed against women (16. vi. 649). Marriage for the first time is lawful, the second time an indul- gence ; more than the second, sinful ; but virginitv is a higher state (16. v. iii.-x. 6.so-6.<2). Husbands, wives, virgins, eunuchs, priests, lavmen, all ha%e their duties." He exhorts them to fulfil these, and, as in alnK>st every discourse, passes on to the duty of believing in the doctrine of the Trinity. Three other important discourses of Gregory, which belong also to the ministry at Constan- tinople, can onlv be nientii^ned. (i) On the Nativity [Dec. 2'i, 3«o ?] {Oral, xxxviii. Op. i. 661-675' ; (2) On the lipjphanv [Jan. 6. 381 ?] (Ora/. xxxiv. 16. 676-691) ; (3) On Holy Bap- tism {Oral. xl. ib. 691-729). Theodosius had long intended to summon a general council, and in Mav, a.o. 3H1.thesvn.Kl of the ISO bishops who formed the second oecumenical council was hehl in the capital of the F.ast. Socrates tells us that the object of the council was to confirm the Nicene faith and to appoint a bishop (or Constanti- nople {Hist. Eccl. v. 8 ; cf. Soz. vii. 7 ; The.Kl. V. 7; Mansi, Collect. Concil. iii. 52^)- ^'^ Western bishop is mentioned as present, and the attempt to shew that Damasus of Rome 4i4 6REG0RIDS NAZIANZENUS was either consulted or represented is futile ; but 36 bishops who were followers of Mace- donius were present, and every effort was made to induce them to accept the Nicene faith. Meletius, the venerable bp. of Antioch, was at first president. The consecration of Maximus was at once pronounced void. The wish of Theodosius that Gregory should be chosen for the vacant see was well known ; and the only bishop who opposed it was Gregory himself. He was by force placed in the episcopal chair. But he had this hope — alas ! a vain one— that, " as position gives influence, he should be able, like a choragus who leads two choirs, to produce harmony between opposing parties" (Carnt. xi. 1525- 1545. Op- ii- 755)- Meletius dying, the new archbishop naturally succeeded him as pre- sident of the council, but who should succeed him as bp. of Antioch ? It is said that the two bishops, Meletius and Paulinus, had agreed that the survivor should be the sole bishop, and that to this agreement the chief clergy and laity of both parties were sworn. Meletius himself expressed an earnest wish for it from his death-bed, but a strong party, both within and without the council, was soon organized against it. Clregory has given us, in the poem de Vita sua, a resume of his own speech on the question (Carm. xi. 1591-1679, Op. ii. 759-763). " Now God had given the means of peace, let them confirm Paulinus in the episcopal office, and when the two should pass away, let them elect a new bishop. . . . For himself, he sought their permission to resign the office which they had x:onferred upon him, and he would gladly retire to some desert far away from evil men." He could scarcely have expected that this address would be received with favour, for the Meletian party was over- poweringly strong in the synod, and Paulinus had not been invited ; but he was not pre- pared for the storm which followed. " There arose a cry like that of a number of jackdaws, and the younger members attacked him like a swarm of wasps" (ib. 1680-1690). He left the synod never to return to it. For a while illness was opportunely (koKCos) the reason of his absence (ib. 1743), but the council pro- ceeded to name Flavian as successor of Meletius; and Gregory, finding that his opinion had little weight, withdrew altogether and left the official residence, which was close to the church of the Holy Apostles (Carm. xi. 1778, Op. ii. 769). This led to earnest en- treaties from the people that he would not desert his flock (ib. 1785-1795). Moved for a while by these prayers, he yet persisted in his determination, which was strengthened by the arrival of bishops from Egypt and Macedonia. The East and the West were now opposed to each other, and " prepared for the battle like wild boars, sharpening their terrible tusks " (ib. 1804). The new members of the svnod did not object to Gregory personally ; but his election was probably in itself obnoxious as an act of Meletius. It was clearly opposed, they urged, to the 15th canon of the Nicene council, which forbad any bishop, presbyter, or deacon to pass from one city to another. By that canon he ought to be sent back to Sasima. Gregory's party urged that he was released from that obligation by an equal 6REG6RIUS NAZIAK2ENUS authority, as another general council had elected him bp. of Constantinople ; but it could not be expected that this plea would be accepted by bishops who were not a party to that act, nor was Gregory himself justified in speaking of the Nicene canons as obsolete. Gregory exhorted the council to think of higher things and mutual harmony. " He would be another Jonah to pacify the angry waves. Gladly would he find retirement and rest. He had but one anxiety, and that was for his beloved doctrine of the Trinity (ib. 1828-1855). He left the synod, glad at the thought of rest from his labours ; sorrowful as one who is robbed of his children." The synod received his resignation with satisfac- tion, as removing a chief ground of dissension, and probably of jealousy also (ib. 1869 ; Carm. xii. 145-148, Op. ii. 787). Gregory went from the assembly to the emperor, who unwillingly consented. Gregory's only remain- ing care was to reconcile those who had been opposed to him and to bid farewell to his friends. He delivered a public statement of his position and a public farewell to the council and his church towards the end of June, 381 (Orat. xlii. Op. i. 748-768), before the synod and in the presence of a congregation which filled every corner of the church, and among whom no eye was dry. " Was there needed proof of his right to the bishopric ? He would render his accounts. Let his work answer. He found them a rude flock, without a pastor, scattered, persecuted, robbed. Let them look round and see the wreath which had been woven — priests, deacons, readers, holy men and women. That wreath he had helped to weave. Was it a great thing to have estab- lished sound doctrine in a city which was the centre of the world ? In that, too, he had done his part. Had he ever sought to promote his own interests ? He could appeal like another Samuel. No ; he had lived for God and the church, and kept the vows of his priesthood. All this he had done through the Holy Trinity and by the help of the Spirit. He would present to the synod his church as the most precious offering. The reward he asked was that they would appoint some one with pure hands and prudent tongue to watch over it ; and that to the white hairs and worn-out frame of an old man, who could hardly then preach to them, they would allow the longed-for rest. Let them learn to prove these his last words — bishops to see the evil of the contentions which were among them ; people to disregard externals and love priests rather than orators, men who cared for their souls rather than rich men." He then pro- nounced his lengthened farewell " to the beloved Anastasia, to the large temple, to the churches throughout the city, to the apostles who inhabited the temple, to the episcopal throne, to the clergy of all degrees, to all who. helped at the holy table, to the choruses of Nazareans, to the virgins, wives, widows, orphans, poor ; to the hospitable houses, to the crowds of hearers ; to prince and palace and their inhabitants ; to the Christ-loving city, to Eastern and Western lands; above all, to angels, protectors of the church and of himself ; to the Holy Trinity, his only thought and treasure." With this pathetic climax, GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS unsurpassed elsewhere even by Gregory him- | self, he concludod his last discourse in Con- I stantinople. He left the city and retired to Nazianzus. Hero he receivetl a letter from I Pliilagrius, an old friend of Caesarius and himself, animadverting upon his retirement, j His answer breathes the same spirit as tlie > poem lU Vitii sua and the farewell sermon. " He was tired of fighting against envy and against venerable bishops, who destroyed the peace and put their personal squabbles before j questions of faith " {Hf'. Ixxxvii. 0/>. ii. 76). \ Among the letters belonging to this peric>d, 1 two addressed to Noctarius, who was chosen to succeed Clregory at Constantinople, deserve special note, as shewing that he cherished for j him and the ciiurch nothing but the most entire goodwill {Epp. Ixxxviii. and xci. Op. >•• 77, 78). Gregory's difficulties were not yet at an end. On his return to Nazianzus he found that church in confusion, chiefly through the teaching of the Apollinarians {Carni. xxxi. Op. ii. 870-877). He tried to find a bishop who would stem the evil, but was thwarted by the presbyters and by the desertion of seven bishops who had promised to support him. His candidate had been hitherto engaged in secular affairs, but he thought him the most promising. He seems to have suc- ceeded in naming another as bishop, and then to have retired to Arianzus. But very shortly he was again urged to take the governance of the church at Nazianzus and check the rapidly spreading .\pollinarianism, and, in spite of his own strong disinclination, he agreed to do so. During this second admin- istration the prefect Olympius threatened to destroy the city in consequence of a seditious attack, and it was saved onlv by a pacific letter from the bishop {Ep. cxli. Op. ii. 118- 120). Other letters of the same kind shew Gregory as the father of the city, watching over all its interests with loving care. But he felt that his constant illness unfitted him for his duties, and we find him writing to the archbp. of Tyana earnestly beseeching him to take steps to appoint another bishop. " If ; this letter did not affect its purpose, he would publicly proclaim the bishopric vacant rather { than that the church should hmger suffer from his own infirmity" (Ep. clii. Op. ii. 128). Hulalius, Gregory's colleague and relation, ' and the man of his r hnice, was elected in his I stead. Gregory's satisfaction is expressed in I a letter to Gregory of Nvssa {Ep. clxxxii. Op. j ii. 149). Gregory withdrew to Arianzus, and spent in retirement the six remaining years of | life. To this period belong certainly a large 1 number of poems and letters ; and probably 1 two discourses, one on the Festival of St. 1 Mamas, which was kept with special honour around Nazianzus on the first Sun. after Easter (•ran'i) KvpiaK-ij), and one on the Holy Pass- over {Oral. xliv. and xlv. Op. i. 834-868). ! Gregory at first retired to the little plot at Arianzus which he had retained when all his other property was given to the poor. Here a shady walk with a fountain was his favourite resort (Tarm. xliv. 1-24, O/). ii. 915-917). But even this peaceful spot was denied him, and he was "driven forth without city, throne, or children, but always full of cares for them, as a wanderer upon the earth " (Cartn. xliii. GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS 4\:> 1-12, Op. qi3-oi.S)- He found a temporary resting-|>lace at a ti>mb cnsecratrtl to niart\T» at Carbala. a place of whic !i nothing is known, and which the IJoIlandists sup|>.*r (Mai. ii. 424 f) to be another name for the plot at Arianzus. He was driven tlieiue bv a rela- tive nanud Valentinian, who settled near with the female members of his family, as from another Paradise by another live. i)/«a^x'<><( Srj yt'VCUKil'y oPrwt t''iroxu^>^<'o/i(i>. uawip (XiSmlMi iirtS,>ouaU {Ep. cciii. ();.. ii. 169). The poems antl letters of this period speak of constant illness and suffering, with but short intervals of relief. A franu- mver strong had given way under the severe asc<tirism of the earlier and the burden of the later life. " I suffer," he says in one of the letters, " and am content, not because I suffer, but because I am for others an example of patience. If I have no means to overcoiue any |>ain, I gain from it at least the power to bear it, and to be thankful as well in sorrowful circmnstanres as in joyous ; for I am convinced that, althoUKli it seems to us the contrary, there is in the ryi-s of the Sovereign Reason nothing oppirsed to reason, in all which happens to us " {Ep. xxxvi. Op. ii. 32). Besides phvsical suffer- ings he had to bear intense spiritual agony, which at times took from him all hope either in this world or the next. In the thirk of the spiritual cond)at he, like other great souls, learnt the lessons he was to teach to the world. His death must be assigned to about the nth year of Theodosius, i.e. a.d. 389 or 390. Gregory's extant works are contained in two fol. vols, of the Benedictine edition. Vol. i. consists of 45 sernu)ns, of which some have been noticed in this article. \'ol. ii. in< hides 243 letters — theological, pastoral, political, domestic ; the will of (iregory, taken from the archives of the church of Nazianzus, and the poems arranged in two books. The dogmatic poems are 38 in number. No. 10(74 iambics) is on the Incarnation, against Apollinaris. No. II (16 hexameters and pentameters) is also on the Incarnation. Nos. 12-29 are mnemonic verses on the facts of Holy Scrip- ture, a|>parently meant for school use. Nos. 29-38 are prayers or hynms addr<'ssed totltnl. Tlie moral jioems are 40 in number. No. I (732 htxaiiiettrs) is a eulogy of virginity. Nos. 2-7 in various metres, deal with kiiidnd subjects, exhortations and counsels to virgins and monks, and the superiority of the single life. Nos. 8- 1 1 are on the secular and religious life, and exhortations to virtue; Nos. 12 and 13 on the frailty of the human nature. No. 14 is a meditation on human nature in 132 hexa- meters and pentameters. It ranks with No. i among the most beautiful of Gregory's |><>«iii5. The remainder of the poems in this st-rtion are on such subjects as the baseness of the ouli-r man ; the blessedness of the C hristiaii life ; the sin of frequent oaths and of anger; the loss of dear fri<'nds ; the misery of falsr lririiil>. Four are satires a;,'ainst a bad-maiiiMH«l nobleman (26 and 27) ; misers (2«) ; leminiiir luxury (29). There are i)9 P'Min* re- lating to his own lif<-. One of them (No. 11. Je \ilii siui) is an autobiography extendiiiR to 1,949 lines, to which another (No. 12. Je Seipso et Je Episcopis) adds 8^6 lines more. Among the historical poems is an epistle to 416 GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS Nemesius, an eminent public man, shewing him the errors of paganism, and urging him to accept Christianity. These poetic epistles are of considerable length, and shew the varied interests and practical wisdom of the writer. There are 129 epitaphs and 94 epigrams, most of which are short poems, with little in them of the modern epigram, though some shew {e.g. 10-14, E'S 'Ayainp-ovs) that the pen of Gregory could, when occasion required, be pointed with adamant. No less than 64 (31- 94), belonging probably to the writer's youth, are upon the spoilers of tombs. If the state- ment of J erome and Suidas, that Gregory wrote 30,000 verses, is to be understood literally, more than a third of them are now unknown. In forming an estimate of Gregory's literary position, we have to consider (i) his poems, (2) his letters, and (3) his orations. Of each kind of writing there are abundant materials to form a judgment, (i) Two criticisms of the poems from very different standpoints may help us to arrive at the true mean. To Dr. Ullmann (Gregorius, ss. 200- 202) they are " inferior to the letters, the product of old age, whereas the true vein of poetry must have shewn itself in earlier life ; cramped by their subject-matters, which did not admit of originality ; prosaic thoughts wrapped in poetic forms ; involved and diffusive " ; though he admits that some of the short pieces are poetry of a high order, and that the didactic aim of Gregory is to be taken into account. " Still they could never be more than a poor substitute for the older poetry of Greece." Villemain considers the poems the finest of all Gregory's works. He instances one especially (de Humand naturd), " the severe charm of which seems to have anticipated the finest inspirations of our melancholy age, while it preserves the impress of a faith still fresh and honest, even in its trouble. . . . His funeral eulogies are hymns ; his invectives against Julian have something of the malediction of the prophets. He has been called the ' Theologian of the East.' He ought to have been called rather ' the Poet of Eastern Christendom ' " [Tableau de V eloquence chretienne an 4'"'' Steele, p. 133). (2) Gregory's extant letters, though upon very various sub- jects, and often written under the pressure of immediate necessity, are almost invariably finished compositions. (3) A higher place has been claimed in this article for Gregory's ora- tions than for his poems. He is now held to be greater than Basil, or even Chrysostom, and to have combined " the invincible logic of Bourdaloue ; the unction, colour, and harmony of Massillon ; the flexibility, poetic grace, and vivacity of Fenelon ; the force, grandeur, and sublimity of Bossuet. . . . The Eagle of Meaux has been especially inspired by him in his funeral orations ; the Swan of Cambrai has followed him in his treatise on The Existence of God" (Benoit, p. 721). He was an orator by training and profession. For this he studied at Caesarea, Alexandria, and Athens, and was the acknowledged chief in the schools of the rhetoricians. The oratory of the Christian pulpit was the creation of Gregory and Basil. It was based on the ancient models, and was akin, therefore, to the speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero, rather GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS than to the modern sermon. It has been charged against the sermons of Gregory that they are not expositions of Scripture. As compared with the homilies of Chrysostom, for example, they certainly are not (except one : Oral, xxxvii. Op. i. 644-660) ; the nature of the case made it impossible that they should be. But the margin of every page abounds with references to Scripture, and no reader can fail to see with Bossuet that " Gregory's whole discourse is nothing but a judicious weaving of Scripture, and that he manifests everywhere a profound acquaint- ance with it " {Defense de la tradition, etc., iv. 2 ; Benoit, p. 723). Great as was the position of Gregory as a writer, he left his chief mark upon history as a theologian. He alone beyond the apostolic circle has been thought worthy to bear the name " Theologus " which had been appro- priated to St. John. Ullmann {Gregorius, etc. ss. 209-352), following Clemencet {Op. i. xlix.-lxxviii.), has arranged under their separate headings his views on the articles of faith. Within our present limits we can only refer to them as contained in the five famous j theological discourses at Constantinople ( Orat. i xxvii.-xxxi. Op. i. 487-579). (i) The first, Kara Vjvvotiiivwv, urges that i " to discourse about God is a task of the ! greatest difficulty, not fitted for all times or all persons, nor to be undertaken in the pre- sence of all persons. . . . The teacher of theology , ought first to practise virtue. There is abundant scope for work to refute the older teaching of the pagan philosophers, or to discuss simpler questions of science and theo- logy ; but as to the nature of God our words should be few, for we can know but little in this life." (2) llepi 6eo\oylai. Gregory reasserts here his favourite position, that " it is the pure mind only that can know God The theologian beholds part of God, but the divine nature he can neither express in words nor comprehend in thought. The higher intelli- gence of angels even cannot know Him as He is. That there is a creating and preserving [ cause, we can know, as the sound of an instru- i ment bears witness to its maker and player ; : that God is, we know, but what He is, and of what nature He is, and where He is, and where I He was before the foundation of the world, we cannot know. The Infinite cannot be defined. We can only predicate negative attributes, for the nature of the divine essence is beyond all human conception." I (3) Wepl Tiou. The two previous discourses ! were introductory. He now passes to the next [subject. "The three earliest opinions con- I cerning God were anarchia, polyarchia, and I monarchia. The two former could not stand, I as leading to confusion rather than the order I of the universe. We hold that there is a ; monarchia, but that God is not limited to one ! person. If unity is divided, it becomes ] plurality. But if there is equal dignity of nature, and agreement of will, and identity of movement, and convergence to unity of those I things which are of unity (and this cannot be 1 the case in created things), there may be dis- 1 tinction in number without by any means 1 involving distinction in essence and nature. GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS Unity, therefore {fiovdt), from the beginning going forth to duality {<ij SvdSa), constituted a Trinity (/.Uxpt rptdSos). Human words fail to express the generation and procession, and it is better to keep to scriptural terms ; but the writer has in his thoughts an overflowing of goodness, and the Platonic simile of an over- flowing cup applied to first and second causes. The generation and procession are eternal, and all questions as to time are inai>plicable." Gregory then proceeds to state and answer the common objections of his adversaries. (4) llfpi TioC'. .A-nother discourse on the same subject. (Iregory has already answered the objection, that some passages of Scrijiture speak of the Son as human. He here exhaus- tively examines, under ten objections, the scriptural language applied to our Lord, and then passes to an exposition of the names (a) common to the Deitv, (6) peculiar to the Son, (c) peculiar to the Son as man. (5) Ufpi rov ' Ay'iov Trvf c/xarof. Gregory commences this oration by referring to the difficulties arising because many who admitted the divinity of the Son regarded that of the Holy Ghost as a new doctrine not found in Holy Scripture. He expresses, in the strong- est terms, his own belief in the divinity of the Third Person. "The Holy Spirit is holi- ness. Had the Spirit been wanting to the divine Trinity, the Father and the Son would have been imperfect." The most eminent pagan philosophers had had a glimpse of the truth, for they spoke of the " Mind of the Universe," the " Mind without," etc. No conception of the subtlety of thought or beauty of expression in these discourses of Gregory can be given in an outline. Critics have rivalled each other in their praise, and many theologians have found in them their own best thoughts. A critic who cannot be accused of partiality towards Gregory has given perhaps the truest estimate of them. " A substance of thought, the concentration of all that is spread through the writings of \ Hilary, Basil, and Athanasius ; a flow of softened eloquence which does not halt or lose itself for a moment ; an argument nervous without dryness on the one hand, and without ] useless ornament on the other, gives these five 1 discourses a place to themselves among the monuments of this fine genius, who was nut j always in the same degree free from grandilo- quence and affectation. In a few pages and in a few hours Gregory has summed up and closed the controversy of a whole century." De Broglie, L'Eglise et I'empire, v. 385 ; Benoit, Gregoire, etc. 435, 436. Little is needed for the study of Gregory's life and works beyond the admirable Bene- dictine ed. referred to above (.Mignc, Pair. Gk. xxxv.-xxxviii.), and the Lives by Ullmann {Greg, von Naz. der Theologe, 2. Aufl., Gotha, 1867 ; pt. i. of earlier ed. trans, by Cox, Oxf. ' 1855) and Benoit (St. Greg, de Naz., Paris, 1 1876). For a well-known comparison of j Gregory and Basil see Newman's Church \ of the Fathers, pp. 116-145, 551. Gregory's! Five Theol. Orations have been ed. by A. J. I Mason (Carab. Univ. Press, 1899). See also Duchesne, Histoire de I'Egl. vol. ii. ch. xii. [ Some of his works are trans, into Eng. in the Post-Ntc. Fathers. [h.w.w.] GREGORIUS NYSSENUS 41? Gregorlus (15) Nyssenus. i.p- of Nv»^a m Cappadocia {^7i■^',',). yMU.,^;.r br-thcr ol Basil the t.reat, and a Icadii.K the,.|.,m.m ..f the hastern church. He and his hr..thrr and their common friend tlreg.-ry Nan.uiz<Mi were the chief champions of the orthodox Nurne faith in the struggle against An.inisni and Apollinananisin, and by their disiTfcl uaI independency of spirit, and nuKlrrntion of temper, contributed chiefly to its victory in the East. He was one of ten children of Basil an advocate and rhetorician of eminence, and his wife Emmelia ((ireg. Nvs. de i'tl. S. Matr. 0pp. ed. Morel, t. ii. pp. i8i-i86). \Vc may place Gregory's birth c. 335 or 336, probably at Caesarca. He did not share his eldest brother's advantage of a university training but was probably brought up in the schools of his native city. That no very special pains had been devoted to his education we may gather from the words of his sister Macidora on her deathbed, in which she ascribed the high reputation he had gained to the prayers of his parents, since " he had little or no assistance towards it from home " (ib. iii. 192). A feeble constitution and natural shyness disposed him to a literary retirement. His considerable intellectual powers had been im- proved by diligent private study ; but he shrank from a public career, and appears after his father's death to have lived upon his in- heritance, without any profession. That his religious instincts did not develop early appears from his account of his reluctant at- tendance at the ceremonial held by his mother Emmelia in honour of the " Forty Martyrs." .\ terrifying dream, which seemed to reproach him with neglect, led him to become a " lector " and as such read the Bible lections in the congregation (Greg. Naz. Lp. 43, t. i. p. 804). He Would seem, however, to have soon deserted this vocation for that of a professor of rhetoric. This backsliding caused great pain to his friends and gave occasion to the enemies of religion to suspect his motives and bring unfounded accusations against him. Gregory Nazianzen, whose aftection for him was warm and sincere, strongly remonstrated with him, expressing the grief felt by himself and others at his falling away from his first love. The date of this temporary desertion must be placed either before 361 or after 303, about the same time as his marriage, l^lis wife was named Theosebeia, and her character answered to her name. She died s.unc time after Gregory had become a bishoj), and, according to Tillemont, subsequently to the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381. Im- pressions in (iregory Nazianzen's letter would lead us to believe that both himself and his friend were then somewhat advanced in life ; and from Theosebeia being styled Grcgi^ry Nyssen's "sister" we may gather that they had ceased to cohabit, probably on his becom- ing a bishop (lireg. Naz. Ep. 95, t. i. p. 846 ; Niceph. H. E. xi. 19). (Jregory soon abandoned his profession of a teacher of rhetoric. The urgent remon- strances of his friend tlregory Nazianzen would have an earnest supporter in his elder sister, the holy recluse Macrina, who doubtless used the same powerful arguments which had in- duced Basil to give up all prospect of worldly 27 418 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS fame for the service of Christ. Probably also the profession he had undertaken proved increasingly distasteful to one of Gregory's sensitive and retiring disposition, and he may have been further discouraged by the small results of his exertions to inspire a literary taste among youths who, as he complains in letters to his brother Basil's tutor Libanius, written while practising as a rhetorician (Greg. Nys. Ep. 13, 14), were much more ready to enter the army than to follow rhetorical studies. He retired to a monastery in Pontus, almost certainly that on the river Iris presided over by his brother Basil, and in close vicinity to Annesi, where was the female convent of which his sister Macrina was the superior. In this congenial retreat he passed several years, devoting himself to the study of the Scriptures and the works of Christian commentators. Among these it is certain that Origen had a high place, the influence of that writer being evident in Gregory's own theological works. At Pontus, c. 371, he composed his work de Virginitate, in which, while extolling virginity as the highest perfection of Christian life, he laments that he had separated himself from that state (de Virg. lib. iii. t. iii. pp. 116 seq.). Towards the close of his residence in Pontus, A.D. 371, circumstances occurred displaying Gregory's want of judgment in a striking manner. An estrangement had arisen be- tween Basil and his aged uncle, the bp. Gregory, whom the family deservedly re- garded as their second father. The younger Gregory took on himself the office of mediator. Straightforward methods having failed, he adopted crooked ones, and forged letters to his brother in their uncle's name desiring recon- ciliation. The letters were indignantly re- pudiated by the justly offended bishop, and reconciliation became increasingly hopeless. Basil addressed a letter to his brother, which is a model of dignified rebuke. He first ridicules him with his simplicity, unworthy of a Christian, reproaches him for endeavouring to serve the cause of truth by deception, and charges him with unbrotherly conduct in adding affliction to one already pressed out of measure (Basil. Ep. 58 [44]). In 372 (the year Gregory Nazianzen was consecrated to the see of Sasima) Gregory was forced by his brother Basil to accept reluctantly theseeof Nyssa.an obscuretown of Cappadocia Prima, about ten miles from the capital, Caesarea. Their common friend, Eusebius of Samosata, wrote to Basil to remonstrate on his burying so distinguished a man in so unworthy a see. Basil replied that his brother's merits made him worthy to govern the whole church gathered into one, but he desired that the see should be made famous by its bishop, not the bishop by his see {ib. 98 [259]). These words have proved prophetic. Gregory's episcopate fell in troublous times. Valens, a zealous Arian, being on the throne, lost no opportunity of forwarding his own tenets and vexing the orthodox. The miser- able Demosthenes fBASiLius] had been re- cently appointed vicar of Pontus to do all in his power to crush the adherents of the Nicene faith. After petty acts of persecution, in which the semi-Arian prelates joined with high satisfaction, as a means of retaliating on GREGORIUS NYSSENUS Basil, a synod was summoned at Ancyra at the close of 375, to examine some alleged canonical irregularities in Gregory's consecra- tion, and to investigate a frivolous charge brought against him by a certain Philocharis of having made away with church funds left by his predecessor. A band of soldiers was sent to arrest Gregory and conduct him to the place of hearing. A chill on his journey brought on a pleuritic seizure and aggravated a painful malady to which he was subject. His entreaties to be allowed to halt for medical treatment were disregarded, but he managed to elude the vigilance of the soldiers and to escape to some place of concealment where his maladies could be cared for. Basil collected a synod of orthodox Cappadocian bishops, in whose name he addressed a dignified but courteous letter to Demosthenes, apologizing for his brother's non-appearance at Ancyra, and stating that the charge of embezzlement could be shewn to be false by the books of the treasurers of the church ; while, if any canonical defect in his ordination could be proved, the ordainers were those who should be called to account, an account which they were ready to render (ib. 225 [385]). Basil wrote also to a man of distinction named Aburgius, begging him to use his influence to save Gregory from the misery of being dragged into court and implicated in judicial business from which his peaceful disposition shrank {ib. 33 [358]). Another synod was summoned at Nyssa by Demosthenes a.d. 376, through the instrumentality of Eustathius of Sebaste. Still (Jregory refused to appear. He was pronounced contumacious and deposed by the assembled bishops, of whom Anysius and Ecdicius of Parnasse were the leaders, and they consecrated a successor, whom Basil spoke of with scorn as a miserable slave who could be bought for a few oboli (ib. 237 [264], 239 [10]). Gregory's deposition was followed by his banishment by Valens (Greg. Nys. de Vit. Macr. t. ii. p. 192). These accumulated troubles utterly crushed his gentle spirit. In his letters he bewails the cruel necessity which had compelled him to desert his spiritual children, and driven him from his home and friends to dwell among malicious enemies who scrutinized every look and gesture, nay his very dress, and made them grounds of accusation. He dwells with tender recollec- tion on the home he had lost — his fireside, his table, his pantry, his bed, his bench, his sackcloth — and contrasts it with the stifling hole in which he was forced to dwell, of which the only furniture was straitness, darkness, and cold. His only consolation is in the assurance that his brethren would remember him in their prayers (Greg. Nys. Epp. 18, 22). His letters to Gregory Nazianzen have unfor- tunately perished, but his deep despondency is shewn by the replies. After his expulsion from his see his namesake wrote that, though denied his wish to accompany him in his banishment, he went with him in spirit, and trusted in God that the storm would soon blow over, and he get the better of all his enemies, as a recompense for his strict orthodoxy (Greg. Naz. Ep. 142, t. i. p. 866). Driven from place to place to avoid his enemies, he had compared himself to a stick carried aimlessly tCREGORIUS NysSENUS hither and thither <mi the surface of a stream ; his friend replies tliat liis nu>veinenls were rather lilic those of the sun, which brin^js life to all things, or of the planets, whose apparent irregularities are subject to a fixed law ( ib. ^4 [32], p. 798)- Out of heart at the apparent triumph of Arianism, Gregory bids iiim be of good cheer, for the enemies of the truth Nvere like serpents, creeping from their holes in the sunshine of imperial favour, who, however alarming their hissing, would be driven back into the earth by time and truth. All would come right if they left all to Cod {ib. 33 [33], p. 799). This trust in Clod proved well »i founded. On the death of V'alens in 378 the I youthfulCiratianrecalled the banished bishops, I and, to the joy of the faithful, Gregory was restored to Is^yssa. In one of his letters he describes with graphic power his return. The latter half of his journey was a triumphal progress, the inhabitants pouring out to meet him, and escorting him with acclamations and tears of joy (Greg. Nys. Ep. 3, Zacagni ; No. 6, Mignej. On Jan. i, 379, Basil, whoni he loved as a brother and revered as a spiritual father, died. Gregory certainly attended his funeral, delivering his funeral oration, to which we are indebted for many particulars of Basil's life. In common with Gregory's compositions generally, it offends by the extravagance of its language and turgid oratory (Greg. Nys. in Laud. Pair. Bas. t. iii. pp. 479 seq.). Gregory Nazianzen, who was prevented from being present by illness, wrote a consolatory letter, praising his namesake very highly, and saving that his chief comfort now was to see all Basil's virtues reflected in him, as in a mirror (Greg. Naz. Ep. 37 [35], p. 799). One sorrow followed close upon another in Gregory's life. The confusion in the churches after the long Arian supremacy entailed severe labours and anxieties upon him for the defence of the truth and the reformation of the erring {de Vit. Macr. t. ii. p. 192). In Sept. 379 he took part in the council held at Antioch for the double purpose of healing the Antiochene schism (which it failed to effect) and of taking measures for securing the church's victory over the lately dominant .\rianism (Labbe, Concil. ii. 910; Baluz. Xov. Concil. Coll. p. 78). On his way back to his diocese, Gregory visited the monastery at Annesi, over which his sister Macrina presided. He found her dying, and she expired the next evening. A full account of her last hours, with a detailed biography, is given by him in a letter to the monk Olym- pius [de I'it. S. Macriuae Virg. t. ii. pp. 177 seq.). In his treatise de Anima el Resurrec- ttone (entitled, in honour of his sister, rd "SlaKplvia) we have another account of her deathbed, in which he puts long speeches into her mouth, as part (jf a dialogue held with him on the proofs of the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body, the object of which was to mitigate his grief for Basil's death (t. iii. pp. 181 seq.). iMackina THE Younger.] After celebrating his sister's funeral, Gregory continued his journey to his diocese, where an unbroken series of caiaruities awaited him. The (ialatians had been sowing their heresies. The people at Ibora on the borders of Pontus, having lost their bishop OREGORIUS NYSSENUS 410 by death, elet t.-d (.r.g..rv t.. the va. ant vr. Ihis, in some unexplained w.iv, rau»rd troubles calliuR for the int.rventi.m ..I (he military. These difli< ulties beiiiK settled, he set out on a long and toilsnme journey, in fulhlment of a commission from the rounril of .A.ntioch " to visit and reform the church of .\rabia " (t. iii. p. 653)—!.^, of Uabvlon. He found the state of the church there even 1 worse than had been represented. The people had grown hardened in heresv. and were as brutish and barbarous in their lives as in their I tongue. From his despairing tone we jud^e i that the mission met with but little success. I At its termination, being near the Holv Land, he visited the spots consecrated bv the life I and death of Christ. The emperor put a I public chariot at his disposal, which served him and his retinue " both for a monastery and a church," fasting, psalmody, and the hour* I of prayer being regularly observed all throuKh the journey (t. iii. j). 6sH). He visited Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, and the Anastasis. But the result of this pil- grimage was disappointment. His faith received no contirmation, and his religiou* j sense was scandalized by the gross immorality , prevailing in the Holy City, which he describes , as a sink of all initjuity. The church there was in an almost equally unsatisfactory state. j Cyril, after his repeated depositions by Arian influence, had finally returned, but had failed to heal the dissensions of the Christians or bring them back to unity of faith. Gregory's efforts were equally ineffectual, and he re- turned to Cappadocia depressed and saddened. In two letters, one to three ladies resident at Jerusalem, Eustathia, .-Vmbrosia, and Basilissa (t- iii. pp. 659 seq.), the other the celebrated one de Eunlibus Hierosolytna, he declares his conviction not of the uselessness tmly but of the evil of pilgrimages. " He urges . . . the dangers of robbery and violence in the Holy Landitself, of themoralstate of which he draws a fearful picture. He asserts the religioussupen- ority of Cappadocia, which had nn.re churches than any part of the world, and inquires in plain terms whether a man will believe the virgin birth of Christ the more by seeing Bethlehem. or His resurrection by visiting His t< mb. or His ascension by standing on the Mount of Olives " (Milman, Hist, of Chrtsttatitl\, bk. in. c. II, vol. iii. p. 192, note). There is no sufficient reason for questioning the genuine- ness of this letter. VVe next hear of Gregory at the second general council, that of Con- stantinople, AD. 381 (I.abbe, Conctl. ii. ^55), accompanied by his deac<.n Evagrius. 1 here he held a principal place as a recognized theological leader, r^t ^KnXTciat t6 Kotri* fpetafia as his friend Gregory Nazianzen had at an earlier period termed him. 1 hat he was the author of the clauses then added to the Nicene symbol is an unverified assertion ol Nicephorus Callistus (//. /■.. xii. M). It was probably on this occasion that he read t<» Gregory Nazianzen and to Jirome his w< rk against I--unomius. or the iinTe imp<Tt.>nt parts of it {HkTi<ii. de Vtr. 111. «. 12.H). t.re({- ory Nazianzen having been reluctantly c< m- pelled to ascend the episcopal throne o( Constantinople. Gregory Nyssen delivered an inaugural oration now lost, and, toon aftir, 420 GREGORIUS NYSSENUS a funeral oration on the venerable Meletius of Antioch, which has been preserved (Socr. H. E. iv. 26 ; Oratio in funere Magni Meletii, t. iii. pp. 587 seq.)- Before the close of the council the emperor Theodosius issued a decree from Heraclea, July 30, 381, containing the names of the bishops who were to be regarded as centres of orthodox communion in their respective districts. Among these Gregory Nyssen appears, together with his metro- politan Helladius of Caesarea and Otreius of Melitene, for the diocese of Pontus (Cod. Theod. 1. iii. de Fide Catholica, t. vi. p. 9 ; Socr. H. E. V. 8). Gregory, however, was not made for the delicate and dif&cult business of restoring the unity of the faith. He was more a student than a man of action. His sim- plicity was easily imposed upon. Open to flattery, he became the dupe of designing men. His colleague Helladius was in every way his inferior, and if (iregory took as little pains to conceal his sense of this in his personal inter- course as in his correspondence with Flavian, we cannot be surprised at the metropolitan's dignity being severely wounded. Helladius revenged himself by gross rudeness to Gregory. Having turned out of his way to pay his respects to his metropolitan, Gregory was kept standing at the door under the mi'ddav sun, and when at last admitted to Helladius's presence, his complimentary speeches were received with chilling silence. When he mild- ly remonstrated, Helladius broke into cutting reproaches, and rudely drove him from his presence (Ep. ad Flavian, t. iii. pp. 645 seq.). Gregory was present at the synod at Constan- tinople in 383, when he delivered his discourse on the Godhead of the Second and Third Persons of the Trinity {de Abraham, t. iii. pp. 464 seq. ; cf. Tillem. Mem. eccles. ix. p. 586, S. Greg, de Nysse, art. x.), and again at Constantinople in A. D. 385, when he pronounced ' the funeral oration over the little princess Pulcheria, and shortly afterwards over her ! mother the empress Flaccilla. Both orations are extant (t. iii. pp. 514 seq., 527 seq.). During these visits to Constantinople, Gregorv obtained the friendship of Olympias, the celebrated deaconess and correspondent of Chrysostom, at whose instance he undertook i an exposition of the Canticles, a portion of which, containing 15 homilies, he completed j and sent her {in Cant. Cantic. t. i. pp. 468 seq.). Gregory was present at the synod at Constan- tinople A.D. 394, under the presidency of Nectarius, to decide between the claim's of Bagadius and Agapius to the see of Bostra in Arabia (Labbe, Concil. ii. 1151). At the request of Nectarius Gregory delivered the homily bearing the erroneous title, de Ordina- tione, which is evidently a production of his old age (t. ii. pp. 40 seq.). His architectural taste appears in this homily. It is probable that he did not long survive this synod. The date of his death was perhaps a.d. 395. I Gregory Nyssen was a very copious writer, ! and the greater part of his recorded works have been preserved. They mav be divided into five classes: (r) Exegetical ; (2) Dog- matical : (3) Ascetic ; (4) Funeral Orations and Panegyrical Discourses ; (5) Letters. ) (i) Exegetical. — What exegesis of Holy j Scripture he has left is of no high value, his GRECJORIUS NYSSENUS I system of interpretation being almost entirely ' allegorical. To this class belong his works on the Creation, written chiefly to supplement and defend the great work of his brother Basil on ' the Hexaemeron. These include (i) irtpi riji €^arjfj.epov, dedicated to his youngest brother Peter, bp. of Sebaste. It is also called '. Apologeticus, as it contains a defence of the I actions of Moses and of some points in Basil's work, (ii) A treatise on the creation of man, written as a supplement to Basil's treatise j (vol. i. p. 45 ; Socr. H. E. iv. 26), the funda- mental idea of which is the unity of the human race — that humanity before God is to be J considered as one man. It is called by Suidas ; revxos davixdaiov. (iii) Also two homilies [ on the same subject (Gen. i. 26), frequently j appended to Basil's Hexaemeron, and erro- j neously assigned to him by Combefis and j others. There is also a discourse (t. ii. pp. I 22-34) on the meaning of the image and ; likeness of God in which man was created. (iv) A treatise on the Life of Moses as exhib- iting a pattern of a perfect Christian life ; i dedicated to Caesarius. (v) Two books on the Superscriptions of the Psalms, in which he i endeavours to shew that the five books of the Psalter are intended to lead men upward, as by five steps, to moral perfection, (vi) Eight homilies expository of Ecclesiastes, ending with c. vii. 13, " less forced, more useful, and more natural " (Dupin). (vii) Fifteen hom- ilies on the Canticles, ending with c. vi. 9 ; dedicated to Olympias. (viii) Five homilies I on the Lord's Prayer, " lectu dignissimae " ; (Fabric), (ix) Eight homilies on the Beati- tudes, (x) A discourse on i Cor. xv. 28, in which he combats the Arian perversion of the j passage as to the subjection of the Son. (xi) ' A short treatise on the witch of Endor, 'E-yyaarplixvOo^, to prove that the apparition : was a demon in the shape of Samuel ; ad- dressed to a bishop named Theodosius. I (2) Dogmatical. — These are deservedly re- garded as among the most important patristic contributions towards a true view of the mystery of the Trinity, hardly, if at all, inferior to the writings of Basil, (i) Chief, both in size and importance, is his great work Against Eunomius, written after Basil's death, to refute the reply of Eunomius to Basil's attack upon his teaching, and to vindicate his brother from the calumnious charges of his adversary. (ii) Almost equally important are the replies to Apollinaris, especially the Antirrheticus adversus Apollinarem. These are not only valuable as giving the most weighty answer on the orthodox side to this heresy, but their numerous extracts from Apollinarian writings are really the chief sources of our acquaintance with those doc- trines. The same subjects are treated with great accuracy of thought and spiritual in- sight in (iii) Sermo Catecheticus Magnus, a work in 40 chapters, containing a systematized course of theological teaching for catechists, proving, for the benefit of those who did not accept the authority of Holy Scripture, the harmony of the chief doctrines of the faith with the instincts of the human heart. This work contains passages asserting the annihila- tion of evil, the restitution of all things, and the final restoration of evil men and evil GREGORIUS NYSSENUS spirits to the blessedness of union with ("lod, so that He may be " all in all," embracing all things endued with sense and reas<in — doctrines derived by Gregory from Origen. It has been asserted from the time of C.emianus of Constantinople that these passages were foisted in by heretical writers (Phot. Cod. 233. pp. 004 sqq.) ; but there is no foundation for this hypothesis. The concluding section of the work, which speaks of the errors of Severus, a century posterior to (^iregory, is evidently an addition of some blundering copyist. It must be acknowledged that in his desire to exalt the divine nature Gregory came dangerously near the doctrines afterwards developed by Eutyches and the Monothelitos, if he did not actually enunciate them. While he rightly held that the infinite Logos was not imprisoned in Christ's human soul and body, he do?s not assign the pro;ier independence to this human soul and will. Hooker quotes some words of his as to the entire extinction of all distinction between the two natures of Christ, as a drop of vinegar is lost in the ocean {Eccl. Pol. t. ii. 697), which he deems so plain and direct for Eutyches that he " stands in doubt they are not his whose name they carry " {ib. bk. v. c. iii. § 2 ; cf. Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. p. 115, Clark's trans.). (3) The class of his Ascelical Writings is small. To it belong his early work de Virgini- tate ; his Canonical Epistles to Letoius, bp. of Melitene, classifying sins, and the penances due to each ; etc. (4) The chief Funeral Orations are those on his brother Basil, on Meletius, on the empress Flaccilla, and on the young princess Pulcheria. ; We have also several panegyrical discourses and some homilies. (5) The extant Epistles are not numerous. The chief are that to Flavian, complaining of contumelious treatment by Helladius, and the two on Pilgrimages to Jerusalem. 1 All previous edd. of his collected works ; trans, into Latin were greatly surpassed in elegance and accuracy by that of Paris, 1603, under the superintendence of Front du Due. The first ed. of the Greek text with a Latin trans, appeared from .Morel's press at Paris in 1615 in two vols, fol., also ed. by ^ Du Due. Other complete reprints, including his epistles and other additamcnta. are by Galland (Bihl. Vet. Patr. t. vi.) and Migne (Patr. Gk. xliv.-xlvi.). A good critical ed. of his works is, however, much wanted. Such an ed. was commenced by horbes and Oehler in 1855, but very little has appeared. In the Journ. of Theol. Stud., 1002, is an art. by J. H. Srawley on the text of the Orat. Cat., and in 1903 the same writer ed. it for the Camb. Vmv. Texts. Another useful ed. of it was pub. in 1909 in Gk. and French by Mcridier in Texles et Documents of Hcmmer and Lejay. An Eng. trans, is in the Post-Nic. Fathers. The familiar letters published by Zacagni and Caraccioli are very helpful towards forming an estimate of Gregory's character. They > shew us a man of great refinement, with a love for natural beautv and a lively appreciation of the picturesque in scenery and of elegance in architecture. Of the latter art the detailed 1 description given in his letter to Amphilochius | {Ep. 25) of an octagonal " martyrium " sur- I GREGORIUS 421 mounted by a conii.il spire, rising from • clerestory supported on right roluiiuis. provn him to have possessed ron*idrral)|r t.-rhnical knowledge. It is perhaps the i l.-.irrst and most detailed description of an rrrlrsiasniral building of the 4th cent, remaining to us. His letter to Adelphius (/•/>. 20) furnishes a charming description of a country villa, and its groves and ornamental buildings. CA\r, Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 244 sqq- ; CeilluT. .Aulfuri fcclt's. t. vii. pp. 320 sqq. ; Oudin. I. diss. iv. ; Srhrockh, Kirchengesch. Md. xiv. 1-147; Tillem. Mem. eccUs. t. ix. ; Dupin, cent. iv. ; Fabric. IhM. Cftaec. t. ix. pp. oS sqq. (^.v.) Gregorlus (16). bp. of Merida from c. 402 ; kn.wii t.. usonlv from the decretal of IiuxTrnt 1. addressed ad unnersos eptscopos in Tolosa (should be <;"« »»» Tolelo congregatt iuni). Innocent's letter (which Jaff^- dates 404) is concerned partly with the schism of those bishops of Baetica and Carthaginensis who refused to acknowledge the authority of the council held at Toledo a.d. 400. wliich re- admitted to communion the once Prisrillianist bishops, Symphosius and Dirtinius. and partly with certain irn-gularities in the manner of ordination then j^nvalent in Spain. The pope lays down that although, strictly speaking, the illegal ordinations already made ought to be cancelled, yet, for the sake of peace and to avoid tumults, what is past is to be condoned. The number of canonically invalid ordinations recently made is, he savs, so great that otherwise the existing rcnfusi'on would be made worse instead of better. " How many have been admitted to the priesthood who, like Kufinus and Gregrry. have after baptism practised in the law courts ? How many soldiers who, in obedi- ence to authority, have been obliged to execute harsh orders (severa praecepta) ? How many curialcs who, in obedience also, have done whatever was commanded them ? H'>w many who have given amusements and spec- tacles to the people (vohiptates et editionrs populo celcbrarunt) have become bishops ? *' (See Gams's comments on Can. 2 of council r>f Eliberi. ii. i, 53.) " Quorum omnium neminrm ne ad societatem quidem ordinis clericorum, oportucrat pervenire " (see Decret. rap. iv. Tejada y Ramiro ; Col. de Can. ii.). In rap. v. we have the second mention of Gregory. " Let the complaint, if any, of (.regory. bp. of Merida, ordained in place of I'atruinus [who presided at C. Tol. I.] be heard, and if he has suffered injury contra merttum suum, let those who are envious of another's oflicr be pun- ished, lest in future the spirit of f.icti'n should again inconvenience good men." From these notices it appears that r.rr(f<TV succeeded Patruinus in the metropolitan see of Merida shortiv after the council of Toledo in 400, that in his youth and after baptism he had practised as an advocate; that his election to the bishopric was Ihereforr. strictly speaking, illegal, and that his api'ointmrnt had met with great oppositi^'U. Innorrnt's letter would naturally confirm him in his see and discre<lit the party of oppi>sition. It was probably during (.regorv's pontifiratr thai the irruption of Vandals. Alani, and Survi into Spain twjk place (in the autumn of 400, Id.it. ap. Esp. Sagr. iv. 353), and those scene* of 422 GREGORIUS THEOPOLITANUS horror and cruelty took place of which Idatius has left us a vivid, though possibly exagger- ated, picture. After a first period of indiscri- minate devastation and plunder, the invaders, settling down, divided the provinces among themselves by lot (Idat. I.e. ann. 411). In this division Lusitania and Carthaginensis fell to the Alani, themselves to be shortly destroved by the Goths under Walga (418), and Merida with its splendid buildings and Roman prestige, with all the other great cities of S. Spain, " submitted to the rule of the bar- barians who lorded it over the Roman prov- inces." Innocent's letter concerning Gregory is extremely valuable for Spanish church history at the time. Esp. Sagr. xiii. 163 ; Gams, Kirchengesch. ii. i, 420. [m.a.w.1 Gregorius (31) TheopoUtanus, bp. of Antioch A.D. 569-594. In his earliest youth he devoted himself to a monastic life, and became so celebrated for his austerities that when scarce- ly past boyhood he was chosen superior of the Syrian laura of Pharon or Pharan (Moschus), called by Evagrius the monastery of the Byzantines. Sergius the Armenian in the monastery of the Eunuchs near the Jordan was earnestly importuned by Gregory to conduct him to his venerable master, another Sergius, dwelling by the Dead Sea. When the latter saw Gregory approach, he cordially saluted him, brought water, washed his feet, and conversed with him upon spiritual subjects the whole day. Sergius the disciple afterwards reminded his master that he had never treated other visitors, although some had been bishops and presbvters, as he had treated father Gregory. " Who father Gre- gory may be," the old man replied, " I know not ; but this I know, I have entertained a patriarch in my cave, and I have seen him carry the sacred pallium and the Gospels " (Joann. Mosch. Prat. Spirit, c. 139, 140, in Patr. Lat. Ixxiv. 189). From Pharan Gregory was summoned by Justin II. to preside over the monastery of Mount Sinai (Evagr. H. E. v. 6). On the expulsion of Anastasius, bp. of Antioch. by Justin in 569, Gregory was appointed his successor. Theophanes (Chron. A.D. 562, p. 206) makes his promotion take place from the SvTian monastery. His administration is highly praised by Evagrius, who ascribes to him almost every possible excellence. When Chosroes I. invaded the Roman territory, a.d. 572, Gregorv, who was kept informed of the real state of affairs by his friend the bp. of Nisibis, then besieged by the Roman forces, vainly endeavoured to rouse the feeble emperor by representations of the successes of the Persian forces and the incom- petence of the imperial commanders. An earthquake compelled Gregory to flee with the treasures of the church, and he had the mortification of seeing Antioch occupied by the troops of Adaormanes, the general of Chosroes (Evagr. H. E. v. 9). The latter years of his episcopate were clouded by extreme unpopularity and embittered by grave accusations (ib. c. 18). In the reign of Maurice, a.d. 588, a quarrel with Asterius, the popular Count of the East, again aroused the passions of the excitable Antiochenes against their bishop. He was openly reviled by the mob, and turned into ridicule on the stage. GREGORIUS TURONENSIS On the removal of Asterius, his successor, J ohn, was commissioned by the emperor to inquire into the charges against Gregory, who pro- ceeded to Constantinople, accompanied by Evagrius as his legal adviser, c. 589, and received a triumphal acquittal (ib. vi. 7). He returned to Antioch to witness its almost total destruction by earthquake, a.d. 589, barely escaping with'his life {ib. c. 8). In the wide- spread discontent of the imperial forces, the troops in Syria on the Persian frontier broke out into open mutiny. Gregory, who by his largesses had made himself very popular with the troops, was dispatched to bring them back to their allegiance. He was suffering severely from gout, and had to be conveyed in a litter, from which he addressed the army so eloquent- ly that they at once consented to accept the emperor's nominee, Philippicus, as their com- mander. His harangue is preserved by his grateful friend Evagrius (ib. c. 11- 13). Soon after, his diplomatic skill caused him to be selected by Maurice as an ambassador to the younger Chosroes, when compelled by his disasters to take refuge in the imperial territory, a.d. 590 or 591, and Gregory's advice was instrumental in the recovery of his throne, for which the grateful monarch sent him some gold and jewelled crosses and other valuable presents (ib. c. 18-21). In spite of his age and infirmities, Gregory conducted a visitation of the remoter portions of his patriarchate, which were much infected with the doctrines of Severus, and succeeded in bringing back whole tribes, as well as many separate villages and monasteries, into union with the catholic church (ib. c. 22). After this he paid a visit to Simeon Stylites the vounger, who was suffering from a mortal disease iih. c. 23). Soon after he appears to have resigned his see into the hands of the deposed patriarch Anas- tasius, who resumed his patriarchal authority in 594, in which year Gregory died (ib. c. 24). His extant works consist of a homily in Mulieres unguentiferas found in Galland and Migne (Patr. Gh. Ixxxviii. p. 1847), and two sermons on the Baptism of Christ, which have been erroneously ascribed to Chrysostom. Evagrius (vi. 24) also attributes to Gregory a volume of historical collections, now lost. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. xi. 102 ; Cave, Hist. Lat. i. 534. Cf. Huidacher in Zeitschr. fur Kathol. Thenl. iqoi, xxv. 367. [e.V.] Gregorius (32) turonensis, bp. of Tours (c. 573-594). His life we know chiefly from his own writings. The Vita per Odonem Abbatem, generally pub. with his works, is almost en- tirely based upon what he says of himself. Gregory himself gives a list of his works. At the end of his History he says, "Decern libros historiarum. septem miraculorum, uniun de vitis Patrum scripsi : in Psalterii tractatum librum unum commentatus sum : de cursibus etiam ecclesiasticis unum librum condidi " (bk. x. 31, sub fin.). Of these all are extant except the commentary on the Psalms, of which only fragments exist, collected in vol. iii. of Bordier's ed. pp. 401 sqq. His History is in vol. ii. of Bouquet, and in the collections of La Eigne, Duchesne, and Migne. There are valuable edd. bv the Societe de I'Histoire de France, with French trans, and notes, viz. the Hist. eccl. des Francs, edited by MM. GREGORIUS TURONENSIS Guadct et Taraiine (4 vtils. iSih-iS^S), and ' Les Livres ties miracles et autrcs opuscules, in- cluding the I'lla, extracts from Fortunatus, ■ etc., by M. H. L. Bordier (4 vols. 1857-1864). But the best and most recent cd. is that of W. .Arndt and Br. Krusch in Mon. Germ. Hist. Script Rez. Mfrov. i. This contains an Imlex. , Orthographicd, Lextca et Grammatica. Of 1 the commentaries and works bearing on his life and writings, tlie most important and thorough are Lobell's Gregor vnii Tours utui seine Zeit (znd cd. i86q), and Gabriel Monod's Etudes critiques sur Vi-poque mcrovtngienne. pt. i. 1872, being fasc. No. 9 of the Bihliotheque de I'ecole des hautes etudes. Georgius Florentius (subsequently called Gregorius, after his great-grandfather) was born Nov. 30, 538. Previous authorities have generallv given the year 543. from the passage in the I'ita which states that he was 30 years old at the time of his consecration, i.e. in 573. Members of both parents' families had held high office in church and state. His paternal grandfather Gec^rgius and his maternal great- grandfather Florentius (T. P. 8, i) had been senators at Clermont. Gallus, son of Cieor- gius and uncle of Gregory, was bp. of Auvergne ; another uncle, Nicetius or Nizier, bp. of Lyons (H. v. 5 ; V. P. 8) ; another, Gundulf, had risen to ducal rank (//. vi. 11). Gregory, bp. of Langrcs, and originally count of Autun, was his great-grandfather, and all the previous bishops of Tours, except five, had been of his family (v. 50). It is with justifi- able pride, therefore, that he asserts (F. P. 6) that none in (iaul could boast of purer and nobler blood than himself. His father appears to have died early, and Gregory received most of his education from his uncle Gallus, bp. of Auvergne. Being sick of a fever in his youth, he found relief by visiting the shrine of St. Illidius, the patron saint of Clermont. The fever returned, and Gregory's life was despaired of. Being again carried to St. Illidius's shrine, he vowed to dedicate himself to the ministry if he recovered, nor would he quit the shrine till his prayer was granted (V. P. 2, 2). .\rmentaria, Gregory's mother, returned to Burgundy, her native country, and Clregory apparently lived with Avitus, at first arch- deacon, afterwards bp. of Auvergne, who carried on his education, directing his pupil rather to the study of ecclesiastical than of secular works. Gregory looked upon Avitus as in the fullest sense his spiritual father. " It was his teaching and preaching that, next to the Psalms of David, led me to recognize that Jesus Christ the Son of (iod had come into the world to save sinners, and caused me to reverence and honour those as the friends and disciples of Christ who take up His cross and follow in His steps" {V. P. 2, Intro.). By Avitus he was ordained deacon, probably c. 563 (Monod. 29). Of Gregory's life before he became bp. of Tours few details are known. He appears to have been well known at Tours {Mir. Mart. i. 32, Vita, c. ii.), for it was in consequence of the expressed wish of the whole people of Tours, clergy and laity, that Sigebert appointed him, in 573, to the see. He was consecrated by Egidius of Rheims. He was known to and favoured by Radegund the GREGORIUS TURONENSIS I'JS widow ..f C|ot.iir<> 1., foiin.lrrss i.f St. ( r.>ft^ at Poictiers, who. arcrding to Fortunatus. hrlpi <l to procure his election {(arm. v. 3). The elevation of (;reK<.rv was n.ntpnipnrarv with the renewed outbreak of civil war b.twr. n Sigebert and Chilperir, the fonnir ..( wh. ni had inherited the Austrasian, the l.iller llir Neustrian, possessions of their fatli.r Cl..l.urr I. (d. 561). The possession of Toiir.iinr and Poitouwas in some sort the occasion oft hrw.ir. and these countries suffered from the ravages of both parties. Gregory's sympathies were natu- rally with Sigebert (Ti/a 5. Greg.^ 11). and tho peopleof Tours weregenerally(//.i v. so), though not unanim()usly (iv. 46), on the same side. Chilperic, according to Gregory, was even ni«rp cruel and regardless of human life than the other Mero\ ingian princes ; he was the " Nero and Herod nf his age " (vi. 46) ; he not only plundered and burned throughout the country, but specially destroyed churches and mon- asteries, slew priests and monks, and paid no regard to the pfissessions of St. Martin (iv. 4H). Tours remained under Chilperic till his death in 384, and some of the best traits in Gregory's character appear in his resistance to the murderous violence of the king and the truculent treachery of Fredegund. Thus he braved their wratli, and refused to surrender their rebellious son Meroveus (v. 14). and their enemy (iuntram Boso who had defeated and killed Thendebert (v. 4), both of wh<>m had taken sanctuary at the shrine of St. .Martin ; and Gregory alone of the bishops dared to rebuke Chilperic for his unjust conduct towards Praetextatus, and to protect Praetextatus from the vengeance of Frede- gund (v. 19) ; and when Chilperic wanted to force on his people his views of the doctrine of the Trinity, Gregory withstood him. Chil- peric recited to Gregory what he had written on the subject, saying, " 1 will that such shall be your belief and that of all the other doctors of the church." " Do not deceive vourself. mv lord king." Gregory replied; " yf>u must follow in this matter the teaching of the apostles and doctors of the church, the teac h- ing of Hilary and Kusebius, the confession that vou made at baptism." " It appears then," angrily exclaimed the king. " that Hilary and Eusebius are mv declared enemies in this matter." " No," said (.regorv ; "neither God nor His saints are yourenemirs," and he proceeded to expound the orthodox doc- trine of the Trinity. Chilperic was very angrv. " I shall set forth mv ideas to those who are wiser than you, and they will approve of them." " Never," was the answer, " it would be no wise man, but a lunati< , that would adopt such views as yours " (v. 45). Gregorv had a persistent enemy in I cud- astes, count of Tours (v. 4c,). When removed from office because of his misdeeds, he endrav- oured to take revenge on Gregory by maligning him tr) the king, that he was going to deliver over the citv to Childcbert. Sigebert'* son. and finally that (Iregory had spread a report of Frcdegund's adultery. Chilperic summoned a council of the bishops of the kingdom at Braine, near Soissons. to investigate the charge, and it was found that the arcusation rested solelv on the evidence of I.eudastrs and Riculfus. All agreed that the witness of an 424 GREGORIUS TURONENSIS inferior was not to be believed against a priest and his superior, and Gregory was acquitted on condition of solemnly disclaiming on oath all cognizance of the charge. Leudastes fled ; Riculfus was condemned to death : at Gre- gory's intercession he was spared death, but not horrible torture (v. 48-50 ; Gregmre de Tours au concile de Braine, par S. Prioux, Paris, 1847, is a mere rechauffe of Gregory's own account of these proceedings, and of no independent critical value). The subsequent fate of Leudastes illustrates the best side of Gregory's character. After being a fugitive in different parts of Gaul, Leudastes presented himself at Tours to have his excommunication removed with a view to marrying and settling there. He brought letters from several bishops, but none from queen Fredegund, his principal enemy, and when Gregory wrote to her, she asked Gregory to postpone receiving back Leudastes into communion till further in- quiry had been made. Gregory, suspicious of Fredegund's design, warned Leudastes's father- in-law, and besought him to induce Leudastes to keep quiet till Fredegund's anger was ap- peased. "This advice," says Gregorv, " I gave sincerely, and for the love of God, but Leud- astes suspected treachery, and refused to take it : so the proverb was fulfilled which I once heard an old man tell, ' Always give good counsel to friend and foe ; the friend will take it, the foe will despise it.' " Leudastes went to the king to get his pardon ; Chilperic was willing, but warned him to be careful till the queen's wrath was appeased. Leudastes rashly tried to force forgiveness from the queen. Fredegund was implacable and furious, and Leudastes was put to death with great crueltv. " He deserved his death," says Gregory, " for he had ever led a wicked life " {H. vi. 32). During the wars that followed the death of Chilperic in 584, Touraine and Poitou desired to be subject to Childebert, Sigebert's son, i.e. to resume their allegiance to the Austra- sian king, but were compelled to submit to Guntram, king of Orleans and Burgundy (vii. 12, 13), and under his power they re- mained till restored to Childebert bv the treaty of Andelot in =187, in concluding which Gregory was one of Childebert's commissioners (iv. 20). Guntram died in 593. Childebert succeeded him as the treaty had provided, and the latest notice in Gregorv's writings is the visit of Childebert to Orleans after Guntram's death (Mir. S. Martin, iv. 37). Gregory himself died Nov. 17, 594. His activity was not confined to the general affairs of the kingdom. He was even more zealous for the welfare of his own and neigh- bouring dioceses. His later years were much occupied with the disturbances caused bv Chrodieldis in the nunnery at Poictiers which had been founded by Gregory's friend St. Radegund. His first interference was in- effectual (ix. 39 sqq.), but the disturbance having increased, Guntram and Childebert appointed a joint commission of bishops to inquire into the matter. Gregory was one of Childebert's commissioners, but refused to enter upon the work until the civil disturbance had been actually repressed (x. 15, 16). He had a great deal of trouble also with another rebellious nun, Berthegunda (ix. 33, x. 12). GREGORIUS TURONENSIS Gregory magnifies the sanctity and power of Tours's great patron St. Martin. He main- tained the rights of sanctuary of the shrine in favour of the most powerful offenders, and in spite of the wrath of Chilperic and Fredegund (e.^. Meroveus, Guntram Boso, Ebrulfus, vii. 22, 29). He was a builder of churches in the city and see, and especially a rebuilder of the great church of St. Martin (x. 31). He did his best to arbitrate in and appease the bloody feuds of private or political partisanship (vii. 47) and was a rigorous and effectual defender of the exemption of the city from increased taxation (ix. 20). Evidently a man of unselfish earnestness and energy, he was popular with all in the city. Gregory began to write first as bishop, his subject being the Miracles of St. Martin. Venantius Fortunatus in 576 alludes to the work, probably to the first two books, which, however, were not completed till 583, the third book not before 587, and the fourth was still incomplete at Gregory's death. The Gloria Martyrum was composed c. 585. Gre- gory wrote also the Gloria Confessorttm (com- pleted 388) and the Vitae Patruni, the latter being continued till the time of his death. The History appears to have been written contemporaneously with the Miracles of the Saints, most probably in several divisions and at different times. Giesebrecht, who has carefully investigated the internal evidence, comes to the following conclusions. The History was originally written at three separ- ate periods, and falls into three separate divisions. Bks. i.-iv. and the first half of bk. V. were probably composed c. 577 ; from the middle of bk. v. to the end of the 37th chapter of bk. viii. in 584 and 585 ; the remainder in 590 and 591. The last chapter of the last book is an epilogue, separately composed ; for the history as a history is unfinished. Gre- gory would probably have carried it on at least to the death of Guntram in Mar. 593. As in the case of the books of the Miracles, Gregory appears to have revised his History, and we find in the earlier books insertions and references to Gregory's other works and to events of later date. This revision does not appear to have reached further than the end of bk. vi. ; hence several MSS., and these the most ancient, contain only the first six books, and the authors of the Hist. Epit. and of the Gesta Re^. Franc, appear to have known only these. Monod substantially agrees with Giesebrecht as to the dates. Gregory begins his History with the Crea- tion, and his first book consists largely of extracts from Eusebius, Jerome, and Orosius {Hist. i. Prol. sub fin. cc. 34, 37)- In bk. ii., which treats of the Frankish conquests, he still owes much to Orosius and to the Lives of the Saints, and quotes from Renatus Frigide- rius and Sulpicius Alexander (ii. 9), two 5th- cent. writers, whose works are not extant. Thereafter he writes directly from oral tradi- tion and authorities. Bks. iii. and iv., dealing with events down to 575, are, compared with those which follow, meagre and unchrono- logically arranged, giving prominence to events in Auvergne and Burgundy (Monod, p. 102). From 575 the narrative becomes fuller and more systematic, the intervals of GREGORIUS TURONENSIS time being resuUirly marked, (('.iesebrei lit, pp. 32-34. Moiiod, in his 4th chap., investi- gates the comparative value in ditTerent parts of the work of the documentary and oral sources of the History.) ' tiregory apologizes more than once for the rudeness of his style. But rough though this might be, he was far from lacking learning or culture such as his age could afford. Though igiiorant of Greek, he had a fair acquaintance with Latin authors, quoting or referring to Livy, Pliny, Cicero, Aulus (iellius, etc. (Moiiod, 112). He does not attempt to make his History a consistent and well-balanced wlmle, nor to subordinate local to general interests. The fullness of his recital of particular events depends not upon intrinsic importance but upon the amount of information he has at command. So too he follows the dramatic method, putting speeches into the mouths of individuals which are the composition of the author. Even where he depends upon written authorities he is, in detail, untrust- worthy. Where he can be compared with writers now extant, as in the first two books of the History, his inaccuracy is seen to be considerable. He transcribes carelessly, and often cites from memory, giving the substance of that which he has read, and that not cor- rectly (see instances ap. Mnnnd, pp. 80 sqq.). i Little confidence can be placed in his narrative of events outside of (iaul, and the less the farther the scene of action is removed from Gaul. His sincerity and impartialitv have been attacked on various grounds : that he unduly favours the church, or that he traduces the church in his accounts of the wickedness | of the bishops of the time, or that he traduces - the character of the Franks (Kries, de Gregorii ' Turonensis episcopi vita et scriptis, Breslau, ; 1859), whether from motives of race-jealousy or any other. Gregory looks upon history as a struggle of the church against unbelief in heathen and heretics and worldlv-minded- ness in professing Christians. Hence he begins his History with a confession of the orthodox faith. The epithet ecclesiastica apjilied to the History from Ruinart's time is a misnomer in the modern sense, for Gregory sj^iecially defends his method of mixing things secular and religious. With a man so passionate and impressionable as Gregory, the fact of his being a priest and the bishop of the see of St. Martin, the ecclesiastical and religious centre of Gaul, does influence his feelings and actions towards individuals. But ecclesiastical pre- judices did not prevent him recording events as related to him. He shews no rancour in treating of the Frankish conquerors, such as would be natural in the victim of an op- pressed nationality. After the first days of the conquest there was no political subjection of Roman to Teuton as such ; Romans were not excluded from offices and dignities because of their birth (pp. 101-118). Gregory's work remains, despite all, as the great and in many respects the only authority for the history of the 6th cent., and his fresh and simple, though not unbiassed, narrative is of the greatest value. He tells us exactly what the Franks were like, and what life in (iaul was like ; and he gives us the evidence upon which his judgment is founded, [t.r.b.] GREGORIUS I. 4-J5 Gregorlus (51) I. [Ihf (.mit). bi- ..( Rome from Sept. \. sf>o, to M.ir. 12, (^,n^ ; born at Rome prob,il>|v c. s\o. of a wealthy srnnt<.ri.il fainilv. The familv was a rrligiciun <inr ; hi% mother Silvia, and Tarsilla and Armilian.!. \\\n two sisters of his father (iordianus, have brrn canonized. Under such influences hi* rdura- tion is spoken of bv his biographer, John the deacon, as having been that of a saint among saints. Gregorv of Tours, his contetufxrarv, says that in grammar, rhetoric, and lo^ir he was accounted second to nonp in Rome {Htit. X. i). He studied law, distinKuishi-<l himself in the senate, and at an earlv age (errtainlv before 573) was recommended bv the » niprror Justin IL for the post of praetor urbis. .After a public career of credit, his deep reliRions ideas suggested a higher vi>ration ; and on his father's death he kept but a small share of the great wealth that came to him, emploving the rest in charitable uses, and esprriallv in founding monasteries, of which he endowed six in Sicily, and one, dedicated to St. Andrew, on the site of his own house near the rhurrh of SS. John and Paul at Rome. Here he himself became a monk. The date of his first retirement from the world, and its duration, are uncertain, as are also the exact dates of subsequent events previous to his accession to his see ; but the most probable order <>( events is here followed. Inuring his seclusion his asceticism is said to have been such as to endanger his life had he not been prevailed on by friends to abate its rigour ; and it mav have partly laid the foundation of his bad health in later life, (iregory Turonensis speaks of his stomach at this time being so enfeebletl bv f.ist and vigil that he could hardly stand. Bene- dict L, having ordained him one of the seven deacons (r,-oionarii) of Rome, sent him as his apocrisiarius to Constantinople, and he was similarly emploved in 570 bv Benedict's suc- cessor Pelagius 11. After this Gregorv resided three years in Constantinople, where two noteworthv events occurred : his controversy with Eutychius, the patriarch, about the nature of the resurrection body ; and the commencement of his famous work Maf^na Moralia. Recalled by Pelaqius to Rome, he was allowed to return to his monastery, but was still employed as the pope's secretary. During his renewed monastic life and in his capacitvof abbat he was distinRuished for the strictness of his own life and the rik'our of his discipline. One story which he tells leaves an impression of zeal carried to almost in- human harshness. A monk, Julius, who had been a phvsician and ha<l attended Gregorv himself, night and day, during a hmg illness, being himself dangerously ill, confided to a brother that, in violation of monastic rule, he had three pieces of gold concealed in his rrll. This confession was overheard, the e,-l| searched, and the pieces found, (.regory forbade all to approach the r, (Tender, even in the agonies of death, and after death raiivd his bodv to be thrown on a dunghill with the pieces of gold, the monks crving aloud. " Thy monev perish with thee " ((.reg. Ihal. iv. S5). On Feb. R, SQO, Pela»rius II. die.l, Rome being then in great straits. The Lombards were ravaging the country and threatening the city, aid being craved in vain from the 426 GREGORIUS I. distant emperor ; within famine and plague were raging. Gregory was at once unanimous- ly chosen by senate, clergy, and people to succeed Pelagius ; but to him his election was distressing, and he wrote to the emperor Mauricius imploring him not to confirm it. His letter was intercepted by the prefect of Rome, and another sent, in the name of senate, clergy, and people, earnestly request- ing confirmation. Before the reply of the emperor reached Rome, Gregory aroused the people to repentance by his sermons, and instituted the famous processional litany, called Litania septiformis. The emperor con- firmed the election of Gregory, who fled in disguise, was brought back in triumph, con- ducted to the church of St. Peter, and im- mediately ordained on Sept. 3, 590 (Anastas. Bibliothec. and Mortyrol. Roman.). After his accession he continued in heart a monk, surrounding himself with ecclesiastics instead of laymen, and living with them according to monastic rule. In accordance with this plan a synodal decree was made under him in 595, substituting clergy or monks for the boys and secular persons who had formerly waited on the pope in his chamber (Ep. iv. 44). Yet he rose at once to his new position. The church shared in the distress and disorganization of the time. The fires of controversy of the last two centuries still raged in the East. In Istria and Gaul the schism on the question of the Three Chapters continued ; in Africa the Donatists once more became aggressive against the Catholics. Spain had but just, and as yet imperfectly, recovered from Arianism. In Gaul the church was oppressed under its barbarian rulers ; in Italy, under the Arian Lombards, the clergy were infected with the demoralization of the day. The monastic system was suffering declension and was now notoriously corrupt. Literature and learning had almost died with Boethius ; and all these causes combined with temporal calamities led to a prevalent belief, which Gregory shared, that the end of all things was at hand. Nor was the position of the papacy encouraging to one who, like Gregory, took a high view of the prerogatives of St. Peter's chair. Since the recovery of Italy by Justinian (after the capture of Rome by Belisarius in 536) the popes had been far less independent than even under the Gothic kings. Justinian regarded the bishops of Rome as his creatures, to be appointed, summoned to court, and deposed at his pleas- ure, and subject to the commands of his exarch at Ravenna. No reigns of popes had been so inglorious as those of Gregory's immediate predecessors, Vigilius, Pelagius I., Benedict, and Pelagius II. He himself describes the Roman church as " like an old and violently shattered ship, admitting the waters on all sides, its timbers rotten, shaken by daily storms, and sounding of wreck " {Ep. i.). Gregory may be regarded, first, as a spiritual ruler ; secondly, as a temporal administrator and potentate ; lastly, as to his personal character and as a doctor of the church. Immediately after his accession he sent, according to custom, a confession of his faith to the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexan- dria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, in which he GREGORIUS I. declared his reception of the first four general councils, as of the four gospels, and his condemnation of the Three Chapters — i.e. the writings of three deceased prelates, Theodorus, Theodoret, and Ibas, supposed to savour of heresy, and already condemned by Justinian and by the fifth council called oecumenical. The strong language in which he exalts the authority of the four councils as " the square stone on which rests the structure of the faith, the rule of every man's actions and life, which foundation whoever does not hold is out of the building," is significant of his views on the authority of the church at large, while his recognition of the four patriarchs as co- ordinate potentates, to whom he sends an account of his own faith, expresses one aspect of the relation to the Eastern churches which then satisfied the Roman pontiffs. He lost no time in taking measures for the restoration of discipline, the reform of abuses, the repres- sion of heresy, and the establishment of the authority of the Roman see, both in his own metropoiitan province and wherever his influence extended. That jurisdiction was threefold — episcopal, metropolitan, and patri- archal. As bishop he had the oversight of the city ; as metropolitan of the seven suffragan, afterwards called cardinal, bishops of the Roman territory, i.e. of Ostia, Portus, Silva Candida, Sabina, Praeneste, Tusculum, and Albanum ; while his patriarchate seems to have originally extended (according to Rufinus, H. E. i. [x.] 6) over the suburban provinces under the civil jurisdiction of the vicarius urbis, including LTpper Italy, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. But being the only patriarch in the West, he had in fact claimed and exercised jurisdiction beyond these original limits, including the three other vicariates into which the prefecture of Italy was politically divided: N. Italv, with its centre at Milan, W. lUyricum, with its capital at Sirmium, and VV. Africa, with its capital at Carthage. Before his accession a still wider authority had been claimed and in part acknowledged. As bishops of the old im- perial city, with an acknowledged primacy of honour among the patriarchs, still more as occupants of St. Peter's chair and conservators of his doctrine, and as such consulted and appealed to by various Western churches, the popes had come to exercise a more or less defined jurisdiction over them all. The power of sending judges to hear the appeals of con- demned bishops, which had been accorded to pope Juhus by the Western council of Sardica in 343, had been claimed by his successors as perpetually belonging to the Roman see and extended so as to involve the summoning of cases to be heard at Rome ; and a law had been obtained by Leo I. from Valentinian (445) by which the pope was made supreme head of the whole Western church, with the power of summoning prelates from all pro- vinces to abide his judgment. On the as- sumption of such authority Gregory acted, being determined to abate none of the rights claimed by his predecessors. In the year of his accession (590) he endea- voured, though without result, to bring over the Istrian bishops, who still refused to con- demn the Three Chapters. With this view OREGORIUS I. he appointed a counril to moot at Rome, and obtained an order from the emperor for the attendance of these bishops. They petitioned for exemption, saying that their faith was that formerly taught them by pope Vigilius, and protesting against submission to the bp. of Rome as their judge. The emperor counter- manded the onlor, and Gregory acquiesced. In SOI his orthodox zeal was directed with more success against the African Donatists. It was the custi>m in Numidia for the senior bishop, whether Donatist or Catholic, to exercise metropolitan authoritv over the other bishops. Such senior now happened to bo a Donatist, and he assumed the customary authority. Gregory wrote to the Catholic bishops of Numidia, and to Gennadius, exarch of Africa, urging them to resist such a claim {Ep. i. 74, 73), and the Donatist bishop was de- posed, but the sect continued in .\frica as long as Christianity did. This is not the only in- stance of Gregory, like others of his age, not being averse to persecution as a means of con- version. InSicilyheenjoinedrigorousmeasures {summofyert' persequi) for the recovery of the Manicheans to the church {Ep. iv. 6) ; there, and in Corsica, Sardinia, and Campania, the heathen peasants and slaves on the papal estates were by his order compelled to con- form, not only by exactions on such as refused, but also by the imprisonment of freemen, and the corporal castigation {verberibus et cruci- aiibiis) of slaves (Ep. iii. 26 ; vii. ind. ii. 67), and in France he exhorted queen Brunichild to similar measures of coercion {Ep. vii. 3). On the other hand, there are three letters of his, written in the same year as those about the African Donatists, which evince a spirit of unusual toleration towards Jews. They are addressed to three bishops, Peter of Tarracina, Virgilius of .\rles, and Theodorus of Marseilles. The first had driven the Jews from their synagogues, and the last two had converted a number by offering them the choice of bajnism or exile. Gregory strongly condemns such proceedings, " because conversions wrought by force are never sincere, and those thus converted seldom fail to return to their vomit when the force is removed." {Ep. i. 34, i. 45 ; of. Ep. vii. ind. i. 26, vii. ind. ii. 5, vii. 2, 39.) Yet he had no objection to luring them into the fold by the prospect of advantage, for in a letter to a deacon Cyprian, who was steward of the papal patrimony in Sicily, he directs him to offer tlie Jews a remission of one-third of the taxes due to the Roman church if they bee ime Christians, saying, in justification, that though such conversions might be insincere, their children would be brought up in the bosom of the church {Ep. iv. 6, cf. Ep. xii. 30). In such apparent in- consistencies we may see his good sense and Christian benevolence in conflict with the impulses of zeal and the notions of his age. Gregory was no less active in reforming the church itself. Great laxity was prevalent among the monks, of which the life of Bene- dict, the founder of the Benedictine order, affords ample evidence. Several of Gregory's letters are addressed to monks who had left their monasteries for the world and marriage. He issued the following regulations for the restoration of monastic discipline : no monk GREGORIUS I. 427 sh<Mil(l bo ro< oivod under iR vear* of »f-r. n.,r any husband with<<ut his wife's ronsrnt (m one case he orders a husband who had rntrrrd a monastery to be rostorrd to his wifr \hp. u. 44]) ; two years of probatii.n should aUav* be required, and three in the rase <.f sxidirrs ; a professed monk leaving his order should hr imnnnod for life ; n<i m.mk, though an abbat, should leave the prerinrts of his monastrrv. except on urgent occasions ; under no prrtrxt should anv monk leave his nionastrrv alonr. on the ground that " niii sine irste nnibulat non recto vivit." He provided for the more complete separation of the monastic and clerical orders, forbidding anv monk to rrmain in his monastery after ordination, and anv priest to enter a monasterv except to rxerrise clerical functions, or to become a monk with- out giving up his clerical office ; and further exempting some monasteries from the juris- diction of bishops. This last important provision was extended to all monasteries by the Lateran synod, held under him in hoi. He was no loss zealous in his correrti>>n of the clergy. Several bishops under his imme- diate metropolitan jurisdiction and elsewhere he rebuked or deposed for incontinenrv and other crimes. His own nuncio at Constanti- nople, Laurentius the archdeacon, he recallod and deposed. From the clergv generallv he required strict chastity, forbidding them to retain in their houses any women but their mothers, sisters, or wives married before ordination, and with these last prohibiting conjugal intercourse {Ep. i. 50, ix. 64). Bishops he recommends to imitate St. Augus- tine in banishing from their houses even surh female relatives as the canons allow {Ep. vii. ind. ii. 30 ; xi. 42, 43). In Sicily the obliga- tion to celibacv had, in 388, been extended to subdeacons. This rule he upheld bv directing the bishops to require a vow of relibacv from all who should in future be ordained sub- deacons, but acknowledging its hardship on such as had made no such vow on their ordination, he contented himself with for- bidding the advancement to the diaconate of I existing subdeacons who had continued ron- j jugal intercourse after the intrcnluetion of the : rule {Ep. i. ind. ix. 42). He also set himself resolutelv against the prevalent simony, forbidding all bishops and I clergv to exact or accept fee or reward (of ! the functions of their office ; and he set the example himself bv refusing the annual pre- ' sents which it had been customary for the bishops of Koine t>> receive from their suffra- gans, or payment for th<- pallium sent to metropolitans, which pavment was forbidden to all future popes by a Roman svnod in J9S. In 392 began a struggle in reference to discipline with certain bishops of The*salv and Dalmatia, in the province of Illvnruro. Hadrianus of Thebes had been deposed bv a provincial svni>d under his metropolitan the bp. of I.arissa, and the sentence had been confirmed bv John of Jiistiniana I*riina. the primate of Illvricum. The deposed prelate api'eaUd toC.regorv, who. after examining the whole rase, ordered the primate to reinstate Hadrianus {Ep. ii. ind. xi. f>. 7)- "•■ *'*" I ordered Natalis. bp. of Sah.na in DaUnatia and I metropolitan, under pain of cxcommunicalloo. 428 GREGORIUS I. GREGORIUS I. to reinstate his archdeacon Honoratus whom I sending her also a copy of his four books of he had deposed (Ep. ii. ind. x. 14, 15, 16). In dialogues. both instances he appears to have been 1 Over the church in Ireland, then bound by obeyed. Not so, however, in the case of I no close tie of allegiance to the see of Rome, Maximus, who succeeded Natalis as bp. of | he endeavoured to extend his influence, Salona and metropolitan in the same year, writing in 592 a long letter to the bishops. Maximus having been elected in opposition to [ Not content with thus influencing, con- Honoratus, whom Gregory had recommended, , solidating, and reforming the existing churches the latter disallowed the election, and wrote to the clergy of Salona forbidding them to choose ' a bishop without the consent of the apostolic see. Meanwhile the emperor had confirmed I the election. After protracted negotiations. throughout the West, he was also a zealous missionary, and as such the founder of our English, as distinct from the more ancient British, Christianity. [Augustine.] Of his relations with Constantinople and the lasting 7 years, during which 17 letters were j Eastern church, the year 593 affords the first written by Gregory, the emperor committed l example. Having heard of two presbyters, the settlement of the dispute to Maximianus, John of Chalcedon and Anastasius of Isauria, bp. of Ravenna, with the result that Maximus, ' being beaten with cudgels, after conviction on having publicly begged pardon of the pope and ', a charge of heresy, under J ohn the Faster, then cleared himself from the charge of simony by patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory wrote an oath of purgation at the tomb of St. Apoi- | twice to the patriarch, remonstrating with him linaris, was at last acknowledged as lawful bp. ] for introducing a new and uncanonical of Salona {Ep_. iii. ind. xii. 15, 20 ; iv. ind. xiii. \ punishment, exhorting him to restore the two 34 ; V. ind. xiv. 3 ; vi. ind. xv. 17 ; vii. ind. i. 1 presbyters or to judge them canonically, and I ; vii. ind. ii. 81, 82, 83). In the West I expressing his own readiness to receive them beyond the limits of the empire Gregory also : at Rome. Notwithstanding the patriarch's lost no opportunity of extending the influence j protest, the presbyters thereupon withdrew of his see and of advancing and consolidating I to Rome and were received and absolved by the church. Reccared, the Visigothic king of j Gregory after examination {Ep. ii. 52, v. 64). Spain, renounced Arianism for Catholicism at [ In other letters we find him saying, " With the council of Toledo in 589, and Gregory ; respect to the Constantinopolitan church, who heard of this from Leander, bp. of Seville, ! doubts that it is subject to the apostolical whom he exhorted to watch over the royal : see ? " and " I know not what bishop is not convert. He sent Leander a pallium to be ! subject to it, if fault is found in him "(£/>. vii. used at mass only. He wrote to Reccared [ ind. ii. 64, 65). But the most memorable in warm congratulation, exhorting him to incidents in this connexion are his remon- humility, chastity, and mercy ; thanking him strances against the assumption by John the for presents received, and sending in return a j Faster of the title of oecumenical or universal key from the body of St. Peter, in which was ; bishop. They began in 595, being provoked some iron from the chain that had bound him, \ by the repeated occurrence of the title in a and a cross containing a piece of the true cross, | judgment against an heretical presbyter which and some hairs of John the Baptist (Canones I had been sent to Rome. The title was not Eccles. Hispan.). There is no distinct as- | new. Patriarchs had been so styled by the sumption, in these letters, of jurisdiction over j emperors Leo and Justinian, and it had been the Spanish church, and this is the only known [ confirmed to John the Faster and his succes- instanceof a pallium having been sent to Spain ! sors by a general Eastern synod at Constan- previously to the Saracen invasion. The | tinople in 588, pope Pelagius protesting against ancient Spanish church does not seem to have ! it. Gregory now wrote to Sabinianus, his been noted for its dependence on the Roman j apocrisiarius at Constantinople, desiring him see (see Geddes, Tracts, vol. ii. pp. 25, 49 ; j to use his utmost endeavours with the patri- Gieseler, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 188). With I arch, the emperor, and the empress, to procure the Frank rulers of Gaul Gregory carefully | the renunciation of the title ; and when this cultivated friendly relations. In 595, at the j failed, he himself wrote to all these in peculiar- request of king Childeric, he conferred the pallium on Virgilius of Aries, the ancient metropolitan see, whose bishop pope Zosimus had confirmed in his metropolitan right, and made vicar as early as 417. Not long after Gregory began a correspondence with queen Brunichild, in which he exhorts her to use her power for the correction of the vices of the clergy and the conversion of the heathen. Another royal female correspondent, culti- vated and flattered with a similar purpose, and one more worthy of the praise conferred, was Theodelinda the Lombard queen. To 599 is assigned the extensive conversion of the ly strong language. The title he called foolish, proud, pestiferous, profane, wicked, a diaboli- cal usurpation ; the ambition of any who assumed it was like that of Lucifer, and its assumption a sign of the approach of the king of pride, i.e. Antichrist. His arguments are such as to preclude himself as well as others from assuming the title, though he implies that if any could claim it it would be St. Peter's successors. Peter, he says, was the first of the apostles, yet neither he nor any of the others would assume the title universal, being all members of the church under one head, Christ. He also states (probably in Lombards to Catholicism, brought about after I error) that the title had been offered to the the death of king Antharis through the mar- riage of this Theodelinda, his widow, with Agilulph duke of Turin, who consequently succeeded to the throne. With this pious lady, a zealous Catholic, Gregory kept up a highly complimentary correspondence, bp. of Rome at the council of Chalcedon, and refused. Failing entirely to make an impres- sion at Constantinople, he addressed himself to the Eastern patriarchs. He wrote to Eulogius of Alexandria and Anastasius of Antioch, representing the purpose of their GREGORIUS I. brother of Constantinople as being that of degrading them, and usurping to himself all ecclesiastical power. They, however, were not thus moved to action ; they seem to have regarded the title as one of honour only, suitable to the patriarch of the imperial city ; and one of them, Anastasius. wrote in reply that the matter seemed to him of little mo- ment. The controversy continued after the death of John the F"aster. Gregory instructed his apocrisiarius at Constantinople to demand from the new patriarch, Cyriacus, as a con- ; dition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the proud and impious title which his predecessor had wickedly assumed. In vain did C\Tiacus send a nuncio to Rt)me in the hope of arranging matters : Gregory was resolute, and wrote, " I confidently say that whosoever calls himself universal priest, or desires to be so called in his elation, is the fore- runner of .\ntichrist." At this time he seems , to have gained a supporter, if n<U to his : protest, at any rate to the paramount dignity of his own see, in Eulogius of .Alexandria, whom he had before addressed without result. , For in answering a letter from that patriarch, he acknowledges with approval the dignity assigned by him to the see of St. Peter, and expresses adroitly a curious view of his cor- respondent, as well as the patriarch of Antioch, being a sharer in it. " Who does not know," he says, " that the church was built and established on the firmness of the prince of the apostles, by whose very name is implied a rock ? Hence, though there were several apostles, there is but one apostolic see, that of : the prince of the apostles, which has acquired great authority ; and that sec is in three ! places, in Rome where he died, in Alexandria I where it was founded by his disciple St. Mark, and in Antioch where he himself lived seven years. These three, therefore, are but one see, and on that one see sit three bishops, who are but one in Him Who said, I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." But when Eulogius in a second letter styled the bp. of Rome universal pope, Gregory warmly rejected such a title, saying, " If you give more to me than is due to me, you rob yourself of what is due to you. Nothing can redound to my honour that redounds to the dishonour of my brethren. If you call me universal pope, you thereby own yourself to be no pope. Let no such titles be mentioned or ever heard among us." Gregory was obliged at last to acquiesce in the assumption of the obnoxious title by the Constantinopolitan patriarch ; and it may have been by way of contrast that he usually styled himself in his own letters by the title since borne by the bps. of Rome, " Servus servorum Dei." Evidently Gregf>ry and his opponents took different views of the import of the title contended for. They represented it as one simply of honour and dignity, while he regarded it as involving the assumi'tion of supreme authority over the church at large, and especially over the see of St. Peter, whence probably in a great measure the vehemence of his remonstrance. In the different views taken appears the difference of principle on which pre-eminence was in that age thought assignable to sees in the East and West respectively. In the East the dignity of a OREGORIUS I. 429 see was regarded as an .ipi.uiaKc of a .itv'» civil importanc.-, on whirli urniind .il..nr ...nl.l any pre-emineiire !><• » l.nnied for Coiim.,i,ii nople. In the West it w.is the at-st. li, .,1 origin of the see, and the purely crrlrMustn j1 pre-eminence belonging to it from aii< imt , times, to which especial rrgard wa» paid. Thus viewed, the struggle of Gregory f<.r the dignity of his own see against that i>l C.-n- stantinople assumes importance as a prolrtt against the Erastianisin of the East. It certainly would not have been well f.r the church had the spiritual authority ..( the bps. of Rome accrued to the subser\i.iit patriarchs of the Eastern caj>ital. Asa temporal administrator and potentate Gregory evinced equally great vigour, ability, and zeal, guided by address and judgment. The see of Rome had large possessions, in- stituting what was called the patrimony o( , St. Peter, in Italy, Sardinia, and Ct.rsira, and also in more remote parts, f.g. Dalmatia, Illyricum, Gaul, and even Africa and the East. Over these estates Gregory exercised a vigilant superintendence by means of officers called " rectores patrimonii " and " defcn- sores," to whom his letters remain, prescribing minute regulations for the management of the lands, and guarding especially against any oppression of the peasants. The resenucs accruing to the see, thus carefully secured, though with every possible regard to humanity and justice, were expended according to the fourfold division then prevalent in the West — viz. in equal parts for the bishop, the clergy, the fabric and services of the church, and the poor. This distribution, publicly made four times a year, Gregory perst)nally superin- tended. His own charities were immense, a large portion of the population of Rome being dependent on them : every day, before his own meal, a portion was sent to the poor at his door ; the sick and infirm in every street were sought out ; and a large volume was kept containing the names, ages, and dwell- ings of the objects of his bounty. A field for the exercise of his political abilities was afforded by his position as virtual ruler of Rome at that critical time. His letters and homilies gave a lamentable account of the miseries of the country, and he endeavoured to conclude a peace brlwerii Agilulph, the Lombard king, who was hims« If disposed to come to terms, and the cxan h Romanus. These endeavours were frustratrd by the opposition of Romanus, who represent- ed Gregory to the enipenr as having been overreached by the crafty enemy. The emperor believed his exarch, and wrote to Gregory in condemnation of his conduit. In vain did Gregory remonstrate in letters IhAU to the emperor and to thf empress Con»tan- tina, complaining to the latter nut so mui h of the ravages of the Lombards as ■ t t!.'- cruelty and exactions of the imperial oii;, . f. , but though small success crowned his rii. rl^, whatever mitigation of distress was accom- plished was due to him. In 6oi an event occurred which »hc^»-» Gregory in a less favourable light, with respect to his relations to thepowersof the w. .rid than anything else during his career. Ph<KJ». a centurion, was made cuipcror by the army. 430 CREGORIUS 1. He secured his throne by the murder of Mauricius, whose six sons had been first cruelly executed before their father's eyes. He afterwards put to death the empress Constantina and her three daughters, who had been lured out of the asylum of a church under a promise of safety. Numerous persons of all ranks and in various parts of the empire are also said to have been put to death with unusual cruelty. To Phocas and his consort Leontia, who is spoken of as Uttle better than her husband, (iregory wrote congratulatory letters in a style of flattery beyond even what was usual with him in addressing great poten- tates (Ep. xi. ind. vi. 38, 45, 46). His motive was doubtless largely the hope of obtaining from the new powers the support which Mauricius had not accorded him in his dispute with the Eastern patriarch. This motive appears plainly in one of his letters to Leontia, to whom, rather than to the emperor, with characteristic tact, he intimates his hopes of support to the church of St. Peter, endeavour- ing to work upon her religious fears. Gregory lived only 16 months after the accession of Phocas, dying after protracted suffering froni gout on Mar. 12, 604. He was buried in the basilica of St. Peter. Immediately after his death a famine occurred, which the starving multitude attri- buted to his prodigal expenditure, and his library was only saved from destruction by the interposition of the archdeacon Peter. The pontificate of Gregory the Great is rightly regarded as secGnd to none in its influence on the future form of Western Christianity. He lived in the period of tran- sition from Christendom under imperial rule to the medieval papacy, and he laid or consolidated the foundation of the latter. He advanced, indeed, no claims to authority beyond what had been asserted by his pre- decessors ; yet the consistency, firmness, conscientious zeal, as well as address and judgment, with which he maintained it, and the waning of the power of the Eastern empire, left him virtual ruler of Rome and the sole power to whom the Western church turned for support, and whom the Christianized barbarians, founders of the new kingdom of Europe, regarded with reverence. Thus he payed the way for the system of papal abso- lutism that culminated under Gregory VII. and Innocent III. As a writer he was intellectually eminent ; and deserves his place among the doctors of the church, though his learning and mental attitude were those of his age. As a critic, an expositor, an original thinker, he may not stand high ; he knew neither Greek nor Hebrew, and had no deep acquaintance with the Christian Fathers ; literature for its own sake he set little store by ; classical literature, as being heathen, he repudiated. Yet as a clear and powerful exponent of the received orthodox doctrine, especially in its practical aspect, as well as of the system of hagiology, demonology, and monastic asceticism, which then formed part of the religion of Christen- dom, he spoke with a loud and influential voice to many ages after his own, and contributed more than any one person to fix the form and tone of medieval religious thought. 6REG0RIUS I. He was also influential as a preacher, and no less famous for his influence on the music and liturgy of the church ; whence he is called " magister caeremoniarum." To cul- tivate church singing he instituted a song- school in Rome, called Orphanotrophium, the name of which implies also a charitable pur- pose. Of it, John the deacon, after speaking of the cento of antiphons which Gregory had carefully compiled, says : "He founded a school of singers, endowed it with some farms, and built for it two habitations, one under the steps of the basilica of St. Peter the Apostle, the other under the houses of the Lateran Palace. There to the present day his couch on which he used to recline when singing, and his whip with which he menaced the boys, together with his original antiphonary, are preserved with fitting reverence" (Vit. Greg. ii. 6). It is generally alleged that, whereas St. Ambrose had in the latter part of the 4th cent, introduced at Milan the four authentic modes or scales, called, after those of the ancient Greek music, Dorian, Phrygian, Lyd- ian, Mixo-Lydian, St. flregory added to them the four plagal, or subsidiary, modes called Hypo-Dorian, Hypo- Phrygian, Hypo-Lydian, and Hypo-Mixo-Lydian, thus enlarging the allowed range of ecclesiastical melody. His Septiform litany was so called from being appointed by him to be sung by the inhabitants of Rome divided into seven companies, viz. of clergy, laymen, monks, virgins, matrons, widows, and of poor people and children. These, starting from 7 different churches, were to chant through the streets of Rome, and meet for common supplication in the church of the Blessed Virgin. He also appointed " the stations " — churches at which were to be held solemn services in Lent and at the four great festivals ; visiting the churches in person, and being received with stately ceremonial. His extant works of undoubted genuineness are : (i) Expositio in heatum Job, seu Moralium lib. XXXV. In this celebrated work (begun at Constantinople before he was pope and finished afterwards) " the book of Job is expounded in a threefold manner, according to its historic, its moral, and its allegorical meaning. The moral interpretation may still be read with profit, though rather for the loftiness and purity of its tone than for the justness of the exposition." As to the alle- gorical interpretation, " names of persons, numbers, words, even syllables, are made pregnant with all kinds of mysterious mean- ings " (Milman, Hist, of Latin Christianity). (2) Libri duo in Ezechielem : viz. 22 homilies on Ezekiel, delivered at Rome during its siege by Agilulph. (3) Libri duo in Evangelia: viz. 40 homilies on the gospels for the day, preached at various times. (4) Liber Regulae Pastoralis, in 4 parts ; a treatise on the pastoral office, addressed to a bp. John to explain and justify the writer's former reluct- ance to undertake the burden of the popedom. This work was long held in the highest esteem. Leander of Seville circulated it in Spain ; the emperor Mamricius had it translated into Greek ; Alfred the Great translated it into English ; a succession of synods in Gaul en- joined a knowledge of it on all bishops ; and Hincmar, archbp. of Rheims in the 9th cent., GREGORIUS I. says that a ci>py of it was delivered, to- gether with the book of canons, to bisliops at their ordination, with a charge to them to frame their lives according to its precepts {in Prae/tttioiie Of^usculi 55 Cafyitulorutn). (5) Dialogorum libri IV. de vita el miriKulis patrum Italicorum, et de aeternitate animae. The authenticity of this work has been doubt- ed ; apparently without adequate grounds. It is written in the form of dialogues with the archdeacon Peter, and contains accounts of saintly persons, prominent among whom is Benedict of Nursia, the contemporary founder of the Benedictine order. It abounds in marvels, and relates visions of the state of departed souls, which have been a main I support, if not a principal foundation, of the j medieval doctrine about purgatory. The ' Dialogues were translated into Anj^lo-Saxon , bv order of Alfred (Asser. Gest. A If. in Mon. ! Hist. Brit. 486 e). (6) Registrum Epistolarum, in 14 books, of which the 13th is wanting; j a very varied collection of 83S letters to persons of all ranks, which gives a vivid ' idea of his unwearied activity, the multi- ! fariousness of his engagements and inter- j ests, his address, judgment, and versatility. ] (7) Liber Sacrameittorum. This, the famous Gregorian Sacramentary, was an abbreviated arrangement in one vol., with some alterations and additii>ns, of the sacramentary of pope Gelasius, which again had been founded on an , older one attributed to pope Leo I. John the deacon says of Gregory's work, " Sed et Gelasianum codicem, de Missarum soleniniis multa subtrahens, pauca convertens, nonnuUa | superadjiciens, in unius libelli volumine coarctavit " (Joann. Diac. in Vtt. Greg. ii. 17 ; cf. Bede, H. E. ii. i). The changes made by [ Gregory were principally in the Missae, or variable offices for particular days ; in the Ordo Missae itself only two alterations are spoken of as made by him, viz. to the part of the canon beginning, " Hanc igitur obla- ' tionem," he added the words, " Diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, atque ab aeterna damnatione eripi et in electorum tuorum jubeas grege numerari " ; and the trans- ference of the Lord's Prayer from after the breaking of bread to its present place in the canon {Ep. ad Joann. Syrac. lib. ix. Ep. 12). Whatever uncertainty there may be as to the original text of Gregory's sacramentary as a whole, it is considered certain that the present Roman canon and, except for certain subsequent additions, the ordinarium are the same as what he left. [Sacramentary in D. C. A.] (8) Liber Antiphonarius. a collec- tion of antiphons for mass. To what extent this was original, or how far it may have been altered since Gregory's time, is uncertain. Of the following works attributed to Greg- ory, the genuineness is doubtful: (i) Liber benedictionum ; (2) Liber Responsalis sen Antiphonarius ; (3) Expositiones in librum I. Regum ; (4) Expositiones super Canticum Canticorum ; (5) Exposilio in vii. Pss. Paeni- tentiales ; (6) Concordia quorundam lestimoni- orum sacrae Scriptiirae. There are also 9 hymns attributed to him with probability. Of his personal appearance an idea may be formed from a description given by John the deacon of a portrait preserved to his own day GREGORIUS I. 431 (oth rent.) in St. Amlr.w's mon.nlrrv. "in absiilirula post fr.uruni r.llarium " ; ' whi( h he concludes to have been p.iintrd durnic the pope's life and bv his order. That this wa» the case is iiiferr.-d from the head brniK' sur- mounted, not bv a corona, but bv a labuU ("tabulae sinuiitudincni *'), which John »av» is the m.jrk of a living person, and by the appended inscription : "Christe potcn* Dominc. ncwirl Urgitor honorU Indultum utiicium solila pirtalc gubcrna " The figure is oi ordinary si/e, and well formed ; the face " most becomingly prolon^;cd with a certain rotundity " ; the beard of moderate size and somewliat tawny; in the middle of his otherwise bald forehead are two neat little curls twisting towards the right ; the crown of the head is round and large ; dark hair, decently curled, hangs under the middle of the ear ; he has a line foreliead ; his evcbrows arc long and elevated, but slmder ; thi- pupils of the eyes are of a yellow tinge, not large, but open, and the umlcr-eyelids are full ; the nose is slender as it curves down from the eyebrows, broader about the middle, then slightly curved, and expanding at the nostrils ; the motith is ruddy ; the lips thick and subdivided ; the cheeks regular (" compositae ") ; the chin rather prominent from the confines of the jaws ; the complexion was " aquilinus et lividus " (al. " vividus "), not " cardiacus," as it became afterwards, i.e. he had in the picture a dark but fresh complexion, though in later life it acquired an unhealthy hue. (See Du Gauge f>>r the probable meaning of the words.) His countenance is mild ; his hands good, with taper fingers, well adapted for writing. The dress he wears is of in- terest — a chestnut-coloured planeta over a dahnatica, which is precisely the same dress as that in which his father is depicted, and therefore not then a peculiarly sacerdotal costume. [Gordianus.] He is distinguished from his father by the pallium, thr then form and mode of wearing which are intimatrd bv the description. It is brought from the Uft shoulder so as to hang carelessly under the breast, and, passing over the right shoulder, is deposited behind the back, the other end being carried straight behind the neck also to the right shouldi-r, from which it hangs down the side. In the left hand is a book of the Gospels; the right is in the attitude of making the sign of the cross (Joann. Diar. in Vil. Greg. 1. 4, c. 83). John describes also his pallium, woven of white linen and with no marks of the needle in it ; his phylacterv ( i>r case for nlirs), of thin silver, and hung from the neck by crimson cloth, and hi* bell (" baltheus "), only a thumb's breadth wide — which, he says, were preserved and venerated on the saint's anniversary, and which he refers to as shewing the monastic siinplirity of Gregorv's attire (16. c. 8). Our chief authorities for the I ifeof (Iregory are his own writings, especially his letters, of which a trans. {SeUcla hpp.) is m /.16. 0/ Post.- Sic. Eatherr,. Among ancient writer* (iregorv of Tours (his contemporary). Hrde, Paul Warnefried (73"). Ado Trcviren»is (1070,, Simeon Metaphrastes (noo). Isidorus Hispalensis, have detailed notices of him. 432 GUNDOBALD Paul the deacon in the 8th cent., and John the deacon, a monk of Cassino, in the gth cent., wrote Lives of him (Greg. Op. ed. Benedict). The Benedictine ed. of his works has a fuller Life, using additional sources. An important work on Gregory the Great, his Place in Thought and History, was pub. by the Rev. F. H. Dudden, in two vols. 4to, 1905 (Lond., Longmans). A cheap popular Life by the author of this art. is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers ; see also a monograph on Pope Gregory the Great and his Relation with Gaul, by F. W. Kellett (Camb. Univ. Press). [j.b— v.] Gundobald, 4th king of the Burgundians (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, ii. 28). The kingdom of the Burgundians, which extended from the Vosges to the Durance and from the Alps to the Loire, was divided between Gundobald and his surviving brother Godegiselus, the former having Lyons for his capital, the latter Geneva (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, ii. 32 ; Ennodius, Vita S. Epiphanii, 50-54 ; Boll. Jan. ii. 374-375 ; cf. Mascou, Hist, of the Ancient Germans, xi. 10, 31, and Annotation iv.). In 500 Clovis, who had married Gundobald's niece, defeated Gundobald at Dijon, with the aid of Godegiselus who fought against his brother, and imposed a tribute. But on Clovis's departure he renounced his allegiance, and besieged and killed his brother, who had triumphantly entered Vienne. Henceforth till his death he ruled the whole Burgundian territory (Marius Avent. Chron., Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 795, 796 ; Greg. Tur. li. 32, 33; Epiiomata, xxii.-xxiv. ; Richter, Annalen, 37, 38). About this time was held under his presidency at Lyons a conference between the Catholics, led by Avitus, and the Arians, led by Boniface. According to the Catholic account of it which survives, the heretics were utterly confounded. The narrative is in the Spicile- giuni, iii. 304 (Paris, 1723). Mansi, viii. 242, and excerpta from it in Patr. Lat. Ixxi. 1154. Gundobald died in 516, leaving his son, the Catholic Sigismund, as his successor. In spite of the unfavourable testimony of Catholic writers, there are many indications that Gundobald was for his time an enlight- ened and humane king. The wisdom and equity of his government are evidenced by the Loi Gombette, the Burgundian code, called after him, which, though probably not taking its present shape entirely till his son's reign, was enacted by him. Its provisions in favour of the Roman, or old Gallic inhabitants, whom in most respects it put on an equality with the conquerors, entitles it to be called the best barbarian code which had yet appeared (Greg. Tur. ii. 33 ; Hist. lit. de la France, iii. 83 sqq. ; L'Art de verifier les dates, x. 365, Paris, 1818). For the code see Bouquet, iv. 257 seq., and Pertz, Leges, iii. 497 seq. Though he professed Arianism, Gundobald did not persecute, but secured the Catholics in the possession of their endowments, as Avitus testifies [Ep. xxxix. Patr. Lat. lix. 256). The circumstances relied on by Revillout [De V Arianisme des peuples ger- maniques, 180, 181), who takes the opposite view, are trivial, compared with the testimony of Avitus and the silence of Gregory. Gun- dobald's whole correspondence with Avitus GUNTRAMNUS and the conference of Lyons demonstrate the interest he took in religious subjects and his tolerance of orthodoxy. Several of the bishop's letters survive, answering inquiries on various points of doctrine, e.g. the Euty- chian heresy (Epp. 3 and 4), repentance in articulo mortis, and justification by faith or works [Ep. 5). One only of Gundobald's remains [Ep. 19), asking an explanation of Is. ii. 3-5, and Mic. iv. 4. These letters are in Migne, Patr. Lat. lix. 199, 202, 210, 219, 223, 236, 244, 255, and commented on in Ceillier's Hist, generate des auteurs sacres, x. 554 sqq. He probably died an Arian. Ac- cording to Gregory, he was convinced and begged Avitus to baptize him in secret, fearing his subjects ; but Avitus refused, and he perished in his heresy (Hist. Franc, ii. 34, cf. iii. prologue). But there are two passages in Avitus's letters {Ep. v. sub fin. Patr. Lat. lix. 224, " Unde cum laetitiam — orbitatem," and Ep. ii. sub init. Patr. Lat. lix. 202, " Unicum simul — principaliter de tuenda catholicae partis veritate curetis ") which seem almost to imply that he was then a Catholic. See too Gregory's story of the piety of his queen {de Mirac. S. Juliani, ii. 8). [s.a.b.] Guntramnus (2) {Guntchramnus, Gunthran- nus, Gontran), St., king of Burgundy, son of Clotaire I. and Ingundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, iv. 3). Upon his father's death in 561, the kingdom was divided by lot between the three sons. Guntram had the kingdom of Burgundy, which then extended from the Vosges to the Durance, and from the Alps to the Loire. Orleans was his nominal capital, but his ordinary residence was at Ch^lon-sur- Saone (iv. 21, 22). His pacific and unenter- prising disposition made his reign uneventful. He died in 593, in the 33rd year of his reign, on Mar. 28, on which day the martyrologies commemorate him as a saint, and was buried in the monastery church of St. Marcellus, his own foundation at Chalons. Though the church has canonized Guntram, it is perhaps doubtful whether his virtues would stand out brightly on any other back- ground than the utter darkness of Merovingian times. His chief merit seems to have been the avoidance of the terrible excesses which characterized some of his family, and this was perhaps as much due to the feebleness of his nature as to any positive inclination towards well-doing. Even his clerical eulogists admit that as regards women his morals were by no means scrupulous (Almoin, iii. 3, Patr. Lat. cxxxix. 693). When provocation or panic was absent he was mild, and even merciful, but on occasion he readily committed the barbarities of his age. The merest suspicion or accusation connected with his personal safety sufficed to throw him into a panic, when torture was freely applied to obtain confessions. Assas- sination was the haunting fear of his life, and he always wore arms and continually strength- ened the escort which attended him every- where, except in church (vii. 8, 18, viii. 11, 44). His apprehension at times was almost comic. Gregory tells us that one Sunday at church in Paris, when the deacon had enjoined silence for the mass, Guntram turned to the people and said, " I beseech you, men and j women who are present, do not break your HABIBUS faith to me, but forbear to kill mc as vou killed my brothers. At least let mc live three years, that I may rear up the nephews whom i have adopted, lest mayhap, which Ciod for- bid, you perish together with those little ones when I am dead, and tliere is no strong man of our race to defend you " (vii. 8, cf. Michelet, Hist, de France, i. 231, " Ce bon homme semble charge de la partie comique dans le drame terrible de I'histoire mtl^rovnigienne "). On the other hand, mere abstinence from wanton wrong-doing and aggression must be counted for a virtue in his family and age. For the crowning evil of the time, the incessant civil wars which devastated France, he was in no way responsible. Though frequently in combat, it was always to repel the aggression of others, except in his Gothic wars, which he probably regarded as crusades against heretics. The profuse almsgiving which he practised {e.g. vii. 40) shewed a real, if mistaken, desire for the good of his subjects. But it was his warm friendship to the church and clergy which procured him the rank of a saint. St. Benignus of Dijon, St. Symphorian of .^utun, and St. Marcellus of Chalon-sur-Saone were founded or enriched by him, and in the last he established and provided for perpetual psalmody after the model of St. Sigismund's foundation at St. Maurice (Fredegar. Chron. xv. ; Almoin, Hist. Franc, iii. 81, Pair. Lat. cxxxix. 751). Bishops were his constant advisers, and his favourite solution of all complications was an episcopal council (Greg. Tur. v. 28; vii. 16; viii. 13, 20, 27). He commended himself to them also by his respect for church ceremonies and his frequent and regular attendance at religious services, and especially by his freedom and condescension in eating, drinking, and con- versing with them (vii. 29 ; viii. 1-7, 9, 10 ; ix. 3, 20, 21 ; X. 28). Gregory says, " You woi>ld have thought him a priest as well as a king " (ix. 21). " With priests he was like a priest," says Fredegarius (Chron. i.), and " he shewed himself humble to the priests of Christ," says .Airaoin (u.s.). Chilperic once intercepted the letter of a bishop, in which it was written that the transition from Guntram's sway to his was like passing from paradise to hell (Greg. Tur. vi. 22). In estimating Guntram's character, therefore, we must always remember that our information comes from this favoured class. Especially does this apply to Gregory of Tours, who was on very friendly terms with him (viii. 2-7, 13 ; ix. 20, 21), and who ascribes miracles to his sanctity during his lifetime (ix. 21 ; cf. too Paulus Diaconus, de Gest. Langob. iii. 33, Migne, Pair. Lat. xcv. 535, and Aimoiii. iii. 3, Patr. Lat. cxxxix. 693). There is extant an edict of Guntrain addressed to the bishops and judges commanding the observance of the Sabbath and holy days, in conformity with the canon of the 2nd council of .Macon. It is dated Nov. 10, 585, and is in Mansi, ix. 962, and Boll. Acta SS. Mar. iii. 720; cf. Hist, lit. de la France, iii. 369 seq.). [s.a.b.J H Habibus (2) {Abibus), deacon, martyr at Edessa in the reign of Licinius ; mentioned in HABIBUS 433 the Basilian Mcni>logium ^ ■ ■ 'if martyrs (iurias and S.un i he was laid ; at Dec. 2 he 1 j Simeon Metaphrasti-s in count of those two martyrs iih. 1 .it. m .muu.». de Prob. Wis/. SS. Nov. is, p. ^42, thr I at. aiul Gk. in Patr. Gk. rxvi. i.,i) siinilarlv <nib«Hlirt the history of Mabib. Assini.un n..tic.» hiin in his Bibl. Orient, (i. 3^0. Ui) Ir-ni Mrt.i- 1 phrastes, but not in his Acta .Mattvrum. The ' original Syriac accoimt >>f Habib wlii« li Mrta- phrastes abridged has been (ii>.r,.vir«cl, and was ed. in 1864 by Dr. Wright with a traim. by Dr. Cureton (.Ancient .Syria. '• '•■■■ j p. 72. notes p. i«7). The S' : whose name was Thoophilus. have been an eyewitness of th- (which he places on .Sept. 2) and a i.,i.\».jl. The ancient Syrian Martyrologv, another discovery trans, by Dr. Wright (Journ. Sac. ' Lit. 1866, p. 429), likewise coinnu-moralrs Habib on Sept. 2. Theopliihis say* that ■in the month Ab (i.e. Aug.) in the yi .ir 6ao of the kingdom of .Mcxander of Mandon. in the consulate of I.icinius and C'i>nstantmr, in the days of Conon, bp. of lidessa, the emperor commanded the altars of the g<xls to be everywhere repaired, sarrifircs ami libations offered and incense burnt to Jupiter. Habib, a deacon of the village of TeUeha, went privately among the churches and villages encouraging the Christians n«>t to comply. The Christians were more numerous than their persecutors, and wi>rd reached Edessa that even Constanline " in Gaul and Spain" had become Christian and did not sacrifice. Habib's iiroceedings were reported to Licinius, who sentenced him to die by fire. When this news reached Ildessa, Habib was some 50 miles off at Zeugma, sec n tlv enc<iurag- ing the Christians there, and his family and friends at Telzeha were arrested. Hereupon, Habib went to Edessa and presented him- self privately to Theotecnus, the head of the governor's household. This official desireil to save Habib and pressed him to depart secretly, assuring him that his friends would soon be released. Habib, believing that cowardice would endanger his eternal salva- tion, persisted in surrender, and was led before the governor. On refusing to sacritice, he was imprisoned, tortured, and then burnetl. alter he had at great length uncompr.iinisinKly exposed the sin and folly <if idolatry. The day of his imprisonment was the emperor's festival, and on the 2nd of Ilul (Sept.) he suffered. His dving praver was, " O king Christ, for Thine is this world and Thine is the world to come, behold and sec that while I might have been able to flee fr.mi thc*e afflictions 1 did not flee, in order that I iuirUI not fall into the hands of Thy justice. I.el therefore this fire in whi. h 1 am to be l>urnrd be for a recompense before Thee. »o that 1 may be delivered from that fire which is not quenched; and receive Thou my spirit into Thy presence thr-. ugh the Spirit "i Ihy (.ikI- he.-irl. O glorious Son of the adorable Father." The vear is given bv Haroiuus, who had only Metaphrastes to guide him. as a.k. 316 {A. h. ann. 316, xlviii.). Assemani (liibt. Or. i. 331) with the same materials decides for 32 1. 1 h« details of Thcophilus might seem to settle the 2tt 434 HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS point ; but if his era is that of the Seleucidae, Ilul 2, 620 was Sept. 2, 309, and Licinius only became master of the East in 313. The date therefore is still a difficulty. [c.h.] Hadrianus (i), Publius Aelius, emperor 1 17-137. Born in 76, and placed, at the age of ten, on his father's death, under the guar- dianship of his cousin, Ulpius Trajanus, after- wards emperor, Hadrian was in his youth a diligent student of Greek literature, and entered on his career as military tribune in Lower Moesia in 95. On the death of Nerva in 97, Trajan became emperor, and Hadrian, on whom he bestowed such favours that men looked for a formal adoption, served in the wars with the Dacians, Pannonians, Sarma- tians, and Parthians. During the campaign against the last-named, Trajan, leaving Hadrian in command of the army and of the province of Syria, started for Rome, but died at Selinus in Cilicia in 117. Hadrian had himself proclaimed emperor by the army, communicated the election to the senate, and received their formal sanction. His external policy was marked by the abandonment of any idea of extending the eastern frontier of the empire beyond the Euphrates. Having gained popular favour by gladiatorial games, large donations, and the remission of arrears of taxes, Hadrian devoted himself for several years from 120 to a personal inspection of the provinces. In 120-121 he visited Gaul, Ger- many, and Britain, erecting fortresses and strengthening the frontier defences, of which an example is his Roman wall from the Solway to the mouth of the Tyne. We may find traces, perhaps, of the eclectic tendency of his mind in the altars dedicated to Mithras and to an otherwise unknown goddess named Coventina or Conventina, found near the wall not far from Hexham.* In 122 he came to Athens, which became his favourite residence, and the same eclectic tendency led him to seek initiation in the Eleusinian mysteries (a.d. 125). On the death, probably self-sought, of his favourite Antinous, a Bithynian page of great beauty and genius, Hadrian paid his memory the divine honours given to emperors. Constella- tions were named after him, cities dedicated to him, incense burnt in his honour, and the art market flooded with statues and busts representing his exceeding beauty. The apotheosis of Antinous was the rednctio at once ad absurdum and ad horribile of the decayed polytheism of the empire (Eus. H. E. iv. 8 ; Justin, Apol. i. 39). In 131 the emperor began to execute the plan, conceived earlier in his reign, of making Jerusalem a Roman colonia, and rebuilding it as Aelia Capitolma, thus commemorating both the gens to which the emperor belonged and its consecration to the Capitolian Jupiter. At first the proposal was received tranquilly. The work of rebuild- ing was placed in the hands of a Jew, Aquila of Pontus, and the Jews petitioned for per- mission to rebuild their temple. They were * See a paper by Mr. Clayton in the Transactions of the Nencastle Archaeological Society for 1875. Some archaeologists consider Conventina a Latinized form of the name of some British goddess. The fact that Hadrian when in Spain summoned a conventus of all Romans resident there suggests that the goddess was perhaps the personified guardian of such a conventus held in Britain. HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS met with studied indignity, and a plough was drawn over the site of the sacred place in token of its desecration. The city was filled with Roman emigrants, the Jews were forbidden to enter the city, but allowed, as if in bitter irony, on the anniversary of its capture by Titus to bewail their fate within its gates. On one of the gates a marble statue of the unclean beast was a direct insult to Jewish feeling, while Christian feeling was outraged by a statue of Jupiter on the site of the resurrection and of Venus on that of the crucifixion. Trees and statues were placed on the platform of the temple, and a grove to Adonis near the cave of the nativity at Beth- lehem. Such persistent defiance of national feeling roused widespread indignation, which burst out under a leader whom we know by his assumed name of Bar-Cocheba ("the son of a star") — a name probably suggested by the imagery of Balaam (Num. xxiv. 17), possibly also by the recollection of the " star in the east " of Matt. ii. 2. He is described by Eusebius {H. E. iv. 3) as a murderer and a robber (cpovLKbs Kai \7i(TTpiKbs) of the Barab- bas type, but was recognized by Akiba, the leading rabbi of the time, as the Messiah, seized 50 fortresses and 985 villages, and established himself in the stronghold of Bethera, between Caesarea and Lydda (rebuilt by Hadrian and renamed Diospolis). The Christians of Palestine, true to the apostolic precept of submission to the powers that be, took no part in the insurrection, and were accordingly persecuted by the rebel leader and offered the alternative of denying the Messiah- ship of Jesus or the penalty of torture and death {ib. iv. 8). Severus was recalled from Britain, the rebellion suppressed with a strong hand, and edicts of extreme stringency issued against the Jews, forbidding them to circum- cise their children, keep the Sabbath, or educate their youth in the Law. Akiba died under torture, and a secret school for in- struction in the Law, continuing the rabbinic traditions, was formed at Lydda(Jost, Juden- thum, ii. 7). To the Christian church in Judaea the suppression of the revolt and the tolerant spirit of the emperor brought relief. They left Pella, where they had taken refuge during the siege of Jerusalem by Titus, and returned to the holy city. Its 15 successive bishops had all been Hebrews, but now the mother-church of the world first came under the care of a gentile bishop (Eus. H. E. iv. 5). In his general treatment of Christians, Hadrian followed in the footsteps of Trajan. The more cultivated members of the church felt that in addressing the tolerant, eclectic emperor, " curiositatum omnium explorator," as Tertullian calls him (Apol. c. 5), they had a chance of a favourable hearing, and the age of apologists began. Quadratus presented his Apologia, laying stress on the publicity of the works of Christ, and appealing to still surviving eye-witnesses. Aristides ad- dressed to the emperor (a.d. 133) a treatise, extant and admired in the time of Jerome, in defence of the Christians, and was said even to have been admitted to a personal hearing. Early in his reign, but probably a little later, an Asiatic official of high character, Serenius Granianus, applied to Hadrian for instructions HADRIANUS, PUBLIUS AELIUS as to the treatment of Christians, complaining that their enemies expected him to condenui them without a trial. The emperor thereupon addressed an official letter to Minucius Fun- danus, proconsul of Asia, regulating the mode of procedure against the persecuted sect. No encouragement was to be given to common informers {jvnoipdyrai) or to popular clamour. If the officials of the district {iirapxiuiTat) were contident that they could sustain a prosecu- tion, the matter was to be investigated in due course. Offenders against the laws were to be j>unished ; but, above all things, the trade of the informer was to be checked (Eus. H. E. iv. 8, q). The character of Hadrian may be inferred from his policy. He had not the zeal of a persecutor nor the fear that leads to cruelty. His philosophy and his religion did not keep him from the infamy of an impure passion of the basest type. He adapted him- self without difficulty to the worship of the place in which he was. At Rome he main- tained the traditional sacred rites which had originated under the republic, and posed as the patron of Epictetus and the Stoicism identified with his name. At Athens he was initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries, and rose to the dignity of an Epoptes in the order, as one in the circle of its most esoteric teaching. He became an expert in the secrets of magic and astrology. To him, as he says in his letter to Servianus, the worshippers of Serapis and of Christ stood on the same footing. Rulers of synagogues, Christian bishops, Samaritan teachers, were all alike tradingon the credulity of the multitude (Flavius Vopiscus, Saturn. cc. 7. 8). According to a later writer, Lam- pridius (»>i Alex. Sev. c. 43), his wide eclec- ticism led him at one time to erect temples without statues, which he intended to dedi- cate to Christ. He was restrained, it was reported, by oracles, which declared that, if this were done, all other temples would be de- serted and the religion of the empire subverted. But the absence of contemporary evidence uf such an intention, on whicli Christian apolo- gists would naturally have hiii stress, k .ids us to reject Lampridius's explanation of these temples as an unauthenticated conjecture. More probably, as Casaubon suggests (.4nnot. in Lamprid. c. 43), they were intended ulti- mately to be consecrated to Hadrian himself. So the imperial Sophist — the term is used of Hadrian by Julian (Caeara. p. 28, ed. 1583) — passed through life, " holding no form of creed and contemplating all," and the well- known lines — "Animula, vai?ula, blandula, Hospes, comesque corporis, Quae nunc abibis in loca, Pa'.lidula, rigida, nudula ? Ncc, ut soles, dabU jocos " (SparlLm. VU. Hadr.) shew a like dilettantcism in him to the last. A reign like that of Hadrian naturally, on the whole, favoured the growth of the church. The popular cry, " Christianos ad loenes," was hushed. Apologetic literature was an appeal to the intellect and judgment of mankind. The frivolous eclecticism of the emperor and yet more his deification of Antinous were enough to shake the allegiance of serious minds to the older system. Tolerance was, HEDIBIA 4S5 however, eaually favourable t«> the (crowih o| \ heresy ; and to this reiK'n wc trace lhrri*r and growth of the rlinf (.m^tir scc\% i>| ihr md cent., the fnllowersof SATUHNisrii in Svria, i>( Uasilides. I aki'ocratks. and VAirsTiNi > in Egypt, of .Makcion ni r..ntu<i (Eu*. //. >.. iy. 7, 8). Cf., bisidrs the authentic-* ntrd. : (iibbon. Decline and Fall, c. in. ; Milnian Hist, of Christ, bk. ii. ( . VI. ; l.ardnrr. Jfvnk and Hfitlhen I e\t\m<nte\. ^ . xi. [K.H.r.] Hecebolius or Heceboitu, a rhetor at Con- stantiiii.ple in the r.inn of Conitantum, who professed himself a " f.-rvrnt " Chrmtian. and was therefore selected bv that eniprri^r a» one of the teachers of Julian (Sorr. 111. 1, ij). After the death of Constantius, howrvrr, Hecebolius followed the example of hi» (ornirr pupil and became a " fierce pagan " ("yo^^t ' K\\»;i' ; Socr. u.a. 13). He was in great favour with Julian, and appears to have brni one cif his familiar correspondents (Julian, h.p. iq, ed. Heyler, p. 23 ; "KxTi.-iiXi^), and seem* to have had some civil office at Edc*s.-». The Arians of that city, " in the insolence of wealth," had violentlv attacked the Valen- tinians. Julian wrote to Hecebolius to say that, " since they had done what could not be allowed in any well-governed city," " in order to help the men the more easily to enter the kingdom of heaven as it was pr«-scribed " bv their " most wonderful law, he had com- manded all moneys to be taken away from the church of the Edessenes, that they might be distributed among the soldiers, and that it» propertv should be confiscated to his private treasurv ; that being poor they might become wise and not lose the kingdom of heaven which thev hoped for" (Julian. Ep. 43- ^d- Heyler. p. 82; Baron, s.a. 362, xiii. : Soz. vi. 1). Such appropriation of church property wai one of the crimes of which Julian was accused after his death (Greg. Naz. adv. Jul. Oral. lii). The emperor adds that he had charged the inhabitants of Edessa to abstain from " riot and strife," lest " they themselves " should suffer " the sword, exile, and fire." The last sentence in the letter appears to intimate that he would hold Hecebolius personally respon- sible for the future go.^l conduct of the city. After the death of Julian and the reversal of the imperial policy, Hecebolius t«tentatiously professed extreme penitence (or his apostasy j and pri>strated himself at the church door, i crying to all that entered, "Trample upon nie — I the salt that has l<^t its savour " (S.n^r 111. 1 3 ; Baron. M.s. = Matt. v. 13) Bar.>nius assume* the identitv of the magistrate of hikssa with ; the "rhetor" of Con-itantmople da. 362. xiii. xiv.), but Tilleinont regards tlimi at different persons {.\fim. vii. 331. 3J't- l-'*'*" nius mentions a Hecebolius. but give* u» no ! clue to his history {Ep. 309)- _ j'-r'"'. Hedlbit (Edibia), a lady in <.aul. who corresponded with St. Jer<.me (then at Beth- lehem) c. 405- She was descended from the Druids, and held the hrre<litary oftue ..I priests of Belen ( - Apollo) at Bavrux. Hcf grandfather and father (if maforei is to be taken stricllv) Patera and Driphidius (the names being in each case derived (roiu their office) were remarkable men. (H I »»««. Jerome savs in his (hromcle. under a.D. 339. •' Patera rhetor Komae gl.jrio»u»injc docel. 436 HEOESIPPUS Delphidius was a writer in prose and verse and a celebrated advocate. Aramianus Marcel- linus (xviii. i) tells of his pleading before the emperor Julian. Both became professors at Bordeaux (Ausonius, Carmen, Prof. Burd. iv. and v.). The wife and daughter of Delphidius became entangled in the Zoroastrian teaching of Priscillian, and suffered death in the per- secution of his followers (Sulp. Sev. Hist. Sac. ii. 63, 64 ; Prosper Aquit. Chron. ; Auson. Carmen, v.). Hedibia was a diligent student of Scripture, and, finding no one to assist her, sent, by her friend Apodemius, a list of questions to J erome. He answered them in a long letter {Ep. 120, ed. Vail.). We hear of her again as a friend of Artemia, wife of Rusticus, on whose account she again wrote to Jerome {Ep. 122, ed. Vail.). [w.h.f.] Hegesippus (1), commonly known as the father of church history, although his works, except a few fragments which will be found in Routh (Rel. Sacr. i. pp. 207-219) and in Grabe (Spicil. ii. 203-214), have perished. Nothing positive is known of his birth or early circum- stances. From his use of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, written in the Syro-Chaldaic language of Palestine, his insertion in his history of words in the Hebrew dialect, and his mention of unwritten traditions of the Jews, Eusebius infers that he was a Hebrew (H. E. iv. 22), but possibly, as conjectured by Weizsacker (Herzog, Encyc. v. 647), Eusebius knew this as a fact from other sources also. We owe our only information as to his date to a statement of his own, preserved by Eusebius (iv. 22), which is understood to mean that at Rome he compiled a succession of the bishops of the Roman see to the time of Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. After this statement Hegesippus is represented as adding, " and to Anicetus succeeds Soter, after whom Eleutherus." Much as the interpreta- tion of these words has been disputed, it does not seem difficult to gather that Hegesippus means that the list of bishops compiled by him at Rome was drawn from the authentic records of the church there. That list closed with Anicetus. He was afterwards able to add the names of Soter and Eleutherus. It thus appears that he was at Rome in the days of .\nicetus and made his inquiries then, but did not publish them till considerably later. But Anicetus, according to Lipsius (Chrono- logte der romischen Bischofe), was bp. of Rome 156-167, and Eleutherus 175-189. Hegesip- pus had thus written much of his historv previous to a.d. 167, and published it in the time of Eleutherus, perhaps early in his episcopate. Any difficulty in accepting these dates has been occasioned by the rendering given to another passage of Eusebius (iv. 8), where he quotes Hegesippus as speaking of certain games {dyu)v) instituted in honour of Antinous, a slave of Hadrian, of which he says e^' r]iuQu yevdneuos (a better established reading than yiv6(j.evui). But these words seem simply to mean that the games had been instituted in his own time, thus illustrating the fiexpi vvv of the preceding sentence. Hadrian reigned 11 7- 138, so that if Hegesippus published c. 180, being then well advanced in life, he might well remember the times of that emperor. This derives confirmation from a HEGESIPPUS statement of Jerome, generally regarded as somewhat extravagant, that the life of Hege- sippus had bordered on the apostolic age ("vicinus apostolicorum temporum," de Vir. III. c. 22). But there is no extravagance in the remark. H Hegesippus was born c. 120 or earlier, he may well be described as having lived near the times of St. John. We may, therefore, fix the bloom of Hegesippus's life about the middle of the 2nd cent. His history embraced, so far as we may- judge from its fragments, numerous miscel- laneous observations, recollections, and tra- ditions, jotted down without regard to order, as they occurred to the author or came under his notice during his travels. Jerome tells us that the work contained the events of the church from Palestine to Rome, and from the death of Christ to the writer's own day. It is not a regular history of the church, Weiz- sacker well remarking that, in that case, the story of James the Just ought to have been found in the first book, not in the last. Its general style was thought plain and unpretending, says Jerome, and with this description what remains sufficiently agrees. The question of its trustworthiness is of greater moment. The account given in it of James the head of the church in Jeru- salem has led to many charges against Hege- sippus of not having been careful enough to prove what he relates. He has been thought to be contradicted by Josephus, who tells us that " Ananus, the high-priest, assem- bled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus Who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others. And, when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned" {.4tit. xx. 9, i). We may be permitted to doubt, however, whether the sentence thus referred to was carried out, for not only was it unlawful for the Sanhedrin to punish by death without consent of the Roman authorities, but Josephus informs us imme- diately after that the charge of the citizens against Ananus was, that it was not lawful for him to assemble a Sanhedrin without the procurator's assent, nothing being said of the stoning to death. Further, Eusebius, who has preserved the narrative of Hegesippus, and the early Fathers who allude to it, appear to have placed in it implicit confidence ; and there is nothing improbable in most, if not even in all, of the particulars mentioned. Eusebius speaks of him in the most commend- atory terms, and quotes him on numerous occasions (see H. E. ii. 23 ; iii. 11, 16, 20, 32 ; iv. 8, II, 22), illustrating his own words in iv. 8, TrXetcrraiy KexpVl^f^"- (pijivcus. Such con- fidence appears to have been deserved. Hege- sippus had an inquiring mind, and had travelled much ; he endeavoured to learn all he could of the past and present state of the churches that he visited : at Corinth the first epistle of Clement excited his curiosity ; at Rome the history of its early bishops. All this, and his unpretending and unexaggerated style, shows him as very far from being either a hasty observer or a credulous chronicler. An ' important question remains : Was Hegesippus of the Judaizing Christian party ? I Baur looks upon him as representing the HEGESIPPUS narrowest section of the Jewish Christians, even as a most declared enemy of St. Paul, travelling like a commissioned ajs;ent in the interests of the Judaizers (A'. G. i. p. 84 ; so also Schwegler, Nachap. Zeit, i. p. 342, etc.)- This view is founded mainly ujion an extract from his works, preserved in Photius (see in Routh, R. S. i. p. 219), where Hegesippus comments on the words, " Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man the things which God hath prepared for the just," " Such words are spoken in vain, and those who use them lie against the Holy Scriptures and the Lord Who says, ' Blessed are your eyes for thev see. and your ears for they hear.' " It is argued that Hegesippus is here directly attacking St. Paul's words in I. Cor. ii. 9 ; and the infer- ence is that Hegesippus was keenly Judaic. We know that the Gnostics were in the habit of so using the words in question, and that they described bv means of them the very essence of that spiritual insight which the neophyte who had just sworn the oath of allegiance to them received, " And when he [i.e. he wlio is about to be initiated] has sworn this oath, he goes on to the Good One, and beholds ' what- ever things eye hath not seen, and car hath not heard, and which have not entered into the heart of man " (Hippolytus, Ref. of all Heresies, i. p. 193, T. & T. Clark). It is much the more probable inference, therefore, that Hege- sippus refers to this Gnostic misinterpretation of the words and not to St. Paul (cf. Routh, R. S. i. p. 281 ; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der Altk. Kirche, p. 267 ; Hilgenfeld, Die A post. Voter, p. 102). Further, Hegesippus must have known that Clement, whose epistle he approved, quotes in c. xxxiv., for a purpose precisely similar to that of the apostle, the very passage in question, though with a slight variation in the words. How, then, can he have held the contrary opinion as to the use made of it by St. Paul ? It is obviously a particular application of the passage, different from that of the apostle, that he has in view. In the light of these considerations, Hegesippus appears to have been not a Judaizing but a Catholic Christian; and, if so, he becomes a witness not only for the catholicity in the main of the Christian church of the 2nd cent., but for the extent to which Catholic truth prevailed in it, for his evidence, whatever its purport, has reference to the condition of the church upon a large scale. Either, therefore, over this wide extent the church was as a whole marked by a narrow Judaic spirit, or over the same wide extent it ' was catholic in spirit, with heretical sects struggling to corrupt its faith. If our verdict be in favour of the latter view, it becoriifs impossible to look at Hegesippus in the light in which he has been presented by the Tiibin- gen school. We must regard him as a Cath- olic, not as a Judaizing Christian, and his statements as to the condition of the church in his day become a powerful argument against, rather than in favour of, the conclu- sions of that school. Cf Zahn, Forschungen noo. Vi. 22S-27V [W.M.] Hegesippus (2) (Egesippus), the alleged author of a work of which a translation from Greek into Latin, or what purported to be HELENA 437 such, appeared c. 400, and is romnu-nly referred to as tU Hello Judaun <.r a« 4$ Excidia Urhis Hierofntynulanaf. It in inainlv taken from the Wars o| Josrphus. The translator freely adds to his author, somrtiinrt from the later books of the Anttquilies of Josephus, sometimes from Roman hiilorun* and other sources, and also freely comport speeches for the actors. The work is that of an earnest defender of the Christian faith. An approximation to his date is supplied by several passage* ; as when he spe.iks of Constantinople havniK Iohk become the second city of the Roman empire (iii. 5, p. 179), and of Antioch, once the nirir'v polis of the Persians, being in his tmie the defence of the Bvzantines against that prople. He also speaks of the triumphs of the Romans in " Scotia " and in " Saxonia." uMng lan- guage strikingly similar to that f.f I laudian (c. 398) (v. 1 8, p. 200; Claud. tU tv. Com. Honor. 31-34). The work early acquired a considerable reputation. Some have av- cribed the translation to Ambrose. Thr Benedictines, however, strongly reject the .\mbrosian authorship, asserting that it con- tains nothing whatever in Ambrose's style ; while Galland earnestly contends lor it, and reprints an elaborate dissertation of .Maz'K hius which he regarils as conclusive (Galland. Biblioth. Pair. vii. prolegom. p. xxix.). The editors of the Patrolof^ta incline to reject the Ambrosian authorship, though they print it among his writings (xv. 1962). The mf>sl correct edition (Marburg, 1858, 1864, 4to) was commenced by Prof. C. F. VVeber of Marburg, and completed after his death by Prof. Julius Caesar, who elaborately discussed the author- ship and d.it<' (pp. 3S'>-3f^9)-. <-"'• ^'- Land«raf. "Die Hegesippus Frage " in .\rchii. f. l.alin Li'xicof;r. (1902). xii. 465-472, whi> decides in favour .>f the Ambrosian authorship, [t.w.d.) Helena (1), said to have been the cf)mpanion of SiMO.v Magus. According to Justin Martyr (Apol. i. 26) and Irenaeus (i. 23. p. 99), who jjossibly makes use of a lost work <>( Justin's, she was a prostitute whom Simon had purchased from a brothel at Tyre and led about, holding her up to the veneration of his disciples, (iiving himself out to be the Supreme Power and the Father above all. he taught, says Irenaeus, that " she was the first conception of his mind, the mother o( all things, by whom in the beginning he conceived the thought of making the angels and arch- angels ; for that this Conception procrrded forth from him and, knowing her (4thrr"<i wishes, descended to the lower world, ami produced the angels and powers, by whom also he said that this world was ina<le. But after she had produced them, she was detained by them through envy . . . and . . . confuirtl in a human body, and for ages paswd into other female bodies, as if from one v«-s»rl into another. He said, also, that she was that Helen on account of whom the Trojan war was fought ; . . . that after passing from '-nr br)dy to another, and constantly meriinR with insult, at last she became a public i>ri-%titutr. and that she was ' the l.rst shrry. On this account he had rome that he migfit first of all reclaim her and free her from her chains, and then give salvation to men through the know- 438 HELENA ledge of himself." The same story is told by Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 19, p. 174), Tertullian (de Anima, 34), Epiphanius {Haer. 21), Philaster (Haer. 29), Theodoret [Haer. Fab. i. i). Tertullian evidently knows no more than he read in Irenaeus; but Hippolytus, who had read the Me^dX^ 'Aworpdai.^, gives some additional particulars, e.g. that Simon allegor- ized the story of the wooden horse and of Helen and her torch. The wooden horse must also have been mentioned in the earlier treatise against heresies, used by Epiphanius and Philaster, both of whom state that Simon expounded it as representing the ignorance of the nations. Epiphanius, then, it mav be believed, did not invent some other particu- lars, in which he differs from or goes be- yond Irenaeus. He states that Simon called this conception (Ennoea) Prunicus and HoJv Spirit ; and he gives a different account, in some respects, of the reasons for her descent into the lower world. According to this account, she was sent in order to rob the Archons, the framers of this world, of their power, by enticing them to desire her beauty, and setting them in hostility to one another. The honour paid to Helena by the followers of Simon was known to Celsus, who says (v. 62) that certain Simonians were also called Heleniani, from Helena, or else from a teacher Helenus. We are told also by Irenaeus and Hippolytus that the Simonians had images of Simon as Jupiter and of Helen as Minerva, which thev honoured, calling the former lord, the latter lady. This adaptation of the myth of Athene springing from the head of Zeus to the alleged relation of Ennoea to the first Father is of a piece with the appropriation of other Grecian myths by these heretics. The doctrine thus attributed to Simon has close affinity with that of other Gnostic systems, more especially that of the Ophites, described at the end of bk. i. of Irenaeus, except that in the Simonian system one female personage fills parts which in other systems are distributed among more than one. But in several systems we have the association with the First Cause of a female principle, his thought or conception ; and we have the myth of the descent of a Sophia into the lower material regions, her sufferings from the hos- tility of the powers who rule there, her struggles with them, and her ultimate re- demption. Peculiar to Simon is his doctrine of the transmigration of souls and his identi- fication, by means of it, of himself and his female companion with the two principal personages of the Gnostic mythology. Simon, moreover, persuaded his followers not only to condone his connexion with a degraded person, but to accept the fact of her degradation fully admitted as only a greater proof of his re- demptive power. We find it easier to believe, therefore, that the story had a foundation in fact than that it was imagined without any. On the other hand, it does not seem likely that Simon could have been the first Gnostic, it being more credible that he turned to his account a mythology already current than that he could' have obtained acceptance for his tale of Ennoea, if invented for the first time for his own justification. Baur has suggested [Christliche Gnosis, p. HELENA j 308) that Justin in his account of the honours j paid at Samaria to Simon and Helena may have been misled by the honours there paid ' to Phoenician sun and moon divinities of similar names. On this and other cognate questions see Simon. Suffice it here to say that one strong fact in support of his theory, viz. that in the Clementine Recognitions (ii. 14, preserved in the Latin of Rufinus) the com- panion of Simon is called Luna, may have originated in an early error of transcription. She is Helena in the corresponding passage , of the Clementine Homilies, ii. 23 ; and we find j elsewhere the false reading Selene for Helene, e.g. in Augustine {de Haer. 1). [g.s.1 1 Helena (2). St., or Flavia Julia Helena I Augusta, first wife of Constantius Chlorus, and mother of Constantine the Great, born c. 248, died c. 327. Little is known for certain of her life, except that she was mother of Constantine the Great and when about 80 years old undertook a remarkable pilgrimage to Palestine, which resulted in the adornment and increased veneration of the holy places. She was doubtless of humble parentage, being, according to one story, the daughter of an innkeeper (Anon. Valesii 2, 2, " matre vilissima," Ambrose, de Obitu Theodosii, , § 42, p. 295). Constantius when he made her acquaintance was a young officer in the army, of good family and position, nearly related, by the female line, to the emperor Claudius, and appears to have at first united her to himself by the looser tie then customary between persons of such different conditions (Hieron. Chron. anno. 2322 ; Orosius, vii. 25; Chron. Pasch. a.d. 304, vol. i. p. 516, ed. Bonn ; Zos. ii. 8). The relation of " concu- binatus " might be a lifelong one and did not necessarily imply immorality. In outward appearance it differed nothing from the ordinary civil marriage by mutual consent, and was sometimes called " conjugium in- aequale." Her son Constantine, apparently her only child, was born probably in 274, at Naissus in Dardania, the country where his father's family had for some time been settled. After his birth Constantius probably advanced Helena to the position of a lawful wife. That she had this position is expressly stated by some of our authorities, but the very emphasis of their assertion implies that there was some- thing peculiar about the case (Eus. H. E. viii. 13, 12, TraiSa yyrjaiov . . . haTa\i.!rdiv and the inscription from Salerno given below). Respect for Constantine would naturally prevent writers in his reign from stating the circum- stances in detail. It may be, however, that his law to legitimatize the children of a concubine " per subsequens matrimonium " was suggested by his mother's experience. After living with Constantius some 20 years Helena was divorced on the occasion of his elevation to the dignity of Caesar in 292 ; the Augustus Maximian, in choosing him for his colleague, requiring this, as a matter of poHcy, in order that Constantius might marry his own step-daughter. Theodora (Eutrop. Brev. ix. 22 ; Victor, de Caesaribus, 39 ; Epitome, 54) — a proceeding which has parallels in Roman history. The looseness of the marriage tie among the Romans is a quite sufficient HELENA HELENA •I3',t explanation of those arts, witliout siipposiiiR from exile (ift. 44). She was .1 (rr.iiirnl uttrn any otTence or misconduct on the part of the daiit at tlie rhiirrh sit\ ires and ad-rnrd ihr wife, or any special heartlessness on that of hiiiidinRS with r..stlv onmnRs itb ^^) Mrr the husband. We know nothing of her lif during the remainder of her husband's reign. When Constantine succeeded in 306, he prob- ably recalled his mother to the court, but direct proof of this is wanting. We have a coin stamped Helena, n.f. i.e. twbilissima femina. with a head on one side and a star in a laurel crown upon the other, jierhaps struck in her honour whilst Constantine was still Caesar. The statement of Eusebius that Constantine paid his mother great honours, and caused her to be proclaimed Augusta to all the troops, and struck her image on gold coins, is no doubt correct, but is unfortunately unaccompanied by dates (Fi/aCoxs/. iii. 47). Silver and copper coins are found with the name Flavin Helena Augusta, struck in her lifetime. Others with the remarkable epigraph Fl. Jul. Helenae A ug. were struck at Constantinople and Treves as memorials after her death, and Theodora was also similarly commemorated, to mark the reconciliation of the two branches of the family. Helena is styled Augusta in inscrip- tions, but in none necessarily earlier than 320 (Mommsen, Itiscr. Neap. 106, given below ; litscr. Urbis Romae, C. I. L. v. 1134-1136). Eusebius also tells us that through Con- stantine she became a Christian (!'. C. iii. 57), and is supported (whatever the support may be worth) by the probably spurious letters preserved in the Acts of St. Silvester. [Con- stantine.] We must therefore reject the story which ascribes his conversion to his mother's influence (Theod. i. 18, and the late and fabulous Eutychius Alexandrinus, pp. 408, 456, ed. Oxon!). The following inscription from Salerno marks the power of Helena in her son's court : " To our sovereign lady Flavia Augusta Helena, the most chaste wife of the divine Constantius, the mother of our Lord Con- stantine, the greatest, most pious and vic- torious .\ugustus, the grandmother of our Lords Crisf>us and Constantine and Constan- tius, the most blessed and fortunate Caesars, this is erected by Alpiiiius Magnus, vir claris- simus, corrector of Lucania and Bruttii, de- voted to her excellence and piety " (Mommsen, ».?. Orell. 1074, Wilmanns 1079). In 326 Crispus was put to death on an death cannot have ti.rii rarli.-r th.in ,^7 because she did not inakr licr pll^:^lnl.^^:r until after the death of Crispus. TilUniont puts it in 328, and it may have l>crn lalrr. i<<rr further, Clinton, /•". R. ii. Ho. «i.) Hrr t. ..tv was carried with great pomp to •• the irn) . nil city." i.e. probably. Constantinoplr (i.„s. V. C. iii. 47; Socr. i. 17. thus kIossps the phrase — d% tt]v (iaaiKtvowav k/o* l'w/i»>r). It was believed, however, in the West that shr was buried at Rome, and there is a traditi<-n that in 4S0 her body was stolen thrnrr liv a inonk Theogisus and brought to Mautvillirr* in the diocese of Rheims. Others sav that it is still in the porphyrv vase in the rhurrh of AraCoeli (Tillem. .uV»m. t. vii. n. 7). The place too of her death is strangely unrcrtain. Eusebius's silence would imply that she died in Palestine ; but if the traditions of hrr bounty to the people and church of Cvpru* on her way home are of any value, it must have been somewhere nearer Rome or Con- stantinople. These traditions may be seen in M. dc Mas Letrie's Hist, de Vile de Chvptg sous les Lusignan (Paris. 1852- 1861) ; Church Qtly. Rev. vol. vii. pp. 186 f. [j-w.] invention of the Cross. — It is in connexion with this famous story that the name of Helena is especially interesting to the student of church history. Its truth has been much discussed, and we will briefly summarize the evidence of the ancient authorities. (i) In the very interesting itinerary of the anonymous Pilgrim from Bordeaux to Jeru- salem, generally referred to a.d. 333, seven years after the date assigned to the finding of the cross (Migne. Patr. Lat. xiii. 771). we have a description of the city, and many tradition.d sites of events both in O. and N. T. are men- tioned. Among these are the house of Caiaphas with the pillar at which our Lord was scourged, the praetorium of Pontius Pilate, the little hill (morUiculus) of Golgotha, and, a stone's thro\v from it, the cave of the resurrection. On the latter spot a beautiful basilica erected by Constantine is noticed, as also on Mount Olivet and at Bethlehem. Vet there is no allusion to the cross, nor is the name of Helena mentioned. (2) The Life of Constantine by Eusebius was obscure charge bv his father's orders. Tra- written probably in 3.^R. five years after the dition attributes this dark act to Fausta ; and visit of the Bordeaux Pilgrim. He records the Helena's bitter complaints about her grand- son's death are said to have irritated Constan tine to execute his wife by way of retribution (Vict. Epit. 41, Fausta conjuge ut putant sug visit of Helena to Jerusalem, but does ni>t connect her name with the place of Crurifixi..n nor with the Holy Sepulchre. He tells us that Constantine built a house of pravrr on gerente Crispum filium necari jussit. Dehine i the site of the Resurrection .ind b.-aiitifird the uxorem suam Faustam in balneas ardentes I caves connected with our Lord s Hirtti and conjectam interemit, cum eum mater Helena Ascension, and that he did s.. m memor> ..i dolore nimie nepotis increparet). his mother, who had built two ehurrhrs. one Eusebius speaks strongly of her youthful at Bethlehem the other -n the Mount of spirit when she, in fulfilment of a vow, made Ascension. Thus of the three •;'""'»»'"••/';*• her pilgrimage to the Holv Land, notwith- Eusebius connects He ena n-.t with that oi the standing her great age, nearlv 80 years (V. C. \ Resurrection, but on y with the^ ..tier t* o. iii. 42, cf. 46). She received almost ""- He indeed sa>;s that these were not the only limited supplies of money from her son and churches she built but ",» ^Ifj"- 'Zih; spent it in roval charities to the poor and able that he should have left the '"^ "n t r bounties to the soldiery ; as well as using her site of the »<"»"«-^'':'" Z'"*''?;/';,*:. ll. power to free prisoners and criminals con- original motive of h« iourne> ''f »»>•• *" deraned to the mines and to recall persons ' to return thanks to God for His peculiar 440 HELENA mercies to her familv and to inquire as to the welfare of the people of the country. His account of the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre by Constantine is not free from difficulty. It is' not easy to say whether he represents its discovery as being before or after the death of Helena. His language is general, but the pre- sumption is that, if it had been before, her name would have been connected with the event. He does not implv that any difficulty was ex- perienced in finding the site of the tomb, but there is nothing as to the cross. All his words bear upon the Resurrection, not the Passion, of our" Lord. But in Constantine's letter to Macarius, bp. of Jerusalem, which he inserts, there are one or two expressions of which the same cannot be said. Allowing for the excesses of hyperbolical language, it is still hard to understand the words, " When the cave was opened, the sight which met the eyes ex- celled all possible eulogy, as much as heavenly things excel earthly," unless some kind of memorial other than the tomb itself was discovered ; and immediately afterwards we have two expressions referring definitely to our Lord's Passion. The first is, to yap yvibpLfffia. Tov aynoTaTov eKfivov irdOovs vvb tt, 777 TrdXat KpvTrro/xevov ; and the second, o.<p ov (since) tov (noTr)piov irdOov^ iriTTtv eis (puis irpo-qyayev (sc. the tomb). At the same time it is difficult to believe that, had the cross or any part of it been discovered, it should not have been more exactly described, and the most probable explanation is that Trd^os is used to describe the whole scene of Redemp- tion, of which the Resurrection was a part (Eus. Vit. Const, iii. 26-42, Patr.Gk. xx. 1086). That the place was very early venerated is proved by Eusebius's statement (Comm. on Ps. Ixxxvii. 18) that marvels {OavfiaTa) were even then wrought at the tomb of Christ. (3) Cyril of Jerusalem, whose catechetical lectures were delivered, he says, upon the very spot where our Lord was crucified, and, as we know from other sources, not more than 20 years after the alleged discovery (viz. in 346), has three allusions to the wood of the cross (iv. 10, X. 19, xiii. 4). The most definite is in X. 19, where he describes it as " until to-day visible amongst us " ("fXP' crjuepov irap' tjimv (paivofxei'oi'), " and now filling nearly the whole world by means of those who in faith take from it." In his letter to Constantius, which, however, is of doubtful authenticity [Cyril], it is distinctly stated that the cross was discovered in the reign of Constantine (c. 3). The first quotations prove that it was believed in his day that the real wood of our Lord's cross had been discovered, but do not give the grounds of the belief. Nor, though he speaks of the cross, does he connect it with St. Helena. Thus none of our three earliest authorities speak of her as the discoverer. (4) St. Chrysostom, wTiting probably before 387, speaks of the wood of the true cross IPatr. Gk. xlviii. 826). (5) Sulpicius Severus (c. 395) tells us that Helena built three basilicas (not two, as in Eusebius), one on each of the sites of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. The site of the Passion, he says, was discovered by Helena, but he does not add that it was bv I HELENA supernatural help. Three crosses were dis- covered, and the right one ascertained by the miraculous restoration to life of a dead body {Hist. Sacr. i. 33, Pair. Gk. xx. 148). (6) St. Ambrose, writing in 395, says that Helena was inspired by the Spirit with the desire to search for the cross, that she dis- tinguished the true cross by its title (thus differing from Sulpicius and all later writers), that two of the nails were used by the emperor, one being fixed in his crown and the other employed as a bit for his bridle {de Obitu Theodosii, c. 41 ff., Patr. Gk. xvi. 1399).' (7) Rufinus (writing in 400, according to the Life in Migne's ed.) tells us further that not only was the journey inspired by God, but that the place of the Passion was miraculously revealed ; that the three crosses were found " confuso ordine," and the title separately ; that the true cross was discovered by the miraculous healing of a sick lady (not the revival of a corpse, as above) ; that part of the wood was sent to Constantine, and part left at Jerusalem in a silver casket (cf. fj-ixpl arifiEpov ipaivoixevov in Cvril's description above). [H. E. i. 7. 8, Pair. Gk. xxi. 475.) (8) Paulinus of Nola, writing (c. 403) to Sulpicius Severus, and sending him a piece, as he says, of the true cross brought from Jeru- salem by Benedicta Melanius, adds an account of its original discovery, because, as he says, it is so difficult to credit. He says that Helena went to rescue the holy places, adorned the site of our Lord's Birth in addition to the other three sites, and discovered the place of the Passion by the concurrent testimony of many Jews and Christians in the city. He adds that, though pieces were frequently taken from the cross, its original bulk was miraculously preserved {Ep. xxxi. 4, Patr. Gk. Ixi. 325). (9) St. Jerome, in his Comm. on Zech. xiv. 20 (Patr. Lat. xxv. 1540), probably written A.D. 406, mentions the nail from the cross which was used for the emperor's bridle, as related in many other writers, and in Ep. Iviii. (ib. xxii. 581) speaks of the images of Jove and Venus which stood until the time of Constantine on the sites of the Resurrection and of the Passion respectively. (10) St. Cyril of Alexandria [c. 420) men- tions as a report {(paal) that the wood of the cross had been found at different times (Arard Kaipovs) with the nails still fixed in it {Comm. on Zech. xiv. 20, Patr. Gk. Ixxii. 271). (11) Socrates (c. 430) informs us that Helena was told in a night vision to go to Jerusalem ; that she found the site of the Passion with difficulty, though he alludes to no supernatural aid ; that Macarius suggested the means of distinguishing the true cross, viz. by applying it to a woman on the point of death ; that the empress erected " new Jerusalem " on the site (a phrase evidently taken from Eusebius) ; and that the emperor put one of the nails on his statue at Constantinople, as many inhabitants testified {H. E. i. 17, Patr. Gk. Ixvii. 118). (12) Sozomen (c. 430) claims good authority for his account, and states that Constantine, in gratitude for the council of Nicaea, wished to build a church on Golgotha ; that Helena about the same time went to Palestine to pray and to look for the sacred sites. He does not, however, mention any di\ine impulse. The HELIODORUS difficulty of discovery was caused, he savs, bv the Greeks having defiled them to stop the growing Opr^ffKila ; the site of the Sepulchre was made known, as some say, by a Hebrew living in the East, from documentary evidence, but more probably by signs and dreams from God. He says that the crosses were found near the same spot (eTfpu-(fi Trepi t6v avrdv rdroy) as they had been left by the soldiers in confused order, the inscription still remaining on the tablet. He mentions two miracles : the healing of a woman with an inciu-ablo disease and the raising of a corpse, combining the other accounts; and adds that the greater part of the cross was still preserved at Jeru- salem (//. E. ii. I, 2, Patr. Gk. Ixvii. 929). (13) Theodoret (c. 448) inserts the letter of Constantine to Macarius, and follows the order of Eusebius. representing, however, Helena's journey, more definitely than Eusebius does, as consequent upon the finding of the Sepulchre by Constantine. But his account semis incon- sistent. The crosses, he says, were found near the Lord's tomb — napa to ixvrm.a rb Afffiro-riKOV (H. E. i. 16, 17, Patr. Gk. Ixxxii. 955). (14) St. Leo (454), in writing to Juvenal, bp. of Jerusalem, speaks of the constant witness borne at Jerusalem to the reality of Christ's Passion by the existence of the cross (£^. cxxxix. 2, Patr. liv. iio6). (15) St. Gregory of Tours (d. 595) adds that discovery was made on May 3, 326; that, during a great storm which occurred soon after, Helena put one of the nails into the sea, which was at once calmed ; that two more were used for the emperor's bridle, and the fourth placed on the head of his statue ; that the lance, crown of thorns, and pillar of scourging were preserved and worked miracles {Lib. Mirac. i. 5, Patr. Lai. Ixxi. 709}, and the cross found by the aid of a Jew, afterwards baptized as Quiri- acus (Hist. Franc, i. 34, Pair. Lat. Ixxi. 179). Thus no detailed story is found until nearly 70 years after the event, and then in the West only. The vagueness of St. Cyril of Alex- andria is particularly observable. Small differ- ences of detail occur ; the last author cited adds several particulars not included in the other accounts, and there are features in the story which look like invention or exaggera- tion. On the whole, considering that our earliest aiithorities do not represent Helena as the discoverer and that the story gradually develops, it seems probable that she had no part in the discovery of the cross, even if it took place, which itself seems exceedingly doubtful. That the site of the Holy Sepulchre was discovered, or supposed to be discovered, in the reign of Constantine, there seems every reason to believe ; and it is easy to understand how marvels would grow up around it. [m.f.a.] Heliodorus (7), bp. of .A.ltinum near Aquileia, c. 400, had served originally as a soldier, but had been ordained before we first hear of him. He belonged to a band of friends drawn to- gether at Aquileia, c. 372, for the study of Scripture and the practice of asceticism, which included St. Jerume, Evagrius afterwards bp. of Antioch, Rufinus. B(>nf)sus, and Chromatins \ afterwards bp. of .Aquileia. The passion fnr 1 asceticism and the troubles which arf>se about , Jerome made the companions resolve, under the guidance of Evagrius. to go to SyTia and I HELLADIUS 441 Antioch. Heh.xl.Ttis went on to Jrrunalrm, where he enjoyed the h.^spiinlitv of l-|.Trntiu*. who, having devoted himsrU to the avrtic life, employed his wealth in the rntrriainnirnt of pilgrims (Hieron. Ep. iv. cd. Vail.). Kr- turning to Antioch. he found Jrromr rruolvrd to go into the solitude of the drsrrt of Chalri*. Heliodorus felt that he himself had a rail to the pastor.il life, having a sister and a nephew deiMMKieiit on him (Hieron. Ep. \x. 0. rd. V.1II). He therefore returned to his native Aquilru, holding out to his friend some hopes that he might rejoin him one dav in the dr^rrt (i6.)- Jerome wrote to him on his return to Italy a letter, reproaching him for turninic back from the m.^re perfect servirr. which afterwards had a great effect in furthrrinR asceticism and herame so celebrated that a Roman ladv. Fabiola. knew it bv heart (Hieron. £•;>. Ixxvii. q, rd. Vail. ; Ep. xiv. 11). But their friendship was never broken. \\r. liodorus continufd in the pastoral ofTirr, and not long afterwards became bp. of Altiniim. He was present in 3S1 as a bishop at therounril of Aquileia. In after-vears he was rl-^rlv allied with Chromatins, bp. of Aquileia, and they both kept up communirations with Jerome, then residing at Bethlehem. They took a warm inttrest in Jerome's translation of the Scriptures, and frequently wrote to him, exhorting him to complete the long- delayed work. Thev supported amanuenses to assist him ; and by the grateful mention of their aid in the prefaces to the books last translated, their names are for ever associated with the great work of the Vulgate (" F*re- face to the Books of Solomon and to Tobit," Jerome's UVir*5, vol. ix. 1305, x. 26: Migne's ed. of Vallarsi's Jerome). Cappelletti [Li Chiese d' Italia, v. 516, 610) reckons his suc- cessor in the see of Altinum to have been .\mbrnsius. a.d. 407. [w.h.p.] Helladilis (4). bp. of Tarsus c. 430. a disciple of St. Thcodosiiis of Antioch, after whose death {c. 412) he presided over the monastery he had founded near Rhostis in Cilicia. HavinK spent 60 years in monastic life, he succeeded Marianus, bp. of the metropolitan see of Tarsus (Theod. I'lV. Pair. c. 10). His episro. pate illustrates the stormy period cf the council of Ephesus. He was one of those who protested against commencing the council before the arrival of John of Antioch and the Oriental bishops (Bahiz. A'or. Con(tl. Coll. p. 697), and he joined the opposition council {concili<ibulum) presided over by John upon his arrival. He supported the counter-remon- strances addressed to the emperors by Ne*- torius (ifc. 703), and his name is appended to the svnodal letter to the clergy and laitv of Hierapolis (tb. 705) and to that to jf.hn of Antioch and Theodoret and the other mem- bers of the Oriental deputation to Thr.^|.-im« {ib. 725). Helladius ste.ndily igip rrd tlir <lr- position of Nestorius and \si;> t 1 ! .1! r. - r nition of Maximian as hi-^ Antioch wrote, commrmli c. 4S). When the rival !■ Helladius kept aloof. an<l ■ 11 tn- f ■ 1, 1 • six articles drawn up by John at a munril at Antioch, which ullimatelv opened the way for reconcilation, he and Alexander of Hierapolis rejected the terms and all ci>m- 442 HELLADIUS munion with Cyril. He wrote to Alexander that, wearied by the struggle and sick at heart at the defection of his fellow-combat- ants, he longed to retire to a monastery, and was only restrained by his care for his flock (ib. 770, c. 68). The year 433 saw the concordat between Cyril and John con- firmed, to the indignation of the irreconcilable party. A synod held by Helladius at Tarsus indignantly repudiated the "execrable agree- ment," and declared that the condemnation could not be removed from " the Egyptian " until he had " anathematized his own anathe- matisms." The firmness of Helladius rejoiced Alexander, who wrote that he intended to hold a synod himself, begging Helladius, whom he regarded as his leader, to attend it and sign its decrees {ib. 713, c. no ; 814, c. iir ; 815, c. 114). Helladius with Eutherius of Tyana next drew up a long letter to pope Sixtus, giving their account of the council of Ephesus and begging him as a new Moses to save the true Israel from the persecution of the Egyp- tians. This was sent round to obtain the signatures of other bishops {ib. 817 sqq. c. 117). At this period we have a letter from Theodoret, complaining that Helladius refused to answer him and seemed to regard him as a deserter. Theodoret had accepted Cyril's letter because he found it orthodox, but he would never desert Nestorius {ib. 813, c. no). The resolu- tion of Helladius now began to break down. The concordat was accepted by an increasing number of Oriental prelates and he was left more and more alone. John wrote to com- plain of his obstinacy {ib. 842, c 140). Theo- dosius threatened to put the civil power in motion against him and the other recusants. He, Alexander, Theodoret, and Maximian were ordered to accept the concordat or resign their sees. All eventually yielded except Alexander. The quaestor Domitian and Theodoret both urged Helladius to submit {ib. 829, c. 125 ; 859, c. 160), and this was made easier by the death of Maximian, Apr. 12, 434, and the succession of the saintly Proclus (Socr. H. E. vii. 41). The orthodoxy of the new bishop was readily acknowledged by Helladius (Baluz. 850, c. 148), who, having determined on yielding, wrote to Alexander to explain his conduct {ib. 862, c. 164). Alexander bitterly reproached him with his weakness {ib. 863, c. 164), but the latter convoked the bishops of his province, whose synodical letters to Theodosius declared their complete acceptance of all required of them : admission of the decrees of the council of Ephesus, communion with Cyril, the rati- fication of Nestorius's sentence of deposition, and the anathematization of him and his ad- herents {ib. 887, c. 192). Helladius thus saved himself from deposition and exile at the ex- pense of consistency. He had now to justify his conduct to Nestorius, whom he had re- peatedly promised never to forsake. The task was no easy one ; nor can we say that he fulfilled it with any honour to himself. He wrote Nestorius that though through men's evil deeds everything had turned out directly contrary to his prayers, his feeling towards him remained unchanged, and that, as he knew he was still struggling for true piety, he believed that he would joyfully endure all HELVIOIUS laid upon him, and that he hoped he might be reckoned with him at the last judgment, when his soul, tried by so many and great temptations, would shine forth. He excuses himself for joining Theodoret and those who had accepted the concordat, as the letters produced from Cyril were in perfect harmony with apostohcal traditions (ib. 888, c. 193). Then Helladius passes from the history. The letters are printed by Chr. Lupus (Ep. Ephe- sinae, Nos. 68, in, 114, 144, 154, 193) and by Baluze, Concil. Nov. Collect, in the Tragoedia Irenaei, cc 68, in, 114, 117, 130, 164, 192, 193. Tillem. Mem. t. xiv. ; Le Quien, Or. Christ. t. ii. p. 874 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 418. [e.v.] HelvidiUS, a Western writer who, like Novatian and Pelagius, Jovinian and Vigi- lantius, put forward opinions on anthropo- logical subjects opposed to the generally received teaching of the church in their day. The only extant contemporary notice of him is the short tract against' him by St. Jerome {0pp. ii. p. 203-230, ed. Vail.), written when they were both at Rome, while pope Damasus ivas alive. It appeared, according to Vallarsius, a.d. 383. St. Jerome says he had put off answering him for some time : " Ne respondendo dignus fieret, qui vincere- tur " ; and he describes him throughout as " hominem rusticanum, et vix primis quoque imbutum Uteris " (§ i) ; besides being wholly unknown to him : " Ego ipse, qui contra te scribo, quum in eadem urbe consistam, albus, ut aiunt, aterve sis, nescio." St. Jerome speaks of his own work in writing to Pam- machius as " librum contra Helvidium de beatae Mariae virginitate perpetud " {Ep. xlviii. § 17), this being what his opponent had denied in the first instance, though the outcome of his opinions had been to rank virginity below matrimony. Helvidius sought countenance for his first point in the writings of TertuUian and Victorinus. St. Jerome shews (§ 17) he had misrepresented the latter ; of Tertulhan, whose writings may still speak for themselves, he merely says, " Ecclesiae hominem non fuisse." But, in any case, he retorts with much force : What avail straggUng opinions against primitive truth ? " Numquid non possum tibi totam veterum scriptorum seriem commovere : Ignatium, Polycarpum, Ire- naeum, Justinum Martyrem, multosque alios apostolicos et eloquentes viros, qui adversus Ebionem, et Theodotum Byzantium, Valen- tinum, haec eadem sentientes, plena sapientiae volumina conscripserunt. Quae si legisses aliquando, plus saperes." This argument is just as suitable to our own as it was to patristic times, never losing anything by repetition. What had Helvidius to oppose to it in this case ? Nothing, unless his ad- versary misrepresents him, but novel inter- pretations of Scripture by himself. St. Jerome therefore refutes him only so far as to point out that there is no necessity for understanding any of the passages adduced by him otherwise than the church had under- stood them hitherto ; but that, in any case, the interpretations of them offered by Helvidius were delusive. For the application of the views of Helvidius to the question of the perpetual virginity of the Lord's mother see Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 247-282, andMurray's HENOTICON, THE Illus. B. D. (190S), art. James. As Jerome nowhrre charges Helvidiiis with having been " a disciple of Auxentius," the Arian bp. of Milan, or " an imitator of Symniachus," the champion of idolatry, we may well ask with Vallarsius where (".ennadius. who wrote more than a century later, got authority fur both statements (de Script. Eccl. c. 33) which Cave repeats in part {Hist. Lit. i. 278). Neither St. Ambrose nor St. Augustine mentions him when, in writing on I'irgimty, they join St. Jerome in condemning his views. His followers constitute the 84th of the heresies enumerated by the latter. [e.s.ff.] Henoticon, The, or Iiuitniwefit of Union, a document owing its existence to Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, and probably the production of his pen, put forth by the emperor Zeno, a.d. 482, on his restora- tion to the throne, after the discomfiture of the usurper Basiliscus, with the view of putting an end to the dissensions caused by what Gibbon calls " the obstinate and san- guinary zeal of the Monophysites." Like every endeavour, however well meant, to cover radical differences bv a vague compre- hensiveness, it n(5t only failed to secure union but aggravated the divisions it was intended to cure, and created a schism which divided the East and West for nearly 40 years, lasting down to the reign of Justinian and the pope- dom of Hormisdas. The immediate cause of its issue was the dissension between the rival occupants of the patriarchal see of .\lexandria. On the death of Timotheus Salofaciolus in 482, John Talaia, the oeconomus of the Alexandrian church, was elected by the orthodox party. He at once, according to custom, dispatched synodical letters to the chief bishops of Christendom, to notify his election. Those addressed to Simplicius of Rome and Calan- dion of .A-ntioch were duly received ; but the letters for Acacius and Zeno were delayed, and Acacius heard of John's appointment from another quarter. Thinking the seeming neg- lect a studied insult, Acacius and Gennadius, bp. of Hermopolis Minor, a relation of Timo- theus Salofaciolus, and " apocrisiarius " or legate of the see of Alexandria, who conceived that he too had been slighted by the new patriarch, determined to compass his over- throw. They represented to Zeno that Talaia was unworthy of the patriarchate, both as having replaced the name of Dioscorus on the diptychs, and as having perjured himself by accepting the see of .'\lexandria, after having, as was asserted, taken an oath that he would not seek for it. Zeno readily gave credence to these charges, and when it was further represented that, if he recognized Peter Mon- gus, the deposed patriarch, peace would be restored, he wrote to Simplicius, stating his grounds for hesitating to sanction the appoint- ment of John, and urging the restoration of Peter .Mongus to put an end to the distractions of the church. Simplicius replied, June 482, that he would delay recognizing John as patriarch until the grave charges brought by Zeno could be investigated ; but he utterly refused to allow the elevation f>f a convicted heretic such as Peter Mongus to the patriarchal see. His return to the true faith might restore HENOTICON. THE HI him to commimion, but r,<\\U\ n.-t rrn.lrr him worthvtobeachiefrulrrof the church (I ihrrat. Diac. Breviar. re. 16, 17 ; Kvagr. //. f. 111. n). This opposition roused the indiRnation o| Zeno, who issued imperative rommaiuik to Pergamius, the new prefect «t Kgvpt, then about to sail for Alexandri.i, and to Apr.|l<,niu» the gnverimr. to expel John Talaia and seat Peter Mongus in his I'lace. Acacius persuadrd Zeno to present hims<lf to the Wf>rld in the j novel character of an expounder of the faith of the Catholic church. The " Hrnotircn " was drawn up, and as it did not dirrrtly i mention the coiuk il of Chaleedon and a ^ hypothetical allusion in it was capable of bring I construed in a deprecialorv sense, it could be accepted by those who, like Mongus, had hitherto rejected that council's decrees. The friends of .Mongus undertook that he would adopt it. and on thi> he was recognized by Zeno and .Acacius as the canonical patriarch and his name inserted in the diptychs. The "Henoticon" was directed to the bishops and people in Alexandria, Egvpt. Libya, and Pentapolis ; but, as Tillemont has remarked (Mim. eccl. xvi. 327), it was really addressed only to those who had separated themselves from the church, i.e. to the Mono- , physites or semi-Eutychians. The original j document is given by Evagrius (H. E. iii. 14) and in a not very clear Latin translati«>n by Liberatus {Breviar. c. 18 ; Labbe, Conctl. j V. 767). It commences by stating that 1 " certain abbats, hermits, and other reverend ; persons had presented to the emperor a ; petition, supplicating him to restore the unity j of the ciiurches, and enlarging on the lament- ' able results of the late divisions." On this I account, and knowing also that the strength and shield of the empire rested in the one true I faith declared by the holy Fathers gathered at [ Nicaea, confirmed by those who met at Con- stantinople and followed by those who had condemned Nestorius at the council of Ephesus, the emperor declares that " the creed so made and confirmed is the one only I symbol of faith, and that he has held, holds, and will hold no other, and will regard all who hold another as aliens, and that in this alone those who desire saving baptism must be i baptized." All who hold other views he J anathematizes, and recognizes the twelve chapters of C>Til as a symbolical book. The ! document then proceeds to declare the ortho- I dox faith, viz. " that our Lord Jesus Christ is I the only-begotten Son of <.f.d, and HimsrU I (iod, incarnate, consubstantial with the Father according to His (;()dhead, and consubstantial with us according to His manh<MKl, that Ha came down from heaven, and was incarnate bv the Holv (Ihost of the Virgin .Mary, Mother of God, and that He is One Son, not two." That " it was this one and the same Son of (;od Who wrought miracles, and endured the sufferings which He underwent voluntarily in His flesh." Those " who divide <»r confound the natures, or admit only a phantastical incarnation," are to be rejected, "since the incarnation without sin of the .Mother of God did not cause the addition of a Son, f<ir the Trinity remained even when one Person of the Trinity, God the Word, became incarnate." I It asserts that this is no new form of faith. 444 HENOTICON, THE and anathematizes all who have ever thought, or do think, " anything to the contrary, either now or at any other time, either at Chalcedon or in any other synod," especially Nestorius and Eutyches and their followers. It closes with an earnest appeal to all to return to the church which, " as a loving mother, opens her longing arms to receive them." Such was the document which was to " combine all the churches in one harmonious confederacy." It was " a work of some skill, of some adroitness, in attempting to reconcile, in eluding, evading difficulties ; it is subtle to escape subtleties " (Milman, Hist, of I.at. Christ, bk. iii. c. i. vol. i. p. 248). The crucial test of the unity or duality of the natures of the Incarnate Word is left an open question, on which a difference of opinion might be lawfully permitted. Gibbon's verdict is by no means an unfair one, that " it accurately represents the Catholic faith of the incarnation without adopting or disclaiming the peculiar terms of the hostile sects" (vol. vi. p. 44, c. xlvii.). But its fatal error was its feebleness, and that it endeavoured to substitute for real unity of doctrine a fictitious cohesion of dis- cordant elements. The Monophysites who subscribed were to be admitted into com- munion without being required to give up their distinctive doctrines ; while their opponents were left free to maintain the authority of the decrees of Chalcedon and the tome of Leo. The resulting peace was natur- ally more apparent than real and satisfied no one. The Catholic party, zealous in their advocacy of the council of Chalcedon, had no liking for a document which disparaged its authority and suggested the possible erro- neousness of its decisions. The 5lonophysites, on the other hand, clamoured for a' more definite condemnation of a council which they regarded as heretical. The high Chalcedonian party, chiefly consisting of the monastic orders, condemned the " Henoticon " as tainted with Eutychianism, and, on the other hand, the Eutychians or Monophysites, indignant with Mongus for turning traitor to their cause, separated themselves, and, form- ing a distinct body without any chief leader and not holding communion with the patri- arch, were designated " the headless sect," " Acephali." A third body of dissidents was formed by the high ecclesiastical party, who were offended at the presumption of the emperor in assuming a right to issue decrees on spiritual matters, " aright," writes Milman, (n.s. p. 235), " complacently admitted when ratifying or compulsorily enforcing ecclesias- tical decrees, and usually adopted without scruple on other occasions by the party with which the court happened to side." A fourth party was that of the centre or moderates, who were weary of strife, or too loyal or too cowardly to resist the imperial power. This party of the centre was in communion with Peter Mongus, who had at once signed the " Henoticon," and had had it read in church at a public festival and openly commended it to the adoption of the faithful. Violence and falsehood characterized the conduct of Mongus. As soon as he felt himself safe in his seat, his overbearing temper knew no bounds. He removed from the diptychs the names of HENOTICON, THE Proterius and Timotheus Salofaciolus, dis- I interring the remains of the latter and casting ; them out of the church ; inserted the names I of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus ; and anathematized the council of Chalcedon and 1 the tome of Leo. When called to account by Acacius, he coolly denied the anathemas, and professed his acceptance of the faith as declared at Chalcedon. He wrote to the same effect to Simplicius, expressing a desire to be received into communion by him (Evagr. H. E. iii. 17 ; ' Liberat. Breviar. c. 18). Such double-dealing ■ estranged many of his own party, and the dis- cussions of which the unhappy " instrument of union " was the parent were still further aggravated by the cruel persecution of the I orthodox throughout the whole of Egypt by I the new patriarch. In bold defiance of the ! prohibitions of the emperor, all, whether I clerics, monks, or laymen, who refused to [ accept the " Henoticon " were subjected to expulsion and serious maltreatment (Evagr. H. E. iii. 22). At this crisis Simplicius died, A.D. 483. The first act of his successor, Felix II., was an indignant rejection of the " Heno- ; ticon," as an insult to the council of Chalcedon, j as an audacious act of the emperor Zeno, who dared to dictate articles of faith, and as a seed- plot of impiety (Theod. Lect. ap. Milman, u.s. p. 236). He also anathematized all bishops who had subscribed this edict. This anathema included nearly all the bishops of the East. A strong admonitory letter was addressed by Felix to Acacius, and another in milder terms to Zeno, the authors of the " Henoticon." All remonstrance proving vain, Felix fulminated an anathema against Acacius, deposing and excommunicating him, July 28, a.d. 484 (Liberat. c. 18 ; Lablje, Concil. iv. 1072). This anathema severed the whole of the ; Eastern church from the West for nearly 40 ■ years. [Acacius.] Neither emperor nor : patriarch took much heed of the condemnation of the Roman see, and continued to press the j " Henoticon " everywhere, ejecting bishops who withheld their signatures and refused to communicate with Peter Mongus (Theoph. ■p. 114 ; Liberat. c. 18 ; Vict. Tunun. Chron. ; j Tillem. Mem. eccl. xvi. p. 168; Aece, Art. |xcv.). Calandion, patriarch of Antioch, was j deposed, and Peter the Fuller reinstated. JThus the three chief sees of the East were in constrained communion and nearly all the suffragan bishops had been silenced or de- posed. Zeno and Acacius had "made a solitude and called it peace." It would be tedious to narrate in detail the subsequent issues of this unhappy attempt to force dis- cordant elements into external union which continued under Acacius's successors and under the emperor Anastasius. Anastasius required toleration of the bishops who were forbidden to force the decrees of Chalcedon on a reluctant diocese or to compel one which had ' accepted that council to abandon it. Those I who violated this law of toleration were : deposed with impartial severity (Evagr. H. E. iii. 30). Euphemius was deposed from Constantinople a.d. 495. Macedonius, his successor, began by subscribing the " Heno- ticon," but overawed by the obstinate orthodoxy of the " Acoemetae " and other I monastic bodies of Constantinople, whom he HENOTICON, THE had undertaken to reconcile to that instru- ment, he became an ardent partisan of the council of Chalcedon, and, after having headed the religious tumults in the city which at one time threatened Anastasius's throne, was in his turn deposed and succeetled by Timotheus, AD. 511. The new patriarch not only signed the " Henoticon," but pronounced an ana- thema on the council of Chalcedon. Flavian- us, accused of being a concealed Nestorian, was ejected from .\ntioch in a.d. 512, where the .Monophysite Severus, who had raised religious riots in the streets of .Alexandria and Constantinople, reigned supreme. Elias of Jerusalem, though making large concessions to the Catholic party, refused to go all lengths with them, and was deposed in 513. '• Throughout Asiatic Christendom it was the same wild struggle. Bishops deposed quietly, or, where resistance was made, the two fac- tions fighting in the streets, in the churches. Cities, even the holiest places, ran with blood " (Milman, u.s. p. 245). The " Henoticon," so fruitful a source of dissension in the East, became also the watch- word of rival parties in the West. Gelasius, succeeding .\nastasius II., sought to re-unite the churches by the proposal, couched in the very spirit of the " Henoticon," that .\cacius's name should be quietly left on the diptychs. On his death in 498 a contested election ensued, exasperated by differences of opinion on the " Henoticon " and the schisms in the East. Two rival pontiffs were consecrated on Dec. 22, A.D. 499 — Laurentius an advocate of union, and Symmachus its uncompromising opponent. Theodoric decided in favour of Symmachus, who had received the largest number of votes. This choice was fatal to the restoration of peace in the East on the terms of the " Henoticon." Pope and emperor hurled at one another charges of heresy and messages of defiance. The turbulent orthodox party at Constantinople was supported in its obstinate resistance to the emperor by the Roman see. The rebellion of Vitalian, characterized by Ciibbon as " the first of the religious wars," whose battle-cry was the council of Chalcedon, was countenanced by Symmachus's still more haughty successor, Horraisdas, who reaped the fruits of the humiliation of the aged Anastasius and became '• the dictator of the religion of the world." The demand of Hormisdas for the public anathematization of the authors and main- tainers of the " Henoticon" was indignantly rejected by Anastasius. The conflict only ended with the life of Anastasius, who died worn out by strife at the age of nearly 90 years, a.d. 518. His successor, Justin, was an unlettered soldier of unbending orthodoxy. The new patriarch, John of Cappadoria, " a man of servile mind though unnieasured ambition," was prepared to adopt any course which would secure his power. He had seconded all the measures of Anastasius, but at the demand of the mob he now hastily assembled a synod of 40 bishops, which anathematized all upholders of the " Heno- ticon," recalled the banished bishops, and deposed the so-called usurpers. All heretics, i.e. those who refused the council of Chalcedon, were made incapable of civil or military office. HERACLBON 446 Hormisdas profited by the (avourable opjx*. tunity to press his drmand», which were admitted without qursti<>n. The nainr* <.J th« patriarchs Acacius, Fravitta, luiphmmit, and .Macodonius, together wilh lh<>w o( the rin- pemr Zeiio and .Anastasius, were rr.iird fr> in the <li|>tvchs, and .\rai ius wa» |irjiidr<| wilh a special anathema. Fresh disturb-im r\ wrrp created when it was found that n<>rnii»<l4» demanded the condemnation of dll who hjil communicated with .\rarius. and turned a deaf ear to the repeated applications of both emperor and patriarch for some rrlaiation o| these terms (Evagr. H. E. iv. 4 ; I.abbr. Conctl. iv. 1542 ; Natal. Alrxand. Hut. F.c<l. t. ii. p. 448). Hormisdas at last rontrntrd that Epiphanius, John's surressor. should act for him in receiving churches into cotnniunioii. Some honoured names were allowed to rrniain on the diptychs, and eventually Fuphemiut. Macedonius, Flavian of Antiorh. Flia» of Jerusalem and some others who had died during the separation, were admitted to the Roman Calendars ( Tillem. Mim. €ccl. t. xvi. p. 697 ; Bolland. .\pr. 25. p. 373). Thus ended the unhappy schism. The " Henoticon," without being formally r^• pealed, was allowed to sink into oblivion. The four oecumenical councils, iiu ludin^c Chalce- don, were everywhere received, save in EKypt, and one common creed expressed the religious faith of the Christian w<irld. dibbMH, Decline and Fall, c. xlvii. ; Tillem. Mim. eccl. vol. xvi. " Acace " ; SehriKkh, Air- chengesch. vol. xviii. ; Migne. I'atr. t. Iviii. ; Evagr. H. E. libb. iii. iv. ; liberal, lirniar. ; Walch, Ketzerhist. vol. vi. ; Flrury, Htst. eccl. t. vi. vii. ; Neander, Ch. //uT vi.l. iv. pp. 253 ff. (Clarke's trans.) ; I )orncr, i'rfiyn, div. ii. vol. i. pp. 123 fl. ; .Milman, H»sl. of I. at. Christ, vol. i. bk. iii. cc. i. iii. ft. v.] Heraoles, patriarch of .Alexandria, a.d. 233- 249 ; brother of the martyr I'lutarch, «>ne of Origen's converts (Eus. //. E. vi. 3). From being a pupil he became an assistant in teachijig to Origen, who left the schiM>l to him when he retired from .Alexandria to Caesarea (lb. 15, 26). Heradas retained the S( htx^l but a short time, for on the death .f Ucmetrius he was elected to the archiepiscopal throne. Heraclas did not adopt any of his teacher's peculiar views, but voted for his deprivation both from his office as teacher and from his orders and for his excommunication at the two synods held by Demetrius, nor when elected bishopdid he attempt torescindthev- sentence*. Eusebius (16. 31) narratesavisit paid to Heraclas by Africanus the annalist on hearing of hi* great learning, and (16. vii. 7), on the auth.-ntvof his successor Dionysius, gives his rule respectinK the treatment of heretics, l-c Ouien, Ori/fu Chrtst. ii. 302 ; I'hot. Cod. 1 18 ; Acta SS. Holl. Jul. V 6.IV647- . J ''-"l Heracleon (1). a (.n.-stir dc»crihr,i l.v Clement of Alexandria (Strom. Iv. q. r« s ,• ••» the most esteemed (Jotim^rorof) "' the \. 1. I of Valentinus ; and, arr..r«lini{ to oriiim (Comm. m .S. Joann. t. ii J 8. Opp. \. iv y. 6(, . said to have been in personal contact {•,r,^,tu'-t) with Valentinus himself. He is barely men- tioned bv Ircnaeus (li. 41) »n<\ by TertuUun (adv. I'alenl. ^). The coininou source of Fhilaster and I'seudo-TcrtulUan (t.e. probably 446 HERACLEON the earlier treatise of Hippolytus) contained an article on Heracleon between those on Ptolemaeus and Secundus, and on Marcus and Colarbasus. The chief interest that now attaches to Heracleon is that he is the earliest commen- tator on the N.T. of whom we have know- ledge. Origen, in the still extant portion of his commentary on St. John, quotes Heracleon nearly 50 times, usually controverting, occa- sionally accepting his expositions. We thus recover large sections of Heracleon's com- mentary on cc. i. ii. iv. and viii. of St John. There is reason to think that he wrote com- mentaries on St. Luke also. Clement of Alexandria {Strom, iv. 9) expressly quotes from Heracleon's exposition of Luke xii. 8 ; and another reference (25 Eclog. ex Script. Proph. p. 995) is in connexion with Luke iii. 16, 17, and so probably from an exposition of these verses. The fragments of Heracleon were collected by Grabe (Spicileg. ii. 85, etc.), and reprinted as an appendix to Massuet's, Stieren's, and Migne's editions of Irenaeus. The first passage quoted by Clement bears on an accusation brought against some of the Gnostic sects, that they taught that it was no sin to avoid martyrdom by denying the faith. No exception can be taken to what Heracleon says on this subject. " Men mis- take in thinking that the only confession is that made with the voice before the magis- trates ; there is another confession made in the life and conversation, by faith and works corresponding to the faith. The first con- fession may be made by a hypocrite : and it is one not required of all ; there are many who have never been called on to make it, as for instance Matthew, Philip, Thomas, Levi [Lebbaeus] ; the other confession must be made by all. He who has first confessed in his disposition of heart will confess with the voice also when need shall arise and reason require. Well did Christ use concerning confession the phrase 'in Me ' (tav 6ij.o\oy7]crr) eV e.uot), concerning denial the phrase ' Me.' A man may confess ' Him ' with the voice who really denies Him, if he does not confess Him also in action ; but those only confess ' in Him ' who live in the confession and in corresponding actions. Nay, it is He Whom they embrace and Who dwells in them Who makes confession ' in them ' ; for ' He cannot deny Himself.' But concerning denial. He did not say whosoever shall deny ' in Me,' but whosoever shall deny ' Me ' ; for no one that is ' in Him ' can deny Him. And the words ' before men ' do not mean before unbelievers only, but before Christians and unbelievers alike ; before the one by their life and conversation, before the others in words." In this exposition every word in the sacred text assumes significance ; and this characteristic runs equally through the fragments of Heracleon's commentary on St. John, whether the words commented on be our Lord's own or only those of the Evangelist. Thus he calls attention to the facts that in the statement " all things were made by Him," the preposition used is 5id ; that Jesus is said to have gone down to Capernaum and gone up to Jerusalem ; that He found the buyers and sellers (v t(^ iepip, not iv t<j5 ^'ay ; that He said HERACLEON salvation is of the Jews not in them, and again (iv. 40) that our Lord tarried with the Samari- tans, not in them ; notice is taken of the point in our Lord's discourse with the woman of Samaria, where He first emphasizes His assertion with " Woman, believe Me " ; and though Origen occasionally accuses Heracleon of deficient accuracy, for instance in taking the prophet (i. 21) as meaning no more than a prophet ; " in three days " (ii. 19) as meaning no more than "on the third day"; yet on the whole Heracleon's examination of the words is exceedingly minute. He attempts to reconcile differences between the Evan- gelists, e.g. our Lord's ascription to the Baptist of the titles " Elias " and " prophet " with John's own disclaimer of these titles. He finds mysteries in the numbers in the narrative — in the 46 years which the temple was in building, the 6 husbands of the woman of Samaria (for such was his reading), the 2 days our Lord abode with the people of the city, the 7th hour at which the nobleman's son was healed. He thinks it necessary to reconcile his own doctrine with that of the sacred writer, even at the cost of some violence of interpretation. Thus he declares that the Evangelist's assertion that all things were made by the Logos must be understood only of the things of the visible creation, his own doctrine being that the higher aeon world was not so made, but that the lower creation was made by the Logos through the instrumen- tality of the Demiurge. Instances of this kind where the interpreter is forced to reject the most obvious meaning of the text are sufficiently numerous to shew that the gospel was not written in the interests of Valentin- ianism ; but it is a book which Heracleon evidently recognized as of such authority that he must perforce have it on his side. He strives to find Valentinianism in the Gospel by a method of spiritual interpreta- tion. Thus the nobleman (jiauiXiKos, iv. 47) is the Demiurge, a petty prince, his kingdom being limited and temporary, the servants are his angels, the son is the man who belongs to the Demiurge. As he finds the \Pvx^kol represented in the nobleman's son, so again he finds the TrveufxaTLnoi in the woman of Samaria. The water of Jacob's well which she rejected is Judaism ; the husband whom she is to call is no earthly husband, but her spiritual bridegroom from the Pleroma ; the other husbands with whom she previously had committed fornication represent the matter with which the spiritual have been entangled ; that she is no longer to worship either in " this mountain " or in " Jerusa- j lem " means that she is not, like the heathen, to worship the visible creation, the Hyle, or kingdom of the devil, nor like the Jews to worship the creator or Demiurge ; her I watering-pot is her good disposition for re- i ceiving life from the Saviour. Though the ' results of Heracleon's metnod are heretical, the method itself is one commonly used by orthodox Fathers, especially by Origen. Many I orthodox parallels to Heracleon's exposition could be adduced, e.g. that the cords with which our Lord drove the traffickers from the temple represent the power of the Holy Spirit ; the wood to which He assumes they HERACLEON were attached, the wood of the cross. Origen I even occasionally blames Heracleon for being too easily content with more obvious inter- ; pretations. Herarleon at first is satisfied to take " whose shoe latchet I am not worthy to loose" as meaning no more than " for whom I am not worthy to perform menial olhccs." and he has Origen's approbation when he tries, however unsurcessfully, to investigate what the slioe represented. It does not ; appear that Heracleon used his method of interpretation controversially to establish ; Valentinian doctrine, but, being a V'alentinian, i readily found those doctrines indicated in the i passages on which he commented. One other of his interpretations deserves mention. The meaning which the Greek of John viii. 44 most naturally conveys is that of the pre-Hieronymian translation " mendax est sicut et pater ejus," and so it is gener- ally understood by Greek Fathers, though in various ways they escape attributing a father to the devil. Hilgenfeld and Volkmar con- sider that the Evangelist shews that he em- braced the opinion of the V'alontinians and some earlier Cinostic sects that the father of the devil was the Demiurge or God (..f the Jews. But this idea was unknown to Hera- cleon, who here interprets the father of the devil as his essentially evil nature ; to which Origen objects that if the devil be evil by the necessity of his nature, he ought rather to be pitied tiian blamed. To judge from the fragments we have, Heracleon's bent was rather practical than speculative. He says nothing of the Gnostic theories as to stages in the origin of the uni- j verse; the prologue of St. John does not tempt him into mention of the Valentinian [ Aeonology. In fact he does not use the word aeon in the sense employed by other Valen- tinian writers, but rather where according to their use we sliould expect the word Pleroma ; and this last word he uses in a J special sense, describing the spiritual husband of the Samaritan woman as her Pleroma— that is, the complement which supplies what was lacking to perfection. We find in his system ' only two beings unknown to orthodox j theology, the Demiurge, and apparently a | second Son of Man ; for on John iv. 37 he distinguishes a higher Son of Man who sows from the Saviour Who reaps. Heracleon gives as great prominence as any orthodox writer to Christ and His redeeming work. But all mankind are not alike in a condition to profit bv His redemption. There is a threefold order of creatures : First, the Hylic or material, formed of the u\r], whi( h is the substam e of the devil, incapable of immortality. Secondly, the psychic or animal belonging to the kingdom of the Demiurge ; their i/^i'X') '^ naturally mortal, but capable of being clothed with immortality, and it depends on their I disposition (O^an) whether they become sons of God or children of the devil ; and, thirdly, the pneumatic or spiritual, who are by nature of the divine essence, though entangled with matter and needing redemption to be delivered from it. These are the special creation of the Logos ; they live in Him, and become one with Him. In the second class Heracleon seems to have had the Jews specially in mind HERACLIDES CYPRIUS 447 and to have regarded ihen* with a g.^nl deal of tenderness. Thry are the childrrn of Abraham who, if thev do not lovr (.tid at least do not hate Mini. Their kinR. the Demiurge, is rcpresentrd as not h<>»ulr to the Supreme, and thonj;h shortsightrd and lienor- ant, yet as well disposed to (.nth .ind ready to im])lore the Saviour's help lor hi» «iib|rrlt whom he had not himself bmi ablr t<> driivi r. When his ignorance is ninovrd. he and hi* redeemed subjects will enjoy inimort.dll y in a place raised above the material worhl. Besides the passages on whir h he rommrntt Heracleon refers to Gen. vi. ; Isa. i. 2 ; Matt. viii. 2. ix. 37 ; xviii. 11 ; Koin. i. i^. xii. i ; I. Cor. XV. 54 ; II. Tim. ii. i v Nrander an<l Cave have suggestetl Alexandria as the plare where Heracleon taught ; but t leinrnt'* lan- guage suggests Some distance either of time or of place ; for he would si arcelv have thought it necessary to explain that Herarleon was the most in repute of the Valentinian* i( he were at the time the head of a rival »< h<Mil in the same city. Hippolytus makes Hera- cleon one of the Italian schiM.l of Valentinians ; but the silence of all the authorities makes it unlikely that he taught at Koine. It se^Ill^. therefore, most likely that he taught in one of the cities of S. Italy ; or " I*raedestinatus " may be right in making Sicily the scene of his inventions about Heracleon. The date of Heracleon is of interest on account of his use of St. John's Gospel, which clearly had attained high authority when he wrote. The mere fact, however, that a book was held in equal honour by the Valen- tinians and the orth<xlox seems to prove that it must have attained its position before the separation of the V'aliiillni.ms from the church ; and, if so, it is of less importance to determine the exact date of Herai leoii. The decade 170-180 may probably be hxed for the centre of his activity. This would not be inconsistent with his having been personally instructed by Valentinus, who rontintied to teach as late as 160, and would allow time for Heracleon to have gained celebrity before Clement wrote, one of whose references to Heracleon is in what was probably one of hi* earliest works. He had evidently long passed from the scene when Origen wrote. (Neandrr. Gen. Entwick. 143, and (7i. //is/, ii. ij\; Heinrici, la/. f7»iosi<, 127. Westrott. .V. 7. Canon. 2.)<).) Hie <.k. text o( Th* Fragmtnli .(/ Heradeon Ij.i^ been nl with iiitro. and n«>lr* bv A. H. Bro..k.- (I ami. Vuw. Pn-ss). |t..9.1 Heraclides (6) Cyprlus, bp. oi Kphr»u« , a native of Cyprus, who had received a liberal education, was versed in the Smptures, and had passed some years in asretic trainiiiK m the desert of Sretis under Kvagrius. He th«n became deacon to Chrysostoiii. and wa* in immediate attendance on him. On the de- privation of Antoninus, bp. of Kphe*u<.. ad. 401, there being a deadlock in the election through the number of rival candidate* and the violence of the opp.^ing (artions. ( hryv«- tcjm brought llera.lides forward, and he wa« elected bv the votc-s of M-veiitV bl*hop% to the vacant see. The electi.-n at hr^l onlv in- creased the disturbance, and h'Ud cinplaint* were made ol the unfitnc-s> of Hera« lide* for the office, which detained Cbr>»o»toin in A*u 448 HERMAS (Socr. H. E. vi. II ; Soz. H. E. viii. 6 ; Pallad. p. 139). At the assembling of the synod of the Oak, a.d. 403, Heraclides was summoned to answer certain specified charges brought against him by Macarius, bp. of Magnesia, a bishop named Isaac, and a monk named John. Among these charges was one of holding Origenizing views. The urgency with which the condemnation of Chrysostom was pressed forward retarded the suit against Heraclides, which had come to no issue when his great master was deposed and banished. After Chrysostora's second and final exile in 404, Heraclides was his fellow-sufferer. He was deposed by the party in power, and put in prison at Nicomedia, where, when Palladius wrote, he had been ahready languishing for years. A eunuch who, according to Palladius, was stained with the grossest vices, was con- secrated bp. of Ephesus in his room (Pallad. Dial. ed. Bigot, p. 139). On the ascription to this Heraclides of the Lausiac History of Palladius, under the name of Paradisus Heraclidis, see Palladius (7) ; also Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. x. 117 ; Ceillier, vii. 487. [e.v.] Hermas (2). in the latter half of the 2nd cent, there was in circulation a book of visions and allegories, purporting to be written by one Hermas and commonly known as The Shep- herd. This book was treated with respect bordering on that paid to the canonical Scriptures of N.T., and was publicly read in some churches. A passage from it is quoted by Irenaeus (iv. 20, p. 253) with the words, " Well said the Scripture," a fact which Eusebius notes {H. E. v. 8). Probably in the time of Irenaeus the work was publicly read in the Galilean churches. The mutilated commencement of the Stromateis of Clement of Alexandria opens in the middle of a quota- tion from The Shepherd, and about ten times elsewhere he cites the book, always with a complete acceptance of the reality and divine character of the revelations made to Hermas, but without suggesting who Hermas was or when he lived. Origen, who frequently cites the book {in Rom. xvi. 14, vol. iv. p. 683), considered it divinely inspired. He suggests, as do others after him, but apparently on no earlier authority, that it was written by the Hermas mentioned in Rom. xvi. 14. His other quotations shew that less favourable views of the book were current in his time. They are carefully separated from quotations from the canonical books, and he generally adds a saying clause, giving the reader permission to reject them ; he speaks of it {in Matt. xix. 7, vol. iii. p. 644) as a book current in the church but not acknowledged by all, and {de Princ. iv. 11) as despised by some. Eusebius (iii. 25) places the book among the orthodox v6da with the Acts of Paul, Revelation of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, etc. Elsewhere (iii. 3), while unable to place it among the 6/j.o\oyoviJ.(va because rejected by some, he records its public use in churches and by some most eminent writers, and that it was judged by some most necessary for elementary in- struction in the faith. Athanasius {Ep. Fest. 39, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 963) classes it with some of the deutero-canonical books of O.T. and with The Teaching of the Apostles as not canon- ical, but useful for catechetical instruction. HERMAS It is found in the Sinaitic MS. following the Ep. of Barnabas, as an appendix to the N.T. After the 4th cent, it rapidly passed out of ecclesiastical use in the East. The Western tradition deserves more atten- tion, as internal evidence shews the book to have been composed at Rome. The Mura- TORiAN Fragment on the Canon tells us that it had been written during the episcopate of Pius by his brother Hermas, a period which the writer speaks of as within then living memory. He concludes that the book ought to be read but not publicly in the church among the prophetic writings, the number of which was complete, nor among the apostolic. The statement that the book not only might but ought to be read is a high recognition of the value attributed to it by the writer, and we gather that at least in some places its use in church was then such as to lead some to regard it as on a level with the canonical Scriptures. Tertullian, in one of his earliest treatises, de Oratione, has a reference to its influence on the practice of churches which shews it to have enjoyed high authority at the time, an authority which Tertullian's argu- ment does not dispute. It had probably been used in church reading and translated into Latin, since Tertullian describes it by the Latin title Pastor, and not by a Greek title, as he usually does in the case of Greek writings. Some ten years later, after Tertullian had become a Montanist, and the authority of The Shepherd is urged in behalf of readmitting adulterers to commimion, he rejects the book as not counted worthy of inclusion in the canon, but placed by every council, even those of the Catholic party, among false and apo- cryphal writings {de Pudic. c. 10). Quoting Hebrews, he says that this is at least more received than that apocryphal Shepherd of the adulterers (c. 20). The phrase " more received " warns us to take cttm grano Ter- tullian's assertion as to the universal rejection of The Shepherd ; but doubtless the distinc- tion between apostolic and later writings was then drawn more sharply, and in the interval between Tertullian's two writings The Shep- herd may have been excluded from public reading in many churches which before had admitted it. The Liberian papal catalogue (probably here, as elsewhere, following the catalogue of Hippolytus) states that under the episcopate of Pius his brother Ermas wrote a book in which the commands and precepts were contained which the angel gave him when he came to him in the habit of a shepherd. Yet, while refusing to assign the book to apostolic times, it makes no doubt of the reality of the angelic appearance to Hermas. Later biographical notices of popes state that the message given to Hermas was that Easter should always be celebrated on a Sunday., These clearly shew that by then all knowledge of the book had been lost ; and further notices shew a confusion between the name of Hennas and that of his book, which imply that the book was no longer in use. Jerome, when quoting Eusebius about the book {de Vir. III. 10, vol. ii. 845), adds that among the Latins it was almost unknown. He speaks contemp- tuously of it {in Habac. i. 14, vol. vi. 604), for it seems certain that the book of Hermas HERMAS is here referred to. It is marked in the Gclasian decree as apocryphal. Notwith- staiidiiit;, there are indications that some use of the book continued in the West, e.g. the ' fact being that there still exist some 20 MSS. of the Latin version. In the African church of the 4th cent, we find from the list in the Coiiex Claromotitanus (Westcott, Canon N. T. \ p. 337) that it was placed with the .\cts of Taul and the Revelation of St. Peter as an appendix to the N.T. books ; and it occupies a similar place in the Sinaitic MS., the only Creek Bible j known to have contained it. But in some I existing Latin MSS. it is placed with the I apocryphal books of O.T. I The book is in three parts. The first part consists of visions. Hennas tells that j he who had brought him up had s<ild him ! to Rome to a lady named Rhoda ; that after a considerable time he renewed his j acquaintance with her and began to love her as a sister ; that he saw her one dav bathing in the Tiber and assisted her out of the water ; that admiring her beauty he thought how happy he should be if he had a wife like her in person and disposition. Further than this his thought did not go. But a little time after he had a vision. He fell asleep, and in his dream was walking and struggling on ground so rugged and broken that it was impossible to pass. At length he succeeded ' in crossing the water by which his path had j been washed away, and coming into smooth ground knelt to confess his sins to God. Then ! the heavens were opened and he saw Rhoda ' saluting him from the sky. On his asking her 1 what she did there, she told him that she had been taken up to accuse him, because God was angry with him for having sinned in thought against her. Then Hernias was overwhelmed with horror and fear, not knowing how he could abide the severity of God's judgment, if such a thought as his was marked as sin. Rhoda now passes out of his dream and he sees a venerable aged lady clad in shining garments sitting on a great white chair and holding a book in her hand. She asks why he, usually so cheerful, is now so sad. On telling her, she owns what a sin any impure thought would be in one so chaste, so single- minded and so innocent as he ; but tells him that this is not why God is displeased with him, but because of the sins of his children, whom he, through false indulgence, had allowed to corrupt themselves, but to whom repentance was open if he would warn them. Then she reads to him out of her bofik, but of all she reads he can remember nothing save the last comforting sentence, and that all which preceded was terrible and threaten- ing. She parted from him with the words, " Flay the man, Hermas." Hernias was an elderly man with a grown-up family, and Rhoda must have been at least as old as hini- self. If the tale is an invented one, this is certainly an incongruity ; but if it be a true story, it is quite conceivable that the thought may have occurred to Hermas, who seiins to have been not happy in his family relations, how much happier it would have been fur him if Rhoda had been his wife ; and that afterwards, in a dream, this thought may have recurred to his memory as a siu to be HERMAS 44tf repented of. The visi..n prrvnt« all ihp characteristics of a real drr.im ; the want o| logical connexion bet wren the j«arl». the changes of scene, the f.idinK "»it of Khi«U at principal figure and the appraranrc ..( the aged ladv in her rcnmi ; the tuh<ititution o| quite a dillerent olience for the sinful thouKht which weighed on his cons< iencr at the beKin- ning ; the physical distress in hi» %\cry at first presenting the idea of walking on and on without being able to find an outlet, after- wards of mental grief at words spoken to him ; the long reading of which onlv the wordt spoken immediately before awaking are re- membered, — all these indicate that we are reading not a literary invention like the dream of the Pilgrim's Progreas, but the rental, a little dr<sS(il up it may be, of a dream which the n.irralor really had. In another vision, a year after, he saw again the lady and her book, and received the biH.k to copy, but still it conveyed no idea to his mind, lie then set himself by fasting and prayer to h-am itt meaning, and after about a fortnight wat gratified. He learns, t«M>, that the lady is not, as he had imagined, the sibyl, but the church, and that she appearetl as oUl because she was created first of all, and for her »akc the world was made. Ephesians, which prob- ably suggested this doctrine of the pre- existence of the church, is one t>f the N.T. books of whose use by Hermas there arc clear traces. In subsequent visions we have a different account of the matter ; he sei-s in each a woman more and more youthful in appearance, whom he is taught to identify with the church of his former vision ; and it is explained that he saw her old at first be- cause the spirit of Christians had been broken by infirmity and doubt, and afterwards more youthful as by the revelations inaile him their spirit had been renewed. After his first two visions Hermas watched eagerly for new revelations, and set himself to obtain them by fasting and prayer. In those later visions, while the pictures presented to his mind arc such as we can well believe to have been dream representations, the explanations given of them have a coherence only to be found in the thoughts of a waking man. This is still more true of the second and third parts of the work. At the end of the first part he has the vision in which he sees a man dressed like a shepherd, who tells him that he is the angel of repentance and the guardian It) whi>*« j care he had been entrusted. From this 1 shepherd he receives, for his instruction and ' that of the church, the " Comiiiandmenls." j which form the second, and the " Similitudes," which form the third, part of the work. The Similitudes were probably suggested by N.T. I parables, though the frigid comp<isition» ol ; Hermas fall infinitely below these. The liter.irv merits of the work of Merinas are of little importance compared with the I fundamental question .is to the date of the ! book and whether it claims to be an inspired document, the writer ol which aspires tt. no I literary merit, save that of faithfullv r- r. rrfing Uhe revelations made him. An . that Hermas in relating his w no more than to present rdifvin, allegorical fotm, aud that it wis m'lri, j« 2U 450 HERMAS an instructive fiction that the book was re- garded when it was introduced into public reading in the church ? Donaldson says : "If the book be not inspired, then either the writer fancied he had seen these visions, or tried to make other people fancy this, or he clothed the work in a fictitious form designedly and undisguisedly. If he did the first, he must have been silly. If he did the second, he must have been an impostor." But as he believes the author to have been " an honest, upright, and thoughtful man," he concludes that he did the third, " as multitudes of others have done after him, with John Bunyan at their head." H we took this view we could lay no stress on anything the author tells us about himself and his family. These details might be fictitious, as the angels, the towers, and the beasts of the visions. We could not even assume that his name was Hermas, for the narrator of the visions, who bears this name, might be an imaginary personage. But we ourselves feel bound to reject this as altogether mistaken criticism, and as an application to the 2nd cent, of the standards of to-day. To us it seems plain that, what- ever the author intended, the first readers of Hermas did not receive the book as mere allegorical fiction. Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, i. 315) tells us that Niebuhr used to pity the Athenian (sic, Qu. Roman r) Chris- tians for being obliged to listen to this " good but dull novel." If the authorities of the church regarded it merely as a novel, would they have appointed it for public reading ? At the end of the century Clement and others shew no doubt of the reality of the visions. Were the men of a couple of generations earlier likely to have been more severe in their judgments, and would an angelic appearance seem to them so incredible that one who related it would be regarded as the narrator of a fiction that he did not intend to be be- lieved ? The book itself contains directions to the rulers of the Roman church to send the volume to foreign churches. If we suppose it really was sent to them stamped as a pro- phetic writing by the authority of the Roman church, we have an explanation of the con- sideration, only second to that of the canonical Scriptures, which it enjoyed in so many dis- tant churches. A man at the present day might publish a story of visions, and be per- suaded that his readers would not take him seriously, but no one in the 2nd cent, would be entitled to hold such a persuasion, and if the book of Hermas was accepted as inspired, the writer cannot be acquitted of the respon- sibility of having foreseen and intended this result. Mosheim, de Rebus Christ, ante Const. 163, 166, holds that the writer must either have been " mente captus et fanaticus," or else " scientem volentemque fefelhsse," the latter being the opinion to which he inclines, believing that the lawfulness of pious frauds was a fixed opinion with many Christians at the date of the composition we are discussing. We maintain, however, that it is possible to disbelieve in the inspiration of Hermas without imputing folly either to him who made the claim or to those who admitted it. We must not regard the men of the 2nd cent, as fools because their views as to God's manner HERMAS of teaching His church were different from those which the experience of so many follow- ing centuries has taught us. A Christian cannot regard them as fools for believing that in the time of our Lord and His apostles a great manifestation of the supernatural was made to the world. How long and to what extent similar manifestations would present themselves in the ordinary hfe of the church only experience could shew, and they are not to be scorned if their expectations have not been borne out by later experience. In par- ticular, if we are to set down as fools all who have believed that supernatural intimations may be given in dreams, our list would be a long one, and would include many eminent names ; and though modern science may re- gard visions as phenomena admitting a natural explanation, it is not reasonable to expect such a view from the science of the 2nd cent. What Hermas tells of his personal history and of the times and circumstances of his visions conveys to us the impression of artless truth. His information about himself is contained in incidental allusions, not very easy to piece together ; and the author of a fictitious narrative would not have conveyed so obscurely what he tells about his hero. He would probably also have made him a man of some eminence, holding high church office, whereas Hermas always speaks of the presbyters as if he were not one of them, and could have no motive for making his hero one engaged in trade unsuccessfully and not very honestly, and an elderly man with a termagant wife and ill brought-up children. On the other hand, if the book be true history, it is very much to the point that Hermas should get a revelation, directing his wife to keep her tongue in better order, and his children to pay more respect to their parents ; nor need we suppose Hermas guilty of dis- honesty in thus turning his gift of prophecy to the advantage of his family comfort ; for nothing can be more natural than that the thoughts which troubled his waking moments should present themselves in his visions. There is nothing incredible in the supposition that the pictures of the first vision did present themselves to the mind of Hermas as he re- lates them. They must have been very vivid, and have impressed him strongly. Still, it is a year before he has another vision. After this he begins to fast and pray and look out eagerly for more revelations. Finally he comes to believe himself to be under the constant guardianship of the shepherd angel of repentance, and he ascribes all the lessons he desires to teach to the inspiration of this heavenly monitor. But perhaps his language expresses no more than his belief in the divine inspiration under which he wrote, for else- where he states that he does not regard the personages of his visions as having objective reality, and those things which in the earlier part are represented as spoken to him by the church are afterwards said to have been spoken by God's Spirit under the form of the church. That he sincerely believed him- self to be the bearer of a divine message appears to be the case. A summary of his convictions would serve also for those of a man in many respects very unlike, Savon- HERMAS RBRMAS 4ftl arol.i. (a) that the church of his tune li;'.d as in tin- i:.ist iliil Ou.ulratun ami AmmU ol corniiU.a itself, ami had be.ome deeplv l'hil.idol|<hia (Huv H. E. v. ift). and that he tainted with worldlmess ; [h) that a time ..f reallv did public Iv deliver \u\ mr»*aicr in great tribulatiou was at hand, in whi< li the ■ •■ dross should be pureed away ; (c) that there was still an intervening time, during which repentance was possible and would be ac- cepted : (d) that he was himself divinely commissioned to preach that repentance. Date and Authorship. — Antiquity furnishes authority for three suppositions : (a) the author was the Hernias to whom a salutation is sent in Kom. xvi. 14 ; or (6^ brother to I'ius, bp. of Rome at the middle of the 2nd cent. ; or (c) contemporary with Clement who was bishop at the very beginning of that century tile < liur< h assemblv. A* the 2iid rent, wrnl in, the pul>lic cxen isr ..| prophriii pi.wrr* m the chur« li seems to h.ive rcuril. and whrn revived by .Montanus and his (Kllowrr* had to encounter much opi>..siii..n. Thr rn»umi{ controversy led the church t» iiiMtt in. .re strongly on the distinction brlwrrn the uc spiration of the canonical writers and that of holy men of later times, and the Muratorian fragment exhibits the feeling ent<rt.uiird to- wards the end of the cent, that the litt of prophetic writings had been cl.*«-d and that priKluction of the later years of the church or the end of the preceding. The first inav | could be admitted, be set aside as a highly improbable guess of Hut if, as we think, the Hernia* of r*# Origen. The author shews no wisii to be taken ' S/i,'/i;i<-r,/ is not a hctitious character, but a for the apostolic Hennas, but distinctly speaks real person known in the chunh of Komr in of the apostles as all dead. A forger could ' the jiul cc nt., we incline to follow Zahn in have found many more suitable names than J relying more on his connexion with (."leinmt Hermas, one of the least prominent in NM"., 1 than with I'ius. Zahn places Tht Skephnd and of which, except in connexion with this , c 97 ; but if we assign that date to the epistle book, there is no trace in ecclesiastical tra- j of Clement we ought to allow a few yean ft* dition. \l our view of the book be correct. 1 that letter to have obtained the c<li brity and the author had no motive for antedating it. His prophecy announced tribulation close at hand and only a short intervening period for repentance. To represent such a prophecy as being already 50 or 100 years old would be to represent it as having failed, and in fact The Shepherd did lose credit wlien it had been so long in existence. Hermas seems to have thought that, if the worldliness of the church could be repented of and reformed, it would be possible to keep it pure during the brief remainder of its existence. He announced therefore forgiveness on repentance for sins of old Christians prior to the date of his reve- lation, but none for those of new converts, or for sins subsequent to his revelation. To date his revelation 50 years back would have defeated his own purpose and made his message inapplicable to those whom he ad- dressed. Again the acceptance of the book by the church of Rome is inexplicable if it were introduced by no known person, con- taining, as it does, revelations purporting to have been given among themselves and to a leading member of their church. If the first readers of the work of Elchesai or of the success which the notice in Hernias implies. That notice need not necessarily have been published in the lifetime of Clement, for Her- mas is not instructed to deliver his mcsMge immediately, but only after the completion of his revelations, and this may have been after Clement's death. Are, then, any indications of date in the book inconsistent with sue li an early date ? There is inuc h affinity between the hading ideas of .Montaiiism and of the book of Hernias, especiallv as to the fall of many in the church from the ideal of holiness. The qu«-stion wa» asked. Was it possible to renew such again to repentance ? In both our Lord's second coming was eagerly looked forward to. and a knowledge of (Uid's coming dealings with Hit church sought for from visions and revelations. But the teaching of Hennas is less rigorous than the Montanistic. and all that is special to Montanism is unknown to him. Hermas directs his efforts aliiicKit exclusively to combating the relaxation of morality in the church ; he scarcely notices diK triiial error*, and no reference to (Gnostic doctrines ran be found in his book, unless it be a statement Clementine homilies asked. Why did we never {Sim. v. 7) that there were some who to«>k hear of these things before? these books had licence to misuse the flesh on account ui a provided an answer in the fiction that the | denial of the resurrection of the b-Kly. But alleged authors had only communicated them under a pledge of strict secrecy ; in this book, on the contrary, Hermas is directed ( I'is. iii. 8) to go after three days and speak in the hearing of all the saints the words he had heard in his vision. Elsewhere he enables us to under- stand how this direction could be carried these false teachers seem to have been all in the church, not separate from it. In the passage which seems most disiinttiv to refer to Gnostics (16. ix. 22). thev are described a* " wishing to know cvervthing and knowing nothing," as " praising themsrlvc* that thry „ have understanding, and wishmg •" '"^ We learn {.Mand. 11) that certain persons ' teachers, though thev were really f.-U." were then recognized in the church as having I Yet. he adds. " to these repmtame »"!►«•«», ^ ■ - k.d, but rather silly and prophetic gifts, and that at the Christian for they were not w meetings for worsiiip, if after prayer ended I without understanding one of them were filled with the Holy Spirit, he might speak unto the pecjple as the Lord willed. The simplest explanation how the Roman Church came to believe in its inspira- tion seems, then, to be that it had previously admitted the inspiration of its author, that 1 he seeds of lin'*- ticism had begun to spring up even in a|H». tolic times ; but we cannot think that Hf rmat would have wriltm thus after (.n-islirUni had become dangerous to the Roman • hurch. Hennas rebukes the strifes for i-rrcedeoce among Christians I I'u. iii >) , .Vanrf. ix ; Sim. be held the position of a recognized prophet I viii. 7). and it is difhcult to hnd In his U^ok 452 HERMAS evidence of the existence of the episcopal form of government or of resistance to its intro- duction. He appears to use iirlaKoiros as synonymous with irpfalBvrepoi and always speaks of the government of the church as in the hands of the elders, without hinting that one elder enjoyed authority over others. Clement, indeed, is recognized as the organ by which the church of Rome communicated with foreign churches ; but we are not told that implied a pre-eminence in domestic rule. Similarly, though we infer that the presbyters had seats of honour in the church assemblies, we are not told that one had a seat higher than the rest. Either it was not the case or it was too much a matter of course to be mentioned. But a message regarding dissensions is sent TO?^ Trpo-qyov/xevois ti)s €KK\7)alas Kai to'ls wpuro- Kadei)pLTais. It is a very forced explanation of the last plural noun to suppose it means some one of the irporiyovixevoL who desired to make himself the first, nor have we reason to think that the word implies any sarcasm. It is more natural to understand that besides the presbyters there were others, such as the teachers and prophets (Mand. xi.), who in church assemblies were given seats of honour. The church had at the time of this writing enjoyed a good deal of quiet, but this had evidently been broken by many harassing persecutions, in which some had apostatized. Usually their danger is described as no more than of loss of goods and of injury to worldly business ; but there had been (though perhaps not recently) martyrs who had given their lives and endured crosses and wild beasts for the Name of the Son of God. They could have saved themselves by denial or by committing idolatry. Thus they suffered as Christians, and it has been inferred that the date must be later than the well-known letter of Trajan to Pliny which first made the profession of Christianity unlawful. Yet it seems possible to assign an earlier date to The Shepherd, and to /. Peter which is affected by the same argument, when we remember that Trajan only gave imperial sanction to the rule on which Pliny had been acting already, and on which others had probably been acting pre- viously ; for Pliny implies that trials of Christians were then well known. And it may be argued that after the edict of Trajan obstinate profession of Christianity was liable to be punished with death, whereas in the time of Hennas it seems to have been punished only by fine or imprisonment. Hermas lost his business in the persecution, having been be- trayed, it seems, by his children. At the time of the visions he was apparently farming. Zahn, who places the persecution under Domitian, ingeniously conjectures (p. 133) that Hermas was one of those to whom, as Dion Cassius tells (68, 2), Nerva made restitution by giving land instead of the goods of which they had been despoiled by Domitian. It is disappointing to have to add that an ordinary Christian of to-day would find in the book neither much interest nor edification, and that the historical student finds in it much less help than he might expect. Hermas is absorbed in trying to bring about a practical reform ; he shews much less interest in doctrine, in which possibly as a layman he was perhaps not ac- HERMAS curately instructed ; he never quotes either 0. or N. T., nor is his language much influenced by Scripture phraseology, and some would describehimashaving preached not the Gospel, but merely a dry morality. The inference was natural, if Pauline Christianity is so much in the background in Hermas, that he must have been an anti-Pauline Jewish Christian; and this may seem confirmed by the fact that the N.T. book which has most stamped itself on his mind is the Ep. of St. J ames. Yet a closer ex- amination finds no real trace of J udaism in him. It is scarcely credible that one brought up a J ew should seem so unfamiliar with O.T.* The J ewish nation and its privileges are not even mentioned, nor the distinction between Jew and Gentile. Michael is not the guardian angel of the nation, but of the Christian church. The only express quotation is from the lost apocryphal book of Eldad and Modad. His use of either O. or N. T. not being indicated by formal quotation, but only by coincidences of language or thought, there is room for difference of opinion as to his use of particular books. The proofs of the use of the Epp. of J ames and of Ephesians seem decisive, and only a little less strong in the case of I. Peter and 1. Cor. Of his use of the Gospel and Revelation of St. John we are persuaded, though we admit that the evidence is not conclusive. We believe also that the knowledge of sayings of our Lord which Hermas unmistakably exhibits was ob- tained from our Synoptic Gospels, the coin- cidences with St. Mark (see Zahn, p. 457) being most striking. Where Hermas had lived before he was sold to Rome we can only conjecture. According to a reading which there seems no good ground to question, he supposes himself in one of his visions to have been transported to Arcadia, and Mahaffy savs (Rambles in Greece, p. 330, 2nd ed.) that the scenery he describes suits that in Arcadia, and does not suit the neigh- bourhood of Rome. Zahn conjectures that Hermas was born in Egypt because the archi- tecture of the tower of Hermas's visions resembles the description in Josephus of the Jewish temple in the Egyptian Heliopolis. The Shepherd has been edited by Hilgenfeld (Nov. Test. ext. Can. Rec. 1866) and Gebhardt and Harnack (Patres Apostolici, 1877). The latter ed. is indispensable, and contains a full list of editions, and of works treating of Hermas. Some interesting discussion is to be found in the reviews of Gebhardt's ed. by Overbeck (Schurer, Theol. Literaturzeitiing, 1878), Donaldson in Theological Review (1878), and Zahn, Gottingen gelehrte Anzeigen (1878). Zahn, Der Hirt des Hermas (1868), is the work from which we have learned most. Another ed. is by Funk (Pat. Apost. Tiibingen, 1878). A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd with intro. by Dr. Lambros, trans, and ed. with preface and appendices by Dr. J. A. Robinson, has been pub. by Camb. Univ. Press ; a cheap Eng. trans, of The Shepherd by Dr. C. Taylor (2 vols.) by S.P.C.K. ; and in * The contrast is striking if we compare the full- ness of O.T. quotation in Clement's ep. with the scantiness in Hermas. Harnack noted seven pas- sages which seem to shew acquaintance with O.T. Fotir of these relate to passages quoted in N.T. books which seem to have been read by Hermas ; the other three are doubtful. HERMENIGILD HERMES TRISMEGISTUS 4AS AnU-\ic. Fallu-r<. v.A. It. Sec .ils<^ F. Spitta. | The name " H.rin.s TriMiir^c '■ Ziir Gfsch. utul Lit. Ji:r i'rchriilenthutm:, \Q\.ii. bvUmtird to aiiv siii^lc wrilrr (Gottingcn, 1808), and Funk, in Theol. ! at the bi'Kinninc "( hi* trrjiis. Quartalschr. \\\\i. aiuWkkw. [r,.s.] | tolls us that " Hrrinr*. wh-> ; Hermeniglld {f'nnmiiiild), St., Visigoth speech, is, arcordins t<> anrirm Catholic prince in Spain, son of the Arian king Leovipilil. HcnneniRild and Rcccarcd were sons of Lcovipild's first wife (I oh. Bid. amid Esp. Sagr. vi. 378). who was dead in 560. The dates of their births arc unknown (? 560-562), but Hernienisild was the elder. In 573 both sonswereniade "consortes regni" (ib.). Most probably between 573 and 575 (ef. Greg. Tur. iv. 38) Hermenigild was betrothed to theCath< U4liU)> II, common to all priest* ; he i( i* who r«i*t» in all of them. That is whv our anr«-*t>T« attributed all discoveries to him, and i*Mir«J their works undir the name <>i Hrrmr*/* There was, in fact, a longconlin»if-d <!'-ri<-. 'I books called " hermitii," i\' ' several centuries. Tertullian, ' I'alenl. c. 15), speaks of llrrni' as a master in philosophy; ,»i,.. , •„ lie Prankish princess Ingunthis, the daughter hermetic books have, whatever thrir dale. of Sigibert of Rheims. In 570 (Joh. Bid. I.e. phil>>sophiral and spiritual rrLitions o| j vrrv 381) Ingunthis.thenia yearsold,reachedSpain, interesting kind. Thev bdMiiLv .1, is i. w and, owing to dissensions between her and her ] generally agreed, to the neo-I'l i- .\rian grandmother, Leovigild sent the newly | and gather up in a svnthrsis. 1' married pair to a distance, assigning to Her- of which is not at first sight .1; menigild the government of Baetica, or part of! elements of all the different f.irti.r "I i« !i. 1 ns it, with Seville for a capital (ib.). Here later in I belief in the koinan world or thr jiul ami ud 570 (of. Gorres, Kritische Untersuch. iVftrr </<•« cents. The two principal are the \\m^Athpyj% Aufstand und das Martyrium des \Vesigoth.\(K\w "Shepherd of Men"), and the Sh'iot KdnigsohnesHermenigild.mZiitschri/t/iir Htsl.l r^Xtios (or " Discourse of Initiation"), other- Thfol. 1873, i. n. 83 ; Dahn, Knu. der Germ. v. | wise called " Asclepins." These tw<i w-rk*, 137, gives 580 as the year) Herinenigild re- together with a variety of fragments, ha\e nounced.\rianisni,wasconfirmedintheCatholic been translated into French by M. I uni* faith by Leander the Catholic metropolitan of Menard (Paris, 1867), and accomp.inn-d with Seville, and took the name of Joannes (Greg. ^ a preliminary essay of much inter«-st on thr Tur. V. 39; Greg. Magn. Dial. iii. 31 ; Paul. 1 hermetic writings and their afTinities genrr.illv. Diac. iii. 21). This was immediately followed His most important fragments are from a work bytherebellionof Hermenigiid (Joh. Bid. /.c), I entitled K6p>j kixxfiov (the "Virgin of the who shortly afterwards formed a close alliance j World "), a dialogue between Isis and her son with the Byzantines in the s<nith, and with the Horus on the origin of nature and of anmiaird recentlycatholicizedSucvi in the north, ».«. with ! beings, including man. Other less notirrable the two most formidable enemies of his father's ; works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus are state and power (cf. Dahn, v. 138). Thus the { named in D. of (,. and R. Rtogr. (s.r.). struggleshapeditsdf as a conflict of confessions! It is not to be assumed that these, the and nationalities, of Arianism and Catholicism, of Goth and Roman, although I.eovigild had adherents among the provincials, and Hermeni- giid counted some Gothic partisans (f'<. 140). It was not till the end of 582 that Leovigild felt himself strong enough to attack his son. Seville fell in 5S4 (Joh. Bid. I.e. 383), and shortly afterw.^rds Hermenigiid was captured in or near Cordova (»V).; Greg. Tur. V. 39, vi. 43), ! when Lactantius died. The I deprived of the government of Baetica, and i sions in the Asdepius distinctly bv th \\oLHavbpr)%, and .\6-)o^ tA»io?. author; but from their great siiml.irit v ^f tone and thought, this is possible. I'"th works are quoted by I.actantius (who ascrilwd to them the fabulous antiquitv and high authority which the earlv lathers were wont to attribute to the Sibvllinc b.x-ks) ; and must have been written befiire c. \\n, ...I allti- !<• a time exiled to Valencia. In 585 Hermenigiid was put [ when heathenisiii was about to perish hrhtc todeath(Joh. Bicl. 384). Isidore does not men- j the increasing power of Christianity. Mrn.r tion her death at all. (Gregory of Tours men- j both these works were probably written tions it in passing (Hist. Fr. viii. 28). Upon | towards the close of the 3rd cent, the account given bv (Gregory the Great a/()M<r Three motives are disrrrnible in thrm. (Dial. iii. 31) rests the claim of Hermenigiid [ First, the endeavour to take an int-II'Mti.^! to be considered not as a rebel suffering ; survey of the whole spiritual um the penalty of a political crime, but as a ; marking any points where th> mart>T for the Catholic faith. According to ' nf man fails and has to retire im the pope, Hermenigiid. after a painful ini- is a disposition which, n- ' • prisonment, was beheaded on the night of and at dilfereiit time' theism f)r diiostn ism Ml of an evil element in 1 re. in these treatises). Th F.aster Sunday, bv his father's apparttores, because he had refused to receive the sa( ra- ment from the hands of an Arian bishop, in these treatises). The idi.is .1 ll.' After the execution, miracles were not wanting [ arc presented with a Rorgrou* i; to substantiate his claim to veneration. In his 1 imagery ; and, speakinK grnrrallv. hr : grave, according to Gregory, were laid the foun- the material world as Intrrprneiratr.l b dations of Visigothic Catholicism; (or. after spiritual, and alm<«t idenlihrtl with II. The Leovigild's death, his son Reccared was con- power and divine charartrr whidi Vf verted bv I.eander and led the whole people of butes to the sun and otli- 1 the Visigoths to the true faith. [m.a.w.1 peculiarly Kgvplian. t!i Hermes (l) Trismegistus. I'nder this title him into aihnity with we have a variety f)f writings of uncertain date , Platonic, view*. Seroiifli>. w.i-. •••■■■ and unknown authorship originating in Kgypt.' or Gnosticism is mtxilhed by Om m^ri- m<ira> ar 454 HERMIAS religious elements which certainly might to some degree be paralleled in Plato, but to which it is difficult to avoid ascribing a Jewish and even a Christian origin. Great stress is laid on the unity, the creative power, the fatherhood and goodness of God. " The argu- ment from design also appears (Poemander, c. 5). Even the well-known terms of baptism and regeneration occur, though in different connexions, and the former in a metaphorical sense. One of the chapters of the Poemander is entitled " The Secret Sermon on the Moun- tain." The future punishments for wrong- doing are described with emphasis, but there is no moral teaching in detail. Thirdly, these intellectual and religious elements are asso- ciated with a passionate and vigorous defence of the heathen religion, including idol worship, and a prophecy of the evils which will come on the earth from the loss of piety. They are thus the only extant lamentation of expiring heathenism, and one that is not without pathos. But for the most part the style is hierophantic, pretentious, and diffuse. See further Fabric. Bibl. Grace vol. i. pp. 46-94 ; Baumgarten Crusius, de Lib. Hermeticorum Origins atque Indole (Jena, 1827) ; and Chambers, The Theol. and Philos. Works of Her. Tris. (Edin. 1882). [j.r.m.] Hermias (5). a Christian philosopher, author of the Irrisio Geutilium Philosophorum, annexed in all Bibliothecae Patrum to the works of Athenagoras (Migne, Patr. Gk. vi. 1167). It was published in Greek and Latin at Basle in 1553. It consists of satirical re- flections on the opinions of the philosophers, shewing how Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Pvtha- goras, Epicurus, etc. agree only in repelling and refuting one another. Who the author was seems to have baffled all inquiries. Some identify him with Hermias Sozomen the eccle- siastical historian. Even the martyr of May 31 has been suggested (Ceillier, vi. 332). Cave (i. 81) attributes the work to the 2nd cent. As it was plainly written when heathenism was triumphant, Ceillier {ii.s.) places it under Julian. Neander (H. E. ii. 429, ed. Bohn) regards Hermias as " one of those bitter enemies of the Greek philosophy whom Clement of Alexandria thought it neccssarv to censure, and who. following the idle Jewish legend, pretended that the Greek philosophy had been derived from fallen angels. In the title of his book he is called the philosopher ; perhaps he wore the philosopher's mantle before his conversion, and after it passed at once from an enthusiastic admiration of the Greek pilosophv to extreme abhorrence of it " (Du Pin, H. E. t. i. p. 69, ed. 1723). The latest ed. is bv H. Diel?, in Doxographi Graeci (Berlin. 1879). [g.t.s.] Hermogenes (l), a teacher of heretical doctrine towards the close of 2nd cent., the chief error ascribed to him being the doctrine that God had formed the world, not out of nothing, but out of previously existing un- created matter. Tertullian wrote two tracts in answer, one of which is extant, and is our chief source of information about Hermogenes. The minuteness with which his arguments are answered indicates that Tertullian is replying to a published work of Hermogenes, apparent- ly written in Latin. Another doctrine of HERMOGENES Hermogenes preserved by Clement of Alex- andria (Eclog. ex Script. Proph. 56, p. 1002), being unlike anything told of him by Tertul- lian, was conjectured by Mosheim {de Rebus Christ, ante Const, p. 435), to belong to some different Hermogenes. But the since recov- ered treatise on heresies by Hippolytus combines in its account of Hermogenes (viii. 17, P- 273) the doctrines attributed to him by Clement and by Tertullian. Probably Clem- ent and Hippolytus drew from a common source, namely, the work " against the heresy of Hermogenes," which, Eusebius tells us {H. E. iv. 24), was written by Theophilus of Antioch, and which is mentioned also by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 19), who probably drew from it his account of Hermogenes, in which he clearly employs some authority different from the tenth book, or summary, of Hippolytus, of which he makes large use of elsewhere. Theodoret adds that Hermogenes was also answered by Origen, from which it has been supposed that he refers under this name to the summary now ascribed to Hippo- lytus ; but there is no evidence that Theodoret regarded this work as Origen's (see Volkmar, Hippolytus und die romischen Zeitgenossen, p. .'14), so that some lost work of Origen's must be presumed. The passages cited are all our primary authorities about Hermogenes, except some statements of Philaster (see below). A considerable distance of time and place separates the notices by Theophilus and Ter- tullian. Theophilus survived the accession of Commodus in 180, but probably not more than two years. Hence 180 would be our latest date for the teaching of Hermogenes, which may have been earlier. He probably had disciples at Antioch, and therefore must have taught at or near there, and any writing of his answered by Theophilus must have been written in Greek. Tertullian's tract against Hermogenes is assigned by Uhlhorn (Funda- menta Chron. Tert. p. 60) to a.d. 206 or 207. In it Hermogenes is spoken of as still living ("ad hodiernum homo in saeculo") and coupled with one Nigidius in the work on Pre- scription, c. 30. as among theheretics "who still walk perverting the ways of God." There are indications that the work to which Tertullian replies was in Latin, and every reason to think that Hermogenes (though probably, as his name indicates, of Greek descent) was then living in Carthage, for Tertullian assails his private character, entering into details in a way which would not be intelligible unless both were inhabitants of the same city. The same inference may be drawn from the fre- quency of Tertullian's references to Hermo- genes in works of which his errors are not the subject [de Monog. 16 ; de Praescrip. 30, 33 ; adv. Valent. 16 ; de Animd, i, 11, 21, 22, 24) ; for apparently proximity gave this heretic an j importance in his eves greater than was other- wise warranted. Tertullian describes him as a turbulent man, who took loquacity for eloquence and impudence for firmness. Two things in particular are shocking to his then Montanist principles, that Hermogenes was a painter, and that he had married frequently. Neander and others have supposed that the offence of Hermogenes was that he painted mythological subjects. But there is no trace HERMOGENES of this limitation in TcrtuUian's treatise, which shews all thrini^;h a dislike of tlie pic- torial art, and Tortiillian seems to have con- sidered the representation of the human form absolutely forbidden by the 2nd command- ment. As for the charge of frequent mar- riages, if Hermogenes. who in 207 would be advanced in life, was then married to a third wife, a writer so fond of rhetorical exaggera- tion as Tertullian might describe him as one who had formed a practice of marrying {nubil asstdue), or who liad " married more women than he had painted." Tertullian's language may imply that Hermogenes had also endea- voured to prove from Scripture that a second marriage was not unlawful. With regard to the doctrines of Hermogenes, the language of Hippolytus suggests that he denied the physical possibility of creation from nothing; but in the representation of Tertullian no stress is laid on the philosophic maxim, " Nihil ex nihilo," and the eternal existence of matter seems only assumed to account for the origin of evil. The argument of Hermogenes was, either God made the world out of His own substance, or out of nothing, or out of previously existing matter. The first or emanation hypothesis is rejected, since He Who is indivisible and immutable could not separate Himself into parts, or make Himself other than He had ever been. The second is disproved by the existence of evil, for if God made all things out of nothing unrestrained by any condition, His work would have been all good and perfect like Hin;self. It remained, therefore, that God must have formed the world out of iirevit)usly existent matter, through the fault of which evil was possible. F'urther, God must have been always God and I.orci, therefore there must always have existed something of which He was God and Lord. Tertullian replies that God was always God but not always Lord, and appeals to Genesis, where the title God is given to the Creator from the first, but the title Lord not till after the creation of man. Concerning Tertullian's assertion that God was not always Father, see Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. iii. 10. From'the assertion of Hermogenes that God was always Lord of matter, Neander in- ferred that he must have denied any creation in time, and held that God had been from eternity operating in a formative manner on matter. Tertullian does not appear to have drawn this consequence, and (c. 44) assumes as undisputed some definite epoch of creation. But the account of Hippolytus shews Neander to have been right. With regard to the general argument, Tertullian shews that the hypothesis of the eternity of matter relieves none of the difficulties of reconciling the existence of evil with the attributes of God. H God exercised lordship over matter, why did He not clear it of evil before He employed it in the work of creation ? Or why did He emplov in His work that which He knew to be evil ? It would really, he says, be more honourable to (iod to make Him the free and voluntary author of evil than to make him the slave of matter, compelled to use it in His work, though knowing it to be evil. He contends that the hypothesis of Hermogenes amounts to Ditheism, since, though he does HERMOGENES 456 not give to malt. I tl„- n.imr of G.kI. he ascribes t.. it (....is .ss.nti.il 4((ribtilr of eternitv. Me asks what just rl.iim of lonUhip God could have over inatlrr as rlrrnal a& Himself; nay, which nuKht claim to hr ihr superior; for matter rould do wiihout C.>h\, but (Iod. it would seem, rould not ,.irrv out His work without coming to matter l.-r assistance. In the discussion every word in the Mosaic account of creation rrrrivrn miiiutr examination and there is a rckkI deal of strained verbal interpretation i>n both sidr^. But the authority, and apparentiv the canon, of Scripture were subje( ts on which both wrrr agreed. Tertullian holds Scripture so rxrhi»ivr an authority that its mere silence is drnsivr. and, since it do«s not mention pre-rxistrnt matter, that those who assert its rxistrnir incur the woe denounced against those who add to that whii h is written. Though the word " materialist " is first heard of in this controversv. the views of Hermogenes were verv unlike those now- known by that name, and it is doul>t(ul whether oiu" word matter exactly corre*i>onds to the hyle of Hermogenes. This apparently included the ideas of shapelessness and dis- orderly motion, so that all the sensible world could not, as in our modern language, br described as material. That which be< .unr K6anoi ceased to be hyU, and, in fart, Ter- tullian does not admit the existent e of matter in the sense of Hermogenes. Hermop.ne^ held matter to be infinite and refused to apply to it any predii ate. It is without form, and is described as in a perpetual state of turbulent restless motion, like water boiling in a pot. It is not to be called good, since it needed the Deitv to fashion it ; nor bad, since it was capable of being reduced to order. It is not to be called corporeal, because motion, one of its essential attributes, is incorporeal, nor incorporeal because out of it bodies .ire made. Hermogenes repudiated the Stoic notion that God pervades matter, or is in it like honey in a honeycomb ; his idea was that the Deitv, without intermixing with matter, operated on it bv His mere approach and by shewing Himself, just as beauty aflects the mind l>y the mere sight of it (a very appropriate illus- tration for a painter) or as a magnet causes motion without contact merely on being brought near. By this approach part of matter was reduced to order and be( ante the Kbano^, but part remains unsubdued ; and this, it is to be suj^posed, was in the theory of Hermogenes the source of evil. Tertullian acutely remarks that this language about God's drawing near to matter as well as tlir use of the words above and below with refer- ence to the relative position of (,.«i and matter cannot be reconciled with the do< trine of Hermogenes as to the infinitv of matter. The l<*t tract of Tertullian against Merm.|- genes dis( iissed the origin of the s.-ul. which Hermogenes ascribed to matter. Tertullian to the breath «f life inspired by (.<kI at the formati.m of man (Gen. ii. 7)- Trrtullun accuses his opponent of mistranslation in substituting " Spirit " for "breath, appar- ently in order to ex. hide the p.«sibilily of interpreting this part .'f the verse .• the communication of the s.^ul. since the Dimiic 456 HERMOGENES Spirit could not be supposed capable of falling into sin. This supplies one indication that the tract to which Tertullian replies was in Latin ; and Hermogenes, as a Greek by birth, would probably not use the current Latin translation of the Bible, but render for himself. The opinion of Hermogenes (not mentioned by Tertullian, but recorded by Clement, Hippolytus, and Theodoret) is that our Lord on His ascension left His bodv in the sun and Himself ascended to the Father, a doc- trine which he derived or confirmed from Ps. xix., " He hath placed his tabernacle in the sun." (Theodoret adds that Hermogenes taught that the devil and the demons would be resolved into hyle. This agrees very well with the doctrine that the soul derived its origin from matter.) It is a common point of Gnostic doctrine that our Lord's nature was after the passion resolved into its elements and that only the purely spiritual part as- cended to the Father. But on no other point does Hermogenes approach Gnostic teaching ; in his theory of creation, he recognizes neither emanation from God nor anvthing inter- vening between God and matter; his general doctrine was confessedly orthodox and he would seem to have no wish to separate from the church nor to consider himself as transgressing the limits of Christian philo- sophic speculations. It remains to notice Philaster's confused account of Hermogenes. It would not cause much difficulty that he counts (Haer. 53) the Hermogenians as a school of Sabellians^ called after Hermogenes as the Praxeani were after Praxeas. Though the silence of Tertullian leads us to believe that Hermogenes himself was orthodox on this point, his followers mav very possibly have allied themselves with those of Praxeas against their common opponent. But in the next section Philaster tells of Galatian heretics, Seleucus and Hermias, and attributes to them the very doctrines of Hermogenes that matter was co-eternal with God, that man's soul was from matter, and that our Lord deposited His body in the sun in accordance with the Psalm already quoted. It is beyond all probability that such a combination of doctrines could have been taught independentlv by two heretics and it is not likely that Hermogenes had disciples in Galatia ; we may therefore reasonably believe that Philaster's Hermias is Hermogenes. Philaster, however, attributes to his heretics other doctrines which we have no reason to think were held by Hermogenes : that evil proceeded sometimes from God, sometimes from matter ; that there was no visible Paradise ; that water-baptism was not to be used, seeing that souls had been formed from wind and fire, and that the Baptist had said that Christ should baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire ; that angels, not Christ, had created men's souls ; that this world was the only " internum," and that the only resurrection is that of the human race occur- ring daily in the procreation of children. Philaster may have read tracts not now extant, in which Tertullian made mention of Hermo- genes, and possiblv if we had the lost tract de Paradise it might throw light on Philaster's statements. But we may safely reject his HESYCHIUS account as untrustworthy, even though we cannot now trace the origin of his confusion. The tract against Hermogenes has been analysed by writers on Tertullian ; e.g. Neander, Antignosticus, p. 448, Bohn's trans. ; Kaye, Terttdlian, p. 532 ; Hauck, Tertullian, p. 240. Consult also arts. s.v. in Tillemont, iii. and Walch, Hist, der Ketz. i. 576 ; and E. Heintzel, Hermogenes {P.er\\n, 1902). [cs.] Hesychlus (3) (Hcsechius), bp. of an Egyptian see, mentioned as the author, with Phileas, Theodorus, and Pachumius, of a letter to Meletius, schismatic bp. of Lycopolis in Egypt. The letter, given in a Latin version in Gailandius, Bihl. Patrunt, iv. 67, is a remon- strance to Meletius on his irregular ordina- tions in other dioceses, and was written (c. 296) when the authors were in prison and Peter of Alexandria alive. The martjTdom of Hesychius under Galerius, with Phileas, Pachumius, and Theodorus, is recorded in Eus. Hist. Eccl. viii. 13. This Hesvchius has been usually identified with the reviser of the text of the LXX, and of N.T., or at least of the Gospels, which obtained extensive cur- rency in Egypt. There are no grounds for questioning the truth of this conjecture. This Hesychian recension is mentioned more than once by Jerome, who states that it was generally accepted in Egypt, as that of his fellow-martyr, Lucian of Antioch, was in Asia Minor and the East (Hieron. Praef. in Paralipom. ad Chromat. Ep. 107, repeated in Apologia II. adv. Rufin. vol. i. p. 763, Paris, i6og). Jerome also refers to it as" exemplaria Alexandrina" [in Esai. Iviii. 11). We know little or nothing more of this edition of the LXX. It was doubtless an attempt, like that of Lucian, to purify the text in use in Egypt, by collating various manuscripts and by re- course to other means of assistance at hand. Jerome speaks with some contempt of his labours in the field of O.T. recension, and still more of his and Lucian's recension of the Gospels. If we interpret his words strictly, Hesychius, as well as Lucian, added so much to the text as to lay them open to the charge of falsifying the Gospels and rendering their work "apocryphal" (Hieron. Praef. in Evang. ad Damasum). The words of the famous Decretal of Gelasius (c. 500) " On ecclesiastical books," which are, however, regarded by Credner {Zur Gesch. d. K. p. 216) as additions to the original decree " made at the time it was republished in Spain under the name of Hormisdas, c. 700-800 " (West- cott, Hist, of Can. p. 448, n. i), are equally condemnatory : " Evangelia quae falsavit Isicius [Hesychius] — Apocrypha " (Labbe, Cone. iv. 126). Westcott pronounces Hug's speculations as to the influence of this recen- sion, " of which nothing is certainly known," " quite unsatisfactory" (ib.). [e-v.J Hesychius (25), presbyter of Jerusalem in the first half of 5th cent., a copious and learned writer whose comments on Holy Scripture and other works gained a great reputation. Considerable confusion exists as to the authorship of several of the treatises as- cribed to him — a confusion which it is hope- less entirely to remove. It is possible that some were written by the bp. of Salona. [Hesychius (6)] It is altogether a mistake HESTCHIUS to speak of Hesychius as bp. of Jonisalcm. According to the Greok Menolopy, Mar. 28, he was born and educated at Jerusalem, where " by meditating on the Scriptures he obtained a deep acquaintance with divine things." On reaching manhood he loft hmiie and devoted himself to a solitary life in the desert, where he " with bee-like industry gathered the flowers of virtue from the holy Fathers there." He was ordained presbvter against his will by the patriarch of Jerusalem, and spent the rest of his life there or at other sacred places. Hesychius the presbyter is mentioned by Theophanes, who, in 412, speaks of him as " the presbyter of Jerusalem," and in 413 records his celebrity for theological learning. He is mentioned in the Life of St. Euthymius by Cyril of Scvthopolis (Cote- ler. Eccl. Graec. Monum. t. ii. p. 233, § 42), as accompanying Juvenal, patriarch of Jeru- salem, to the consecration of the church of the " laura " of St. Euthymius, a.d. 428 or 420. and as received with much honour by the abbat. He is said bv .\llatius (Diatriba de Simeonibus, p. 100) to have been Chartophylax or Keeper of the Records of the church of the Anastasis at Jerusalem. His death can only be placed approximately c. 438. He is twice mentioned by Photius, who shares to some extent in the confusion as to the Hesychii, and assigns him no date. In Cod. 275 Photius quotes a rhetorical passage from a sermon on James the Lord's brother and David l6(oirdTiijp), evidently delivered at Jerusalem. Hesychius compares Bethlehem and Sion, to the great advantage of the latter, and, in a manner very natural in a presbyter of Jeru- salem, elevates St. James's authority above that of St. Peter in the council of Jerusalem. Of several of the numerous works attributed to this author, all we can say is that they bear the name of Hesychius in one of its forms, but whether actually the compositi'm of the pres- byter of Jerusalem or of some other Hesychius it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine. Tillemont feels no insuperable difficulty in assigning them all to the same author, but confesses that fuller light might lead to a different conclusion. (i) In Leviticum Libri VII. Explanaiionum AUegoricarum sive Cnmmentarius, dedicated to the deacon Eutychianus, is the most extensive work extant under the name of Hesychius. It has frequently been printed. The earliest editions are those of Basle (1527, fol.) and Paris (1581, 8vo). It is in the various Bibliothecae Patrum. as that of Lvons, t. xii. p. 52, and th«- Vet. Pair. Bibl. of (ialland. t. xi. (2) Commentan'es nn the Psalms. — Harles and Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vol. vii. p. 540, speak of many portions of this work existing in MS., especially one in the University Library of Cambridge containing P>s. Ixxvii.-cvii. Thf only portions printed are the Frapmenia in Psalmos, extracted from the (ireek ( alena in Psalmos, with a Latin trans, by Balthazar Corderius. These arc very sensible and useful, and lead us to wish for the publication of the whole. See Faulhalxr, Hesych. Hiernsol. In- ierpr. Is. Proph. iqoo sqq. ; att. to F;iiilli.ib<T in Theol. Quartalschr. igoi. The Conunentary on the Psalms att. to Athanasius (Mignc, Pair. Gk. xxvii.) is by Hesychius. HESYCHIUS ILLUSTRIS 457 (3) IVixr^iAf sivr ^/.,•'.<^\a<a in XII. Pro- phetas el Fsatam. an rpitMmr of the 12 Mtn-* Proj>het>i and Isaiah, sr. tmu bv wcliim. (4) Franmenls of ( ommenlarus en l-.ik-, Dan., Acts, lames. I. Petrr. and ludr. (5) Difficullatum el Solulionum ( oltedio- A harmonising of 61 discrrpant p.iMaKr» in thr Gospel history, grnrr.dlv rhararirri/rd bv sound common sense and a rrlurtancc lo t«trf an unreal agreement. (6) Eight Sermons, or Fragments of Serm«n*. (7) 'AvTtppjp-ifii xal Kr'«Ti«(i. Two ( enlHftft of Moral Maxims on Temperance and \'irlue and Instructions on Prayer, addressed to i.nr Theodotus. (8) The Martyrdom of Longinus the Centu- rion. — The author, according to Fabrinut, belonged to a much later period than tlir one who wrote the works previf)usly rnumrralrd. (0) .in Fcclesiastical History, of whu h a fragment is given in the Arts r.( the rounril of Constantinople, a.d. 3^3, Collat. Quinta. c« n- demnatorv of The<xlore of Mopsurstia. Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 570 ; Fabrinu*, Bibl. Graec. ed. Harles. t. vii. pp. ^4«-^^l ; C.alland, Vet. Pair. Bibl. t. xi. ; Mignr. Pair. Gk. vol. xciii. pp. 781-1S60. ff v ' Hesychius (27) Illustris, a copious luvi it. .1 and biopraphiral writer, the son of an ad\ ■ ■ it'- and born at Miletus. His distinctive nm r ('IXXoiVt/)iot) was the official title conferred bv Constantine the dreat on the highest rank of state officers. Nothing is known of liim except that he lived in the reigns of Anastasius. Justin, and Justinian, and that his literarv labours were cut short by grief at the pre- mature death of a son named John. Suidas doubts whether he was a Christian on the somewhat precarious ground of his oinisvi' n of all ecclesiastical writers in his work on men of learning. But very substantial reason* have been produced on the other side bv Cave {Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 518) and accepted bv Fabri- cius. His chief work was a I'nitersal History in six books and in a synoptical form throuKh a period of 1020 years, reaching from Belus. the reputed founder of the .Assyrian empire, to the death of Anastasius I., a.d. .m8. Thr whole has perished except the initial ]« rti n of bk. vi., whi( h has been several tiim- ; under the title of Cnnstantinof>ohs On. :• \ .4nli<iuitates. It was published bv ■ Dousa. and .ascribe«l ti> (.e..rgius i.-.i....- (Heidelberg, iV)f>). and subsequriitiv bv .Meur- sius, under the name of its real auth.T. ap- pended to his de \'iris ( lans (I ug«l. Bat. 1613). It was followed bv a siipplniirnl. recording the reign of Justin, and the rarlv years of Justinian. This, as thr work <f .1 contemporary whose official pi*itioii rii.iM..I him to obtain accurate information, iniisi \> >•■•• been of great historical \ alur. an.! it^ ! very mu< h to be regretted. II wrote a series of biographi learned men, whit h, going over samegrouiul as the work of Pin. i . has been supposed to be an epiti Vilae Philnsophorum. A rompari two will shew that the diflerrncrs are (.. .1. >t to admit this idea. This work h . printed bv Meursiiis (I iigd. Bat Without sufficient grounds Hesvrhiu^ I bas been identified with the le»icoprapliri t .1 Ihr I Ihr 458 HIERACAS Alexandria. Cave, I.e. ; Suidas, s.v. ; Photius, Cod. 69 ; Fabr. Bibl. Graec. t. vii. p. 544 ; Thorschmidius, de Hesychio Illustri, ap. Orellium Hesychii Opera. [e.v.] HieracaS (Hiemx), an Egyptian teacher, from whom the sect of Hieracitae took their name. Our knowledge of him is almost entirely derived from Epiphanius {Haer. 67, p. 709), who states that he was contemporary with the Egyptian bp. Meletius and Peter of Alexandria, and lived under Diocletian's persecution. This agrees very well with the notice of him by Arius (vide infra), so that he may be placed at the very beginning of the 4th cent. Epiphanius treats him with more respect than other founders of heretical sects, and is willing to believe that he practised asceticism bond fide, which, in the case of his followers, he counts but as hypocrisy. Ac- cording to Epiphanius, Hieracas lived at Leontopolis, in Egypt, abstaining from wine and animal food ; and by his severity of life and the weight of his personal character did much to gain reception for his doctrines, especially among other Egyptian ascetics. He had great ability and learning, being well trained in Greek and Egyptian literature and science, and wrote several works in both languages. Epiphanius ascribes to him a good knowledge of medicine, and, with more hesitation, of astronomy and magic. He practised the art of calligraphy, and is said to have lived to 90 years of age, and to have retained such perfect eyesight as to be able to continue the practice of his art to the time of his death. Besides composing hymns, he wrote several expository works on Scripture, of which one on the Hexaemeron is particular- ly mentioned. It was, doubtless, in this work that he put forward a doctrine censured by Epiphanius, viz. the denial of a material Paradise. Mosheim connects this with his reprobation of marriage, imagining that it arose from the necessity of replying to the objection that marriage was a state ordained by God in Paradise. Neander, with more probability, conceives that the notion of the essential evil of matter was at the bottom of this as well as of other doctrines of Hieracas. This would lead him to allegorize the Paradise of Genesis, interpreting it of that higher spiritual world from which the heavenly spirit fell by an inclination to earthly matter. This notion would also account for a second doc- trine, which, according to Epiphanius, he held in common with Origen, viz. that the future resurrection would be of the soul only, not of the material body ; for all who counted it a gain to the soul to be liberated by death from the bonds of matter found it hard to believe that it could be again imprisoned in a body at the resurrection. The same notion would explain the prominence which the mortifica- tion of the body held in his practical teaching ; so that, according to this view, Hieracas would be referred to the class of (inostic Encratites. The most salient point in his practical teaching was, that he absolutely condemned marriage, holding that, though permitted under the old dispensation, since the coming of Christ no married person could inherit the kingdom of heaven, li it was objected that the apostle had said, " marriage is honourable in all," he HIEROCLES appealed to what the same apostle had said " a little further on" (I. Cor. vii.), when he wished all to be as himself and only tolerated marriage " because of fornication," i.e. as the lesser of two evils. Thus it appears that Hieracas believed in the Pauline origin of Hebrews, and his language seems to indicate that in his sacred volume that epistle pre- ceded I. Corinthians. He received also the pastoral epistles of St. Paul, for he appeals to I. Tim. ii. 11 in support of another of his doctrines, viz. that children dying before the use of reason cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven ; and asks if he who strives cannot be crowned unless he strive lawfully, how can he be crowned who has never striven at all ? Arius, in his letter to Alexander in defence of his views concerning our Lord's Person (Epiph. Haer. 69, 7, p. 732 ; Athan. de Syn. i. 583 ; Hilar, de Trin. vi. 5, 12), contrasts his own doctrine with that of Valentinus, of Manichaeus, of Sabellius, of Hieracas ; and presumably all these teachers, by rejection of whom he hopes to establish his own orthodoxy, were reputed as heretics. Hieracas, according to Arius, illustrated the relation between the first two Persons of the Godhead by the comparison of a light kindled from another, or of a torch divided into two, or, as Hilary understands it, of a lamp with two wicks burning in the same oil. His doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is more questionable. He was influenced by the book of the Ascension of Isaiah, which he received as authoritative. In it Isaiah is represented as seeing in the seventh Heaven, on the right and left hand of God respectively, two Beings like each other, one being the Son, the other the angel of the Holy Spirit Who spake by the prophets. Hieracas inferred that the latter Being, Who makes priestly intercession with groanings that cannot be uttered, must be the same as Melchisedek, who also was " made like unto the Son of God," and " who remaineth a priest for ever." These tenets are ascribed to Hieracas by Epiphanius, whose account is abridged by .\ugustine (Haer. 47), by Joannes Damascenus (66), and by " Praedestinatus " (47). The continued existence of the sect is assumed in a story told by Rufinus (Hist. Mon. 28, p. 196) of Macarius, who, when he had failed to confute the cunning arguments of a Hieracite heretic to the satisfaction of his hearers, van- quished him by successfully challenging him to a contest as to which could raise a dead bodv. Rufinus does not make the story turn on the fact that Hieracas denied the resur- rection of the flesh. [g.s.] Hierocles (1), a native of a small town in Caria, born at latest c. 273. He was a Neo- platonic philosopher, to be distinguished from the 5th-cent. philosopher Hierocles (2). Lactantius supposed him to have been in early life a Christian, as he displayed in his writings suchintimateknowlcdge of Scripture andChris- tian teaching. He must have been an active and able administrator, as he seems to have risen rapidly by his own exertions. In an in- scription at Palmyra (Corp. Inscript. Lat. t. iii. no. 133) his name occurs as ruler of that city under Diocletian and Maximian, Galerius and Constantius being Caesars. Here he probably HIEROCLES came in contact with t.alerius and impressed 1 the Caesar with a respect for his abilities on 1 his famous Persian expedition, when the first [ seeds of the persecution were sown, 297-302. , The expression reiterated by l.actantius, that ! he was the " author and adviser of the per- secution." lends support to this view. He was translated as prefect in 304 or 305 to ' Bithynia after the persecution broke out, and j in 305 or 306 was pronioteil to the povernnn'nt of .Alexandria, as is proved by the fact that Eusebius records the martyrdom of Aedesius at .\lexandria as occurring by his orders a short time after that of .\pphianus, which he dates Apr. 2. 306 (cf. Eus. Marl. Pal. cc. iv. V. ; Epiphanius, Haet. Ixviii. ; Assem. Mart. Orient, ii. 195). Hierocles seems to have there displayed the same bloodthirsty cruelty as marked another philosophic persecutor, Theotecnus. He wrote a book against Chris- tianity, entitled Ad>os (f)i\a\-f)6ri^ irp6i tov^ XpitrTiavvi'S, in which he brought forward various scriptural difficulties and alleged contradictions and instituted comparisons ^ between the life and miracles of Jesus Christ 1 and of .\pollonius of Tyana. To this Eusebius replied in a treatise yet extant, Ltber contra Hieroclem. wherein he shews that .\pollonius was " so far fr<im being comparable to Jesus Christ that he did not deserve to be ranked among the philosophers " (Du Pin, H. E. i. 155, art. "Eusebiu? "). Duchesne, in an acute treatise on the then lately discovered works of Macarius Magnes (Paris, Klinksieck, 1877), suggests that the work of Hierocles em- b'idied the objections drawn by Porphyry from Holy Scripture, and that the work of Macarius was a reply to them, and suggests that Hierocles wrote his book while ruling at Palmyra before the persecution. Coming from a man in his position, it would carry great weight in the region of the Euphrates. Macarius, therefore, as a dweller in that region (Duchesne, p. 11), and Eusebius, re- plied. Fleury, H. E. t. ii. 1. viii. § 30: Tillem. Mim. xiii. 333; Hist, des Emp. iv. 307; Neander, H. E. t. i. pp. 201, 240, ed. Bohn ; Macar. Mag. ed. Blondel ; Mas'm, Dioclet. Persec. pp. 58, 108 ; Herzog, Real-Encvc art. "Hierocles." Dr. C.aisford, of Oxford, pub. in 1852 the treatises of Eusebius against Hierocles and against Marcellus. [g.t.s.I Hierocles (2). a philosopher, generally classed among theneo-Platonists, who lived at Alexandria in the first half <.f sth cent., and delivered lectures of considerable merit. His character is spoken of by Daniasrius (quoted by Suidas) in hit;h terms. When sojourning at Constantino{>le he came into collision with the government (or. as Kust<r interprets it, with the Christian authorities) and was severe- ly beaten in the court of justice, possibly (as Zeller conjectures) for his adherence to the old religion. He was then banished, and retired to Alexandria. His teacher in phil<»- sophy was Pltitarch thf neo-I'latonist ; Thco- sebius is mentioned as his disciple. His principal extant work is a commentary on the Goldfn Verses attributed to Pythagoras. His entire remains have been ed. bv bp. Pearson, P. Needham (Camb. 1709). Oaisf'-rd (1850). and Mullach (18^3). See the last vol. of Zeller's Greek Philosophy, pp. 681-687. HIEROCLES 450 Hierocles appr.irs to have brm a reconrjlrr between the old and the nrw. pouMIrM « sincere adherent of the hrathrn rrlicfti. iU distinctive features njrit away in h\\ har.U and his soft and tender tone rrrjll of Christian piety, e.g. in thr ( sages from his conunentarv oi. I'erses " No proper <.iuse l^ asM^n oif i r (iod to have create*! the world but Hi« essential g'XHlness. He i'* rimkI bv nature ; and the roihI envii-s none in anvthinK " (p. 20, ed. Nee<lhanO- " What offrring ran vou make to ('.(kI. out of matrnal thing*, (bat shall be lik.-ned unto or siinable to Him > . . . For. as the Pythagoreans sav, U'xl ha* n'» place in the world more fittetJ fur Hint than a pure soul " (p. 24). " ' Strength dwell* near necessity.' Our author adds thi* t>' »hew that we must not measure our ability to tolerate our friend bv mrre choice, but by our real strength, whirh is discovered onlv bv actual necessity. We have .ill in time of need more strength than we < oininonly think " (p. 52). " We must love the iinw.irthv («r the sake of their partnership in the same nature with us " (p. .s6). " We must be gentle to those who speak falsely, knowing from what evils we ourselves have been cleansed. . . . And gentleness is much aided bv the confidrnre which comes from real knowledge " l^. no). " Let us unite prayer with work. \Ne must pray for the end for which we work, and work for the end for which we prav ; to trarh us this our author says, ' <;o to your w..rk. having prayed the gods to accomplish it " " (p. I72>- The reasons adduced bv Hierocles for briiel in a future state are strictiv moral, and ipiitr remote from subtlety: " Except s'ime part of us subsists after death, capable o| rrrriMng the ornaments of truth and g<M><lness (and the rational soul has bevond doubt this capa- bility), there cannot exist in us the pure desire for honourable actions. The suspicion that we may suffer annihilation destroys our c«in- cern for such matters " (p. 76)- Not less n<jteworthy are his views rrspectinu Providence. ("kkI, he savs. is the sole eternal author of all things ; thos«- Platonisis who »av that (Iod could ordv make the iiniversr bv the aid of eternal matter are in error (p. 24h, from the treatis'- wtpi w/wwai). Man has free will; but since thr thoughts o| man vacillate and soniefinn-s forgrt (.-xl. man i» liable to sin : what we call fate is the just and necessary retribution inad«* bv ••"xl. "T bv lh(«e powers who do {,<m\'s will. f'T man'* actions, whether f<T merit or demerit (p. 2S*>: cf. p. 02)- Henrr the inequality in the |ol» of men. Pain is the result of anir. r.l. nt mh . those who know this kn-.w th- thev will henceforward avoid ui will not accuse ( .od as if Mr u .t cause of their suffering (j ; The ai>proximation ■•( ^•^phy to Christianity is the m--.! '"• •" be noticed in ronm xion »nn n "" nrvc-r, in his <xt.int works, dur Christianity ; what degree of l.i is implied in his phil'-sophv i ' ijucsti.-n. His phil.^ophv has i...(i.u nt.^r »periallv chararteristir of Platofusm and neo-i'lat-mism. tg. hi* \»-Urt in the pre- I existence o( man and in tbc iran*niicralli« 460 HIERONYMUS of souls. With Porphyry and Jamblichus, however, he denied that the souls of men could migrate into the bodies of animals. We conclude by quoting a passage on Marriage ; shewing the singularly modern and Christian type of his mind. " Marriage is expedient, first, because it produces a truly divine fruit, namely children, our helpers alike when we are young and strong, and when we are old and worn. . . . But even apart from this, wedded life is a happy lot. A wife by her tender offices refreshes those who are wearied with external toil ; she makes her husband forget those troubles which are never so active and aggressive as in the midst of a solitary and unfriended life; sometimes questioning him on his business pursuits, or referring some domestic matter to his judgment, and taking counsel with him upon it : giving a savour and pleasure to life by her unstrained cheerfulness and alacrity. Then again in the united exercise of religious sacrifice, in her conduct as mistress of the house in the absence of her husband, when the family has to be held in order not without a certain ruling spirit, in her care for her servants, in her careful tending of the sick, in these and other things too many to be recounted, her influence is notable. . . . Splendid dwellings, marbles and precious stones and myrtle groves are but poor ornaments to a family. But the heaven- blessed union of a husband and wife, who have all, even their bodies and souls, in conimon, who rule their house and bring up their children well, is a more noble and ex- cellent ornament ; as indeed Homer said. . . . Nothing is so burdensome but that a husband and wife can easily bear it when they are in harmony together, and willing to give their common strength to the task." [j.r.m.J Hieronymus (4) (Jerome), St. The full name is Eusebius Hieronymus. Among the best accounts of St. Jerome are : Saint Jerome, la Societe chretienne d Rome et V emigration romaine en Terre Sainte, par M. Amedee Thierry (Paris, 1867), and Hier- onymus sein Lehen unci Werken von Dr. Otto Zockler (Gotha, 1865) ; the former gives a vivid, artistic, and, on the whole, accurate picture of his life, with large extracts in the original from his writings, the latter a critical and comprehensive view of both. These con- tain all that is best in previous biographers, such as the Benedictine Martianay (Paris, 1706), Sebastian Dolci (Ancona, 1750), Engel- stoft (Copenhagen, i797) ; to which may be added notices of Jerome in the Acta Sanctorum, Bihlia Sacra, Du Pin's and Ceillier's Histories of Ecclesiastical Writers, the excellent article in the D. of G. and R. Biogr., the Life of Jerome prefixed to Vallarsi's ed. of his works, which has a singular value from its succinct narrative and careful investigation of dates. He was born c. 346 at Stridon, a town near Aquileia, of Catholic Christian parents (Pref. to Job), who, according to the custom then common, did not have him baptized in infancy. They were not very wealthy, but possessed houses {Ep. Ixvi. 4) and slaves (cont. Ruf. i. c. 30), and lived in close intimacy with the richer family of Bonosus, Jerome's foster-brother (Ep. iii. 5). They were living HIERONYMUS in 373, when Jerome first went to the East (xxii. 30), but, since he never mentions them later, they probably died in the Gothic invasion (377) when Stridon was destroyed. He had a brother Paulinian, some 20 years younger (Ixxxii. 8), who from 385 lived constantly with him. He was brought up in comfort, if not in luxury (xxii. 30) and received a good education. He was in a grammar school, probably at Rome, and about 17 years old, when the death of the emperor Julian (363) was announced (Comm. on Habakkuk, i. loj. Certainly it was not much later than this that he was sent with his friend Bonosus to complete his education at Rome, and they probably lived together there. The chief study of those days was rhetoric, to which Jerome applied himself diligently, attending the law courts and hearing the best pleaders (Comm. on Gal. ii. 13). Early in his stay at Rome he lived irregularly and fell into sin (Ep. vi. 4, xiv. 6, xlviii. 20). But he was drawn back, and finally cast in his lot with the Christian church. He describes how on Sundays he used to visit, with other young men of like age and mind, the tombs of the martyrs in the Catacombs (Comm. in Ezek. c. 40, p. 468) ; and this indicates a serious bent, which culminated in his baptism at Rome while Liberius was pope, i.e. before 366. While there he acquired a considerable library (Ep. xxii. 30) which he afterwards carried wherever he went. On the termination of his studies in Rome he determined to go with Bonosus into Gaul, for what purpose is un- known. They probably first returned home and lived together for a time in Aquileia, or some other town in N. Italy. Certainly they at this time made the acquaintance of Rufinus (iii. 3) and that friendship began between him and Jerome which afterwards turned out so disastrously to both (see Augustine to Jerome, Ep. ex.). Hearing that they were going into Gaul, the country of Hilary, Rufinus begged Jerome to copy for him Hilary's commentary on the Psalms and his book upon the Councils (Ep. v. 2) ; and this may have fostered Jerome's tendency towards ecclesiastical literature, which was henceforward the main pursuit of his life. This vocation declared itself during his stay in Gaul. He went with his friend to several parts of Gaul, staying longest at Treves, then the seat of government. But his mind was occupied with scriptural studies, and he made his first attempt at a commentary. It was on the prophet Obadiah, which he interpreted mystically (pref. to Comm. on Obadiah). The friends returned to Italy. Eusebius, bp. of Vercellae, had a few years before re- turned from banishment in the East, bringing with him Evagrius, a presbyter (afterwards bp.) of Antioch, who during his stay in Italy had played a considerable part in chiurch affairs (Ep. i. 15). He seems to have had a great influence over Jerome at this time ; and either with him or about the same time he settled at Aquileia, and from 370 to 373 the chief scene of interest lies there, where a com- pany of young men devoted themselves to sacred studies and the ascetic life. It included the presbyter Chromatins (afterwards bp. of Aquileia), his brother Eusebius, with Jovinus HIERONYMUS the arclulcacuu ; Kuruiiis, Monnsus, Heliodorus (afterwards bp. <■( Altimmi). the iiionk Chrvs«)- goiius, tlie sidHle.K-oa Niceas, and Hvlas'the fr.edmaii .>f the wealthy Konian hidv Melania; all of whom are met with later in Jert)nie's his- tory. Thev were knit tosethor by close friend- ship and common pursuits ; and the presence of Evagrius, who knew the holy places and hermitages of the East, gave a special direc- tion to their ascetic tendencies. For a time all went well. The baptism of Rutinus took place now (Kuf. Af>ol. i. 4). It wasjerome's fortune to become, wherever he lived, the object of great affection, and also of great ani- mosity. Whatever was the cause (£/>. iii. 3), the society at Aquileia suddenly dispersed. The frientls went (probably early in 373) in different directions. Bonosus retired to an island in the Adriatic and lived as a hermit I (vii. 3). Rutinus went to the East in the train of Melania. Jerome, with Heliodorus. Innocentius, and Hylas, accompanied Eva- j grius to Palestine. Leaving his parents, sister, relations and home comforts (xxii. 30), but taking his library, he travelled through Thrace, Pontus, Bithynia, Galatia, I Cappadocia and Cilicia, to Antioch. The , journey was exhausting, and Jerome had a ] long period of ill-health, culminating in a fever. Innocentius and Hylas died from the j same fever. Heliodorus went to Jerusalem. ' During his illness (ih.) Jerome had his bent ' towards scriptural studies and asceticism con- ; firmed. While his friends stood by his bed expecting his death, he felt himself, in a trance, carried before the throne of dod, ! and condemned as being no Christian but a Ciceronian, who preferred worldly literature to Christ. From this time, though he con- tinued to quote the classics profusely, his literary interest was wholly with the Bible and church writings. It seems likely that, as soon as his health was restored, he determined to embrace the solitary life. He wrote to Theodosius (ii.), who was apparently a kind of chief of the hermits in the desert of Chalcis, asking to be received among them, and thither he proceeded about the autumn of 374. He was now about 28 years old. The desert of Chalcis, where he lived f^ir .\ or 5 years (374-379), was in the country of the Saracens, in the E. of Syria (v.). It was peojiled by hermits, who lived mainly in solitude, but had frequent intercourse among themselves and a little with the world. They lived under some kind of disciphne, with a ruling presbyter named Marcus (xvii.). Jerome lived in a cell, and gained his own living (xvii. 3) ; probably, according to the recommendation he gives later to Rusticus (cxxv.), cultivat- ing a garden, and making baskets of rushes, or, more congenially, copying books. He describes his life in writing to Eustochium (xxii. 7), or 10 years later, as one of spiritual struggles. "I sat alone; I was filled with bitterness : my limbs were un- comely and rough with sackcloth, and my squalid skin became as black as an Ethiopian's. Every day I was in tears and groans ; an(l if ever the sleep which hung upon my eyelids overcame my resistance, 1 knocked against the ground my bare bones, which scarce clung together. I say nothing of my meat and HIERONYMUS 401 drmk. SHUT the niMnks iv. n whrn \uk um cold water, ami it is thought a luxury || ihry ever partake of . .K.ked (.hhI. ThrouKh lat „| hell, I had condemned mv»rl| to priKm ; I hatl scorpions and wild bra»t» fur my only comiianioiis." Mis litrr.irv talmt wa» hy no means idle dwrmg this prrml. He wrote letters to his friends in It.dv, t.. Flormtm* at Jerusaleni (v. -xvii.). and to Hrli.xloru* (xiv.) on the Praises of the Des.rt. rhiduiK him (..r not having embraced the perfect lilr i.f u>U- tude. A Jew who had betonic a Chrutun was his instructor in Hebrew (xviii. m), and Jerome obtained from one of thr sect of the Nazarenes at Ber-K-a the <...*pr| according to the Hebrews, which hr ropirti, and afterwards translated into (.rrrk and Latin (de I'ir. ///. 2, 3). He was frequently visited by Evagrius (/■->. vii. 1), wh<i al»o acted as the intermediary of his rommunira- tion with his friends in Aquileia, and later with Damasus at Rome (xv. 5). Uiit aKam. owing chiefly to his vehement feeling* and expressi' 'ns, he made enemi<-s. He was driven away by the ill-will of his brother-monks. At tirst, as we see from his letter t<i Hrlii>d<>rus. he was satisfied with his condition ; but his last years in the desert were embittrrrd by theological strife, relating to the conflicts in the church at Antioch, from which he was glad to escape. The sec of Antioch was claimed by three bishops, Vitalis the Arian, .MeUtius, acknowledged by Basil and the orthodox bishops of the East (Basil, Ff>. 156, to Evagrius), and Paulinus, supported by pope Damasus and the stronger anti-.Arian party i>( Rome. Between Meletius and Paiihnus the dispute was mainly verbal, but none the less bitter. Jerome complains that the .Meletians, not content with his htUding the truth, treated him as a heretic if he did not do so in thrir words {Ep. xv. 3). He appealed to Damasus, strongly protesting his submission to Rome (xv. xvi.). Finding his position more and more difficult, he wrote to Marcus, the chief presby- ter of the monks of C hah is(.\\ n.), in the winter of 378, professing his souiidin-ss in the faith, declaring that he was ready, but fi>r illness, to depart, and begging thehospitality of thedrsrrt till the winter was past. Pr'K-«T<liiiK in the spring of 379 to Antioch. he staved there till 380, uniting himself to the party of Paulinus, and by him was ordained presbyter a^'ainst hu will. He never celebrated the luuhartsl or officiated as presbyter, as appear* from many passages in iiis works. I here are extant no letters and only one work of this prri<Ki. the dialogue of an orthodox man with a l.ui ifrrian. Lucifer of Cagliari having taken part in the appointinent of Paulinus, a corrrriivr was needed for the more extreme aiiiunK the Western party at .AntKHh , and this was given in Jerome's dialogiir, which Is rlear, moderate, and free from tlir violrmr •>! hU later controversial works. It rxhibitt a c<jnsiderablc knowle<lge of church hitlory, and contains the account of the counril of Arum* num. with the famous words (c. i<>) : " In- geiiiuit totu* orbis et Arianuin sc esse tniralu* jest." In 380 Jrruine went to CUnslanll- noplc until the end of jHi. He totiKhl the instruction of tiregory N'a/ian/en. who had taken charge of the orthodox church thrrt 462 HIERONVMUS HIER0N1?MUS in 379, and frequent allusions in his works pref. to vol. x. ; also Murray's Illiis. B. D. witness to his profiting greatly from his mas- j (1908), art. Vulgate). He also, at the request ter's mode of interpreting Scripture. He , of Damasus and others, wrote many short calls him " praeceptor mens " {de Vir. III. 117) } exegetical treatises, included among his letters and appeals to his authority in his comment- : {on Hosanna, xix. xx. ; Prodigal Son, xxi.; O.T. aries and letters {Contm. on Ephes. v. 3 ; Epp. 1 Xaines of God, xxv. ; Halleluia and Amen, 1. I, lii. 8, etc.). He was also acquainted with | xxvi.; Sela and Diapsalma, xxviii.; Ephodand Gregory of Nyssa (de Vir. III. 128). He was Seraphim, xxix.; Alphabetical Psalms, xxx. ; attacked, while at Constantinople, with al "The Bread of Carefulness," xxxiw). Hebegan complaint in the eyes, arising from overwork, I also his studies on the original of O.T. by collat- which caused him to dictate the works he now | ing the Gk. versions of Aquila and the LXX wrote. This practice afterwards became ' with the Heb. (xxxii., xxxvi. 12), and was thus habitual to him (pref. to Comm. on Ga/. | further confirmed in the convictions which led iii.), though he did not wholly give up writing ' to the Vulgate version. He translated for Da- with his own hand ; and he contrasts the i masus the Commentary of Origen on the Song imperfections of the works which he dictated of Songs (vol. x. p. 500), and began his trans- with the greater elaboration he could give lation of the work of Didymus, the blind those he himself wrote. He wrote no letters , Origenistic teacher of Alexandria, on the Holy here ; but his literary activity was great. He : Spirit, which he did not complete till after his translated the Chronicle of Eusebius, a large settlement at Bethlehem, probably because of work, which embraces the chronology from } the increasing suspicions and enmity of clergy the creation to a.d. 330, Jerome adding the and people, whom he speaks of as the senate of events of the next 50 years. He translated : the Pharisees, against all that had any con- the Homilies of Origen on Jer. and Ezk., pos- ! nexion with Origen (pref. to Didymus on the sibly also on Isa., and wrote a short treatise for I //o/y Spirit, vol. ii. 105), which cause also Damasusontheinterpretationsof theSeraphim ' prevented him continuing the translation of in Isa. vi., which is improperly placed among Origen's Commentaries, begun at Constanti- the letters (fJ/). x\iii.). These works mark the nople. Jerome was Origen's vehement cham- epoch when he began to feel the importance of pion and the contemptuous opponent of his Origen as a church-writer, though daring even I irapugners. "The city of Rome," he says, then to differ from him in doctrine, and also | " consents to his condemnation . . . not be- to realize the imperfections of the existing cause of the novelty of his doctrines, not versions of the Scriptures. In the treatise on because of heresy, as the dogs who are mad the Seraphim, and again in the preface to the | against him now pretend ; but because they Chronicle, we find him contrast the various i could not bear the glory of his eloquence and Gk. versions of O.T. .studies which eventually 1 his knowledge, and because, when he spoke, forced on him the necessity of a translation they were all thought to be dumb " (Ep. direct from the Hebrew. What were his relations to the council of Constantinople in 381 we do not know. It is certain, however, that pope Damasus desired his presence in Rome at the council of 382, which reviewed the Acts of that coimcil, and that he went in the train of bps. Paulinus of Antioch and Epipha- nius of Constantia (Salamis) in Cyprus (cxxiii. 10 ; cxxvii. 7). Bible Work. — His stay in Rome, from the xxxiii. 4). Asceticism. — The other chief object of his life increased this enmity, although it also made great advances during his stay at Rome. Nearly fifty years before, Athanasius and the monk Peter (334) had sown the seeds of asceticism at Rome by their accounts of the monasteries of Nitria and the Thebaid. The declining state of the empire had mean- while predisposed men either to selfish luxury spring of 382 to Aug. 385, was a very eventful ^ or monasticism. Epiphanius, with whom and decisive period in his life. He made many [ Jerome now came to Rome, had been trained friends and many enemies ; his knowledge and | by the hermits Hilarion and Hesvchas ; reputation as a scholar greatly increased, and j he was, with Paulinus, the guest of the his experience of Rome determined him to t wealthy and noble Paula (cviii. 5), the heiress give himself irrevocably and exclusively to his j of the Aemilian race ; and thus Jerome was two great interests, scriptural study and the j introduced to one who became his life-long promotion of asceticism. He undertook, at the friend and his chief support in his labours request of Damasus, a revision of the version j She had three daughters : Blessila, whose of the Psalms (vol. x. col. 121). He translated death, after a short and austere widowhood, from the LXX; and his new version was used ! was so eventful to Jerome himself; Juha in the Roman church till the pontificate of , Eustochium, who first among the Roman Pius V. He, also at the request of Damasus, nobility took the virgin's vow ; and Paulina, revised the X.T., of which the old Versio Itala I who married Jerome's friend Pammachius. was very defective. The preface addressed to , These formed part of a circle of ladies who Damasus {ib. col. 557) is a good critical docu- 1 gradually gathered round the ascetic teacher ment, pointing out that the old version had | of scriptural lore. Among them were Mar- been varied by transcribers, and asking, " If cella, whose house on the Aventine was their any one has the right version, which is it?" It j meeting-place ; her young friend Principia was intended as a preface to the Gospels only; (cxxvii.) ; her sister the recluse Asella, the but from the record of his works in the list of | confidant of Jerome's complaints on leaving ecclesiastical writers {de Vir. III. 135), which | Rome (xlv.) ; Lea, already the head of a states that he had restored the N.T. according j kind of convent, whose sudden death was to the original Greek, as well as from other ! announced whilst the friends were reading passages {e.g. Ep. xxvii. 3), we infer that the; the Psalms (xxiii.) ; Furia, the descendant of whole version was completed (see Vallarsi's 1 Camillas, sister-in-law to Blesilla, and her HIERONYMUS niotlier Titiana ; Marci lima ami Fclicitas, to' wliKin Jornine's last adieus wore s<Mit i>n ' leaving Roiiu- (xlv.) ; perliaps also, though | she is not iiaiiu-il till later, the enthusiastic Fabiola, less steady, but iiu)re eas«r than the rest (ixxvii.). These ladies, all of the highest patriiian families, were already disposed to , the ascetic life. Contact with the Kastern bishops added a special interest in Palestine ; and the presence of Jerome confirmed both these tendencies. He became the centre of a band of friends who. withdrawn from a | Ki>litical and social life which they regarded as j opelessly corrupt, gave themselves to the i Study of Scripture and to works of charity.' They knew (Ireek ; learned Hebrew that they j might sing the Fsalms in the original ; learned , by heart the writings of their teacher (Ixxvii. 9); held daily meetings whereat he expoundetl j the Scriptures (xxiii. i), and for them he wrote | many of his exegotical treatises. Theprinciples 1 heiiistillediiiti)tluirMiiiulsinavbeseeninmany | of his letters of this pirixl, which were at once ; copied and eagerly seized both by friindsand | enemies. The treatise which espec i.dly illus- j trates his teaching at this time is addressed to [ Eustochium on the Preservation of \ irginity | (xxii.). Jerome's own experience in the desert, 1 his anti-Ciceronian dream at .Antit)ch, his knowledge of the desert monks, of whom he , gives a valuable description, were here used in favour of the virgin and ascetic life ; the extreme fear of impurity contrasts strangely with the gross suggestions in every page ; it contains such a depreciation of the married State, the vexations of whicii ("uteri tumentes, infantium vagitus") are only relieved by I vulgar andseltish luxury, that almost the only advantage allowed it is that by it virgins are brought into the world ; and the vivid descriptions of Roman life — the pretended virgins, the avaricious and self-indulgent matrons, the dainty, luxurious, and rapacious clergy — forcible as they are, lose some of their value by their appearance of caricature. .An- other treatise written during this peri.Kl, against the layman Helvidius, the pupil of Auxentius of .Milan, on the perpetual virginity of Mary, though its main points are well argued, exhibits the same fanatical aversion to marriage, combined with a supercilious disregard of his opponent which was habitual to Jerome. [Helvidus.] A crisis in Jerome's fortunes came with the end of 384. Damasus, who had been pope for nearly 20 years, was dying, and amongst his possible successors Jerome could not escape mention. He had, as he tells us, on first coming to Rome, been pointed out as the future pope (xlv. 3). But he was entirely unfitted by character and habit of mind for an office which has always required the talents of the statesman and man of the world, rather than those of the student, and he had offended every part of the community. The general lav feeling was strongly oppiised to asceticism (xxvii. 2). .At the funeral of HIesilla (xxxix. 4) the rumour was spread that she had been killed by the excessive austeritiesenjoinrd upon her ; the violent grief of her mother was taken as a reproach to the ascetic system, and the cry was heard, "The monks to the Tiber!" Jerome, though cautioned by his friends to HIERONYMUS 463 .- < "tlllll tird to :« All .1 the Mil- I iM.lnr 1 ini»rlf mixlerate his l.uitjii.ij;.- t^xx\ use the m.«t insultniK rxji whoopptised him. It i*n>i Roman chunh should hav htted to be its head, and tli should, in his calmer rrflrrtii.n». haxr lr|i that Rome was dl-stutrd to hmi, and that tn attempting, with his trmprr and ha)>it%. to carry out his cmrrption of ( hn«iiaiiilv in Rome he h.id been vainlv Irving " t" »inK the l.ord'ssong inaslrangrlaiul '(xlv.d). Siri<iii». the successor of l>ainasu<«. had iio <iviiipalhv with Jerome either then or in the 4ub«ri|Uriit Origenistic controversv. The partv <•( friends on the .■Vventiiie was broken up. Jrromen.un- sels Marcella (xliv.) to leave Romr and u-rk religious s<-clusion in the counlrv. Paula and Mustochium preferretl to go with him l<> Pali~»- tine. In .Aug. 385 Jerome embarked, nith all that was dearest to him, at Portu«. aii<l in hit touching and instructive letter to A^rlla (\\\ ) bade a linal farewell to Rome. .An ••inpaiiird bv his brother Paulinian and hi<< iiimd \ inrrii- tius(r(»i/. A'li/. iii..:jKhesaileddirr< t to.Ahliot h. Paula and luistochium (l-^P- r\ui . where all these incidents are narratedl. Ira\ing Paulina, then of marriageable age. and hrr vounK brother Toxotius, embarked at thi- same tinir, but visited Hpiphanius in t yprus on thrir way. The friends were reunited at .Antmch, a« winter was setting in. Paula woiiUI l>r.>«>k no delay, and, despite the iiu lemeiii v of the season, they started at once for Palestine. Thev visited Sarepta, .Acre, t aesarea. J«'ppa. Lydda, and llmmaus, arriving at Jerusalem early in 3S6. The city was moved at thnr coming, and the proconsul i«rep.ire«l a splendid reception for them in the Prart'Tiuni ; but they onlv stayed to see the holv place*, and, after visiting spots of spe( iai interest in the S. of Pah'Stine. journeyetl on into Kgypt. There the time w.is divided between the two great objects «>f Jerome's life, the study o| i Scripture and the promotion of astriirisin. '.At .Alexandria he sat. though alreadv grrx- haired (Ixxxiv. 3). at the feet of Didvinuv I the great Origenistic teai her. wh<.iii. in ro«i- trast to his blindii.-ss. Jerome delight* to I speak of as " the seer." (See III his praisr« ' the preface to the commentary on I- phrMant.) Jerome had alreadv. a* we have seen, iranv lated in part his b-K-k on the Holy Spirit , and ; now, at the re.|ue5i of his disiinguishrd pupil, J)idyiiius r p.r,eil his (oiiinirnlary «'0 H.^ea and Ze. hariah (Hier.^n pr. I lo Hottm. and df I'lr III. io.,|. Pausing at Alrxandru only 30 days, they turned to the nioiiatlerit-* of Nitria, where they were re«r|\r«l with ifrral ; honour. At one time ihrv wf «!»>•-»« |>rr fuaded to remain in the I , , the attractions of the h-'h prevailed ; and sailing 1. Slajoma, they M-tlled at I autumn of 3^6. There remaining t4 years of unreinittinglv ami with t' '^ru the two great object* of hi* life Hflhtehftn. hitit I'ftiod. \Mrv,2. Momu* /,,„,. —Their timt Work was t ■ rNi^l.tut, thrni' selves at lirthleheni. A o.d I c<invenl were built, «vrt and Paula re«pertlvelv prr»i<lr; » iq) There was a church tn wi.i. 1. \i.-^ • n.rt uc but (IIIV I to the Ihr .tun 464 HIERONYMUS Sundays, and perhaps oftener (cxlvii.) ; and a hospice for pilgrims, of whom a vast number came from all parts to visit the holy places (Epp. xlvi. Ixvi. ; cont. Vigilantium, 13, 14). These institutions were mainly supported by Paula, though, towards the end of her life, when she by her profusion had become poor, their support fell upon Jerome, who, for this purpose, sold his estate in Pannonia (Ep. Ixvi.). He lived in a cell (cv. and cont. Joan. Jems.), in or close to the monastery, surrounded by his library, to which he con- tinually added, as is shewn by his constant reference to a great variety of authors, sacred and profane, and by his account of obtaining a copy of the Hexapla from the library at Caesarea (Comm. on Titus, c. 3, p. 734). He describes himself as living very moderately on bread and vegetables (Ep. Ixxix. 4) ; he was not neglectful of his person, but recom- mended a moderate neatness of dress (Hi. 9, Ix. 10). We do not read of any special austerities beyond the fact of his seclusion from the world, which he speaks of as a living in the fields and in solidude, that he might mourn for his sins and gain Christ's mercy (coyit. Joan. Jerus. 41). He did not officiate in the services, but his time was greatly absorbed by the cares (Ep. cxiv. i) and discipline (cxlvii.) of the monastery and by the crowds of monks and pilgrims who flocked to the hospice (Ixvi. 14; adv. Ruf. i. 31). He ex- pounded the Scriptures daily to the brethren in the monastery. Sacred studies were his main pursuit, and his diligence is almost incred- ible. "He is wholly absorbed in reading," says Sulpicius ; " he takes no rest by day or by night ; he is ever reading or writing something." He wrote, or rather dictated, with great rapidity. He was believed at times to have composed i.ooolines of his commentaries in a day (pref. to bk. ii. of Comm. on Ephes. in vol. vii. col. 507). He wrote almost daily to Paula and Eusto- chium (de Vir. III. 135) ; and, though many of his letters were mere messages, yet almost all were at once published (Ep. xlix. 2), either by friends or enemies. There were many in- terruptions. Besides the excessive number of ordinary pilgrims, persons came from all parts, and needed special entertainment. The agi- tated state of the empire also was felt in the hermitage of Bethlehem. The successive in- vasions of the Huns (Ep. Ixxvii. 8) and the Isaurians (cxiv.) created a panic in Palestine, so that, in 395, ships had been provided at Joppa to carry away the virgins of Bethlehem, who hurried to the coast to embark, when the danger passed away. These invasions caused great lack of means' at Bethlehem (cxiv. i), so that Jerome and his friends had to sell all to continue the work. Amidst such difficulties his great literary works were accomplished. Im- mediately on settling at Bethlehem, he set to work to perfect his knowledge of Hebrew with the aid of a Jew named Bar Anina (called Bar- abbas by Jerome's adversaries, who conceived that through this teacher his version was tainted with Judaism ; see Ruf. Apol. ii. 12). Their interviews took place at night (Ep. Ixxxiv.), each being afraid of the suspicions their inter- course might cause. He also learned Chaldee, but less thoroughly (pref. to Daniel, vol. ix. col. 1358). When any unusual difficulty HIERONYMUS occurred in translation or exposition, he obtained further aid. For the book of Job he paid a teacher to come to him from Lydda (pref. to Job, vol. ix. col. 1140) ; for the Chaldee of Tobit he had a rabbi from Tiberias (pref. to Tobit, vol. x.). The Chronicles he went over word by word with a doctor of law from Tiberias (pref. to Chron.). The great expense entailed was no doubt in part defrayed by Paula. At a later time, when his resources failed, Chromatins of Aquileia, and Heliodorus of Altinum, sup- ported the scribes who assisted him (pref. to Esther, addressed to Chrom. and Hel.). Bible Work. — The results of his first six years' labours may be thus summed up. The commentary on Eccles. and the translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit were completed ; commentaries were written on Gal. Eph. Tit. and Philemon ; the version of N.T. begun in Rome was revised ; a treatise on Pss. x.-xvi. was written; and translations made of Origen's Commentaries on St. Luke and the Psalms. Jerome, who had long before felt the great importance for scriptural studies of a know- ledge of the localities (pref. to Chron.), turned to account his travels in Palestine in his work on the names of Hebrew places, mainly translated from Eusebius, and gave to the world what may be called " Chips from his Workshop," in the book on Hebrew proper names and the Hebrew questions on Gen., a work which he seems to have intended to carry on in the other books as a pendant to his translations. Further, as a preparatory work to the Vulg., he had revised the Latin version of O.T. then current (which was imperfectly made from the LXX), by a com- parison of Origen's Hexapla (pref. to Joshua, vol. ix. 356 ; pref. to Chron. vol. ix. col. 1394 ; pref. to Job, vol. ix. col. 1142 ; Ep. Ixxi. ad Lucinium). This work, though not mentioned in the Catalogue (de Vir. III. 135), certainly existed. Jerome used it in his familiar expositions each day (cont. Ruf. ii. 24). Au- gustine had heard of it and asked to see it (Ep. cxxxiv., end), but it had, through fraud or neglect, been lost ; and all that remains of it is Job, the Psalms, and the preface to the books of Solomon (voL x.). The Vulgate itself was in preparation, as we find from the Catalogue ; but as it was not produced for some years, what had been done thus far was evidently only preliminary and imperfect work. Besides his work on the Scriptures, Jerome had designed a vast scheme of church history, from the beginning to his own time, giving the lives of all the most eminent men ; and as a preliminary to this, and in furtherance of asceticism, he wrote Lives of Malchus and HiLARioN. The minuteness of detail in these works would have made a church history on such a scale impossible ; and the credulity they shew throws doubt on Jerome's capacity for such work. A far more important work for the purposes of the church historian is the book which is variously called the " Catalogue of Chiurch Writers," the " Book on Illustrious Men," or the "Epitaphion" (though it includes men then living). Some portions are taken from Eusebius, but the design and most of the details are original. It includes the writers of HIERONYMUS N.T., and church teachers of East and West up to Jerome's own time, and even men accounted heretics and non-Christians like Seneca, whose works were of importance to the progress of human thouglit. The letter which Jerome wrote in the name of Paula and Eustochium to Marcella at Rome (Ep. xlvi.), the only letter preserved from these first six years, expresses an en- thusiastic view of their privileges in reading the Scriptures in the tongue and country in which they were written. The crowds who came from all parts seem to them to be so many choirs, engaged in services of praise, each in their own tongue. The very plough- men chant Hallelujahs. Far from the Baby- lon of Rome, they associate with the saints of Scripture and find in the holy places the gate of heaven. This view of Palestine is always present to Jerome, however much he has to confess the actual secularization of Jerusalem (Iviii. 4) ; and it makes his Biblical work not merely one of learning but of piety. Second Period, 393-404. — Private letters of Jerome abound during this period, and illus- trate his personal history. To this period belong the many external difficulties at Bethlehem already mentioned. During almost the whole of 398 Jerome was ill, and again in 404-405 (Ixxiv. 6, cxiv. i). He was disturbed also by the controversy or schism between the monks of Bethlehem and the bp. of Jerusalem ; and an injury to his hand prevented his writing. Poverty was also overtaking him. Paula had spent her fortune in lavish charity, and Jerome sent his brother Paulinianus to their former home to sell the remains of their property to support the monasteries (Ixvi. 14). The sad quarrel between Jerome and Rutinus began in 394 ; see under the controversies {infra) which oc- cupied so much of this period. Commentaries. — Jerome had begun his com- mentaries on the Minor Prophets in 391 {de Vir. III. 135) ; they form four books, and were published at long intervals up to 406. In 397 he wrote his commentary on Matthew, the last on the N.T. It was finished, with great haste and eagerness {Ep. Ixxiii. 10), in Lent 398, as he was recovering from an illness. After a long interval the commentary on Isaiah followed, and thereafter he wrote upon the Great Prophets only. The Vulgate. — That which we now call the Vulgate, and which is in the main the work of Jerome, was during his life the Bible of the learned and only by degrees won general acceptance. The' editio vulgata in previous use was a loose translation from the L.XX, almost every copy varying. J erome had begun very early to read the O.T. in Gk. Here the same difficulty met him. The LXX version was confronted, in Origen's Hexapla, with those of Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmaclius, and with two others called (Juinta and Sexta. Where they differed, who was to decide ? This question is asked by Jerome as early as the preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius (381) and was constantly repeated in defence of his translation. He seems to have distinctly contemplated this work fr(jm the moment of his settlement at Bethlehem, and a great deal of the labour of his first years there may be ; HIERONYMUS 405 regarded as preliminary to it. It was begim within the first few years. But, in so elabor- ate a work, it was impossible that tlic first copies should be perfect. It is probable that the whole, or larger part, was gone tlirough at an early date and given to his friends or the public after a more mature revision, according as his health or courage allowed. He distinctly purjiosed to publish it from the first. Vet the actual publication was made in a fragmentary and hesitating manner. At times he speaks of portions as extorted from him by the earnest requests of his friends (pref. to Gen. vol. ix. etc.). Some parts he represents as done in extreme haste ; the books of Solomon as the work of three days (pref. in vol. ix. col. 1307) ; Tobit and Judith were each that of a single day. He shews in his prefaces extreme sensitiveness to attacks upon his work, and speaks of it often as an ungrateful task. Of the Apocrypha he trans- lated only parts, and these very cursorily (pref. to Tobit, vol. x.), doubtless because of his comparative indifference to the Apocrypha, his opinion of which is quoted in Art. vi. of the 39 Articles, from the preface to the Bt)oks of Solomon (vol. ix. ed. 1308). Samuel and Kings were published first, then Job and the Prophets, then Ezra, Nehcmiah and Genesis. All these were finished in or before 393 ; but here occurred a break, due partly, no doubt, to unsettlement and panic caused by the invasion of the Huns in 395. In 396 the work was resumed at the entreaty of Chromatins and Heliodorus, who sent him money to sup- port the necessary helpers (pref. to Books of Solomon). The Books of Solomon were then completed (398) and the preface indicates an intention to continue the work more system- atically. But the ill-feeling excited by his translation made him unwilling to continue, and his long illness in 398 intervened. He tells Lucinius that he had then given his ser- vants the whole except the Octateuch to copy {Ep. xlix. 4). But, from whatever cause, the work was nut resumed till 403-404, in which years the remainder was completed, namely, the last four books of Moses, Joshua and Judges, Ruth and Esther. His friends col- lected the translations into one volume, and the title of Vulgate, which had hitherto applied to the version before in use (pref. to Ezk. vol. ix. col. 995, pref. to Esther, vo|. ix. 1503), in time came to belong to an edition which is in the main the work of Jerome. Controversies. — Controversial works at this period occupied a share of Jerome's energies out of all proportion to their importance. Against Jovinian. — Jovi.nian was a Roman monk, originally distinguished by extreme asceticism, who had adopted freer opinions. He put off the monastic dress and lived like other men. The b(jok of Jovinian was sent to Jerome about the end of 393. a"d he at once answered it in two books. He warmly attacks Jovinian as a renegade and as a dog who has returned to his vomit. Origenism. — The second great controversy in which Jerome was now engaged arose about Origenism, which embraces in its wide sweep Epiphanius, bp. of Cyprus, John, bp. of Jeru- salem, Theophilus, bp. of Alexandria, St. John Chrysostoni, the pope Anastasius, and above 3U 466 HIERONYMUS all Jerome's former friend Rufinus — a con- troversy by which the churches of the East and the West were long and deeply agitated. It divides itself, as far as Jerome is concerned, into two distinct parts : "the first represented by his writing against John of Jerusalem, and extending from 494-499, when peace was made between them ; the second represented bv three books directed against Rufinus, the first two written in 401, the third in 402. Jerome's own relation to Origen is not difficult to understand, though it laid him open to the charge of inconsistencv. He had become acquainted with his works during his first enthusiasm for Greek ecclesiastical learning and had recognized his as the greatest name in Christian literature, worthv of com- parison with the greatest of classical times (see esp. Ep. xxxiii.). The literarv interest was to Jerome, then as at all times, more than the dogmatic ; deeply impressed bv the genius and learning of the great Alexandrine, his praise, like his subsequent blame, was without reason or rnoderation. He spoke with entire commendation of his commentaries, and even of the T6/iot, or Chapters, which included the book irepl ' Kox^v (which may be translated either On First Principh-s or On the Powers on which the chief controversy afterwards turned). "In his work," he says (pref. to trans, of Origen on Jer. vol. v. col. 611), "he gave all the sails of his genius to the free breath of the winds, and receding from the shore, went forth into the open sea." It was not the peculiarities of Origen's dogmatic system, but the boldness of his genius, that appealed to the mind of Jerome. From the first he shewed a certain independence, nor did he ever give his adherence to Origen's peculiar system. He quoted without blame even such theories as the possible restoration of Satan, but never gave his personal assent to them. Even when, afterwards, he became a violent opponent of Origenism, he shewed discrimination. He continued to use Origen's commentaries, and even in some points ofdoctrine commended his exposition. His vehement language, how- ever, makes him appear first a violent partisan of Origen, and later an equally violent op- ponent. The change, moreover, has the appearance of being the result, not so much of a great con\-iction, as of a fear of the sus- picion of heresy. John, bp. of Jerusalem, and Rufinus. — During the first year of Jerome's stay at Bethlehem he was on good terms with both John the bp. and Rufinus, who had been established with Melania on Mount Olives since 377. John, who succeeded C>Til a few months before Jerome and Paula arrived in 386, was on familiar terms with Rufinus whom he ordained, and there is no sign that he was ill-disposed towards Jerome. The troubles originated in the visit to Jerusalem of a certain Aterbius, otherwise unknown {cant. Ruf. iii. 33), who scattered accusations of Origenistic heresy among the foremost persons at Jeru- salem, and joining Jerome with Rufinus on account of their friendship, charged them both with heresy. Jerome made a confession of his faith which satisfied this self-appointed inqmsitor ; but Rufinus refused to see him, and with threats bade him begone. This was HIERONYMUS apparently in 393. In 394 Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, who in his book on heresies had formally included the doctrines of Origen, visited Jerusalem, and strife broke out in the church of the Resurrection, where Epiphanius's pointed sermon against Origen- ism was taken as reflecting so directly upon John that the bishop sent his archdeacon to remonstrate and stop him. John, after he had delivered a long sermon against Anthro- pornorphisrn, was requested by Epiphanius, amidst the ironical applause of the people, to condemn Origenism with the same earnest- ness ; and then Epiphanius came to the monastery at Bethlehem declaring John a heretic, and, after attempting to elicit some anti-Origenistic confession from the bishop, finally at night left his house, where he had been a guest, for the monastery. Epiphanius, convinced that John was on the verge of heresy, advised Jerome and his friends to separate themselves from their bishop ; and provided for the ministrations of their church by ordaining Jerome's brother Paulinian. Johnnowappealedto.\lexandriaandtoRome against Jerome and his friends as schismatics. Theophilus of Alexandria at once took John's side, but, becoming an anti-Origenist later, opened communication with Jerome, of which the latter gladly availed himself. J erome was thenceforward the minister of Theophilus in his communicationwith the West in the war against Origen; andthus completely unitedhimseff with the anti-Origenistic party. Rufinus, when he arrived in Rome with Melania in 397, found the contest about Origenism at its height, but ignorance on the subject was so great that pope Anastasius, even though induced to condemn Origen, plainly admitted in his letter to John of Jerusalem (Hieron. ii. 677, Vallarsi's Rufinus [Migne's Pair, xxi.] 408) that he neither knew who Origen was nor what he had wxitten. Rufinus being asked by a pious man named Macarius to give an exposi- tion of Origen's tenets, made the translation of the neftl 'kpx^v which is now published in Origen's works and is the only extant version. This translation was at once the subject of dispute. Jerome's friends complained that Rufinus had given a falsely favourable \ersion. Rufinus declared that he had only used the just freedom of a critic and translator in omitting passages interpolated by heretics, who wished to make Origen speak their views, and in translating Eastern thoughts into Western idioms. But the real complaint against Rufinus rested on personal grounds. In his preface he had seemed to associate Jerome, as the translator of Origen, witli Origen's work, and to shield himself under Jerome's authority. Jerome and his friends, extremely sensitive of the least reproach of heresy and having already taken a strong part against Origen, trembled for his reputation. Rufin- us's preface was sent to him by Pammachius and Oceanus, with the request (Ep. Ixxxii.) that he would point out the truth, and would translate the irepi 'Apx^v as Origen had wxitten it. Jerome did so, and with his new translation sent a long letter (Ixxxiv.) to his two friends, which, though making too little of his former admiration for Origen, in the main states the case fairly and without asperity HIERONYMUS towards Rufinus. The same may be said of his letter (Ixxxi.) to Rutinus himself, possibly in answer to one from Rufinus {" diu te Romae moratum sermo proprius indicavit "), which speaks of their reconciliation and remonstrates, as a friend with a friend, against the mention Rufinus had made of him. " There are not many," he says, " who can be pleased with feigned praise" ("fictis laudibus "). This letter, unfortunately, did not reach Rufinus. He had gone to Aquileia with the ordinary commendation (" literae formatae ") from the pope. Siricius had died ; his successor, Auastasius, was in the hands of Pammachius and Marcella (cxxvii.), who were moving him to condemn Origen. Anastasius, though ignorant on the whole subject, was struck by passages shewn him by Eusebius in Jerome's translation of the irepl Apx*^", which had been given him by Marcella (Rufin. Apol. ii.), and proceeded to condemn Origen. He also was persuaded to summon Rufinus (Rufinus [Migne's Patr. Lat. xxi.] 403) to Rome to make a confession of his faith ; and wrote to John of Jerusalem, expressing his fear as to Rufinus's intentions and his faith (sec the letter in Jerome's Works, ii. 677, Rufinus, 408). Jer- ome's friends kept his letter to Rufinus, so that Rufinus was prevented from learning Jerome's actual dispositions towards him. He only knew that the hitter's friends were in some way involving him in the condemnation they had procured against Origen and which the emperors themselves had now ratified (.\nastasius to John, «/.s.). To Anastasius, therefore, he replied in a short letter, ex- cusing himself from coming to Rome, but giving an explicit declaration of his faith. But from Jerome he was wholly alienated. His friend Apronianus at Rome having sent him the letter of Jerome to Pammachius and Oceanus, he replied in the document which is called his Apology, with bitter feelings against his former friend. He did not scruple to use against him the facts known to him through their former intimacy, such as the vows made in consequence of his anti-Ciceronian dream, which he declared Jerome to have broken, and he allowed himself to join in the carping spirit in which Jerome's enemies spoke against his translation of the Scriptures. This document was privately circulated among Rufinus's friends at Rome. It became partly known to Pammachius and Marcella, who, not being able to obtain a copy, sent him a description of its contents, with such quotations as they could procure. Jerome at once composed the two first books of his Apology in the form of a letter to his Roman friends. Its tone is that of one not quite willing to break through an old friendship, but its language is strong and at times contemptuous. It was brought to Rufinus at Aquileia, who answered in a letter meant for Jerome's eyes alone, which has not | come down to us. From Jerome's rejily we know that it was sharp and bitter, and declared his ability to produce facts which if known to the world would blast Jerome's character for ever. Jerome was estranged by extracts from Rufinus's Apology- Then 1 Rufinus himself sent him a true copy, and the result was a final rupture. Augustine, to whom Jerome sent his book, writes (Hieron. HIERONYMUS 4(17 Ep. ex. 6) with the utmost sorrow at the scandal ; he declares that he was cast dowQ by the thought that " persons so dear and so familiar, united by a chain of friendship which had been known to all the church," should now be publicly tearing each otiier to pieces. He writes like one who has an equal esteem for both the combatants, and only desiris their reconciliation. Hut Jerome never ceased to speak of his former frientl with passionate condemnation and contempt. When Rufinus died in Sicily in 410 he wrote : " The scorpion lies undergr<iund between Enceladus and Porphyrion, and the hydra of many heads has at last ceaseil to hiss against me " (pref. to Comm. on Ezk.). In later years he sees the spirit of Rufinus revived in Pelagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), and even in letters of edification he cannot refrain from bitter re- marks on his memory (Ep. cxxv. 18, cxxxiii. 3). Vigilantius. — A fourth controversy was with Vigilantius (cont. V'ig. liber unus), a Spanish monk, into whom, as Jerome says, the soul of his former ojiponent Jovinian had passed, a controversy further embittered by mutual accusations of Origenism, and in which Jerome's violence and contcmptuousness passes all bounds. Vigilantius had stayed at the monastery at Bethlehem in 306, on the introduction of Paulinus. In a letter to Vigilantius in 396, Jerome accuses him of blasphemous interpretations of Scripture derived from Origen. He treats him as a vulgar fool, without the least claim to know- ledge or letters. He applies to him the proverb 'Oroj \vpa, turns his name to Dormi- tantius, and ends by saying he hopes he may find pardon when, as Origen holds, the devil will find it. Vigilantius is said by Gennadius {de Scr. Red. 35) to have been an ignorant man, though polished in words. But he was as far in advance of Jerome in his views of the Christian life as he was behind him in literary power. His book, written in 404, was sent by Riparius to Jerome, who replied [Ep. cix.), dismissing the matter with contempt. After- wards, probably finding the opinions of Vigilan- tius gaining ground, he, at the request of certain presbyters, wrote his treatise against him. It is a short book, dictated, he states, unius noctis lucubration e; his friend Sisinnius, who was to take it, being greatly hurried. Vigilan- tius maintained that the honour paid to the martvrs' tombs was excessive, that watching in ttieir basilicas was to be deprecated, that the alleged miracles done there were false; that the money collected for the " poor saints at Jeru- salem" had better be kept at home; that the hermit life was cowardice ; and, lastly, that it would be well that presbyters should be married before ordination. Jerome speaks of these ac- cusations as being so openly blasphi-mous as to require neither argument nor the pri aluction of testimonies against them, but merely the expression of the writer'sindignation. He does not admit even a grain of truth in them. " If you do not honour the tombs of the martyrs," he says, " you assert that they were not wrong in burning the martyrs." He himself believes the miracles, and values the intercession of the saints. This is the treatise in which Jerome felt most sure he was in the right, and the only one in which he was wholly in the wrong. 468 HIERONYMUS Augustine. — The exchange of letters be- tween Jerome and Augustine, though begun with something of asperity, ended in edifica- tion. Jerome heard of Augustine soon after his conversion (386) ; and Augustine, eight years his junior, had a great respect (which did not prevent criticism) for Jerome and his work. Augustine's friend Alypius stayed with Jerome in 393, and Jerome heard with satis- faction of the great African's zeal for the study of Scripture and of his rising fame. In 394 Augustine, then coadjutor bp. of Hippo (succeeding in 395), having had his attention no doubt called to Jerome's works by Alypius, wrote the letter (among Jerome's, Ivi.) which originated the controversy. It related to the interpretation of the dispute of St. Paul and St. Peter at Antioch, recorded in Gal. ii. The letter is written in a grave tone, but perhaps with something of assumption, considering the great position of Jerome. Augustine com- mends him for translating Greek commen- taries into Latin, and wishes that in his trans- lations of O.T. he would note very carefully the places in which he diverges from the LXX. He then notes that Jerome, in his Commentary on the Galatians, had maintained that the dispute was merely feigned, that Peter had pretended to act so as to incur Paul's rebuke, in order to set before the church the incon- gruity of a Christian continuing under Mosaic law. This appeared to Augustine to impute to the apostles an acted lie. This letter was committed, together with other works of Augustine on which Jerome's opinion was desired, to Profuturus, a presbyter, who being, before he sailed, elected to a bishopric in N. Africa, turned back, and soon after died. He had neither transmitted the letter to Jerome nor returned it to Augustine ; but it was seen by others and copied, so that the attack on Jerome was widely known in the West while entirely unknown to Jerome at Bethlehem. Augustine, discovering that his letter had not reached Jerome, wrote a second (among Jerome's, Ixvii.), again entering into the question, asking Jerome to confess his error and to sing a palinode for the injury done to Christian truth. Paulus, to whom this letter was committed, proved untrustworthy, and let it be circulated without being transmitted to Jerome. It was seen by a deacon, Sisinnius, who, coming to Bethlehem some five years afterwards, either brought a copy or described its contents to Jerome. Meanwhile Augustine heard, through pilgrims returning from Pales- tine, the state of the facts and the feelings aroused by them. He wrote a short letter to excuse himself (among Jerome's, ci.), point- ing out that what he had written was not, as seemed to be supposed, a book for publication, but a personal letter expressing to a friend a difference of opinion. He begged Jerome to point out similarly any points of his writings he might think wrong, and concluded with an earnest wish for some personal converse with the great teacher of Bethlehem. Jerome replied in a letter (cii.) in which friendship struggled with suspicion and resentment. He sent some of his works, including those last written, against Rufinus. As to Augustine's works, he says he knows little of them, but intimates that he might have much to say in HIERONYMUS criticism. He insinuates that Augustine might be seeking honour by attacking him, but warns him that he too can strike hard. Augustine replied in a letter (among Jerome's, civ.) written with demonstrations of profound respect, but in which, after explaining how his first letter had miscarried, he again enters into questions of Biblical literature. He commends Jerome's new translations of N.T., but begs him not to translate O.T. from the Heb., enforcing his wish by the story of a parish in Africa being scandalized and almost broken up by its bishop reading Jonah in Jerome's new version. In this version as then read, ivy was substituted for gourd in c. iv. When the bishop read " ivy " the people rose and cried out " gourd," till he was obliged to resort to the received version, lest he should be left without any followers. Augustine recommends Jerome to translate from the LXX, with notes where his version deviates from the received text. Jerome answers that he has never received Augustine's original letter, but has only seen what pur- ports to be a copy. " Send me," he says, " your letter signed by yourself, or else cease from attacking me. As to your writings, which you put forward so much, I have only read the Soliloquies and the Commentary on the Psalms, and will only say that in this last there are things disagreeing with the best Greek commentaries. Let me beg you in future, if you write to me, to take care that I am the first whom your letter reaches." Augustine now (in 404) sent by a presbyter Praesidius authentic copies of his two original letters (written nine or ten years before), accompanied by one in which he begged that the matter might be treated as between friends, and not grow into a feud like that of Jerome and Rufinus, which hedeeplylamented. Onreceipt of this Jerome at once wrote {Ep. civ.) a full answer to Augustine's principal letters (in Hieron. Ivi. Ixvii. civ. ex.), and on the question of St. Peter at Antioch appealed to the great Eastern expositors of Scripture. Augustine replied in a long letter (in Jerome's, cxvi.) on the chief question, adding many expressions tending to satisfy Jerome as to their personal relations. Jerome appears to have been more than satisfied ; perhaps even to have been convinced. The only allusions in his later writings to this controversy seem to favour Augustine's view. Augustine wrote two letters to him a few years later on the origin of souls (cxxxi.), and on the meaning of the words, " He that offends in one point is guilty of all" (cxxxii.). Jerome's reply (cxxxiv.) is wholly friendly. He refers to a request in one of Augustine's former letters (civ.) for translations from the LXX, saying that these had been stolen from him, and adds, " Each of us has his gift ; there is nothing in your letters but what I admire ; and I wish to be understood as assenting to all you say, for we must be united in order to withstand Pelagianism." Augustine, on his part, shewed a remarkable deference to Jerome's opinion on the origin of souls, as to which after five year she still hesitated (Hieron. Ep. cxliv.) to give a definite answer to his friend Optatus because he had not received one from Jerome ; and he sent Orosius, probably referring to this HIERONYMUS verv question, to sit, as Orosius himself says, at the feet of Jerome (de Lib. Arb. 3). The remaining letters shew a constant increase of friendship. The two preat teachers, though from somewhat different points of view, laboured together in combating Pelagianism ; and, having been to each other for a while almost as heretics, stand justly side by side as canonized doctors of Latin Christianity. Last Period. 405-420. Old Age and Troubles. — This last period of Jerome's life was full of external dangers and towards its close agitated by controversy. In 403 the Isaurians devas- tated the N. of Palestine, the monasteries of Bethlehem were beset with fugiti\es, and Jerome and his friends were brought into great straits for the means of living. The winter was extremely cold, and Jerome was laid low by a severe illness in Lent 406 [Ep. cxiv.) which left him weak for a long time. The barbarian invasions culminated in the sack of Rome by Alaric in 410. In this last calamity, which seemed to be ushering in the end of the world (cxxiii.), Panimachius and Marcella died. Emigration from Italy to Africa and Syria set in, and the more religious among the fugitives flocked to Jerusalem and Bethlehem (pref. to bks. iii. and vii. of Comin. on Ezk.). Jerome was not unaffected by the evil political influences of the time. He represents himself as watched by enemies, who made it danger- ous for him even to express his sense of the miseries of the empire. In his Commentary on the Monarchies in Daniel he reflects on the low state to which the Roman emiiire had fallen and its need of support from barbarians ; and these words were taken as reflecting on Stilicho, the great half-V'andal general, the father-in-law and minister of Honorius, and the real ruler of the empire. Stilicho, whom Jerome afterwards speaks of {Ep. cxxiii. 17) as " the half-barbarian traitor who armed the enemy against us with our own resources," appears to have heard of Jerome's expressions in his commentar\' and to have taken great offence, and Jerome believed that he was meditating some revenge against him when he was put to death (" Dei judicio," pref. to bk. xi. of Comm. on Is.) by order of his imperial relative. In the year following the sack of Rome Palestine suffered from an incursion of barbarians from which Jerome barely escaped (Ep. cxxvi. 2). He was very poor (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. viii.), but made no com- plaint of this. His best friends had passed away — Paula in 403, Pammachius and Mar- cella in 410 (pref. to Comm. on Ezk. bk. i.). Of his Roman friends, Oceanus, Principia, and the younger Fabiola alone remained {Epp. exx. cxxvii.) ; Eustochium had very possibly (as Thierry supposes) less authority than her mother in the management of the convent, and this left room for irregularities like those related in J erome'sletter (cxlvii.) to Sabinianus. Eustochium died in 418 (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.). Jerome's days were taken up by the monastery and the hospice (pref. to Comm. on £zft. bk. viii.) and he could only dictate his com- mentaries at night ; he was even glad when winter came and gave him longer nights for this purpose [ib.). He was growing weak with age and frequent illnesses, and his eyesight, which had originally failed nearly 40 years before HIERONYMUS 4 CO (Constantinople, 380), was so weak that he could hardly decipher Hrb. letters at night («6.). Controversy arose again with IVIagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bks. i.-iv.), and Jerome's re- lations with the bp. of Jerusalem can hardlv have been smooth (Ep. cxxxvii.). On the other hand, his brother Paulinian was still with him ; the younger Paula, daughter of Toxotius and Laeta (evil, cxxxiv.), survived him and re- placed her aunt Eustochium in managing the monasteries. .Mbina, and the younger .Melania with her husband Pinianus (cxli\-.), came to live with him ; he had kindly relations with persons in many countries ; and the onlv leading man of the Western church was his friend. Amidst all discouragements, he con- tinued his Biblical studies and writings with no sign of weakness to the end. Pelagianism. — The Pelagian controversy was forced upon his notice. He had not ante- cedently formed any strong opinion i>n it, and had been connected in early life with some of the leading supporters of Pelagius (pref. to Comm. on Jer. hk. iv.). But no great question could now arise in the church without an appeal to Jerome, and his correspondence necessarily embraced this subject (/s/i/'. cxxxiii.cxxxviii.j. Orosius, the friend of Augustine, came to re- side at Bethlehem in 414, full of the council of Carthage and of the thoughts and doings of his teacher ; and when in 415 Pelagius and Coelestius came to Palestine, Jerome was in the very centre of the controversy. A synod was held under John of Jerusalem [Joannes (216)1 i'^ July 4^5 with no result ; and at a synod at Diospolis in 416 Pelagius was acquitted, partly, it was believed, because the Eastern bishops could not see their way in matters of Western theology and in judging of Latin expressions. But the mind of the church generally was against him, and Jerome ! was called upon to give expression to it. [ Ctesiphon from Rome wrote to him directly on i the subject and drew a long reply (cxxxiii.). I Augustine addressed to him two letters on I points bearing upon the subject (cxxxi. ] cxxxii.), and in his letter on the origin of j souls insinuated that Jerome's creationism j might identify him with Pelagius's denial of I the transmission of Adam's sin (cxxx. 6). Pelagius sometimes quoted Jerome as agree- ing with him (pref. to Comm. on Jer. bk. i.), sometimes attacked passages in his conmien- I taries (id. bk. iv.) and depreciated his transla- tion of the Scriptures (pref. to Dial, against 1 Pelag.). Orosius, who withstood Pelagius in the svnod of Jerusalem with little success, appealed (de Libero Arbitrio contra Pelagium) to Jerome asarhampion of the faith. Jerome wrote, therefore, in 3 books, the dialogue against the Pelagians, an amplificalion of his letter to Ctesiphon, in which Alliens (the Augustinian) and Critobulus (the Pelagian) maintain the argument. It turns ni)on the question whether a man can be without sin if he so wills. Its tone is much milder than that of Jerome's other controversial writings, with the single exception of the dialogue against the Luriferians. But still he is deal- ing with a heretic, and herisy is under the ban of the church and of heaven. This terrible doom contrasts somewhat sharply with the balanced argument, in which Jerome appears 470 HIERONYMUS not as a thorough-going predestinarian, but a " synergist," maintaining the coexistence of the free will, and reducing predestination to God's foreknowledge of human determina- tion (see the Dialogue, esp. i. 5, ii. 6, iii. 18). Nevertheless, the partisans of Pelagius were irritated to bitterness and violence. A crowd of Pelagian monks attacked, partly threw down, and partly burned the monasteries of Bethlehem, some of the inmates were slaughtered, and Jerome only escaped by taking refuge in a tower stronger than the rest. This violence, however, was their last effort. A strong letter from pope Innocentius (cxxxvii.) to J ohn of J erusalem (who died soon after, 418) warned him that he would be held accountable for any future violence, and J erome received a letter (cxxxvi.) assuring him of the pope's protection. J erome's letters to Riparius (cxxxviii.), Apronius (cxxxix.), and Augustine (cxli. cxliii.), speak of the cause of Augustine as triumphant, and of Pelagius, who is com- pared to Catiline, leaving Palestine, though Jerusalem is still held by some powerful adversary, who is compared to Nebuchad- nezzar (cxliv.). There was, however, in the East no strong feeling against Pelagius. His cause was upheld by Theodore of Mop- suestia, who in a work, of which parts are extant (in Hieron. vol. ii. pp. 807-814), argues against Augustine and Jerome (whom he calls " Aram "), as " those who say that men sin by nature and not by will." In the West a work was written by Anianus, a deacon of Celeda, of which a copy was sent to Jerome (cxliii. 2) by Eusebius of Cremona, but to which he was never able to reply. Letters. — The letters of this period of Jerome's life are mostly ones of counsel to those who asked his advice. Among these maybe mentioned that to Ageruchia (cxxiii.), exhorting her to persevere in her estate as a widow, and giving as deterrents from a second marriage some touches of Roman manners and a remarkable account of the sack of Rome ; to the virgin Demetrias (cxxx.), who had escaped from the burning of Rome and fallen into the hands of count Heraclian in Africa ; and to Sabinianus (cxlvii.) the lapsed deacon, who had brought disorder into the monasteries, and from which letter a whole romance of monastic life might be constructed. Jerome wrote also the Memoir of Marcella (cxxvii.), who died from ill-treatment in the sack of Rome, addressing his letter to her friend Principia ; but he was too dejected and infirm to write the Epitaphium of Eustochium, who died two years before him (cdxviii.). Other letters relate to scriptural studies ; cxix., to Minucius and Alexander, learned presbyters of the diocese of Toulouse, on the interpretation of the words, " We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed " ; cxx., to Hebidia, a lady of a remarkable family whose father and grandfather were orators, poets, professors, and priests of Apollo Belen at Bayeux ; cxl., to the presbyter Cyprian, an exposition of Ps. xc. ; cxxiv., to Avitus, on the TTfpi 'Apx^^ ; cxxix., on how Palestine could be called the Promised Land; and cxlvi., to Evangelus an African presbyter, containing the well-known theory of Jerome on the relative positions of bishops, priests, and deacons. HIERONYMUS Commentaries on Greater Prophets. — Of Bible work in his later years we have only the Commentaries on the Greater Prophets : on Daniel in 407 ; on Isaiah in 16 books, written in the intervals of business and illness, and issued at various times from 408-410 ; on Ezekiel, from 410-414 ; and on Jeremiah, cut short at c. xxxii. by Jerome's last illness. The prefaces to these are remarkable docu- ments and very serviceable for the chronology of Jerome's life. Those on Ezekiel record the sack of Rome, the death of Rufinus (bk. i.), the immigration from Rome (bks. iii. and vii.), the rise of Pelagianism (bk. vi.) ; and bk. ix. of the commentary speaks of the invasion of Rome by count Heraclian. Jerome was prevented from taking up the commentary on Jeremiah till after the death of Eustochium (418), and thus his last work was written in the year (419) which intervened between Eustochium's death and his own. Yet not only is the work full of vigour, but the pre- faces shew a renewal of controversial ardour against Pelagius, whom he speaks of as " Scotorum pultibus praegravatus " (bks. i. and iii.). That controversy and the business of the pilgrims (bk. iv.) shortened his time for the commentary (bk. iii.), which, though in- tended to be short (bk. i.), required his excuses inthelast preface (bk.vi.)foritsgrowinglength. Death. — It is generally believed that a long sickness preceded the death of Jerome, that after 419 he was unable to work at all, that he was attended in this illness by the younger Paula and Melania ; that he died, according to the Chronicle of Prosper of Aquitania, on Sept. 20, 420, and that he was buried beside Paula and Eustochium near the grotto of the Nativity. His body was be- lieved to have been subsequently carried to Rome and placed in the church of Sta. Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline. Legends, such as that, immortahzed by the etching of Albert Diirer, of the lion which constantly attended him, and of the miracles at his grave, are innumerable. Writings now Extant. — Vallarsi's ed. con- tains a complete table of contents which may be usefully consulted. In our list the date of time and place at which each was composed, and the volume in Vallarsi's ed., are added. I. Bible Translations : — (i) From the Hebrew.— The Vulgate of O.T., written at Bethlehem, begun 391, finished 404, vol. ix. (2) From the LA'J^.— The Psalms as used at Rome, written in Rome 383 ; and as used in Gaul, written at Bethlehem c. 388. The book of Job, being part of the translation of LXX made between 386 and 392 at Bethle- hem, the rest being lost (Ep. cxxxiv.), vol. x. (3) From the Chaldee.—Tohh and Judith, Bethlehem, a.d. 398. (4) From the Greek. — The Vulgate version of N.T., made at Rome between 382 and 385. II. Commentaries : — (i) Original. — Ecclesiastes, vol. iii. a.d. 388 ; Isaiah, vol. iv. 410; Jeremiah, i. -xxxii. 41, vol. iv. 419 ; Ezekiel, vol. v. 410-414 ; Daniel, vol. V. 407 ; Minor Prophets, vol. vi. at various times between 391 and 406 ; Matthew, vol. vii. 387 ; Galatians, Ephesians, Titus, Philemon, vol. vii. 388 : all at Bethlehem. HIERONYMUS (2) Translated from Oripen. — Homilies on Jer.andEziv., vol. v. Bethlehem, date doubtful; on Ltike, vol. vii. Bethlehem, j^Sq ; Canticles, vol. iii. Rome and Bethlehem, 385-3S7. There is also a commentary on job, and a specimen of one on the Psalms, vol. vii. ; and the translation of Origen's Homilies on Isaiah, all attributed to Jerome, vol. iv. III. Books illustrating Scripture : — (1) Book of Hebrew Names, or Glossary of Proper Names in O.T. ; Bethlehem, 388'; vol. iii. I. (2) Book of Questions on Genesis, Bethle- hem, 3S8 ; vol. iii. 301. (3) A translation of Eusebius's book on the Sites and Names of Hebrew Places, Bethle- hem, 388 ; vol. iii. 121. (4) Translation of Didymus on the Holy Spirit, Koine and Bethlehem, 385-387 ; vol. ii. 105. IV. Books on Church History and Con- troversy (all in vol. ii.) : — (i) Book of Illustrious Men, or Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers, Bethlehem, a.d. 392. (2) Dialogue with a Luciferian, Antioch, 37Q- (3) Lives of the Hermits : Paulus, Desert, 374 ; Malchus and Hilarion, Bethlehem, 390. (4) Translation of the Rule of Pachomius ; Bethlehem, 404. (5) Books of ascetic controversy : against Helvidius, Rome, 383 ; against Jovinian, Bethlehem, 393 ; against Vigilantius, Beth- lehem, 406. (6) Books of personal controversy : against John, bp. of lerusalem, Bethlehem, 398 or 399 ; against Rufinus, i. and ii. 402, iii. 404. (7) Dialogue with a Pelagian, Bethlehem, 416. V. General History : — Translation of the Chronicle of EUsebius, with Jerome's addi- tions, vol. viii., Constantinople, 382. VI. Letters : — The series of letters, vol. i. Ep. i. Aquileia, 371 ; ii.-iv. Antioch, 374 ; v.- xvii. Desert, 374-379 ; xviii. Constantinople, 381 ; xix.-xlv. Rome, 382-385 ; xlvi.-cxlviii. Bethlehem, 386-418. The works attributed to Jerome but not genuine, which are given in Vallarsi's ed., are : A Breviary, Commentary, and I'reface on the Psalms, vol. vii. ; some Greek fragments, and a Lexicon of Hebrew Names, the Names of Places in the Acts, the Ten Names of God, the Benedictions of the Patriarchs, the Ten Temptations in the Desert, a Commentary on the Song of Deborah, Hebrew Questions in Kings and Chronicles, an Exposition of Job, vol. iii., three letters in vol. i., and 51 in vol. xi., and several miscellaneous writings in vol. xi., most of which are by Pelagius. Criticism. — (i) As a Bible translator, Jerome deserves the highest place for his clear conviction of the importance of his task and his perseverance against great obstacles. This is shewn especially in his prefaces, which are of great value as shewing his system. He took very great pains, but not with all alike. The Chronicles he went over w(jrd by word with his Hebrew teacher ; Tobit he translated in a single day- His method was, first, never to swerve needlessly from the original ; second, to avoid solecisms ; third, at all risks, even that of introducing solecisms, to give the HIERONYMUS 471 true sense. These principles are not always consistently carried out. There is sometimes undue laxity, which is defended in the de Optimo Generc Interpretandi ; sometimes an unnecessary literalism, arising from a notion that some hidd.n sense li.s h.hind the words, but really d<i)riviii^; the w^rds of sense. His versions were during his lif.time both highly prized and greatly condemned. His friend Sophnniius translated a great part of them into Greek and they were read in inanv East- ern churches in Jerome's lifetime. After his death they gradually won universal accept- ance in the West, and were finally, with some alterations (mostly for the worse), stamped with the authority of the Roman church at the council of Trent. See Vallarsi's preface to vol. ix., and Zockler, pt. II. ii. Hieronymus als Bibel Uebersetzer. (2) As an expositor, Jerome lacks origin- ality. His Commentaries are mostly com- pilations from others, whose views he gives at times without any opinion of his own. This, however, makes them of special value as the record of the thoughts of distinguished men, such as Origen. His derivations arc puerile. His interpretation of prophecy is the merest literal application of it to events in the church. He is often inconsistent, and at times seems to veil his own opinion under that of another. His allusions to the events of his own time as illustrations of Scripture are often of great interest. His great haste in writing (pref. to bk. ii. of Comm. on Eph. and pref. to bk. iii. of Comm. on Gal.), his frequent weak health and weak eyes, and his great self-confidence caused him to trust his memory too much. (3) The books on Hebrew Names, Questions on Genesis, and the Site and Names of Hebrew places shew a wide range of interest and are useful contributions to Biblical knowledge, especially the last-named, which is often appealed to in the present day. But even here he was too ready to accept Jewish tales rather than to exercise independent judgment. In theology, properly so called, he is weak. His first letter to Damasus on the Trinitarian controversies at Antioch shews a clear per- ception of what the church taught, but also a shrinking from dogmatic questions and a servile submission to episcopal authority. He accepted without question the damnation of all the heathen. His dealings with Origen shew his weakness ; he surrendered his im- partial judgment as soon as Origen's works were condemned. In the Pelagian con- troversy his slight realization of the importance of the questions contrasts markedly with the deep conviction of the writings of Augustine. In some matters, which had not been dealt with by church authority, he held his own ; e.g. as to the origin of souls he is decided as a creationist. He puts aside purgatory and [scoffs at millenarianism. His views on the Apocrypha and on the orders of the Christian ministry have become classical. 1 (4) For church history he had some con- ; siderable faculty, as is shewn by the dialogue with a Luciferian. His knowledge was great and his sympathies large, when there was no Suestion of church condemnations. His book e Vim lllHitribus is especially valuable and 472 HIERONYMUS his defence of it against Augustine's criticism shews hina to have the wider culture and greater knowledge. But the lives of the hermits incorporate legend with history. In controversy his ordinary method is to take as absolute truth the decisions of bishops and even the popular feeling in the church and to use all his powers in enforcing these. His own life and documents which give its details are his best contributions to church history. (5) His knowledge of and sympathy with human history generally was very like that of monks of later times. He had much curiosity and considerable knowledge. His translation of the Chronicle of Eusebius shews his interest in history, but is very uncritical. The mis- takes of Eusebius are not corrected but aggravated by the translator ; his own addi- tions shew that his critical faculty was not such as to guard against the admission of considerable errors ; and his credulity con- stantly reveals itself. He nowhere shews even the rudiments of a philosophy of history. He knew both the events of his time and facts lying beyond the usual range. He was acquainted with the routes to India, and mentions the Brahmans {Epp. xxii. Ixx. etc.) and Buddha {adv. Jov. i. 42). Events like the fall of Rome deeply impressed him ; but he deals with these very much as the monks of the middle ages dealt with the events of their time. He is a recluse, with no political sagacity and no sense of human progress. (6) His letters are the most interesting part of his writings. They are very various ; vixad in feeling and graphic in their pictures of life. The letters to Heliodorus (xiv.) on the praise of hermit life ; to Eustochium (xxii.) on the preservation of virginity in the mixed life of the Roman church and world ; to Asella (xlv.) on his departure from Rome ; to Nepo- tian (Hi.) on the duties of the presbvters and monks of his day ; to Marcella from Paula and Eustochium (xivi.), giving the enthusiastic description of monastic life among the holy places of Palestine ; to Laeta (cvii.) on the education of a child whose grandfather was a heathen priest, whose parents were Christians, and who was herself to be a nun ; to Rusticus (cxxv.), giving rules which shew the character of the monastic life in those days. — all these are literary gems ; and the Epitaphia of Blesilla (xxxix.), Fabiola (Ixxvii.), Nepotianus (Ix.), Paula (cviii.), and Marcella (cxxvii.) form a hagiography of the best and most attractive kind. Style. — His style is excellent, and he was rightly praised as the Christian Cicero by Erasrnus, who contrasts his writings with rnonkish and scholastic literature. It is vivid, full of illustrations, with happv turns, such as " lucus a non lucendo," Oy \vpa, " fac de necessitate virtutem," " Ingemuit tot us orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est." The scriptural quotations and allusions are often overdone and forced, but with no un- reality or cant ; and he never loses his dignity except in some controversial personalities. Character. — He was vain, and unable to bear rivals ; extremely sensitive as to the estimation of his contemporaries, especially the bishops ; passionate and resentful, but at times suddenly placable ; scornful and I HIERONYMUS violent in controversy ; kind to the weak and poor ; respectful in dealing with women ; entirely without avarice ; extraordinarily diligent, and nobly tenacious of the main objects of his life. Influence. — His influence grew through his life and increased after his death. " He lived and reigned for a thousand years." His wTitings contain the whole spirit of the church of the middle ages; its monasticism, its con- trast of sacred things with profane, its credu- lity and superstition, its deference to hier- archical authority, its dread of heresy, its passion for pilgrimages. To the society which was thus in a great measure formed by him, his Bible was the greatest boon which could have been given. But he founded no school and had no inspiring power ; there was not sufficient courage or width of view in his spiritual legacy. As Thierry says, " There is no continuation of his work ; ' a few more letters of Augustine and Paulinus, and night falls over the West." A cheap popular Life of St. Jerome by E. L. Cutts is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans, of his principal works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post.-Nic. Fathers. The Bp. of Albany has in preparation (1911) a trans, of the Epistolae Selectae (ed. Hurter). [w.h.f.] Hlerotheus, a writer whose works are quoted by the Pseudo-Dionysius, who styles him his teacher. Two long extracts are preserved in the de Divinis Nominibus of the Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 2, §§ 9, 10 ; c. 4, §§ 15-17), and there are incidental references to him elsewhere. In the first extract (c. 2, § 9 fin.) his Theological Institutes (deoXoyiKal (TTotxeiwtrets) are cited ; in the second his Amatory Hymns {ipuriKoi v/ulvoi). His writ- ings most probably belong to the school of Edessa, and should be dated about the middle or end of 5th cent. In confirmation of this view Dr. Westcott has noted a statement in Assemani (Biblioth. Orient, ii. 290, 291) that Stephen Bar-Sudaili, abbat of a monastery at Edessa, published a book under the name of Hierotheus to support his own mystic doc- trines. Assemani says that this abbat held the doctrine of final restoration as taught by Origen, and was abused for it by Xenaias and James of Sarug, bp. of Batnae (Bibl. Or. i. 303, ii. 30-33 ; Ceillier, x. 641 ; Westcott on Dionys. Areop. in Contemporary Rev. May, 1867). The mystical views in the works of Hierotheus and Dionysius easily lend them- selves to the support of that theory. Accord- ing to Assemani (ii. 291), Bar-Sudaili wrote under the name of Hierotheus to prove " finem poenarum aliquando futurum, nee impios in saeculum saeculorum puniendos fore, sed per ignem purgandos ; atque ita et malos daemones misericordiam consequuturos esse, et cuncta in divinam naturam transmutanda, juxta illud Pauli, ut sit Deus omnia in omni- bus." In Mai's Spicilegium Romanum (iii. 704-707) will be found other fragments of this writer, translated from some Arabic MSS. Their theology savours, however, more of the 4th and 5th cents, than of the ist. But see .\. L. Frothingham, Stephen Bar-Sudaili and the Book of Hierotheos (Levden. 1886). [g.t.s.] Hilarianus (i), Quintus Julius {Hiiarion), a Latin ChUiast writer, c. 397, author of twg HILARION extant treatises. The first. Exposilum de Die Paschae et Mensis, after haviiiR disappeared for several centuries, was printed in 1712, with a dissertation by Pfaffius to prove that it was written a.d. 307- Hilarian supports the Latins against the tireeks, in agreement with pope \'ictor and the council of Nicaea. The second treatise, Chronologia sive Libdlus de Mundi Duralione. is founded on a dispute about the date of the end of the world. The author counts 5,530 years from the Creation to the Passion ; gives the world 6,000 ; and would therefore end it c. 498. The following is a sketch of his chronology : From the Creation to the DchiRe . . 2237 years. ,, ., Dehigc to the Call of .\braham 10 12 „ ,, thence to the Exodus 430 ,, ,, ,, ,, Samuel 450 ,, ,. Zedekiah 514 ,, The Captivity lasted 7o „ Thence to the Passion 887 ,, He believes that after the close of the apocalyptic thousand years will come the loosing of Satan, the seducing of the nations Gog and Magog, the descent of fire from heaven upon their armies ; then the second resurrection, the judgment, the passing away of the old things and the bringing in of the new heavens and new earth ; " impii in ambustione aeterna ; justi autem cum Deo in vita aeterna " fc. 19). His style is barbarous. La Eigne, Biblioth. Vet. Pair. 1609, t. vii. ; 1618, t. V. pt. i. ; 1654, t. vii. ; 1677, t. vii. Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. col. 1094-1114 ; Cave, i. 252 ; Ceillier, vi. 288. A new cd. of de Mundi Duratione was pub. by C. Frisk in Chronica Minora (Leipz. 1S92). [w.m.s. and j.g.] Hilarlon (1), a hermit of Palestine (d. 371). Jerome wrote his Life in 390, quoting Epi- phanius, Hilarion's disciple. Jerome certainly considered his Lives of the Hermits as historical (Vit. Malchi, i.) ; but the marvels of the Life of Hilarion have induced some to believe it to be a mere romance (Israel in Hilgenfeld's j Zeitschrift for 1880, p. 128, but see Zockler's | Jerome, 179). No attempt is made in this 1 art. to separate fact from fiction. The Life of ! Hilarion in any case shews the ideal on which monasticism was nourished in the 4th cent. Hilarion was born at Thabatha, 5 miles S. of Gaza, c. 300, of heathen parents, who sent him for education to Alexandria. There he shewed great talents and proficiency in rhet- oric, which then comprehended nearly the whole of a liberal education. He was of a disposition which made him beloved by all. He became a Christian, and, turning from the frivolous pleasures of the circus and theatre, spent all his leisure in the assemblies of the church. Hearing of the monastic retreat of j Anthony, he became his disciple for a time, but found that the multitude who resorted to Anthony made life with him a city life rather, than one of retirement. Though but fifteen years old, he determined to become a hermit. He returned to Palestine and foimd his parents ! dead, gave away his goods to his brothers and the poor, and went to live in a desert place 7 miles from the Christian city of Majoma near Gaza. The boy hermit was clad in a sackcloth shirt, which he never changed till it was worn out, a cloak of skins which Anthony had given him, and a blanket such as peasants wore. HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 473 His daily sustenance was is cari(i>s f.i sort of figs). He cultivated a little p|.,i ,,f gr<,u,i<i and macle baskets of rushes, so as not to be idle. His disordered fancy summoned up a thousand temptations of Satan, but he over- came them all by calling on the name of Christ. He dwelt 12 years in a little cabin made by himself of woven reeds and rushes ; after that in a hut only 5 feet high, still shewn when Jerome was in Palestine, and more like a sepulchre than a house. The fame of his sanctity spread rapidly, and he was reputed to l)e a worker of miracl.-s and an exorcist. Men of all ranks (whose names and abodes arc circumstantially recorded) suffering from hysteric affections, then attri- buted to demons, were healed. An officer of Majoma, whose duty it was to rear horses for the Circensian games and who had been always beaten through a spell laid upon his chariot by the votaries of Mamas, the idol of Gaza, won the race when the saint had poured water upon his chariot wheels. Hilarion had many disciples, whom he formed into societies and went on circuits to visit them ; and many stories were told of his shrewdness and pene- tration in rebuking their weaknesses. But the crowds who flocked about him made him feel no longer a hermit ; and in his 6^rd year, the year of the death of Anthonv (which was miraculously made known to him), he resolved to set out on his wanderings. Men crowded round him to the number of 10,000. beseeching him not to depart. Business ceased throughout Palestine, the minds of men being wholly occupied with hopes and fears about his departure ; but he left them, and with a few monks, who seem soon to have left him, he went his way, never to return. He first turned towards i3abylon, then to Kgypt. He fled to the Oasis, and afterwards sailed for Sicily. There he lay hid for a time ; but his disciple Hesychius at last discovered him. He again set forth in search of solitude ; but wherever he went his miracles betrayed him. He at length arrived m Cyprus, the home of his friend Epiphanius. There he found a solitary and inaccessible place, still called bv his name, where he lived the last three years of his life, often in the company of Hesychius and Epiphanius. His body was buried in the grounds of a lady named Constantia, but Hesychius disinterred it, and carried it to Majoma in Palestine. Constantia died of grief, but the translation caused jf)y through- out Palestine, where its anniversary was observed as a festival. Vita S. Htlarionis, in Jerome's Works, vol. ii. 13-40, ed. Vail. ; Soz. iii. 14, vi. 32 ; Vit. Patrum, lib. v. c. 4, § 15, p. 568, in.Migne's Prt/r. ^;a-. vol. Ixxiii. Hisname occurs in the Hrzautine Calendar, Oct. 21, as " Our Father Hil.iri-.,, th<- (;reat." [w.ii.f.I Hilarius (7) Plotaviensis, St. {Hilary of Poictiers), d. a.d. 368. Authorities. — (i) His own writings. These furnish so much information that the bio- graphy in the Benedictine ed. of I Ijl.irv's works is mainly drawn from them. (2) Hicnn. de I'iris Illustribus {seu Scriptorum Eccles. Cata- In^us), c. 100. Also in I'saiam, c. Ix., t» Psalm. Iviii. {.\.\'. lix.), in the prooemiuni in lib. li. Comm.adGal. {3) St. Augustine. </<■ '/riwi/rt/i-. lib. X. c. 6, lib. xv. c. 2. (4) Cassian, de Incur- 474 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS natione, lib. vii. (5) St. Gregory of Tours, de Glortd Confessorum, c. 2. (6) Fortunatus, whose identification is uncertain. [Fortunatus (17) and {18).] (7) Cassiodorus, Institut. Divin. lib. i. c. 16. Life. — Hilary is believed to have been born of illustrious stock in Poictiers. St. Jerome (in Gal.) distinctly asserts this, but some authorities name more vaguely the province of Aquitaine, rather than the capital. He enjoyed a good education in the Latin classics, and evidently was specially fond of the writings of Quintilian. About A.D. 350, Hilary, then a married man but, it would seem, still young, appears to have become a Christian. He depicts himself as gradually rising first above the attractions of ease and plenty ; then aiming at knowledge of truth and the practice of virtue. The books of Moses and the Psalms gave him abundant help in his desire to know God ; in his consciousness of weakness the writings of apostles and evangelists aided him, more espe- cially the Gospel of St. John, with its clear and emphatic teaching on the incarnation of the co-eternal Son. His conversion was essentially due to the study of Holy Scripture. After his baptism he became an edifying example of a good Christian layman. He must have remained a layman for some few years. His wife's name is unknown, but a daughter, his only child, was called Abra {al. Apra seu Afra). About 353 the see of Poictiers became vacant by death. The popular voice fixed upon Hilary as the new ijishop, and he was raised per saltum to the episcopate. He amply justified the choice. Two years after his consecration a visit from St. Martin, which was regarded as a compli- ment to the orthodoxy and zeal of Hilary, proved a prelude to an active struggle against the Arian party in Gaul, then headed by Ursacius, Valens, and Saturninus, of whom Saturninus occupies, in the writings of the orthodox, an evil pre-eminence, being repre- sented as immoral, violent, and apt to seek the aid of the civil power against the defenders of the creed of Nicaea. Hilary unites with Sulpicius Severus in censuring Saturninus more than his comrades. The course pursued by Ursacius and Valens, though less violent, was extremely fitful and uncertain, and a majority of the bishops of Gaul, led by Hilary, formally separated themselves from the com- munion of all three. Many even of those who had leant towards Arianism now threw in their lot with Hilary, who received them on condi- tion that they should be approved by the confessors then suffering exile. At a council at Beziers, in Languedoc, Saturninus probably presiding, Hilary (with some other orthodox bishops) was present, but declares that he was refused a hearing. The emperor Constantius received from Saturninus an account of this gathering, and at once resolved to banish to Phrygia Hilary and one of his allies, St. Rhodanus, bp. of Toulouse. Hilary believed that the accusation laid against him before the emperor involved a charge of gross impropriety of conduct. As this event occurred soon after the council of Beziers and before that of Seleucia, its date is assigned to the middle of 356. During this exile of HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS somewhat more than three years Hilary had a good deal of liberty and much enforced leismre. He employed it in examining the condition of religion in Asia Minor, forming an exceedingly unfavourable impression, especially as re- garded his episcopate, and in composition and an attempt to remove misunderstandings, especially between the bishops of the East and those of Gaul ; for the Galileans imagined all in Asia to be sheer Arians, while the Orientals supposed their brethren in Gaul to be lapsing into Sabellianism. Hilary's treatise de Syn- odis belongs to this period (358 or 359). and also his great work de Trinitaie. The fourth year (359) of Hilary's exile witnessed the council of Rimini in the West and that of Seleucia in the East. The em- peror apparently intended the decisions of these two assemblies, if accordant, to be conjointly regarded as the decree of one oecumenical council. Hilary was compelled by the secular authorities to attend that of Seleucia, Constantius himself having convoked it. He found there three sections : the orthodox, semi-Arian, and ultra-Arian or Anomoean. Although his presence was of great service in explaining the true state of things in Gaul, the language of the Acacians so shocked him that he retired from the assembly- These Anomoeans were neverthe- less condemned there. From Seleucia Hilary went to Constanti- nople and was granted an interview with the emperor. Here the Arians, having joined the Anomoeans, were in great force, and, having gathered another council in the Eastern capital, tried to reverse their failure at Seleucia. A challenge from Hilary to discuss the questions at issue publicly, in presence of the emperor, on the evidence of Holy Scrip- ture, was, as he informs us, declined ; and Constantius sent his prisoner back to Gaul, without formally annulling the sentence of banishment or allowing him perfect liberty. The energies of Hilary in Gaul were chiefly concerned with the Arians, but his acts (though bv no means all his writings) in Phrygia with the semi-Arians. His attitude towards these two forms of error was by no means identical. Arianism he regarded as a deadly heresy, with which anything like com- promise was impossible. But with semi- Arianism, or at any rate with certain leading semi-Arians, he thought it quite possible to come to an understanding ; and it will be seen in the account of his works how earnestly he strove to act as a peacemaker between them and the supporters of the creed of Nicaea. The three succeeding years (a.d. 360-362) were partly occupied by his rather dilatory journey homeward, and after his return by efforts which, though of a conciliatory character, all aimed at the restoration of the faith as set forth at Nicaea. His joy at reaching Poictiers (where he was warmly welcomed) and at finding in health his wife, his daughter, and his disciple St. Martin, was dashed by the scenes witnessed during his progress. Con- stantius had banished all bishops who had refused to accept the formula promulgated at Rimini (Socr. H. E. ii. 37 ; confirmed by Soz. iv. 19, and by St. Jerome in his treatise adv. Luciferianos). Hilary and his more ardent HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS friends were not prepared at once to refuse communion to all who had been betrayed into accepting the Riminian decrees. HcRathered in dilTerent parts of Ciaul assemblies of bishops for mutual exjilanation, apparently with fjreat success. Hilary's former opponent, Saturniuus, bp. of Aries, vainly attempted to thwart this work, and Saturninus soon found himself de- serted and practically, perhaps even formally, excommunicated by the (lallican episcopate. Hilary now ventured, despite the unre- pealed sentence of banishment, to journey into N. Italy and Illyria, to bring these pro- vinces into spiritual conformity with Caul. He arrived in Italy a.d. 362 and was greatly encouraged and assisted by St. Eusebius of Vercelli. These two friends, especially in remote districts, into which a fair statement of the points at issue had not penetrated, created a considerable impression, though not equal to that produced in (laul. Possibly Lucifer of Cagliari proved an obstacle. That this ardent and ultra-Athanasian supporter of orthodoxy disapproved of one of the con- ciliatory manifestos of Hilary will be seen below ; and as on another ground he had broken with Eusebius and was opposed to all communion with any who had accepted the decrees of Rimini, he could not have viewed their career with satisfaction. Hilary, nevertheless, remained in Italy until the late autumn of 364. V'alentinian, who became emperor in Feb. 364, found him at Milan in November. A serious altercation between Hilary and Auxentius, bp. of Milan, attracted his attention. The generally charit- able tone adopted by Hilary towards his ecclesiastical opponents warrants our accept- ing his unfavourable report of Auxentius. According to Hilarv, the profession of the creed of Xicaea made by Auxentius was thoroughly insincere, though he persuaded Valentinian that he was acting in good faith ; and, as a natural result, Hilary was com- manded to return to Gaul and at once obeyed, but to the bishops and the church at large made known his own convictions respecting the real character of the bp. of Milan. Hilary spent more than three years at Poictiers after his return from Italy. These years, especially the last two, were compara- tively untroubled. He died calmly on Jan. 13, 368, though in the Roman service-books his day is Jan. 14, so as not to interfere with the octave of the Epiphany. Writings. — I. Exegetical. — (i) Exposition of the Psalms (Commentarii in Psalmos). — The comments embrace Ps. i., ii. ; ix.-xiii. (and per- haps xiv.) ; li.-lxix. ; xci.-cl. (The numbers are the Vulgate reckoning, e.g. li. is lii., and Ixix. is Ixx. in A.V.) The treatment is not critical, but reveals a deeply sincere and high-toned spirit. Jerome's translation was yet to come when Hilary wrote. As was natural, he leant mainly and somewhat too confidently upon the LXX, but took full advantage of the comments of Origen. He seeks a via media between the literal sense, and that reference of everything to Christ which marks some later commentators, both patristic and medieval. (2) Commentarii in Matthaeum. — This is the earliest gospel commentary in the Western church ; all previous ones being cither, like HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 475 that of Origen, in C.roek, or, if in Latin, only partial, as some tra( tates of St. Cyprian. In the next century the work of Hilary was some- what overshadowed by the rommrntarirs produced by the genius of St. Augustine and the learning of St. Jerome in the West, and by the <-loquence of St. Chrvsostom in the Hast. Although he may have made some use of the writings of Origen, there is much that is curious and sometimes a( ute as well as devout that seems to be really his own. Jerome and Augustine frequently quote it. It was prob- ably composed before his banishment to Phrygia in 356. Onthe expressions concerning divorce (Matt. V. 31, 32), Hilary regards Christian marriaRc as absolutely indissoluble. His endeavours to solve difficulties, such as that of the gene- alogies of our Lord, indicate a real willingness to face them and are not devoid of acuteness. On " the brethren of the Lortl " Hilary uses the powerful argument that Christ would not have conmiitted the Virgin Mother to the rare of St. John if she had ha<l children of her own, and he adopts the view, usually con- nected with the name of Epiphanius, that they were children of Joseph by a former wife. Hilary's respect for the LXX led him to embrace the Alexandrian rather than the Palestinian canon of O.T. He occasionally cites some portions of the Apocrypha (as Judith, Wisdom, and Maccabees) as Scripture. He is earnest in lu-ging the study of Scripture, and lays much stress on the need of humility and reverence for reading them with profit. Both the Word and the Sacraments become spiritual food for the soul. II. Dogmatical. — LibriXII.de Trinitate. — For de Trinitate some copies read contra Arianos, others de Fide, and others some slight varieties of a like kind. But de Trini- tate appears on the whole the most suitable ; and as Hilary's is the most ancient extant exposition of St. Matthew by a Latin father, so the de Trinitate is the first great contri- bution, in Latin, to the discussion of this great dogma. Bk. i. treats of natural religion, and how it leads up to revelation. Bk. ii. especially discusses the baptismal formula (Matt, xxviii. 19) ; bk. iii. the union of the two natures in Christ ; bk. iv. that this co- existence of two natures does not derogate from the unity of His Divine Person. Bk. v. urges, as against heretics, the testimony of the prophets {ex auctoritatibus propheticts) in favour of the propositions of bk. iv. Bk. vi. is mainly occupied with refutations of Sabellian and Manichean doctrines. Bk. vii. shews how the errors of Ebionites, Arians, and Sabellians overthrow each other, thus illus- trating a principle asserted in bk. i. § 26 : " Lis eorum est fides nostra." Bk. viij. contains a demonstration of the unity of God, and shews that it is nowise affected by the Sonship of Christ. Bk. ix. replies to the Arian appeal to certain texts, e.g. Mark xiv. 32, Luke xviii. 19, John v. 19, xiv. 2H, xvii. 3. Bks. x. and xi. similarly discuss, e.g., Matt. xxvi. 38, 39, 46, Luke xxiii. 46, John xx. 17, and i Cor. XV. 27, 28. Bk. xii. is also exi>ressly written against Arianism. 1 1 inrlutles a passageof much beauty, which bi-ars a slight resembhuuc to the devout and eloquent pleading of Wisd. ix. 476 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS The work is a longer, more methodical, and more consecutive anti-Arian argument than Athanasius himself found time to indite. Viewed intellectually, it must perhaps be ranked above Hilary's commentary on Scrip- ture. Its recognition of the rights of reason as well as of faith, combined with its sense of human ignorance and of our need of humility, its explanation of many difficulties and of the meaning of the terms employed ; the endea- vour (though not always successful) to adapt to his subject the imperfect medium of Latin, its many felicitous descriptions, both of the temper in which we ought, and the spirit in which we ought not, to approach the study of these mysteries ; the mode of his appeals to Holy Scripture,— all form very strikmg features. The book evidently produced a great impression. A high compliment is paid it by the historian Socrates : " Both [i.e. Hilary and Eusebius of Vercelli] nobly con- tended side by side for the faith. Hilary, who was an eloquent man, set forth in his book the dogmas of the Homoousion in the Latin tongue . . . and powerfully confuted the Arian dog- mas " (H. E. iii. 10). It marks an epoch in the history of dogmatic theology in the Western church. Its influence declined in the next century and throughout the earlier and later middle ages. About 416- some 56 years after its publication, the 15 books de Trinitate of the great bp. of Hippo appeared. St. Augustine became the doctor par excellence of the West, and the labours of Hilary, most effective at their appearance, became some- what neglected and obscured. The errors of Pelagianism, perhaps some anticipations of Nestorianism, had certainly by the time of Augustine tended to bring into clearer relief some particular phases and elements of Christian doctrine. Development in this sense is fully recognized by the Lutheran Dorner and by the Anglican Prof. Hussey. Nor can it be called a novel theory. " By the very events," writes the historian Evagrius, " by which the members of the church have been rent asunder have the true and faultless dogmas {to. 6p6a Kai dij.djiJ.VTa Soytxara) been the more fully polished and set forth, and the Catholic and apostolic church of God hath gone on to increase and to a heavenward ascent" (H. E. i. 11). "Many things," says Augustine himself, " pertaining to the Catholic faith, while in course of agitation by the hot restlessness of heretics, are, with a view to defence against them, weighed more carefully, understood more clearly, and preached more earnestly ; and the question mooted by the adversary hath become an occasion of our learning." * The intentions of Hilary were so thoroughly good that both his studies of Holy Scripture and the influence of the three later oecumenical councils would doubtless have saved him from some serious mistakes, if he had lived to hear of their decisions. It is true, as the Benedictine editor points out, that Hilary's note upon * Dean Hook, in his University Sermons preached before 1838, called attention to this as a favourite opinion of St. Augustine's. Bp. Moberly, in his Discourses on the Great Forty Days (preface and dis- course iv.) shewed the difference between this view and the modern Roman theory of development. HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS Ps. liii. 8 condemns not only ApoUinaris, but (by anticipation) Nestorius and Eutyches as well. Nevertheless, such mistakes as Hilary did make are all connected with the subject, which has been summed up in so masterly a manner by Hooker (£. P. bk. v. cc. lii.-liv., esp. § 10 of liv.), viz. the union of the two natures in the one divine personality of Christ. The chief of these mistakes are as follows : In de Trinitate, bk. x., Hilary seems to approach to a denial of the truth that the Incarnate Lord took man's nature from His Virgin Mother, of her substance. This is probably only an incautious over-statement of the article, " He was conceived of the Holy Ghost." For the language in other passages of this book and on Pss. cxxxviii. and Ixv. implies a complete acceptance of the Homo ex substantia Matris. Some laxity of usage appears in regard to the terms Verbum and Spiritus. Certainly the former word seems necessary instead of the latter in the phrase (bk. x.) " Spiritus sanctus desuper veniens naturae se humanae carne immiscuit." Dom Coutant points out similar confusion of language in Tertullian and Lactantius, and even in St. Irenaeus and St. Cyprian. St. Gregory and St. Athanasius seem inclined to palliate it. A more serious error is Hilary's apparent want of grasp of the truth of our Lord's humanity in all things, sin alone excepted. At times he seems to speak of our Lord's natural body as if endued with impassibility (indolentia), and of His soul as if not obnoxious to the human affections of fear, grief, and the like. This and the other mistakes of Hilary are more or less palliated by Lanfranc, by the two great schoolmen Peter Lombard and Aquinas, and by Bonaventure. Hilary also meets with indulgence from Natalis Alexander; and, above all, is defended by his Benedictine editor, Dom Coutant, who, as Cave justly re- marks, " naevos explicare, emollire et vindicare satagit." A sort of tradition was handed down to Bonaventure by a schoolman, William of Paris, that Hilary had made a formal retrac- tation of his error concerning the indolentia, which he had ascribed to our Lord. This seems very doubtful ; nevertheless, the lan- guage of his later books, e.g. on the Pss., appears to recognize the reality of both the mental and bodily sufferings of Christ. III. Polemical. — (i) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Primus. — This address, prob- ably Hilary's earliest extant composition, is a petition to the emperor — evidently written before Hilary's exile, at the close of 355 or early in 356 — for toleration for the orthodox inGaul against thepersecutionof Arianbishops and laymen. These assaults Hilary represents as both coarse and cruel. He names some sup- porters of Arianism, both in the East and in Gaul. Among the latter, Ursacius and Valens occupy a painful prominence. He urges that it is even on political grounds a mistake for the emperor to allow such proceedings ; among his Catholic subjects will be found the best de- fenders of the realm against internal sedition and barbarian invasion. The excellent tone of this address is admitted on all sides. (2) Ad Constantium Augustum Liber Secun- dus. — This second address is subsequent to Hilary's exile, having been presented to the HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS emperor in 360. Hilary protests his innocence of all charges brought against him. He is still in effect a bishop in tlaul, ministering to his flock through the clergy. He would gladly meet the man whom he regards as the author of his exile, Saturniiius, bp. of .\rles. He is anxious to plead for the faith in the council about to be summoned. He will argue from Holy Scripture, but warns the emperor that every heretic maintains his creed to be agree- able to Scripture. He is deeply conscious of the injury wrought to Christianity in the sight of the outer world by the distractions of so many rival councils and professions of faith. {3) Contra Constantium Augustum Liber. — This book is addressed to the bps. of Gaul. Jerome is almost certainly mistaken in assert- ing its composition to be later than the death of Constantius. Internal evidence sufficiently confutes the idea, though its existence prob- ably did not become widely known until after that event (361). Hilary's tone is now utterly changed. He has given up all hope of influencing Constantius. The emperor, too, on his side, has altered the traditional line of policy against opponents. He is here charged, not with persecution, but with the enticements of bribes, of good diimers. of flatteries and in- vitations to court. Hilary appears to have laid aside his usual self-restraint, perhaps to have lost his temper, and to have forgotten his usual respectfulness and charity of language. Constantius has become, in his eyes, an Anti- christ, who would fain make a present of the world to Satan. The entire letter shews that Hilary had lost all hope of any aid to the faith being granted by Constantius, and it is at least just to give its due weight to the remark of Mohler that, " if we drive men to despair, we ought to be prepared to hear them speak the language of despair." (4) De Synodis Fidei Catholicae contra Arianos ei praevaricatores Arianis acquies- centes ; also occasionally referred to as de Fide Orientalium ; and sometimes, though less frequently, as de Synodis Graeciae, or even simply as Epistola. Internal evidence fur- nishes a satisfactory approximation to the date of its composition, viz. in 358 or very early in 359. It is a letter from Hilary, an exile in Phrygia, to his brother-bishops in Gaul, who had asked for an explanation of the numerous professions of faith which the Orientals seemed to be putting forth. Hilary, although (as we have seen from his subsequent second letter to Constantius) deeply conscious of the harm wrought by these proceedings, wrote back a thorough' Irenicon, for such must the de Synodis among all his writings be especially considered. Praising his Gallic brethren for firmness in opposing Saturninus and for their just condemnation of the second formula proposed at Sirmium. he desires that they and their brethren in Britain {provinci- arum Britanniarum cpiscopi) should come to Ancyra or to Rimini in a conciliatory frame of mind. J ust as the orthodox Homoousion may be twisted into Sabellianism, even so may the unorthodox Homoiousion be found patient of a good interpretation. It may be shewn to those well disposed that, rightly understood, complete similarity in reality involves identity. The faith professed at Sardica was, he main- HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS 477 tains, substantially sound. It asscrtfd the external origin of the Son from tin- subslan< e of the Father, and condemned the heresy of Photinus, " quae initium Dei filii ex partu Virginis mentiebatur." Hilary appeals to the more peace-loving among the seini-Arian bishops to accept both terms in thrir true sense. " Date veniam, Fratrts, <iuam fre- quenter popos( i. A riani non eitts ; cur negando homoousion censemini A riant?" (§ SS). Here conu'S in that remarkable statement, that he had never, before his exile, heard the Nicene Creed, but had made it out for himself fron> the Ciospels and other books of N.T. A peacemaker is often suspected on one side, sometimes upon both. His first letter to Constantius, his commentary on St. Matthew, his confessorship as shewn in his exile, did not save Hilary from suspicion. By some he was held to have conceded too much to the semi- Arians. This opinion was voiced by Lucifer of Cagliari, the earnest out somewhat harsh- minded representative of that extreme wing which might be called more Athanasian than Athanasius. Some apologetic notes, shewing much courtesy and gentleness, appended by Hilary to a copy sent to Lucifer, were first published in the Benedictine ed. (Paris. 1693). (5) Liber contra Auxentium. — Written a.d. 365, under Valentinian, who had become emperor in 366. Hilary was convinced that the profession of orthodoxy made by Auxen- tius was thoroughly insincere. The emperor accepted the position avowed by Auxenlius, entered into communit)n with him, and ordered Hilary to leave Milan. Hilary obeyed at once, but, as the sole resource left him, published this address to the church at large. Hence its other titles, viz. contra Arianos vel Auxentium Mediolanensem, and Epistola ad Catholicos et Auxentium. It forms a curious commentary upon church history by bringing into vivid relief the utterly changed character of the temptations to which Christians were now exposed as compared with those of the ante-Nicene period. Hilary's view must be considered a rather one-sided one. He sees clearly the evils of his own day, but hardly realizes what must have been the trials of the times of Nero, Decius, and Galerius. The concluding part makes out a strong case against Auxentius. It is difficult to believe that he was not an Arian at heart. Hilary, like some of his contemporaries, declares that the ears of the people have become purer than the hearts of the bishops. He begs those who shrink from breaking off communion with Auxentius, whf)m he calls an angt-l of Satan, not to let their love of mere walls and build- ings seduce them into a false peace. Anti- christ may seat himself within a church ; the forests and mountains, lakes and prisons, are safer. It must be remembered, in palliation of Hilary's strong language respecting the bp. of Milan, that he regarded him not as an open foe, but as a betrayer of truth by false pre- tences. Kufinus, who speaks «)f Hilary as a " confessor fidei Catholicae," entities this work " librum instructionis plenissimae." • (6) Fragmenta Hilartt. — These fragments were first published in 150H bv .N'icolaus Faber, who got them from the library of Father * Kufinus, Je Aiiulleraltone Ltbrorum Vrtfemi. il8 HILARIU3 PICTAVIENSIS Pithou. They possess considerable value in the elucidation of the history of the period embraced by Hilary's episcopate. It is claimed that they are the remnants of a book by Hilary mentioned by Rufinus, and de- scribed by Jerome as Liber contra Valentem et Ursacium, which contained a history of the councils of Rimhii and Seleucia. On this book Hilary expended much labour, having begun it in 360 and completed it in 366. The 15 fragments occupy some 80 folio pages. They are, with one exception, recognized as genuine by Tillemont and by Ceillier. Whether, however, all the other documents cited in these fragments can be depended upon has been disputed. Respecting the genuineness of the commentaries given by Dom Pitra, opinions may fairly differ ; and happily there is in that case no disturbing influence at work as there is in the case of these fragments. If we accept them as authentic, the case against Liberius is certainly darkened. But this is precisely the conclusion which certain modern critics (such as, e.g., the anonymous editor of Dom Ceillier) are for very obvious reasons most anxious to avoid. (7) Epistola ad Abram Filiam simtn (c. 358). — Hilary, during his exile, learnt that there was some prospect of his daughter Abra, though only in her 13th year, being sought in marriage. He draws a mystic portrait of the heavenly bridegroom, which is evidently intended to suggest the superiority of a religious celibacy, but leaves her an entirely free choice, only desiring that the decision should be really her own. He encloses a morning and an evening hymn. On any difficulties in the letter or the hymns, Abra is to consult her mother. The Hymnus matuti- nus, a very brief one, is still extant. The Hymnus vespertmus is more disputed, but Cardinal Mai makes a fair case for it, though it does not satisfy Dom Coutant and Dom Ceillier. Two other hymns by Hilary, com- mencing respectively " Hymnum dicat turba fratrum " (a hymn on the life of our Lord) and " Jesus refulsit omnium" (on the Epiphany) are given by Thomassy in his Hymnarium. Dom Pitra gives some verses of considerable beauty on our Lord's childhood, which seem to be Hilary's. The letter to Abra is con- sidered doubtful by some critics, and rejected by Cave, but upon insufficient evidence. The best ed. of Hilary is the Benedictine by Coutant (Paris, 1693), or its reprint with a few additions by Maffei (Verona, 1730). The de Trinitate is in Hurter's Ss. Pat. Opusc. (Inns- briick, 1888). In conclusion, it must be observed that, though Hilary in his de Trinitate (lib. vi. 36- 38) speaks of Peter's confession as the founda- tion of the church, he, in other writings, more especially in his commentary on the Psalms, is inclined to make Peter himself, whom he terms caelestis regni janitor em, the foundation. In the fragmenta we find a letter from the fathers of Sardica to pope Julius, which certainly does refer to the Roman see as the head see. If Hilary approved of this document, he may very probably have allowed to Rome a primacy, at any rate, in the West. But this is a somewhat slender foundation to build a superstructure upon ; and it is singular HILARltJS ARELATEKStS to find Ceillier's editor, in his anxiety to dam- age the authority of the fragmenta, somewhat injuring the credit of the only one brief sentence in the extensive works of Hilary which can be cited as a recognition, however indirect, of the Roman primacy (Ceillier, iv. p. 63, note). In practice Hilary did not often take his stand upon authority. The metropolitan see of Aries was in his time j occupied by the Arian Saturninus, Hilary's chief opponent in his earlier day. He had not been long bishop when, by force of character, ; will, intellect, and confessorship, he came into the first rank of champions. The idea of con- troversy being settled by the fiat of any one bishop, whether of Rome or elsewhere, had ; never dawned upon his mind. No leave was j asked when he descended into Italy toconfront I Auxentius. A cheap popular Life of Hilary of Poictiers.by J. G.Cazenove, ispub.byS.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, and a selection of his works is in the Lib. of Nic. and Post- Nic. Fathers. Cf. also an art. in Journ. of Theol. Stud. Apr. 1904, by A. J. Mason on "The First Latin Christian Poet." [j.G.c] Hilarlus (17) Arelatensis {Hilary of Aries), St., bp. of Aries and metropolitan. Authorities. — (i) References to himself in his biography of his predecessor, Honoratus of Aries. (2) Vita Hilarii, usually assigned to 1 St. Honoratus, bp. of Marseilles, a disciple of Hilary (Boll. Acta SS. 5; Mai. ii. 25). (3) Gennadius, niust. Vir. Catal. § 67. (4) St. [ Leo {Ep. 8g, al. 10). (5) Councils of Riez, 439, Orange and Vaison, 442, Rome, 445 (Labbe, Concil.t. i. pp. 1747, 1783), Vienne, 445 (Nata- lis Alexander, Hist. Ecclesiastica, t. v. p. 168, art. viii. de Concilio Romano in causa Hilarit Arelatensis). (6) Notices of St. Hilary are also to be found in the writings of St. Euche- Rius (who dedicated to him his book de Laude Eremi), of St. Isidore, of Sidonius Apollinaris, and others ; and very specially in certain writings of St. Prosper and St. Augustine, to which references will be found below. The place of his birth, probably in 401, was apparently that part of Gallia Belgica called later Austrasia. He was of noble family. His education was, according to the [ standard of the age, a thoroughly liberal i one, including philosophy and rhetoric. That in rhetoric he became no mean proficient is proved by the graceful style of the one assured S composition of his which is extant. The early ambition of Hilary's mind lay in the direction of secular greatness. Both station and culture gave him every prospect of success, and he appears to have ably dis- charged the duties of some dignified offices in the state, though we are not informed of their precise nature. He must have been very young when the example and the entreaties of his friend and kinsman Honoratus of Aries induced him to renounce all secular society for the solitude of the isle of Lerins. He sold his estates to his brother, and gave the proceeds ' partly to the poor, partly to some monasteries which needed aid. At Lerins he became a model monk inthe very best and highest sense; but after a period probably not exceeding two years his friend Honoratus, being chosen (a.d. 426) bp. of Aries, obtained the comfort of Hilary's companionship in his new duties. HILARIUS ARELATENSIS Honoratus died Jan. i6. ^2Q,aiuiHilaryatonce prepared to return to Lerins, but tlie citizens of Aries compelled hini to occupy the vacant see. As bishop, he lived in many respects like a monk, though by no means as a recluse. Simply clad, he traversed on foot the whole of his diocese and province. At home he dwelt in a seminary with some of his clergy. For the redemption of captives he earned money by tilling the earth and planting vines, and did not scruple to sell on emergencies sacred church vessels, substituting others of meaner material. He continued his studies, was constant in meditation and prayer, and as a preacher produced a great impression, by his excellent matter and delivery. The canons passed by the councils of Ricz and of Orange, over which Hilary presided in 439 and 442 respectively, were in the main of a disciplinary character ; at Riez a special canon, the seventh, insisted strongly on the rights of the metropolitan. It seems un- deniable that Hilary was inclined to press the claims of this ofSce to a degree which amounted to usurpation ; partly, perhaps, in regard to the geographical extent of the jurisdiction claimed by him for the see of Aries, and cer- tainly with respect to the rights of the clergy, the laity, and the comprovincial bishops. But before dealing with his important contest with pope Leo, we must interpose a few words on the semi-Pelagianism of which he has been accused. In 429, the year in which he became bishop, two letters (225 and 226 in the Benedictine ed. of St. Augustine) were addressed to the great bp. of Hippo, one by Prosper, and one by another Hilary, a layman. In the former, Prosper, after recounting various shades of dissent mani- fested in S. Gaul from the Augustinian teach- ing on predestination, expressly names Hilary, bp. of .A.rles, among the recalcitrants. Pros- per refers in terms of high encomium to Hilary, and intimates that in all other respects the bp. of Aries was an admirer and supporter of Augustine's teaching. He believed, indeed, that Hilary had some intention of writing to Augustine for explanation on the points at issue. The epistle of Hilary the layman, though its statement is more brief and general, entirely confirms that of Pmsper. If on this evidence, and also from the re- spect shewn by him to Faustus of Riez, we are compelled to class Hilary of Aries with the semi- Pelagians, it must be recognized that he is a supporter of their views in their very mildest form. That Hilary had some grounds for fearing that Augustine's teaching might imperil the acknowledgment of man's free agency is admitted by many of our historians, e.g. Canons Bright (Hist, of Church, p. 307) and Robertson (Hist, of Chr. Church, bk. iii. cc. ii. and vii.). St. (lermain of Auxerre, who went twice over to Britain to contend against Pelagianism, was a companion of the bp. of Aries on at least one of his tours througli (iqiul. Out of this tour, undertaken by Hilary as metropolitan, there arose the important con- test between the bps. of Aries and Rome which ended in procuring for the Roman see a great increase of authority, both in respect of territory and of power. The struggle is in many respects a remarkable one. Each side HILARIUS ARELATENSIS 47d was well championed. I, to and Hilary were men of saintly piety, earnrst and eiiiTgetic in the discharge of their duties, l^ach con- scientiously believed himsilf in the right ; both were apt to be hasty and high-handed in carrying out their views of ecclesiastic al government. Hilary found at Besan^on (Vesontio), or according to some at Vesoul, a bp. named Chclidonius, the validity of whose position was assailed on the two grounds that he had married a widow while yet a layman, and that he had previously, as a lay magistrate, pronounced sentences of capital punishment. Hilary held a council at Vienne in 444, and we learn fmni his bii>- grapher and from the testimony of I.eo that by its sentence Chclidonius was deposed from the episcopate and appealed to Rome in person. Although it was now midwinter, Hilary went on foot across the Alps. Presenting himself to Leo, he respectfully requested him to act in conformity with the canons and usages of the universal church. Persons juridically deposed were known to be serving the altar in Rome. If Leo found this to be the case, let him. as quietly and secretly as he pleased, put a stop to such violation of the canons. If Leo would not do this. Hilary would simply return home, as he had not come to Rr)me to bring any accusation. It seems probable, however, that he would have listened if Leo had been content with suggesting a rehearing of the cause in Caul. Leo declined to take this view. Although Gaul was not a portion of the Roman patriarchate, the Roman pontiff resolved to assert over that region a claim similar to that which he had just failed to establish in Africa. [Leo.] He summoned a council or conference in which Hilary, for the sake of peace, consented to take part. Several bishops were present, including Chclidonius. Hilarv, with much jilainness of speech, de- fended his conduct. Leo had him put under guard ; but Hilarv contrived to escape and (apparentlv in Feb. 445) returned to Aries. Leo found the charge of marriage with a widow not proven against Chclidonius ; and formally (as he had already done informally) pronounced him restored to his rank of bishop and to his see. Not content with the re- versal of Hilary's sentence, Leo proceeded to deprive the bp. of Aries of his rights as a metropolitan, and to confer them on the bp. of Vienne. He further charged Hilary with having traversed Claul attended by a band of armed men, and with hastily, without waiting for election bv the clergy and laity.consecrating a new bishop in place of Projectus, a bishop (according to Hilary within his province) who was at that time ill. Leo availed himself of his great influence with Valentinian III. to obtain an imperial rescript against Hilary, as one who was injuring the peace of the church and rebelling against the majesty of the empire. This celebrated document, which virtually promised the su|)port of the secular arm to the claim of the Roman pontiff to be a universal bislioji, was issued in 445, and was addressed to the Roman general in Gaul, Aetius. In this controversv Protestant historians, as a rule, take the side of Hilary. But Roman Catholics are much divided. Writers of the ultramontane school, as Rohrbacher or the 430 HILARIUS ARELATENSIS Italian Gorini (cited in the recent edition of Dom Ceillier), are severe upon Hilary and profess to regard the emperor's rescript as only stating explicitly a principle always recognized. But the Galileans, as Quesnel and Tillemont, strongly defend Hilary. It must be said for him that his conviction, that the see of Aries gave him metropolitical power over the whole of Gaul, was based upon no small amount of cogent testimony. The case in favour of this has been ably summed up by Natalis Alexander {H. E. § v. c. v. art. 8), and by the Rev. W. Kay in a note to the Oxf. trans, of Fleury (Lond. 1844). But if it hold good for the case of Chelidonius, it is not equally clear for that of Projectus. That Hilary should escape from Rome, when he found the secular authority employed to detain him, was only natural and justifiable. That he should take soldiers with him in making his visitations may be reasonably ascribed (as Fleury suggests) to the disturbed state of the country. As regards Projectus, he may have strayed beyond the ill-defined limits of his province and most certainly violated canonical rule. But there is no reason to doubt that Hilary, in so acting, really believed that Projectus would not recover, and wished to provide against an emergency. As for Hilary's exceeding freedom of language in the presence of Leo, which greatly shocked Leo and probably others among the audience, it must be remembered that the bp. of Aries was always wont to speak very plainly. Moreover, as a friend of Hilary, the prefect Auxiliaris subsequently observed, " Roman ears were very delicate." Those who are willing to accept pleas on behalf of Hilary do not thereby commit them- selves to unreserved censure on pope Leo. The encouragement to interference in the affairs of S. Gaul was undeniably very great. Strong as was the case for the jurisdiction of Aries over most of the Galilean sees, the authority over Narbonensian Gaul had long been claimed for the bp. of Vienne. A contest between Patroclus of Aries and Proculus of Marseilles had already been carried to a former bp. of Rome, Zosimus, in 422 (some 22 years before the case of Hilary), though the result had not been encouraging to the par- tisans of Rome, since Zosimus misjudged it and his successor Boniface referred it back to the prelates of Gaul. But Leo, though at times dwelling more upon St. Peter's confes- sion of faith than on his personal position, in all his letters bearing on the contest with Hilary repeats continually the text (Matt. xvL 18) on which other bishops of Rome had dwelt so much, and appeals to it as if no other interpretation had ever been heard of, and as in itself his sole and sufficient justification. Leo's recourse to the emperor's aid has been severely censured ; and Tillemont declared concerning the famous law of June 6, 445, that " in the eyes of those who have any love for the church's liberty or any knowledge of her discipline, it will bring as little honour to him whom it praises as of injury to him whom it condemns" (Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. xv. art. xx. p. 83). Baronius (as Tillemont naturally adds) is fully justified in appealing to this act of Valentinian as a proof of the powerful HILARIUS aid lent by the emperors towards establishing the greatness and authority of the pope. Of the remaining four years of Hilary's life, after his return to Gaul, we know little more than that they were incessantly occupied with the discharge of his duties. Practically the acts of Leo do not appear to have affected his position (see Hallam, Middle Ages, vol. ii. c. vii. pt. i. and Fleury), and Hilary never I acknowledged their validity ; though an appeal to Leo was made after Hilary's death for the restoration of its ancient metropolitical rights to Aries. The attempts of Hilary through friends to conciliate Leo availed little. But when, after the death of Hilary (May 5, 449), the prelates of the provinces announced I to Leo that Ravennius had been elected and ' duly consecrated, Leo wrote an acknowledg- ment which sounds like a virtual retractation of his imputations on the motives and charac- ter of Hilary and most justly entitled him a man " of holy memory." Writings. — Waterland {Critical History of the Athanasian Creed) argues that Hilary of Aries was the author of the (so-called) Creed of St. Athanasiiis, but this remains only an ingenious conjecture. Among other doubt- ful works assigned to Hilary must be classed certain poems on sacred subjects : (i) Poema de septem fratribus Maccabaeis ab Antiocho Epiphane interfectis. (2) A poem, more fre- quently attributed to Prosper Aquitanus and generally included in his works, entitled Carmen de Dei Providentid. (3) Carmen in Genesim. This poem (which, like the two preceding, is in hexameters) has been more often ascribed to the earlier Hilary, bp. of Poictiers. The Benedictine editors reject it with some indignation from the genuine works of Hilary of Poictiers ; remarking, however, that this does not involve its attribution to Hilary of Aries. But despite faults— theo- logical, grammatical, and metrical — the poem is curious as a real attempt at that blending of the Christian and classic elements of litera- ture displayed in after-ages so brilliantly, though after all with questionable success, by such able scholars as the Jesuit Casimir and the Presbyterian Buchanan. We have the authority of Hilary's bio- grapher for asserting that he did compose some poetry (versus), wrote many letters, an ex- planation of the Creed (Symboli Expositio — this is a main element in Waterland's argu- ment) and sermons for all the church's festivals (Homiliae in totius Anni Festivitates). These were apparently extant when Honoratus wrote. Two only survive : (i) Epistola ad Eucherium Episcopum Lugdunensem. (2) Vita Sancti Honorati Arelatensis Episcopi. This may be read in the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum, for Jan. 16. [j-G.c] Hilarius (181 (Hilarus), bp. of Rome from Nov. 19 (or 17, Holland.), 461, to Sept. 10, 467, succeeding Leo I. after a vacancy of nine days. He was a native of Sardinia and, when elected pope, archdeacon of Rome. He had been sent, when a deacon, as one of the legates of pope Leo to the council at Ephesus called Latrocinium (449), and is especially mentioned in the Acts of the council as having protested against the deposition of Flavian. After the council, Flavian having died from the violent HILARIUS treatment he had undergone, Hilarius, fearing with reason the like usage, escaped from Ephesus and travelled by by-roads to Italy. A letter from Hilarius, addressed after his return to the empress Pulcheria. gives an account of these transactions (Baron, ad ann. 449, and Act. Concil. Chalccd.). His short pontificate is chiefly memorable for his asser- tion of the authority of the see of Rome in Gaul and Spain. His predecessor Leo, during his struggle with St. Hilary of Aries for supremacy in Ciaul, had obtained from Valen- tinian III. a famous rescript (445) confirming such supremacy to the fullest extent both in Gaul and elsewhere [Leg] ; and to such extent it was accordingly claimed by Hilarius. Soon after his accession he wrote (Jan. 25, 462) to Leontius, bp. of Aries and exarch of the provinces of Narbonensian Claul, announcing the event and referring to the deference due to the Roman see. In the same year he wrote a second letter to Leontius, who had deferenti- ally congratulated the pope on his accession, and had begged him to continue the favour shewn to the see of Aries against opponents of its jurisdiction. The pope, in his reply, com- mends his correspondent's deference to St. Peter and desires that the discipline of the Roman church should prevail in all churches. Rusticus, metropolitan of Narbonne, had nominated his archdeacon Hermes as his successor, but had failed to obtain Leo's approval. On the death of Rusticus, Hermes had been accepted by the clergy and people of Narbonne as their metropolitan bishop. On this, Frederic, kingof the West (ioths, an Arian, wrote to acquaint the pope with the " wicked usurpation " and " execrable presumption " of Hermes. Accordingly Hilarius wrote a third letter to Leontius, in which he adopts the language of Frederic, and requires Leontius to send to Rome a statement of the affair, signed by himself and other bishops (Hil. Ep. vii. Labbe). The matter was now brought before a synod at Rome (462), and Hermes was declared degraded from the rank of metropolitan, but allowed to retain his see. Hilarius notified this decision in a letter dated Dec. 3, 462, to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne. Lyons, Narbonensis prima and secunda, and the Pennine Alps, which letter also contained regulations for the discipline of the church in Gaul (Hil. Ep. viii. Labbe). In 463 Hilarius again interposed in the affairs of the church in Gaul ; and on this occasion not only Leontius of .\rles but also Mamertus, metropolitan of Vienne, fell under his dis- pleasure. The city Diae Vocontiorum (Die in Dauphine) had been assigned by pope Leo to the jurisdiction of Aries ; but Mamertus had, notwithstanding, ordained a bp. of that see. Hilarius, again deriving his information from an .\rian prince, Gundriac the Bur- gundian king, wrote a severe letter to Leon- tius, censuring him for not having apprized the holy see, and charging him to investigate the matter in a synod and then send to Roine a synodal letter giving a true account of it. Mamertus seems to have continued to assert his claim to jurisdiction in spite of the pope ; for in Feb. 464 we find two more letters from Hilarius, a general one to the Gallican bishops, and another to various bishops addressed by HILARIUS 4.SI name, in the former of which he accuses Mamertus of presumption and prevarication, threatens to deprive him of his metropolitan rank and disallows the bishops whom he had ordained till confirmed by Leontius. The second letter is noteworthy in that the pope rests his claim to supremacy over Gaul on imperial as well as ecrlesiastiral law ; alluding probably to the rescript of Valentinian III. " He [i.e. Mamertus] could not abrogate any portion of the right appointed to our brother Leontius by my predecessor of holy memory ; since it has been decreed by the law of Chris- tian princes that whatsoever the prelate of the apostolic see may, on his own judgment, have pronounced to churches and their rulers . . . is to be tenaciously observed ; nor can those things ever be upset which shall be supported by both ecclesiastical and royal injunction " (Hil. Epp. ix. X. xi. Labbe). Baroimis finds it needful to account for St. Leo and St. Hilarius having so bitterly inveighed against St. Hilary and St. Mamertus by saying that popes may be deceived on matters of fact, and, under the prepossession of false accusations, persecute the innocent (Baron, ad ann. 464). In 465 Hilary exercised over the Spanish church the authority already brcjught to bear on that of Gaul, but this time on appeal. Two questions came before him. First, Silvanus, bp. of Calchorra, had been guilty of offences against the canons ; and his metropolitan, Ascanius of Tarragona, had in 464 sent a synodal letter on the subject to the pope, requesting directions (Inter Hilar. Epp.. Ep. ii. Labbe). Secondly, Nundinarius, bp. of Barcelona, had nominated his successor, and after his death the nomination was confirmed by the metropolitan Ascanius and his suffra- gans. But they wrote to the pope desiring his concurrence and acknowledging the primacy of St. Peter's see. Both these letters were considered in a synod at Rome. On the second case it was decided that Irenaeus, the nominated bishop, should quit the see of Bar- celona and return to his former one, while the Spanish bishops were ordered to condone the uncanonical acts of Silvanus (Hil. Epp. i. ii. iii. and Concil. Rom. xlviii. Labbe). In 467 the new emperor Anthemius was induced by one Philotheus, a Macedonian heretic whom he had brought with him, t<> issue a general edict of toleration for heretics. This was, however, revoked before coming into effect, and pope Gelasius (Ep. ad Eptsc. Dardan.) says that this was due to Hilarius having in the church of St. Peter remonstrated with the emperor and induced him to promise on oath that he would allow no schisniatical assemblies in Rome. In the same year Hilarius died. He appears in the Roman Calendar as a saint and confessor. In re- membrance of his deliveran<e at I'phesus from the trials that i)rocured him the title of confessor, he built, after he bei anie pope, in the baptistery of Constantine near the Lateran, two chapels dedicated to St. John Baptist and St. John the Fvangelist, to the latter of whom he attributed his deliverance. The chapel to the Evangelist bore the inscrip- tion, " Liberatori suo Jobanni Evangelistae, Hilarus famulus Christi " (BoUand. ciltng Caesar Kasponus). 482 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS The extant writings of Hilarius are his letters referred to above. Anastasius Biblio- thecarius mentions his decreta sent to various parts, confirming the synods of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. condemning Eutyches, Nes- torius, and all heretics, and confirming the domination and primacy of the holy Catholic and apostolic see (Concil. Rom. us. ; Thiel. Epp. Pontiff. Rom. i.). [j.b— v.] Hippolytus (2) Romanus. Though so celebrated in his lifetime, Hippolytus has been but obscurely known to the church of sub- sequent times. He was at the beginning of the 3rd cent, unquestionably the most learned member of the Roman church, and a man of very considerable literary activity ; his works were very numerous, and their circulation spread from Italy to the East, some having been translated into Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and perhaps other languages. His name assumes various disguises, as Poltus in the popular memory of Italy, in Egypt as Abulides. There is evidence also that he took a very active part in the affairs of his own church ; but there are no contemporary wit- nesses to inform us concerning his personal history. A century after his death Eusebius evidently knew nothing of him beyond what he could infer from such works of his as had reached him. These works were soon super- seded by those of other more able and learned writers. Scarcely one has come down to us without mutilation, and the authenticity of almost every work assigned to him has been disputed. Yet his celebrity survived, and various legends, not always carefully distin- guished from the authentic history of the saint, arose. It has been disputed whether Hippo- lytus was a presbyter or a bishop ; and if a bishop, of what see ; whether he laboured in Italy or Arabia ; whether he was orthodox or a schismatic ; whether he was a martyr, and if so, by what death he died. At length the recovery of the work on heresies, now by general consent attributed to him, cleared away some obscurities in his personal history, though many questions can still receive only doubtful answers. The earliest notice of Hippolytus is by Eusebius in two passages (//. E. vi. 20, 22). In the first, speaking of ecclesiastical writers of whom letters were then preserved in the library at Jerusalem, Eusebius mentions " likewise Hippolytus, who was bishop of another church somewhere." In the second he gives a list of the works of Hippolytus which he had met with (not including any letters), this being probably the list of those in the library at Caesarea, but adds that many other works by him might be found elsewhere. If the earliest witnesses give no certain information as to where Hippolytus laboured, they enable us to determine when he lived. Eusebius says that he wrote a work on the Paschal feast, in which he gives a sixteen- years' Easter table, and accompanies it with a chronology, the boundary of his calculations being the first year of the emperor Alexander, i.e. A.D. 222. In 1551, in some excavations made on the Via Tirburtina, near Rome, a marble statue was found, representing a venerable person sitting in a chair, clad in the Greek pallium. The back and sides of the HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS chair contain Greek inscriptions. The back has a list of works presumably written by the person represented. One side has a sixteen- years' cycle, exactly corresponding to the description of Eusebius and beginning with the first year of Alexander. Other evidence makes it certain that this cycle is that of Hippolytus. The works sufficiently agree with those ascribed to Hippolytus by Eusebius and Jerome ; and no doubt is entertained that Hippolytus is the person commemorated. The list of Paschal full moons in the cycle gives accurately the astronomical full moons for the years 217-223 inclusive. For the next eight years the true full moons are a day or two later than those given, and after that deviate still further ; so that after two or three revolutions of the cycle the table would be useless. This table must, then, have been framed about the time specified, a.d. 222, and the chair must be a nearly contemporary monument, for it is not conceivable that the table would be put on record, to doits author honour, after it had been tried long enough to make its worthlessness apparent. Further, the inscription is in Greek, and the earlv Roman church contained a large section, if not a majority, of foreigners, whose habitual language was Greek. This inscription must have been placed before that section had disappeared and Latin had become the ex- clusive language of the church. A further proof of antiquity is furnished by the list of writings, which is independent of those of Eusebius and Jerome, and which no one in the West could have drawn up long after the death of Hippolytus. The date thus fixed agrees with what we otherwise know, that Hippolytus was a contemporary of Origen, Jerome telling us that it appeared from a homily of Hippolytus then extant that it had been delivered in Origen's hearing. We know from Eusebius (H. E. vi. 14) that Origen visited Rome in the reign of Caracalla and episcopate of Zephyrinus, i.e. some time in the years 211-217. In one of these years he might thus have heard Hippolytus preach. We must place the commencement of the activity of Hippolytus as early as the 2nd cent. Photius tells us that the treatise of Hippolytus Against all the Heresies professed to be a syn- opsis of lectures delivered by Irenaeus. The simplest supposition seems to be that Hippo- lytus heard Irenaeus lecture in Rome. Euse- bius tells of one visit of Irenaeus to Rome c. 178. A note in a Moscow MS. of the martyr- dom of Polycarp (Zahn's Ignatius, p. 167) represents him as teaching at Rome several years before. It is not unlikely that Irenaeus came again to Rome and there delivered lectures against heresies. The time could not have been long after the beginning of the last decade of the 2nd cent. It has been shewn that the author of the cycle engraved on the chair must also have been the author of a chronicle, a Latin translation of which is extant, the last event in which is the death of the emperor Alexander (235). In that year an entry in the Liberian Catalogue of bishops of Rome records that Pontianus the bishop, and Hippolytus the presbyter, were trans- ported as exiles to the pestilent island of Sardinia. It is difficult to believe that the HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS Hippolytus here discrihcd as piislntcr is not our Hippolytus, and probably both he and Poutianus gained the title of martyrs by dying in the mines. From the " depositio martNTum " of the Liberian Catalogue it appears that the bodies of Pontianus and Hippolytus were both deposited on the same dav (Aug. is), the former in the cemetery of Cailistus, the latter in that on the Via Tibur- tina, and it is natural to think that both bodies were brouijht from Sardinia to Rome. The translation of Pontianus, we are told, was effected by pope Fabianus, probably in 236 or 237- A very different account of the martyr- dom of Hippolytus is given by l^rudeiitius {Peristeph. 11), who wrote at the beginning of the 3th cent. His story is that Hippolytus had been a presbyter, who was torn in pieces at Ostia by wild horses, like the Hippolytus of mythology. Prudentius describes the subterranean tomb of the saint and states that he saw on the spot a picture representing this execution, and that this martyrdom was commemorated on Aug. 13. He gives an account of the crowds who flocked to the commemoration and a description of a stately church, with a double row of pillars, which Diillinger considers was the church of St. Laurence (t 258), a saint whose cultus attained much greater celebrity, and who was also buried on the Via Tiburtina, his church being adjacent to the tomb of Hippolytus. The picture which Prudentius saw may well have been originally intended to depict the sufferings of the mythological Hippolytus, and, being inscribed with that name, have been ignorantly copied or transferred by Christians to adorn the resting-place of the mart>T of that name. The tale told by Pru- dentius is plainly the offspring of the picture, and the authentic evidence of the deposition, on Aug. 13, on the Via Tiburtina of the remains of a Hippolytus who is coupled with Pontianus indicates the real owner of the tomb, of whom, in the century and a half which passed before Prudentius visited it, all but his name and the day of his feast had been forgotten. What light has been cast upon his history by the recovery of the treatise against here- sies ? The portion previously extant had been known under the name of Origen's Philosophumena. We make no scruple in treating this as the work of Hippolytus, for this is the nearly unanimous opininn of critics, Lipsius alone hesitating and cautiously citing the author as Pseudo-Origenes. From this work it appears that he took an active part in the affairs of the Roman church in the epis- copates of Zephyrinus and Cailistus. Dol- linger has shewn that, without imputing wilful misstatement to Hipjjolytus, it is possible to put on all that he relates about Callistus a very much more favourable interpretation than he has done ; and with regard to the charge that Callistus in trying to steer a middle course between Sabellianism and orthodoxy had invented a new heresy, the retort may be made that it was Hippolytus himself who in his dread of Sabellianism had laid himself open to the charge of Ditheism. But the point towhich Dollinger called attention, with which we are most concerned here, is that Hippolytus in this work never recognizes Callistus as bp. of Rome HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS I S3 He says that Cillistus li.id .ispir.-d to the episcopal throne and that on the death of Zephyrinus " he supiiosed himself t<. have obtained what he had been hunting for." Hut Hippolytus treats him only as the founder of a school (5i5acrKa\(iov) in opposition to the Catholic church, using the same word with regard to Noetus (cotil. Haer. S'oeti, I.agarde. p. 44). "f whom he savs that when expelled from the churcli he had the presumption to set up " a school." Hippolvtus savs that Callistus and his party claimed t<i be the Catholic church and gloried in tlieir numbers, though this multitude of adherents had been gained by unworthy means, namely, by improper laxity in receiving offenders. Cal- listus had received into his communion per- sons whom Hippolvtus had excommunicated. He adds that this school of Callistus still con- tinued when he wrote, which was plainly after the death of Callistus, and he refuses to give its members any name but Callistians. Evi- dently the breach between Hippolytus and Callistus had proceeded to open schism. But if Hippolytus did not regard Callistus as bp. of Rome, whom did he so regard ? To this question it is difficult to give any answer but Dollinger's : Hippolytus claimed to be bp. of Rome himself. In the introduction to his work, Hippolytus claims to hold the episcopal office; he declares that the pains which he took in the confutation of heresy were his duty as successor of the apostles, partaker of the grace of the Holy Spirit that had been given to them and which they transmitted to those of right faith, and as clad with the dignity of the high priesthood and office of teaching and guardian of the church, .\fterwards we find him exercising the power of excommunication upon persons, who thereupon joined the school of Callistus. Thus we seem to have a key to the difficulty that Hippolytus is described in the Liberian Catalogue only as i)resbyter, and yet was known in the East universally as bishop, and very widely as bp. of Rome. His claim to be bishop was not admitted by the church of Rome, but was made in works of his, written in Greek and circulating exten- sively in the East, either by himself in the works or more probably in titles prefixed to them by his ardent followers. We have also a key to the origin of the tradition that Hippolytus had been a Novatianist. He had been in separation from the church, and the exact cause of difference had been forgotten. ."Vgainst another hyjiothesis, that Hippolytus was at the same time bp. of Portus and a leading presbyter of Rome, Diillinger urges, besides the weakness of the proof that Hippo- lytus was bp. of Portus, that there is no evidence that Portus had then a bishop, and that, according to the then constitution of the church, the offices of presbyter and bishop could not be thus combined. Dollinger con- tends that the schism could not have orrurr«-d immediately on the election of Callistus ; but there is exactly the same reason for saying that Hippolytus refused to recognize Zephyr- inus as bishop, as that he rejected Callistus ; for he speaks of the former also as " imagin- ing " that he governed the ( hurch. In con- sistency, then. Diillinger ought to have made the schism begin in the time of Zephyriiam, 484 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANOS and so de Rossi does, adding a conjecture of his own, that the leader of the schism had been Victor's archdeacon, and had in that capacity obtained his knowledge of the early life of Callistus, and that he was actuated by dis- appointment at not having been made bishop on Victor's death. On the other hand, to make a schism of which no one in the East seems to have ever heard begin so early ascribes to it such long duration as to be quite incredible. For it continued after the death of Callistus, some time after which the account in the treatise on heresies was plainly written, and Dollinger thinks it even possible that it may have continued up to the time of the deportation of Pontianus and Hippolytus to Sardinia. He regards with some favour the hypothesis that this banishment might have been designed to deliver the city from dissen- sions and disputes for the possession of churches between the adherents of the rival leaders. It seems to us most likely that Pontianus and Hippolytus were banished early in the reign of Maximin as the two leading members of the Christian community. We find it hard to refuse the explanation of von Dollinger, which makes Hippolytus the first anti-pope ; but the difficulties arising from the fact that the existence of so serious a schism has been absolutely unknown to the church from the 4th cent, to the 19th are so great, that if we knew of any other way of satis- factorily explaining the language of Hippoly- tus we should adopt it in preference. We are not told who consecrated Hippolytus asbishop, but a schism in inaugurating which bishops thus took the lead must have been a serious one ; it lasted at least "5 or 6 years, and, if we make it begin in the time of Zephyrinus as we seem bound to do, perhaps 20 years, and it had as its head the most learned man of the Roman church and one whose name was most likely to be known to foreign churches. Yet the existence of this schism was absolutely un- known abroad. All Greek lists of the popes, as well as the Latin, include Callistus, and make no mention of Hippolytus ; and the confessed ignorance of Eusebius about the see of Hippolytus is proof enough that he was not in possession of the key to the difficulty. In the Novatianist disputes which commenced about 15 years after the death of Hippolytus, when many would still be alive who could have remembered the controversy between him and Callistus, we find no allusion on either side to any such comparatively recent schism of which a man holding rigorist views resembling those of Novatian was the head. Bearing in mind the excitement caused in the case of Novatian, we ask, Was the question who was bp. of Rome regarded as a matter of such purely local concern that controversy could go on at Rome for years and the outside world know nothing of it, and that although the unsuccessful claimant was a person on other grounds very widely known ? Is it conceiv- able, if Hippolytus really set up a rival chair to Callistus, that he, whose books and letters widely circulated in the East, made no at- tempt to enlist on his side the bishops of the great Eastern sees ? Or is it likely, if Hippo- lytus had started a long-continued and dangerous schism at Rome, that the pre- HlPPdLtTUS ftOMANtS dominant party should have completely condoned his offence, that he should have been honoured for centuries as a saint and a martyr, and that his name should have been handed down with no hint of that schism until words of his own came to light to suggest it ? These improbabilities in the theory hitherto most generally received, amount almost to impossibilities, though we confess it difficult to find a satisfactory substitute. We can only suggest that if there were at the time, as there are grounds for supposing, a Greek congrega- tion at Rome, the head of it is very likely to have been Hippolytus, and the head of such a congregation might naturally be entrusted with the episcopal power of admitting or excluding members, since doubtful cases could scarcely be investigated by a Latin-speaking pope. The supposition that he may have received episcopal consecration, besides ex- plaining the enigmatical dignity idvQv IttIcxko- TTo? ascribed by Photius to Caius, would give a less violently improbable account of the claim of Hippolytus to episcopal dignity than the theory that he had been consecrated as anti-pope. As he was probably the last holder of his anomalous office, it is not surprising if no remembrance was retained of its exact constitution ; but it is in the nature of things probable that the period when the church of Rome was Greek and when it was Latin should be separated by a bilingual period ; and it is not unnatural that the arrangements made during that interval should be forgotten when the need for them had passed. The severity of the persecutions at Rome under Decius and Valerian seems to have obliterated much of the recollections of the history of the early part of the century. Whether Hippolytus was bishop or presbyter, he wrote his attacks on Callistus in Greek and addressed them to Greek-speaking people, and there is no evi- dence that he made any assault on the unity of the Latin-speaking church. This rnay account for the faintness of the impression which his schismatic language produced and for the facility with which it was pardoned. That the arrogance and intemperance of language which he displayed did not deprive him of permanent honour in the Roman church is to be accounted for by the leniency with which men treat the faults of one who has real claims to respect. Hippolytus was a man of whose learning the whole Roman church must have been proud ; he was of undoubted piety, and of courage which he proved in his good confession afterwards. The way of return would not be made difficult for such a man when he really wished all dissension to end. The preceding discussions have told all that is known of the life of Hippolytus. We now proceed to enumerate his works ; acknow- ledging the great help of the list of Caspari, Tauf symbol und Glaubensregel, iii. 377- (i) Most completely associated with his name is the 16 years' cycle (mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, u.s.), and the little treatise in which he explained it. This is among the list of works on the statue, 'A irdSei^ii Xpovwv ToO Trdcrxa Kal to, (v t(^ wivaKi. That the cycle engraved on the statue is undoubted- I ly that of Hippolytus is not only proved by facts already pointed out and by its interpre- HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS tation of the 70 weeks of Daniel in the manner peculiar to Hippolytus, but is placed beyond doubt by its literal agreement with a S\Tiac version of the cycle of Hippolytus jireserved in a chronoloRical work by Elias of Nisibis (Lagarde, AnaUcta Syriaca, p. 80). The cycle of 8 years used by (ireek astronomers for harmonizing lunar and solar years is much older than Hippolytus. What was novel in the scheme of Hippolytus was his putting two eight-years' cycles together in order to exhibit readily the days of the week on which the full moons fell. The cycle of Hippolytus is not astronomically correct, and, as the Syriac writer correctly states, the error accumulates at the rate of three days for every sixteen- years' cycle. Of this Hippolytus has no suspicion, and he supposed that he could by means of his cycle determine all Paschal full moons future or past. (2) Eusebius, in the passage where he has spoken of the work on the Paschal feast just considered (t6 vepi tov ndaxa ffi^y^paMMa). proceeds with a list of the other works of Hippolytus he had met with, among which is one wfpi TOV ndcrxo.- The use of the definite article in the first case might suggest that Eusebius only knew one such work, and men- tions it the second time in its order in his collection of works of Hippolytus. But it may be considered certain that Hippolytus treated doubly of the Paschal celebration : in (i) giving rules for finding Easter ; in another ' \vriting, which probably was an Eastor-day sermon, treating of its doctrinal import. (3) Among the works enumerated on the statue is a chronicle. The list runs xpoj'i*.-uii' TTpb-; "EWrjvai. and it has been questioned whether this describes two separate works, or a chronicle written with a controversial object; but the remains of the chronicle itself shew it to have been written for the instruction of Christians and not as a polemic against heathenism. The chronicle records the death of the emperor .Alexander, and therefore the deportation of Hippolytus and Pontianus to Sardinia could not have taken place under Alexander as the later Papal Catalogue has it, but under Maximin. It follows, also, that this chronicle is likely to be the latest work of Hippolytus, and therefore that a passage common to it and to the later treatise on heresy was taken from an earlier work, a supposition which presents no difficulty. (4) We pass now from the chronological to the anti-heretical writings ; first, the treatise against all heresies, which may have been the earliest work of Hippolytus. It is mentioned in the lists of both Eusebius and Jerome, and a passage is quoted from it in the Paschal Chronicle, though it is not in thelistonthechair as we have it, which shews that we cannot build any conclusion on the absence of a name therefrom. The fullest account of this treat- ise is given by Photius {Cod. 121). He de- scribes it as a small book, f^if-iXidaptou, against 32 heresies, beginning with the Dositheans and ending with Xoetus and the Noetians ; that it purported to be an abstract of discourses of Irenaeus; was written in a clear, dignified style, though not observant of Attic propriety. It denied St. Paulv authorship of Hebrews. It was probably published in the early years of HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 4S5 the episcopate (100-21 7) of Zephvrinus. (o lead up to an assault on Noeliaiiisin, then the most formidable heresy at Rome. (5) A work, or rather a fragment, bearing in the MS. the title of Homily of Hif>f>ohtus at;ainst the Heresy of one Noelus, ap|>ears on examination to be not a honiilv, but the con- clusion of a treatise against more heresies than one. It begins : " Certain others are privily introducing another doctrine, having become disciples of one Noetus." It jircneeds to refute the Noetian objection that the assertion of the distinct personality of our lord contra- dicts those texts of Scripture which <le< lare the absolute unity of Cod. .At the end of this discussion he says, " Now that Noetus also has been refuted, let us come to the setting forth of the truth, that we may establish the truth, against which all so great heresies have arisen, without being able to say anything." The orthodoxy of the tract seems unsuspected by Tillemont! Ceillicr, Lumper, and others. It was formally defended by bp. Bull, and was published bv Kouth {Ecc. Script. Opiisc.) as a lucid exposition of orthodox doctrine. When, however, it came to light that the teaching of Hippolytus had been censured bv pope Callistiis, DoUinger had no difficulty in point- ing out features in it open to censure. Though Hippolytus acknowledges the Logos to have been from eternity dwelling in (iod as His intelligence, he yet appears to teach that there was a definite epoch determined by the will of (iod, prior no doubt to all creation, when that Logos, which had previously dwelt imperson- ally in God, assumed a separate hypostatic existence, in order that by Him the world should be framed and the Deity manifested to it. Thus, beside God there appeared another ; yet not two Gods, but only as light from light; a ray from the sun. Hippolytus also teaches that it was only at the Incarna- tion that He Who before was the Logos properly became Son. though previously He might be called Son in reference to what He was to be. Dollinger imagines that this emanation doctrine of Hippolvtus may. in the controversies of the time, have been stig- matized as V'alentinian, and that thus we may account for a late authority connecting this heresy with his name. (6) Refutation of all Heresies. — In 1842 Minoides Mynas brought to Paris from Mount -Athos, besides other literary treasures, a 14th- cent. MS. containing what purported to be a refutation of all heresies, divided into 10 books. Owing to mutilation, the MS. begins in the middle of bk. iv. ; but from the numbering of the leaves it is inferred that the MS. had never contained anv of the first three books. Miller, who publish, d it in 1851 for the I'niv. of 0.\ff>rd, p. n rived that it belonged to the work published under the name of Origen's Phtloso- phumena bv Gronovius, and afterwards in the Benedictine ed. of Origen, though it had been perceived that the ascription to Origen must be erroneous, as the author claims the dignilv of high priesthood, and refers to a former work on heresies, while no such work is said to have been crMuposed by Origen. Miller in his edition reprinted the Philosnphumena as bk. i. of the Elenchus. but ascribed the whole to Origen, an ascription which was generally 486 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS rejected. Jacobi, in a German periodical, put forward the claims of Hippolytus, a theory which was embraced by Bunsen (Hippolytus and his Age, 1852 ; 2nd ed., Christianity and Mankind, 1854) and Wordsworth (St. Hippol. and the Ch. of Rome, 1853, 2nd ed. 1880), and completely established by Dollinger (Hippoly- tus und Kallistus, 1853). From the book itself we infer that the author lived at Rome during the episcopates of Zephyrinus and Callistus, and for some time afterwards ; that he held high ecclesiastical office, and enjoyed much consideration, being not afraid to oppose his opinion on a theological question to that of the bishop, and able to persuade himself that fear of him restrained the bishop from a course on which he otherwise would have entered. Hip- polytus satisfies these conditions better than any one else for whom the authorship has been claimed. Further, the hypothesis that Hip- polytus was the author gives the explanation of the prevalent Eastern belief that he was bp. of Rome, of the tradition preserved by Pru- dentius that he had been once in schism from the church, and of the singular honour of a statue done him ; for as the head of a party his adherents would glorify his learning and prolific industry. That the work on heresies connects itself with six distinct works of Hip- polytus makes the ascription certain. A trans, of the Refutation and of other fragments is in the vol. A post. Fathers in Ante-Nic. Lib. (T. & T. Clark). (a) The Treatise against the Thirty-two Heresies. — The author begins by saying that he had a long time before (TrdXat) published another work against heresy, with less minute exposure of the secret doctrines of the heretics than that which he now proposes to make. Of those for whom the authorship has been claimed, Hippolytus is the only one whom we know to have published a previous work on heresies. The time between the two works would be 20 years at least. (b) The Treatise on the Universe. — At the end of the Refutation (x. 32, p. 334, Plummer's trans.) the author refers to a previous work of his, TTfpi rrji rod iravros ovaias, and among the works ascribed to Hippolytus on the statue we read, 7rp6s "EWrivas Kai irpos XWaruiva y) Kai TTfpi Tov Trai/T^s. Photius remarks that the author of the work on the universe also wrote the Labyrinth, according to a statement at the end of that work. Now, bk. x. begins with the words, " The labyrinth of heresies." We may, then, reasonaljly conclude that what Photius knew as the Labyrinth was our bk. x., which was known by its first word. (c) The Chronicle and the Treatise on the Psalms. — The enumeration of the 72 nations among whom the earth was divided (x. 30), and which the author states that he had previously given in other books, precisely agrees with that in the Chronicle of Hippoly- tus ; and though this chronicle was probably later than the Refutation, Hippolytus wrote commentaries on Genesis, where this enumera- tion would naturally be given in treating of c. X., and he appears to have been, like many prolific writers, apt to repeat himself. This same enumeration is given in his commentary on the Psalms (No. 29 infra). (d) The Tract against Noetus. — On compar- HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS ing this tract with the exposition of the truth given at the end of the Refutation, the identity of doctrine, and sometimes of form of expres- sion, decisively proves common authorship. The same doctrine is found, that the Logos, Which had from eternity dwelt in the Deity as His unspoken thought, afterwards assumed a separate hypostatic existence, differing from created things not only in priority but also because they were out of nothing. He of the substance of the Godhead ; and being the framer of the universe according to the divine ideas (in the Platonic sense of the word) which had dwelt in Him from the first. That the Son's personal divinity was not by the original necessity of His nature, but given by an act of the divine will, is stated more offensively than in the earlier tract. He says to his reader, " God has been pleased to make you a man, not a god. If He had willed to make you a god He could have done so ; you have the example of the Logos." (e) The Treatise on Antichrist. — In c. ii. of this treatise (Lagarde, p. 2), when telling how the prophets treated not only of the past but of the present and the future, he uses language in some respects verbally coinciding with what is said in the Elenchtis (x. 33, p. 337). The evidence which has been produced amounts to a demonstration of the Hippoly- tine authorship. The title of the work would be <pL\o(TO<f>odiJLeva ^ Kara waaQv alpiffewv eXeyXos ; the name Philosophumena properly applying to the first 4 books, the Elenchus to the last 6. Its chief value to us consists, in addition to the light cast on the disputes in the church of Rome at the beginning of the 3rd cent., in its extracts from otherwise un- known Gnostic writings, inserted by the author to shame these sects by an exposure of their secret tenets. Its attack on the charac- ter of pope Callistus was fatal to its circulation. No doubt when a reconciliation was effected at Rome all parties desired to suppress the book. Bk. i. was preserved as containing a harmless and useful account of the doctrines of heathen philosophers ; and bk. x., which presented no cause for offence (there being nothing to indicate that the heretic Callistus mentioned in it was intended for the bp. of Rome), also had some circulation and was seen by Theodoret and Photius. But these two writers are the only ones in whom we can trace any knowledge of'bk. x., which was certainly not used by Epiphanius. The rest of the work is mentioned by no extant writer, and but for the chance preservation of a single copy in the East would have altogether perished. (7) The Little Labyrinth. — Eusebius (H. E. V. 27) gives some long extracts from an anony- mous work against the heresy of Artemon. Internal evidence shews that the writer was a member of the Roman church and speaks of things that occurred in the episcopate of Zephyrinus as having happened in his own time. On the other hand, Zephyrinus is described as Victor's successor, language not likely to be used if Zephyrinus were at the time bishop, or even the last preceding bishop. The writer's recollection too does not appear to go back to the episcopate of Victor. The date would therefore be soon after the epis- copate of Callistus. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS ii. 5) refers to the same work as known in his time under the name of the Little Labyrinth and attributed by some to Ori^en ; though Theodoret considers this assumption disproved by the difference of style. Photius {Cod. 48) ascribes to Cains a book called the Labyrinth, which we have identified with the summary of the EUnchits. He does not mention the Little Labyrinth, but adds that it was said that Caius had c<imposed a special treatise against the heresy of Artemon. We have no reason to think that the Labyrinth of Photius and the Little Labyrinth of Theodoret were the same ; on the contrary, the latter was probably iden- tical with the treatise against Artemon, which Photius expressly distinguishes from his Laby- rinth. Internal evidence, and the fact that we have some external evidence for the author- ship of Caius and none for that of Hippolytus, cause us to give our verdict for Caius. (8) The Work against Bero and Helix. — A certain Anastasius of the 7th cent, is the earliest authority for designating Hippolytus as bp. of Portus. He so calls him in sending to Rome extracts made by him at Constanti- nople from what purported to be a treatise of Hippolytus, TTfpi fleoXoyiai Kai aapKwa«ii$, against the above-named heretics, his adver- saries having hindered Anastasius from getting possession of the entire work. Dollinger (p. 295) has given conclusive reasons for regarding ; this as no work of Hippolytus, but as a forgery not earlier than the 6th cent. The technical language of these fragments is also that of the controversies of the 5th cent., and quite unlike that of the age of Hippolytus. It was doubt- less Anastasius who supplied another passage from the discourse wtpl 0eo\oyias produced at the Lateran Council in 649. (9) A Syriac list of the writings of Hippoly- tus given by Ebed Jesu, a writer of the very beginning of the 14th cent. (Assemani, Bibl. Or. iii. I, p. 15), contains a work whose Syriac title is translated by Ecchelensis de Regimine, by Assemani de Dispensatione. Adopting the latter rendering and taking " dispensatio " to be equivalent to oiKOvofxLa. we should con- clude its subject to be our Lord's Incarnation. It may therefore be identical with (8). If the other rendering be adopted, the work would relate to church government, and might be identical with some part of (21). (10) The Treatise against Marcion. — Men- tioned in the catalogues of Eusebius and Jerome, but nothing of it remains. (11) On the statue is enumerated a work TTfpl rdyaOov Kal irbOev rb KaKbv. This may well have been an anti-Marcionite composition, and possiblvthat mentioned by Eusebius (10). (12) Defence of the Gospel and .Apocalypse of St. John. — We may probably class among anti-heretical writings the work described on the chair as inrip tov Kara 'Iwafvyj" (vayytXlov Kal djrova\(''i/'(W5, and in the list of Ebed Jesu as " a defence of the Apocalypse and Gospel of the apostlf and evangelist John." The work on the Apocalyi)se mentioned by Jerome we take to be different, and we notice it among the exegetical works. Hippolytus in his extant remains constantly employs the Apoc- alvpse, and his regard for it is appealed to by .\ndrew of Cacsarea (Max. Bibl. Pair. v. 590). HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS •187 It has been supposed that Caius was the writer, replied to by Hippolytus, who ascribes the Apocalypse and the C.ospel to Cerinthus ; but the arguments for supposing that Caius rejected the Apocalypse are inconclusive, and it is highly improbable that he, an orthodox member of the Roman church, rejected the Gospel of St. John. (13) One argmnent in support of the view just referred to is that Ivbed Jesu (m.s.) enumerates among the works of Ilippolvtus Chapters (or heads) against Caius, which, it has been conjectured, were identical with (12). But Ebed Jesu reckons the two works as dis- tinct. What other heresy of Caius Hippolyttis could have confuted i-^ unknown. (14) It is hard to draw the line between controversial and dogmatic books. Thus, with regard to the treatise cited by Anastasius Sinaita (Lagarde.No. 9, p. 90). irtpl avaaTd<Tfw\ tiai 6.<p6ap(Tia%, which may be the same as that described on the statue as irtpl Beoi" nal (rapxhi ava<TTd<T(wi and by Jerome as de Resurrec- tione, we cannot tell whether it was a simple explanation of Christian doctrine or directed against the errors of heretics or heathens. (15) A controversial character more clearly belongs to another work on the same subject, a fragment of which is preserved in Syriac (Lagarde, Anal Syr. p. 87), and contains what Stephen Gobar (Photius, Cod. 232) noted as a peculiarity of Hippolytus, found also in both his treatises against heresy, viz. that he makes Nicolas the deacon himself, and not any mis- understood saying of his, the origin of the errors of the Nicolaitanes. Here he is charged with maintaining that the resurrection has passed already and that Christians are to expect none other than that which took place when thev believed and were baptized. (16) One work at least Hippolytus specially directed to the heathen, and though this is not included in the list of Jerome he probably alludes to it {Ep. ad Magnum, i. 423) where he classes Hippolvtus with others who wrote " contra gentes." On the chair we read XpofiKwi' irpbs'EW-nva^ Kai Trpdr IWdTwva ^ koI irepi TOV Travrdt. We might take wpbt'EW^vat as a distinct work, or with what precedes or with what follows. That the last is the true construction appears both from the title given in one of the MSS., in which a fragment is preserved, 6 \6yos Trp6s"EXX»?»'as 6 iiriytypa^i- fiivot Kara IWdrujva irtpl r^s rov iracrif a/T/oj, and from the fact that the same fragment contains addresses to the Greeks. This, then, is evidently the treatise irtpl t^j toi" ttoi-tAi ovalai, mentioned at the end of the Elenchus, and of which Photius speaks in a passage alreadv referred to (Cod. 4ft)- He says that 1 the treatise was in two short books, that it I shewed that Plato was inconsistent ; that the I Platonic philosopher Alcinons had spoken ' falselv and absurdly about the soul, matter, and the resurrection; and that the Jewish I nation wasmuch older than the Greek. The theory of the universe embodied in tins work made all things consist of the four elements. I earth, air, fire, or water. Things formed of ' more elements than one are subject to death 'by the dissolution of their comi^onent j'arts, , but things formed of one element (e.g. angels, 488 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS formed of fire alone) are indissoluble and immortal. Angels also have no female, for from water the generative principle is derived. Man is made of all four elements, his soul being formed of air and called ypvxv, because this element is colder than the other three. The principal extant fragment contains a description of Hades as a place underground where souls are detained until the judgment. The gate is guarded by an archangel. When the angels appointed to that service conduct thither righteous souls, they proceed to the right to a place of light called Abraham's bosom, where they enjoy continued present pleasures with the expectation of still greater happiness in the future. The wicked, on the other hand, are hurried down to the left into a place of darkness where is the lake of fire, into which no one has yet been cast, but which is prepared for the future judgment. There they not only suffer present temporary punish- ments, but are tormented by the sight and smoke of that burning lake and the horrible expectation of the punishment to come. The sight of the righteous also punishes them, between whom and them a great gulf is fixed ; and while the bodies of the righteous will rise renewed and glorified, theirs will be raised with all their diseases and decay. Bunsen conjectures that Hippolytus may have taken some points for which he has not Scripture authority from the Apoalypse of Peter. (17) The Demonstration against the Jews. — The Greek text of a fragment of a work bearing this title was first published by Fabricius (vol. ii. i) from a copy supplied by Montfaucon from a Vatican MS. There is no external evidence to confirm the ascription in the MS. of this work to Hippolytus. The mutilated list on the chair begins -ovi ; but it is bare conjecture which completes this into irpos '\ov5ai.ovs. There is nothing in the fragment which forbids us to suppose Hippolytus the writer. It shews that the Jews have no reason to glory in the sufferings they inflicted on Jesus of Nazareth, for it had been foretold that the Messiah should so suffer, and these sufferings had been the cause of the misery afterwards endured by the Jewish nation. (18) We pass now to dogmatic writings. Jerome, in his list of the writings of Hippoly- tus, gives " UpodoiJLiXla de laude Domini sal- vatoris." This is the homily delivered in the presence of Origen. (19) The Work on Antichrist.— Oi all the writings of Hippolytus this is the only one extant in a perfect state, or nearly so. It appears in Jerome's list with the title de Anti- christa ; Photius calls it irepi Xpiffrov Kal avTixplcrrov ; and the title it bears in the MS. from which the first printed edition was made is Trepi ToD ffWTTJpos i]i.iQv 'Itjctou Xpiarov Kai wepl Tov avTixpi-<'"^ov. The work is addressed to one Theophilus, and the author cautions him against communicating to unbelievers what he was about to teach him, quoting Paul's directions to Timothy, " the things thou hast heard of me commit thou to faithful men." The doctrine of the treatise as to the coming overthrow of the Roman power would give good reason for this caution. Jerome's title best describes the treatise, of which, after some HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS I introductory remarks on prophetic inspiration. Antichrist is almost exclusively the subject. I The later title has some justification in the ] parallel between Christ and Antichrist, with which he begins, shewing how the deceiver had sought in all things to liken himself to the Son of God. He was to be, like Christ, a lion (Deut. xxxiii. 22), a king, a lamb (Rev. xiii. i 11), he was to come in the form of a man, and ! to be of the circumcision ; he was to send out false apostles and gather in a people, and as the Lord had given a seal to those who believe in Him, so should he, etc. The writer then j quotes fully all the prophecies of Antichrist, i and concludes that he shall be of the tribe of \ Dan ; that Daniel's four kingdoms are the Babylonian, Median, Grecian, and Roman ; that' the ten toes of the image are ten kings among whom the Roman empire should be ' divided, that from among these Antichrist ! should arise and overthrow three of the kings, I viz. those of Egypt, Libya, and Ethiopia, and make an expedition against Tyre and Berytus, I and then should gain the submission of the I Jews, hoping to obtain vengeance by their 1 means ; that he should shew himself forth as i God, and persecute to the death those who j refuse to worship him ; that he should reign i three years and a half and then that he and I his kingdom should be destroyed by Christ's ! second coming. For the problem of the num- i ber of the beast, while other solutions men- I tionedby Irenaeus are noticed, that of Aaruvoi is preferred. This is one of many coincidences shewing that Hippolytus used the treatise of Irenaeus against heresies and enumerated (§ iv.) by Overbeck in an able monograph on this tract Quaestionum Hippol. specimen. Overbeck discusses also the points of contact between this tract and Origen, deciding that these may be accounted for without supposing either writer indebted to the other. (20) The text of a homily on the Holy Theo- phany was communicated to Fabricius by Gale from a MS. still preserved at Cambridge. There is also extant a Syriac translation of great part of this homily, viz. to the end of c. 7 (Wright, Catal. of Syr. MSS. of Brit. Mus. ii. 842). The ascription of the MSS. is not confirmed by any external evidence, nor is this homily mentioned in any list of the Hippolytine works, nor quoted by any ancient author. We do not, however, see anything in it which Hippolytus might not have written, and Wordsworth has pointed out a remarkable coincidence with the Refutation, viz. that in both man is spoken of as becoming a god by the gift of new birth and immortality. j (21) On the chair is enumerated wipi ■xa.pi<TfJ.aTii)v aTToaToKiKT} Trapd5<'ffi.s. It is ! doubtful whether this is the title of one work or two. For various speculations see Fabri- cius, p. 83. The most probable theory is that it treated of Montanist claims to inspiration. I (22) On the chair we have words which have been read ifiSal eis ndaas ras ypacpds. If 1 the line describes only a single work it may j denote hymns, one in praise of each of the books of Scripture and perhaps giving a poetical account of its contents. (23) On the Hexaemeron. — We now pass to the exegetical writings. This work is given in the lists of Eusebius and Jerome. The HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS latter states (£/>. liv., ad Pammach. et Ocean. vol. i. p. 525) that Ainbr<ise had made use of it in his work on the same subject. (24) (h TO. fifTo, T1JV (iarif.L(f)ov (Eus.). In Genesim (Hieroii.). From this we suppose the account of the 72 nations to have been taken. (25) On Exodus. — This we only know from Jerome's list. No quotations have been pre- served, though Magistris makes a doubtful suggestion that Theodoret's citations fr<nn the \6yot fis Trjf t^5r]v TT^v fj.(yd.\ijt> are from a commentary on the Song of Moses (Ex. xv.). (26) There is extant a fragment (Lagarde, 51) of a commentary on " the blessings of fealaam " ; and Trithemius also ascribes to Hippolytus a commentarv on Numbers. An Arabic catena on the rentatcuch. of which a portion was pub. by Fabricius, ii. 33-44. and the whole of Gen. by Lagarde, Materialien ztir KrUik und Geschichte des Petitateuchs, contains numerous extracts from an Hippolytus whom it describes as the expounder of the Targum. It is generally admitted that the scholia do not belong to our Hippolytus. (27, 28) Theodoret cites several passages from the Discourse on Elkanah and Hannah. Another part of Samuel was the subject of a special treatise called by Jerome de Saul et Pythonissa, and in Gk. e/j ttjv iyyaffTpifivOov, for so an imperfect line on the chair is gener- ally, and, as we belie\e, correctly, completed. (29) The Commentary on the Psalms. — The eixstence of this work is testified by Jerome and by the inscription on the chair. Yet elsewhere when writing to Augustine Jerome gives a list of commentators on the Psalms {Ep. cxii., vol. i. p. 734). leaving out Hippoly- tus and counting Eusebius as the next Greek commentator after Origen, either through mere forgetfulness or because Jerome had only read, of Hippolytus, homilies on particular Psalms and some general observations on the whole book. Theodoret quotes from the commentary on Pss. ii. xxiii. and xxiv., and on the <^5>j fj.(yd\T}. which may mean Ps. cxix. These quotations may be from separate homilies, and not from the present work. A fragment published by Bandini comments on Ps. Ixxviii. Several other fragments of doubtful genuineness are given by Magistris (Migne, x. 722). Hippolytus classifies the Psalms according to their authors and in- scriptions, and explains that they are all called David's because he originated the institution of temple psalmody, as the book of Esther is called after her, and not after Mordecai, of whom it has much more to tell, because Esther, by her act of self-sacrifice, was the originator of the whole deliverance. Hippolytus points out that the Psalms are not in chronological order, and supposes that Ezra did not find them all at once and placed them in books as he found them. The Cireek, on the contrary, supposes that the chronological order was deranged to establish a mystical connexion between the number of a Psalm and its subject. Eusebius here follows Hippolytus. (3o> On Proverbs. Mentioned in Jerome's list. Some fragments have been preserved in catenae (Lagarde, pp. 196- iqq). Others pub. by Mai {Bib. Xov. Pat. vii.) will be found in Migne (p. 6). HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS 4S() (31. 32) Jerome eniunerates a rommentary on Ecclesiastes ; both Eusebius an*l Jerome one on the Snn^ 0/ Songs. Lagarde gives nno fragment from the former (No. 136, p. 200) and four frou) the latter (No. 3s, p. 2"o ; and Anal. Syr. p. 87). One of these states that llezekiaii suppressed the works of Solomon on natural history, because the people sought in thcni fi^r the rec<ivery of their diseases, instead of seeking help from God. (33. 34. 3.'i) Jerome enumerates a commen- tary on Isaiah; Eusebius one on parts of Ezekiel. Assemani states (Btbl. Or. i. 6r)7) that there is Syriac testimony to the existence of one on Jeremiah. (36) 0/1 Daniel. — In Jerome's list. It is the subject of an article by I'hotius ; is quoted by several other writers, and large fragments of it remain. In a most valuable contribution to Hippolytine literature, Rardenhewer (I'rei- burg, 1877) collects all the notices of this work, discusses the different extant fragments, and restores the original as far as possible. Catenae quote passages from the commentary of Hijiiiolytus on Susanna, but the early lists do not mention this as a separate treatise, and Bardeiihewer is probably right in thinking that it was the commencement of the commen- tary on Daniel, to which book that <>f Susanna was then commonly prefixed. The list of Ebed-Jesu attributes to Hijipolytus an exposi- tion of Susanna and of Daniel the Little. This writer's list of O.T. books includes Daniel, Susanna, and Daniel the Little. There is no evidence what is meant by the last. Hippolytus supposes Susanna to have been the daughter of the high-priest Hilkiah (II. Kings xxii. 4) and sister to the prophet Jeremiah, and he probably, like Africanus, identified her husband with the Jehoiachin who was kindly treated by Evil-Merodach. Hippolytus thought, like so many of the Fathers, that the persons, institutions, and events of O.T. in- cluded, beside their literal meaning, a typical representation of things corresponding in the new dispensation. The remains of the commentary on Daniel contain a theory at- tested by Photius, that our Lord had come in the year of the world 5500, and that its end should be in the year 6000, that is, not initil 500 years after the Incarnation. In Scripture proof of this calculation, Hippolytus apj)eals to the 5i cubits which he finds in Ex. xxv. 10 ; to the sixth hour, John xix. 14, which denotes half a day or 500 years ; and to Kev. xvii. 10. This 5500 years must be understood as round numbers, for the Chronicle of Hippoly- tus counts the exact number of years as 5502. (37) On Zechartah. — Known onlv from Jerome's list and the prologue to his con>- mentarv on Zechariah. (38) On Matthew.— W'c know of this from the prologue to Jerome's commentary on Matthew ; and Theodoret quotes from a dis- course on the parable of the talents, which, however, mav have been a separate homily. (39) On Luke. — Two fragments are given by Mai (Lagarde, p. 202), and Theinlor<-t lias preserved part of a homily on the two thieves. (40) On the Apocalvpse.—]n the list of Jer- ome, and mentioned bv Jacob of Edessa (Eph. Syr. 0pp. Syr. i. 102) anrl Syncellus, 3.^8, Some fragineuts are preserved in an Arabic 490 HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS Catena on the Apocalypse (Lagarde, Anal. Syr. app. pp. 24-27). It appears that Hippo- lytus (who is described as pope of Rome) interpreted the woman (Rev. xii. i) to be the church ; the sun with which she is clothed, our Lord; the moon, John the Baptist; the twelve stars, the twelve apostles ; the two wings on which she was to fly, hope and love. He understood xii. 10 to speak, not of an actual swallowing up by the earth of the hostile armies, but only that they wandered about in despair. He understood by the wound of the beast (xiii. 3) the contempt and refusal of obedience with which Antichrist would be received by many at first ; and by the healing of it the subsequent submission of the nations. The two horns (xiii. 11) are the law and the prophets, for this beast will be a lamb out- wardly, though inwardly a ravening wolf. Of the number of the beast, beside the Ire- naean solutions, Lateinos, Euanthas, and Teitan, he gives one of his own, Dantialos, a name possibly suggested by the theory that Antichrist was to be of the tribe of Dan. The kings of the East (xvi. 12) come to the support of Antichrist. Armageddon is the valley of Jehoshaphat. The five kings (xvii. 13) are Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander and his four successors. The next is the Roman empire, whose time was not yet com- pleted ; the seventh, who had not yet come, was Antichrist. This enumeration includes all the works for which there is evidence of Hippolytine author- ship, unless we add the letters with which it would seem Eusebius was acquainted. The list of genuine writings is quite enough to establish the immense literary activity of Hippolytus, especially as an interpreter of Scripture ; and his labours must have given a great impulse to the study of God's word. As a writer he must be pronounced active rather than able or painstaking. Yet he must be admitted to deserve the reverence his literary labours gained from his contempora- ries and the honour paid him at his death. For centuries afterwards his name was obscured ; but his glory blazed out again when in the time of Charlemagne his relics were trans- ferred to France. For some interesting par- ticulars of this translation see Benson, Journ. of Classical and Sacred Philology, i. 190. We quote his account of the visit of pope Alex- ander III. to his shrine in the church of St. Denys in 1159. " On the threshold of one of the chapels he paused to ask, ' Whose relics it contained ? ' ' Those of St. Hippolytus,' was the answer. ' I don't believe it — I don't believe it ' (' Non credo — non credo '), replied the infallible authority. ' The bones of St. Hippolytus were never removed from the holy city.' But St. Hippolytus, whose dry bones apparently had as little reverence for the spiritual progeny of Zephyrinus and Callistus as the ancient bishop's tongue and pen had manifested towards these saints themselves, was so very angry that he rumbled his bones inside the reliquarv with a noise like thunder (' ut rugitus tonitrui putaretur'). To what lengths he might have gone if rattling had not sufficed we dare not conjecture. But the pope, falling on his knees, exclaimed in terror, ' I believe, O my Lord Hippolytus — I believe ; HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS pray be quiet.' And he built an altar of marble there to appease the disquieted saint." Literature. — Arts, on Hippolytus are to be found in Tillem. vol. iv. ; Ceillier, vol. i. ; Fabr. Bibl. Gr. vii. 183, ed. Harles, where is the best account of the older bibliography. The discovery of the Refutation made a good deal of the older literature antiquated. We have already referred to some of the more im- portant writings which that discovery elicited. The more important special dissertations on the other works have been referred to under their respective sections. The most important discussion on the life and works of Hippolytus is that in vol. xi. of part i. of Bp. I.ightfoot's Apost. Fathers, pp. 137-477- [g.S.] Hippolytus (5) : Aug. 10 (Bas. Men.), Aug. 13 {Mart. Vet. Rom. Usuard.). An apocryphal martyr, first mentioned in the 5th or 6th cent. His story, as given in the martyrology of Ado, is taken from the spurious acts of St. Lauren- tius the Roman archdeacon, where we are told that that saint, when arrested, was delivered by the prefect Valerian into the custody of Hippolytus, a high military officer, who was converted and at once baptized by him, and thereupon sentenced to be torn asunder by wild horses. D5llinger, in Hippolytus and Callistus (Plummer's trans.), pp. 28-39 and 51-60, discusses the rise and development of this legend, which has largely helped to con- fuse the story of the genuine Hippolytus, the Roman presbyter and writer of the 3rd cent. iq.v.) (cf. Bunsen's Christianity and Mankind, i. 426). Dollinger fixes the composition of this story between the time of pope I.iberius and that of Leo the Great, a period of about 70 years. The whole subject is in a state of great confusion in the martyrologies, which Dol- linger has striven, with his usual critical power and vast knowledge, to arrange in some con- sistent order. Yet the impartial reader must feel sorely perplexed between the opposing theories of Dollinger and Bunsen. (Cf. for the more modern traditions regarding this martyr, Aug. Hare's Walks in Rome. ii. 139.) [g.t.s.] Honorius (1), Flavlus Augustus, emperor, b. 384, d. 423. A full account of him is given in the Diet, of Classical Biogr. He was de- clared emperor of the West in 394 at Milan, where he remained almost uninterruptedly till 399. He and his brother Arcadius seem to have been only ill-informed spectators of the tremendous events passing around them. There is an important enactment against paganism in the first year of Honorius's reign (Cod. Theod. XVI. x. 13) which forbids all sacrifices and apparently all public assemblage for pagan worship. The legislation against heresy is varied and stringent. In XVI. v. 25 of the Theodosian Code all Theodosius's co- ercive edicts were re-enacted in their sharpest form and all concessions revoked. The Euno- mians in particular were excluded from rights of military service, legal testimony and in- heritance, though this special severity was relaxed soon after (v. 27), in accordance with Theodosius's edicts (XVI. v. 22-24). All heretical congregations were forbidden, and their celebration of the holy mysteries, with ordination either of bishops or presbyters, altogether interdicted. Two more of the five HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS severe edicts of this year provided that slight error or deviation (" vol levi arguinento a tramite Catholica") shall be unsparingly crushed. Penalties for neslcct of statutes on heresy are made capital (\V1. v. 28), and c. 20 is inquisitorial and applies to all employes and oflficials, civil or military. All found to be " culpae hujus affines " are to be expelled from the service and the city. This is dated Nov. 23, Constantinople, so that .\rcadius, or rather Eutropius, may be its author. It is difficult to say how strictly the Hono- rian edicts against heresy were carried out, but no such persecution as that of St. Chrysostom is laid to the account of the emperor of the West. There is doubt, however, that the eccle- siastical legislation of 306 and following years was very severe. On March 2, 396 (t. C. XVI. v. 30), all heretical places of assemblage were confiscated and all meeting? interdicted. By edicts 31 and 32 the Eunomian clergy were banishedandinquirieswere directed to bemade after their leaders. XVI. vii. 6 deprived all apostates of testamentary power, their pro- perty was to go to their natural heirs : and by XVI. X. 14 all privileges of pagan priesthood or ministry were done away. The Jews were protected by three edicts (XVI. viii. 11-13). The following edicts on church matters extend over 397 and 308. The Apollinarians were banished from Constantinople (7". C. XVI. V. 33) on Apr. i, which was the only coercive measure of the year, and does not belong to Honorius. By XVI. ii. 30. Jan. 31, all ancient privileges were confined to bishops and clergy, with the proviso " Nihil extra- ordinarii muneris ecclesiae, vel sordidae functionis agnoscatur," repeated in XI. xvi. 1 22 (June 4). The Jews were protected from f popular tumults (XVI. viii. 12, 13), and equal ' privileges and respect shewn to high-priests and patriarchs as to the higher Christian ; clergy. In 398 there were severe statutes on (heresy. By 7". C. XVI. v. 34 (Constantinople, but in Honorius's fourth consulship) Euno- mian and Montanist clergy were banished from all cities and deprived of civic rights. If detected performing their rites in the country they were to be banished and the building confiscated, their books seized and burned, and keeping them was a capital offence. The Manicheans were specially attacked a.d. 399 (c. 35), and those who harboured them were threatened. C. 36 allowed testamentary rights to the Eunomians, but forbad them to assemble or to celebrate the mysteries. Their clergy (" ministri sccleris, quos falso nomine antistites vocant) were to be banished. Clerical rights of sanctuary for criminals were formally refused ide Poeiiis. ix. xl. 16), but intercession was permitted. This claim seems to have been pressed by the clerical and monastic body by violent means, which the authorities had difficulty in restraining. Cases in which " tarita clericorum ac monarh- orum audacia est, ut bellum velint potius quam judicium " were to be referred to the emperor for severer adjudication. Bishops were to punish the offences of monks. Debt- ors, public and private, including some un- happy curiales, had claimed sanctuary in churches (IX. xlv. 3). They were to be removed " manu mox injecta." No cleric HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS JU I or monk was to assert sanctuary by forcible I defence for condemned criminals (.\I. xxx. ; 7). Bishops were recommended to ordain I clergy from the monastic orders (VI. ii. 32). i .Anibri'sc had sucrtssfullv resisted the re- iutrinluction of the altar or' statue of Victory into the senatc-hfmse in 384 ; and by 399 it may have appeared to Honorius's advisers that the time was come when paganism niight be hastened out of existence. The paganism of the Roman senate and people was connected with the proudest associations of their public and domestic history, and it lingered long in the old patrician houses of the metropolis and among the rustic j^opulation. This was a source of weakness in keeping Christian emperors away frf>m Rome. It may have been intended to end this division by direct attempts at supi>ressing paganism. The death-struggle of a i^aganism long fostered, and quite without real devotion, contributed to the final overthrow of Rome. Its immediate result in the life of Honorius seems to have been the undermining of Stilicho. The eunuch influence in both Eastern and Western courts had always been against him. There seems no doubt that Stilicho was opposed to anything which thinned his muster-rolls and weakened the hearts of his followers. Athan- asius had advised Jovian (Broglie, L'Eglise et r Empire romain, vol. v. p. 362) to bear with error ; to bear witness to truth as emperor, but trust for its victory to the God of truth. Stilicho hardly reacheci this, as is proved by the many laws against heretics and idolaters in the code ; but the accusations of Orosius (vi. 37) and the hostility of Zosimus on the pagan side seem to justify Gibbon's honour- able estimate of him. In any case he had a few years of glory to come, and his great enemy was preparing for the defeats of Pf)l- lentia and Verona. In 398-399 Alaric was declared master-general of Eastern Illyricum by Arcadius, and raised on barbarian bucklers as king of Visigoths, with one man only be- tween him and Rome {de Bella Getico, .S03). Between 400 and 403 he had crossed Fannonia to the Julian Alps, taken Aquileia, subdued Istria and Venetia, and was threatening Milan. Honorius, now in his 15th vear, thought only of flight into Gaul ; but .\laric, overthr<iwn by Stilicho at Pollentia and Verona, was allowed or compelled to retreat, and Honorius went with Stilicho to Rome to celebrate the last triumph of the empire (a.d. 404). The customary games took place with great magnificence, and on this occasion St. Tele- niachus sacrificed himself by attempting to separate the gladiators. H<inorius seems not to have prevented their exhibition, though there are traces of an attempt to substitute hunting scenes, races, and grand cavalry displavs, among which seems to have been the ancient game of Troy. After a stay of some months at Rome, during which he appears to have hoiK'Stly done all in his power to con- ciliate the senate, clergy, and people, Honorius determined (a.d. 404) to fix his residence in the fortress of Ravenna, which was almost im- pregnable on the land side and afforded easy escape by sea. The Milanese entertained an affection for Honorius, and desired his return ; but he had soon good reason to feel that his 492 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS choice of residence had been a wise one, both strategically and for his own comfort. The anti-pagan legislation of 399-400 ! prepared for the consummating decree of 1 confiscation in 408. T. C. XVI. x. 15 pro- I hibited sacrifice, but restrained the destruction of temples, as monumental public works. In I July there was an edict (c. 16) for the de- | struction of rural temples (" sine turba ac tumultu "). Some concession was found necessary, for, in Sept., Tit. x. 17 allowed the j usual civic festivals and days of enjoyment | ("festoset communem laetitiam"),but strictly ! without sacrifice. This is commented on by I Gibbon in his 23rd chap., on the " Decay of Paganism," vol. iii. p. 16, where he points out how offerings of produce without sacrifice | might be used, and the various evasions by [ which absolutely pagan celebration might elude Christian rule. Such usages might remain for ages, and be carried bodily into ! Christian country life by popular custom. 1 This is matter of historical experience in all countries ; and the May or Beltane, and other j strange rites of the Teutonic races, bear wit- ness to it in our own day. There was a final injunction this year (c. 18) against destroying temples, if sacrifices in them had been thor- ' oughly discontinued. XVI. v. 35 was a 1 severe edict against the Manicheans and their harbourers in Africa (June). In July (c. 36) i the Eunomians were released from intestacy ) and allowed freedom of movement. Their meetings were still forbidden and their profane 1 mysteries made a capital offence. As the j crudest form of Arianism, this heresy seems to have specially vexed Honorius and his advisers. An edict {de Religione, XVI. xi. i) gave bishops a claim to special authority in causes involving religious questions. " Quoties de religione agitur episcopos convenit agitare." Ecclesiastics were to find substitutes in the curiae, appeals being allowed (XI. xxx.58, 39). : In A.D. 400 the games were forbidden during ! Lent and the week before Easter, also on Christmas Day and Epiphany. Civic banish- ' ment and exclusion from society was decreed ' on bishops and clergy deprived or degraded by their fellow-clergy for seditious conduct (XVI. ii. 35). Sons of priests were not to be forced into the ministry (XII. i. 166). The single edict of a.d. 401 on ecclesiastical matters, addressed to Pompeianus, proconsul j of Africa, excepted bishops and clergy actively employed in sacred duties from the " auraria pensio," apparently (see Brissonus, Diet.) a tax on commercial men. In 404 there were 14 decrees, chiefly on religious matters. Of XVI. viii. 15, 16, 17, de Judaeis, 15 renews the general privileges of their patriarchs ; 16 deprives or exempts Samaritans from military responsibilities; 17 withdraws the prohibition of a.d. 400 as to collections in the synagogues. XVI. ii. (37 Aug.) re- leases from prison various clerical persons con- cerned in popular tumults in Constantinople, but expels them, with all other foreign bishops and clergy, from the city. XVI. iv. 4, 5 [De his qui super Religione contenduni) coerces "the orthodox, who now forsake the holy churches, and assemble elsewhere (' alio convcnire con- antur '), and venture to dissent from the religion of Acacius, Theophilus, and Porphy- rius," now dominant in Constantinople — Nov. Tillemont considers that all these edicts refer to the tumults which took place in 404 on the persecution of St. Chrysostom, except that which refers to officials, issued in Jan. The saint was not exiled till June. There were 5 religious decrees out of 18 in 405. Two related to the Manichean and Donatist heresies, former statutes being put in force or threatened : " Una sit catholica veneratio, una Salus sit, Trinitatis par sibique congruens Sanctitas expetatur." XVI. vi. 3, 14 were against the repetition of baptism, which some persons seem to have thought might be repeated not only after heresy, but for forgiveness of repeated sins. Persons guilty of rebaptizing others were deprived of all their property, which was, however, secured to their heirs if orthodox. The contumacious were threatened with loss of all civil rights, and there was a heavy fine for connivance. The irruption of the pagan and ferocious Radagaisus is dated by Gibbon 406, by Tille- mont 405. He had to capitulate and was be- headed, and so many of his (iermans were sold as slaves that their price fell to a single gold piece. After this invasion and in his desper- ate circumstances as the last general of Italy's last army. Stilicho apparently turned towards his worthiest enemy and felt the necessity of making terms with Alaric. Stilicho was slain at Ravenna Aug. 23, 408. Alaric now (Oct. 408) crossed the Alps on pretence of a large claim of money. Honorius fled to Ravenna, and Alaric besieged Rome for the first time, but accepted a large ransom in 409 and withdrew into Tuscany. He re- newed the siege in the same year, and Rome submitted. Attains was proclaimed emperor by him. In 410 the capture and sack of Rome followed. x-Vlaric died before the end of the year, and in 412 the Goths under Adolf with- drew into Gaul, where Adolf remained until driven into Spain about 3 years after. A.D. 407. 408. T.C. XVi. V. 40, 41 included the Manichean, Phrygian, and Priscillianist sects in the liabilities of the Donatists, i.e. loss of rights of property and succession, gift, sale, contract, will, and right to restrain orthodox slaves from worship. Heresy was expressly made a public offence, because crimen in religione divina in omnium fertur injuriam, but by c. 41 simple" confessio " or acknow- ledgment of error and return to orthodox service sufficed for restoration to all rights, and Honorius shewed genuine anxiety to recall his people to the right path on easy terms. XVI. ii. 38 enacted clerical immunities for Africa. In 408, XVI. viii. 18 stated that at the feast of Purim ( " .A.man ad recordationem") the Jews were accustomed to burn or insult the cross. j This was to cease, their other ceremonies were j " infra contemptum Christianae legis," and 1 might continue. There were 6 statutes on heretics and pagans— XVI. v. 42-45, with XVI. X. ig, and V. xiv. 7 — and XVI. ii. 36, de Epis- copis. Enemies to the Catholic faith were for- bidden to serve in the emperor's palace guard. ' All statutes against Donatists. Manicheans, and I Priscillianists were to be fully enforced, and a new sect called Caelicolae were, with them, I to be deprived of all buildings for public j assemblage. Donatists who had not yet con- HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS 4'.i3 fessed their heresy, but only withdrawn from (W'l. vi. 6, 7) the settlement efferted by Catholic service (" saevae relitjionis obtentu ") Marcellinus on Honnrius's i>art at Carthage, were included. Certain Jews and Donatists between the orthodox and the Donatists, had insulted the Sacraments, and were to be which, Tillemont says, brought the heresy to punished; illegal assemblage for heretical wor- an end. Against any public assemblage for ship was again prt)hibited. XV'I. ii. 39 provi- I heretical purposes, v. 56. Hy v. 57 Muntan- ded that a degraded cleric who had renounced ist congregations were forbidden ; their clergy clerical office should be at once made a curialis to be banished if tiiey attempted to ordain and forbidden to resume his orders. others. Harbourers to be deprived of the A.D. 4oq. De Haereticis, X\'I. v. 46, Jan., 47, house or property where the heretic rcmaim-d. June. Two edicts to enforce laws on Jews, Their places of mei-ting, if any were Idt Gentiles, or pagans, and heretics. Tillemont standing, to be the property of the cluinli. says that the death of Stiiicho caused a general By c. 58 houses of Eunomian clergy were outbreak of heretics, the Donatists of Africa in confiscated to the fise ; or any in which second particular asserting that his laws against them 1 baptism has been administered. Their clergy were now abrogated. Two edicts in March were exiled, and they were again deprived of and July forbad amusements (" volujitates ") testamentary and military rights. Ail these, on Sunday and exempted Jews from public except the last, were addressed to Africa. By calls on their Sabbath (II. viii. 25, 26). ; III. xii. 4 marriage with a deceased wife's In 410 there were 4 decrees (out of 19) on sister or husband's brother was forbidden, heresy. The Montanists, Priscillianists, and XVI. x. 20. All pagan priests were required others were forbidden military service, and to return to their native place. Confiscation other means of exemption from curial burdens to the church or the emperor of lands and (XVI. V. 48). To the intestacy of the Euno- grounds used for pagan purposes. To become mians was added the reversion of bequests to a pagan was now a capital offence. In 416 the fisc, if no orthodox heir survive; c. 51 Gentiles, or persons guilty of participation in altogether abrogated a former imperial ora- pagan rites, were excluded from the army and culum or rescript, by which certain heretics from official or judicial positions. In 423 had been allowed to meet in secret. XVI. xi. 3 I Honorius renewed all his edicts against heresy, confirmed all existing religious statutes. [ with special mention of Manicheans, Phry- A.D. 411, 412. XVI. v. 52, Jan. Heavy ! gians, Priscillianists, Arians, Macedonians, fines, or total confiscation of property, on obstinate Donatists. Pressure was to be Eunomians, Novatianists, and Sabbatiani. XVI. V. 59, 60. He was able to say that he exercised by masters on their slaves, and by believed there were very few pagans remain- the local authorities on coloni. Heretical ing, and so far his persecution may seem to clergv banished from Africa (c. 53). Jovinian s have been successful, as with the Donatists and others, his followers, to 'be corporally I and others. Other and more powerful causes punished and banished to island of Boas, were at work, and error and idolatry were on coast of Dalraatia. XVI. ii. 40,41, d£ taking other forms. The remarkable statute £/^i'sco^is. Church properties exempted from (.XVI. x. 22 and 23) ran thus: " Paganos, fugatio (a kind of land-tax by acreage, Bris- si qui supersunt, quanquam jam nuUos esse son), also from repairs of public roads and credamus, promulgatorum legum jam dudum bridges. Bv c. 41 clergv were to be tried only praescripta compescant." The next (c. 23) before their' bishops and unnecessary scandal \ stated that pagans caught in acts of idolatrous avoided bv only bringing accusations which ; ceremonial ought to be capitally punished, could be definitely proved. For perfect toler- j but are only subject to loss of property ance towards the Jews, XVI. viii. 20, 21. and exile. He denounced the same sentence In 418 Wallia and his Visigoths were settled in c. 24 on Manicheans and Pepuzitae, who in the S.W. of France with Toulouse for their were worse than all other heretics, saying, capital. Britain was entirely lost, and the " quod in venerabili die Paschatis ab omnibus Armoricans were maintaining themselves in dissentiant." He ended with a strong independence. A fresh revolt under another ; caution against any violence on Christian Maximus seems not to have been suppressed pretences to pagans or Jews leading quiet and till 422. Wallia, however, acted in Spain as a legal lives, with penalty of triple or fourfold feudal ally of the empire, won a succession of restitution. Two more decrees this year victories over the Alani, Vandals, and Suevi, restored all fabrics taken from the Jews, even and restored great part of the peninsula to for church purposes ; or, in case the holy Honorius, who is said bv Prosper's Chronicle mysteries had been celebrated in such build- to have entered Rome in triumph a second ings, equal accommodation should be provided time. The Burgundians occupied the two for the former holders. provinces which still bear their name, and the j Honorius possessed no character except a Franks were settled on the Rhine. All con- 1 timid docility, but with some natural goodness tinued to acknowledge the title of Honorius, of heart or gentleness, otherwise he could and to hold titles from the empire ; and all ; not have continued to reign so disastrously accepted the civil law and magistracy of Rome, for 28 years. It must be remembered, in Honorius himself had confirmed the independ- excuse of his coercive action, that persecu- ence of Britain and Armorica c. 410, and died tion was no invention of his or Theodosius's, of dropsy in his 40th vear (423), Aug. 27. but an inheritance of the empire. Sue h His later legislation has little historical questions as the expediency or the possibility interest, but the enactments on paganism and of perfic t toleration, the limits of pressure or heresy from 413 to 423 were as follows : Two coercion, and what body in the state is to against repetition of baptism, a.d. 413 ; two exercise it, have been debated in theory and against Donatists, v, 54, 55. These comprise hewn out in practice, from the beginnings ol 494 HONORIUS, FLAVIUS AUGUSTUS society, and are still unsettled. Nor can they be solved, unless the relation of the individual conscience to the public, and of the individual soul to the church, were accurately known and defined. That there is a point at which the church militant must cease to strive with invincible ignorance or determined error, leaving them to the civil power, as civil dangers or nuisances only, seems a rule which the sad experience of 1800 years has but imperfectly taught the Christian world. Only the great spirit of .\thanasius seems to have anticipated it in his day, though he did not always act on it. The world knew no toler- ance, and never had known it in Honorius's time ; and his position as emperor com- pelled him to do as other emperors had done before him. The temptation to a Christian emperor to hold heresy or paganism an offence against the State, which he personified (at least on earth, and in heathen theory in heaven), was too much for man. Without asserting that all the faults of the Christian church may be traced to the fatal gift of Constantine, we cannot doubt that her alliance with the temporal power proved as dangerous as her investiture with temporal rule was fabulous. Pagan emperors had claimed to rule as personal and present divinity, and this claim had always specially embittered their persecution of the Christian faith. It was never, in fact, withdrawn ; the ruler of Rome was invested with an awe beyond man, and that, in fact, descended to the mediaeval popedom. Constantine him- self had allowed his statues to be worshipped with incense and lights, and so most unhappily encouraged the earlier iconodulism of half- Christianized Greeks. But the connexion he instituted between the temporal and spiritual power tempted a Christian despot like Theo- dosius, under guidance of a great representa- tive of the church, to think that God was surely with them in whatever persecuting edict they set forth ; and thus Justinian's words, " Sacrilegii instar est dubitare " {Cod. IX. xxix. 3), were literally meant, and logic- ally, if not conscientiously, believed. The empire could not forget its traditions. Ex- cuses which are admitted by Christians for Aurelius or Diocletian ought to be considered in behalf of Theodosius and his sons. The fierceness and necessities of their age must be allowed as palliations. Theodosius's 15 edicts in 15 years, from 380-384, extend over the ministers, assem- blies and persons of heretics, and make not only the Manichean heresy punishable by death, but the Quartodeciman error as to keeping Easter. Ambrose, like other Church- men, could not abstain from the use of the mighty arm of flesh at his command, and the institution of inquisitors must certainly have been an ecclesiastical measure. It should be remembered that the Christian faith had by its own influences so elevated and organized the influence of the human conscience as to have become a temporal power by the nature of things. The Christian spiritual power ruled men's persons and fortunes ; the bishop was in fact obeyed by his large share of the popula- tion, and became a temporal magistrate be- cause men made him arbitrate for them. (See HORMISDAS Guizot, Civ. in Europe, lect. ii. p. 34, ed. Bohn.) He was consequently involved with the civil power in coercive measures of all kinds and in all directions. Lastly, the empire was divided between Rome and Constantinople, but Italy between Rome and Milan or Ravenna. Ambrose must have felt that the remaining paganism of Rome was his chief difficulty, and his influence must have been accordingly exerted on Honorius in his first days. Hence, perhaps, his supine- ness and indifference to the fate of Rome, and perhaps, in a great degree, the paralysis of Italian defence as soon as the barbaric genius of Stilicho was withdrawn. A coin of Honorius is figured in Smith's Diet, of G. and R. Biogr. s.v. The counten- ance has an inexpressiveness which may have belonged to him in a special degree, but extends to most portraiture after the 3rd cent. Another represents the emperor in the paludamentum, bearing a globe and the labarum. On another, with Vota Publica, are two emperors with nimbi, which is important evidence of the derivation of that symbol from imperial effigies (seeTyrwhitt, Art Teaching of Prim. Ch.. Index" Nimbus"). [r.st.j.t.] Hormisdas (3), bp. of Rome after Symma- chus from July 26, 514, to Aug. 6, 523, Anasta- sius and Justin being successively emperors of the East and Theodoric ruling the West as king of Italy. Hormisdas was a native of Frusino in Campania. Pope Silverius [ace. 536) is said to have been his son (Liberat. Breviar. 22). The memorable event of his pontificate was the restoration of communion between Rome and Constantinople, which had been interrupted since 484, in connexion with the Eutychian heresy. [Felix III. ; Aca- cius.] The first overtures were made in 515 by the emperor Anastasius, being moved thereto by \Mtalian, a Scythian, the command- er of the imperial cavalry, who, having taken up the cause of orthodoxy, made himself master of Thrace, Scythia, and \lysia, and marched with an army of Huns and Bulgarians to the gates of Constantinople, .\nastasius had to pro- I cure peace by assenting to 3 conditions, one I being that he should summon a council at Heraclea, the pope being in%-ited and free discussion allowed (Theophan. Chron. ad an. Imp. Anast. 23). In 515 the emperor wrote to Hormisdas, desiring his concurrence in ] restoring unity to the church by means of j such acouncil; and Hormisdas, after a guarded i reply, sent legates to Constantinople with letters to the emperor and Vitalian, and a statement of the necessary conditions for union. These were : (i) The emperor should issue to all bishops of his dominion a written declaration accepting the council of Chalcedon and the letters of pope Leo. (2) A like de- claration should be publicly signed by the Eastern bishops, who should also anathema- tize Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Aelurus, Peter Mongus, Peter the Fuller, and Acacius, with all their followers. (3) Persons exiled for religion should be recalled and their cases reserved for the judgment of the apos- tolic see. (4) Such exiles as had been in communion with Rome and professed the catholic faith should first be recalled. (5) Bishops accused of having persecuted the t HORMISDAS orthodox sliould be sent to Rome to be judned. Thus the emperor proposed a free discussion in council ; the pope required the uutiualilied acceptance of orthodoxy, and submission to himself as head of Christendom, before he would treat at all. He did not reject the idea of a council, but, from his point of view, none was wanted. The Easterns had but to renounce their errors and accept the terms of reconciliation dictated by the apostolic see, and peace would be at once restored. This attempt failed, as .\nastasius, though now professing orthodo.xy, demurred to eras- ing the name of Acacius from the diptychs. But he continued his overtures. In 516 he sent two distinguished laymen to Rome with a letter to Hormisdas. But Hiirmisdas con- tinued resolute, and the emperor dismissed the bishops already assembled at Heraclea for the intended council. In a letter to Avitus of Vienne (317) the pope, referring to this embassy, complains of the fruitless and per- fidious promises of the Greeks, but rejoices at the faithfulness of the churches of Gaul, Thrace, Dardania, and lUyricum, which had stood firm against persecution in the com- munion of Rome. It appears that 40 bishops of Illyricum and Greece had renounced obedience to their metropolitan of Thessa- lonica and sent to Hormisdas to seek com- munion with Rome (Theophan. Chron.). Hormisdas, building on the emperor's political necessities, sent in 517 a second embassy to the East with increased demands. They were charged with a rule of faith (regula fidei) for the signature of all who desired reconciliation with Rome which was more exacting than any previous document. The signers were to declare that, mindful of the text "Thou art Peter," etc., the truth of which has been proved by the immaculate religion ever maintained by the apostolic see, they profess in all things to follow that see, and to desire communion with it. Accordingly they were to accept the decrees of Chalcedon and the " tome " of pope Leo, and also all letters on religion he had ever written ; and not only to anathematize Xestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy .Belarus, Peter Fullo, and Acacius, with all their followers, but also exclude from their diptychs all who had been " sequestrated from catholic communion," which is explained to mean communion with the apostt)lic see. Such demands ended the negotiations, and Anastasius peremptorily dismissed the legates, and sent a reply to Hormisdas (July 11, 317) which ended : "We can bear to be injured and set at naught ; we will not be commanded " (Hormisd. Epp. post. Ep. xxii. Labbe). Persecutions were now renewed in the East. The monasteries of the orthodox in Syria Secunda were burnt and 330 monks mas- sacred. The survivors sent a deputation to the pope, acknowledging in ample terms the supremacy of " the most holy and blessed patriarch of the whole world," " the successor of the Prince of the .\postles," and " the Head of all." They implore him to exercise his power of binding and loosing in defence of the true faith, and to anathematize all heretics, including Acacius {ib.). To this appeal Hor- misdas replied in a letter to all the orthodox in the East, exhorting them to steadfastness in HORMISDAS 495 the faith of Chalcedon, and to patience under present straits (in A< t. V. i onctl. Conslanlin. Labbe, vol. v. \k i i i i). The death of .-Vnast.isius (July 0. 51S) ami the accession of the orthodox Justin chanKeil the aspect of affairs. During divine service at Constantinople, while John the Cappadorian (who had lately succeeded Timotheus as patriarch) was officiating, the populace, who had been all along on the orthodox side, seem to have made a riot in the church in the impatience of their orthodox zeal, crving, " Long live the emperor ! " " Long live the patriarch ! " They would not brook delay. By continued cries, by closing the doors of the church and saying they would not leave it till he had done what they wanted, they compelled him to i)ro(laim the acceptance of the four gcncr.d (oiuk ils, including Chalcedon. A synod, attetidcd liy some 40 bishops, ratified what the patriarch liad done. Letters were sent to various Eastern metropolitans, in- cluding those of Jerusalem, Tyre, and Syria Secunda, who forthwith reported to the synod the full acceptance of orthodoxy by their several churches (?6. p. ii3i,etc.). Coercive measures were used by Justin. In two edicts he ordered the restoration of the orthodox exiled by Anastasius, the acknowledgment of the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs of all churches, and declared heretics incapable of public offices, civil or nulitary. The pope insisted upon the erasure of the name of Acacius and the subscription of the rule of faith rejected by Anastasius as the first steps to restoration of communion. In 319 Hormisdas sent a legation to Constantino- ple, charged with letters to the emperor and patriarch, and also to the empress Euphemia and other persons of distinction, including three influential ladies. Anastasia, Palmatia, and Anicia. They carried with them the libellus described above, to be signed by all who desired reconciliation. At Constantinople they were met by Vitalian, Justinian, and other senators, and received by the emperor in the presence of the senate and a deputation of four bishops to represent the iiatriarch. The libellus was read ; the bishops had nothing to say against it, and the emperor and senators recommended them to accept it. The patriarch proved unwilling to sign it as it stootl ; but at length, after much contention, it was agreed that he might embody the libellus unaltered in a letter, with his own preamble. This was done, the names of Acacius and his successors in the see, Fravitas, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus, and of the emperors Zeiio and Anastasius, were erased from the diptychs ; the bishops of other cities, and the archi- mandrites who had been jireviously reluctant, now came to terms ; and the legates wrote to the pope expressing thankfulness that so complete a triumiih had been won without sedition, tumult, or shedding of blood. The patriarch's preamble was a protest against the claim of Rome to dictate terms of communion to Constantinople and an assertion of the co-ordinate authority of his own see. He says, " Know therefore, most holy one, that, according to what 1 have written, agreeing in the truth with thee, I too, loving peace, 496 HORMISDAS renounce all the heretics repudiated by thee : for I hold the most holy churches of the elder and of the new Rome to be one ; I define that see of the apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." The same view of the unity of the two sees is expressed in his letter to Hormisdas. Even Justin, in his letter to the pope, guards against implying that the authority of Constantinople was inferior to that of Rome, saying that " John, the prelate of our new Rome, with his clergy, agrees with you," and that " all concur in complying with what is your wish, as well as that of the Con- stantinopolitan see." Peace being thus concluded at Constantinople, a deputation was sent to Thessalonica, headed by bp. John, the papal legate, to receive the submission of that church. Dorotheus, bp. of Thessalonica, tore the libellus in two before the people, and declared that never would he sign it or assent to such as did. Hormisdas, on hearing of this, wrote to the emperor, requiring that Doro- theus should be deposed. But Dorotheus was summoned to Constantinople to be tried, sent thence to Heraclea while his cause was being heard, and eventually allowed to return to his see. He and his church were now re- stored to Catholic communion, and he wrote a respectful letter to the pope (a.d. 520) express- ing great regard for him personally and for the apostolic see. Hormisdas replied that he was anxious to believe in his innocence, and in his being the author of the peace now concluded, but expressed dissatisfaction that he " de- layed even to follow those whom he ought to have led," and hoped he would "repel from himself the odium of so great a crime, and in reconciliation to the faith would at length follow the example of those who had returned." It thus seems clear that Dorotheus, though professing orthodoxy and restored by the em- peror to his see, had not so far fully complied, if he ever did, with the pope's terms {Inter Epp. Hormisd. Ixii. Ixiii. Ixxii. Ixxiii.). Notwithstanding the general triumph of orthodoxy throughout the East, except at Alexandria, the unbending pertinacity of Hormisdas still caused difficulties. In 520 the emperor Justinian and Epiphanius (who had succeeded John as patriarch) wrote urgent letters to him on the subject. They alleged that, though the condition was complied with in the imperial city, yet no small part of the Orientals, especially in the provinces of Pontus, Asia, and Oriens, would not be com- pelled by sword, fire, or torments to comply, and they implored the pope not to be more exacting than his predecessors. The pope persisted in his demand, and urged Justin, as a duty, not to shrink from coercion. He authorized Epiphanius to deal at his dis- cretion with various cases (ib. Ixxii. Concil. Constant, act. V. Labbe, vol. v. p. 1119). A nice question, arising out of the now defined orthodox doctrine of One Person and Two Natures in Christ, came before Hormisdas for settlement. There being but one Person- ality in the Incarnate Word, and that Divine, it seemed correct to say that this Divine Person suffered ; and yet to say this seemed to attribute passibility to the Godhead. It was undoubted Nestorian heresy to deny that 1 He Whom the Blessed Virgin brought forth HORMISDAS was God. But He Who was brought forth was the same with Him Who suffered on the Cross. On the other hand " God was crucified " had been a favourite Monophysite formula, used to emphasize their doctrine of the absorption of the human nature into the divine ; and great offence had formerly been given to the orthodox by the addition of " Who wast crucified for us " to the Trisagion by Peter FuUo. The adoption of this addition at Constantinople under Anastasius had caused a popular tumult, and it was probably its abrogation during the reaction under Justin that caused certain Scythian monks to defend the formula, and to maintain that " one of the holy and undivided Trinity" suffered. The question was laid before the legates of Hormisdas, when in Constantinople, a.d. 519. They decided against the Scythian monks, arguing that the faith had been fully and sufficiently defined at Chalcedon and in the letter of pope Leo, and that the formula of the monks was an unauthorized novelty, likely to lead to serious heresy. The monks contended that its adoption was necessary for rendering the definitions of Chalcedon distinct against Nestorianism. \'italian seems to have sup- ported them. Justin and Justinian begged the pope to settle the question. He wrote to desire that the monks should be kept at Con- stantinople ; but they managed to get to Rome to lay their case before him {Ep. Ixxix. Labbe). At length they left Rome, having publicly proclaimed their views there. Hor- misdas does not seem to have actually con- demned the expression of the monks, though annoyed by their propounding it, but spoke strongly against it as an unnecessary novelty. In the end, however, their view triumphed. For in 533 the emperor Justinian issued an edict asserting that " the sufferings and miracles are of one and the same — for we do not acknowledge God the Word to be one and Christ another, but one and the same : for the Trinity remained even after the Incarnation of the One Word of God, Who was of the Trinity ; for the Holy Trinity does not admit of the addition of a fourth person. We anathematize Nestorius the man-worshipper, and those who think with him, who deny that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and our God, Incarnate, made man, and crucified, was One of the holy consubstantial Trinity " {Lex Justinian, a.d. 533, Cod. I. i. 6 ; Joann. Pap. ii. Epp. in Patr. Lat. Ixvi. 18 b), and it has since been accounted orthodox to affirm that God suffered in the flesh, though in His assumed human, not in His original divine, nature. (See Pearson On the Creed, art. iv.). Hormisdas died early in Aug. 523, having held the see 9 years and 11 days. He, as well as all the popes during the schism with the East, except the too conciliatory Anastasius, has had his firmness acknowledged by canon- ization, his day in the Roman Calendar being Aug. 6. His extant writings consist of letters, 80 being attributed to him, one of which, to St. Remigius (in which he gives him vicariate jurisdiction over the kingdom of Clovis which he had converted), is probably spurious, as it implies that Clovis was still reigning, though he had died in 5 1 1, more than two years before the election of Hormisdas. Most of the HOSIUS remaining 70 letters refer to the affairs of the East, several to the metropolitan see of Nico- polis in Epirus (Hormisd. vi.-ix., xvii.-xxii.). Three letters of Hormisdas (xxiv.-xxvi.), to John. bp. of Tarragona, Sallustius, bp. of Seville, and the bishops of Spain in general, give the two prelates vicariate jurisdiction over E. and \V. Spain, exhort against simony and other irregularities, and direct the regular convention of synods. Cf. Thiel, Epp. Pontiff. Kom. i. Hormisdas had great administrative and diplomatic abilities, was singularly uncom- promising and tirm of purpose, and one of the most strenuous and successful assertors of the supremacy of the Roman see. [j.b — v.] Hosius (1), (Osius), a confessor under Maxi- mian, and bp. of Corduba, the capital of the province of Baetica in Spain. He took a leading part on the catholic side in the con- troversies of the first half of the 4th cent. For nearly 50 years he was the foremost bishop of his time, held in universal esteem and enjoy- ing unbounded influence. Eusebius says, " He was approved for the sobriety and genuineness of his faith, had distinguished himself by the boldness of his religious profession, and his fame was widely spread" (Vit. Cons. bk. ii. cc 63, 73). Socrates calls him " the cele- brated Hosius" (H. E. ii. 29). Sozomensays: "He was honoured for his faith, virtuous life, and steadfast confession of truth " (H. E. i. 16). Athanasius is never weary of repeating his praises. " Of the great Hosius," he says, " who answers to his name, that confessor of a happy old age, it is superfluous for me to speak, for he is not an obscure person, but of all men the most illustrious " (Apol. de Fugd, § 7). Considering his great renown and his prominent part in affairs, it is remarkable how very little is known of his personal history. There seems no reason to doubt Eusebius, .ath- anasius, and others, who make him a native of Spain. Athanasius says {Hist. Ariau. § 45) that when Hosius was more than 100 years old, and had been more than 60 years a bishop, he was summoned by Constantius from Spain to Sirmium, and there subscribed an Arian formula about the middle of a.d. 357. Soon afterwards he returned to his native country and died. We may probably, therefore, place his birth c. 256, as Tillemont does [Mem. t. vii. p. 302, 4to ed.). The common view that he suffered for the Christian faith in Diocletian's persecution between 303 and 305 is more than doubtful. We have his own testimony in his letter to Constantius (the son of Constantine) preserved by .\thanasius {Hist. Arian. § 44). " 1 was a confessor at the first, when a persecution arose in the time of your grandfather Maximian." These words can hardly refer to the general persecution enjoined by Diocletian. The allusion seems to be to the persecution of which the chief promoter was Maximian, the Augustus and colleague, not the son-in-law, of Diocletian. Maximianus Herculius was made Caesar in 285, and Augustus in 286. as is shewn by coins and inscriptions (cf. Clinton, Fasti Romani, vol. i. p. 328), and for six years the Roman empire was divided between these two rulers, Diocletian having the East and Maxi- mian the West. In 292 a further partition of HOSIUS 497 the empire took i>lare hv the appointment o( two Caesars, Constantius Chlorus (the father of Constantine) and (ialerius Maximianus. When Constantius was made Caesar in 292, Maximian's half of the empire was subdivided. *' Cuncta quae trans .Mpes (lalliae sunt Con- stantiocommissa ; .Africa Italiaijue Herculio" (Aur. Vict, de Caesar, xxxix. 30). On the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian in 305, Gaul, with Italy and Africa, was given to Con- stantius, and the rest of the empire toCalcrius. But Constantius, content with the dignitv of Augustus, refused to administer Italy and Africa(Eutropius, X. i). Orosius similarly says that Constantius. " Italiam, Africam, Hispani- am et (lallias obtinuit. Sed, vir tranquillissi- mus, (lallia tantuin Hispaniaque contentus, Cialerio caeteris jiatribus cessit" {Hist. vii. 2f,). Constantius, says Sozomen (//. E. i. 6), was not willing that Christianity should be ac- counted unlawful in the countries beyond the confines of Italy, i.e. in Caul, Britain, or the region of the Pyrenaean mountains as far as the western ocean. These facts shew that in the division of the empire Spain was always an appendage of Gaul, and under the same administration. If so, it was under the jurisdiction of Constantius, and, as both Lactantiusand Eusebius aftirm, that Constan- tius took no part in the persecution of the Christians, it could not have been in his period that Hosius became a confessor. When, then, did he suffer ? We have his own testimony that he had been a confessor in the time of Maximian. Probably it was in some special and local persecution carried out under the orders of Maximianus Herculius while he was sole ruler of the West, before Constantius was appointed Caesar in 292, and much be- fore the general persecution authorized by the edicts of Diocletian in 303. It is very probable that between 286 and 292, while Maximian was sole ruler of the West, there were many martyrdoms in Spain as well as in Gaul and Italy. Hosius would have been then between 30 and 36 years old, and it is far more likely that he suffered persecution and witnessed a good confession then than later under the mild rule of Constantius. Beyond Hosius's own statement, we have no contemporary evidence upon the subject. As the bishops and officers of the church generally suffered first in the outbreaks of persecution, it is more than probable that Hosius was already bp. of Corduba when he became a confessor. His earliest public act with which we are acquainted was his presence as bp. of Corduba at the synod of Elvira, but the date of this synod, like that of other events in his history, is involved in much obscurity. Mendoza, who has written more fully upon it than any other author, is of opinion that it should be placed in 300 or 301. Nineteen bishops from difl.r<iit i)arts of Si>ain wire present, hence it iiiav be regarded as represent- ing the whole < hurcli iA Spain. The president was Felix of Acci (Guadix) in Baetica, pro- bably the oldest bishop present. The name of Hosius comes next. As a rule the order of signatures to the Acts of councils indicates the order of precedence among the bishops, either according to the date of their consecration <ir the importance of their episcopal see* (Hefele, 32 498 HOSIUS Hist, of Councils, vol. i. 64, Eng. trans.)- As Hosius was probably not over 45 years old, his high position could not have been due to his age, but must have been in right of his see. We infer, therefore, that Corduba then held the first place among the cities of Spain. It is now very difficult to form a true con- ception of Corduba in its ancient grandeur. Tn the ist and the beginning of the 2nd cents. Spain reached a very high development in the social system of Rome. Roman influence had so spread in Baetica that the natives had forgotten their own language. Roman schools were opened in the coloniae and municipia, the most brilliant being at Corduba and Osca. For nearly two centuries Spain produced men remarkable in all kinds of culture. Lucan and the two Senecas were born at Corduba, its schools thus furnishing rivals even to Vergil and Cicero. In the time of Hosius this intellectual activity had considerably declined, and pre-eminence in literary culture had passed to the province of Africa. But Cor- duba must still have retained a high place in the social development of the time. A man called to such an important see would most probably be one of some personal distinction. Baronius(adann. 57) attaches little importance to this synod, which he suspects of Novatianist tendencies. The very first canon, indeed, decrees that adults who have sacrificed to idols have committed a capital crime and can never again be received into communion. Such a denial of pardon to those who lapsed under persecution was the chief error of Novatian (Socr. H. E. iv. 28). The Novatianist dis- cipline was very rigid in other respects also, especially with reference to carnal sins, and many of the canons of Elvira relate to such offences, and their stern and austere spirit shews how deeply the Fathers at Elvira were influenced by Novatianist principles. Though we cannot trace the hand of Hosius in the composition of these canons, yet as he was a leading member of the synod, its decrees would doubtless be in harmony with his convictions. For 12 or 13 years after this synod nothing is known of his life. He then seems to have been brought into close personal relations with the emperor Constantine, and thence- forward his acts form part of the history of his time. It would be interesting to know how Hosius acquired the great influence over Con- stantine which it is believed he exercised up to the time of the Nicene council. But there is not a single passage in any ancient writer which relates the origin of their connexion. The absence of Hosius from the synod of Aries, Aug. i, 314, the most numerously at- tended council that had hitherto been held in Christendom, is remarkable. Bishops from Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Britain were assembled as representatives of the whole Western church. Constantine was absent, being en- gaged in his first war with Licinius in Panno- nia. Possibly Hosius may have been in attendance upon the emperor, as we learn from Eusebius (Vit. Const, ii. 4) that in this campaign Constantine took with him " the priests of God," for the benefit of their prayers and " to have them constantly about his person, as most trusty guardians of the soul." Traces exist of the presence of HOSIUS Hosius at the imperial court in 316, when the Donatists, having been condemned at the council in Nov. at Milan by the emperor him- self, spread abroad a report, as we learn from Augustine {cont. Ep. Parmen. lib. i. c. 8, vol. ix. p. 43, ed. Migne), that by the advice of Hosius, a friend of Caecilian, the catholic bp. of Carthage, they had been condemned. In the relations between Christianity and paganism there is ground for thinking that the position of Hosius at this time must have been somewhat of a representative one on the Christian side ; otherwise it is difficult to understand why the emperor should have addressed to him a law declaring free such slaves as were emancipated in the presence of the bishops or clergy (a.d. 321 ; Cod. TJieod. lib. iv. tit. 7, col. 379, Hand's ed.). By the end of 323 Constantine had becomesole master of the Roman empire in the East and West, and took measures for the re-establishment of religious concord throughout his dominions. To this end, says Socrates (H. E. i. 7), " he sent a letter to "Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, and to Arius, by a trustworthy person named Hosius, who was bp. of Corduba in Spain, whom the emperor greatly loved and held in the highest estimation," urging them not to con- tend about matters of small importance (Eus. Vit. Const, ii. 63). That Hosius, a bishop of the Western church, and speaking only Latin, should be sent to a city in the East in which Greek civilization had reached its highest development is a striking proof of the high opinion that the emperorhad of him. Moreover, his mission gave him precedence as an imperial commissioner over the bp. of Alexandria, whose see ranked next to that of Rome. It is not very clear what Hosius did at Alexandria, the accounts being very imperfect and confused. He apparently devoted himself with great earnestness to refuting the dogmas of Sabellius (Socr. H. E. iii. 7), but as to his steps with reference to Arius, history is silent. We know, however, that he failed to extinguish the flame which the Arians had lighted. Finding it im- possible to terminate these controversies, he had to return to Constantine and acknowledge that his mission had failed. The emperor there- upon, probably by his advice (Sulpit. Sever. Hist. ii. 55, " Nicaena synodus auctore illo [Hosio] confecta habebatur"), resolved to convoke an oecumenical council and to invite bishops from all quarters. The council was held at Nicaea in 323. The part of Hosius in it hasbeen much discussed, (i) Was he the presi- dent of the council, and if so (2) did he preside as legate of the pope ? There is no doubt of his very prominent position. Unfortunately no complete account of the acts of the synod is extant, if such ever existed. (i) Roman Catholic writers, such as Baro- nius, Nat. Alexander (vol. vii. p. 390), Fleury, Alzog, and Hefele [Cone. i. 39), maintain that he was president, but as the legate of the pope. They refer to Gelasius (lib. i. c. 5), who says, " Osius ex Hispanis, . . . Silvestri Episcopi maximae Romae locum obtinebat " — iwex'^'' (cat rdv tottov. Mansi, ii. 806 d. There is a little ambiguity in these words. A man may occupy a place which rightl}^ belongs to an- other, but it does not follow that he is his re- presentative because he sits in his seat. At this HOSIUS epoch, althougli the bp. of Koino held the first place among all his brethren, partly because Rome was the principal city in the world, yet his ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not appear to have extended beyond the churches of the ten provinces of Italy, called in the versio prisca of the 6th Nicene canon " suburbicaria loca." The churches of the IZast were mainly under the jurisdiction of the mctrojiolitans of Alexandria or Antioch, and these great bishops would not brook the interference of their Western brethren. Moreover, the great strength of Christianity lay then in the East. The West was still imperfectly Christianized. It is difficult, therefore, to believe that Hosius presided at the council of Nicaea — an Eastern synod — as legate of the pope. (2) But when we inquire why the usual order of precedence was departed from, we are a little at a loss for a satisfactory answer. Du Pin (Xouv. Bib. t. ii. pt. 2, p. 315) thought that Hosius presided because already acquainted with the question at issue and highly esteemed by the emperor. Similarly Sclirockh (Kir- cheugt'schiclite. Thl. v. § 336). This seems the most probable explanation. It would be difficult to understand how the bishop of a see in Spain took precedence over the great patri- archs of the East if he had not been appointed by the emperor. Hosius was at the height of his reputation and enjoying the fullest con- fidence of his imperial master. He was, says Dean Stanley (Eastern Church, lect. iii.), " as the world-renowned Spaniard, an object of deeper interest to Christendom than any bp. of Rome could at that time have been." The power of the p<-ipes of Rome was not yet sufficiently consolidated for their claim to preside to have been admitted. Eleven years before, at the great council of the West at Aries in 314, the emperor appointed Marinus, bp. of Aries, to preside, while pope Silvester was represented there, as at Nicaea, by two presbyters and two deacons (cf. Hefele, Cone. i. i8ij. The council of Nicaea was convoked by Constantine, and there is good reason to believe that Hosius held the foremost place by his appointment. He is believed to have been the emperor's adviser in ecclesiastical matters. The part that Constantine, then only a cate- chumen, took in the proceedings at Nicaea shews that he must have received some instruc- tion as to the debated questions from an orthodox teacher. It is very unlikely that he could have of himself given such a philo- sophical explanation of the Hiimoousion as he did (see the letter addressed by Kusebius to the Christians at Caesarea and |)reserved by Socrates, H. E. i. 8). Again, the emperor's letter to the churches respecting the council (Eus. Vit. Co«s/. iii. 17-20) bears unmistakable traces of the hand of a theologian. Dean Mil- man (Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 364, crown 8vo ed.) calls the letter of Constantine to Arius and Alexander "in its spirit a model of temper and conciliation. It is probable that the hand of Hosius is to be traced in its composition. His influence was uniformly exercised in this manner. Wherever the edicts of the govern- ment were mild, conciliating, and humane, we find the bp. of Corduba." At the conclusion of the council Hosius seems to have returned to Corduba. For HOSIUS 4(19 nearly 20 years he lived in retirement in his own diocese. No trace of a return to the court of Constantine reniains, ami it docs ui>t appear that they ever met again. We must look to the history of the time for some ex- planation of the cause for these altert-d r«l.i- tions. Constantine left Asia Minor for Kunie. which he reached f. July 32(1. Mis brief stay there was marked by deeds of cruelly. In the midst of the Vicennalia the people of Rome heard with regret that his son Crispus had been put to death. Not long afterwards the young Licinianus, his nephew, a btiy of 12, was killed, at the suggestion, it is said, of the empress Fausta, whom retribution soon overtook. There followed a great number of public executions. The true causes of these events are involved in mystery, but Constan- tine is said to have become a prey to remorse. A great change certainly took place in his character after he became sole master of the Roman empire. He was spoiled by prosperity (Eutropius, lib. x. cc. 4, 6). He became arrogant and impatient of counsel, distrustful and suspicious. This moral deterioration was accompanied with great vacillation in his re- ligious opinions. A few years after the coimcil of Nicaea he fell under Arian influences. .\rius was recalled ; and at the instigation of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his adherents, Athanasius was condemned upon a false charge and banished to (iaul (a.d. 335). Not long before his death, in 337, Constantine received baptism from Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arian bishop. This change in the characterand opin- ions of Constantine was the true cause of his altered relations with Hosius. As the influence of the Arians over his mind increased, that of his old counsellor would of necessity decline. Hosius does not appear to have been present at any of the syn«nls between those of Nicaea and Sardica, nor to have taken any public part in the controversies between .\thanasius and the Arians during 20 years. In 345 the emperor Constans summoned .Athanasius to Milan from Rome, and informed him that he had been urged by certain bishops (believed to have been pope' Julius, Hosius, and Maxi- minus of Treves ; cf. Hilar. Frag. 2, p- 16) to use his influence with his brother Constantius. that a council might be called to settle the questions concerning him, the place of meeting to be Sardica. Athanasius while in Milan was directed by Constans to go to Caul t«i meet Hosius and travel with him to Sardica (.•Vthaii. .Apol. ad Const, c. 4). Hosius was now nearly 00 years old. So long a journey implii s considerable vigour of body, and that age had not changed his convictions nor impaired his zeal. Nor had his long retirement lessened his influence or the unbounded respect felt for him by his contemporaries. In the encyclical letter of the council of Sardica to be found in Athanasius (.-Xpol. conir. .Arian. c. 44). Hosius is spoken of as" one who on account of his age, his confession, and the many labours he had underg(ine, is worthy of all reverence." His presidency in this case is affirmed in express terms by Athanasius (Hist. Arian. c. 16) : " The great Hosius was president of the council." The Acts shew him as the life and soul of the synod, proposing most of the canons and taking the foremost part in t he pro- 500 HOSIUS ceedings. The synod afforded a great oppor- tunity for his wisdom and conciliatory spirit. He specially sought to conciliate the Eusebian party, of which he writes to Constantine {ib. c. 44): "On my own account I challenged the enemies of Athanasius, when they came to the church where I generally was, to declare what they had against him. This I did once and again, requesting them if they were un- willing to appear before the whole council, yet to appear before me alone." The Eusebians, however, rejecting all overtures, held a synod of their own at Philippopolis, whence they sent an encyclical letter to the churches, condemn- ing Hosius, Julius, bp. of Rome, and others, chiefly for holding communion with Athan- asius. Hosius, they said, had also always been a persecutor of a certain Marcus of blessed memory, a strenuous defender of evil men, and a companion of wicked and abandoned persons in the East (Hilar. Frag. iii. t. ii. col. 674, ed. Migne). Until 354 we hear nothing further of him. An extant letter written to him by pope Li- berius, early in 354, shews the great respect in which he was held. Liberius writes, full of grief, because Vincentius of Capua, one of his legates in whom he had placed great confidence, at a synod consisting chief!}' of the Eusebian party, held at Aries in 353, had consented under constraint to give up communion with Athanasius (j6. vi. t. ii. col. 688). During his long life Hosius had preserved an unblemished name and been a consistent and uncompromising supporter of the Nicene faith. At length, when 100 years old, he gave way for a brief moment to the violence of his persecutors, and consented under torture to hold communion with Valens and Ursacius (Athan. Hist. Avian. 45), a concession which has been much magnified and misrepresented. In 355 a synod was convoked by Constan- tius at Milan, which deserved, says Tillemont (Mem. i. vi. p. 362), the name of a robber synod even more than did the false council of Ephesus. At this synod the Eusebians first openly declared in favour of the dogmas of Arius, and endeavoured to secure their accept- ance by the church. The emperor called upon the orthodox bishops, under penalty of banishment, to join in the condemnation of Athanasius. Most of them gave way, and consented to condemn Athanasius and to hold communion with the Arians (Rufinus, lib. i. c. 20). The few who stood firm were banished, bound with chains, to distant pro- vinces : Dionysius, exarch of Milan, to Cap- padocia, or Armenia ; Lucifer to Syria ; Eusebius of Vercelli into Palestine (cf. Athan. Apol. Const. 27). In 366 Liberius, bp. of Rome, was summoned to Milan, where Constantius was residing, and allowed three days to choose between signing the condemn- ation of Athanasius or going into exile. He chose the latter, and was banished to Beroea in Thrace. From the first the object of the Arians had been to gain the great Hosius. " As long as he escaped their wicked machin- ations they thought they had accomplished nothing. We have done everything, they said to Constantius. We have banished the bishop of the Romans, and before him a very great number of other bishops, and have filled every HOSIUS place with alarm. But these strong measures are as nothing, nor is our success at all more secure so long as Hosius remains. Begin then to persecute him also, and spare him not, ancient as he is. Our heresy knows not to honour the hoary hairs of the aged " (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 42). At their solicitation the emperor had previously summoned Hosius to Milan, c. a.d. 355. On his arrival he urged him to subscribe against Athanasius and hold communion with the Arians. The old man, full of grief that such a proposal should have been even made to him, would not for one moment listen to it. Severely rebuking the emperor and endeavouring to convince him of his error, he withdrew from the court and returned to his own country. Constantius wrote fre- quently, sometimes flattering, sometimes threatening him. " Be persuaded," he said, " and subscribe against Athanasius, for who- ever subscribes against him thereby embraces with us the Arian cause." Hosius renvained fearless and unmoved, and wrote a spirited answer to Constantius, preserved by Athan- asius, the only extant composition by Hosius (ib. § 44). The emperor continued to threaten him severely, intending either to bring him over by force or to banish him, for, says Socrates (H. E. ii. 31) the Arians considered that this would give great authority to their opinions. Finding that Hosius would not subscribe, Constantius sent for him to Sir- mium and detained him there a whole year. " Unmindful," says Athanasius (I.e.), " of his father's love for Hosius, without reverence for his great age, for he was then 100 years old, this patron of impiety and emperor of heresy used such violence towards the old man that at last, broken down by suffering, he was brought, though with reluctance, to hold communion with Valens and Ursacius, but he would not subscribe against Athanasius " (a.d. 357). He says elsewhere (Apol. pro Fug. § 7) that Hosius " yielded for a time to the Arians, as being old and infirm in body, and after repeatedblows had been inflicted upon him above measure, and conspiracies formed against his kinsfolk." Socrates gives similar testi- mony (I.e. ; cf. Newman, Arians, c. iv. § 3). It is difficult to determine which of the confessions of faith drawn up at Sirmium was actually signed by Hosius. Whether there was only one synod of Sirmium, or two or three at intervals oif a few years, is also a question upon which opinions have differed widely- The predominant opinion is expressed by Valesius in a note to Socrates (H. E. ii. 30), viz. that there were three synods there, each issuing a different creed. The first, in 351, at which Pho- tinus was deposed, published a confession in Greek. At the second, in 357, Hosius was com- pelled to be present and his subscription was obtained by force to a creed written in Latin, called by Hilarius " blasphemia apud Sirmium per Osium et Potamium conscripta " (0pp. ed. Migne, t. ii. col. 487). The third Sirmian creed, called the " Dated Creed " from its naming the consuls, was agreed upon at a convention of bishops in May 359. This was the creed afterwards produced by Ursacius and Valens at the synod of Ariminum (cf. Athan. de Synod. 48). Socrates, indeed (H. E. ii. 30), says that three creeds were drawn up HOSIUS at the same synod of Sirmiuin as that which i deposed Photinus (a.d. 351) — one inC.reekand | two in Latin — neither of whirh apreed to- 1 gether. But this is clearly an error. Sozoinen says (H.E.iv. 12) that "Hosius had certainly, with the view of arresting the contention ex- cited by Valens, Ursacius, and Germinius, consented, though by compulsion, with some other bishops at Sirmium to refrain from the use of the terms Homoousion and Homoiou- sion, because such terms do not occur in the Holy Scriptures and are beyond the under- standing of men." These very expressions occur in the creed set forth at Sirmium in Latin, and afterwards translated into Clreek, which Socrates gives {I.e.), and there is no room to doubt that this was the confession which Hosius signed. It may be doubted, says Dean Stanley {East. Ch. lect. vii. c. 3), " whether in his own age the authority of Hosius in the theological world was not even higher than that of .Athanasius." The Arians, therefore, would naturally make the most of the concessi'Mi wrung from him. Those who constantly slandered .\thanasius would not have many scruples about calum- niating Hosius. Epiphanius {Haer. 73), about 20 years later, says that the Arians thought they could condemn the teaching of the church as to the Homoousion by producing letters fraudulently procured from the venerable Hosius, stating that the substance was dis- similar. Sozomen says (//. E. iv. 12) that Eudoxius, bp. of .Antioch, c. 358, upheld the heresy of Aetius, that the Son is dissimilar to the Father, and rejected the terms Homo- ousion and Homoiousion. When he received the letter of Hosius he spread a report that Liberius had also made the same admission (iv. 15). These letters were most probably spurious. There is reason also t(i believe that the creed actually signed by Hosius was inter- polated and sent into the East in his name. This may perhaps explain the expression of Hilarius {contr. Constantium, c. 23, col. 580, ed. Migne, vol. ii.) when he speaks of " delira- menta Osii et incrementa Ursacii et Valentis " (cf. Newman's notes to Athanasius, Eng. trans, vol. i. p. 162). Exaggerated reports of the fall of Hosius were spread by the Arians far and wide. His perversion was their strongest argument against the Catholic party in daul. To this a contemporary writer, Phoebadius, bp. of Agennum, replies {Lib. contra Arian. c. 23, Patr. Lat. ed. Migne, vol. xx. col. 30) : " Novit enim mundus quae in banc tenuerit aetatem qua constantia apud Sardicam et in Nicaeno tractatu assensus sit et damnaverit Arianos. ... Si nonaginta fere annis male credidit, post nonaginta ilium recte sentire non credam." The Donatists also, whose views Hosius had opposed equally strongly, did not fail to calumniate him. Augustine vindicates his memory {Lib. contra Parmen. lib. i. c. 4, § 7, ed. Migne, vol. ix. col. 38). Marcellus and Faustinus, two presbyters who were followers of Lucifer of Cagliari, relate {Ltbellum ad Theodos. c. 383 or 384) that on the return of Hosius to Spain, Gregory, bp. of Elvira, re- fused to hold communion with him, and as Hosius was in the act of pronouncing his deposition be was struck dumb and fell from HOSIUS 501 his seat. It is very possible that the first part of the story may have had some foundation, as a letter is extant (Hilar. Frag. xii. t. ii. col. 713, ed. Migne) from Eusebiusof Vernlli to Gregory of Spain (c. 360), congratulatiuR hun on having withstood the transgrcss-.r Hosius. Among ancient writers, no one has referred to the lapse of Hosius s< . bitterly as Hilary of Poictiers. This is the more remark- able as he had never heard of the Nicenc Creed until he went into exile (Hilar. </« Syn. c. 91, ad fin. vol. ii. col. 545, ed. Migne). He charges HosiusnndPotamius.bp. of Lisbon, with having drawn up the second creed of Sirmium, which he designates in one place {0pp. ed. Migne. t. ii. col. 487) as the " blasphemia," in another (col. 599) as " deliramenta Osii " ; and savs (col. 539) that his fall was due to his having been too anxious to get away from Sirmium and die in his own country. These hard savings occur in Hilary's treatise de Synodis, written probably in 358, a year after the second svnod of Sir- mium, at which Hosius was forced to beprescnt. Hilary himself tells us (de Syti. c. 6v f. ii. col. 533) that the majority of those with whom he was then living in exile had no true ac- quaintance with God — in other words, held .\rian opinions^— " Ex majori parte Asianae decem provinciae intra quas consisto, vere Deum nesciunt." Whatever tidings came to him would therefore reach him through Arian channels. His means of information are not to be compared with those of .Athanasius. He is, moreover, the only ancient writer who savs that Hosius had any' hand in the composition of the creed of the second council of Sirmium, and any combination between Hosius aiul Potamius, the reputed author with him of this confession, isforothcrreasons most improbable. The one had been all his life a consistent sup- porter of the Nicene Creed, the other a rene- gade. Moreover, Hosius at this time was about 100 years old. At such an age men do not willingly invent new creeds ; they are far more likely to cling tenaciously to old ones. Sulpicius Severus (c. 404 or 405) speaks of the lapse of Hosius as resting on a popular rumour which seemed quite incredible unless extreme old age had enfeebled his powers and made him childish {Hist. Sac. lib. 2). To clear his memory from the charges of Hilary it is sufficient to point out that the synod of Sardica spoke of Hosius as a man of a " happy <jld age, who, on account of his age, his confession, and the many labours he has undergone, is worthy of all reverence." So public a testimony to his high character is enough to silence all detraction, and the affectionate and reverential language in which the great Athanasius describes the passing frailty of his venerable friend, the father of the bishojis, is very different from the furious and intemperate tone in which it is referred to by Hilary. " This true Hosius, and his blameless life," says Athanasius, " wire known to all." As he relates the violence used towards him, he expresses only the tenderest commiseration for his friend ; but against Constantius, his persecutor, his indignation knows no bounds (Wis/. Arian. 46). There is some doubt whether Hosius suc- cumbed to the violence used against him at Sirmium and died there in 357, or whether, 502 HUNNERIC after subscribing the Arian formula, he was permitted to end his days in Spain. This involves the further question — whether before his death he recanted, and was readmitted into the Catholic church, or retained his Arian opinions to the last. The story told by the Luciferians and the charges brought against his memory by his old enemies the Donatists serve at least to shew that, according to ecclesiastical tradition, he died in Spain. The question is fully examined by Baronius (sub ann. 357,cc. xxx.-xxxvli.), whodoesnot believe the story told by the Luciferians. The story of the apostate Marcellinus is not confirmed by any contemporary writer. Had it been true, it must have been known to Athanasius, who says distinctly that Hosius yielded to the outrages of the Arians " for a time, as being old and infirm in body " (Apol. pro Fug. § 5), and that " at the approach of death, as it were by his last testament, he bore witness to the force which had been used towards him, and abjured the Arian heresy and gave strict charge that no one should receive it " {Hist. Arian. 45). These words prove that his lapse was but a temporary one, that he died in com- munion with the church, and in the midst of his friends. Hilary's words as to his anxiety to leave Sirmium and be buried in his own country iraplv that he obtained his wish to return to Spain. The date of his death is a little uncer- tain, but from Marcellinus we learn that it was soon after his return to Spain and before the concession he had made to the Arians had become widely known. As the treatise of Athanasius {Hist. Arian.) was written between 358 and 360, it must have been before that period. Some writers favour the end of 357 ; others think he lived till 359. His profound acquaintance with Christian doctrine was combined with a singularly blameless and holy life. He seems to have had great tact and judgment and a concilia- tory disposition. The shadow cast upon his name by the concession extorted from him by the Arians must not be allowed to obscure the rightful honour due to him for his labours and sufferings on behalf of the Catholic faith. " Even Christianity," says Dean Milman {Hist, of Christianity, vol. ii. p. 427, ed. 1875), " has no power over that mental imbecility which accompanies the decay of physical strength, and this act of feebleness ought not for an instant to be set against the unblem- ished virtue of a whole life." A very full account of his life, and a dis- cussion of various points in his history, will be found in Gams {DieKirchengesch. von Spanien, Bandii. pp. 1-309, Regensburg, 1864). Seealso Hefele, Conciliengesch vols. i. andii., of which there is an Eng. trans. ; Tillemont, Mem. t. vii. p. 300, 4to ed. ; Dom Ceillier, s.v. t. iii. 392, new ed. ; Zahn, Const, der Gr. u. die Kirche, 1876 ; Florez, EspanaSagrada, LaProvinciadeBetica, vol. ix. and x. (Madrid, i754)- [t.d.c.m.] HunneriC {Ugnericus, Hunerix, Hono- richus). eldest son and successor (Jan. 24, 477) of Genseric, king of the Vandals. Sent to Rome in his youth as a hostage for the observance of the treaty his father had made with Valentinian III., he married (462), after the sack of Rome, the captive Eudocia, eldest of the daughters of that emperor. Soon after HUNNERIC he ascended the throne he ordered diligent search to be made for Manicheans, of whom he burnt many and exiled more across the sea, being commended for this by Victor. His subjects were oppressed with taxes and exactions, but he relaxed the strictness of his father's laws against the orthodox, and, at the intercession of his sister-in-law Placidia, the widow of the emperor Olybrius, and the emperor Zeno, allowed (a.d. 481) a bp. of Carthage (Eugenius) to be elected, the see having been vacant since the death of Deo- gratias in 457. He made this concession upon condition that a similar liberty should be allowed the Arian bishops and laity in Zeno's dominions, or else the newly elected bishops and all other orthodox bishops with their clergy would be banished to the Moors. To secure the succession to his son, Hun- neric sent his brother Theodoric into exile and put to death his wife and children. The Arian patriarch of Carthage, who was supposed to favour Theodoric, was burnt alive, and many of his clergy shared his fate or were thrown to wild beasts ; nor did Hunneric spare the friends his father had commended to him on his death-bed if s^uspected of being inclined to support his brother. Hunneric now took measures against the orthodox. The influence of Eugenius on the Vandals was especially dreaded by the Arian clergy, at whose sug- gestion the king forbade him to preach in public or to allow persons in Vandal dress to enter Catholic churches. The bishop replied that the house of God was open to all. A great number of Catholics, being the king's servants, wore the Vandal dress. Men were therefore posted at the church doors with long rakes, with which any person entering in Vandal dress was seized by the hair as so to tear off hair and scalp together. Many died in consequence. Hunneric next deprived Catholics who held posts at the court or belonged to the army of their offices and pay ; many of the former were forced to work in the fields near Utica and the latter were deprived of their property and exiled to Sicily or Sar- dinia. A law confiscating the property of deceased bishops and imposing a fine of 500 solidi on each new bishop was contemplated, but abandoned for fear of retaliatory measures against the Arians in the Eastern empire. Virgins were hung up naked with heavy weights attached to their feet, and their breasts and backs burnt with red-hot irons, to extort, if possible, a confession of immorahty, which might be used against the bishops and clergy. Many expired under the torture and the survivors were maimed for life. A body of Catholic bishops, priests, deacons, and laity, numbering 4,976, was sent into banish- ment among the savage Moors of the desert. Victor gives a touching description of their sufferings during their marches by day and in crowded dens at night. These cruelties were only the prelude of a more extensive and systematic persecution. Hunneric, on Ascension Day, 483, published an edict to Eugenius, and the other Catholic or, as he termed them, Homoousian bishops, ordering them to assemble at Carthage on Feb. I, to meet the Arian bishops in conference and decide the points in controversy between HUNNERIG them, promising them a safe-conduct. Even before the conference, however, tlie persecu- tion began. Victor tells of various bishops cruelly beaten and sent into c.xile, while on Sept. 20, Laetus, bp. of Nopta, was burnt to terrify the rest of the Catholic party. When the meeting assembled, the Catholics were indignant to find Cvrila. the Arian patriarch, in th.' presidential chair. After mutual re- criminations the orthodox presented a state- ment of their belief and their arguments for it. The .\rians received it with indignation, as in it the orthodox claimed the name of Catholics, and falsely suggested to the king that the disturbance was the fault of their opponents. Hunneric seized this pretext for publishing, on Feb. 25, an edict he had already prepared and distributed to the magistrates throughout his dominions, order- ing all churches of the orthodox party to be handed over with their endrnvments to the Arians. and further, after reciting the penalties imposed on the Donatists in .ji^ and 414 by edicts of Honorius {Codex Thcodosiamis, X\'\. V. 52, 54), enacting that the Catholics should be subject to the same penalties and disabili- ties. Pardon was promised to those who should renounce Catholicism before June i. Persecution, however, began before the three months' grace had expired. The first to suffer were the bishops assembled at Carthage. They were expelled from the town with no- thing but the clothes they had on, and were obliged to beg their bread. The inhabitants were forbidden to give them shelter or food under pain of being burnt alive with their whole families. While outside the walls in this miserable state, they were summoned to meet at the Temple of Memory persons sent by the king, and were required to take an oath to support the succession of Hilderic, the king's son, and to hold no correspondence with countries beyond the sea. On these conditions the king promised to restore them their churches. Some took the oath, but others refused, excusing themselves by the precept " Swear not at all." They were then told to separate, the names and sees of the bishops of each party were taken down, and they were all sent to prison. A few days afterwards those who had taken the oath were told that, as they had infringed the precept of the Gospel, the king banished them to the country, assigning them land to cultivate, on condition that they should not chant, pray, baptize, ordain, or receive any into the church. To those who had refused was said, " You refused to swear because you did not wish our master's son to succeed him. Therefore you are exiled to Corsica, where you shall cut timber for our master's navy." Of the 466 attending the council, 88 fell away to Arian- ism ; of the others one was a martyr, one a confessor, 46 were banished toCf)rsica, and the rest to the country parts of Africa. Meanwhile throughout Africa a most cruel persecution raged, neither age nor sex being a protection ; some were cruelly beaten, others hung, and some burnt alive. Noble ladies were stripped naked and tortured in the public streets. Victorian, a former proconsul of Carthage, was the most illustrious victim of the persecution. Victor's fifth book is full HUNNERIC .-iO.-l of accounts of the constancy and suflerinK of the Catholics. Eugenius was entrusted t<> the custody of the cruel Antonius, the Arian bp. of a city in Tripoli, where his hardships brought on a stroke of paraJvsis. Hp. Habrt- deus was bound and gagged bv Antonius and forced to undergo the rite of a second baptism, which was imposed also bv force or fraud upon many of the orthodox. The Vandals, who had renomiced .Vrianism, were treate<l with peculiar crueltv. Som<- had their eyes put out, others their hands, feet, nosi-s, or ears rut off. Hunneric. t<i insult Urauius. and Zeno who had sent him to intercede for the Cath- olics, ordered son»e of the cruellest scenes of torture to be enacted in the streets through which he had to pass on his way to the palace. The most celebrated event of the persecu- tion occurred at Typasa, a seaport town of Mauritania. A former notary of Cvrila's having been consecrated as the Arian bishop of that town, the greater part of the citizens took ship to Spain. A few, not tindinR room on board, remained, whom the Arian bishop on his arrival endeavoured, first by persuasion and then by threats, to induce to become .\rians. They refused, and having assembled in a house, began publicly to celebrate the divine mysteries. The bishop thereupon dispatched secretly to Carthage an accusation against them to the king, who sent an officer with orders to have their tongues cut out and their right hands cut off before the assembled province in the forum. This was done, but they cimtinued to speak as plainly as before. This is attested by Victor, who was probably an eye-witness;' by the eye-witnesses Aeneas of (iaza, the Platonic philosopher {Theophraslus, in Migne, Pair. Gk. Ixxxv. 1000), Justinian (('nd. i. 27), and Marcellinus (Chron. in Migne, Pair. I.at. li. 933), all of whom had seen some of these persons at Ccjiistantinople ; by Procopius {de Bella Vandalico, i. 8) ; Victor Tununensis (Chron. in Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixviii. 046) ; and pope Gregory the Great (Dial. iii. 32 in Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxvii. 293), and has generally been considered not only a miracle, but the most remarkable one on record after apostolic times. The variety of the witnesses and the consist- ency of their testimony on all material points give it claims to belief, such as few ajiparently preternatural events possess. Dr. Middleton was the first to suggest (Free Inquiry, 313-316) that, assuming the account true, it by no means follows that the event was miraculous, a position he maintains by instances of a person born without a tongue, and of another who had lost it by disease, who were able to speak. Mr. Twist leton (The Tongue not Essential to Sf>eech) has shewn this explana- tion probable. He gives numerous cases of similarly mutilated persons in liastern coun- tries, and of persons in England whose tongues had been removed by surgical operations, who could stillpronomicedislinctlyalllettersexccpt d and / ; one of the latter he had actually seen and conversed with. He sums up by saying : " The final result s<ems to be that questions connected with the phenomenon of speech in the African ( onfessors are jiurely within tin- domain of natural science, and that there is no reason for asserting or suspecting any niiracu- 504 HYGINUS lous intervention in the matter." The perse- cution continued to rage till Hunneric died, on the following Dec. ii. Like the persecutor Galerius his body mortified, and bred worms. Sources. — Victor Vitensis, de Persecutione Vandalica, ii. iv. and v. in Migne, Patr. Lat. Iviii., with Ruinart's Appendix ; Procopius de Bella Vandalico, i. 8 ; Appendix to Pros- per's Citron, in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ii. 605 ; Chron. of Victor Tununensis in tb. Ixviii. Gibbon (c. xxxvii.) gives a good narrative of the perse- cution, and Ceillier {Auteurs sacres, x. 452-462) mav also be consulted. [f.d.] Hyginus (1), bp. of Rome after Telesphorus, probably from 137 to 141. Our early author- ities for the dates and duration of his episco- pate are confused, as in the case of other bishops of that early period. Anastasius {Lib. Pontif ) says that he was a Greek, son of an Athenian philosopher, of unknown genealogy. Several spurious decretals are assigned to him. See Mart. Rom. under Jan. 11 ; also Lightfoot, on the Early Roman successions, A post. Path. part i. vol. 1. [j.b — v.] Hypatia (1). Socrates {H. E. vii. 15) says : " There was a lady in Alexandria, by name Hypatia, daughter of the philosopher Theon. She advanced to such a point of mental culture as to surpass all the philosophers of her age and to receive the office of lecturer in the Platonic school, of which Plotinus had been the founder, and there expound all philosophic learnmg to any desirous of it. Students of philosophy came from all quarters to hear her. The dignified freedom of speech, which her training had implanted in her, enabled her to appear even before the public magis- trates with entire modesty ; none could feel ashamed to see her take her station in the midst of men. She was reverenced and admired even the more for it, by reason of the noble temperance of her disposition. This then was the woman upon whom malicious envy now made its attack. She was wont to have frequent communications with Orestes [the prefect] ; this aroused enmity against her in the church community. The charge was that it was through her that Orestes was prevented from entering upon friendly rela- tions with the bishop [Cyril]. Accordingly some passionate fanatics, led by Peter the Reader, conspired together and watched her as she was returning home from some journey, tore her from her chariot, and dragged her to the church called Caesarium ; there they stripped her and killed her with oyster shells', and, having torn her in pieces, gathered to- gether the limbs to a place called Cinaron, and consumed them with fire. This deed oc- casioned no small blame to Cyril and the Alexandrian church ; for murders, fightings, and the like are wholly alien to those who are minded to follow the things of Christ. This event happened in the fourth year of the episcopate of C>T:il, in the consulships of Honorius (for the tenth time) and Theodosius (for the sixth time) in the month of March, at the season of the fast " {i.e. Mar. 415). Little can be added to this. Svnesius of Cvrene (afterwards bp. of Ptolemais) was a devoted disciple of hers. According to Suidas, she married Isidorus. No trustworthyaccountcon- uects Cyril directly with her murder, [j.k.m.] IBAS Hypatia (2). In the synodical book of the council of Ephesus is given a letter, from its style evidently the work of a female writer (un- named), which is falsely attributed to Hypatia ( 1 ) the philosopher of Alexandria. It complains of the condemnation and banishment of Nestorius, which took place 17 years after the death of Hypatia. The writer is struck by the teaching of the Christians that God died for men ; she founds her plea for Nestorius on an appeal to reason and Scripture. Baluze, Concil. App. p. 837 (Paris, 1683, fol.) ; Ceillier, viii. 387. [w.M.s.] HypatiUS (19), presbyter and hegumenus in the first half of the 5th cent, of the monastery in Bithynia, once presided over and afterwards abandonedby Rufinus. His Life, by Callinicus his disciple (Boll. Acta SS. 17 Jun. iii. 303), tells how his zeal brought him into collision with his lukewarm bishop Eulalius of Chalce- don. Understanding that Nestorius, before his formal accusation, was broaching novel opinions, Hypatius had the patriarch's name removed from the office books of the church adjoining his monastery (§§ 14, 38, 51, 53). Eulalius, alarmed at this daring act, which amounted to an excommunication of the all- powerful patriarch, remonstrated and threat- ened, but Hypatius undauntedly persisted. Again, when Leontius, the prefect of Con- stantinople, was about to re-establish at Chalcedon the Olympic games abolished by Constantine, Hypatius, finding that Eulalius would do nothing, openly declared that he would by main force defeat this restoration of idolatry' at the head of his monks, though it should cost him his life. Leontius, having had warning of this opposition, relinquished the project and returned to Constantinople (§ 45). A certain ascetic archimandrite, Alexander, from Asia Minor, having taken up his abode in the capital with 100 monks, gained muchreputationfor sanctity, but inconsequence of his bold rebukes of the imperial household was ordered to leave. The exiles betook them- selves to the church of Hypatius, but Eulalius, obeying orders from the palace, had them beaten and expelled. Hypatius immediately welcomed them into his monastery and dressed their wounds. The bishop threatened fresh violence, but the rustic neighbours volunteered a defence, and a riot was im- minent when a messenger from the empress ordered that they should not be molested. Alexander and his party retired in peace and founded a monastery near, the inmates bearing the name of Acoemetae, the Sleepless (§ 57 ; AcoEMETAE in D. C. A., and the BoUandist account of their founder in Acta SS. Jan. i. 1018). [C.H.J Ibas, bp. of Edessa c a.d. 435-457, a Syrian by birth. His name in Syriac is Ihiba or Hiba = Donatus. He appears first as a presbyter of the church of Edessa during the episcopate of Rabbulas, and warmly espousing the theo- logical views which his bishop uncompromis- ingly opposed. He was an ardent admirer of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which he translated into Syriac and diligently dis. IBAS seminated through the East. The famous theological school of Edessa, of which, accord- ing to some accounts, Ibas was head, and to which the Christian youtli from Persia and adjacent lands resorted for education, offered great facilities for this propagation of Theo- dore's tenets. The growing popularity of doctrines which appeared to him decidedly heretical caused Rabbulas much alarm, and he endeavoured to get Theodore's works anathematized and burnt. The church of Edessa was generally favourable to Theodore's teaching, and Ibas was supported by the majority against their bishop. He attended the council of Ephesus in 431 as a presbyter, was cognizant of Cyril's autocratic conduct (Ep. ad Mar. ; I. abbe. Cone. iv. 662), and wrote in 433 the letter to Maris, then or subsequently bp. of Hardaschir in Persia, to which sub- sequent events gave celebrity. Maris had been at Edessa previous to the Nestorian controversy, and Ibas wrote this letter to tell him what had occurred since his visit. Though evidently written under great exasperation, it shews Ibas as a man of independent judgment, free from party spirit. Nestorius is severely censured in it for refusing the title OforoKos to the \'irgin, and Ibas accuses Cyril of ApoUin- arianism, and denounces the heresy of his 12 chapters, charging him with maintaining the perfect identity of the manhood and Godhead in Christ, and denying the Catholic doctrine of the union of two Natures in One Person (Labbe, iv. 661, V. 510). Rabbulas dying in 435 or 436, a reactionary wavemade Ibas hissuccessor. This was very distasteful to those who held the strong anti-Nestorian views of their latebishop, and they speedily planned to secure his deposi- tion, by spreading chargesagainst him of openly preaching heretical doctrines. The accusa- tions soon reached the ears of Theodosius II. and Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople. To Proclus the matter appeared so serious that towards the close of 437 he wrote to John of Antioch, as the leading prelate of the East, though really having no canonical jurisdiction over Osrhoene, begging him to persuade Ibas, if innocent, to remove the scandal by con- demning publicly certain propositions chiefly drawn from Theodore's writings against the errors of Nestorius. The same demand was made by Proclus of all the Eastern bishops ; but Ibas and the bishops generally refused to condemn Theodore's propositions {ib. v. 511-514). Though foiled so far, the mal- contents at Edessa maintained their hostile attitude to their bishop. Their leaders were four presbyters, Samuel, Cyrus, Eulogius, and Maras, acting at the instigation of one of Ibas's own suffragans, Uranius, bp. of Himeria, a pronounced Eutychian. Domnus, who had in 442 succeeded his uncle John as bp. of Antioch, visiting Hierapolis for the enthroniza- tion of the new bp. Stephen, the conspirators chose that moment for action. Cyrus and Eulogius formally laid before Domnus the accusation against Ibas, signed by about 17 clergy of Edessa, and supported by 30 (ib. iv. 658). Ibas, when starting for Hierapolis to pay his respects to Domnus, heard of the accusation, and at once summoned his clergy, pronounced excommunication on Cyrus and Eulogius as calumniators, threatened the same IBAS )05 treatment to all who participated In their proceedings. No immediate step seems to : have foll.)wed the presentation of the libil. In 445 Ibas was summoned bv Donuius to the synod held at Antioch in the matter of Athan- : asius of Perrha, but he excused himself bv , letter (»7). iv. yy)). The sympathies of Dom- nus inclined to Ibas, and he shewed no readiness to entertain the charges brought against him. At last, in Lent 448, tin- fonr chief delators present<d tiicir indi( tni.iit before Donuius and the council i>f the Last in [ a manner too formal to be neglected. Dom- [ nus consequently summoned Ibas to appear ; before him after l-^aster to an.swer the charges. The council was held at Antioch, and was attended by only a few bishops. The existing Acts bear only nine signatures (ift. iv. 64 i). Ibas in person answered the iS charges, mostly of a frivolous character and destitute of proof : e.g. that he had appropriated a jewellid chalice j to his own use ; that the wine at the Eucharist 1 was inferior in quality and quantity ; the ' malversation of sums given for the ransom of captives: simoniacal ordinations and the admission of unfit persons to the ministry and episcopate, especially his nephew Daniel, stated to be a scandalous person, whom he had made bp. of Charrae. The most weighty charges were that he had anathematized Cyril and charged him with heresy ; that he was a I Nestorian ; and especially that at Easter 445, in the presence of his clergy, he had spoken the blasphemous words, " I do not envy Christ His becoming (iod, for I can become (lod no less than He." " This is the day that Jesus Christ became (iod " (ih. iv. 647-654 ; Liberat. c. 12). The first charge he acknowledged, the others he indignantly repuiliated as base slanders. Only two of the accusers appeared. Samuel and Cyrus had gone to Constantinojile, j in defiance of the terms on which the excom- { munication had been taken off, to lay their complaint before the emperor and patriarch, the favourable feeling of Domnus towards the accused being too evident for them to hope for an impartial trial. Domnus and the council declined to proceed in the absence of the chief witnesses, and the case seemed tf) be postponed indefinitely (Labbe, iv. 642 seq. ; j Theod. Ep. in). Eulogius and Maras, there- 1 upon, hastened to join their fellow-conspirators at Constantinople, where they found a power- ful party strongly hostile to the Eastern 1 bishops, Theodoret in particular. Their I faction was soon strengthened bv the arrival I of Uranius, the prime mover of the whole cabal, and half a dozen more Edessene clergy. The emperor and Flavian, who had succeeded Proclus as patriarch, listened to their com- plaints, but declined to hear them officially. . The case was remitted to the East, and by an i imperial conunission, dated Oct. 26, 448, Uranius of Himeria, Photius of Tyre, just elected Sept. 0, 448, on the deposition of Irenaeus, and F,ustathius of Berytus were deputed to hear it, and Damascius. the tribune and secretary of state, was dispatched as imperial commissioner. The whole procee<l- ing was manifestly illegal. It was contrary to the canons that bishops should be subjected to the judgment of other bishops, two belong- ' ing to another province, on the strength of an 506 IBAS imperial decree. No one, however, protested. The imperial power was regarded as absolute. The tribunal also was grossly unfair. One of the three judges, Uranius, was ringleader of the movement against Ibas ; the other two had obtained their sees by the instrumentality of Uranius (Martin, Le Brigandage d'Ephese, pp. 118-120). Tyre was named as the place of trial. The exasperation stirred up there by the blasphemies charged against Ibas was so great that it was thought politic to remove the trial to Berytus to avoid disturbances (Labbe, iv. 636). The court sat in the hall of Eustathius's episcopal residence. The indictment was produced by Ibas's accusers. Ibas laid before his judges a memorial signed by many of his clergy, denying that he had ever uttered the alleged blasphemies (ib. iv. 667-671). Only three witnesses supported the accusation, and brought forward a copy of the celebrated letter to Maris (j&. iv. 659-662). The commissioners, avoiding any judicial decision, brought about a friendly arrangement. His enemies agreed to withdraw their accusations on Ibas promising that he would forget the past, regard his accusers as his children, and remit any fresh difficulty for settlement to Domnus ; and that, to avoid suspicion of malversation, the church revenues of Edessa should be administered, like those of Antioch, by oeconomi. Ibas gave equal satisfaction on theological points. He en- gaged to publicly anathematize Nestorius and all who thought with him on his return, and declared the identity of his doctrine with that agreed upon by John and Cyril, and that he accepted the decrees of Ephesus equally with those of Nicaea as due to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The concordat was signed, Uranius alone dissenting, Feb. 25, 449 (ih. iv. 630-648). The truce had no elements of permanence, and a very few weeks saw it broken. The Eutychian party, resolved on the ruin of Ibas and irritated at their failure at Berytus, left no stone unturned to over- throw it. All-powerful at Constantinople through the intrigues of Chrysaphius, Dios- corusandhis partisans easily obtained from the feeble emperor, indignant at the condemnation of Eutyches, an edict summoning a general council at Ephesus for Aug. i, 449. Reports diligently spread in Edessa during his absence of Ibas's heterodoxy made his reception so unfavourable that he was obliged to leave the town and call upon the " magister militiae " for a guard to protect him. He soon dis- covered that all appeal to the civil power was idle ; he was regarded as a public enemy to be crushed at all hazards. The count Chae- reas as civil governor of Osrhoene, but with secret instructions from Constantinople eman- ating from Chrysaphius and Eutyches, was deputed to arrest and imprison him and reopen the suit. When Chaereas entered Edessa, Apr. 12, 449, to commence the trial, he was met by a turbulent body of abbats and monks and their partisans, clamouring furious- ly for the immediate expulsion and condemna- tion of Ibas and his Nestorian crew. Ibas was " a second Judas," " an adversary of Christ," an " offshoot of Pharaoh." " To the fire with him and all his race." Two days later the inquiry began in the absence of Ibas amid violent interruptions. All Edessa knew that IBAS Chaereas had come merely to ratify under the colour of judicial proceedings a sentence of condemnation already passed. Chaereas, however, was moving too slowly for their hatred, and on Sun. Apr. 17 the excitement in church was so violent that the count was compelled to promise that the verdict of the synod of Berytus should be reviewed and a new investigation commenced. This began on Apr. 18 ; all the old charges were repro- duced by the same accusers, amid wild yells of " Ibas to the gallows, to the mines, to the circus, to exile " drowning every attempt at explanation or defence. Chaereas, as had been predetermined, addressed a report to the imperial government, declaring the charges proved ; and on June 27 the emperor, acknow- ledging the receipt of the document, ordered that a bishop who would command the con- fidence of the faithful should be substituted for Ibas (Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus ; Martin, u.s. t. ii. c. ix.). Only a legally consti- tuted synod could depose him, but meanwhile his enemies' malice could be gratified by his maltreatment. He was forbidden to enter Edessa, apprehended and treated as the vilest of criminals, dragged about from province to pro- vince, changing his quarters 40 times and being in 20 different prisons ( Labbe, iv. 634 ; Liberat. c. 12 ; Facund. lib. vi. c. i). The council of Ephesus, so notorious for its scandalous vio- lence, which gained for it, from Leo the Great {Ep. 93), the title of the " Gang of Robbers," opened on Aug. 3. One of its objects was to get rid finally of Ibas. This was the work of the second session, held on Aug. 22. Ibas was not cited to appear, being then in prison at Antioch (Labbe, iv. 626, 634). Before the witnesses were allowed to enter, the three bishops who had conducted the investigation at Tyre and Berytus were asked for an account of their proceedings. Instead of declaring the fact that, after examination made, they had acquitted Ibas, they made pitiful excuses as to their inability to arrive at the truth from the distance of the place of trial to Edessa, and endeavoured to shift the burden by saying that an investigation had subsequently been held at Edessa itself, which had received the approbation of the emperor, and that the wisest course for the council would be to inquire what was the decision there. This advice was followed. The monks of Edessa and the other parties to the indictment were admitted, and the whole of the depositions and correspondence read to the assembly. As the reading of the document ended, wild male- dictions burst forth, invoking every kind of vengeance, temporal and eternal, on the head of this " second Iscariot," this " veritable Satan." " Nestorius and Ibas should be burnt alive together. The destruction of the two would be the deliverance of the world." Eulogius, the presbyter of Edessa, who had been one of the first accusers of Ibas before Domnus, followed with a summary of the proceedings from their commencement, speci- fying all the real or supposed crimes laid to his charge. The question of deposition was put to the council, and carried nem. con. Among those who voted for it were Eustathius of Berytus and Photius of Tyre, who had previously acquitted him ont he same evid- IBAS ence. The sentence was that he should be deposed from the episcopate and pricstliood, deprived even of lay coininunion, and com- pelled to restore the money of which it was pretended he had robbed the poor. Ibas, twice acquitted, was condemned without being heard or even summoned ; and no protest was raised in his favour, even by those who, a few months before, had given him their suffrage (Martin, u.s. t. iii. c. ii. p. i8i ; Labbe, iv. 674 ; Chron. Edess. anno 736 ; Assemani, Bibl. Or. i. 202). We have no certain know- ledge of what befel Ibas on his deposition. At the beginning of 451 the deposed and banished bishops were allowed to return from exile, but the question of their restoration was reserved for the fourth general council which met at Chalcedon a.d. 451. In the oth session, Oct. 26, the case of Ibas came before the assembled bishops. On his demand to be restored in accordance with the verdict of Photius and Eustathiiis at Berytus and Tyre, the Acts of that synod were read, and the next day the pope's legates gave their opinion that Ibas, being unlawfully deposed, should be at once restored, .\fter much discussion this was carried unanimously. The legates led the way, declaring his letter to Maris orthodox, and commanding his restitution. All the prelates agreed in this verdict, the condition being that he should anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches and accept the tome of Leo. Ibas consented without any difficulty. " He had anathematized Nestorius already in his writings, and would do so again ten thousand times, together with Eutyches and all who teach the One Nature, and would accept all that the council holds as truth." On this he was unanimously absolved, restored to his episcopal dignity, and voted as bp. of Edessa at the subsequent sessions (Labbe, iv. 793, 799 ; Facund. lib. v. c. 3). Nonnus, who had been chosen bishop on his deposition, being legitimately ordained, was allowed to retain his episcopal rank, and on Ibas's death, Oct. 28, 457, quietly succeeded him as metropolitan (Labbe, iv. 891, 917). The fiction that Ibas had disowned the letter to Maris at Chalcedon (Greg. Magn. lib. viii. Ep. 14), as he was asserted by Justinian to have done before at Berytus, as having been forged in his name, is thoroughly disproved by Facundus (lib. v. c. 2, lib. vii. c. 5). A controversy concerning his letter to Maris arose in the next century, in the notorious dispute about the " Three Articles," when the letter was branded as heterodox (together with the works of Theo- dore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret's writings in favour of Nestorius) in the edict of Justinian, and was formally condemned in 553 by the fifth general council, which pronounced an anathema, in bold defiance of historical fact, against all who should pretend that it and the other documents impugned had been recog- nized as orthodox by the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iv. '38 ; Labbe, v. 562-567). Ibas is anathematized by the Jacobites as a Nestorian (Assemani, t. i. p. 202). According to the Chronicle of Edessa, Ibas, during his episcopate, erected the new church of the Apostles at Edessa, to which a senator gave a silver table of 720 lb. weight, and Anatolius, pracfectus militum, a silver cofifer to receive IDATIUS 507 the rehcs of St. Thomas the Apostle, who was said, after preaching in Parthia, to have been buried there (Socr. H. E. iv. iH). Ibas was a translator and disseminator of the writmgs of others rather than an original author. His translations of the thenlogiral works of The.xlore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodorct, and Nestorius, were actively spread through Syria, Persia, and the East, and were verv influential in fostering the Nestorian tenets which have, even t.. the present day, characterized the Christians of those regions. His influence was permanent in the celebrated theological school of Edessa. in spite of the efforts of Nonnus to eradicate it, until its final overthrow and the banishment of its teachers to Persia. Tillem. .\Um. eccl. t. XV.; .Assemani, B/ft/. Orient, t. i pp. 199 seq., t. iii. pp. 70-74 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 426 ; Facund. Defens. Trium. Capttul. ; Schrockh. XV. 438, xviii. 307-311; Perrv. .4cts of the Second Council of Ephcsus ; Abbe Martin, Actes du Brigandage d'Ephi'se ; Le Pseudo-svnode d'Ephi-se. [e.v.] Idatlus (3) {Idacius ; surnamed Lemicen- sis), bp. of Aquae Flaviac (Chaves or Chiaves) in Gallicia, from c. 427 to 470, and author of a well-known Chronicle which was one of the various continuations of Jerome. Our only sources for his life are notices in his own work, for the meagre Life by Isidore in de Vir. III. c. ix. is merely a summary of Idatius's own prologue. The existing material was elabor- ately sifted and put together bv Florez (Esp. Sagr. iv., Madrid, 1749). and less completelv by (larzon, whose ed. of Idatius was pub. at Brussels in 1845 by P. F. X. de Kam. Birthplace and Bishopric. — Idatius tells us in the prologue to his Chronicle that he was born " in Lemica civitate," " Leniica " being a copyist's error for Limica in Portugal. He was bom c. 388, shortly after the execution of Priscillian and his companions at Treves, and about the time when, as he tells us in his Chronicle (ad. ann. 386), the Priscillianists. falling back on Spain after the death of their chief, took a special hold on the province of Gallicia. About a.d. 400 he was in Egypt and Palestine, where, as he says (Prolog, and Chron. ad ann. 435), he, " et infantulus et pupillus," saw St. Jerome at Bethlehem, John bp. of Jerusalem, Eulogius of Caesarea, and Theo- philus of Alexandria. His return to Gallifia may be dated c. 402 (Florez, Esp. Sagr. iv. 301). In 416, seven years after the irruption of the Suevi, Alani, and Vandals into the peninsula, Idatius entered the ministry. f«r so we must understand the entry in the Chron. Parvtim (see below) under that year, " Idatii conversio ad Doniinuin peccatoris " (cf. Florez, I.e. p. 302), and in 427 he was made bishop (see Prol. Esp. Sagr. iv. 348). In 431 the rule of the Suevi had become so intolerable that Idatius was sent by the (iallician pro- vincials to Aetius in Gaul to ask for help. He returned in 432, accompanied by the legate Censorius, after whose departure from Gallicia the bishoi)S persuaded Hcrmeric, the Suevian king, to make peace with the provincials. For about 24 years Gallicia enjoyed tranquillity compared with the rest of Spain, and the Gallician bishops found themselves to some ex- tent free to deal with the prevalent Priscillianist 508 IDATIUS and Manichean doctrines, which had even infected some of the episcopate {Ep. Leo Magn. ad Turribium ; Tejada y Ramiro, Cohcc. de Can. etc. ii. p. 889). Between 441 and 447 must be placed the letter of Turribius to Idatius and Ceponius (? bp. of Tuy) on the Priscillianist apocryphal books {Esp. Sagr. xvi. 95 ; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. 887). In 444-445. the confessions of certain Roman Manicheans having disclosed the names of their co-be- lievers in the provinces, letters were sent to the provinces by pope Leo warning the bishops (Prosper ad ann. 444; see Garzon's note 6, ed. De Ram, p. 83). Accordingly we find Idatius and Turribius in 445 holding a trial of certain Manicheans discovered at Astorga, no doubt by aid of the papal letters, and forwarding a report of the trial to the neighbouring metropolitan of Merida, evident- ly to put him on his guard. In 447, in answer to various documents from St. Turribius on the Gallician heresies, Leo sent a long decretal letter to Spain to be circulated by him, urging the assembly of a national council, or at least of a Gallician synod, in which, by the efforts of Turribius and of Idatius and Ceponius, " fratres vestri," a remedy might be devised for the prevailing disorder. Probably the synod never actually met, for Idatius's Chronicle, which rarely omits any ecclesiastical news he could give, does not mention it. In the troubled times after the flight and execution of Rekiar, Idatius fell a victim to the disorders of the country. His capture at Aquae Flaviae by Frumari (July 26, 460) was owing mostly, no doubt, to his importance as a leader and representative of the Roman population, but partly, perhaps, as Florez suggests, to the hatred of certain Galhcian Priscillianist informers (their names are Latin ; cf. Chron. ad ann.) who had felt the weight of his authority. He was released in 3 months, and after his return to Chiaves lived at least 8 years under the Suevian kingdom which he had too hastily declared to be " destructum et finitura " in 456 (? '' pene destructum," as Isidore, his copyist in Hist. Suevorum, eod. loc), but which took a new lease, on Frumari's death (464), under Remismund. His Chron- icle ends with 469, and he must have died before 474, the year of the emperor Leo's death, under whom Isidore places that of Idatius [Esp. Sagr. iv. 303, ed. De Ram, pp. 15, 39). Chronicle. — The prologue to the Chronicle, composed apparently after its completion, at any rate in the extreme old age of its author, gives a full account of its intention, sources, and arrangement. It was intended to continue the Chronicle of Eusebius and Jerome, Idatius including his own works in one vol. with theirs (ed. De Ram, p. 48, note 3, and p. 59, note 4), and he divides it into two parts, the first starting from 379, where Jerome breaks off, and ending 427, when Idatius was made bishop ; the second extend- ing from 427 to the end. In the first division Sulpicius and Orosius seem to have been his main authorities, together with the works of SS. Augustine and Jerome {Esp. Sagr. iv. 335, 356), and the lives and writings of certain contemporary bishops (John of Jerusalem, I.e. 357, Paulinus of Beziers, ib., Paulinus of Nola, 358, etc.). " Thenceforward " {i.e. from 427), IDATIUS j he says, describing his second division, " I, undeservedly chosen to the office of the episcopate, and not ignorant of all the troubles of this miserable time, have added both the falling landmarks ('metas ruituras') of the oppressed Roman empire, and also what is more mournful still, the degenerate condition of the church order within Gallicia, which is the end of the world, the destruction of honest liberty by indiscriminate appointments (to bishoprics), and the almost universal decay of the divine discipline of religion, evils springing from the rule of furious men and the tumults of hostile nations." This is the note of the whole Chronicle, which gives a vivid and invaluable picture of one most important scene in the great drama of the fall of the Western empire, and without which we should be almost in the dark as to events of the first half of the 5th cent, in Spain. Idatius de- scribes the entry of the Vandals, Alani, and Suevi into the Peninsula in Oct. 409, and the two following years of indiscriminate pillage and ruin before the division of the country by lot amongst the invaders. The Chronicle altogether embraces 91 years. On the chronology of the last five years and on possible interpolations of certain chrono- logical notes by the copyist, see ed. De Ram, p. 30, also Florez, iv. 310. The Fasti Idatiani were first attributed to Idatius by Sirmond, partly because in the ancient MS. from which he printed the Chron- icle the Fasti followed immediately, and partly because he believed that there was strong internal evidence for the Idatian authorship {Op. 1728, ii. 287). This opinion has been generally adopted, notably by Dr. Mommsen {Corpus Inscr. Lai. i. 484). Florez is an exception, but his grounds are extremely j slight (see Esp. Sagr. iv. 457, and Garzon's I answer, ed. De Ram, p. 41). The history of ' the Fasti has now been cleared up with great learning and acuteness by Holder-Egger in the i Xeues Archil' der Gesellschaft fur dltere Deutsche \ Geschichtskunde, ii. pp. 59-71- His general conclusions are (i) that the Fasti Idatiani are one of two derivatives of certain consular Fasti put together at Constantinople in 4th cent., the Chronicon Paschale (Migne, Patr. Gk. xcii.) being the other. (2) That the common source of the Fasti and of the Chron. Pasch. was itself compiled at Constantinople from older Roman Fasti, such as are still preserved in the Chronographus of 354 (Mommsen, op. cit. i. 483 ; Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen, p. 48), the notices peculiar to Constantinople beginning from 330. when Byzantium became the second capital of the empire. (3) That after 390-395, when the Chron. Pasch. branches off from the Fasti Idatiani, a copy of the Con- stantinople Fasti came westward, received certain additions in Italy and then reached Spain, where a Spanish reviser and continuator gave them the shape under which we now know them as the Fasti Idatiani. That Ida- tius the author of the Chromcle revised the Fasti Holder-Egger does not believe, but is inclined to hold that their agreement is best explained by the theory that Idatius used but did not compose the Fasti. His arguments on this point seem scarcely conclusive, and he IGNATIUS is indeed prepared to admit that certain trifling additions to and alterations in the Fasti were probably made by Idatius. For the latter use of the Fasti Idaiiani, the East Roman Fasti as the Ravenna annals are the West Roman Fasti (Wattenbach, i. 40), see Holder-Egger's art. Die Chronik ties Marcel- limis Comes und der Ostromischen Fasten, Neues Archiv, etc. ii. 44. The Chronicon Parvum Idatii is the work of an unskilful abbreviator of the larger Chronicle, who adds a continuation to the time of Justinian. It must not be confused with the excerpta from Idatius made under Charles the Great. Besides the references already given see Adolf Ebert, AUgemeiue Gesch. der Lift, des Mittelalters im Abendlande, i. 1874; Teuilfel, Gesch. der Rvmischen Litt. 1875. [m.a.w.] Ignatius (1), St. (called Theophorus), Oct. 17, the 2nd bp. of Antioch (c. 70-c. 107), between Evodius and Hero. He is sometimes reckoned the 3rd bishop, St. Peter being reckoned the first (Bosch, Pat. Ant. in Boll. Acta SS. Jul. iv. introd. p. 8 ; Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 700). The question of the life and writings of Ignatius, including the connected subject of the Ep. of Polycarp to the Philippians, has been described by M. Renan as the most difficult in early Christian history next to that of the foiurth gospel. I. About 165 Lucian in his satire de Morte Peregrini relates (cc. 14-41) that Peregrinus was made a prisoner in Syria. The Christians of Asia Minor sent messengers and money to him according to their usual custom when persons were imprisoned for their faith. Peregrinus wrote letters to all the more important cities, forwarding these by mes- sengers whom he appointed (^x^'P"'^'^'")'''*) ^md entitled veKpayyeXovs and f€pT(po5p6fj.ovs. The coincidence of this story with that of Ignatius, as told afterwards by Eusebius, would be alone a strong evidence of connexion. The similarity of the expressions with the irp^TTd x^'-P°''^o^V'^o.^ ■'■'"'i Sj ovvTiiTeTai O(oop6/J.os KaXuadai of ad Pol. vii. would, if the words stood alone, make it almost certain that Lucian was mimicking the words of the epistle. These two probabilities lead us to believe that the composition was by one acquainted with the story and even some of the letters of Ignatius. (Renan, i. 38; Zahn, i. 517; Pearson, i. 2 ; Denzinger, 85 ; Lightfoot, ii. See Author- ities at the foot of this art.) Theophilus, bp. of Antioch (fl. before 167), has a coincidence with Ignat. ad Eph. xix. i, where the virginity of Mary is said to have been concealed from the devil. Irenaeus, c. 180 (adv. Haer. iii. 3, 4), bears witness that Polycarp wrote to the Philippians, and (v. 28) mentions how a Christian martyr said, " I am the bread-corn of Christ, to be ground by the teeth of beasts that I may be found pure bread " — words found in Ignat. ad Rom. iv. i. The passage of Irenaeus is quoted by Eusebius (//. E. iii. 36) as a testimony to Ignatius. Origen, early in 3rd cent., Prol. in Cant. (Op. ed. Delarue, iii. 30), writes, " I remember also that one of the saints, by name Ignatius, said of Christ, ' My love was crucified ' " — words found in Ignat. ad Rom. vii. 2. Origen also IGNATIUS 609 (Horn, in Luc. vol. iii. 938) says, " I find it well written in one of the epistles t)f a certain martyr, I mean Ignatius, 2nd bp. of Antio< h after Peter, who in tlie persecution fought with beasts at Rome, that the virginity i>( Marv escaped the prince of this world" (Ignat. ad Eph. xix. i). Eusebius, early in 4th cent., gives a full account which explains these fragmentary allusions and quotations. In his Chrontcle he twice names Ignatius as 2nd bp. of Antioch aftir the apostles ; in one case adiling that he was martyred. In his Ecclesiasttcal History, besides less important notices of our saint and of Polycarp, he relates (iii. 22, 37, 38, iv. 14, 15) how Ignatius, whom he calls very cele- brated among the Christians, was sent from Syria to Rome to be cast to the beasts for Christ's sake. When journeying under guard through Asia he addressed to the cities near places of his sojourn exhortations and epistles. Thus in Sm>Tna, the city of Polvcarp, he wrote to Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles. He wrote to the Romans, begging them not to impede his martyrdom. Of this epistle Eusebius appends § v. at length. Then he tells how Ignatius, having left Smyrna and come to Troas, wrote thence to the Philadelphians and Smyrnaeans and to Polycarp. One sentence from Smyr. iii. Eusebius copies as containing a saying of Christ not otherwise handed down. The Apostolical Constitutions, in their uninter- polated form as known to us through the Syriac trans, of the Didascalia, in several places coincide very strikingly with the shorter Greek or 7 Vossian epistles. An epistle which passes under the name of Athanasius, and which if not by him is by a contemporary writer, quotes a passage from ad Eph. vii. 2, as written by Ignatius, who after the apostles was bp. of Antioch and a martyr of Christ. (See, as to the genuineness of this epistle, Cureton, Ixviii. ; Zahn, i. 578.) St. Basil (ed. Ben. ii. 598) quotes, without naming Ignatius, the familiar sentence from ad Eph. xix. i, concerning Satan's ignorance of the virginity of Mary. St. Jerome's testi- mony is dependent on that of Eusebius. St. Chrysostom (Op. vol. ii. 592) has a homily on St. Ignatius which relates that he was ap- pointed by the apostles bp. of Antioch ; was sent for to Rome in a time of persecution to be there judged ; instructed and admonished with wonderful power all the cities on the way, and Rome itself when he arrived ; was condemned and martyred in the Roman theatre crying, 'K-)(1.tu«' Uriplwy ^t^dvui' dvalfirtv ; and his remains were transferred after death with great solemnity to Antioch. (Zahn [i. 33-49] does not believe that the genuine writings of Chrysostom shew that he was acquainted with the writings of Ignatius. But see the other side powerfully argued by Pearson, i. 9 ; Denzinger, 90 ; l.ipsius, ii. 21.) Theodnret freijuently cites the 7 Vossian epistles, and mentions Ignatius as I ordained bv St. Peter and made the food of I beasts for the testimony of Christ. Severus, patriarch of Antioch (513-55'). has a long catalogue of sayings from Ignatius, in which every one of the 7 epistles is laid under con- tribution. These are to be found in Syr. in Cureton, in Gk. in Zahn (ii. 352). Cureton 510 IGNATIUS furnishes also a large collection of Syriac fragments, in which passages taken from the 7 Vossian epistles are declared to have the force of canons in the church. II. We possess also a multitude of Acts of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, which, if we could accept them, would supply very par- ticular accounts of his life and death. Of these Ussher published 3 in whole or part : one in Lat. from two related MSS. ; another in Lat. from the Cottonian library ; a third in Gk. from a MS. at Oxford. The Bollandists published a Latin martyrdom in the Acta SS. for Feb. i ; Cotelerius a Gk. one by Symeon Metaphrastes. Ruinart, and afterwards Jacobson (Pat. Ap. ii.), printed a Gk. MS. from the Colbertine collection (MS. Colb.) ; J. S. Assemani found a Syriac one which may be the same as that partly printed by Cureton (i.). Aucher, and afterwards Petermann (p. 496), published an Armenian one. Dressel printed a Gk. version of the loth cent. (MS. Vat.). The 9 are reducible to 5, possessing each a certain independence. But of these MS. Colb. and MS. Vat. are by far the most valu- able, being completely independent, while the remaining versions are mixtures of these two. MS. Colb. (see Zahn, ii. p. 301) relates the condemnation of Ignatius by Trajan in An- tioch, and incorporates the Ep. to the Romans. This MS. bears marks of interpolation, and its chief value lies in its incorporation of the Ep. to the Romans. The other epistles the author of the MS. has not read carefully. We con- clude that this martyrdom, written in the 4th cent., assumed its present form after the first half of the 5th. MS. Vat. (Zahn, ii. 307) omits all judicial proceedings in Antioch. Ignatius is sent for by Trajan to Rome, as a teacher dangerous to the state ; an argument takes place before the senate between the emperor and the saint ; the lions kill him, but leave the body un- touched, and it remains as a sacred deposit at Rome. Thus MS. Vat. seems to have arisen on the basis of an account of the journey and death of the saint, extant at the end of the 4th cent. On the whole, the martyrdoms are late and untrustworthy compositions, wholly useless as materials for determining the question of the epistles ; we are thrown back on Eusebius. III. Eusebius in the Chronicle (ed.Schone, ii. 152, 158, 162) omits (contrary to his custom) the durations of the episcopates of Antioch. We can, therefore, place Ignatius's death any time between Ab. 2123, Traj. 10, and 2132, Traj. 19. In H. E. iii. 22, Eusebius, in a general way, makes the episcopates uf Symeon and Ignatius contemporary with the first years of Trajan and the last of St. John and (iii. 36) with Polycarp and Papias. We may date his epistles,' journey, and death in any year from 105 to 117. Funk fixes it at 107. In 1878 Harnack published a tract {Die Zeit des Ign. Leipz.) impugning the tradition that Ignatius was martyred under Trajan. The argument rests upon the acts of the martyrdom being proved by Zahn, with the general assent of all his critics, to be untrust- worthy ; the date of the saint's death thus resting wholly on the testimony of Eusebius, who shews that he had no data except the mMATlUS untrustworthy information of Julius African- us (Harnack, pp. 66 sqq.). But it is very improbable that Eusebius had no tradition save through Africanus, or the latter no tradition save four names. The theory of Volkmar, which the author of Supernatural Religion (i. 268) regarded as " demonstrated," was that the martyrdom of Ignatius happened not in Rome but in Antioch, upon Dec. 20, 115 (on which day his ! feast was kept), in consequence of the excite- ment produced by an earthquake a week previously ; but it is now known from the ancient Syriac Menologion, published by Wright iJourn. Sac. Lit. Jan. 1866, p. 45), that the feast was originally kept not upon Dec. 20, but upon Oct. 17. (Zahn, i. 33, and Light- foot, ii. 352, note §, are to be corrected in accordance with this discovery.) The other details in the martyrdoms and elsewhere are but expansions from hints supposed to be found in the letters, of which we find an instance in the long dialogue between Ignatius and Trajan upon the name Qfo<p6pos. There is no reason to suspect the genuineness of this addition to the saint's name. It is given untranslated in the 4th- cent. Syriac version. The interpolator found it in his copy, for it stands in all his epistles except that to Polycarp and in all the MSS. of the shorter translation, both Greek and Latin. The 4th-cent. writers, regarding it as a title of honour, do not quote it ; in the 6th it came to be regarded as a name. The tradition that Ignatius was martyred at Rome can be traced higher than the records of Eusebius and Origen. The designation of world-famed, which Eusebius gives him, shews the general tradition ; and the words of Origen are to the same effect. The testi- mony of Irenaeus, which Eusebius adduces as perfectly agreeing with the tradition known to him, dates but 70 years after the fact. True, these expressions come from writers who knew the epistles ; but the mere existence of the epistles at such a date, even if they were spurious, would be sufficient proof of the existence of the tradition ; and it is impossible that such a story should have arisen so soon after Trajan, if it had contradicted known facts or prevalent customs of his reign. Eusebius clearly wrote with the collection of letters before him, and knew of no other collection besides the 7 he mentions. These he arranges according to place and time of writing, gives his quotation from Romans as out of " the Epistles," and cites Irenaeus's quotation from Ignatius, as proof of that writer's knowledge of them, although Irenaeus did not mention the author's name. IV. The gradual presentation of the various Ignatian documents to the modern world is related in the introduction to Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum and is briefly as follows. Late in the 15th and in the beginningof thei6th cents. 12 epistles, purporting to be by Ignatius, were given to the world, first in Latin trans- lations, then in the original Greek, together with three others manifestly spurious, which existed in Latin alone. The epistles which bear non-Eusebian titles were soon suspected of spuriousness, and it was proved that the text of the Eusebian, as then known, was IGNATIUS interpolated. Ussher first restored the Renu- ine text by means of a Latin translatimi whith he discovered, and his arguments (except as to hisdonbt whether Ij^natins wrote separately to I'olycarp) were confirmed by N'ussius's publication of the Medicean MS. Thence- forward we have had the longer and the shorter (or Vossian) recensions, the former containing the 7 Eusebian epistles in a longer text and also epistles of Mary of Castabala to Ignatius, with his reply, of Ignatius to the Tarsians, Philippians, .\ntiochenes, and Hero, his successor ; the Vossian comprising only the Eusebian letters and those in a shorter text. The longer recension has had few defenders, while the shorter had many and early assailants, moved especially by its support of episcopacy. Of these Daille was perhaps the ablest, but he was sufficiently answered by bp. Pearson. The genuineness of the longer recension as a whole is now generally denied, the time and method of its interpolations and additions being the only points for consideration. Cureton in 1839 transcribed from Syriac MSS. in the Brit. Mus. a fragment of the martyrdom of Ignatius and of the Ep. to the Romans therein contained. In 1847 he dis- covered, among Syriac MSS. acquired in the meantime, three epistles of Ignatius, viz. to Polycarp, to the Ephesians, and to the Romans, transcribed in the 6th or 7th cent. These epistles are in a form considerably shorter even than the shorter recension of the earlier time. Cureton believed tliis the sole genuine text, and argued the point very ably, but with a confidence whii^h in its contrast with the present state of belief should be a warning to all who are tempted to be too positive on this difficult controversy. Many scholars at the time accepted the Curetonian theory, and Bunsen wrote a voluminous work in its defence. The .Armenian version, first printed, though very incorrectly, in 1783, is mentioned by Cureton, who failed to perceive the effect its testimony was to have upon his own argument. The correct publication and due estimate of the Arnit iiian version are due to Petermann. According to him, it was rendered out of S\Tiac in the 5th cent., and agrees with Ussher's Latin MS. in that, while it contains several post-Ivnsebian epistles united with the Eusebian, the latter are free from any systematic interpolations such as are in the longer recension. V. Date of the Longer Recension. — The latest ancient writer who cites only the Eusebian epistles in the uninterpolated text is the monk Antonius in the early part of the 7th cent. (Cureton, p. 176; Zahn, ii. 350). Severus of Antioch, 6th cent. (Cureton, 212 ; Zahn, 352) cites all the Eusebian epistles in a text free from interpolations. We cannot doubt that in Ussher's MS. and in the Armenian translation we have (minute textual criticism apart) the 7 epistles as the Fathers from Eusebius to Severus of Antioch and as the interpolator had them. The argu- ments of Ussher upon this point remain un- answered. But the .Armenian, with the Syriac translation from which it sprang, brings back the composition of the six ad- ditional epistles to a. D. 400 at latest; and these IGNATIUS 511 are undoubtedlv tiie w..rk ..f the same hand which interpolated tlie ..thirs. t)n the other liand, the interpolation cannot have been before 325, or Eusebius would have cited or alluded to it ; moreover, it shews undoubted marks of dependence on his history. The period of tiie interpolator is thus fixed at the latter part of the 4th cent. His doctrine, as Ussher shewed (p. 221). is stark .Arianisni. I Several names in Pseudo-Ignatius are bor- rowed from the period a.d. 360 to 380 (I'hilost. j iii. 15 ; Theod. i. 5, v. 7 ; Socr. iii. 25, iv. I 12). The titles of the new letters are also I easily accounted for in the same period. i Pseudo-Ignatius interests himself against the ' Quartodecimans ; proving that they must I have been still strong when he wrote, which j was not the case at the conclusion of the 4th ; cent. These oppositions point to the period 360-380. Thus all historical indications point to the 2nd half of the 4th cent, as the date of the interpolations. Zahn conjectures the interpolator to have been Acacius, the scholar, biographer, and successor of Eusebius at Caesarea, who, as Sozomen (iv. 23) informs us, was regarded as heir to the learning as well as the position of that divine. The roughness of the known character of Acacius (c. 360) agrees with the abusiveness of Pseudo-Ignatius. Different Syriac translations of Creek works give similar citations from Ignatius in some- what varying language ; probably because the authors cited from memory an existing Syria( version. Zahn contends that the .\rmenian version came frfun tiie one Syriac translation in the 5th cent., and from it the extracts w<re taken, perhaps somewhat later, which Cureton mistook for the original epistles. The con- nexion in which Cnreton's epistles were found is that of a series of extracts from Fathers whose remaining works are not to be supposed rendered doubtful by their absence from this Syriac MS., and Petermann (xxi.) has cor- rected Bunsen's supposition that the conclud- ing words of the MS. imply that the epistles of Ignatius, as known to the writer, were all comprised in what he copied. Zahn (pp. ir)<), 200) compares the Syriac extracts numbered i. and ii. in Corp. Ignat., taken as they were, beyond doubt, from the existing Syriac translation, with S. Cur. {i.e. Cnreton's Syrtac Kf>p.) ; and apparently succeeds in making out that the same translator, whose work is presented in a fragmentary form in S. Cur., meets us in these extracts, h.g. the expres- sion Oriinofiaxftv, and many other pe( uliar words, are similarly rendered; though no. i. seems sometimes to preserve belter the text from which it was copied. We might ( ull from S. Cur. itself certain proofs that it was ! not the original. Moreover, there are [certain passages in it which are plainlv not ! complete in themselves. It is surtly a [quite suflicient motive to supj>ose th.it the epitoniator intended to make one of thi'Se selections of the best parts of a good work, which in all ages have been practised upon the most eminent writers without disrespect. Hefele (see Denzinger, pp. 8. 196) thinks he can discern the practical ascetic purpose of the selection, and we observe that very naturally the abbreviator begins each epistle with a 512 IGNATIUS design of taking all that is most edifying ; but his resolution or his space fails him before the end, when he abridges far more than at the beginning. His form of Ephesians has alone an uniform character of epitome from the first; but a number of personal names plainly lit to be omitted come very early. Denzinger powerfully urges(pp. ^^ seq.) the certainty that the Monophysites would have complained when the seven epistles were quoted against them had these been spurious, and he and Uhlhorn have fully shewn how entirely the epitomator is committed to any doctrines in the shorter recension which can be found diiificult. What a useless and objectless task then would any one have in interpolating and extending Cureton's three into the seven ! Upon the whole case we can pronounce with much confidence that the Curetonian theory is never likely to revive. VI. The Ep. to the Romans differs from the other six Eusebian letters in being used by some authors who use no others and omitted by some who cite the others. Zahn suggests that it did not at first belong to the collection, but was propounded by itself, with or without a martyrdom. This seems supported by the fact that it escaped the interpolations which the other epistles suffered at the hand, prob- ably, of Acacius. VII. The circumstances of the journey and martyrdom of Ignatius, gathered from the seven epistles and from that of Polycarp, are as follows : He suffers under a merely local persecution. It is in progress at Antioch while he is in Smyrna, whence he writes to the Romans, Ephesians, Magnesians, and Tral- lians. But Rome, Magnesia (xii.), and Ephesus (xii.) are at peace, and in Troas he learns that peace is restored to the church in Antioch. Of the local causes of this Antioch- ene persecution we are ignorant, but it is not in the least difficult to credit. The imagined meeting of the emperor and the saint is not found in the epistles ; it is " the world " under whose enmity the church is there said to suffer. All now recognize that, according to the testimony of the letters, Ignatius has been condemned in Antioch to death, and journeys with death by exposure to the beasts as the settled fate before him. He deprecates inter- position of the church at Rome (quite powerful enough at the end of the ist cent, to be con- ceivably successful in such a movement) for the remission of a sentence already delivered. The supposition of Hilgenfeld (i. 200) that prayer to God for his martyrdom, or abstin- ence from prayer against it, is what he asks of the Romans seems quite inadmissible, and we could not conceive him so assured of the approach of death if the sentence had not been already pronounced. The right of ap- peal to the emperor was recognized, and could be made without the consent of the criminal, but not if the sentence had proceeded from the emperor himself. Thus the Colbertine Mar- tyrdom, which makes Trajan the judge at Antioch, contradicts the epistles no less than the Vatican which puts off the process to Rome. MS. Colb. brings Ignatius by sea to Srnyrna ; but Eusebius, who had read the epistles, supposes the journey to be by land, and he is clearly right. The journey " by IGNATIUS land and sea " {ad Rom. v.) may easily refer to a voyage from Seleucia to some Cilician port, and thence by road. The ordinary way from Antioch to Ephesus was by land, and Ignatius calls the messenger to be sent by the Smyrnaeans to Antioch 6fo8p6/j.oi {Pol. vii.). Ignatius did not, as was usual, pass through Magnesia and Ephesus, but left the great road at Sardis and came by Laodicea, Hierapolis, Philadelphia, and perhaps Colossae, as he had certainly visited Philadelphia and met there the false teachers from Ephesus (Zahn, 258 seq. also 266 seq.). The churches written to were not chosen at random, but were those which had shewn their love by sending mes- sengers to him. The replies were thus, primarily, letters of thanks, quite naturally extending into admonitions. We find him in the enjoyment of much freedom on his journey, though chained to a soldier. In Philadelphia he preaches, not in a church, but in a large assembly of Christians ; in Smyrna he has intercourse with the Chris- tians there and with messengers of other churches. He has much speech with the bishops concerning the state of the churches. That of Ephesus he treats with special respect, and anticipates writing a second letter {ad Eph. XX.) ; that of Tralles he addresses in a markedly different manner {ad. Tr. 2, 12). He must, therefore, have had time in Sm\Tna to acquaint himself with the condition of the neighbouring churches. If the writing of epistles under the circumstances of his cap- tivity should cause surprise, it must be remembered that they are only short letters, not books. The expression j3(.l3\idiov, which in Eph. XX. he applies to his intended second missive, is often apphed to letters. He dic- tated to a Christian, and thus might, as Pearson remarks, have finished one of the shorter letters in an hour, the longest in three. Perpetua and Saturus wrote in prison narratives as long as the epistles of Ignatius {Acta SS. Perp. et Fel. Ruinart). A ten days' sojourn would amply meet the necessities of the case ; and there is nothing in the treat- ment to which the letters witness inconsistent with that used to other Christian prisoners, e.g. St. Paul. The numberless lihelli pads, written by martyrs in prison, and the celebra- tions of the holy mysteries there with their friends, shew that the liberty given Ignatius was not extraordinary ; especially as the word eL'fpyeToi'/jLfvoi which he applies to his guard points, doubtless, to money given them by the Christians. Ignatius is always eager to know more Christians and to interest them in each other. The news of the cessation of persecution in Antioch stirs him to urge Polycarp to take an interest in that church. The great idea of the Catholic church is at work in him. He does not deny that his request that messengers should be sent to Antioch is an unusual one, but dwells upon the great benefit which will result {Pol. 7; Sm. 11; Phil. 10). But when Polycarp, a few weeks or months afterwards, writes to the Philip- pians, the messenger had not yet been sent. Ignatius had but lately passed through Philippi, by the Via Egnatia to Neapolis. The Philippians immediately' after wrote to Polycarp, and forwarded a message to the IGNATIUS Aiitiochcnes, expecting to be in time to catch the messenger for Antioch before his depar- ture. Ignatius had plainly been suggesting the same thoughts to them as to Tolycarp ; and this would be plainer still if the reading in Kus. H. E. iii. 36, 14 (iypaxpaTi noi Kal vneis Kol 'lyvdrioi) were more sure, and thus a second letter had been received by Polycarp from Ignatius. But this second epistle, if written, has been lost. Polycarp wrote immediately after receiving the epistle of the Philippians. He speaks of the death of Ignatius, knowing that the sentence in Antioch made it certain ; probably knowing also the date of the games at which he was to die. But he is not acquainted with any particulars, since he asks for news concerning the martyr and those with him {Ep. Pol. xiii.), and at the request of the Philippians forwards all the epistles of Ignatius to which he had access, viz. those to the Asiatic churches ; but not all that he knew to have been written. VIII. The chief difficulty in accepting the epistles as genuine has always arisen from the form of church government wiiich they record as existing and support with great emphasis. They display the threefold ministry estab- lished in Asia Minor and Syria, and the terms Ejrto-voTTos and Trpea^t'Tejos are applied to perfectly distinct orders — a state of things and use of language which are argued to be wholly incompatible with a date early in the 2nd cent. Hence Daille derived his " palmary argument " (c. xxvi., answeredby Pears, ii. 13). It is noteworthy that the testimony of the epistles on this point extends no further than the localities named. To the Romans Igna- tius only once names the office of a bishop, and that in reference to himself ; and in Poly- carp's Ep. to the Philippians there is no mention of anj- bishop, while the deacons and presbyters are addressed at considerable length. The standpoint of the epistles is perfectly consistent with the supposition that episcopacy existing from the times of the apostles in Asia Minor and Syria and believed by the Christians there to be a divinely or- dained institution, made its way gradually into other parts of the church, and that those who most valued it might yet know that it did not exist in churches to which they wrote, or not be assured that it did, and might feel it no part of their duty to enter upon a con- troversy concerning it. Zahn fairlyobserves that there is noattempt, even in those epistles where obedience to the bishop is most urged, to recommend it in opposition to other forms of church govern- ment. Not only is the supposition that Ignatius was introducing episcopacy utterly out of the question, but none of the epistles bear the slightest trace of any recent intro- duction of it in the places in which it exists. The presbyterate is everywhere identified with the episcopate in its claims to obedience, and those who resist the one resist the other. It is extremely hard to reconcile these char- acteristics with the supposition that the letters were forged to introduce the rule of bishops or to uplift it to an unprecedented position in order to resist the assaults of heresy. A guod deal of uncertainty remains as to the relations which the smaller congregations out- IGNATIUS 513 I side the limits of the cities held in the Ignatian church order to the bishops of the cities. No 1 provision api)ears for ejiiscopal rule over country congregations whose pastors arc I not in the " presbytery " — an uncommon expression in antiquity, but used 13 times by Ignatius. The duties the eiustles ascribe to bishops are very similar to those which St. Paul (Acts, xx.) lays upon presbyters. Only in one place {Pol. 5) do they speak of the i>reaching of the bishop ; and it is not peculiar to him, but common with the presbyters. The deacons have duties wholly distinct, concerned with the meat and drink given to the poor and with the distribution of the mysteries of the liu- charist. But the presbyters are very closely united with the bishop. They are not his vicars, but his ffvu^Spiou {Phil. 8 ; Pol. 7), and yet the bishop is by no means a mere president of the college of presbyters. Zahn shews that even though the development of episcopacy were thought to have taken place through the elevation of one of a college to a presidency in those parts where it did not exist in the end of the ist cent., it would still be impossible to hold this of Asia. The youth of many of the earliest .\siatic bishops puts this theory en- tirely out of the question there. Whatever development is implied in the passage from the state of things represented in I. Pet. and I. Tim. to organized episcopacy, took place, according to the testiniony of all records both of Scripture and tradition, in the 30 years between the death of St. Paul and the time of Domitian, had Asia Minor for its centre, and was conducted under the influence of St. John and apostolic men from Palestine, in which country Jerusalem offers the records of a succession of bishops more trustworthy per- haps than that of any other see. Now the Syrian churches were from the first in closest union with Palestine. Thus all the most un- doubted records of episcopacy in the sub- apostolic age centre in the very quarters in which our epistles exhibit it, a weighty coincidence in determining their authenticity. It is certainly somewhat startling to those accustomed to regard bishops as the successors of the apostles that Ignatius everywhere speaks of the position of the apostles as cor- responding to that of the existing pnsbyters, while the prototype of the bishop is not the apostles, but the Lord Himself. It would be hasty, however, to infer that Ignatius denied that the office and authority of the apostles was represented and historically succeeded by that of the bishops. The state of things visibly displayed when the I.ord and His apostles were on earth is for Ignatius the type of church order for all time. (See Hp. Harold Browne, The Strife and the Victory. 1H72, p. 62.) If, however, the epistles had been forged to support epis< opacy, they would not have omitted an argument of such weight as the apostolical authority and succession. The duty of submission is with Ignatius the tirst call upon each number of the church, and exhortations to personal holiness go hand in hand with admonitions to unity and obedience. The word virordaataOai denotes the duty of all, not (be it marked) ti>wards the bishop alone, but towards authority in all its steps 311 514 IGNATIUS {Mgn. 13 and 7). But the bishop represents the principle of unity in the church. Sprintzl ingeniously argues (p. 67) that the supremacy of the bp. of Rome is taught by Ignatius, on the ground that, first, he teaches j the supremacy of the Roman church over others {Rom. prooem.), and secondly, the supremacy of the bishop in every church. But the explanation of the passage in Romans ', is very doubtful, and the marked omission of any mention of the bp. of Rome seems incon- sistent with any supremacy apart from the natural position of his church. ] The emphatic terms in which these letters propose the bishop as the representative of Christ have always presented a stumbling- block to many minds, even apart from the j question of date. But before we pronounce these expressions exaggerated, we must ! remember that obedience to the bishop is 1 valued by the writer for the sake of unity, while unity is for him the only fence against 1 the heresy to which small and disunited 1 bodies are subject {Phil. 4, 8 ; Mgn. i, etc). Identification of the position of the church ruler with that of the Lord would be more easy to a writer of an age very close to Christ than to one of later date. VVhen the divine nature of the Lord and His elevation in heaven i came through lapse of time to overshadow the remembrance of His life on earth, it seemed a superhuman claim on the part of any office to say that it represented Him. But it would naturally be otherwise when the recollection of His human intercourse with men was fresh ; for why should not men represent one so truly man ? Thus the strong expressions may really be a mark of early date. IX. In Sw.Sisfirst found the phrase Catholic church — an expression pronounced by Lipsius (iii.) to prove of itself the later date of the epistles. Such a decision is very precarious, even if, with Lipsius, we reject the testimony of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to the use of the expression. Sprintzl remarks that the phrase " Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church " naturally follows upon the preceding statement of the relation of the bishop to the particular church : what the bishop is to it, that Christ is to the Catholic church at large. Thus to Ignatius the church of each place is a miniature of the church at large {Sm. 8) and its unity is guarded by all the sanctions of the Christian faith. The one faith is, in the epistles, the bond of the church. " The gospel " is that which the apostles proclaimed (Phil. 5) ; not the four written gospels, but the substance of the message of salvation. We find in the epistles the germ of the great ideas of worship afterwards developed in the church. The altar-idea and the temple-idea as applied to the church are there {Eph. 5 ; Mgn. 7 ; Phil. 4). The Eucharist holds its commanding place {Rom. 7 ; Phil. 4, and probably Eph. 5), though what its rites were at this early period is hard to answer from the letters. 'Aydirr) (Sm. 8) is applied to the Eucharist, and dyairdv (Sm. 7) means to celebrate it. In Ignatian phraseology Ei^xap- laria is used where the blessing of Holy Com- munion is denoted, 'Aydirr) means the whole service of which the consecration is only a moment. In Sm. 7 those who speak against IGNATIUS the gifts of God are plainly those who deny tt^v fvxa-puTTiav crdpKa elvai tov ffwr^poi T]fi.Cjv 'Itjo-oO S.pi<7Tov. Christians observed the Lord's Day, not the Jewish Sabbath (A/gn. 8, 9). X. As to the theology of the epistles, there have been great differences of opinion. The more significant theological statements are uncontroversial, though called out by heresies to which the writer opposes his con- ception of the nature of Christ. The origin- ality and reality of the revelation in Christ is the great point with him. Hence follows the unreasonableness of Judaizing, which he some- times presses in terms apparently inconsistent with the recognition of Jewish Christians as really believers. But probably, like St. Paul, he is treating the question from the Gentile standpoint alone. Prophets and the law are worthy of all honour in Christ ; Trdvra bfiov KttXd eanv idv ev dydTrjj Tri(XTevT]T€. The prophets were Christians in spirit, and Christ raised them from the dead (Mgn. 9). They were believers in Christ ; yea, even the angels must believe in His blood (Sm. 6). But for this practical and real salvation finding its expression in history the heretics would sub- stitute a shadowy representation of religious notions in a merely apparent and unreal life of Christ. Therefore we find Ignatius constantly adding the word dXTjduis to his records of the acts of Christ (Sm. 3, 4; Tr. 10). 'Eu aapKiis an equivalent phrase. The Blood is named with or instead of the Flesh to shew that the Lord had in death the same bodily constitution as in life, of which the faithful partake in the Eucharist. Being real flesh, Christ was the New Man, and the revelation of God in the earth (Eph. 18). He is an eternal Person, but He is God's Son, as born of Mary and of God. When the writer speaks of an outcoming of Christ from God, he means the Incarnation, and not anything previous. Though he uses the epithet dtSios with A670S, yet he does not seem to mean that it is as \6yos that the Lord is eternal. It is as incarnate and as man that He is the Logos of God. His twofold nature I furnishes the explanation of the opposite attributes ascribed to Him (Eph. 7 ; Pol. 3). Baur and Lipsius have discovered Patripas- sianism in the last-quoted passage. But this accusation is inconsistent with all the rest of the epistles, and seems, indeed, to have been since abandoned by Lipsius. In opposition to Baur's assertion that except in one suspect- ed place there is no mention of Christ as Son of God, Zahn finds himself able to enumerate i 29 such cases. The epistles lay vast stress 1 upon the Godhead of the Lord ; it is because of this that His birth is the entrance of the New Man, and His death the resurrection of the faithful. To them He stands in a personal j and practical relation, which makes Him their 1 God. His present invisible relation to them involves an increase of the activity of His Godhead, and of its revelation to men (ad Rom. 3; ad Eph. 15); but He was always God. Therefore Ignatius can speak of the blood and of the suffering of God (Eph. i ; Rom. 6). The rpLa p.vaTy)pia Kpavyvj, the three mvsteries loudest in proclamation of truth to those who can hear, are the Incarna- tion, Birth, and Death of Christ, hid in their I6NATIUS real significance from the devil and from the unbelieving. The terms Son and A6-yos are not applied to express the relations of the Divine Persons. Ignatius is rontent to main- tain on the one hand the unity of God, on the other the eternal personality of Christ. XI. The question what special heresies arc denounced in the epistles i^ossesses, in relation to their date, an importance scarcely below that of episcopacy. All. except Romans, contain warnings against heresy, and the exhortations to unity and submission to authority derive their urgency from this danger. It was long a question Whether two forms of heresy, Judaic and Docetic, or only one, Judaeo-docetic, were aimed at. But already in 1856, despite the arguments of Hilgenfeld (i. 230), it appeared to Lipsius (i. 31) that the question was decided in the latter sense. The heretics were wandering teachers, ever seeking proselytes {Eph. 7), and all the denunciations of heresy are directed against that mixture of Judaism with (Inosticism, represented by some whom Ignatius met in his journev {Mgn. 8, 10, 11 ; Tr. g ; Sm. i). The idea of Ritschl {Entst. der altk. Kirche, p. 580) that they were Montanist teachers met with little favour. Cureton and others have thought to find direct allusions to the teaching of N'alentinus in the epistles (but see Pearson II. vi.). But the allusiiin Ai^os d7r6 L'ly^s wpoeXdwv (Mgn. S) is nut applicable to Valenlinus. Basilides is probably early enough, and disciples of his might have been wandering in Asia Minor ; Cerinthus too was of this age. I. and II. John contain warnings against Docetism, which Polycarp (Ep. 7) applies to the heretics of his own time, which was also that of Ignatius. Of all the heretics whom Bunsen and others have supposed the epistles to denounce, Saturninus alone can be proved to have held the doctrines they condemn. XII. From the epistles, as Hilgenfeld (i. 225-226) truly remarks, different critics, according to their bias, have derived in some cases the very highest, and in some the very poorest, notion of the writer's character. The letters are indeed more characteristic than any we have between St. Paul and the great Fathers of the 4th cent. ; but they give no record of the writer's surroundings or of his wavs in his diocese when the times were quiet. His name is Latin ; his style very Semitic. He had not seen the Lord or the apostles, and was not, as MS. Colb. makes him, a fellow-pupil with Polycarp of St. John. It is perhaps somewhat precarious to infer with Zahn, from his strong terms of self-reproach {Eph. 21 ; .Mgn. 14), that he had led an un-Christian or anti-Christian life in early years. His longing for death is extreme, but is really for life under another and better form. We do not know that he courted martyrdom before his judges, since we only meet him after he has been con- demned and is well used to the idea. All his exhortations have the one burden and object, closer union with Christ. He bids others seek, and seeks himself, that union in permanence and perfection which the Holy Eucharist gives here in part. He does not imagine death in itself to have any value (Rom. 4 ; Tr. 3, 4 ; Eph. 12 ; Sm. 4). The prayers he asks are IGNATIUS fii5 not for his death, but for his due preparation {Eph. 21; Mgn. 14; Tr. 12, 13). For an interesting sununary of the moral aspect of the Ignatian epistles in resorct to the person- ality of the writer and to the ideal which his teachmg presents, see Sprintzl, pp. 244 s(|<i. XIII. The great majority of critics, whether adverse to the genuineness of the epistles or not, have recognizctl that the seven epistles professing to be of Ignatius, as shewn by the individuality of the auth.T there displayed, and the one of Polycarp. form an indivisible whole. Romans, indeed, is the brightest and most interesting of the letters. This is be- cause its chief subject is his personal eagerness for martyrdom ; he is writing to the place where he expects to suffer, and to people who can help or hinder his object. The Ep. of Polycarp contains a witness for the whole body of epistles, which (if it be genuine) renders almost all others superfluous ; since it mentions letters written to Smyrna by Ignatius, and by Polv( arp collected and sent to Philippi ; and intimates the existence of others. Thus those who believe the Ignatian letters to be a production late in the 2nd cent, are forced to consider the Ep. of Polycarp a fraud also, in whole or in part. For its satis- factory defence see Lightfoot, Conl. Rev. 1875. With it we may consider the genuineness of the Ignatian epistles proved. For a forger late in the 2nd cent., it would have been impossible to avoid mentioning Polycarp's connexion with the apostles, or alluding to the epistles to the seven Asiatic churches in Revelation ; they are never mentioned. In all historical fictions of antiquity, reiterated pains are taken to make the facts to be maintained understood. In Ignatius they are hard to reach ; the writer is not thinking of readers who have all to learn from him. Lastly, no ancient fiction has succeeded in individualizing character to the degree here displayed ; e.g. in the picture of the false teachers. The improbabilities on which the author of Supernatural Rehgtun, and even.thoughlessdecidedly, Hilgenfeldd;). rely toprove the whole st<jry an undoubted fabrica- tion, are recognized by M. Kenan as established facts, even though he does not believe that the epistles we possess are those to which the story refers. Finally, by the great work of Bp. Light- foot thegenuinenessofthesevenVossianepistles may be regarded as completely established. The Epp. of Ignatius in the longer and ^horter recensions and the Syr. version were in Pair. Aposl. ed. (i. Jacobson (Clar. Press); and a trans, of the Epp. together with the .\tart\r- dom and spurious Epp. are in the ArUe-\u. Lib. A uthorities. — Ussher, Disserlatio de Ig. et Pol. (1644), in Works by Elringtim, vii. «7-2<>fi ; Joannis Dallaei, de Scrtplts <;uae iub Dion. Areop. et Ig. Ant. nomintbus ctrcumferunlur, lib. ii. (Genev. 1O66); Pearson, V'lndiciae Igna- tianae (ed. nov. Oxf. 1852) ; Zahn, 1. Ignatius von Antiochien, p. 62<> (t.olha, i.h;j), ii. Fatrum Apostolicorum Opera, fasc. ii. (I ips. 1876) ; Hilgenfeld, i. Die apostnlischen later (Halle, 1853), ii.in Ins Zr»/.vfA. iH74.|>p-<i'>se.i. ; Lightfoot, i. in Phil. pp. 20H-210, 11. in ( <'nl. Rev. (Feb.1875) ; Peteriiiann,-S./^'M./-./>. (Lips. 1849) ; Harnack, Die Zettdes Ignatius (I np^. 1878) ; Cureton, Corpus l^naltanum (I > nd. 616 INNOCENTIUS 1. IKNOCEKTltJS 1. 1849) ; Denzinger, Ueber die Aechtheit der Ign. I divided between the two sons of Theodosius, Briefe (Wiirzburg, 1849); Renan, i. L^s Arcadius and Honorius ; the latter, now 18 Evangiles (Paris, 1877), ii. in Journal des I years of age, under the control of the great Savants (1874) ; Uhlhorn, i. in Zeitschrift fur general Stilicho, ruling in the West. Two hist. Theol. (1851, 283), ii. in Herzogs Encyc. ; years after Innocent's accession (a.d. 404) he Funk, Op. Pat. Ap. (ed. 5, Tiibing. 1878). fixed his residence at Ravenna. Cureton {Corp. Ign.) or (better still, except I. West. (i) Illyria. — Immediately after for Syriac scholars) Zahn (ii.) will furnish the his election Innocent wrote to Anysius, bp. of student with all the documents and ancient | Thessalonica, informing him of the event and testimonies. The special treatise of Zahn on 1 giving him the oversight of the churches of Ignatius is, as Bp. Lightfoot remarks, little j eastern Illyria. The prefecture of Illyria had known in England, and is of an exhaustive , been dismembered since 388, the Eastern part, character. The reader will understand that, j including Dacia and Macedonia, being assigned while we have not hesitated to dissent from it I to the Eastern empire, but popes Damasus and where necessary, we have freely availed our- I Siricius had continued to claim ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the separated portion, delegating their authority to the bishops of Thessalonica. Innocent thus made no new claim, nor did he hereby assert any authority over the East generally (Innoc.£^. i; Galland. Bibl. Patr.). When Rufus, some years after, succeeded Anysius as bp. of Thessalonica, a letter was at once sent to him, reversing the vicariate commission, defining its extent, and reminding him that his jurisdiction was selves of its pages. The Epistles of Ignatius have been pub. in a cheap trans, by J. R. Srawlev (S:P.C.K. 2 vols.) [r'.t.s.] InnocentlUS (12) I., bp. of Rome, after Anastasius, from May 402, to Mar. 12, 417. The circumstances of his time and the character and talents of Innocent render his pontificate important. Christianity had now for nearly a century been the religion of the emperors ; paganism was fast becoming a system of the past ; the capture of Rome by j derived from the favour of the apostolic see Alaric during his pontificate, regarded as the I only. In 414 we find Innocent exercising divine judgment on the heathen city and j authority of a summary kind, without the causing the dispersion and ruin of the remains intervention of the bp. of Thessalonica, in of the heathen nobility, completed the down- East Illyria. The bishops of Macedonia had full of the ancient order. With the ascend- sent him a synodal letter, desiring directions ancy of the church had grown that of the 1 as to : (i) Whether persons ordained by one hierarchy, and especially of the head of that j Bonosus, a deceased heretical bishop, might hierarchy in the West, the Roman bishop, i be admitted to the priesthood. (2) Whether The need of centres of unity and seats of au- j persons who had married widows might be thority to keep the church together amid ; ordained and made bishops, for which allow- doctrinal conflicts ; the power and importance ■ ance they pleaded the custom of their church, hence accruing to the patriarchal sees, and j (3) They had asked leave to raise to the especially to Rome as the one great patriarch- episcopate one Photinus, who had been con- ate of the West, the see of the old seat of I demned by Innocent's predecessors, and to empire and the only Western one that claimed ] depose a deacon called Eustatius. Some at apostolic origin ; the view now generally re- ! least of these questions had already been ceived of the bp. of Rome as the successor of j decided by Innocent, for he expresses surprise the prince of the apostles ; the removal of the j and displeasure at their being again mooted, seat of empire to Constantinople, leaving the 1 He then authoritatively decides them. Those pope, when there was but one emperor, the sole j who had married widows he debars from Western potentate, and when there were two, j ordination, citing the prohibition of such as in Innocent's time, the fixing of the imperial 1 marriages to the high-priest under the Mosaic residence at Ravenna instead of Rome, — such : law. Those ordained by Bonosus are debarred were among the causes of the aggrandizement [ the priesthood by the law of the Roman church of the Roman see. The Western church had 1 (lex nostrae ecclesiae), which admitted to lay been comparatively free from the controver- ! communion persons baptized by heretics, but sies which had divided the East, nor had i did not recognize their orders. The Nicene the popes taken much personal part in them ; j canon about the Novatianists, he says, applied but they had almost invariably supported | to them only, and the condonation by Anysius the orthodox cause, received and protected the j had only been a temporary expedient. The orthodox under persecution, and, after watch- , question whether those who had married one ing with quiet dignity the Eastern struggle, 1 wife before and another after baptism were had accepted and confirmed the decisions of to be accounted deuterogamists, and so in- orthodox councils. Hence Rome appeared ! capable of ordination, he discussed at length as the bulwark of the cause of truth, and its | also in other epistles.* He decides that they claim to be the unerring guardian of the apos- : are to be so accounted, for baptism is not the folic faith and discipline gained extensive , commencement of a new life in such sort as credence. Innocent himself was eminently i to relax the obligations of a previous marriage, the man to enter into, and make the most of, j Though with hesitation and much anxiety, he the position he was called to occupy. Un- | allows the promotion of Photinus, notwith- stained in life, able and resolute, with a full appreciation of the dignitv and prerogatives * Cf. Epp. ii. iii. Bibl. Patr. Galland. St. Jerome, of his see, he lost no opportunitv of asserting | "» ^^^ of ^^ letters, strongly maintains the opposite its claims, and under him the ide'a of universal j ^'^^^ ^° Innocent, and Jerome's view w^ probably ^^„^i ^,,', tu u t u i. tlie prevalent one at the time, for he speaks of the papal supremacy, though as vet somewhat „^j^^„ „f ^sons ordained, 4nd even advanced to shadowy, was already takmg form. At his the episcopate, after marrying a second wife after accession the empire had for seven years been baptism, being large enough to compose a council. INNOCENTIUS I. standing the condemnation of him by previous popes, on the prouiui that they had been imposed on by false reports ; and he disalhnvs the deposition of Eustatius{£^. xvii.r.alland.). Another epistle, addressed to tiie bishops of Macedonia, confirms the deposition of Babalius and Taurianus, who had appealed to Ki>me from the sentence of the bishops of their pro- vince. This appeal the bishops seem to have taken amiss, for Innocent presses ui^on them the advantageof having their judgment revised (Ep. xviii. Galland.). (ii) Gaul. — Victricius, bp. of Rouen, having been in Rome towards the end of 403 {Ep. ad Victric. § 14, and Paul. Nolan. Ep. ad Victric. xxxvii. i), applied to the pope soon after for information as to the practice and discipline of the Roman church. Innocent sent him a letter containing 14 rules, of which he says that they are no new ones, but derived by tradition from the apostles and fathers, though too generally unknown or disregarded. He directs Victricius to communicate them to the bishops and others, with a view to their future observance. Among them were: (i) No bishop may ordain without the knowledge of his metropolitan and the assistance of other bishops. (3) Ordinary causes against bishops are to be determined by the other bishops of the province, saving always the authority of Rome. (4) Greater causes, after the judgment of the bishops, are to be referred to the apostolic see, " as the synod [referring, pro- bably, to the canons of Sardica] has decreed." (6, 7) No layman who has married a widow, or been twice married, may be ordained. (8) No bishop may ordain any one from another diocese without leave of its bishop, (g) Con- verts from Novatianism and Montanism are to be received by imposition of hands only, without iteration of baptism ; but such as, having left the church, had been rebaptized by heretics, are only to be received after long penance. (10) Priests and Levites who have wives are not to cohabit with them. This rule is supported by argument, resting mainly on the prohibi- tion of intercourse with their wives to priests under the old law before officiating. Christian priests and Levites, it is argued, ought always to be prepared to otficiate. (11) Monks, taking minor orders, may not marry. (12) Courtiers and public functionaries are not to be admitted to any clerical order ; for they might have to exhibit or preside over entertainments un- doubtedly invented by the devil, and were liable to be recalled to his service by the em- peror, so as to cause much " sadness and anxiety." Victricius is reminded of painful cases he had witnessed in Rome, when the pope had with difficulty obtained from the emiieror the exemption even of priests from being re- called to his service. (13) Vfjiled virgins who marry are not to be admitted even to penance till the husband's death ; but (14) stichashave promised virginity, but have not been" veiled bythepriest," maybe reconciled after penance. In 405 Innocent was similarly consulted by another bp. of Gaul, Exsuperius of Toulouse, whom he commends for referring doubtful questions to the apostolic see, and gives him the following directions: (i) Priests or dea- cons who cohabit with their wives are to be deprived, as pope Siricius had directed. The INNOCENTIUS I. r.iT prohibition of conjugal intcnoiirsc to the priests in O.T. before oth.iatmg is adduced as before; also St. Paul's injmirtion to the Corinthian laity to abstain for a time, that they might give tliemselves unto prnver ; whence it follows that the clergy, to whom prayer and sacrifice is a continual dutv, ouj;ht always to abstain. When St. Paul sai<l tliat a bishop was to be the husband of one wife, he did not mean that he was to live with her. else he would not have said, " They that are in the flesh cannot please God " ; and lie said " having children," not " begetting " them. The incontinence of clergy whom the injunr- tiim of pope Siricius had not reached niav, however, be condoned ; but they are not to be promoted to any higher order. (2) To the question whether such as had led continuallv loose lives after baptism might be admitted to penance and communion at the appr<ia( h of death. Innocent replies that, though in former times penance only and not communii 'H was accorded in such cases, the strict rule may now be relaxed, and both given. (3) Baptized Christians are not precluded from inflicting torture or condemning to death as judges, nor from suing as advocates for judgment in a capital case. Innocent, however, elsewhere precludes Christians who had been so engaged from ordination (Ep. xxvii. ad Felicem). (4) To the question how it was that adultery in a wife was more severely visited than in a husband, it is replied that the cause was the unwillingness f>f wives to accuse their hus- bands, and the difficulty of convicting the latter of transgression, not that adultery was more criminal in one case than in the other. (5) Divorced persons who marry again during the life of their first consort and those who marry them are adulterers, and to be excom- municated, but not their parents or relations, unless accessory. Lastly, a list is given of the canonical books of Scripture, the same as are now received by the church of Rome ; while certain books, bearing the names of Matthias, James the Less, Peter, John, and Thomas, arc repudiated and condemned. (iii) Spain. — In 400 had been held the first council of Toledo, mainly to deal with Pris- cillianists returning to the church. Two such bishops, Svmphorius and Dichtynius. with others, had been recei%-ed by the council ; but certain bishop^s of Baetica still refused to communicate with them. A Spanish bishop, Hilary, who had subscribed the decree of the council of Toledo, went with a priest, Elpidius to Rome, to represent this to the pf>pe ; con>- plaining also of two bishops, Rufinus and Minicius, who had ordained other bishops otit of their own province without the knowledge of the metropolitan ; and of other prevalent irregularities with respect to ordinations. The complainants do not api)ear to have been commissioned bv anv svnod, or other author- ity of the Spanish church, tr> lay these matters before the pope, but Innocent took the opporfunitv to address a letter, after a synod held at Riime, to the bishops of the Toledo council, advising or directing them : though without asserting, as he does to r.ther churches, the authority of the Roman see. He con- demns those who refused to communicate with reconciled Priscillianists, and directs the 518 INNOCENTIUS I. bishops to inquire into the cases of Rufinus and Minicius and to enforce the canons. As to other prevalent irregularities — such as the ordination of persons who had, after baptism, pleaded as advocates, served in the army, or as courtiers (curiales) been concerned in objectionable ceremonies or entertainments — he directs that such past irregularities should be condoned for fear of scandal and disturb- ance, but avoided in the future. He insists, as so often in his letters, on the incapacity for ordination of such as had married widows or had married twice, and again protests that baptism cannot annul the obligation of a previous marriage. He supports these pro- hibitions by arguments from O.T. and from St. Paul, "Husband of one wife" (Ep. iii. Bihl. Patr. Galland.). We do not know how this admonitory letter was received in Spain, (iv) Africa. — In 412 or 413 Innocent wrote to Aurelius, bp. of Carthage, requesting him to announce in synod the day for keeping Easter in 414, with the view of its being announced, as was then customarv, to the church by the bp. of Rome (Ep. xiv. Galland.). Towards the end of 416 he received synodal letters from councils at Carthage and Milevis in Numidia, and from St. Augustine (who had taken part in the latter council), with four other bishops, on the Pelagian controversy ; to all of which he replied in Jan. 417. This correspondence illustrates the relations then subsisting between the West African church and Rome. (For such relations at an early period see Stephanus ; Cyprianus ; Sixtus II.) The synodal letters inform Innocent of the renewal of the condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius pronounced five years previous- ly at Carthage, and very respectfully request him to add the authority of the apostolical see to the decrees of their mediocrity (" ut statutis nostrae mediocritatis etiam apostolicae sedis auctoritas adhibeatur") ; setting forth the heresies condemned, and arguments against them. They recognize the weight that the pope's approval would carry, but do not at all imply that the validity of their own condem- nation depended on it. The five bishops imply some doubt as to his probable action, having heard that there were some in Rome who favoured the heretic ; and thev await the result with suspense, fear, and trembling. Innocent, in replying, assumes much greater dependence on the see of Rome on the part of the Africans than their language had implied, and asserts very large claims to general authority. He commends the bishops of the Carthaginian synod for referring the matter to his judgment, as knowing what was due to the see of the apostle from whom all episcopal authority was derived ; and for having ob- served the decrees of the Fathers, resting on divine authority, according to which nothing done, even in remote and separated provinces, was to be considered settled till it had come to the knowledge of the Roman see and been confirmed by its authority, that all waters proceeding from the fountain of their birth, the pure streams of the uncorrupted head, might flow through the different regions of the whole world. The abundant stream of Rome, flow- ing, the bishops hoped, from the same foun- tain-head as the smaller stream of Africa, INNOCENTIUS I. becomes in Innocent the fountain-head from which all streams must flow. He addresses the bishops of the Milevetan synod in the same strain. He then proceeds to condemn the Pelagian heresy in strong terms and to ana- thematize all its abettors and supporters. To adduce proofs, he says, is unnecessary, since his correspondents had said all that was wanted. He declines to accede to their suggestion that he should make overtures to Pelagius, or send for him to Rome. It is for the heretical, he says, to come to me of his own accord, if ready to retract his errors ; if not ready, he would not obey my summons ; if he should come, repudiate his heresy, and ask pardon, he will be received (Epp. Augustine, xc.-xcv. ; Epp. Innoc. clxxxi.-clxxxiii. Galland.). In a letter to Decentius, bp. of Eugubium in Umbria (dated a.d. 416), the claims of the Roman see are no less strongly asserted than in the letters to the African bishops. Inno- cent tells him that no one can be ignorant of the obligation of all to observe the traditions, and those alone, which the Roman church had received from St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and which that church ever pre- served — especially as no churches had been founded in Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, Sicily, or the interjacent islands, except by St. Peter or his successors. The letter proceeds to require observance of various Roman usages. (i) The pax in the Eucharist must be given after communion, not before. (2) The names of such as offer oblations at the Eucharist are not to be recited by the priest before the sacrifice, or the canon. (3) Infants after baptism may not be confirmed by unction except by the bishop ; but priests may anoint other parts of the body than the forehead, using oil blessed by the bishop. (4) Saturday as well as Friday in each week is to he observed as a fast, in commemoration of the whole time Christ was in the grave. (5) Demoniacs may receive imposition of hands from priests or other clergy commissioned by the bishop. (6) St. James's direction that the sick are to call for the elders of the church does not preclude the bishop from administering the unction ; but not only priests, but any Christian may anoint, using chrism prepared by the bishop. Penitents, however, to whom the other sacra- ments are denied, may not receive unction, " quia genus sacramenti est." It appears plain from the way the unction of the sick is spoken of that it was then used with a view to recovery, not as a last rite. (7) One Roman custom, that of sending, on the Lord's day, the Eucharist consecrated by the bishop to the presbyters throughout the city, that all on that day at least may partake of one communion, is not to be observed where it involved carry- ing the sacrament to great distances. Even in Rome it is not taken to the priests in the various cemeteries {Epp. xxv. Galland.). II. East. — In 404 Innocent began to inter- vene in the affairs of the East in the matter of St. Chrysostom, who had been deposed and driven from Constantinople after the synod of the Oak in 403, and finally expelled on June 20, 404. A letter reached Innocent from Chrysostom himself, another from the 40 bishops who remained in his communion, a third from his clergy. That from Chrysostom INNOCENTIUS I. driven by Palladius in liis Dialof:u<; dr \'ita S. Johan. Chrysost.) was addressed tn the bps. of Rome, Aqiiileia, and Milan, as the three great bishops of the West. It requests them to protest against what had been done, and to continueincommunion with the writer. To all these letters Innoeent replied that, while still in communion with both parties, he reprobated the past proceedings as irregular, and proposed a council of Easterns and Westerns, from which avowed friends and enemies of the accused should be excluded. A second letter arrived from Theophilus, patriarch of Alex- andria, with the Acts of the synod of the Oak, shewing that Chrysostom had been condemned by 36 bishops, of whom ::o were Egyptians. Innocent's brief reply is that he cannot re- nounce communion with Chrysostom on the strength of the past futile proceedings and demands that Theophilus should proffer his charges before a proper council, according to the Nicene canons. Communications from Constantinople continued to reach Innocent, one from about 25 bishops of Chrysostom's party, informing him of Chrysostom's banish- ment to Cucusus and the burning of his cathedral church. To them and to the ban- ished prelate the pope sent letters of com- munion, being unable to render help. Cruel persecution of the friends of Chrysostom, set afoot by the Eastern emperor Arcadius, brought a number of letters to Rome from oppressed bishops and clergy, and the resort thither of many in person, including Anysius of Thessalonica, Palladius of Helenopolis (the author of the Dialogus de Vit. S. Johan. Chrysost.). and Cassianus, famous afterwards as a monk and a writer. Innocent repre- sented the matter to the emperor Honorius, who wrote thrice to his brother Arcadius on the subject. His third letter, sent under the advice of a synod assembled by the pope at his request, urged the assembling of a combined council of Easterns and Westerns at Thessa- lonica. He desired Innocent to appoint five bishops, two priests, and one deacon as a deputation from the Western church ; and these he charged with this third letter, in which he requested his brother to summon the Oriental bishops. He also sent letters ad- dressed to himself by the bishops of Rome and Aquileia, as specimens of many so addressed, and as representing the opinion of the Western bishops on the question at issue (Innoc. Ep. ix. Galland. ; Pallad. Dialog, c. iii.). The deputation was accompanied by four Eastern bishops who had fled to Rome. It failed entirely. Persecution was continued in the East ; Honorius contemplated a war against his brother, but was deterred by a threatened invasion of the Goths; and Innocent, failing in his attempt to bring about an impartial council, separated himself fmm the commu- nion of Atticus, Theophilus, and Porphyrins. This appeal of St. Chrysostom and his friends involved no acknowledgment «f any authority oi the Roman bishop over the Eastern church. They apply to him nf)t as a superior or a judge, but as a powerful friend whose support they solicit. Chrysostf)m's letter, which in Roman editions appears as addressed to the pope alone, was really written to the three principal bishops of the INNOCENTIUS I. 519 West. Its contents le.ive no doubt of this. Honorius, in his letters to his brother, speakt of the Western bishops Ken«rallv having been applied to, and quotes their views as of r<|ual moment with that of the bishops of Rome. Innoeent in his replies makes no claim to adjudicate, nor does he make any assertion of the universal stipremacv of his see, %\ich as appears in his letters to the .Vfricans and to Decentius, but recommends a crumril of Easterns and Westerns as the j^roper authori- tative tribunal. For a view f)f papal claims over the East less than a centurv later see Fkiix III. and AcACii's (7). After the death of Chrvsostom the pope and all the West remained for some time out of communion with Constantinople. .Mexandria, and Antioch. The church of .Antioi h was the first to be reconciled, when bp. Alexander in 413 replaced the name of Chrysf)Slom in the diptychs of his church, and sent a legation to Rome to sue for restoration of communion. This was cordially granted in a svnodal lettfr signed by 20 Italian bishops. Innoeent wrote to Alexander congratulating him warmly and desiring a frequent interchange of letters. At the same time Acacius of Beroea, one of Chrysostom's bitterest opponents, was re- ceived into conmiunion by Innocent through Alexander, to whom the letter of conmiunion was sent for transmission. Atticus of Con- stantinople was reconciled a few years later. Moved partly by the threatening attitude of the populace, and partly by the advice of the emperor, he consented, with a bad grace, to place Chrysostom's name on the diptychs, and was received into comnnmion. The church of Alexandria was the last to come to terms. Thcophilus's nephew Cyril, succeeding him Oct. 18, 412, was urged by Atticus to yield, and did so at last, though not till 417, ten years afterthedcath of Chrysostom. Through- out Innocent appears to have acted with dignity, fairness, firmness, and moderation. Alexander having, later, consulted the pope as to the jurisdiction of his patriarchal see of Antioch, Innocent replied that in accordance with the canons of NMce {Can. vi.) the authority of the bp. of Antioch extended over the whole diocese, not only over one jirf)vince. Diocest is here used, in its original sense, to denote a civil divisi<m of the empire comprising many proN-inces. The Oriental dii>cese here referred to included 15 provinces, over the metrrw politans of which the patriarchal jurisdiction of Antioch is alleged to extend. Two more letters, written in the last vear of his life, further illustrate Innf)cent's attitude towards the churches of the I-ast. St. lerome had been attacked in his cell at Bethlehem by a band of ruffians and had narrowly escaped ; the two noble virgins, Eustochium and her niece Paula, living in retirement under his spiritual direction, had been <lriven from their hruise, which had been burnt. an<l some of their attendants kille«l. The party of Pelagius was suspected. Innofent wrote to Jerome. offering to exert " the whole authority <>f the aiiostolic see" against the offenders, if they could be discovered, and to appoint judges to trv them ; and to John. bp. f>f jerusaleni. who was no friend to Jerome, in an authoritative tone, reproving him severely for allowing such 520 IRENAEUS atrocities within his jurisdiction {Epp. xxxiv. XXXV. Galland.). III. Alaric. — There were three Gothic in- vasions of Italy — the first under Alaric, the second under Radagaisus, the third led by Alaric himself, who laid siege to Rome a.d. 408. Innocent was within the city, the emperor at Ravenna. Famine and plague having ensued during the siege, Zosimus, the heathen historian, alleges that Pompeianus, the prefect of the city, having been persuaded by certain Etruscan diviners that their spells and sacrifices, performed on the Capitol, could draw down lightnings against the enemy. Innocent was consulted and consented, but the majority of the senators refused (\^ 40). Sozo- men mentions the circumstance but does not implicate Innocent (ix. 6). It seems highly improbable that Innocent would sanction such rites of heathenism. In 409 the offer of a ransom led Alaric to raise the siege, and two deputations were sent to the emperor at Ravenna to induce him to sanction the terms agreed on. The first having failed. Innocent accompanied the second, and thus was not in the city when it was finally taken on Aug. 24, 4io. Alaric's invasion was regarded as a judgment on heathen rather than Christian Rome, and as a vindication of the church, the pope's providential absence being compared by Orosius to the saving of Lot from Sodom. Undoubtedly the event was a marked one in the supersession of heathenism by Christianity. The destruction of the old temples, never afterwards restored, the dispersion and ruin of families which clung most to the old order, the view that judgment had fallen on old heathen Rome, which its deities had been powerless to protect, all helped to complete the triumph of the church and to add importance to the reign of Innocent. Soon after this great event Augustine (a.d. 413) began his famous work, de Civitate Dei, though he took 13 years to complete it, in which he sees a vision of the kingdom of God rising on the ruins of the kingdom of the world — a vision which grad- ually took more distinct shane in the idea, already more or less grasped by Innocent, of a Catholic Christendom united under the Roman see. Innocent's Epistolae et Decreta are printed in Galland's Bibl. Pat. t. viii. and in Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xx. Cf. Innocent the Great bv C. H. C. Pirie-Gordon (Longmans ; 4 maps and 8 genealogical tables). [j.b — ^y.] Irenaeus (1), bp. of Lyons. Very little is known of his personal history except that he was a native of Asia Minor ; in early youth had seen andheard bp. Polycarp at Sm^Tna ; after- wards came into Gaul, and during the perse- cution of 177 carried, as presbyter of Lyons, a letter from the Gallican confessors to the Roman bp. Eleutherus (174 or 175-189) ; after the death of bp. Pothinus of Lyons (177) be- | came his successor (Bus. H. E. v. 5), and was | still bishop in the time of bp. Victor, who suc- ceeded Eleutherus at Rome (189-198 or 199) ; and that he took a leading part in all eccle- siastical transactions and controversies of the time. St. Jerome speaks of him (de Vir. III. 35) as having flourished in the reign of Corn- modus (180-192). His birth is assigned to widely distant epochs. The earliest and the IRENAEUS latest dates proposed are 50 years apart (97- 147). Various considerations lead us to fix on c. 126, or possibly c. 136, as the latest admis- sible date. Of his youthful literary training and culture we can only judge from his writings, which shew some acquaintance with the Greek poets and philosophers ; he cites Homer, Hesiod, Pindar, and Plato. Of his Christian training he tells us that, besides instructions from Polycarp, he had other teachers, " Presbyters" (of Asia Elinor), whom he designates as mediate or immediate disciples of the apostles (//aer. ii. 22, 5 ; iv. 27, I ; 32, I ; v. 5, i ; 30, i ; 33, 3 ; 36, i). Whether he was personally acquaint- ed with Papias, whom he mentions so frequent- ly, is uncertain. If he was in Rome a.d. 156 he doubtless continued his studies there. The time of his removal into Gaul is unknown, but there were close ties between the missionary church of Gaul and the mother-churches of Asia Minor. At the time of the persecution, to which the aged bp. Pothinus fell a victim in the 17th year of Marcus Aurelius, a.d. 177 (cf. my Chronologie der rdmischen Bischofe, p. 185), irenaeus was a presbyter at Lugdunimi. That Irenaeus wrote the epistle of the Gallican confessors to the churches of Asia Minor and Phrygia, which so vividly describes the perse- cution (ap. Eus. H. E. V. i), is an uncertain conjectiu-e. There is indeed a fragment pre- served by Oecumenius and assigned to Irenaeus (Fragm. Graec. xiii. ap. Harvey, ii. 482 seq.), which really stands in very close connexion with that epistle, mentioning' in a similar way the calumny about " Thyestean banquets," which rested on depositions wrung from tortured slaves, the endeavours of the persecutors to f orce the martyrs Sane tus and Blandina to make alike confession, and Blandina'sanswer, which, though not identical with that in the epistle, is nearly related to it. Irenaeus's mission to Rome was undertaken to intercede with bp. Eleutherus for the Montanists of Asia Minor in the name and on behalf of the Gallican confessors (Eus. H. E. V. 3, 4). That another object of the journey was that Irenaeus himself might obtain episcopal consecration at Rome is an unproved assertion of some Roman Catholic authors. The common assumption that there was then no episcopal see but Lyons in all Gaul is hardly warranted by the fact that in the narrative of the persecution at Vienne a deacon only and no bishop is mentioned. A better argument is that Eusebius [H. E. v. 23) appears to speak of Irenaeus as bishop of all the churches of Gaul. But neither can be regarded as a sure proof. As bp. of Lyons Irenaeus was distinguished for his zeal for the conversion of the heathen (cf. the Acts of St. Ferreolus and his com- panions, Boll. Acta SS. 16 Jun. iii.), and yet more by his conflicts with heretics and his strenuous endeavours to maintain the peace of the church, in true accord with his name EipTjcaios (Peace-man). His great work Against all Heresies was probably written during his episcopate. The preface informs us that he then first wrote as an ecclesiastical v\Titer. We subsequently find him exerting himself to protect the churches of his native country (Asia Minor) from Roman pretensions and aggression. The Roman bp. Victor was IRENAEUS endeavouring to compel these churches, which had hitherto kept Easter, with the Jews, on Nisan 14, to conform to the practice of Rome. On their refusal to abandon the custom of tlioir forefathers, their reasons beiap (jivcn in a letter addressed to Victor by Polyrratcs, bp. of Ephesus, he had cut them off from his communion. This Iiarsli treatment was highly disapproved by many even of those who, like the Roman bishoji, kept Easter on theSundayfollowinp the equinoctial full-moon. Among these was Irenaeus himself. In the name of all the Gallican churches he remon- strated with Victor, in a writing of which a considerable fragment is extant, reminding him of the example set by his predecessors, who had found no occasion in these differences of paschal observance for excommunicating their brethren of .Asia Minor. Irenaeus (as Euscbius further iuf'irms us. H. E. v. 23) also appealed to other foreign bishops, but without any effect on the harsh determination of the Roman, .\nother writing of Irenaeus men- tioned by Euscbius (H. E. v. 20), which scenis to have referred to the same subject, was entitled Trepi trxiV/uaros and addressed to Blastus, head of the Roman Quartodecimans. How long Irenaeus was bishop is uncertain. His death is commonly assigned to 202 or 203. This rests on the assumption that he was martyred under Septimius Severus. But such a martyrdom is by no means established. TertuUian. Hippolytus, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Ephrem. Augustine, Theodoret, are silent. In the Syriac fragments Irenaeus is frequently spoken of as " a disciple of Polycarp, bishop and mart>T," but not himself honoured with the martyr's title either there or in any quotations from his writings. The first wit- ness for his martyrdom is found in Jerome's commentary on Isaiah, written c. 410, where (c. 64) Irenaeus is spoken of as vir apostolicus episcopus et martyr ; but when elsewhere treating ex professo of his life and writings (de Vir. III. c. 35), Jerome is silent as to his martyrdom. As Dodwell conjectures, the words et martyr may be an interpolation. If not, Jerome must have learnt the alleged fact subsequently to 392, when the de Viris Illus- tribus was written. There is no witness for it earlier than the 5th cent. Writings. — The chief was the great work in five books against Gnosticism entitled'EXevx'*' Kdl dvaTpoTTT] rfjs \l/fv8wi'vixov yvuiffdijs, Deteclio et eversio false cognominatae agnitionis. (The full Greek title is found in Eus. H. E. v. 7 ; Phot. Bibl. Cod. 120 and elsewhere; cf. also frequent references to it by Irenaeus in the praefalioues to bks. ii. iv. v. and the conclu- sion of bk. iv.) It is commonly cited under the briefer title wpbs alp^aas (contra Haereses). We possess it entire in the Latin version only, which, however, must have been made from the Greek original very soon after its com- position, since the Latin was used by Tertul- lian some ten years after, in his tractate adv. Valentinianos. Its translator was a Celt (witness the barbarous Latinity) ; probably one of the clergy of Lyons. Most of the ori- ginal work being now lost, the slavish literality of the translator imparts to his version a very high value. .Many obscurities of expression, arising in part from a misunderstanding of the IRENAEUS )21 Greek idiom, admit an easy solution when translated back into Greek. Beside this Latin version, which appears to have soon super- seded the Greek original in the Westernchurrh, there was a Syriac translation, <>( which numerous fragments arc extant and were first put together by Harvey in his ed. of Irenaeus (ii. 431 seq.). Thev are derived from the Brit. Mus. collection of Nitrian MSS., some of which arc as old as the 6th, 7th, and Stii cents, (cf. Harvey, ii. 431, note). To these are added (Nos. xxi. xxxi. and xxxii.) fragments of an Armenian interpolated version first published by Pitra in his Spicilegium Soles- mense, t. i. (Paris, 1852). Of these No. xxi. only is taken from the work Against Heresies. The almost entire agreement between these Syriac fragments and the Old Latin version further witnesses its genuineness and fidelity. The Greek original, said to have been still extant in the i6th cent., was made great «isc of by Hippolytus (or whoever wrote the Philosiiphuvu-nci), Ei>iphanius, and Theodoret. To the numerous extracts in these writers, esp. the first two, we owe the greater part of the original Greek of bk. i. — the preface and cc. 1-2 1 entire, and numerous fragments besides. Of the other books, the Greek has come down to us in isf)latcd passages, mostly through citations by Eusebius. The ed. of Wigan Harvey (2 veils. Camb. 1857) is based on a careful collation of the Codices Claro- mont. and .\rundel. His Prolegomena con- tain minute investigations into the origin, characteristics and main phenomena of (inosticism. as well as concerning the life and writings of Irenaeus. Against Heresies was written in Gaul. (Irenaeus says so expressly, lib. i. praef. 3, cf. i. 13, 7. We follow Massuet's division of chapters.) The date of composition is deter- mined iii. 3, 3, in which he speaks of Eleu- therus as then twelfth in succession to the apostles (m the episcopal chair of Rome (•■fi' 8ll3dendT(fl TOWLf) TOV T^S f Jr^<T^ OTT T;? d)r6 T^V a.iro(TTo\u)v KaTtxti KKxipov 'V.\iv0fpo%). Ac- cording to this, the third book was written at the earliest a.d. 174 or 17?, at the latest a.d. 189 (cf. Chronologie der rom. Bischiife, pp. 184 sqq.). The commencement and completion of the work were possibly some years apart, but we cannot put the date of bks. iv. and v. so late as the episcopate of Victor (189-198 or 199). We may tentatively assume 182, the mid-period of Eleuthcrus's episcopate, or(since the first two books alone appear to have been written immediately after each other — cf. the prefaces to bks. ii. and iii. -v.) we may pro- pose from A.D. 180 to 185 as the date of the whole work. To assign a more exact date is hopeless. That Irenaeiis wrote as bishop, and not earlier than 178 as presbyter, is by far most probable, though it cannot be drawn with absolute certaintv from the words of the preface to bk. v. to whicii .Massuet appeals. As the first external motive for its composi- tion, Irenaeus himself mentions (lib. i. praef. ; ii. 17, I ; iii. praef.) the request of a friend for some instruction as to the heretical opinions of the Valentinians and how to refute them. The recent spread of the Valentinian sect through the Rhone district had already led Irenaeus to acquaint himself particularly 522 IRENAEUS with their writings and tenets. The danger- ous character of their teaching had been fully recognized by others, whom he modestly designates as mitlto nobis meliores ; but these had been (iv. praef.) unable through ignorance of the Valentinian " rule " or system of doc- trine to adequately refute it. That it was his first object to refute Valentinianism, and only in a secondary and occasional way to attack other heresies, is evident from the whole construction and arrangement of bk. i., which is almost exclusively occupied with the Valentinians, and in a great measure bk. ii. also. Irenaeus repeatedly observes that he who refutes the Valentinians at the same time refutes all other heresies (cf. ii. 31, i) " de- structis itaque his qui a Valentino sunt, omnis haereticorum eversa est multitudo," an asser- tion of which he proceeds (31, 1-33, 5) to give detailed proof, in reference to various heretical parties. Thus in the preface to bk. iv. he speaks of the " doctrina eorum qui sunt a Valentino" as a "recapitulatio omnium haere- ticorum," and in bk. ii. of having taken them as an example of the way in which all heretics are toberefuted ( " tanquamspeculum habuimus eos totius eversionis "). In bks. iii. iv. and v. the circle of vision is enlarged. Taking the Scriptures for his guide, he goes through in order the fundamental doctrines of Gnosticism, and besides Valentinian dogmas rexiews the cognate onesof otherhereticalschools, specially of the Marcionites, but nowhere gives such a connected view and refutation of other Gnostic systems as of the Valentinian in bk. ii. His sources were primarily the writings of the heretics themselves. In the preface of bk. i. he speaks of the vTTonvqfxaTa of disciples of Valentinus, and observes that he has been in personal communication with some of them. More particularly it is the school of Ptole- maeus, an awAvdifffia ttjs Ova\€VTivov (j-xoXt)?, whose dogmatic system he sets himself to describe. The detailed account (c. Haer. i. 1-7) describes its development in the Western or Italian form, and this from several writings, one of which Clemens .\lexandrinus also made use of in the excerpta ex scriptis Theodoti, cc. 44-65. From another source were derived additional details, cc. ir and 12, of various opinions within the Valentinian system and of Valentinus himself, Secundus, Ptolemaeus, and others; c. 13, 1-5, cc. 14 and 15 are concerned with Marcus, his magic arts and theories about the symbolism of letters and numbers, concluding with a citation of some Iambic Senarii, written against him by a " Divinae aspirationis Senior et Praeco veritatis " (6 deSirveixTTOs irpea^vrrji Kal K-qpv^ Tris aXTjdeias). The same authority is further designated, after the quotation, as " amator Dei senior," which Epiphanius expresses by 6 0eo(pi\r]s TTpetr/Si'TT/s. Two other sources, from which Irenaeus may have derived acquaintance with Gnostic opinions, have been conjectured by Harnack {Zur Quellenkritik der Geschichte des Gnosti- cismus, p. 56) for the information in bks. iii. -v. concerning the details of Marcion's system, which with the Valentinian is the heresy most frequently referred to in that portion. These were Marcion's own writings and a refutation of Marcion by a presbyter of Asia Minor. IRENAEUS It would be of great interest to obtain more exact impressions of those other presbyters to whose words and writings Irenaeus makes frequent reference. Besides the " God-loving elder," from whom he borrows the Iambic Senarii against Marcus, Irenaeus cites on various occasions from " presbyters and disciples of the apostles " ; under which title, besides Polycarp, bp. Papias of Hierapolis must certainly be included. From bk. iv. of Papias's Ao7/a'i' KvpiaKCiv iirfy-qaei^ Irenaeus cites the saying traditionally attributed to our Lord on the alleged testimony of St. John concerning the glories of His millennial king- dom (v. 33, 3 sqq.). Of the writings of Polycarp there is no certain trace in Irenaeus, but he held in faithful remembrance his oral utterances. He knows indeed several writings of the bp. of Smyrna {Ep. ad Florin, ap. Eus. v. 20) and specially mentions Polycarp's Ep. to the Philippians (Haer. iii. 3, 4) . Of the works of J ustin Martyr Irenaeus knew and used — besides the Syn- tagma against all Heresies, and the possibly identical Syntagma against Marcion — the first .\pologies, without, however, citing it (Quellen der dltesten Ketzergeschichte, p. 63). From which of Justin's works the citation, v. 26, 2, is derived cannot be decided. With far greater confidence we may assume Irenaeus to have used the Memoirs of Hegesippus (iii. 3. 3 ; 4. 3. ci. Quellen der alt. Ketzergesch. p. y^), and he makes one citation from the Ep. of Ignatius to the Romans (v. 28, 4), but without mentioning his name. Irenaeus's great work is divided into five books. Bk. i. contains a detailed account of the Valentinian system, together with a general v-iew of the opinions of the other sects. Bk. ii. undertakes to exhibit the unreasonable- ness and self-contradiction of the doctrines of Valentinianism. His chief object here is to combat the doctrine of the Demiurge or Creator as a subordinate existence outside the Pleroma, of limited power and insight, and separated from the " Father " by an infinite chasm. He also controverts the Valentinian doctrine concerning the Pleroma and its antithesis the Kenoma, the theory of Emana- tions, of the Fall of Achamoth, and the forma- tion of the lower world through the sufferings of the Sophia ; and finally, at great length, the Gnostic teaching concerning souls, and the distinction between Psychici and Pneumatici. Bks. iii. iv. and v. contain the refutation of Gnostic doctrines from Holy Scripture, pre- ceded by a short dissertation on the sources of Christian truth. The one foundation of the faith is the gospel transmitted first by oral tradition and subsequently committed to writing. The Gnostics allow neither the refutation of their doctrines out of Scripture nor disproof from tradition. Against the one they appeal to a secret doctrine handed down among themselves, against the other to their own higher knowledge (gnosis). Irenaeus meets them by stating the characteristics of genuine apostolic tradition as ensuring the right interpretation of Holy Scripture. The chief media and transmitters of this tradition are the apostolic churches and their episcopal succession from the apostles themselves (Haer. iii. 1-4). He proceeds to give the proof from IRENAEUS Scripture — first, against the doctrine of the Demiurge, then against the dnostic Christo- logy. There is but one God, Creator of the world and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Son, the Eternal Cod-Logos, and has truly been made Flesh in order to redeem mankind from its fall in Adam. Under this head he combats the errors of both Docetae and Ebionites, and, returning to his main purpose, attacks the chief Gnostic doctrine in a refutation of Marcion's attempt to distin- guish between the Good God and the Jt4st or Judicial God. This occupies him at the close of bk. iii. Bk. iv. is directed against the same doctrine. Irenaeus now attacks the distinction made between the lawgiver and the Father, shewing the identity of the divine revelation in O. and N. T., the close connexion between law and gospel, and the typical pre- announcement of the N.T. in the Old. He shews that eternal happiness or endless misery will befall men from the same (iod, as reward or as punishment for their own free choice of good or evil. Bk. v. gives a detailed proof of the resurrection of the body and of the mil- lennial kingdom. Of other writings of Irenaeus, fragments only, or bare names, have been preserved. Whether he ever carried out the intention, announced i. 27, 4 and iii. 12, 12, of writing a special treatise against Marcion, cannt)t be determined. Eusebius (H. E. v. 8) mentions this intention, and elsewhere (//. E. iv. 25) reckons Irenaeus, with Philip of Gortyna and Modestus, among authors who had written against Marcion. Of his Epistle to Floriuus, Eusebius has preserved a considerable frag- ment. Florinus was an older contempfirary of Irenaeus and a disciple of Polycarp. He was afterwards a presbyter at Rome, and was deposed, apparently for heresy (Eus. H. E. V. 15). The epistle of Irenaeus, addressed to him, bore also, according to Eusebius {H. E. V. 20), the title wept fxofapxias ^ irepi tov fxri tlvai rbv Bebv iroLTtTriv KaKwv^ which implies that he had adopted Gnostic opinions. The " God " whom he apparently regarded as the author of evil was the Gnostic Demiurge. He afterwards, according to Eusebius, inclined to Valentinianism ; whereupon Irenaeus addressed him in another treatise, Trept 6y- 5od5iy, from which Eusebius quotes the con- cluding words, conjuring the copyists to make an accurate and faithful transcript of his words. The epistle irepi ^ovapx^a^ is re- garded by Leimbach (Zeitschrift fur lutherische Theologie, 1873, pp. 626 seq.) and Lightfoot {Contemp. Rev. 1875, May, p. 834) as one of Irenaeus's earliest writings. Leimbach would date it between 168 and 177, but his arguments are trivial. Of far greater importance is Lightfoot's argument that the treatise irtpl dySodBos was probably written before the great work Against Heresies, since its detailed treatment of the V'alentinian system would have made a special tractate on the Ogdoad superfluous. But Lightfoot seems to have overlooked the fragmentary portion of an epistle to Victor f)f Rome, preserved among the Syriac fragments of Irenaeus {Fragm. xxviii. ap. Harvey, ii. p. 457). which is intro- duced with the words, " .Xnd Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, to Victor, bp. of Rome, concerning IRENAEUS 52S Florinus, a presbvtcr who w.is a partisan of the error of Valentinus, and published an abominable book, thus wrote : " whrreupfm follows the fragment itself. From these words it apjiears that the epistle from which the fragment was taken could not have been written till after the first three books Agatnst Heresies, probably i\ot till after the completion of the whole, and, at the earliest, c. iqo. If Eusebius is right in making the <leposition of the Roman presbvter Blastus contempo- raneous with that of Florinus .the epistle ad- dressed to the former by Irenaeus and entitled irept ffxlfffiaTos (Eus. H. E. v. 20) must belong to the same period. Blastus was, according to Eusebius, the head of the Roman Montan- ists (//. E. V. 15) — cf. also Pacianus, Ep. ad Svmpronian. c. i — and, acc<^rding to Pseudo- Tertullian (Libell. adv. Omn. Haereses, 22), a (.)uart<ideciman. Both are probably correct. We know that the Montanists of Asia Minor (like the Christians there) kept Easter on Nisan 14 (cf. Schwegler, Monlanismus, p. 251) ; it is therefore quite credible that Blastus, as a Montanist, may have conformed to Quarto- deciman practice, and, as a member of the Roman presbytery, may have sought to intro- duce it into Rome. But if Blastus be the one referred to in another Syriac fragment (Fragm. xxvii. ap. Harvey, ii. 456), he was not an Asiatic but an Alexandrian ; and on this sup- position his Quartodecimanism must have come from his close connexion with the Mon- tanists of Asia Minor, since the Paschal calen- dar of Alexandria was the same as that of Rome. One can, moreover, quite understand bp. Victor's responding to any attempt on Blastus's part to create a schism in the Roman church by introducing the Asiatic custom, with deposition from the presbyteral office. Such a breach of discipline in his own diocese (the actual spectacle of some Roman Christians keeping Easter with the .\siaticson Nisan 14, and in opposition to the ancestral custom of the bps. of Rome) would naturally excite him to uncompromising harshness towards the brethren of Asia Minor generally ; so that on these refusing to conform to the Rtmian custom, he at once cut off the churches of the Asiatic province and the neighbouring dioceses from his church-communion (cf. my art. in Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theo- logie, 1866, pp. 192 seq., and Chronologte der rom. Bischofe, p. 174)- These ecclesiastical troubles moved the man of peace, Irenaeus, to send letters of remonstrance to both Blastus and bp. Victor. To the former, which accord- ing to Eusebius bore the title irtpl ax^of^o^-^o^^ mav possiblv be assigned the Syriac fragment (xxvii. ap. Harvey, ii. 456) introduced with the following words : " Irenaeus, bp. of Lyons, who was a contemporary of Polycarp, disciple of the apostle, bp. of Smyrna and martyr, and for this reason is held in just estimation, wrote to an Alexandrian that it is right, with respect to the Feast of the Resurrection, that we should celebrate it upon the first day of the week." But inasmuch as we kn<iw from Eusebius (//. E. v. 24) that Irenaeus wrote on the same subject to several persons, it is possible that this Alexandrian may have been another than Bl.istus. Of the letter to Victor Eusebius (ib.) has preserved a considerable 524 IRENAEUS extract showing that the current controversies regarded also the mode and duration of the antecedent Paschal fast. Some kept one day, others two days, others several days ; some again reckoned their fast-day at 40 hours of day and night (oi 5^ reaaapaKOvra ibpas rj/xepivas re /cat vvKTepivas ffv/j.fX€Tpovai rrjv ilfj-epav auT^'v). But these differences of practice resting on ancient custom — so Ire- naeus proceeds to say — have never yet dis- turbed the church's peace and unity of faith. For although former bishops of Rome, from Xystus to Soter, had never kept Nisan 14, they had always maintained full communion with any who came from dioceses where it was observed ; e.g. Polycarp, whom Anicetus per- mitted to celebrate in his own church, both separating afterwards in peace. No title is given by Eusebius to this epistle, but accord- ing to the Quaestiones et Responsa ad Ortho- doxos of Pseudo-Justin (c. 115) it was entitled Trepi Tov Ildtrxa (cf. Fragm. Graec. vii. ap. Harvey, ii. 478). In the same work Pseudo- Justin tells us further that the old Christian custom of refraining from kneeling on Easter Day, as a sign of Christ's resurrection, is carried back by Irenaeus to apostolic times, and the observance of this custom continued through the season of Pentecost, as the whole period (of 50 davs after Easter) was regarded as equal to Easter Day itself. Of other writings of Irenaeus Eusebius men- tions (H. E. v. 26) a short tractate, 7rp6! "EW-qvas, which bore also the title Trept iwi- ffTrmrji, an iwiSei^ii tov dTroaroXiKou Kripvyfia- T01, addressed to a certain Marcian ; and a ^L^\lov 5i.a\i^euv dia(p6pujv, in which he is said to have cited Hebrews and the Wisdom of Solomon. Jerome, apparently copying Euse- bius, makes, however, a distinction (de Vir. III. 35) between the X670S -nrpbs "¥.\\-qva% and the Trepl €TnaTr)ixr\s ("scripsit . . . contra Gentes volumen breve et de Disciplina aliud "). The tractate on Apostolical Preaching ad- dressed to Marcian appears to have been a catechetical work on the Rule of Faith. The fiipXlov SiaX^^iuiv Siaipopwi' appears, in ac- cordance with the early usage of the word diaX^^fis (cf. Harvey, i. p. clxvii. sqq.), to have been a collection of homilies on various Scripture texts. Rufinus incorrectly renders diaX^^eis by Dialogus ; Jerome by fractatus. From these homilies were probably taken the numerous Gk. fragments found in various catenae, containing expositions of various passages of the Pentateuch and the historical books of O.T. and of St. Matthew and St. Luke {Fr. Graec. xv.-xxiii., xxv.-xxix., xxxi., xxxiii., xxxiv., xxxix., xl., xlii.-xlvii.), as well as the Syriac fragment of an exposition of the Song of Solomon {Fr. Syr. xxvi. ap. Harvey, ii. 455) and the Armenian homily on the Sons of Zebedee {Fr. Syr. xxxii. ap. Harvey, ii. 464 sqq.). To the same collection would also belong a tractate on the History of Elkanah and Samuel, mentioned in a Syriac manuscript (Harvey, ii. 507 note). His Theology and Influence on Ecclesiastical Development. — Irenaeus, with Tertullian, Hip- polytus, Cyprian, on the one side, and Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen on the other, was a main founder of the ancient Catholic church. IRENAEUS as it rose amid conflicts with Gnosticism and Montanism, out of the church of the post- apostolic era. Baur and the Tiibingen school were wrong in explaining the development of primitive Catholic Christianity as the fruit of a compromise effected by the Pauline and Petrine parties soon after the middle of the 2nd cent, to overcome the new opposition. The earliest post- apostolic form of Christianity was no mere product of conflicting anti- theses of the apostolic time, or of their re- conciliation. The Jewish-Christian commu- nities of Palestine and Syria formed, even towards the end of the ist cent., a small and vanishing minority as compared to the swell- ing dimensions of the Gentile church. That to some extent Jewish-Christian influences did operate upon Gentile Christianity during the former half of the 2nd cent, need not wholly be denied ; yet the one feature in which we are most tempted to trace them — the con- ception of the gospel as a new law — is quite as much the outcome of an internal development within the Gentile church itself. The ul- timate triumph of Christian universalism, and the recognized equality between Jewish and Gentile members of the church of the Messiah, was a fruit of the life-long labours of St. Paul. The new Christian community, largely Gen- tile, regarded itself as the true people of God, as the spiritual Israel, and as the genuine heir of the church of the O.T., while the great mass of Jewish unbelievers were, as a penalty for their rejection of the true Messiah, excluded from the blessings of the kingdom of God. To this new spiritual Israel were speedily, in part at least, transferred the forms of the O.T. theocracy, and all the Jewish Scriptures were received as divinely inspired documents by the new church. But, whereas St. Paul had emphasized the antithesis between law and gospel, the Gentile churches after his time attached themselves more closely to the doctrinal norm of the older apostles, and laid stress on the continued validity of the law for Christians ; though, as it was impossible to bind Gentiles to observe the ceremonial law, its precepts were given, after the example of the Jewish religious philosophy of Alex- andria, a spiritual interpretation. Already, in Hebrews, we find the relations between O. and N. T. viewed under the aspect of Tvpe and Anti-type, Prophecy and Fulfilment. The later Gentile Christianity learned to see everywhere in O.T. types of the gospel revela- tion, and thus combined freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law with the maintenance of the entire continuity of the O. and N. T. revelation. The Moral Law, as the centre and substance of the Mosaic revelation, re- mained the obligatory norm of conduct for Gentile Christians ; Christ had not abrogated the law of Moses, but fulfilled and completed it. The theological learning of the time con- fines itself too exclusively to a typological interpretation of O.T. So much the greater, on the other hand, is the influence exercised upon these writers by heathen philosophic culture. In the Apologists of the middle portion of the 2nd cent.— Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras — this influence ap- pears specially strong. Justin makes con- stant endeavours to comprehend Christianity IRENAEOS under the then generally accepted forms of philosophical speculation, and to commend it as a manifestation of the highest reason to the cultured minds of his time. In this way he became the first founder of a Catholic system of theology. The doctrine of the Divine Logos as the " Second Ciod," the Mediator through Whom all divine revelation is transmitted, was already for Justin an apo- logetic weapon, remained ttu-nce forward a standing basis for the piiilosophical defence of Christianity, and proved in after-times the strongest weapon in the church's armoury in the conflict with Gnostic opinions. The widespread appearance of the manifold forms of Gnosticism in the 2nd cent, is a most significant proof of the far-reaching influence exercised by pagan thought and speculation on the Gentile church of that age. The danger from the influx on all sides of foreign thought was all the greater because the Gentile churches had as yet but a feeble comprehension of the ideas specially belonging to Christianity. The conflict with Gnosticism gradually gave fresh vigour to that revival of fundamental Christian and Pauline thought which distinguishes the theology of Ircnaeus and of other early " Catholic " doctors at the end of the 2nd and beginning of the 3rd cent, from the simpler and poorer view of Christian truth presented in the works of the early Apologists. The perils with which the Gnostic speculation menaced the Christian system were, on the one hand, concerned with that which formed a common groundwork for Christianity and Judaism — i.e. tirst and specially the Monotheistic principle itself, and then the doctrines of Divine Justice, Freedom of the Will, and Future Retribution ; on the other hand, they had regard to the traditions peculiar to Christianity concerning the his- torical person and work of Jesus Christ, the genuine human realism of His life and suffer- ings, the universal application of His redeem- ing work to all believers, and the external and historical character of that final restitution to which Christians looked forward. The Mono- theistic idea, the divine /JLovapxia, was assailed by the Gnostic doctrine of the Demiurge, the Pleroma, and the series of Aeons ; and the universally accepted doctrine of our Lord's Incarnation and Messiahship by the various forms of Gnostic docetism. Further, the whole ethical basis of Christian religion was destroyed by the distinctions which Gnostic teachers made between two or three separate classes of mankind, and by their view of redemption as a purely theoretical process, or as the impartation of true knowledge (gnosis) to those only who by their own originally pneumatic nature had from the beginning been predestined to reception into the heaven- ly realm of light. Instead of the Christian doctrine of Freewill and consequent respon- sibility, they taught an iron heathenish meta- physical Necessity, which arbitrarily deter- mined the fortunes of men ; instead of a future divine recompense according to the measure of faith and works, a une-sidcd over-estiniation of mere knowledge as the one condition of ultimate salvation ; instead <>f the original Christian notion of the final consummation as a series of great outward visible occurrences. IRENAEUS 62r. the resurrection of the flesh, a dav of final judgment, and the setting up on earth of a millennial kingdom, they taught the spiritual- istic conception of a saving delivcranrr ol pneumatic souls and their translation into the upper world; whereas for the I'sychtct was reserved only a limited share in such know- ledge and salvation, and for the material (" hylic " or " choic ") man and for the earthly bodies of men, nothing but an ultimate and complete annihilation. It cannot be denied that both the Gentile Cliristianitv of that era and the Catholic theology of following times appropriated various elements nearly related to these tinostic speculations. A Catholic gnosis also appeared, which diflercd essentially from that heretical gnosis in intending to maintain unimpaired the received foundations of Christian faith. Yet, in truth, the idealistic speculations of the Alexandrine school were separated from those of the heretical gnosis by very uncertain lines of demarcation, and were afterwards, in some essential points, rejected by the church. Irenaeus, in contra- distinction to the Alexandrine doctors, ap- pears to have been less concerned with setting up a Catholic in opposition to the heretical gnosis, than with securing the foundations of the common Christian faith by strengthening the bands of existing church untty. He recog- nizes certain subjects which, as lying outside the rule of faith delivered to all, might be safely entrusted to the deeper and more searching meditations and inquiries of the more enlightened, but these related only to a clearer understanding of the details of the history of divine revelation, the right inter- pretation of parables, insight into the divine plan of human salvation (why God should bear with such long-suffering the apostasy of angels and the disobedience of man at the Fall), the differences and unity of the two Testaments, the necessity for the Incarnation of the Logos, the second coming of Christ at the end of time, the conversion of the heathen, the resurrection of the body, etc. (Haer. i. 10, 3). These questions would arise in the course of the Gnostic controversy, but the form in which Irenaeus presents them assumes everywhere a clear antithesis to Gnostic speculation and a firm retention of the Catholic rule of faith. Only in quite an isolated form is once named the question why one and the same God should have created the temporal and the eternal, the earthly and the heavenly ; while Irenaeus insists strongly on the narrow bounds of human knowledge and insight, and on the impossibility for n>or- tal man to know the reasons for everything (ii. 25, 3 ; 28, i), and is never weary of chastising the arrogant presumption of the I'neumatici wh<} exalt themselves above the Creator, while their impotence in the presence of His works is manifest to all (ii. 30, i sqq.). His theoretical refutation of Cinostc opinions, e.g. in bk. ii., is full of acute remarks. His main purpose is to repel the Gnostic assault on the divine monarchia. He shews that by the separation of the Creator from the highest God, the absolute being of t.od Him- self is denied. Neither above nor beside the Creator Himself can there be any other j^rni- ciple, for so God Himself would cease to be the 526 IRENAEUS all-embracing Pleroma, and being limited from without would cease to be infinite. And so again, if the Pleroma be separated from all beneath it by an immeasurable discrepancy, a third principle is introduced, which limits the other two, and is greater than both, and the questions concerning the limiting and the limited become boundlessly insoluble. He urges similar arguments against the doctrine of creative angels. If their creative energies are independent of the Godhead, God ceases to be God ; if dependent upon Him, He is repre- sented as needing inferior assistants. Against the assumption of a vacuum (K^vwfj.a, aKia KfvJ)tj.aToi) outside the Divine Pleroma, he remarks that, if the world be thought of as produced out of this void and formless sub- stratum without the knowledge of the irpo- Traruip, then the attribute of omniscience is denied Him. Nor can it be explained why for such endless times He should have left that space thus empty. Again, if God did actually beforehand form this lower world for Himself in thought, then was He its real creator. In that case its mutability and transient diu-ation must have been fore-willed by the Father Himself, and not be due to any defect or ignorance on the part of an inferior maker. The origin of the x^cto/ua also is incomprehen- sible. If it be an emanation from the Divine Pleroma, that Pleroma itself must be burdened with emptiness and imperfection. If it be self- originated, it is really as absolute as the Father of all Himself. Such a defect, again, in the Pleroma, like a spot on a garment, would have been at once removed, in the very beginning, had the Divine Father been able to remove it ; if otherwise, the blame of letting it remain so long must fall upon Him, and He will have to be accounted, like the heathen Jupiter, re- pentant over His own ways. Nay, if He was unable to remove this defect in the beginning. He cannot remove it now. The imperfection of this lower world leads back then to the conclusion that there must have been some- thing void or formless, dark or disorderly, an element of error or infirmity in the Father Himself or in His Pleroma. The like thought recurs in the further argument that the tem- poral and transient could not have been made after the image of the unchangeable and eternal without introducing into it an alien element of mutability. The image must be like its prototype, and not opposed to it, and therefore the earthly material composite cannot be the image of that which is spiritual without drawing down the spiritual into its own sphere of materialism. The same objec- tion is made to the notion that the corporeal may be an image or shadow of the spiritual world. It is only something corporeal that can cast a shadow. .A.gain, if it be maintained that the Creator could not make the world out of Himself, but only after a foreign archetype, the same must be iriieoftheDivine Father. Healso must have derived, from some other source, the archetype of that higher world of which He was the maker, and so on. The question about type andarchetype wouldthusbedrawnout in- to infinity (ii. i-8). But inasmuch as we must stop at some original at last, it is far more reasonable to believe that the Creator and the OneonlyGodareoneandthesame(ii. i6, isqq.). IRENAEUS In the interest of the same absolute divine Perfection and Unity, Irenaeus controverts the Valentinian doctrine of the Aeons. Be- sides noting the arbitrary way in which the Pleroma is made to consist of 30 Aeons, neither more nor less (ii. 12, i ; 15, i ; 16, i), he finds fault with the anthropomorphic conceptions behind the whole theory of emanations. The fact that the Propator Himself is reckoned as an Aeon, the unemanate, unborn, illimitable, formless One placed in the same class with emanations and births and limitations and forms, destroys the absolute perfection of the divine Nature (ii. 12, i). Again, the separa- tion from the Godhead of its own indivisible elements, the conception of the divine 'Ewoia, the divine 'Sous, the divine Aoyos. etc., as so many hypostases, which in various stages have issued from its bosom, is an unwarrantable transfer of human passions and affections to the divine, which, on the contrary, is all "EfvoLa, all NoOs, all A670?, and knows of no such divi- sion from itself (ii. 13). He subjects to acute criticism the manner in which each.-Veonissup- posed to have been produced : was it without substantial separation, as the ray proceeding from the sun, or was it hypostatical, as one human being is personally distinct from all others, or was it by organic growth, as the branch from the tree ? He asks whether these emanations are all of the same substance with those from which they proceed and con- temporaneous with them, or have come forth in different stages ? Whether they are all simple and alike, as spirits and lights, or com- posite and corporeal and of various forms ? (ii. 17, I sqq.). He insists on carrying to their literal consequences the mythological con- ceptions which regarded the Valentinian Aeons as so many distinct personalities, produced according to human analogy among them- selves; and he offers the alternative, that they must either be like their original Parent the Father and therefore impassible as He is (in which case there could be no suffering Aeon like the Valentinian Sophia), or different from Him in substance and capable of suffering, upon which the question arises, how such differences of substance could come to exist in the unchangeable Pleroma. So acute a polemic must have equally served the interests of philosophy by its maintenance of the absolute character of the divine idea and of religion by its assertion of the divine monarchia. Irenaeus, like other opponents of Gnosticism, was clearly con- vinced that the whole system betrayed influences of heathen thought. The theory that everything must return to the originals of its component parts, and that God Himself is bound by this Necessity, so that even He cannot impart to the mortal immortality, to the corruptible incorruption, was derived by the Gnostics from the Stoics ; the Valentinian doctrine of the Soter as made up from all the .\eons, each contributing thereto the flower of his own essence, is nothing more than the Hesiodic fable about Pandora. Yet the Gnostics wished and meant to be Christians, and indeed set up a claim to possess a deeper knowledge of Christian truth than the Psychici of the church. Like their opponents, they appealed to Scripture in proof IRENAEUS of their doctrines, and also bc^asted to be in possession of genuine apostolical traditions, deriving their doctrines, some from St. Paul, others from St. Peter, otiiers from Judas, Thomas, Philip, and Matthew. In addition to the secret doctrine which tliey professed to have received by oral tradition, they appealed to alleged writings of the apostles or their disciples. In conducting his controversy on these lines with the V'alentinians, Irenaeus remarks first on their arbitrary method of dealing with Scripture ; and describes their mode of drawing arguments from it as a " twisting ropes of sand " (i. 8, i ; ii. lo, i). They indulge in every kind of perverse inter- pretation, and vii)len'tly wresting texts out of their natural coniuxion put them arbitrarily together again after the manner of the centos made from Homer (i. 9, 4). He compares this proceeding to that of a bungler who has broken up a beautiful mosaic portrait of a king made by skilful artists out of costly gems, and puts the stones together again to form an ill- executed image of a dog or fox, maintaining that it is the same beautiful king's portrait as before (i. 8, i). Since the dnostics specially exercised their arts of interpretation on our Lord's parables, Irenaeus repeatedly lays down principles on which such interpretation should be made (ii. 10, 2 ; 20, i sqq. ; 27, I sqq.). Dark and ambiguous passages are not to be cleared up by still darker interpretations nor enigmas solved by greater enigmas ; but that which is dark and ambiguous must be illustrated by that which is consistent and clear (ii, 10,' i). Irenaeus himself in inter- preting Scripture, especially when he indulges in allegory, is not free from forced and arbit- rary methods of exposition (cf. e.g. the inter- pretations of Judg. vi. 37, in Haer. iii. 17, 3 ; Jon. ii. I sqq. Haer. iii. 20, i ; Dan. ii. 34, Haer. iii. 21, 7) ; but in opposition to the fantastic interpretations which characterize the Valentinian school, he represents for the most part the historical sense of the written Word. His main purpose in the last three books is to refute the Gnostics out of Scripture itself. Irenaeus quotes as frequently from N.T. as from O.T. Whereas formerly men had been content with the authority of O.T. as the documentary memorial of divine revelation, or with the Lord's own words in addition to the utterances of law and prophets, they now felt more and more impelled, and that by the very example of the Cinostics themselves, to seek a fixed collection of N.T. Scriptures and to extend to them the idea of divine inspiration. The Gnostics in their opposition to O.T., which they supposed to have proceeded from the Demiurge or some subordinate angelic agency, had appealed to writings real or supposed of the apostles as being a more perfect form of divine revelation, and the first point to be established against them was the essential unity of both revela- tions — Old and New. Bk. iv. is almost wholly devoted by Irenaeus to the proof of this point against Marcion. It is one and the same Divine Spirit that spake both in prophets and apostles (iii. 21, 4), one and the same Divine Authority from which both the law and its fulfilment in Christ proceeds. The O.T. contains presages and fore-types of Christian IRENAEUS 627 Revelation (iv. 15; 15, i. ; iq, I. etc.); the literal fulfilment of its prophecies proves that it came from the same God as the N.T.. and is therefore of the same nature (iv. 9, i). The prophets and the gospels together makr up the totality of Scripture C univcrs.ie S< rip- turae," ii. 27. 2). That the MiMr is ..iir divinely inspired whole is lliiis i Ic.irlv ( iiuii- ciated. liven Justin Martyr seiiiis to ngard the gospels rather as memoirs {dwofifij- HOvd'uaTa) by apostles of the Lord's words and actions than as canonical Scri|)lures ; but Irenaeus cites passages from the gospels as inspired words of the Holy Spirit, using the same formulae of citation as for O.T (iii. 10, 4 ; 16, 2 ; cf. ii. 35, 4 and 5), and similarly from the epistles and Apocalypse (iii. 16. t/; V. 30, 4). The two main divisions of the NT. cant)n are for him the gospels and the apostolic writings (rd (vay,f\iKa Kai rd <i»-o<T7o\i<id. i. 3, 6). These two already constitute a <.iin- plete whole, like the Scriptures of the O.T., and he therefore blames the Kbionites L.r using only the gospel of St. Matthew, the Docetae only that of St. Mark, Mardon St. Luke's gospel only and the Pauline epistles, and even these not unmutilated (iii. 11, 7 and 12, 12). He remarks that those " unhappy ones" who reject the gospel of St. John cast away also the divine prophetic spirit of which it contains the promise (iii. 11, 9). But he equally condemns the use of apocryphal writings. The teachers of Alexandria, with laxer notions about inspiration, made use of such without scrupulosity. Irenaeus draws a clear line of demarcation between canonical Scriptures and apocryphal writings. He blames the V'alentinians for boasting to possess " more gospels than actually exist " (iii. II, 9) and the Gnostic Marcus for having used besides our Gospels " an infinite number of apocryphal and spurious works " (i. 20, 1). He considers himself able to prove that there must be just four gospels, neither more nor less. The proof is a somewhat singular one. From the four regions of the earth, the four principal winds, the fourfold form of the cherubim, the four covenants made by God with man, he deduces the necessity of one fourfold gospel (iii. 11, 8). This gospel first orally delivered, and then fixed in writing, Irenaeus designates the fundamentum et columna ftdei nostrae (iii. I, 1). The .N.T. canon of Irenaeus embraces nearly all now received; viz. the four gospels, twelve epistles of St. Paul (the omission of PhtUtm^n appears to be accidental), I. I'eter, I. and II. John, the Acts. and the Revelation. The omis- sion of III. John is most probably accidental also. From St. James tlure is probably a quotation at iv. 16, 2 (cf. J as. li. 23), and the frequently recurring expression " lex libertatis " appears to have been borrowed from J as. i. 25. The possible references to Hebrews are uncertain. Resemblances, per- haps echoes, are found in several places (cf. Harvev's Index), and Lusebius testifies [H. F. V. 26) that both Hebrews and tlie Wisdom of Solomon are mentioned by Irenaeus in his 5iaX^ffii Stdtpofioi. The epistle is cited as a Pauline work in one fragment onlv. the second Pfafhan {Fr. Graec. xxxvi. ap. Harvey.) Irenaeus in his controversy with theGnostict 528 IRENAEOS assumes the possibility that we might have had to be without N.T. Scriptures altogether. In this case we should have to inquire of the tradition left by the apostles of the churches (iii. 4, i: "quid autem si nequeapostoli quidem Scripturas reliquissent nobis, nonne oportebat ordinem sequi traditionis quam tradiderunt iis quibus committebant, ecclesias ? "). But the Gnostics also appealed to an apostolical tra- dition. Irenaeus complains that when one would refute them from the Bible they accused it of error, or declared the interpretation to be doubtful. The truth can only be ascer- tained, they said, by those who know the true tradition (iii. 2, i). But this teaching is identical with that of Irenaeus himself, and he insists on finding this true tradition in the rule of faith (xayui:' rifs d.\7jt?eia?, Regula Fidei), as contained in the Baptismal Confes- sion of the whole church (i. g, 4 ; cf. 22, i). Irenaeus thus obtains a sure note or token by which to distinguish the genuine apostolical tradition (r; vird rrji inKXTjaias Krjpvaaou-lvr) dXrideia. i. 9, 5 ; praeconiiim ecclesiae, v. 20, 2 ; apostolica ecclesiae traditio, iii. 3, 3 ; or simply TrapdSoo-is, traditio, i. 10, 2 ; iii. 2, 2 and fre- quently) from the so-called apostolical secret doctrine to which the Gnostics made their appeal. The Baptismal Confession (or Credo) acquired its complete form only through the conflicts of the Gnostic controversy. In the writings of Irenaeus, as in those of liis contem- poraries, it is cited in various, now longer now shorter, forms. This is no proof that one or other of these was the actual form then used in baptism. The probability is far greater that the shorter form of the old Roman credo still preserved to us was that already used in the time of Irenaeus. (Caspari, Ungedruckte, etc. Quellen zur Geschichte des Taufsymbols und der Glaiibensregel, tom. iii. 1875, pp. 3 sqq.) The variations as we find them in the creeds of the Eastern churches appear to have been introduced in order to express, with greater distinctness, the antithesis of Christian belief to Gnostic heresy. So here a special emphasis is laid on the belief in " One God the Father Almighty, Who made heaven and earth," and in " one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who became flesh for our salvation." This rule of faith Irenaeus testifies that the church, scattered over the whole oinova^pr), delivers as with one mind and mouth, even as she has herself received it from the apostles and their disciples (i. 10, i and 2). A clear, determinate note is thus given by which to distinguish the genuine Christian tradition from that of heresy. To the pretended secret doctrine of the latter is opposed the public preaching of the faith of the apostolic churches ; to the mutability and endless varieties of Gnostic doctrines the unity of the church's teaching ; to their novelty her antiquity, and to their endless subdivisions into schools and parties the uniformity and universality of her tra- ditional witness. That only which, from the times of the apostles, has been handed down in unbroken tradition by the elders of the church and publicly and uniformly taught in the churches, that doctrine which at all times and in every place may be learned by inquiry from the successors of the apostle in their teaching office, that alone is the Christian IRENAEUS apostolic truth (i. 10, 2 ; iii. 2, 2 ; 3, i, 3, 4 ; 4, I seq. ; 24, i •; iv. 33, 7 seq. ; v. 20, i). The learned church antiquarian Hegesippus had, c. 170, undertaken long journeys to assure himself of the general agreement of Christian communities in their doctrinal tra- ditions ; in each apostolic church he had set himself to inquire for the unbroken succession of its pastors and their teaching, and records with satisfaction the result of his investiga- tions : " In every succession in every city it is still maintained as the law announces and as the prophets and the Lord." And again, " So long as the sacred choir of the apostles still lived, the church was like a virgin un- defiled and pure, and not till afterwards in the times of Trajan did error, which so long had crept in darkness, venture forth into the light of day" (ap. Eus. H. E. iv. 22; iii. 32). Irenaeus is specially emphatic in everywhere contrasting the vacillation and variety of heretical opinions with the uniform pro- clamation of one and the same apostolic wit- ness in all the churches of the world (i. 8, i ; 10, i). Truth, he remarks, can be but one ; while each heretical teacher proclaims a different doctrine of his own invention. How impossible is it that truth can ha\'e remained so long hidden from the church and been handed down as secret doctrine in possession of the few ! She is free and accessible to all, both learned and ignorant, and all who earnestly seek her find. With almost a shout of triumph he opposes to the unstable, ever- changing, many-headed doctrinal systems and sects of Gnosticism, with their vain appeals to obscure names of pretended disciples of the apostles or to supposititious writings, the one universal norm of truth which all the churches recognise. " The church, though dispersed through the whole world, is carefully guarding the same faith as dwelling in one and the same house ; these things she believes, in like manner, as having one soul and the self-same heart ; these, too, she accordantly proclaims, and teaches, and delivers, as though possessing but one mouth. The speeches of the world are many and di\'ergent, but the force of our tradition is one and the same." And again : " The churches in Germany have no other faith, no other tradition, than that which is found in Spain, or among the Celts, in the regions of the East, in Egypt and in Libya, or in these mid parts of the earth." He com- pares the church's proclamation of the truth to the light of the sun, one and the same throughout the universe and visible to all who have eyes. " The mightiest in word among the presidents of the churches teaches only the same things as others (for no one here is above the Master), and the weak in word takes nothing away from what has been de- livered him. The faith being always one and the same, he that can say much about it doth not exceed, he that can say but little doth not diminish" (i. lo, 2). "The tradition of the apostles made manifest, as it is, through all the world can be recognized in every church by all who wish to know the truth " (iii. 3, i). But this light from God shines not for heretics because they have dishonoured and despised Him (iii. 24, 2). Cf. also the first of Pfaffian fragments {Fr. Grace xxxv.). I IRENAEUS The argument from antiquity is also em- ployed by Ireiiaeus on behalf of church tra- dition, if controversies arise about matters of faith, let recourse be had to the most ancient cliurches in which the apostles them- selves once resided and a decisive answer will then be found. This oral apostolic tra- dition exists even in the churches among barbarous nati(Mis, in whose hearts the Spirit, without ink or parchment, has written tiio old and saving truth (iii. 4, i and 2). But while thus the genuine traditiim may, in tiie apos- tolic churches, be traced back through the successions of the elders to the apostles them- selves, the sects and their doctrines are all of later origin. There were no Valentinians before Valentinus, no Marcionites before Marcion. \'alentinus himself and Kerdon (Marcion's teacher) did not appear in Rome till the time of Hyginus the ninth bishop after the apostles, Valentinus flourished under Pius, Marcion under Anicetus (iii. 4, 3). All these founders of sects were much later than the apostles (iii. 21, 3) and the first bishops to whom they committed the care of the churches (v. 20, i). In contradistinction to their ypei'huivvpLOi yvuiati the true gnosis consists in the doctrine of the apostles and the mainten- ance of the pure and ancient constitution of the church (to a.px<'-^ov t^s €KK\-i)<Tlas ctiVtjj^o) throughout the world (iv. 33, 7). The main point then, on which all turns, is the clear proof of a pure transmission of apostolic teach- ing through immediate disciples of the apostles themselves and their disciples after them. What is the tradition of the elders (TrpeajivTai, vpea^vTepoi), i.e. the heads of apostolic churches who stood in direct communication with the apostles themselves or with their disciples ? — is the question, therefore, which Irenaeus is everywhere asking. These elders are the guardians and transmitters of the apostles' teaching. As in the preceding generation Papias had collected the traditions of " disciples of the Lord," so now Irenaeus is collecting reminiscences of their disciples, mediate or immediate, a Polycarp, a Papias, etc., and as Hcgesippus had been careful to inform himself as to the succession of pastors from apostolic times, so Irenaeus, in opposi- tion to the doctrines of the Gnostics, appeals not only to the ancestral teaching maintained in churches of apostolic foundation, such as Rome, Smyrna, Ephesus, but also to the lists of those men who, since the apostles, had presided over them (iii. 3). The main representatives therefore of genuine apostolical tradition are for Irenaeus the bishops of the churches as successors of the apostles and guardians of their doctrines. In the episcopate, as a continuation of the apostolic office, he finds the one sure pledge of the church's unity and the maintenance of her doctrine. Although the expression iKK\ri<7ia KadoXiKT), which came into vogue to- wards the end of the 2nd cent., does not occur in his writings, the thing itself is constantly before him, i.e. the conception of one true church sj^read over the earth, and bound to- gether by the one true Faith, in contrast to the manifold and variegated and apostate forms of " heresy." Its external bond of unity is the episcopal office. The develop- IRENAEUS 5l'y ment of monarchical episcopacy was a primaty consequence of the conflict with Gnosticism, and its origination out of simpler constitu- tional forms betrays itself in a mode of expression derived indeed from earlier tinirs, but still common to Irenaeus, with Tertulh.in, Clemens Alexandrinus, Hippolytus, and others, the use, namely, of the i>flicial titles, vptafivTfpoi and iirlaKOwoi. to designate alternately the same persons. WptafiintfXM, in this context are, in the first place, " el- ders," i.e. " ancients" or fathers, who repre- sent the immediate connexion of the early church with the apostolic time. This name or title is then transferred to the heads of churches, inasmuch as they in succession to the apostles have been faithful transmitters of what was handed down to them. The true unbroken apostolical succession and prae- conium ecclesiae is therefore attributed t<> the same persons, now as Trpta.iiTipoi now as eiriffKOTToi (iii. 3, 2, cf. iii. 2, 2 ; iv. 26, 2, 4, 5 ; Ep. ad Victorem ap. Ens. H. E. v. 24) ; nay, in so many words, the " succcssio episcopalis " was assigned to the TptafiiTtpoi (iv. 26, 2). By these " presbyters," however, we are certainly to understand heads of churches (especially those of apostolic foundation), who alone were capable of acting as the guar- dians and maintainers of church unity. The episcopate is for Irenaeus no mere congre- gational office, but one belonging to the whole church ; the great inqK^rtance attac lied by his contemporaries to the proofs of a genuine apostolical succession rests on the assumption that the episcopate was the guardian of the church's unity of teaching, a continuation, in fact, of the apostolic teaching-ofhce, ordained for that purpose by the apostles themselves. The bishop, in reference to any particular congregation, is a representative of the whole Catholic church, the very idea of catholicity being indebted for its completion to this more sharply defined conception of the episcopal office. In the episcopate thus conq'lrt.iv formed the Catholic church first manifested herself in organic unity as " the body of Christ." As formerly the apostles, so now the bishops, their successors, are the " ecclesia repraesentativa." Only through the epis- copate as the faithful guardian and trans- mitter of the apostolical tradition do such congregations retain their hold on visible church unity and their possession of the truth (cf. iv. 33, 7)- The significance of the episcopal office rests therefore on the fact of an apostolical succession, and on this historical connexion of the bishops with the apostolic era depends the certainty of their being possessed of the true tradili.m. That this assurance is not illusory is proved by the actual uniformity of church teaching through- out the world, the agreement of all the apos- tolic churches in the confession of the same truth (iii. 3, 3). Beyond this historical proof of the church's possession of the true teac hing through her ei)iscoiiate, the argument is not carried further by Irenaeus. The later dogma of a conlinua successio Spiritus Sancli, t.e. of an abiding special gift of the Holy Spirit attached to the episcopate of apostolical suc- cession, has nevertheless some precursive traces in his writings. Though the Holy 31 530 IRENAEUS Spirit is a scala ascensionis ad Deutn, of which all the faithful are partakers, yet the guidance of the church by the Spirit is mediated by apostles, prophets, and teachers, and they who would have the guidance of the Spirit must come to the church. " For, where the church is, there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is, there is the church and all grace — the Spirit, moreover, is the truth " (iii. 24, i). Expressly therefore is the " char- isma veritatis" attached to the episcopal succession (iv. 26, 2), not as a gift of inspira- tion enabling the bishops to discover fresh truths, but rather as such guidance as enables them to preserve the original truth. There- fore it is more particularly the churches of apostolical foundation, and in the West specially the church of Rome, which can give the surest warrant for the true and incorrupt tradition. In this sense the much- disputed passage is to be understood in which some would find a witness for the primacy of the Roman church : " For with this church must, on account of her more excellent origin ('propter potiorem principalitatem,' i.e. 5ta TTjc 5ia(popujTipav dpxw), every church, that is, all the faithful coming from all quarters, put themselves in agreement, as being the church in which at all times by those who come from all quarters the tradition derived from the apostles has been preserved " (iii. 3, 2). The potentior principalitas denotes here not only the superior antiquity of the Roman church as the greatest, oldest, and most widely known (i.e. in the West, where Irenaeus was writing), but also her nobler origin as founded by those " two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul." The mention of the " faithful coming from all quarters " points again to the position of the great world's metropolis as a centre of inter- course, and therefore the place in which Christians could most easily convince them- selves of the oneness of apostolical tradition in the whole church. Obscurations and cor- ruptions of that tradition, quite possible in remoter churches, would at Rome be soonest discovered and most easily removed. It is not of any Roman lordship over other churches or a primatial teaching-office committed to the Roman bishop that Irenaeus is here speaking, but only of the surer warrant offered by the position of that church for the uncorrupt maintenance of the apostolical traditions. So, after reckoning the succession of Roman bishops down to Eleutherus, his own contem- porary, Irenaeus proceeds : r^ avrri tcl^h kuI TV 01^7-77 diaSoxy, rj re awb tCov dwocTTdkoji' iv Tj) iKK\r)aia TrapdSoais Kai rd tjjs dXrjdeias K-fipvy/xa KaTTjVTijKCV eh ^/xaj (iii. 3, 3). But just the same he savs of the church of Ephesus founded by St. Paul, and till the times of Trajan under the guidance of St. John: dXXa Kai r; ev 'Ecp^ffu) iKKXijaia vnb YlavXov fxh T€6e/j.e\Liop.ivr]. 'ludvyov 5^ Trapa^uivavros avroh M^XP' Tuf Tpaiavov xp<5»'U)J', /ddprvs dXrjdris eari TTJi dwoffToXtKyji Trapadhcreios (iii. 3, 4). The unity of the Catholic church, thus secured by the continuance of the apostolic office, is regarded by Irenaeus as mainly a doctrinal unity. Of her guardianship of sacramental grace he gives hints only. Yet he is certainly on the way to that conception IRENAEUS when he singles out the continuance of spirit- ual gifts as a special note of the true church, meaning thereby not merely the charisma veritatis. but also the gifts of prophecy and miracle (ii. 32, 4; cf. iii. 11, 9). He is not less decided in opposing schismatics, who destroy the church's unity (iv. 26, 2 ; 33, 7), than heretics who corrupt her doctrine. In internal divisions among the faithful he never wearies in urging the interests of peace. Neither in the Montanistic movement nor in the Paschal controversy does he see grounds for the severance of church communion. At the same time he determinedly opposes that separatist temper, which, denying the presence of the Spirit in the church, would claim His gifts exclusively for its own sect or party. Even if we are not warranted in identifying with the Montanists those " false prophets " of whom he speaks (iv. 33, 6) as with lying lips pretending to prophesy, any more than those who (iii. II, g) deny the gospel of St. John — all the more applicable to them is the following description : " Men who bring about schisms, devoid of true love to God, seeking their own advantage rather than the unity of the church ; wounding and dividing for petty reasons the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies destroying it ; speaking peace, but acting war, and in sober truth straining out the gnat and swallowing the camel. For no reformation which they could bring about would outweigh the evils produced by their schism " (iv. 33, 7). The great importance attached by Irenaeus to the maintenance of church unity rests for him on the assumption that the church being sole depositary of divine truth is the only trustworthy guarantee of human salvation. While himself sharing, with the Montanists, not only the hope of the millennial kingdom but also the expectation of » its outward visible glory (v. 32-36) and delight- | ing in reminiscences of what the " elders " I (Papias) have handed down concerning it as ' from the lips of the apostle St. John (v. 33, 3), Irenaeus does, on the other hand, with his conception of the church as an outward visible institution of prime necessity for human sal- vation, pave the way for that catholic ideal, which, in contrast to the dreams and aspira- tions of Montanism, would substitute for a glorious vision of the future the existing church on earth as God's visible kingdom. When the visible church as an outward insti- tution comes to be regarded as the essential medium of saving grace, all its forms and ordinances at once acquire a quasi-legal or sacramental character. The church is for Irenaeus an earthly paradise, of the trees of which every one may eat, while heresy has only the forbidden tree of knowledge, whose • fruits are death-bringing (v. 20, 2). As the | church's faith is the only faith which is true 3 and saving (iii. praef.), so is he alone a Chris- tian man who conforms to the church's insti- tutions and laws (cf. iii. 15, 2 ; v. 20, 1). The church's sacrifices, the church's prayers, the church's works alone are holy (iv. 18, I sqq. ; ii. 32, 5)- This essentially legal conception of Chris- tianity was also that of the generation which followed the apostles. The great Catholic doctors gave to this legal conception of the IRENAEUS church a further development. For Tertul- lian, Clement, and Origen the work of Christ was primarily the promulgation of a new divine law. Irenaeus calls indeed Christianity the N.T. of freedom (iii. 12, lj ; iv. 16, 5; 34, 3 ; cf. iii. 10, 3), but simply in reference to the exemption of Gentile Christians from obedience to the Mosaic ceremonial law. In antithesis to Marcion, who derived the Mosaic law from the Demiurge, the gospel from the good God, Irenaeus maintained the substan- tial identity of both covenants {"unius et ejusdem substantiae sunt," iv. q, 1 ; cf. 9, 2 ; 13, 3, etc.). When he appropriates the Pauline antithesis of bondage and liberty (cf. also iv. 0, I seq. ; 13, 2 ; 16, 3 ; 18, 2 ; 34, i seq.,etc., etc.), the religious premises which led up in St. Paul's mind to that antithesis are perhaps wanting to Irenaeus. The N.T. Ciinsists for him in a body of divine prescripts. The bondsman and undisciplined has indeed one law. the free, the justified by faith, another (iv. g, i) ; but inasmuch as the nucleus of both Testaments is one and the same — namely, those natural precepts (naturalia praecepta) (iv. 13, 4 ; cf. 13, i) which have from the beginning impressed themselves on the mind of man—it follows that the evangelical law of liberty (iv. 34, 4) differs only quantitatively, not quali- tatively, from that of Moses. This difference consists on the one hand in the abolition of the precepts of the ceremonial law, which for the Israelites themselves had but a temporary purpose and validity, to restrain from idol worship, to uphold external discipline, or to serve as precursors and symbols of spiritual precepts (iv. 13, 2 ; 14, i sqq. ; 15, 1 ; 16, 3 sqq. ; 19, i ; 23, i seq. ; 24, i seq.), and on the other in the reinforcement of those natural precepts which have come down to us from the beginning (iv. 9, 2 ; 13, i ; 16, 5). The laws of liberty (decreta libertatis) do not annul the duty of obedience ; the difference between sons and servants from this point of view consists in the sons having a larger faith (iv. 32, 2) and exhibiting a more ready obedience (iv. II, 4). Accordingly, the antithesis be- tween the two Testaments is not an antithesis of fear and love. Love is the greatest com- mandment under the O.T. (iv. 12, 3). Fear continues as a precept under the New. Christ has even enlarged the precept of fear — the rhildren must fear as well as love more than the servants (iv. 16, 3). On the one side the children indeed are free, on the other they are still servants (iv. 14, i). The two law- givings differ only in the number and great- ness (multitudine et magnitudine) of their commandments. The law of liberty, being the greater, is given not for Jews only, but for all nations (iv. 9, 2) ; but the precepts of a perfect life {consummatae vitae praecepta) are for both Testaments the same (iv. 12, 3). The new precepts which characterize Chris- tianity are, in the first place, the ordinanres and institutions of the church. Among other distinguishing notes of the new law Irenaeus further emphasizes that Christians believe not in the Father only but also in the Son, that they do as well as say, and that they abstain from evil desires as well as from evil works (iv. 13, i). Even while largely using Pauline language in speaking of Justification by Faith IRENAEUS 631 (iv. 3. 5 ; 0, I ; 16. 2 ; 21.1). J»is legal con- ception is still there. Faith is opposed by Irenaeus to the ^(i-Sun'i'^ot "fvdoix of the heretics, an<l essentiallv consists in the recep- tion of the Regula Fidei. the Rule >>f Faith ; it is therefore simply definetl as obedience to the will of God (iv. i6. 3), t.(. a moral duty, and not, as for St. Paul, the subjective fi>rn» in which a new religious life and relation is first constituted. This legal conception leads Irenaeus further to insist on the freedom of the will, and on salvation as conditioned by a man's own ethical self-determination. All Catholir prac- tical theology tends to limit the free forgive- ness of sins to the moment of bajnism, and after that to make salvation dei)endent on a godly life and the performance of good works. In tiie same spirit Irenaeus quite innocently puts in juxtaposition justification byobedience tothenaturalpreceptsandjustificationby faith: " naturalia legis per quae homo justificatur quae ctiam ante legislationem cust<xliebant qui fide justificabantur et placebant Deo" (iv. 13, i). He is led thus strongly to insist on the moral law by his o])positi«in to the Gnostic teaching that the spiritual man is exempted from it and obtains salvation through his higher gnosis. His energetic assertion of the freedom of the will has also a polemical (jbject — to refute the Valentinian dualistic doctrine, which made the salvation of the spiritual man the result of his original pneumatic nature (cf. esp. iv. 37). But this perfectly justifiable opposition leads Irenaeus to put too much in the background the doctrine of divine grace as the only source of human salvation. He even puts it as a divine requirement that in order to the Spirit's resting upon them. Chris- tians must, beside their baptismal vocation, be also adorned with works of righteousness (iv. 36, 6). This seems inconsistent with the Pauline teaching that it is only by the gift of the Spirit that Christians are enabled to do good works at all. But, on the other hand, he says that the Spirit dwells in men as God's creation, working in them the will of the Father and renovating into the newness of Christ (iii. 17, i). As dry ground, without dew from heaven, can bear no fruit, so neither can the soul perform good works without the irrigation of the water of life (iii. 17. 2). If in his legal conception Irenaeus may be said to anticipate the mode of thought which characterizes the Catholicism of a later tmie, the same cannot be said of his teaching on the sacraments. Indeed the sacramental side of Catholic theologv did not take shaju- till through and after the Montanistic and Nova- tianist controversies. Whereas both these parties insisted on finding the church's sanc- titv in the spiritual endowments and personal holiness of individual members, "Catholics" I sought for the note of holiness mainly m the I church's sacramental ordinances, or in mar- vellous operations of the Holy Spirit m certain functions of her public lif<-. The chief organ of these operations would be the episcopate, which thus came to be viewed as not merely the guardian of doctrinal purity, but also the bearer of supernatural grace and powers, and following the tvpe of the O.T. priesthood as a kind of mediator between God and men. This 532 IRENAEUS side of the Catholic ideal of the church is not yet developed in the writings of Irenaeus. On the contrary, he insists on the original Chris- tian conception of the universal priesthood and outpouring of the Spirit on all believers (iv. 20, 6 sqq. ; v. 6, i ; cf. iv. 13, 2 sqq. ; 33, I sqq.), first, as against the Gnostics, and their claims to an exclusive possession of the divine irvfufia, and, secondly, against the false prophets, and their denial of the presence of the Spirit in the church (iii. 11, 9 ; iv. 33, 6). The sacramental idea of grace imparted through the church is for Irenaeus restricted to baptism as a divine institution for the sal- vation of man, the type of which is the ark of Noah (iv. 36, 4). Of priestly absolution and Its sacramental significance he nowhere speaks ; on the contrary, he adopts the saying of an elder which has a somewhat Montanistic ring about it— that after baptism there is no further forgiveness of sins (iv. 27, 2). This, as is clear from the epistle of the Galilean confessors, is not meant to exclude the possibility of indulgence being extended to the fallen under any circumstances. The familiar thought of the Ignatian epistles, that separation from the episcopal altar is a separa- tion from the church herself, also finds no distinct utterance in the writings of Irenaeus. But in his time the ministr.ition of the Euch- arist by bishops and presbvters was undoubt- edly a long-established custom. In regard to the dogma of the Holy Communion Irenaeus, like Justin Martyr, expresses the thought that through the invocation of Christ's name over the earthly elements the Divine Logos does actually enter into such mysterious connexion with the bread and wine as to constitute a union of an earthlv and a heavenly irpdyfj.a similar to that which took place at the Incar- nation itself. In virtue of this union of the Logos with the bread and wine those earthly substances are made the flesh and blood of Christ ; and it appears to have been with Irenaeus a favourite thought, that through the partaking of Christ's flesh and blood in the Holy Communion our earthly bodies are made partakers of immortality (iv. 18, 4 seq.; 33, 2; V. 2, 2 seq. ; cf. also iv. 17, -s seq. ; 18, i sqq., and the second Pfaffian fragment, Fr. Grace. xxxvi. ap. Harvey). The chief significance of Irenaeus as a theo- logian consists in his doctrine concerning the Person and Work 0/ Christ. The doctrine of Christ's Godhead was for the Gentile Chris- tianity of the post-apostolic age the theo- logical expression of the absolute significance of that divine revelation which was enshrined in His person and work. While the Gnostics regarded Christ as only one among numerous eradiations of the divine essence, thereby imperilling on the one hand the truth of the divine monarchia, and on the other the abso- lute and final character of the gospel revela- tion, the opposing doctrine of the Godhead of the Logos, and of His Incarnation in Jesus Christ, provided the exact theological truth and formula of which the Christian conscience felt the need, in order to gather into one the scattered elements which the multitude of Gnostic Aeons were dividing. Following the guidance of St. John's gospel, the more philosophically cultured teachers of the church IRENAEUS — Justin, Theophilus, Tatian, Athenagoras, the Alexandrine Clemens, Origen, Tertullian, and Hippolytus — found in the doctrine of the Divine Logos the classical expression which they needed for the unique and absolute character of the gospel revelations. It was in antithesis both to the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons and thepsilanthropism of the Ebionites that the Divine Logos or Eternal Thought of God Himself was conceived of as the personal organ of all divine revelation Which had issued from the inner life of the Divine Pater- nity. His manifestation in the flesh is there- fore the climax of all the revelations of God in the world. This Logos-doctrine Irenaeus adopted. The invisible Father is visible in the Logos (iv. 20, 7). The divine " Pleroma " (Irenaeus borrows the Gnostic term to express the fulness of divine perfection, ii. 1, 3 seq.) is revealed therein. God Himself is all Intelli- gence, all Thought, all Logos ; what He thinks He utters, what He utters He thinks ; the all-embracing divine intelligence is the Father Himself, Who has made Himself visible in the Son (ii. 28, 5). The infinite, immeasurable Father is, in the words of some old teacher of the church, become measurable and compre- hensible in the Son ("immensus Pater in Filio mensuratus"), for the Son is the " measure of the Father," the manifestation of the Infinite in finite form (iv. 4, 2). In contrast with Tertullian, Irenaeus's first great purpose and object is to emphasize the absoluteness and spirituality of God, and therefore to reject anything like a physical emanation iprolatio) of the Logos, lest God should be made into something composite, and something other than His own infinite thought {principalis mens), or His own Logos (ii. 28, 5). The older teachers of the Logos-doctrine conceived the generation of the Logos after the analogy of the temporal process from thinking to speak- ing, and assumed that His issuing from the Father as a distinct person, i.e. the out- speaking of the inward divine thought, first took place at the creation. Tertullian repre- sented the same conception in a more sensuous form. The Father is for him the whole Godhead, the Son " portio totius " ; and on this point he expressly recognizes the resem- blance between his view and that of the Gnostics {c. Drax. 8). Irenaeus, on the other hand, is driven by his own opposition to the Gnostic doctrine of Aeons to reject any- thing like a irpojioXrj or prolatio from the God- head as a limitation of His infinity or an anthropomorphism. He is therefore the first doctor of the church who maintained with the utmost distinctness the eternal coexistence of the Son with the Father ("semper coexistens Filius Patri," ii. 30, 9; iii. 18, i). Hisfrequent designation of the Son and Holy Spirit as the " Hands of God " is a figurative expression to denote Their being not so much emanations of the Godhead as organs of its creative energy. To presumptuous endeavours to comprehend the way in which the Son comes from the Father he opposes our human ignorance, and mocks at the vain attempts of those who would transfer human relations to the Infinite and Unchangeable One (" quasi ipsi obstetricaverint prolationem enunciant," ii. 28, 6). These polemics, if directed primarily against the IRENAEUS Gnostics, are not less applicable to the emanistic theories of other teachers. On the other hand, the clearly marked division between the Logos-doctrine of an Hippolytus and Tertullian and the Patripassian concep IRENAEUS 533 distinguished from tlie I.n^;.,s as another divine hypostasis, "proKenioset tigiiratio Dei" (iv. 7, 4 ; 20, I scq.) ; the latt.r, where the Spirit is spoken of as '" the bread of iiiiniortalitv " (iv. 38, I) and the lifc-RivinK principle fr..m which tion of it can hardly be said to exist for j endless life wells forth (v. t2, 2). It is with Irenaeus, who often speaks as if the eternal Logos were but the self-revealing side of the otherwise invisible and hidden Godhead, without one's being always able to see how the personal distinction between the two can be thus maintained. His doctrine of the this latter meaning that Irenaeus, speaking <>( the humanity of Jesus Christ, expresses a thought, often recurred to by later the.>li>giaiis, that the Spirit is the anointing (unclw, xp^oi^a.) and bond of unity between the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is in fact, for him. als<i Logos was developed (unlike that of Tertullian 1 the uniting principle between God and man. and Hippolytus) without any direct reference I God through the Spirit imparts Himself to to Patripassianism (of which no mention is made in his writings), while the true human personality of the Son is maintained against the Gnostics with as much decision as His true Godhead against the Ebionitcs. His conception of the L<igos as the one great and absolute organ of all divine revelations leads Irenaeus, as it did Justin Martyr and the other Apologists, to refer back to His agency all the pre-Christian manifestations of God (iv. 20, 7 seq.). But Irenaeus is the first Christian doctor who expressly applies this thought, in his conflict with the Gnostics, to the origina- tion of the Mosaic law (iv. 9). " Both Testa- ments proceeded from one and the same head of the familv {paterfamilias), our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, Who spake (of old) to .\braham and to Moses" (cf. iv. 12, 4). But Irenaeus nowhere maintains the precepts of the old ceremonial law as obligatory upon Christians. The fulfilment of all previous revelations is attained in the personal manifestation of the Logos in the flesh. By the Incarnation of the Son the divine purpose in creation, the union {adunatio, communio, commixtio) of God and man, has been accomplished, and the end is brought back to the beginning (iv. 20, 2, 4 ; 33, 4 ; v. 2, I, et passim). Together with the Logos the Spirit of God is often spoken of as an organof divinerevelation. It is not, however, easy to determine their right relation one to the other. The designa- tion of the Holy Spirit as Wisdom (Sapientia) reminds us of the Alexandrine phraseology, in which X670S and <yo<t>i<i are also distinguished without the distinction being fully worked out or consistently adhered to. Irenaeus uses the term " Sapientia " of the Divine Spirit always. But the comprehension of his meaning is made somewhat difficult by his sometimes speaking of our communion with the Son as mediated by the Spirit (v. 36, 2), and sometimes of the historical manifestation of the Logos as the mean whereby men become partakers of the Spirit of the Father (iv. 38, 2). The solution probably is that Irenaeus uses the term " Spirit of God " in now a narrower, now a wider sense. In the narrower sense the Spirit is the organ of Divine Revelation in the heart and consciousness of man, and so distinguished from the Logos as the universal organ of Divine Revelation to all creatures and all worlds (v. I, I ; cf. iii. 21. 4 ; iv. 33, i, 7, etc.). In the wider sense the Spirit is the inner Being of God Himself in contradistinc- tion to the material universe and the ffdp^ (caro) or human corporeity. The former sense is always to be assumed where the Spirit is man ; man through the Incarnation enters into God (v. i, i). This last thought leads us on to the grand conception which Irenaeus entertains of the development of the whole human race from Adam up to Christ. Man was not from the first, according to Irenaeus, made perfect and immortal, but designed, in God's (lurpose concerning him, to become so. But this can only be through the Spirit of God. and in order that man mav be made partaker of the Si>irit and thereby united to (.iod. it was necessary that the Logos should become incarnate (iv. 38, i sqq.). The image of God (iiKwv rod Heoi"). for which man was created, could not become visible before the Incarnation, and so man lost this image, the likeness of God, the possession of the Spirit (v. 16, 2), falling into sin by his own fault, and thereby coming not only under the power of natural death, but rendered incapable of exhibiting the image of God (v. 12. 2 ; 23, I seq.). Thus though Irenaeus regards sin, not like the Gnostics as a necessity of nature, but as man's own free act, he yet works out the thought that God has permitted the exist- ence of evil because only by the contrast could goodness be appreciated, like health after sickness, light after darkness, life after death (iv. 37, 7 ; 39, i). Without sin there would have been no consciousness of need, no desire for union with God, no thankfulness for His mercy (iii. 20, i sqq.). The chief aim of Irenaeus in these disquisitions is again his C( nflict with Gnostic error, especially that of Marcion, who explained the origin of evil in the universe by the theory of two Gods — the highest and an inferior one. Irenaeus appro- priates the language of the prophet (Isa. xlv. 6, 7), / am the Lord: I make peace, and create evil, and works out the thought that for the very sake <if destroying evil a final recapttula- tic totius iniquitatts may be necessary (v- 29, 2). Two equally significant thoughts must be distinguished in the full doctrine of Irenaeus concerning the Incarnation of the Logos and the divine purpose in the Incarnation : the idea of humanity being raised to perfection in Christ through union with the divine nature, and that of the victory gained by humanity in the G(xi-man its Head over sin and the devil. The Incarnation is for Irenaeus not merely an historical fact, but has for its basis the eternal divine i)re(listination of man. It was only by God be( > niing man that man could attain the predestined end of his original creation. The perfecting of humanity in Christ is also a realisation of the true idea of humanity— the Logos first assimilating Him- self to man, and then man to Hinisclf ("scmel 534 IRENAEUS ipsum homini et hominem sibimet ipsi assimi- lans"). " In past times it was said indeed that man had been made after God's image, but it was not shewn. For the Logos was still invisible after Whose image man had been made. And on this verv account did man also easily forfeit the likeness. But when the Logos of God became flesh He established both points : He truly exhibited the [divine] image, by Himself becoming that which was the image of Himself, and firmly restored the likeness by making man to be like the unseen Father " (v. i6, 2). Man's destination is to be like God, and by the attainment of this like- ness God's great purpose is accomplished of indwelling in man, and so of uniting man to Himself (iii. 20, 2). Hence follows the neces- sity that He by Whom the perfecting of man was accomplished should be Himself both God and man. Irenaeus is therefore as strongly opposed to the Ebionitic as to the Docetic error. To the Ebionites he objects that they do not receive the doctrine of the commixture of the heavenly wine with the earthly water, the union of God and man, but, retaining the leaven of the old birth (after the flesh), abide in mortal flesh and in that death which dis- obedience has incurred (v. i, 3 ; iii. 19, i). It was necessary that the Logos should be- come man in order that man, receiving the Logos and obtaining the sonship, might be- come son of God. We could not obtain in- corruption and immortality except by being united to that which is incorruptible and im- mortal. Only through the absorption of the one by the other can we become partakers of the divine Sonship (iii. 19, i ; cf. iii. 18, 7). On the other hand, in opposition to Gnostic Docetism, Irenaeus insists no less strongly on the reality of the Incarnation of the Logos. If this were but putative, salvation would be putative also (iv. 33, 5). The mediator be- tween God and man must belong to both in order to unite both (iv. 18, 7). If we are truly to know God and enter into fellowship with the Divine Logos, our teacher must Him- self have become man. We need a teacher Whom we can see and hear, in order to be followers of His deeds and doers of His words (v. I, i). This fundamental thought — that the divine nature of which we are to be par- takers can be brought nigh to us only in the form of a genuine human existence — is ex- pressed elsewhere still more emphatically, when Irenaeus insists that Christ, in order to conduct the human race to its divine destination, must Himself belong to it, and take upon Him human flesh and all the char- acteristics of humanity ; that if man is to be raised to God, God must come down to man (iv. 33, 4, ircDy AvOpuiro^ x'^PV'^^i- "'s Qeov, fl fj.r] 6 Oeds exc^pv^V "5 SLvdpunrov). The second Adam, the head of our spiritual hu- manity, must Himself come of the race of Adam in order to unite the end with the beginning (iii. 22, 3 seq. ; 23, i ; iv. 34, 4 ; V. I, 3 ; 16, I seq.). The profound conception of a recapttulafio {avaKe(pa\aiw(n^) of human- ity in Christ is one to which Irenaeus per- petually recurs. (See iii. 18, i ; 22, i, 3 ; 23, I ; iv. 38, i; v. I, 2 seq. ; 14, i; 23, 2; 36, 3 ; cf. IV. 40, 3 ; V. 1 5, 2). It was needful that Christ should recapitulate and pass IRENAEUS through all the stages of an ordinary human life in order to consecrate each of them in us, by a likeness to Himself in each (ii. 22, 4 ; iii. 18, 7), and that He should come at the end of time in order to conduct all who from the beginning had hoped in Him to eternal life in fellowship with God (iv. 22, i seq. ; cf. 27, i). As Christ was typically pre-formed in Adam (iii. 22, 3), so was Adam's destiny ac- complished in Christ (v. i, 3 ; 16, 2 seq.). The Spirit of God descended on the Son of God made man that in Him He might accustom Himself to an indwelling in the human race (iii. 17, i). Man was to grow used to receive God, and God to indwell in man (ii. 20, 2). With this thought of the recapitulatio of the human race in Christ is combined another of equal depth and significance — that of the vic- tory over sin and deliverance of sin's captives from the power of Satan by the obedience of Christ. This deliverance or redemption was necessary before the divine purpose of the union of God and man could be accomplished. For if man, created by God for life, but cor- rupted by the serpent, had not returned to life, but been wholly subjected to death's power, God would then have been defeated, and the devil's iniquity proved itself stronger than His holy will. But God, triumphant and magnanimous, has by the second Adam (Christ) bound the strong man and spoiled his goods, and deprived death of its prey, and brought back man once slain to life. He who by false promises of life and the likeness of God had bound man in the chains of sin has now been justly made captive in his turn, and his prisoner, man, set free (iii. 23, i seq. ; cf. 18, 7 ; iv. 21, 3). The power of the devil over man consisted in man's sin, and the apostasy into which the devil had seduced him (v. 21, 3), but now the disobedience of one man has been repaired by one man's obedience (iii. 18, 7 ; 21, 10). The first .\dam was initium morien- tium, the second Adam initium viventium, Who needed to be both God and man, no less in order to become the saviour than to be the perfecter of mankind (iii. 22, 4 ; v. i, 3). Only One Who was Himself man could over- come man's enemy, and bind in his turn him by whom man had been bound ; in this way alone could the victory over the enemy be altogether just. So, on the other hand, only One Who was also God could accomplish a redemption which should be stable and sure (iii. 18, 7 ; V. 21, 3). Christ must be truly man to be as man truly tempted, must be born of a woman to deliver those who by a woman had been brought under the devil's power, and must truly live and suffer as a man in order as man to fight and triumph. Again, He must also be the Logos in order to be glorified, in order as the strong one to over- come the enemy in whose power the whole human race found itself (iii. 18, 6, 7 ; 19, 3 ; iv. 33, 4 ; v. 17, 3 ; 21, I ; 22, i) ; and finally, that man might learn that it is not through himself but only through God's mercy that he obtains incorruption (v. 21, 3). The re- capitulation of mankind in Christ consists therefore not only in man's original destiny being accomplished by the beginner of a new humanity, but also in His taking up and conducting to a triumphant issue, at the end IRENAEUS of time, the r.outlirt wlioreiii. at the boginninp, in.ui li.ul bcpii >nfrroino. Tlio victory of Ciod made man is man's victory, since all humanity is summed up (recapitulated) in Christ. Man must himself leave the evil one bound with the same chains wherewith he himself had been bound — the chains of transgression (v. 21, 3) ; but the first man could not thus have triumphed, having been by him seduced and bound, but only the second man, the Son of God, after Whose image Adam was created, and Who has become man in order to take back His old creation (" antiquam plasmationem ") into Himself (iv. 33, 4). The devil had ob- tained his dominion over the first man by deceit and violence ; whereas the redemption of the new race had taken place not with violence but, as became (iod, by free persua- sion ("secundum suadclam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem, non vim infer- entein, accipere quae vellet," v. i, i). The dominion of the devil is an unjust dominion, for he, like a robber, has seized and taken to himself what did not belong to him, estranged us from our original godlike nature, and made us into his own disciples. Divine justice de- mands that what the devil has obtained by conflict should in a lawful conflict be won back from him. The Son of God deals, according to His own sense of right, with the apostasy itself, redeeming from it, at a price, that which was His ownC'nondeticiensinsua justitia juste etiam adversus ipsain conversus est aposta siam, ea quae sunt sua redimens ab ea," v. i i; cf. 24, 4). Christ came not snatching with deceit that which was another's, but justly and graciously resuming that which was His own justly in regard to the apostasy (the evil one) from whose power He redeemed us with His own blood, and graciously in reference to us whom He so redeemed (v. 2, i). The per- suasion (suadela) of which the Son of God made use consisted, so far as the devil was con- cerned, in his free consent to accept the re- demption price of the Lord's death for his prisoners ; and so the Lord redeemed us, giving His soul for our souls and His flesh for our flesh (v. i, i). Two thoughts are here to be distinguished. The first is that of Christ's victorious conflict with the evil one, maintain- ing, spite of all his temptations, full and entire obedience to the Father, unmasking Satan as rebel and deceiver, and thereby proving Him- self the strong one (v. 21, 2 seq.). The second is that of redemption through Christ's blood, which is expressly represented as a price paid to the devil and by him voluntarily received. The first thought is developed mainly with reference to the temptation in the wilderness. In the third temptation the evil one is com- pletely exposed and called by his true name, the Son of God appears as victor, and, by His obedience to the divine command, absolves the sin of Adam (v. 21, 2). With this chain of thought, complete in itself, the other theory of a redemption-price paid in the blood of Christ, is placed in no coimexion. It is not said that the devil, acting up to his rights, caused the Saviour's death, which indeed is represented from another point of view as a price legitimately offered and paid down to him (v. I, i). The thought, moreover, sub- sequently worked out by Origen, that the IRENAEUS r>36 devil deceived hims. If with the liopo ..f brinR- ing under his pow.r One \N honi he was t..„ weak to hold, is not f.umd in Ironarus. Hut along with this conception of the redeinption- price offered to the devil appears another thought, that man has been reconciled to (,»>d by the sacrifice of the body of Christ and the shedding of His blood (v. 14, 3). It must be allowed that Irenaeus gives no complete dogmatic theory with regard to the nature of Christ's work of redemption, for his theological speculations nowhere appear as an independent system, hut are simply developed in polemical contrast to those <i( the heretical gnosis. By this conflict with Gnosticism the currents of Christian religious thought were once more put in rapid move- ment and problems whic h had exercised St. Paul were again before the church. A new letter <if St. Iren.ieiis of considerable importance was discovered in ii>o4 bv an Armenian scholar in the Church of the V'lrgiu at Erivan in Russian Armenia, and trans, into German with notes by Dr. Harnack (1007). It was written to his friend Marcian and pos- sibly intended as a manual for c.itechising (Drews, Der lit. Charakter der neuernt deck- ten Schrift des Iren. \<)oy). For an account of it see Fssay V'l. in Dr. Knowling's Messi- anic Interpretation (S.P.C.K. 1911). Literature. — The I'iia Ireiiaei of Feuardent and that of I'eter Halloix ; the Disserlatmnes in Irenaeumni Dodwell and those of MassiKt ; the Prolegomena of Harvey (/V^/i»»iiN<»rv Matter, I. Sources and Phenomena of (inosltc- ism ; II. Life and Writings of St. Irenaeus) ; Tillemont, Memoires, iii. 77 sqq. and f)io sqq. ; Lipsius, Die Zeit des Irenaeus von Lyon und die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche in Sybel's Histor. Zeilschrift, xxviii. pp. 241 sijq.; Lightfoot, The Churches of Gaul, in Contemp. Review, Aug. 1876, jip. 405 sqq. ; the j>ost- humous work of Dean Mansel, The Gnosltc Heresies of the First and Second Centuries (London, 1875). Some translations of Iren- aeus are in the .Inle-Sic. Fathers, and bk. iii. of adv. Haer. has been trans, by II. De.nie with notes and glossary (Clar. Press). A critical ed. of adv. Haer. is pub. bv the C.imb. Univ. Press in 2 vols. [r.a.l.] Irenaeus (7), count of the empire and sub- sequentlv bp- of Tyre, while a layman took a zealous interest in theological controversies and was ardently attached to the cause of his personal friend Nestorius. In 4.1 « Irenaeus unofficially accompanied Nestorius to the council of Kphesus (I. abbe. Concil. iii. 443). employing his influence in behalf of his friend to the great irritation of Cyril and his party {ib. 749, 762 ; Baluze, 406. .^24)- When, five days after Cvril had hastily secured the con- demnation of Nestorius. the approach of John of Anti<.ch and the Eastern bishops was an- nounced, Irenaeus, accompanied by a guard of soldiers, hurried out to apprise thein »)f the high-handed proceedings of the council. Ho was followed bv deputies from the council, who, as Memnon relates, were at the count's instigation maltreated by the soldiers, and prevented from having an audience with John (l.abbe, 16. 7f)4 . Mercalor. ii. praef. xxvii.). To counteract the influence of Dalmatius and the monastic party at Constantinople, the 536 IRENAEUS Eastern bishops deputed Irenaeus to proceed thither with letters to the emperor and the leading officers of state, narrating their side (Labbe, ib. 717-720). Irenaeus obtained an audience of Theodosius, and his statement of the proceedings was so convincing that Theo- dosius was on the point of pronouncing the condemnation of Nestorius illegal, when the arrival of John, the Syncellusof Cyril, entirely frustrated his efforts. The decree of Theodosius which banished Nestorius, Aug. 435, pronounced the same sentence against Irenaeus and a presbyter named Photius, as propagators of his impiety. Stripped of his honours, his property confis- cated, he was deported to Petra (Baluz. p. 884, c. clxxxviii, clxxxix.), and passed 12 years in his Arabian banishment without once par- ticipating in Christian ordinances. His time was spent in the preparation of a history of the troubled scenes in which he had taken part, known as the Tragoedia Irenaei. The invectives in this work against Theodoret Ibas, and all who had questioned Nestorius's perfect orthodoxy, render it probable that it was written early in his banishment, and that the lapse of time brought calmer thoughts. His doctrinal views seem also to have received some modification during this period, for at its close the banished heretic suddenly re- appeared as the unanimous choice of the bishops of the province of Phoenicia for the vacant metropolitical see of Tyre, their choice being ratified by the leading members of the episcopate of Pontus and Palestine and ac- cepted with warm commendation by Proclus of Constantinople. The date of his ordination as bp. of Tyre must have been before the end of 446. Since the reconciliation of John of Antioch and Cyril, a kind of truce had existed between the two parties — the Egyptians and Orientals — which this elevation of a leading Nestorian sympathiser to the episcopate ren- dered no longer possible. Irenaeus had been consecrated by Domnus, the patriarch of Antioch, who, therefore, was the first object of attack. He was plied with missives from the dominant clerical party at Constantinople, asserting that the election of a convicted heretic and a digamus was ipso facto null and void and charging him under severe threats to proceed to a fresh election. The emperor's name was adroitly kept in the background ; but it was implied that the malcontents were acting with his sanction. Domnus turned for counsel to Theodoret, who replied that " it was better to fall under the ill-will of man than to offend God and wound one's own con- science." But the ruin of Irenaeus had been resolved on, and Theodosius was compelled to seal with his imperial authority the act of deposition. An edict was issued (Feb. 17, 448), renewing those formerly published against the Nestorians, and commanding that Irenaeus should be deposed from his see, deprived of the dress and title of priest, com- pelled to live as a layman in his own country and never set foot again in Tyre. Domnus, unwilling to consecrate a successor, sought to temporise, until fear of ulterior consequences prevailed over his scruples, and Photius was made bp. of Tyre, Sept. q, 448 (Actes du Brigand, pp. 134, 143), and Irenaeusdisappears I ISAACUS I. entirely from the scene. The Latrocinium in 449 confirmed his deposition, after that of Ibas and Daniel of Charrae, and passed an anathema on him (Martin, A ctes du Brigandage, pp. 82-86 ; Evagr. H. E. i. 10). As Irenaeus is not mentioned at the council of Chalcedon, he was probably no longer alive. During the latter part of his career Irenaeus enjoyed the friendship and confidence of Theodoret, who speaks highly of his ortho- doxy, magnanimity, liberality towards those in adversity, especially those who had known better times, and of his other virtues [Ep. 35, no), and wrote him frequent letters. Irenaeus's great historical work, the Tra- goedia, has unfortunately perished and is only known to us from an ill-executed Latin translation of large portions of it, made sub- sequently to the time of Justinian by a parti- san of " the Three Chapters." The anonymous translator, who has given very little more than the letters and other documents, in- valuable for the light thrown on the trans- actions of the period, together with the summaries of Irenaeus and some interpola- tions and explanations of his own, sometimes barely intelligible, entitled his work Synodicon. Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. 606-608, 613, 614 et passim; xv. 264-266, 578, 579 et passim; Cave, Htst. Lit. i. 437 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii. 807 ; Labbe, Concil. tom. iii. passim ; Bal- uze, Nov. Coll. Concil. passim ; Abbe Martin, Le Brigandage d'Ephdse, pp. 82-95, 183. [e.v.] Isaacus (7) I., St. {Sahag the Great, Parlhev the Parthian), catholicos of the church of Greater Armenia for 40 or 51 years, 390-441. Moses of Khorene states that he belonged to the house of the founder of the Armenian church, Gregory the Illuminator. His long patriarchate is remarkable for the invention of the Armenian characters by Mesrob, the translation of the Scriptures into the Armenian language, and the commence- ment of the golden age of Armenian literature ; for the revision of the Armenian liturgy, first translated from the Greek by Gregory, which has continued unaltered ever since in the Armeno-Gregorian church ; and for the destruction of the independence of Armenia. At the commencement of his patriarchate Isaac visited the Persian king at Ctesiphon, where, on behalf of his sovereign, he acknow- ledged Armenia to be tributary to Persia. Owng to the troubled state of the country he was virtually ruler for several years. In 428, from which date Armenian chronology be- comes more certain (St. Martin, Mem. sur VArmenie, i. 320, n.), the Persian king deposed Ardaces IV., the last of the Armenian Arsaci- dae, and Isaac retired into Western Armenia,^ either by order of the Persian monarch or through the enmity of the satraps of his own country, whom it is said he had offended by refusing to join in their plans. Whilst in Western Armenia (428-439) he sent Mesrob to Constantinople with letters to Theodosius II., and the general Anatolius, who was com- missioned by the emperor to build the city of Theodosiopolis (called Garin by the Arme- nians, Erzeroumby the Turks), near the sources of the Euphrates, as a place of refuge for Isaac. Meanwhile the Persian kings set up others as patriarchs in his stead, but at length ISAACUS NINIVITA the Armenian satraps repented and invited Isaac to resume his throne. This he refused to do, but appointed one administrator in his stead, according to some Mastentzes, accord- ing to Moses of Khorene Samuel, nominated by the Persian king. After the death of his vicar he seems to have partially resumed his episcopal functions over the whole .\rmenian j community. On account of the patriarch's expulsion, the archbp. of Cajipadocian Caesarea disallowed the ordination of bishops, j which had been conceded to Isaac ; but by the influence of the Persians all connexion between I Armenia and Caesarea was from this time forth broken off — a fact which tended towards the isolation of the Arnienian church. Isaac did not attend the general council of Ephesus. He died at the age of no years, being the last Armenian patriarch of the family of Gregory the Illuminator ; he was followed to the grave in six months by his friend Mcsrob. Moses of Khorene, bk. iii. cc. xlix.-lxviii., in Langlois, Hist, de I'Armenie, ii. 150-173 ; St. Martin, Mem. sur I'Armenie, i. 437; (ialanus. Hist. .Arm. c. vii. ; Le Quien, Oriens Christ, i. 1375 ; Malan, Life of St. Gregorv, p. 28. [l.d.] Isaacus (14) Ninivita, anchorite and bishop towards the end of the 6th cent. An anony- mous Life prefixed to his works states that he was by birth a Syrian, and, with his brother who became abbat, entered the great monas- tery of St. Matthew at Nineveh. Afterwards he retired to a lonely cell, where he long remained. Isaac's fame as an anchorite be- came so great that he was raised to the bishopric of Nineveh, which, however, he resigned on the very day of his consecration, owing to an incident which convinced him that his office was superfluous in a place where the gospel was little esteemed. Feeling also that episcopal functions interfered with the ascetic life, he finally retired to the desert of Scete or Scetis, where he died. Lambecius {Comment, lib. v. pp. 74 sqq.). Cave {Hist. Lit. i. 519) and others confuse him with another Isaacus S>tus. Works. — Ebedjesu {Cat. p. 63) writes that " he composed seven tomes on spiritual guid- ance, and on divine mysteries, judgments, and government." A considerable number, though not all, of these discourses are extant in S\Tiac, Arabic, and (ireek MSS. in the Vatican and other libraries. Fifty-three of his homilies were rendered from Greek into Latin, c. 1407, by a monk who freely abridged and altered the order of his original. In this form they appear in the various Bibliothecae Patrum, as a continuous treatise entitled de Contemptu Mundi, uniformly but wrongly attributed to Isaacus .\ntiochenus. He is much quoted by the old Syrian writers. His style teems with metaphor ; his matter is often interesting, both theologically and historically. He treats mainly of the ascetic life, its rules and spiritual experiences. Watching, fasting, silence, and solitude are means to self-mastery. There are three grades of anchorites — novices, proficients, and the perfect. The worth of actions is gauged by the degree of the love of God which inspires them. By the thoughts which stir within, a man may learn to what grade of holiness he has risen. There are three methods by which ISAACUS 637 every rational soul can approach unto Got! — viz. love, (ear, divine training. He who has gotten love feeds on Christ at all times, and becomes immortal (John vi. 52). Sermons 8, 47, 48 (B. M. cod. 694) treat of the alternati..ns of light and darkness, the deep dejection and sudden ecstasy to which anchorites were subject. For the former Isaarus prescribes holy reading and prayer — " infer tibi violcn- tiam ad orandum, et praestolare auxiliuni, et veniet tibi te ignorante." Serm. 23 is direc ted against those who asked. If (H)d be good, why did He create sin, Gehenna, Death, and Satan? Elsewhere Isaacus says that there is a natural faculty whereby we discern good from evil, to lose which is to sink lower than one's natural state ; and this faculty precedes faith, and leads us thereto. There is also a faculty of spiritual knowledge which is the oflspring of faith. He explains the " many mansions " of heaven as meaning the different capacities of the souls abiding there — a difference not of place but of grace. Ziiigerle {Mon. Syr. i. 97 sqq.) has published Serm. 31, On the natural offspring of the virtues, and Serm. 43, On the various grades of know- ledge and faith. Other titles are. On the differ- ences of revelations and operations in holy tnen ; In how many ways the perception of things incorporeal is received by the nature of man (B. M. cod. 694, 14 and 24) ; That it is wrong without necessity to desire or expect any sign manifested through us or to us (do. 695, 46). A short tract, de Cogitationibus {irepl XoyiffuCi'v), attributed to this Isaarus, is given in Migne, vol. Ixxxvi., along with the de Con- temptu Mundi. A book, de Causa Causarum or Liber Generalis ad Omnes denies, treating of God and the creation and government of the universe, has been assigned to this Isaacus ; it really belongs to Jacobus Edessenus (fl. 710), see Pohlmann, Zeitschr. d. Morgenland. Gesellsch. (1861), p. 648. Cf. Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS. in Brit. Mus. vol. ii. pp. 569-581 ; de Contemptu Mundi in Migne, Patr. Curs. Gk. Ixxxvi. pp. 811-885; Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. 444-463, iii. 104, etc. ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 519 ; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. xi. 114-122 Harl. ; Casimir Oudin, Comment, de Scriptor. Eccl. i. coll. 1400- 1405 ; Ceillier, xii. 100. [c.j.b.] Isaacus (21), a Donatist who, together with Maximianus, met his death at Carthage in consequence of the cruel punishment inflicted bv order of the proconsul of Africa, a.d. 348. The history is related by a fellow-Donatist named Macrobius ; and though he does not mention the name of the proconsul, doubtless the tragedy took place in connexion with the mission into Africa of Paulus and M.k arius. The narrative is told in barbarous Latin and a rhetorical style so turgid as to suggest the suspicion of exaggeration in the details. Hut these, horrible as they are, agree t.>o well with what we know to have taken |)la( e in other cases. Maximianus suffered first, but Isaac provoked the anger of the judges by his taunting exelamatioiis and was forthwith compelled to und<-rgo a treatment no less brutal. Having b.-en first scourged with " plumbata," a whip armed with leadi n bullets, and then beaten with sticks, they were both cast into prison, but Isaac disappointed 538 ISAACUS the further violence of his tormentors by death. This took place on a Saturday. Crowds immediately flocked to the prison, singing hymns as if it were the eve of Easter, and they watched beside the corpse to ensure it Christian burial. To disappoint this intention, the proconsul on the day following gave orders that both the living man and the dead body should be cast together into the sea. To execute this command, the soldiers were obliged to clear the way from the prison by force, and many persons were wounded in the struggle. The two victims were thrown into the "sea at some distance from each other in baskets weighted with sand to ensure their sinking. But the action of the waves, caused, according to the writer's belief, by divine inter- position, tore away the sand, and after six days brought the two bodies together to shore, where they were received with welcome by their fellow-Christians on their way to the churches and received Christian burial, the malice of those who had sought to deprive them of it being thus gloriously defeated. Notwithstanding the inflated style of the narrative (verv diflferent, as Mabillon remarks trulv, from that of the existing accounts of the deaths of true Catholic martyrs), and notwith- standing the very slight notice St. Augustine takes of the event, into which he acknowledges that he had made very little inquiry, and also despite his evident success in convicting some accounts of Donatist martvTdoms of in- accuracy, if not of direct falsehood, there seems no reason for doubting the substantial truth of this narrative, especially as Marculus, in Dec. of the same year, suffered death for a similar cause and with similar circumstances of cruelty. Neither can we doubt that the cause for which these men suffered was essentially one of religion. True, St. Augus- tine compares such cases to that of Hagar, and elsewhere argues in favour of the duty of the state as the guardian of truth to repress heresy and insinuates that those guilty of this offence are punished not so much on account of religion as of treason or disloyalty ; but we must bear in mind that (i) the proceedings here related took place six years before St. Augustine's birth, and had not been repeated in his time, and that thus he was no witness either to the truth or falsehood of the narra- tives ; (2) the behaviour and language of Isaac remind us more of an angry partisan than a Christian martyr ; (3) the glaring faults of the narrative in style and temper do not extenuate the treatment which, after every allowance for exaggeration, the sufferers must have endured. Aug. Tr. in Joann. xi. 15 ; c. Cresc. iii. 49, 54 ; Mabillon, Vet. Anal. p. 185 ; Mon. Vet. Don. No. 29, pp. 237, 248, ed. Oberthiir ; Ceillier, v. 106 ; Morcelli, Africa Christiana, ii. 249. [h.w.p.] IsaaCUS (28). Several eminent solitaries of the Egyptian deserts in the 4th cent, bore this name. The references are scattered up and down in the Vitae Patrum, and it is not always clear which Isaac is intended. The following seem to be distinct persons. (i) Abbat Isaaous, presbyter of the anchor- ites in the Scetic desert (^ Sk^tis, Copt. Schiet), S.W. of Lake Mareotis. At 7 years of age he withdrew from the world, a.d. ISAACUS 358, and attached himself to Macarius of Alexandria, the disciple of St. Anthony. Palladius relates of abbat Isaac that he knew the Scriptures by heart, lived in utter purity, and could handle deadly serpents (KfpdffTai.) without harm. He lived in solitude for 50 years, his followers numbering 150. Certain anecdotes in the A pophthegmata Patrum appear to belong to him. " Abbat Isaac was wont to say to the brethren, Our fathers and abbat Pambo wore old bepatched raiment and palm husks (ire/Sma) ; nowadays ye wear costlv clothing. Hence ! It was ye who desolated the district." (Scetis was overrun, c- 395, by the Mazices, a horde of merciless savages.) Cassianus, who was in Scetis a.d. 398, con- versed with Isaacus, to whom he assigns the 9th and loth of his Conferences (CoUationes) , which treat of praver. In the former Isaacus distinguishes four kinds of prayer, according to I. Tim. ii. i (Collat. 9, cc. 9-14)- Then he expounds at length the Lord's Prayer (cc. 18-23). The highest type, however, is praver " unuttered, unexpressed," like that of Christ on the mountain or in the garden (c. 25, de qualitate sublimions orationis). In c. 36 he advises short and frequent petitions ("frequenter quidem sedbreviter"), lest, while we linger, the foe suggest some evil thought. The loth Conference begins by relating how the patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria scan- dalized the Scetic anchorites by his Paschal Letter denouncing Anthropomorphism, and how the aged abbat Serapion, though con- vinced of his error, could not render thanks with the rest, but fell a-weeping and crying, " They have taken my God from me ! " Cassianus and the other witnesses asked Isaacus to account for the old man's heresy. Isaacus made it a survival of heathen ideas of Deity in a simple and unlettered mind (cc. 1-5). Isaacus proceeds to shew how to attain to perfect and unceasing prayer. That will be realized when all our love and desire, everv aim, effort, thought, all that we con- template, speak of, hope for, is God ; when we are united with Him by an enduring and in- dissoluble affection. C. 10 gives as a prayer suited to all emergencies the verse Ps. Ixx. i. Ill prays he who only prays when upon his knees. ' He prays never, who even upon his knees is distracted by wandering thoughts. Such as we would be found when praying, such should we be before we pray. When 50 years old Isaacus was expelled from his desert by Theophilus of Alexandria, albeit that prelate had made bishops of seven or eight of his anchorites. Isaacus turned for succour to St. Chrysostom and Olympias. He was still living in a.d. 408. Sources. — Pallad. Dialog, de Vita Chrysost. j in Patr. Gk. xlvii. 59, 60 ; Cassiani Massil. I Collat. 9, 10, in Migne, xlix. 770 sqq. ; Apoph- thegmata Patr. ib. Ixv. 223 ; a number of I anecdotes headed -rrepl rov 'A^^d 'JffaaK tov ! TTpta^vripov tC}v KeXXi'w*', but referring to several persons, ci. de Vit.Patr. lib. iii. col. 752, in Migne, Ixxiii. ; Tillem. Mem. viii. 650,617, 648, and 813, n. vi. ; Ceillier, viii. 174-177. (ii) Isaacus, presbyter and abbat of the Nitrian desert, sometimes called Presbyter of the Cells (KeWla N. of Nitria). The chief ISAACUS account of this Isaarus is also in Palladius I (Dialog. Migne, xlvii. coll. 50, 60). He was head of 210 recluses. His charity and humil- ity were famous. He built a hospital fur the sick and for the numerous visitors to his community. Like Isaacus of Scetis, he was an adept in the Scriptures. Like hint, too. after 30 years in the desert, he was driven forth c. 400 by the patriarch Theophilus, who had chosen a number of his disciples to be bishops. The Apophthes^mata Patrutn gives some stories about Isaac of the Cells. " The abbat Isaac said, In my youth I lived with abbat Cronius. Old and trembling as he was, he would never bid me do anything ; he would rise by him- self, and hand the water-cruse (t6 fiavKaXtov) to me and the rest. And abbat Theodore of 1 Pherme, with whom also I lived, would set out ' the table by himself and say. ' Brother, if thou wilt, come and eat.' I said, ' Father, I came to thee to profit : why dost not bid me do somewhat ? ' He answered never a word ; but when the old men asked him the same thing, he broke out with, ' Am I Coenobiarch, that I should command him ? If he like, what he sees me doing, he will himself do.' Thenceforward I forestalled the old man's purposes. And I had learned the lesson of doing in silence." It appears that, after the persecution of Theophilus. Isaacus had returned to his desert. In the Apoph. Pair.. Migne, t. Ixv. 223, 239, there are other anecdotes concerning him fcf. Tillem. Mem. viii. 623-625). (iii) Isaacus, railed Thebaous, an anchorite of theThebaid. probably not identical with (ii), although Cronius, the master of the Cellia, at one time lived in theThebaid (Vit. Patr. lib. vii. col. 1044, Migne, t. Ixxiii.). Alardus Gazaeus, the Benedictine annotatorof Cassia- nus, writes (Collat. 9 ad init.) that there were two chief anchorites named Isaac; one who lived in the Scetic desert, and another called Thebaeus, often mentioned in the Vitae Patrum and in Pratum Spirituals c. 161. Once Isaac (" de Thebaida," Vit. Pair, v.) had banished an offending brother from the congregation. When he would have entered his cell, an angel stood in the way. " God sends me to learn where you wish Him to bestow the solitary whom you have con- demned." The abbat owned his fault and was forgiven, but was warned not to rob (iod of His prerogative by anticipating His judg- ments. Isaac Thebaeus used to say to the brethren, " Bring no children hither. Four churches in Scetis have been desolated, owing to children." Sources. — Apoph. Patr. col. 240, in Migne, Ixv. ; de Vit. Patr. lib. v. in Migne, Ixxiii. (version of an unknown (ireek author by Pelagius, c. 550), coll. 909, 918 ; de Vit. Pair. iii. col. 786 fprob. by Rufinus). (iv) IsaaCUSjdiscipleof St. ApoUos, probably lived at Cellia. He was accomplished in every good work. On his way to the church he would hold no converse with any, and after communion he would hurry back to his cell, without waiting for the cup of wine and the food (Trafa/idrrjs) usually handed round among the brethren after service. " A lamp goes out, if one hold it long in the open air ; and if I, kindled by the holy oblation, linger ISAACUS ANTIOCHENUS r.-lO outside my cell, niv mind (.-rows <l.irk " {Apnph. Pair. coj. 241). H J.H.') Isaacus (29) Senior, inenti..nr<l in an anony- mous I iff of Ljiliraim the Svrian amotig the more distinguished disciples of Fuhraim who were also Syriac writers. He is cited by Joannes Maro [Trad, ad Xesl. et Eutvch.). hv Bar-hebraeus {Hist. Dynast. ()i). and bv inanv other Syriac and Arabic authors, most of whom, however, confuse him with Isaac pres- byter of Antioch (Assemani, H. O. i. 16.^). Gennadius in his de Scriplor. F.ccl. c. 26, says : " Isaac wrote, concerning the Three P«rson» of the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Lord, a book of very dark disputation and involved discourse ; proving that there arc three Persons in the one Godhead, each pos- sessing a proprium peculiar to himself. The proprium of the Father is that He is the origin of the others, vet Himself without origin ; that of the Son is that, though begotten. He is not later than His begetter ; that of the Holy Ghost is that It is neither made nor begotten, and yet is from another. Of the Incarnation he writes that two Natures abide in the one Person of the Son of God." This chapter precedes those about Marcarius and Evagrius Pontinus, who lived ante 400. It is hence inferred that Isaac flourished about the end of the 4th cent. (Cave, i. 415, places him c. 430 (?), but some put him a century earlier.) The work of Isaac, not unfairly described by Gennadius, is entitled Libellus Fidei SS. Trinitatis et Incarnatiouis Domini. It is a brief treatise, and is printed in Migne, Patr. Gk. xxxiii. In a codex Pithoeanus, teste Sirmond, the title is Fides Isaacis (or Isacis) ex Judaeo. Hence Isaac Senior has been identified by Tillemont (viii. 409) with Isaac the converted Jew who calumniated pope Damasus. Assemani thinks that the silence of Gennadius and his epitomizer Honorius renders it doubtful that Isaac Senior, the author of the Libellus Fidei, was a Jew. Cf. also Galland. vii. Prol. p. xxy. ; Ceillier, vi. 290 ; Mansi, iii. S04 b ; Pagi, Crit. ad aim. 378, XX. [C.J.B.] Isaacus (31) Antiochenus, bom at Amid (Diarbekir) in .M.sopotaiuia, called "the Great " and " the Elder," a priest of Antioch in Syria, said to have visited Rome. His teaclier was Zenobius the disciple of St. Ephraim, not (as Cave) Ephraim himself. The Chronicle of Edessa speaks of him as an archimandrite, without specifying his monas- tery, which was at Gabala in Phoenicia. He died c. 460. He is sometimes confused with Isaacus of Nineveh. Bar-hebraeus (Hist. Dynast, p. 91) unjustly brands him as a heretic and a renegade. He was author of numerous works in Svriac, of which the chief were polemics against the Nestorians and Euty- chians, and of a long elegy on the overthrow of Antioch by the earttuiuake of 459. He also wrote a poem on the Ludi Seculares, held by Honorius in his sixth consulship (a.d. 404), and another on the sack of K<>nie by Alanc (a.d. 410). Jacobus of Edessa reckons him among the best writers of S>Tiac. His poems are extant in MSS. in the Vatican and other European libraries. Many of theni are wrong- ly ascribed to St. Ephraim, and included amongst his works in the Roman edition. Iti 540 ISCHTRAS discourse No. 7 Isaacus speaks of relic- worship and holy days. Besides Sunday, many Christians observed Friday, the day of the Passion. No. 9 attacks prevalent errors on the Incarnation. Here Isaacus seems to fall into the opposite heresies, failing to dis- tinguish Nature from Person ; but elsewhere he uses language unmistakably orthodox. Assemani thinks his words have been tam- pered with by Jacobite copyists. No. 24, Christ suffered as man, not as God. No. 50 touches on future retribution : " The fault is temporal, the punishment eternal." This aims at those Syrian monks who had adopted the opinion of Origen on this subject. No. 59 is a hymn asserting, against the Cathari or Novatianists, that fallen man recovers inno- cence not only by baptism, but also by peni- tence. No. 62 is a hymn of supplication, lamenting the disasters of the age, e.^. the inroads of Huns and Arabs, famine, plague, and earthquake. Johannes Maro quotes two discourses not found in the Vatican MSS. The first, on Ezekiel's chariot, clearly asserts two natures and one person in Christ : " duo aspectus, una persona ; duae naturae, unus salvator." Similarly, the second, on the In- carnation. Bickell printed both, so far as he found them extant (S. Isaac. Op. i. 50, 52). The library of the British Museum possesses about 80 of the discourses, hymns, prayers, etc., of St. Isaacus in MSS., ranging from the 6th to the i2th cent. Dr. Bickell, in the preface to his edition of the works of Isaac, gives a list of 178 entire poems, and of 13 others imperfect at the beginning or end (179- 191) ; three prose writings dealing with the ascetic life (192-194) ; five sermons in Arabic, on the Incarnation, etc. {195-199) ; andasermon in Greek, on the Transfiguration, usually assigned to St. Ephraim (200). See S. Isaaci Antiocheni opera omnia ex omnibus quotquot exstant codd. MSS. cum varia lectione Syr. Arab, primus ed. G. Bickell, vol. i. 1873, ii. 1877 ; Gennadius, Vir. lUustr. 66 ; Assem. Bibl. Orient, i. 207-234 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 434 ; Ceillier, x. 578 ; Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS. Brit. Mus. General Index, p. 1289. The poems of Isaac are important for the right understanding of the doctrines of the Nestorians, Eutychians, Novatianists, Pela- gians, and other sects ; besides being au- thorities for the events, manners, and customs of the writer's age. [c.j.b.] IschyraS (2) (Ischyrion, Soz.), Egyptian pseudo-presbyter and finally bishop ; a slan- derer of Athanasius. His story, which begins under the predecessor of Athanasius, is made out from scattered passages in the Apol. c. Arian., and a slight outline is given by So- crates (i. 27). He belonged to a hamlet in the Mareotis too small for a church of its own (§ 85, ed. Migne) and there had a conventicle attended by seven persons at most (77, 83). He did not bear a good moral character (63) and was once charged with insulting the emperor's statues (vol. i. 185 b, n.). The Alexandrian synod of 324 disallowed his orders and pronounced him a layman (74, 75), disproving his pretensions to have been or- dained by bp. Meletius, in whose breviarium his name did not appear (11, 28, 46, 71). He had given out that he was a presbyter of the ISDIGERDES I. pseudo-bishop Colluthus (2), but no one out of his own family believed him, as he never had a church, and no one in the neighbourhood looked on him as a clergyman (74, 75). He never attended ecclesiastical assemblies as a presbyter (28). In spite of the synod, he con- tinued to act as a presbyter, and was doing this in the cottage of Ision when Athanasius, being on a visitation in the Mareotis, sent his presbyter Macarius to bid him desist. When Macarius reached the house, Ischyras was reported ill in his cell or in a corner behind the door {28, 63, 83), certainly not officiating at the Eucharist (41). This occurrence may be assigned to c. 329, between the latest date (June 8, 328) possible for the consecration of Athanasius and Nov. 330, when the troubles broke out. Ischyras on his recovery went over to the Meletians, in conjunction with whom he framed his accusation against Macarius (63), and through Macarius against Athanasius. In the spring of 331 (see vol. i. p. 184, and Hefele, ii. 13) the three Meletians accused Macarius at Nicomedia of having broken a chalice, overturned a holy table, and burnt service books on the occasion of his visit. As his friends became ashamed of him (63), Ischyras confessed the fabrication to the archbishop and implored forgiveness (16, 28, 63, 74). This would be in mid-Lent 332. In the summer of 335 Ischyras, having mean- while been gained over by the Eusebians, revived the accusation before the council of Tyre (13), and accompanied the synodal com- mission to the Mareotis to investigate its truth {27). For his reward his Eusebian patrons procured (85) an imperial order for the erection of a church for him at a place called Pax Secontaruri, and the document recog- nized him as a " presbyter." They after- wards obtained for him the episcopal title {16, 41), and he figures as bp. of Mareotis among the bishops assembled at Sardica in 343 (Socr. ii. 20; Soz. iii. 12, here "Ischyrion"). He afterwards withdrew to Philippopolis (Hilar. Frag. iii. in Patr. Lat. x. 677 a ; Mansi, iii. 139), at which synod his name is corruptly written Quirius. No other instance of a bp. of Mare- otis occurs. Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 530. [t.w.d.] Isdigerdes {{) I. {Jezdedscherd, Yazde- iirdus, Yezdegerdes; "laSiyepdrjs and' IffScj/epdris by the Greeks; in Armenian Yazgerd; on his coins, \~n3TT\ i-e. Izdikerti), king of Persia, surnamed Al Aitham (the Wicked), known in history as Isdigerd I., though an obscure and uncertain predecessor of the same name makes Mordtmann reckon him as Isdigerd II. Rawlinson thinks the best evidence favours 399 for the commence- ment of his reign, and 419 or 420 for his death. He was son of Sapor III., succeeding his brother Vararanes IV., and succeeded by his son Vararanes V. He reigned at Ctesiphon. j With the Romans he appears to have lived in I peace ; Agathias {Hist. iv. 26, p. 264, ed. Bonn, 1828) and Theophanes {Chron. i. 125, 128, p. I 69, ed. Bonn, 1839) relate how the emperor 1 Arcadius on his death-bed directed his son Theodosius to be put under Isdigerdes's tute- lage. (Petavius, Rat. Temp. pt. i. 1. vi. c. 15, p. 249, Lugd. 1710 ; Greg. Abul-Pharajius, Hist. Comp. Dyn. i. p. 91, Oxf. 1663.) For a time he was almost a Christian, and as ISDIGERDES II. Socrates (H. E. vii. 8) says, gave every facility for the propagation of the gospel, yet probably closed his days in persecuting the church. L'nder the example and influence of Maruthas, bp. of Martyropolis in Mesopo- tamia, who had been sent on an embassy from the Romans early in his reign, he was very favourably disposed tt>wards Christianity anil the church in Persia had peace with full liberty of worship and chiu-ch-building. He overcame and exposed the impostures of the magi, with the assistance of Maruthas and other Christians, and miracles are said to have been wrought before him for the con- firmation of the gospel. A second visit of Maruthas seems to have deepened the im- pression (Socr. ib.), but the indiscreet and impetuous zeal of one of Maruthas's com- panions, Abdas bp. of Susa, lost this royal convert to the faith. Abdas burned one of the temples of fire (Theod. H. E. v. 39). This offence Isdigerd was jirepared to overlook, if Abdas would rebuild the burned pyreion ; failing this, the king threatened to burn down and destroy all Christian churches in Persia. Abdas, esteeming it morally wrong to rebuild the temple,refusedtocomply,and thechurches were burned. Abdas was among the first of the mart>TS, and a persecution commenced in or towards the end of Isdigerd's reign, which his son and successor Vararanes or Bararanes carried on with most revolting cruelty and which was only ended by the presence of the Roman legions. From the odium of this persecution the memory of Isdigerd is specially shielded by Socrates (H. E. vii. 18-21), who'throws it on his son; but Theodoret (v. 39) probably gives the truer account, though Isdigerd had probably neither the time nor inclination to carry out his edicts with severity. His character is described as noble and generous, tarnished only by this one dark spot in the last year of his reign or in a brief period in the middle of it. For the best modern literature of this reign, see Isdigerdes (2). [g.t.s.] Isdigerdes (2) II., king of Persia, the son and successor of Vararanes V. All modern writers place his death a.d. 457, but differ somewhat as to the length of his reign. For its commencement Rawlinson thinks the best evidence is for 440. Soon after he declared war against the Roman empire. Theodosius II. shortly made peace with him, and Isdigerd then undertook a war, which continued many years (443-451), against the Tatars of Trans- oxiana. He attempted to force the Zoroas- trian religion on Christian Armenia. In this he was ably seconded by his vizier Mihr-nerses, whose proclamation, still extant, embodies the Zoroastrian objection to Christian doc- trine [Mesrobes]. It was answered in a council of eighteen Armenian bishops, headed by the patriarch Josejih, at Ardashad in 450. This document, also extant, is a lengthened apology for Christianity and con- tains a detailed confession of faith, with a resolution of adhering to it couched in these terms : " Do thou therefore inquire of us no further concerning these things, for our belief originates not with man. We are not taught like children ; but we are indissolubly bound to God, from Whom nothing can detach us, ISIDORUS r>4i neither now, nor hereafter, n<>r for ever, nf)r for ever and ever " (Hist, of Vattan, tr. by Neumann, 1830). Isdigerd's attempt to con- vert Armenia to Zoroastrianisni was mani- festly dictated by a desire to detach the country from the Christian Roman empire. In 451 he attacked the .\rinenians. They endeavoured to secure the help of the emperor Marcian, who was, however, paralysed through j fear of Attila and the Huns. In 45.S or 456 I the Persians triumi>hed in a great battle, wherein the patriarch Joseph and many nobles were taken prison<rs and martyred. Agathias, iv. 27 ; Tabari, Chronique. iii. 127 ; Clinton, Fasti Rotnani, i. p. 546 ; Tilleni. Emp. vi. 39 ; Saint-Martin, AUm. sur I'Arm^n. vol. i. p. 322 ; Pathkanian, Histoire des Sasian. in Journal Asiatique (1866), pp. 108-238 ; Mordt- mann, Zeitschn/t der deutschen Slot^enlan- dischen Gesellschaft, t. viii. 70 ; Rawlinson's Seventh Or. Monarchy (1876), c. xv. p. 301, where other authorities will be found. Path- j kanian's article gives a list of writers who have treated of this period. Isdigerd II. was succeeded by Perozes. [g.t.s.] IsidoruS (13), archbp. of Seville, 600-636. Notwithstanding his prominent place in Spanish ecclesiastical history, the known facts of his life are few, and considerable uncertainty attaches to many points. It appears certain that his father was of the provmre of Carta- gena, and that for some reason his parents hit there for Seville either before or very shortly after his birth. It is not certain, therefore, whether Isidore was born at Seville or Carta- gena, but probablv at the latter. Arevalo (i. 122) decides for Seville; so Dupin : Flf)rez {Esp. Sag. ix. 193, x. 120) is in favour of Cartagena. All things tend to shew that his parents died when he was very young. He was the youngest of the family. Leander, the eldest, was archbp. of Seville c. 579-599. and Fulgentius was bp. of Astigi or Ecija in the province of Seville. Isidore was archbp. of Seville for nearly 40 years, and died in 636. Leander received the pall from Gregory the Great in 599. Gams fixes 600 as the year of Leander's death, and consequently of Isidore's succession (ii. 41). To date the birth of Isi- dore c. 560 will not be far wrong. His early manhood was probably passed in a monastery, where he could pursue the studies which afterwards made him famous. Most probably he never belonged to a coenobite order. We meet his name in connexion with the so-called decree of Gunthimar, the Gothic king, and a supposed synod of Toledo in 610 assigning metrojiolitan rank to the see of Toledo. In the list of subscriptions appended to the Decretum in the conciliar collections (e.g. Mansi, x. 511) Isidore stands second, following the king. He next appears as presiding over the second council of Seville m I Nov. 618 or 6i<), in the reign of king Siscbut (Mansi, x. 555). The church <.f Seville is si>oken of as the "holy Jerusalem. Ihc governor of the city, Sisisdus, and the trea- surer Suanilanus were present. The decrees set forth fully the doctrine of the Person of Christ against the Acephali, supporting it with ' appeals to Scrii>ture, the Apostles' Creed, and the Fathers. This document was signed by i 8 bishops, of whom Isidore subscribed first as 642 ISiDdRUS metropolitan of Baetica. Some uncertainty hangs over Isidore's presence at a council held at Toledo c. 625. The fourth council of Toledo was held in 633, in the extreme old age of Isidore and shortly before his death, soon after Sisenand came to the throne. It met in the basilica of St. Leocadia, and was composed of pre- lates from Gaul and Narbonne, and from all the provinces of Spain. The king, with his court magnates, was present, and threw him- self on the earth before the bishops, and with tears and sighs entreated their intercession with God, and exhorted them to observe the ancient decrees of the church and to reform abuses. The council issued 75 decrees, for a summary of which see D. C. A. ii. 1968. They were signed by the six metropolitan archbishops of Spain. This council was the only one in which they were all present, and was the most numerously attended of all Spanish synods. Isidore signed first as the oldest metropolitan and oldest bishop present (Mansi, x. 641). The council probably ex- pressed with tolerable accuracy the mind and influence of Isidore. It presents a vivid pic- ture of the church of Spain at that period. The position and deference granted to the king is remarkable, and nothing is said of allegiance to Rome. The church is free and independent, yet bound in solemn allegiance to the acknowledged king. The relations of the church to the Jews are striking, and the canons shew that there were many Jews in the Spanish community and that the Christian church had not yet emancipated itself from the intolerance of Judaism. This council was the last great public event of Isidore's life. He died three years afterwards. As he felt his end approaching he distributed his goods lavishly among the poor, and is said to have spent the whole day for six months in almsgiving. In his last illness he performed public penance in the church of St. Vincentius the martyr, gathered around him the bishops, the religious orders, the clergy, and the poor, then, as one bishop invested him with the peni- tential girdle, and another strewed ashes on his head, he made a pious and eloquent prayer, translated in full by Gams, received the Body and Blood of Christ in the sacrament, took affectionate leave of all present, retired to his cell, and in four days died. Isidore was undoubtedly the greatest man of his time in the church of Spain. He was versed in all the learning of the age, and well acquainted with Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. His works shew him as a man of varied accomplishments and great versatility of niind ; and the prominent place he long filled in his own country sufficiently indicates his general ability and character. ' His eloquence struck all who heard him with astonishment, and he represented in himself all the science of his time. His language is studiously scriptural. He is quoted as holding pre- destinarian views, but his language seems hardly to go so far. At the 8th council of Toledo, in 653, the epithet Egregius was applied to him, and confirmed at the 15th council of Toledo, 688. Popes and councils vied in doing him honour, till Benedict XIV. permitted the office of St. Isidore to be recited ISlDORUS with the antiphon " O doctor optime," and the gospel, " Vos estis sal terrae." His works are many and multifarious, (i) His Etymologies or Origms was, according to BrauHo and Ildefonsus, his last work. It is in 20 books, and treats of the whole circle of the sciences in a very concise, methodical, and convenient manner. It is for the period a really wonderful work, and the authors quoted in it shew his wide classical reading. The subjects of the books are : i. Grammar in 44 chapters, containing an immense amount of information in a convenient form. ii. Rhet- oric and dialectics, in 31 chapters, iii. The four mathematical sciences : i.e. arithmetic, 9 chapters ; geometry, 5 chapters ; music, 9 chapters ; and astronomy, 48 chapters ; algebra not being yet invented, iv. Medicine, in 13 chapters, v. Laws, 27 chapters ; Times, 12 chapters, vi. Ecclesiastical books and offices, 19 chapters, vii. Of God, angels, and the orders of the faithful, 14 chapters, viii. The church and divers sects, 11 chapters, ix. Languages, nations, kingdoms, warfare, citizens, and relationships, 7 chapters, x. An alphabetical index and explanation of certain words. A vast amount of erroneous ingenuity is displayed in deriving all the words of the Latin language from itself : e.g. " Nox, a nocendo dicta, eo quod oculis noceat. Niger, quasi nubiger, quia non serenus, sed fusco opertus est. Unde et nubilum diem tetrum dicimus. Prudens, quasi porro videns: perspicax enim est, et incertorum praevidet casus. Cauterium dictum quasi cauturium quod urat," etc. xi. Of men and portents, in 4 chapters, xii. Animals, in 8. xiii. The universe (tnundus), in 22. xiv. The earth and its parts, in 9. xv. Buildings, land-surveying, roads, etc., in 16. xvi. Mineralogy, stones, weights, measures, and metals, in 27. xvii. .\griculture, in 11. xviii. War and various games, in 69. xix. Ships, architecture, clothes of various kinds, in 34. xx. Food, domestic and agricultural implements, car- riages, harness, etc., in 16. The treatise, which in the Roman edition occupies two quarto vols., is a singular medley of informa- tion and ignorance, and presents a remarkable picture of the condition of life and knowledge at the time. In bk. v., under the head of " De discretione temporum," is a chrono- logical summary of sacred and secular history from Adam to Heraclius, concluding in these striking words : " Eraclius xvii nunc agit imperii annum: Judaei in Hispania Chris- tiani efficiuntur. Residuum sextae aetatis soli Deo est cognitum." The whole period (after an idea common in Augustine) is divided into six ages, ending with Noah, Abraham, Samuel, Zedekiah, Juhus Caesar, Heraclius. In bk. vi. is an introductory account of the several books of the Bible. It is probably not possible to overrate the value and the useful- ness of this treatise to the age in which Isidore lived, and indeed for many ages it was the best available handbook. (2) Libri Dtfferentiarum sive de Proprietate Sermonum. — Bk. i. treats of the differences of words, often with acuteness and accuracy. Bk. ii. treats in 40 sections and 170 paragraphs of the differences of things, e.g. between Deus and Dominus, Substance and Essence, etc. ISIDORUS This is, in fact, a brief theological treatise on the doctrine of the Trinity, the power and nature of Christ, Paradise, angels, and men. He elaborately defines words denoting the members of the body, sin, grace, freewill, the law and the gospel, the active and con- templative life, virtues, vices, anil the like. '(3) AlUgoriae quaedam Sacrae Scrit^turae. — A spiritual interpretation of the names of Scripture characters: 129 from C). T. and 121 from N. T. ; the latter being often from our Lord's parables, miracles, etc., as the ten virgins, the woman with the lost piece of money, the man who planted a vineyard, and the like- The angered king who sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and burnt up their city is interpreted of tlod the Father, who sent Vespasian Caesar to destroy Jerusalem. He shews an intimate acquaint- ance with Scripture and with the wonderful way it had then permeated the teaciiing and life of the church. The treatise is of intrinsic interest. (4) Somewhat similar to the last is de Ortu et Obilu Patrum qui in Scriptura Laudibus Etferuntur ; 64 chapters on O.T. characters and 21 on New, from Adam to Maccabaeus and from Zacharias to Titus. The genuine- ness of this treatise has been much doubted. (5) Proomeia in Libras Vet. et Nov. Test. — Very brief introductions to the several books of O. and N.T., including Tobias, Judith, Esdras, and Maccabees, " ex quibus quidem Tobiae, Judith, et Maccabaeorum, Hcbraei non recipiunt. P!cclesia tamen eosdem intra canonicas scripturas enunierat." (6) Liber Nuinerurumqui in Sanctis Scripturis occurrunt. — A mystical treatment of numbers from one to sixty, omitting some after twenty. (7) Quaestiones tarn de iXovo quam de I'eteri Testamento. — A series of 41 questions on the substanceandteaching(jf Scripture withappro- priate answers. S'>me are very interesting. (8) Secretorum Expositiones Sacranienturuni, seu Quaestiones in Vetus Testamentum. — A mystical interpretation of the principal events recorded in the books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ezra, Maccabees. The preface states that he has gathered the opinions of ancient ecclesiastical writers, viz. Origen, Victorinus, Ambrose, Jerome, Augus- tine, Fulgentius, Cassianus, and poi)e (.regory the Great. Gen. is treated of in 31 chapters Ex. in 59, I-ev. in 17, Num. in 42, Deiit. in 32, Josh, in 18, Judg. in 9 (including i on Kuth). I. Kings (i.e. Sam.) in 21, II. Kings in 6, 111. Kings in 8, IV. Kings in 8, Ezra in 3, Mac. in i. The mystical method of inter- pretation is pursued to an excessive degree. (q) De Fide Catholica ex Veteri et Novo Testamento contra Judaeos. — Addressed to his sister Florentina and apparently written at her request. It treats of the person of Christ from His existence in the bosom of the Father before the world was till His ascension and return to judgment ; and the conseijuences of the Incarnation, viz. the unbelief of the Jews, the ingathering of the (ientiles, the conversion of the Jews at the end of the world, and the cessation of the Sabbath. (10) Sententiarum Libri iii. — A kind of manual of Christian faith and practice, treat- ing of God and His attributes, it discourses ISIDORUS 543 also upon the world, the ori({in «f evil, nnj-eU man, the soul, and senses of the flesh. I hrist and the Holy Spirit, th<- church and her.si.s. the heathen nations, the law, seviti rules or principles fnr the uudrrstandmg <>< S<ripture. the dilTerenci- betwirn the Iw.. Testanirnls, symbol and prayer, baptism and coininuninii, martyrdom, the miracles wrought bv the saints. Antichrist and his works, the rrsurni - tion and judgment, hell, the pnnislinient of the wicked, and the glorv of the jusl. (.re.it use is made throughout of the works of Augustine and Gregory. (11) De Ecclesiasticis Officiis treats o( the services of the church, and of clerics, their rules and orders, the tonsure, the episcopal office, vicars episcopal, presbyters, deacons, sacristans and subdeacons, readers, psalmists, exorcists, acolytes, porters, monks, penitents, virgins, widows, the married, catechumens, exorcism, salt, candidates for baptism, the creed, the rule of faith, baptism, chrism, imposition of hands, and i ondrmation. (12) Synonymti de lamentattniie unitnae pecca- tricis. — One of the most curious of Isidore's works ; a kind of solilocpiy between Homo and Ratio. Homo begins by lamenting his lost and desperate condition in consequence of sin, and Ratio undertakes to direct him aright to a higher and holier condition issuing in the bliss of eternal felicity. (13) Regula Monachorum. — This treatise led some to suppose Isidore a Benedictine monk, the only order then establislied in the West ; but Gams thinks the proof not sufficient. (14) Tiiirteen short letters follow: to bp, l.eudefred of Cordova ; to Braulio, to whom he speaks of giving a ring and a pall ; to Helladius of Toledo on the fall of a certain bp. of Cordova ; to duke Claudius, whom he con- gratulates on his victories ; to Massona, bp. of Merida ; and to archdeacon Kedemptus. (15) De Ordine Creaturarum. — This book has been doubted by some, and, though Arevalo maintains it to be genuine, he prints it in smaller type. Gams reckons it as Isidore's. It treats of faith in the Trinity, spiritual creation, the waters above the firmament, the firmament of heaven, the sun and moon, the devil and the nature of demons, the nature of waters and course of the oc ean, Paradise, the nature c)f man after sin, the- diversity of sinners and their place of punishment, pur- gatorial fire and the future life. (16) De Natura Rerum Liber. — One of the most celebrated of Isidore's treatises, dedi- cated to king Sisebut (ace. a.d. 612), oiiec>f ili«> best kings of Spain, whose death was univer- sally lamented by the (Joths. Isidore dis- courses of the days, the night, the seasons, the solstice and equinox, the world and its five zc^ines, heaven and its name, the planets, the waters, the heavens, the nature, sue, and course of the sun, the light and course of the moon, the eclipse of sun and moon, the course of the stars, the position of the seven planets, the light of the stars, falling stars, the names iA the stars and whether they have any soiil. thunder, lightning, the rainbow, clouds, showers, snow, hail, the nature and names of the winds, the signs of storms, pestilence, the heat, size, and saltness of the ocean, the river Nile, the names cif sea and rivers, the position 644 ISIDORUS and motion of the earth, mount Etna, and the parts of the earth. He gives diagrams to illustrate his meaning. For a full analysis of the sources of this book see Gustavus Bekker's ed. (Berlin, 1857). (17) Chronicon. — A very brief summary of the principal events from the creation of the world to the reign of the emperor Heraclius and of king Sisebut. Hertzberg gives an elaborate analysis of the sources of Isidore's two chronicles in the Forschungen zur deiti- schen Gesch. xv. 289. (18) Historia de regibus Gothorum, Wandal- ornm et Suevorum. — The Goths, according to Isidore, were descended from Gog and Magog, and of the same race as the Getae. They first appeared in Thessaly in the time of Pompey, and in that of Valerian devastated Macedonia, Greece, Pontus, Asia, and Ill>Ticum. The history is brought down to 621, the reign of king Swintila. Isidore praises the Goths highly ; and Spaniards of his time esteemed it an honour to be reckoned Goths. This brief sketch is invaluable as our chief author- ity for the history of the West Goths. Of the Vandals we learn less from him, and his sketch of the Suevi is very brief, the former compressing 123 years into a single page, and the latter 177 in the same space. The Vandals entered Spain under Gunderic and were destroyed on the fall of Gelimer ; the Suevi entered under Hermeric in 409 and became incorporated with the Gothic nation in 585. (19) De Viris Illustribus liber. — Many Greeks and Latins had treated of the Christian writers before Isidore, but he determined to give a brief outline of those whom he had read him- self. The list embraces 46 names, and Braulio has added that of Isidore himself in the cele- brated " Praenotatio librorum S. Isidori a Braulione edita." Among the 46 are Xystus the pope, Macrobius the deacon, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of Dor^'laeum, Chrysostom, Hilary of Aries, Gregory the pope, Leander his own brother, and Maximus of Saragossa. This is a valuable summary of important facts in ecclesiastical history, but too often disfigured by the fierce and illiberal polemical spirit of the day — vide, e.g., his remarks on the death of Hosius. Other minor works assigned, some doubt- fully, to Isidore need not be enumerated. His Latin is not pure. He uses many Spanish words, and Arevalo has collected no fewer than 1,640 words which would not be understood by the ordinary reader or would strike him as strange. The style is feeble and inflated, having all the marks of an age of decadence. He was a voluminous wTiter of great learning, well versed in Holy Scripture, of which he manifests a remarkable know- ledge, had a trained and cultivated mind, but was rather a receptive and reproductive writer than one of strong masculine and original mind. He was a very conspicuous ornament of the Spanish church and shed great glory on the age he adorned. He did much to hand on the light of Christianity and make it effectual to the amelioration of a semi-barbarous nation, and his character contrasts favourably with those of a later period. A full list of the Lives of Isidore up to his time may be seen in Chevalier's Sources ISIDORUS historiques du Moyen-dge, p. 1127, including those of Henschen in Boll. Acta SS. 4 Apr. i. 327 ; Arevalo in his ed. of Isidore's Works ; Florez, Esp. Sag. ix. 173 (ed. 1752) ; Dupin, Eccl. Writ. t. ii. p. i (ed. 1724) ; Ceillier, xi. 710 ; Cave, i. 547 ; Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien (3 vols. 8vo, Regensburg, 1862- 1874 ; the great want of this excellent work is an adequate index ; the first vol. alone has a " Register "). Arevalo's ed. of Isidore's works has been reprinted by the Abbe Migne in his Patr. Lat. Ixxxi.-lxxx'iv., with the addi- tion of an eighth vol., containing the Collectio Canonum ascribed to Isidore ; vols. Ixxxv.- Ixxxvi. of Migne contain Liturgia Mozarabica secundum Regulam Beati Isidori. There is an excellent ed. of the de Natura Reritm Liber by G. Becker (Berhn 1857). Prof. J. E. B. Mayor has given a list of editions and authorities in his Bibliographical Clue to Latin Literature, p. 2X2. [s.L.] De Reg. Gothoruni, Vandalorum, et Suev- orum. — The histories, of all Isidore's works, have the most practical value for the present day. The Historia Gothorum is still to us, as it was to Mariana, one of the main sources of (iothic history. Upon the histories in general was based all the later medieval history- writing of Spain. A most valuable contribu- tion was made to our knowledge of the exact place of the histories in historical work by Dr. Hugo Hertzberg (Gottingen, 1874) in his Die Historien und die Chroniken des Isidorus von Sevilla : Bine Quellenuntersuchung, Erster Th., die Historien. Dr. Hertzberg's great merit lies in the clearness with which he shews exactly how Isidore worked, what were the kind and amount of his material, and the method employed in working it up. Dr. Hertzberg's general conclusions are, that Isidore neither possessed large material nor used what he had well. In no case did he take all that earlier chronicles offered him, but only extracts ; his choice and arrangement of statements are often bad, and the proper chronological order frequently disregarded. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the perma- nent historical value of certain portions of the Hist. Goth, is very great. From the reign of Euric, where Idatius breaks off, Isidore becomes for a time our only informant. He alone pre- serves the memory of Euric's legislation, while our knowledge of Visigothic history under Gesalic, Theudis, Theudigisel, Agi'la, and Athanagild rests essentially on his testimony. In the prominent reigns of Leovigild and Recared, J oh. Biclarensis becomes our great source, but Isidore's additions are important. From Recared to Suinthila he is again our best and sometimes our only source. The Hist. Vand. is, however, historically valueless, as we possess the sources from which it is a mere extract, and the same may almost be said of the Hist. Suev. Just where Isidore might have drawn most from oral testimony and thus supplied a real gap in our historical knowledge, viz. in the 100 years of Suevian history between Remismund and Theodernir, he fails us most notably. The whole missing cent, is dismissed in one vague sentence which tells us nothing. For a complete catalogue of the nine MSS. of the longer form of the text, and the ISIDORUS two ^iSS. of the shorter, as well as of the editions of both texts, see Dr. Hertzberg's Diss. S-i8. He gives a complete analysis of both texts according to the sources. For general references see Potthast, Bibl. Hisl. Med. Devi. The longer text of the histories is printed in Esp. Sagr. vi. with an introduction and long notes bv Florez. [m.a.w.] Isidorus (24). [Hasiudes.i Isidorus (31) Pelusiota, an eminent ascetic, theologian, and spiritual director in 5th cent., born at Alexandria (I'hotius, Bibl. 22S). His family was probably of high rank. The wide range of his reading, as shewn by his famili- arity with Greek poets, historians, orators, and philosophers, witnesses to the best .Mexandrian education. He also felt the full influence of that great development of Egyptian monas- ticism which was encouraged by the seclusion of Athanasius during his third exile and by the persecution of the " holy solitaries " after his death, and which made so deep an impres- sion on the as yet unconverted Augustine {Confess, viii. 6 ; cf. Isid. Ep. i. 17^, alluding to "the blessed Amnion"). Isidore re- solved to adopt the monastic life in its coenobitic form, as it had been organized by Pachomius at Tabenna and was being ex- hibited by various communities in the Upper Thebaid which followed his rule, by others in the Lower Thebaid, and the 5,000 inmates of the cells of Nitria (cf. Fleury, bk. xx. c. 9). The place he selected was near Pelusium, an ancient border-town at one of the Nile mouths. Jerome says it had "a very safe harbour " and was a centre of all " business connected with the sea " (Comm. in Ezech. ix. 30), but its in- habitants were proverbial for dulness (Hieron. Ep. Ixxxiv. 9). It was the capital of the pro- vince of Augustamnica Prima, and as such the seat of a " corrector " or governor. When Isi- dore first knew it, it was " rich and populous " (Ep. iii. 260). It suffered much from the maladministration of a Cappadocian named Gigantius. Believing that monastic life was the " imitation and receptacle of all the Lord's precepts" [Ep. i. 278), Isidore became a thorough monk in his ascetic self-devotion. Whether he became abbat Tillemont con- siders uncertain (xv. roi). We know from Facundus (Def. Tri. Capit. ii. 4), and, in- deed, virtually from himself (Ep. i. 258), that he was ordained a presbyter, very likely by bp. Ammonius (Ep. ii. 127), clearly not by his successor Eusebius, whom Isidore depicts as the centre of an ecclesiastical scandal which was to him a standing grief and offence. Perhaps this ecclesiastical degeneracy near his own home led Isidore to generalize some- what too despondingly as to its prevalence all around, .\lluding to Eusebius's love of church-building lie says : " It was not for the sake of walls, but of souls, that the King of Heaven came to visit us." " Could I have chosen, I would have rather lived in apostolic times, when church buildings were not thus adorned but the church was decked with grace, than in these days, when the buildings are ornamented with ail kinds of marble, and the church is bare and void of spiritual gifts " (Ep. ii. 2 16 ; cf. ii. 88). " Once pastors would die for their flocks ; now they destroy the sheep by causing the soul to stumble. , . . ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA Mi Once they distributed tlu-ir goods to the needy ; now they appmi-riate what bclungs to the poor. Once they practised virtue; now they ostracize [a favourite phrase with Isidore) those who do. ... I will not accuse all " (iii. 223). " Once men avoided the episcopate because of the greatness of its authorilv ; now they rush into it because of the greatness of its luxury. . . . The dignity has lapsed fmm a priesthood into a tyranny, from a stewardship into a mastership [dtairoTtlay]. For ihcy claim not to administer as stewards, but to appropriate as masters" (v. 21, to a bishop). " It is not long since the church had splendid teachers and approved disciples ; " and it might be so agam if bishops would " lay aside their tyraiuiy and shew a fatherly interest in their people . . . but until that foundation is well laid, I think it idle to talk about the V>\>- stone " (v. 126). He would say to worldly and arrogant prelates, " Abate your pride, relax your superciliousness, remember that you are but ashes. . . . Do not use the arms of the priesthood against the priesthood itself " (v. 131). " When those who were crowned with the priesthood led an evangelical and apostolical life, the priesthood was naturally dreaded by the sovereignty ; but now it is the sovereignty which is dreaded by the priest- hood, or rather by those who seem to dis- charge it but by their conduct insult it " (v. 268, to C>Til). " Some . . . openly reproach priests ; others pay them outward respect but in secret revile them. . . . This does not sur- prise me. As they do not act like those of old, they are treated differently. Those of old corrected kings when they sinned ; these do not correct even rich subjects ; and if they try to correct some poor man, they are re- proached as having been convicted of the same offences" (v. 278). So, speaking to an ambitious deacon about I. Tim. iii. i, he cor- rects a misapprehension. " Paul did not say, ' Let every one desire the episcopate." ... It is a work, not a relaxation ; a solicitude, not a luxury ; a responsible ministration, not an irresponsible dominion ; a fatherly supervision, not a tyrannical autocracy " (iii. 216). Else- where he complains that bishops would receive persons excommunicated by other bishops, to the ruin of the discipline of souls (iii. 259). and that in their bitter contests these olluial peacemakers would fain devour each other (iv. 133). The secularization of the episcopal character he traces in one letter to the exces- sive honour paid by emperors to bishops, and adds : " There are bishoj.s who take pains to live up to the ap<>st(jlic standard ; if you say, * V'ery few,' I do not deny it ; but . . . many are called, few are ch..sen." Isidore exhibits an intense habitual moral earnestness, vigilant against all that inii)lied or might tend to sin (v. 17, 208). His downright censures, de- livered under a serious conviction that he was specially appointed for the purpose (i. 389 ; cf. Tillem. xv. 102), naturally made hiiii enemies among the higher clergy, who tried to put him under some s<irt of ban. and there- by " unintentionally set a crown upon his head" (Ep. v. 131)- Hut he was not less stern to faults in other orders, such as the in- hospitalitv (i. 50). gluttony (i. y)2), or " pug- nacity " (i. 298) of monks ; their neRlect of 35 646 ISIDOROS PELUSIOTA manual labour (i. 49), the disorderliness of those who haunted cities and frequented public shows, as if all that " the angelic life " required were " a cloak, a staff, and a beard " (i. 92 ; cf. i. 220, and Chalcedon, can. 4). He rebukes a physician who is morally diseased {Ep. i. 391), denounces a homicide who went "swaggering" through Pelusium (i. 297), warns a wicked magistrate to flee from eternal punishment (i. 31), remonstrates with a soldier for invading the cells of monks and teaching them false doctrine (i. 327), and with a general for attempting to take away the privilege of sanctuary (i. 174), etc. In a letter probably addressed to Pulcheria he repro- bates the conduct of some imperial envoys, who had compromised their Christianity in the negotiation of a peace (iv. 143). The two great church questions in which Isidore took a decided part brought him into collision with his own patriarch, Cyril of Alexandria. The first related to the recog- nition of St. Chrysostom's memory as worthy of the reverence of faithful Christians. Theo- philus of Alexandria had practically procured his deposition and exile ; the West had sup- ported Chrysostom while he lived and after- wards had suspended communion with churches which would not insert his name in their diptychs. Antioch had yielded ; even Atticus of Constantinople had done so for peace' sake. Cyril, the nephew and successor of Theophilus, held fast to his uncle's position. Isidore had loved and honoured " holy John," if he had not, as Nicephorus says (xiv. 30), been instructed by him. In a letter to a grammarian he quotes Libanius's panegyric on his oratory (Ep. ii. 42) ; to another Isidore he specially recommends " the most wise John's " commentary on the Romans (v. 32) ; in another letter, recommending his treatise " on the Priesthood," he calls him " the eye of the Byzantine church, andof every church " (i. 156) ; and he describes the " tragedy of John" in the bitter words: "Theophilus, who was building-mad, and worshipped gold, and had a spite against my namesake " {see Socr. vi. 9), was " put forward by Egypt to persecute that pious man and true theologian " {Ep. i. 152). Similarly he wrote to Cyril : " Put a stop to these contentions : do not involve the living Church in a private ven- geance prosecuted out of duty to the dead, nor entail on her a perpetual division [alwviov dix^^'Oiav] under pretence of piety " (i. 570, transl. by Facund.). Cyril took this advice, and the " Joannite " quarrel came to an end, probably in 417-418 (Tillem. xiv. 281 ; see Photius, Bibl. 232). The other matter was far more momentous. When C^'ril was at the council of Ephesus endeavouring to crush Nestorianism, Isidore wrote to him : " Prejudice does not see clearly ; antipathy does not see at all. If you wish to be clear of both these affections of the eyesight, do not pass violent sentences, but commit causes to just judgment. God . . . was pleased to ' come down and see ' the cry of Sodom, thereby teaching us to inquire accurately. For many of those at Ephesus accuse you of pursuing a personal feud, in- stead of seeking the things of Jesus Christ in an orthodox way. ' He is,' they say, ' the ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA nephew of Theophilus,' " etc. {Ep. i. 310 ; cf. a Latin version, not quite accurate, by Facun- dus, I.e.). He had, however, no sympathy with Nestorius : in the close of the letter he seems to contrast him with Chrysostom ; in the next letter he urges Theodosius II. to restrain his ministers from " dogmatizing " to the council, the court being then favourable to Nestorius. Isidore was, indeed, very zealous against all tendencies to Apollinarian- ism : he disliked the phrase, " God's Passion," he insisted that the word " Incarnate " should be added — it was the Passion of Christ {Ep. i. 129) ; he urged on Cyril the authority of Athanasiusfor the phrase," from two natures" (i. 323), and he even usestheyet clearer phrase, ultimately adopted by the council of Chal- cedon, " in both natures " (i. 405) ; but he repeatedly insists on the unity of the Person of Christ, the God-Man, which was the point at issue in the controversy (i. 23, 303, 405). He says that " the Lamb of God," as the true Paschal victim, " combined the fire of the divine essence with the flesh that is now eaten by us " (i. 219) ; in a letter to a Nestorianizing " scholasticus " he calls the Virgin (not simply Theotokos, but) " Mother of God Incarnate " (BeoO aapKuid^vTos firiT^pa," i. 54). When Cyril, two years later, came to an under- standing with John of Antioch, Isidore ex- horted him to be consistent and said that his most recent writings shewed him to be " either open to flattery or an agent of levity, swayed by vainglory instead of imitating the great athletes " of the faith, etc. (i. 324). Perhaps these letters were "the treatise to" (or against) Cyril, which Evagrius ascribes to Isidore. Isidore was better employed when he uttered warnings against the rising heresy of Eutychianism : " To assert only one nature of Christ after the Incarnation is to take away both, either by a change of the divine or an abatement of the human " (i. 102) ; among various errors he mentions " a fusion and co- mixture and abolition of the natures," urging his correspondent, a presbyter, to cling to the " inspired" Nicene faith (iv. 99). His theology was generally characterized by accuracy and moderation. In a truly Athana- sian spirit (cf. Athan. de Deer. Wic. 22) he writes, " We are bound to know and believe that God is, not to busy ourselves as to what He is " {i.e. attempt to comprehend His essence; £^.11.299). He is emphatic against the two extremes of Arianism and Sabellian- ism. " If God was always like to Himself, He must have been always Father ; there- fore the Son is co-eternal " (i. 241, cf. i. 389) ; and Eunomians exceed Arians in making the Son a servant (i. 246). Sabellians misinter- pret John X. 30, where ^v shews the one essence, and the plural ea/aey the two hypo- stases (i. 138). In the Trinity, the Godhead is one, but the hypostases are three (i. 247). In Heb. i. 3 the dTrai-yacr^a indicates the co- eternity, the xa/'a/cTTjp the personahty ; it is in things made that " before " and " after " have place, not in " the dread and sovereign Trinity " (iii. 18 ; cf. the Quicunque, ver. 25). The belief in three Persons in one essence ex- cludes alike Judaism and polytheism {Ep. iii. 112). Of John xiv. 28 he observes that "greater" or "less than" implies identity ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA of nature (i. 422). On I'liil. ii. 6 seq. he argues that, unless Christ was equal to the Father, the illustration is irrelevant ; if He was equal, then it is pertinent, (iv. 22. The i>assacc is interesting as shewiufj that he, like St. Chrysostoin, while interpreting oi"'x aiivay^dy — 6t(j5 of the condescension, understood St. Paul to mean, " Christ could afford to waive the display of His co-equality, just because He did not regard it as a thing to which He had no right.") He explains Rom. iii. 25 : when no other cure for a man's ills was possible, " God brought in the Only-begotten Son as a ransom ; one Victim, surpassing all in worth, was offered up for all" (iv. 100). He contends that the divinity of the Holy Spirit — denied by Macedonians — is involved in the divinity of the Son (i. 20). Against the denial of the latter doctrine he cites a number of texts and explains the " humble language " used by Jesus as the result of the " economy " of the Incarnation, whereas the " lofty langu- age " also used by Him would be inexplicable if He were a mere man (iv. 166). " Baptism," he writes to a count, " does not only wash away the uncleanness derived through Adam's transgression, for that much were nothing, but conveys a divine regeneration surpassing all words — redemption, sanctification, adop- tion, etc. ; and the baptized person, through the reception of the sacred mysteries [of the Eucharist : of. i. 228], becomes of one body with the Only-begotten, and is united to Him as the body to its head " (iii. 195). He cen- sures such abstinence as proceeds from " Manichean or Marcionite principles " (i. 52) ; notices the omissions in the Marcionite gospel (i. 371) ; accuses Novatianists of self- righteous assurance (i. 100), but is creduh^us as to the scandalous imputations against the .Montanists, much resembling the libels which had been circulated against the early Christians (i. 242). His letters illustrate the activity of Jewish opposition to the Gospel. They tell us of a few who cavilled at the sub- stitution of bread for bloody sacrifices in the Christian oblation (i. 401) ; of one who criti- cized the " hyperbole " in John xxi. 25 (ii. 99) ; of another who argued from Haggai ii. 9 that the temple would yet be restored (iv. 17). Although Paganism,'as a system and t)rganizcd power, was defunct (i. 270), yet its adherents were still voluble ; they called Christianity " a new-fangled scheme of life " (ii. 46), con- temned its principle of faith (v. loi), dis- paraged Scripture on account of its " barbaric diction " and its defects of style (iv. 28), sneered at the " dead Jesus," the Cross, the Sepulchre, and the " ignorance of the apostles" (iv. 27), and Isidore heard one of them, a clever rhetorician, bursting into " a broad laugh " at the Passion, and presently put him to silence (iv. 31). He wrote a " little treatise " (\oyi5iov) to prove that there was " no such thing as fate" (iii. 253), and a book " against the Gentiles" to prove that divina- tion was "nonsensical" (ii. 137, 228), thus using in behalf of religion the " weapons and svll ogisms of its opponents, to their confusion " (iii. «7). Both are now lost. His familiarity with heathen writers — among whom he criticizes Galen (iv. 125)— gave him great advantages iu discussion with unbelievers ; ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA 647 I and he tak.s •'" 'r""i i •lucstion a» to Origen s theory about the la|>se of s..ul» t.. cite a variety of opinions still mrrc-nt appar- ently among those who still rejrrird the Gospel. "Some think that the soul ii ri- tinguished with the b..dv . . . s..in.- have imagmed that all is governed bv rhanre ■ some have entrusted their lives to tMr necessity, and fortune . . . some have s.iid th.it heaven is ruled by providence, but the rarth is not " (iv. 163). He si)caks <>f the harm donr to the Christians' argument by Christians' mis- conduct : " If we overcome heretics, pagans, and Jews by our correct doctrine, we art- bound also to overcome them by i>ur conduct, lest, when worsted on the former ground' they should think to overcome on the latter^ and, after rejecting our faith, should adduce against it our own lives" (iv. 226). Very many of his letters are answers to questions as to texts of Scripture. Like Athanasius, he sometimes gives a ch<>ire of explanations (e.g. i. 114) ; although a follower of Chrysostom, he shews an Alexandrian tendency to far-fetched and fantastic inter- pretation, as when he explains the live coal } and the tongs in Isa. vi. 7 to represent the divine essence and the flesh of Christ (i. 42), or the carcase and the eagles to mean human- ity ruined by tasting the forbidden fruit and lifted up by ascetic mortification (i. 282), or when " he that is on the house-top " is made to denote a man who despises the present life (i. 210). He reproves a presbyter for critirir- ing mystical interpreters (ii. 81), but savs also that those who attempt to make the whole of O.T. refer to Christ give an opening to pagans and heretics, " for while they strain the passages which do not refer to Him, they awaken suspicion as to those which without any straining do refer to Him " (ii. 195). With similar good sense he remarks that St. Paul's concessions to Jewish observance were not a turning back to the law, but an " eon- omy " for the sake of others who had not out- grown it (i. 407)- Again, he observes that church history should relieve despondency as to existing evils, and that even the present state of the church should remove mistrust as to the future (ii. 5). Difficulties about the resurrection of the body are met bv coiisidi-r- ing that the future body will not be like the present, but " ethereal and spiritual " (li. 43). He admits that ambition is a natural motive andean be turned to^ood (iii. 34). Ascetic as he was, he dissuades from immoderate fasting, lest an " immoderate reaction " ensue (ii. 45). Obedience to the government, when it docs not interfere with religion, is im ulcated, because our Lord " was registered and paid tribute to Caesar" (i. 48). But he exhorts The.Klo- sius II. (probably soon after his accession) to " combine mildness with authority" (i. 35), intimating that his ears were too open to malii ious representations (i. 275) ; and he speaks to a " corre( tor " in the manly tones so seldom heard in those days, exifpt from the lips of typical C hrislians : " Me who has bren invested with rule ought himself to br ruh-d by the laws ; if Iw himself sets them aside, how can he be a lawful ruler ? " (v. 3M3). Mr con- siders that the K'-maloKV traced through Joseph proves that Mary also sprang Ituin 548 ISIDORUS PELUSIOTA David (i. 7) ; that the fourth beast in Daniel meant the Roman empire (i. 218) ; that the 70 weeks extended from the 20th year of Artaxerxes to the 8th of Claudius (iii. 89) ; that Hebrews was by St. Paul (i. 7). He in- terprets Mark xiii. 32 evasively (i. 117). He corrects the confusion between the two Philips (i. 447). His shrewdness and humour, occasionally tinged with causticity, appear in various letters. " I hear that you have bought a great many books, and yet . . . know nothing of their contents ; " take care lest you be called " a book's-grave," or " moth- feeder " ; then comes a serious allusion to the buried talent (i. 127). He tells a bishop that he trains the younger ministers well, but spoils them by over-praising them (i. 202). He hears that Zosimus can say by heart some passages of St. Basil and suggests that he should read a certain homily against drunkards (i. 61). He asks an ascetic why he " abstains from meat and feeds greedily on revilings " (i. 446). His friend Harpocras, a good " sophist " (whom he recommends for a vacant mastership, v. 458, and urges to keep his boys from the theatre and hippodrome, v. 185), had written a sarcastic " monody," or elegy, on Zosimus and his fellows, as al- ready '' dead in sin " ; Isidore, whom he had requested to forward it to them, defers doing so, lest he should infuriate them against the author ; however, he says in effect, if you really mean it to go, send it yourself, and then, if a feud arises, you will have no one else to blame (v. 52). He remarks that " some people are allowed to be tempted to cure them of the notion that they are great and invincible persons" (v. 39). He points out to a palace chamberlain the inconsistence of being glib at Scripture quotations and " mad after other people's property" (i. 27). But for all this keenness and didactic severity, and in spite of his expressed approval of the use of torture (i. 116), he impresses us as a man of kindly disposition, warm in his friendships (see Epp. i. 161, ii. 31, V. 125). He observes that " God values nothing more than love, for the sake of which He became man and obedient unto death ; for on this account also the first- called of His disciples were two brothers . . . our Saviour thus intimating that He wills all His disciples to be united fraternally " (i. 10). In this spirit he says of slaves, " Prejudice or fortune . . . has made them our property, but we are all one by nature, by the faith, by the judgment to come " (i. 471) ; and he tells how a young man came to his cell, asked to see him, was introduced by the porter, fell at his feet in tears in silence, then, on being re- assured, said that he was the servant of Iron the barrister, and had offended his master in ignorance, but too deeply for pardon. " I cannot think," writes Isidore, " that the true Christian Iron, who knows the grace that has set all men free, can hold a slave " (olKir-qv ixei-v. i. 142). This tenderness is in harmony with the candour ("si sainte et si belle," says Tillemont, xv. 104) with which he owns that when he has tried to pray for them who have deliberately injured him, he has found him- self doing so " with his lips only." " Not that I doubt that some have attained that height of excellence : rather, I rejoice at IVO and rejoice with them, and would desire to reach the same point " (v. 398). Isidore's letters natiurally contain allusions to the religious customs or opinions of his age : such as pilgrimage to the shrines of the saints, as of St. Peter (ii. 5 ; cf. i. 160 on that of Thecla, and i. 226 on the martyrs who "guard the city" of Pelusium) ; the bene- diction given by the bishop " from his high chair," and the response " And with thy spirit " (i. 122) ; the deacon's linen garment, and the bishop's woollen " omophorion " which he took off when the gospel was read (i. 136) ; the right of sanctuary (i. 174) ; the wrongfulness of exacting an oath (i. 155). His death cannot be placed later than 449 or 450 (see Tillem. xv. 116). Two thousand letters of his, we are told, were collected by the zealously anti-Monophysite community of Acoemetae, or " sleepless " monks, at Constantinople, and arranged in 4 vols, of 500 letters each. This collection appears to be identical with the extant 2,012 letters, distributed, without regard to chron- ology, into 5 books (see Tillem. xv. 117, 847), of which the first three were edited by Billius, the fourth by Rittershusius, and the fifth by Andrew Schott, a Jesuit ; the whole being in- cluded in the ed. pub. at Paris in 1638. Many of the letters are, in effect, repetitions. See Bouuy, De S. Isid. Pel. lib. iii. (Nimes, 1885) ; also C. H. Turner and E. K. Lake in Journ. of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. pp. 70, 270. [w.b.] Ivo, St. [Yvo), June 10, a supposed Persian bp. in Britain, after whom the town of St. Ives in Hunts was named. His Life was written by the monk Goscelin when resident at Ramsey, towards the end of nth cent., based on a more diffused account by a previous abbat Andrew, who collected his information while in the East on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1020. Goscelin's Life is printed in BolL Acta SS. 10 June ii. 288. It describes Ivo as a missionary bishop, a star of the East, a messenger of the true Sun, divinely marked out for work in Britain. Quitting Persia, he passed through Asia and Illyricum to Rome, enlightening every place he visited. From Rome he proceeded to Gaul, where the ad- miring king and nobles would have detained him, but he pushed forward to Britain with his three companions. There he rescued the people from idolatry. The first-fruit of his labours was " a youth of patrician dignity named Patricius, the son of a Senator." Passing into Mercia, Ivo settled at the vill of Slepe, 3 English leucae (Gosc. c. 2, § 8) from Huntedun. There he laboured many years, died, and was buried. About 100 lustra (c. i, § 4) had passed since the bishop's death, when a peasant of Slepe struck with his plough a stone sarcophagus, within which were found, besides human remains, a silver chalice and insignia of the episcopal rank. Slepe being one of the estates of the abbey of Ramsey, 8 leucae (c. 2, § 8) distant, abbat Eadnoth was informed of this. The same night a man of Slepe saw in a vision one robed as a bishop, with ornaments like those in the sarcophagus, who said he was St. Ivo and wished to be removed to the abbey, with two of his com- panions, whose burial-places he described. The translation was accordingly effected, and IVO on the spot where the saint was found a church was dedicated to him, connected with which was a priory as a cell of the parent abbey. The spot was thenceforth known as St. Ives. A later hand adds that temp. Henry I. the relics of the two companions were re- trans- lated to St. Ives. As Ramsey abbey was founded about 091 or a little earlier (Mon. Hist. Brit. 580 d ; Monast. .-lugl. ii. 547), Eadnoth the tirst abbat {Liber Elieits. cd. Stewart, p. 188) would be livinj: c. 1000 (the common date of the translation is looi). Reckoning back too lustra or 400 years (com- puting by the four- year lustrum), we arrive at A.D. 600 as aboutthe perioil (if Ivo's death, and this is the year given by Flnrcnre of Worcester {Chron. in M. H. B. 526). His mission at Slepe must thus be placed c. 5S0-600, which nearly corresponds with the reign of the em- peror Maurice, with whom Diceto (in Gale, iii. 559) makes him contemporary. Thus Ivo's Mercian mission preceded the arrival of Augustine by about half a generation and anticipated by some 70 years the conversion of Mercia as narrated in Bede. The obvious improbability of this leaves the monks of Ramsey responsible for the legend. Possibly there may be here a lingering tradition of old British Christianity and a reminiscence of its Oriental origin^ leaving the period out of the question. It would not be surprising if a British remnant should have survived in that locality as late as the Con- quest. There are indications that Britons did actually maintain themselves in E. Mercia and the fastnesses of the fens long after the conversion of the English race. Moreover, the name of Patrick gives the story a Celtic look, and the locality might have been a sort of eastern Glastonbury. The Celtic element in the first conversion of the Mercian Angles was likely to prolong the vitality of Celtic traditions. If there was Celtic blood surviving in the fens when Ram- sey was founded, the Oriental colouring of the legend is accounted for. The stone sarco- phagus may have been a genuine Roman relic, furnishing a material basis for the story and suggesting the occasion. If the above inferences are not unreasonable, the legend of St. Ivo contains a reminiscence that the Chris- tian missionaries who reached Britain from the East came by way of Gaul and of the tradition of their having been sent from Rome. Slepe is found in Domesday and is still the name of one of the manors of St. Ives. The priory of St. Ives, the ruins of which survive, is described in Monast. Attgl. ii. 631. In the time of Brompton (Twysd. p. 883) no saint in England was so eminent as St. Ivo at Ramsey for the cure of diseases. The story was written again by John of Tynemouth in 14th cent., in whose Sanctilo- gium, before the MS. was burnt, it stood No. 70 (Smith, Cat. Cotton MSS. p. 29). It was one of those adopted by Capgrave in 15th cent, for his Nova Le^enda (ff. 199) and so is preserved. This versujn states that the pope commissioned him to Britain. The MS. Lives of Ivo are mentioned by Hardy {Desc. Cat. i. 184-186), and the Life by Goscelin exists as a Bodleian manuscript in a fuller form than the recension given by the BoUandists, the Life JACOBUS or JAMES r49 in Capgrave luim: .in >thir .ibrid>;ni< nt. On** of the MSS. nienlion.'d bv H.irdv purport, to be the very Life by abbat Andrew referred to bv Goscelin. fc.ii.l Jacobus (4) or James, bp. of Nisibis in Mrso. potamia, call«-d " the Mosi-s -if M.'so|...t.uni.»." b<irn at Nisibis <>r .Antio< liia Mvgdoni.ir t.>. warils the end of 3rd ci-nt. He is said to h.ivo been nearly related to (ircgory the Illuminator, the ai^ostle of Armenia. At an early a^c h<" devoteil himself to the life of a solit.iry, and the celebrity he acquired by his self-imposed austerities caiised Theodorct to assign him the first place in his Reltgiosa Htstoria <>r Vitae Patrum — where he is entitlrd 6 /i/->at. During this period he went to IVrsia for intercourse with the Christians of that ( ouiilrv and to contirm their faith uiuhr the prrserii- tions of Sapor II. Gennadius (</<• Strtpt. Ilccl. c. i) reports that James was a confessor in the Maximinian persecution. On the vacancy of the see of his native city he was compelled by the popular demand to become bishop. His episcopate, acc<irding to Theodoret, was signalized by fresh miracles. In 325 he was summoned to the coimcil of Nicaea (Labbe, Concil. ii. 52. 76). A leading part is ascribed to him by Theodoret in its debates (Theod. u.s. p. 1114)- He is rom- niended by .Athanasius, together with Hosius, Alexander, Eustathius, and others {adv. .-irian. t. i. p. 252). .\ccording to some Eastern ac- counts, James was one whom the emperor Constantine marked out for peculiar honour (Stanley, Eastern Church, p. 203). His name occurs among those who signed the decrees of the council of ,\ntioch. in Encaeniis, a.d. 341, of more than doubtful orthodoxy (Labbe, Concil. ii. 359), but no mention of his being present at this council occurs elsewhere (Tillem. Mem. ecd. t. vi. note 27, les .Arensi; Hefele, Councils, ii. 58. Eng. tr.). That the awfully sudden death of Arius at Constanti- nople, on the eve of his anticipated triumph, A.D. 336, was due to the prayers of James of Nisibis, and that on this emergency he had exhorted the faithful to devote a whole week to uninterrupted fasting and public supplica- tion in the churches, rests onlv on the au- thority of one passage, in the Reltgiosa Hti- toria of Theodoret. the spuriousness<>f which is acknowledged bv all sound critics. The gross blunders of making the death of the heresiarch contemporaneous with the council of Nicaea, and of confounding Alexander <>f Alexandria with Alexander of Constantinople, prove it an ignorant forgery. In the account of the death of Arius obtained by ThecKloret from Athanasius (Theod. //. /•. 1. 14; S-.f. H. E. ii. 20) n>' mention is made <'f James, nor in that given bv .Athanasius in his letter to the bishops. As bp. <.f Nisibis J.inies was the spiritual father of Ephrein Syrus. who was baptized bv him and remained by hu side as long as he lived. Milles. bp. of Susa. visiting Nisibis to attend a syn<Kl for scttlinR the differences between the bps. of Seleuria and Ctesiphon. c. 34 «. found James busily erecting his cathedral, towards which, on hi* return, Milles sent a large quantity of silk 550 JACOBUS SARUGENSIS from Adiabene (Assemani, Bibl. Or. torn. i. p. i86). On the attempt, three times renewed, of Sapor II. to make himself master of Nisibis, A.D. 338, 346, 350, James maintained the faith of the inhabitants in the divine protection, kindled their enthusiasm by his words and example, and with great militarv genius and administrative skill thwarted the measures of the besiegers. For the tale of the final siege of 350, which lasted three months, and of the bishop's successful efforts to save his city, see Gibbon, c. xviii. vol. ii. pp. 385 ff. or De Broglie, L'Eglise et VEmpire, t. iii. pp. 180-195. See also Theod. m.s. p. 1118; H. E. ii. 26 ; Theophan. p. 32. Nisibis was quickly relieved by Sapor being called away to defend his kingdom against an inroad of the MassaE;etae. James cannot have Jong survived this deliverance. He was honourably interred within the city, that his hallowed remains might continue to defend it. When in 363 Nisibis yielded to Persia, the Christians carried the sacred talisman with them. (Theod. U.S. p. 1119 ; Soz. H. E. v. 3 ; Gen- nad. M.S. c. i.) Gennadius speaks of James as a copious writer, and gives the titles of 26 of his treat- ises. Eighteen were found by Assemani in the Armenian convent of St. Anthonv at Venice, together with a request for some of his works from a Gregorv and James's reply. Their titles — de Fide, de Dilectione, de Jejunio, de Oratione, de Bello, de Devotis, de Poenitentia, de Resurrectione, etc. — corre- spond generally with those given bv Genna- dius, but the order is different. In the same collection Assemani found the long letter of Jamestothe bishops of Seleucia andCtesiphon, on the Assyrian schism. It is in 31 sections, lamenting the divisions of the church and the pride and arrogance which caused them, and exhorting them to seek peace and concord. These were all published with a Latin trans- lation, and a learned preface establishing their authenticity, and notes bv Nicolas Maria Antonelli in 1756; also in'the collection of the Armenian Fathers, pub. at Venice in 1765, and again at Constantinople in 1824. The Latin translation is found in the Patres Apos- tolici of Caillau, t. 25, pp. 254-543. The liturgy bearing the name of James of Nisibis, said to have been formerlv in use among the Syrians (Abr. Ecchell. Not. in Caial. Ebed- Jesu, p. 134 ; Bona, Liturg. i. 9) is certainlv not his, but should be ascribed to James of Sarug (Renaudot, Lit. Or. t. ii. p. 4). James of Nisibis is commemorated in Wright's Syrian Martyrology, and in the Roman martvrology, July 15. Assemani. Bibl. Or. t. i. pp. '17 sqq., 186, 557, 652 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. vii. ; Ceillier, Ant. eccl. t. iv. pp. 478 sqq. ; Fabri- cius, Bibl. Graec. t. ix. p. 289 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 189. [E.V.] Jacobus (13) Sarugensis, bp. of Batnae, a little town in the district of Sarug in Osrhoene. He enjoyed an extraordinary reputation for learning and holiness and was sainted alike by orthodox and heretics. The Syrian liturgies commemorate him with St. Ephraim as " os eloquentissimum et columnam ecclesiae." Two Lives are extant in the Vatican and one m the Brit. Mus. (Cod. dcccclx. 46, dated A-P- 1197)- The oldest and best is the JACOBUS SARUGENSIS spirited eulogium by his disciple Georgius, perhaps a bishop of the Arabs. The other two, which are anonymous and later than loth cent., are in close agreement with it. According to them, Jacobus was born at Kur- tom on the Euphrates, a.d. 452, and was taught in one of the schools of Edessa (according to Mares the Nestorian). The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that Jacobus was made bp. of Batnae (" urbis Sarug") when 67J years old, a.d. 519, and that he died 2\ years afterwards, i.e. a.d. 521. Before a.d. 503, JoshuaStylites tells us, Jacobus was a periodeutes or visitor of the district of Batnae, a middle rank between the episcopate and the priesthood. Cf. Ep. 16 in the Brit. Mus. Cod. dclxxii. The Stylite adds that Jacobus composed many homilies on Scripture, psalms, and hymns ; which proves his fame already established in 503. Renaudot (t. ii. Liturgg. Orientt.) has charged Jacobus with RIonophysitism, a charge which Assemani and Abbeloos shew to be unwarranted. Timotheus of Constanti- nople (fl. 6th cent, ad init.) calls him " ortho- dox," Isaacus Ninivita and Joannes Maro quote him as such, and Joshua the Stylite, his contemporary, calls him venerable. The Maronites, always hostile to Nestorians and Jacobites, honour him as a saint. Further, he began his episcopate under Justin, by whose orders Sevcrus was driven from Antioch, Philoxenos from Hicrapolis, and other heretics from Mesopotamia and Syria. Had Jacobus been a Monophysite, he would have shared their fate. Not a single Catholic writer of the 5th, 6th, or 7th cent., says Assemani, has so accused him. Bar-hebraeus and the Life in the Brit. Mus., indeed, allege that he com- municated with Severus, and Dionysius in his Chronicon asserts that St. Jacobus of Sarug would not communicate with Paul of Antioch, because the latter confessed the two natures. But Dionysius is contradictory in his dates. Some passages of the extant hymns speak of the single nature of Christ, but may be inter- polated. There is direct evidence that after the council of Chalcedon the Monophysites began to tamper with texts (cf. Evagr. iii. 31). They even attributed whole works, written in their own interests, to such men as Athanasius and Gregory Thaumaturgus. Jacobus Edes- senus testifies that a certain poem was falsely ascribed by the Jacobite sect to the bp. of Batnae shortly after his decease (Bar-hebr. Horr. Myst. ad Gen. vi.). A silly poem against the council of Chalcedon {Cod. Nitr. 5 fol. 139) is proved by internal evidence to be spurious. His writings in general supply ample proof of orthodoxy on the doctrines in question. Works. — He was a very voluminous writer. Bar-hebraeussays that he employed 70 amanu- enses in writing his homiletic poems, of which 760 exist, besides expositions, epistles, hymns, and psalms. Georgius, in his panegyric, gives a list of his poetic writings which treat of the great men of O.T., of angels, and of the mysteries of the Son of God. The anonymous Life (Vat.) states that his homilies (mim'ri) numbered 763. Of these many may be lost ; most of those which survive are unedited. Prose Works. — (i) An anaphora or liturgy (Renaud. Lit. Or. ii. 556-566) beginning D^ms JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS PaUr, qui rs tnutqutllttas .' also found in Ethiopic (Brit. Miis. Cod. rclxi. ii. " Aiia- phori of holy Mar Jacob the Doctor, of Batnaii of Seng." Also Codd. cclxiii. and cdx.xiii.). {2) An order of Baptism ; one of four used by the Maronites (Assemani, Cod. Lit. ii. 300). (3) '"-n order of Confirmation {ib. iii. 184). (4) A number of epistles — the Brit. Mus. Cod. dclxxii. (dated a.d. 603) contains 34 in a more or less perfect state, includinp; (a) Ep. to Samuel, abbat of St. Isaacus at Gabula ; on the Trinity and Incarnation. " The Father unbegotten, the Son begotten, the Spirit pro- ceeding from the Father, and receiving from the Son." (ft) Ep. to the Himyarite Chris- tians. (C) Ep. to Stephen bar-Sudail of Edessa, proving from reason and Scripture the eternity of heaven and hell. (</) Ep. to Jacobus, an ibbat of Edessa, explaining Heb. X. 26, I. John V. 16, etc. {e) Ep. to bp. Eutychianus against the Nestorians. (5) Six Homilies : on Nativity, Epiphany, Lent, Palm Sunday. The Passion, The Resur- rection (Zingerle, Seeks Homilien des heilig. Jacob von Sarug, Bonn, 1867). Poetic Works. — Assemani gives a catalogue of 231, with headings and first words. Very few have been printed. The subjects are chiefly the personages and events of O. and N. T., esp. the words and deeds of Christ. Jacobus is very fond of an allegorical treat- ment of O.T. themes. Wright's Cat. Syr. MSS., pp. 502-525, gives an account of upwards of 40 MSS. and fragments of MSS., containing metrical discourses, and letters and a few homilies in prose, by St. Jacobus. Jacobus Edessenus classed the bp. of Batnae with St. Ephraim, Isaacus Magnus, and Xenaias Mabugensis, as a model writer of SjTiac. Assem. Bibl. Or. i. 283-340 ; Cave, ii. 110; Abbeloos, de Vita et Scriptt. S. Jacobi Bain. Sarugi in Mesop. Episc. (Lovan. 1867) ; Matagne, Act. Sanct. xii. Oct. p. 824 ; Bickell, Consp. Svr. 25, 26. [c.j.b.] Jacobus (15) or James Baradaeus {Al Baradai, Burdoho, Burdeotw, Burdeana, or Btirdeaya, also Phaselila, or Zanzalus). or- dained by the Monophysites bp. of Edessa {c. A.D. 541), with oecumenical authority over the members of their body throughout the East. By his indomitable zeal and untiring activity this remarkable man rescued the Monophysite community from the extinction with which persecution by the imperial power threatened it, and breathed a new life into what seemed little more than an expiring faction, consecrating bishops, ordaining clergy, and uniting its scattered elements in an organization so well planned and so stable that it has subsisted unharmed through all the many political and dynastic storms in that portion of the world, and preserves to the present day the name of its founder as the Jacobite church of the East. Materials for his Life are furnished by two Syriac biographies by his contemporary, John of Asia, the Mono- physite bp. of Ephesus ordained by him, printed by Land (.Anecdota Syriaca, \'o\. ii. pp. 240-253, pp. 364-383), and by the third part of the Eccles. History ot the same author (Payne Smith's trans, pp. 273-278, 291). The surname Baradaeus is derived from the ragged mendicant's garb patched up out of JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS 5.M "Id >.i(i(ll.(|Mtlis. in will. h. the b.llcr to dis. guisr his spiritu.il fmirtions from the unfrirnd- ly eyes of those in power, this indrf.itiKablr propagator of his creed performed his swift and secret journeys over Svria and Mesopotamia. James Baradaeus is stated by John of Ephesus to have been born at Tela Mau/alat, otherwise called Constantina, a rity of Os- rhocne, 55 miles due E. of Edessa, towards the close of 5th rent. His father, Theophilus Bar-Manu, was one of the clergy of the place. In pursuance of a vow of his parents, James, when two years old, was placed in that monastery under the care of abbat Eustathius, and trained in Greek and Syriac literature and in the strictest asceticism (land, Anecdol. Syr. t. ii. p. 364). He became remarkable for the severity of his self-discipline. Having on the death of his parents inherited their jiroperty, including a couple of slaves, he manumitted them, and made over the house and estate to them, reserving nothing for himself (ift. 366). He eventuallv became a presbvter. His fame spread over the East and reached the empress Theodora, who was eagerly desirous of seeing him, as one of the chief saints of the Mono- physite party of which she was a zealous partisan. James was with much difficulty induced to leave his monastery for the imperial city. Arriving at Constantinople, he was re- ceived with much honour by Theodora. But the splendour of the court had no attrac- tions for him. He retired to one of the monasteries of the city, where he lived as a complete recluse. The period spent by him at Constantinople — 15 years, according to John of Ephesus — was a disastrous one for the Monophysite body. Justinian had resolved to enforce the Chalcedonian decrees univer- sally, and the bishops and clergy who refused them were punished with imprisonment, deprivation, and exile. Whole districts of Syria and the adjacent countries were thus deprived of their pastors, and the Monophy- sites were threatened with gradual extinction. For ten years many churches had been desti- tute of the sacraments, which they refused to receive from what were to them heretical hands. The extreme peril of the Monophy- sites was represented to Theodora by the sheikh Harith, and by her instrumentality the recluse James was drawn from his cell and persuaded to accept the hazardous and laborious post of the apostle of Monophvsitism in the East. A considerable number of Monophvsite bishops from all parts of the East, including Theodosius of Alexandria, Anthimus the deposed patriarch of Constan- tinople, Constantius of I.aodicea, John of Egvpt, Peter, and others, who had come to Constantinople in the hope of mitigatinK the displeasure of the emperor and exciting the sympathies r.f Theodora, were held bv Justin- ian in one of the imperial castles in a kind of honourable imprisonment. By them James was consecrated to the episcopate, nominally as bp. of Edessa but virtually as a metropoli- tan with oecumenical authority. The date is uncertain, but that given by Assemani (A. p. 541) is probablv correct. The result proved the wisdom of the choice. Of the simplest mode of life, inured to hardship from hi^ earliest years, tolerant of the extremities of 552 JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS hunger and fatigue, " a second Asahel for fieetness of foot " (Abulpharagius), fired with an unquenchable zeal for what he regarded as the true faith, with a dauntless courage that despised all dangers, James, in his tattered beggar's disguise, traversed on foot the whole of Asia Minor, Syria, Mesopotamia, and the adjacent provinces, even to the borders of Persia, everywhere ordaining bishops and clergy, by his exhortations or his encyclical letters encouraging his depressed co-religion- ists to courageously maintain their faith against the advocates of the two natures, and organizing them into a compact spiritual body. By his indefatigable labours " the expiring faction was revived, and united and per- petuated. . . . The speed of the zealousmission- ary was promoted by the fleetest dromedaries of a devout chief of the Arabs ; the doctrine and discipline of the Jacobites were secretly established in the dominions of Justinian, and each Jacobite was compelled to violate the laws and to hate the Roman legislator " (Gibbon, vol. vi. p. 75, ed. 1838). He is stated to have ordained the incredible number of 80,000 clergy. John of Ephesus says 100,000 (Land, Anecdot. Syr. ii. 251), including 89 bishops and two patriarchs. His wonderful success in reviving the moribund Monophysite church aroused the emperor and the Catholic bishops. Orders were issued and rewards offered for his apprehension. But, in his beggar's garb, aided by the friendly Arab tribes and the people of Syria and Asia, he eluded all attempts to seize him, and lived into the reign of Tiberius. The longer of the twoLivesof James, by John of Ephesus (Land, M.S. pp. 364-383), must be consulted for the extent and variety of his missionary labours and for the miracles which illustrated them. James failed miserably when he attempted to govern the vast and heterogeneous body he had created and organized. The simplicity and innocence of his character, as described by his contemporary John of Ephesus [H. E. iv. 15), disquahfied him for rule, and put him in the power of " crafty and designing men about him, who turned him every way they chose, and used him as a means of establishing their own powers." His unhappy dissensions with the bishops he had ordained clouded the closing portion of James's long life. The internecine strife between the different sec- tions of the Monophysite party is fully de- tailed by John of Ephesus, who records with bitter lamentation the blows, fighting, mur- ders, and other deeds " so insensate and unre- strained that Satan and his herds of demons alone could rejoice in them, wrought on both sides by the two factions with which the believers — so unworthy of the name — were rent," provoking " the contempt and ridicule of heathens, Jews, and heretics" (H. E. iv. 30). For a full account see John of Ephesus, op. cit. (Payne Smith's trans, pp. 48 sqq., 81 sqq., 274 sqq.). One of these party squabbles was between James and the bps. Con on and Eugenius, whom he had ordained at Alexandria — the former for the Isaurian Seleucia, the latter for Tarsus — who became the founders of the obscure and short-lived sect of the " Conon- ites," or, from the monastery at Constanti- JACOBUS or JAMES BARADAEUS nople to which a section of them belonged, " Condobandites " (John of Ephesus, H- E. i. 31, v. 1-12 ; trans, u.s. pp. 49-65). Each anathematized the other, James denoancing Conon and his companion as "Tritheists," and they retaliated by the stigma of " Sabellian." A still longer and more widespreading difference arose between James and Paul, whom he had ordained patriarch of Antioch (//. E. i. 41, p. 81). Paul and the other three leading bishops of the Monophysiteshad been summoned to Constantinople under colour of taking measures for restoring unity to the church, and, provingobstinatein the adherence totheirowncreed,were thrown into prisonfor a considerable time and subjected to the harsh- est treatment. This prolonged persecution broke their spirit, and one by one they all yielded, accepting the communion of John the patriarch of Constantinople and the " Synod- ites," as the adherents of the Chalcedonian decrees were contemptuously termed by their opponents, " lapsing miserably into the communion of the two natures " [ih. i. 41, ii. 1-9, iv. 15). Paul, stung with remorse for his cowardice, escaped into Arabia, taking refuge with Mondir, son and successor of Harith. On hearing of his defection James at once cut Paul off from communion ; but at the end of three years, on receiving the assurance of his contrition, his act of penitence was laid before the synod of the Monophysite church of the East, and he was duly and canonically restored to communion by James, who notified the fact by encyclic letters (ih. iv. 15). Paul's rehabi- litation caused great indignation among the Monophysites at Alexandria. They clam- oured for his deposition, which was carried into effect by Peter, the intruded patriarch, in violation of all canonical order ; the patri- arch of Antioch (Paul's position in the Mono- physite communion) owning no allegiance to the patriarch of Alexandria [ib. iv. 16). James allowed himself to be persuaded that if he were to visit Alexandria the veneration felt for his age and services would bring to an end the unhappy dissension between the churches of Syria and Egypt, and though he had denounced Peter, both orally and in writing, he was induced not only to hold communion with him but to draw up instru- ments of concord and to give his formal assent to the deposition of Paul, only stipulating that it should not be accompanied by any excom- munication (ib. 17). The intelligence was received with indignation and dismay in Syria on James's return. The schism which re- sulted between the adherents of James and Paul, A.D. 576, " spread like an ulcer " through the whole of the East, especially in Constanti- nople. In vain did Paul entreat James to discuss the matters at issue between them calmly, promising to abide by the issue. In vain did Mondir put himself forward as a peace- maker. James shrank from investigation, and caused an obstinate refusal to be returned to all overtures of accommodation (ib. 20, 21). Wearied out at last, and feeling the necessity for putting an end to the violence and bloodshed which was raging unchecked, James suddenly set out for Alexandria, but never reached it. On the arrival of his party, including several bishops, at the monastery of JOANNES I. Cassianus or Mar-Romamis on the Egyptian frontier, a deadly sickness attacked them, and James himself fell a victim to it, July 30, 578. His episcopate is said to have lasted 37 years, and his life, according to Renaudot (Lit. Or. ij- 342). 73 years. A liturgy bearing the name of "Jacobus Bordayaeus " is given by Renaudot (Lit. Or. t. ii. pp. 332-341), who confuses him, as Ba- ronius does {ad attn. 535), with Jacobus Bara- daeus. That this liturjjy is correctly assigned | to the Jacobite church is proved by the sjiecial memorial of their founder, " memento Dominc omnium pastorum et doctorum ecclesiae orthodoxae . . . praecipue vero Jacobi Hor- daei," as well as by the special condemnation of those who " impiously blasphemed the Incarnation of the Word, and divided the union in nature {uitionem in natura) with the flesh taken from the holy mother of God" («''■ 337. ^^^)- The Caicchesis, the chief dog- matical formulary of the Jacobites, " totius fidei Jacobiticae norma et fundamentum " (Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 524), though adjudged to be his by Cave, Abraham Ecchellensis, and others, together with the Encomium in Jaco- bitas, and an Arabic Homily on the Annun- ciation, are discredited by .Asscmani on philo- logical and chronological grounds. [e.v.] Joannes (11) I., surnamed Talaia, patri- arch of Alexandria and afterwards bp. of Nola. From having been a presbyter in the monastery of the Tabennesians at Canopus near Alexandria, he was known as Tabennesi- otes (Pagi, Critic, s.a. 482, xix. ; Mansi, vii. 1178 b). Previous to the expulsion of Salo- faciolus from his see of Alexandria, and after his restoration, John held the office of oecono- mus under him (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. Mansi, vii. 1063 ; Liberat. Breviar. c. 16 in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 1020). Shortly afterwards John was sent by the Catholics of Alexandria to the emperor Zeno, to thank him for the restora- tion of Salofaciolus, and to pray that when a vacancy occurred in the see they might choose his successor. He obtained an edict from the emperor complying with this request (Evagr. H. E. iii. 12), and after his return became greatly distinguished as a preacher in Alex- andria (Brevic. Hist. Eutych. u.s.). Salo- faciolus died A.D. 482, and the Catholics then elected John (16.). The Monophysites elected Peter Mongus, then in exile (Liberat. c. 17 ; Theophan. s.a. 476). John sent the usual svnodic announcement of his election to Simplicius, bp.of Rome, but neglected todirect one to AcACius, bp. of Constantinople, only sending one to his friend Illus, who was then in that city, with instructions tf> make what use of it he thought fit, and accompanying it with a letter addressed to the empen ir. Wlien the magistrianus whom John employed as his messenger to Constantinople arrived there, he found that Illus had gone to Antioch, whither he followed him with the synodic. On receiv- ing it at Antif>ch Illus delivered the synodic to Calandio, then recently elected to the patriarchate fif that see (Liberat. cc. 17, 18). Acacius, taking offence at not receiving a synodic from John, joined the Monophysites in their appeal to the emperor against him, and prevailed upon Zeno to write to Simpli- cius, praying him not to acknowledge John JOANNES r.r,3 (Simplic. Et*. 17, July is, a.d. 482, in Mansi. vii. 002). Without waitmg for the reply of Simplicius, Zeno instructed the civil author- ities to expel John. Thtis driven from Alexandria, Talaia went to Illus at Antiorh, and thence to Rome (Liberat. r. iK). There he was favourably received by Simplirius, wh«» at once wTote to Acacius on his behalf (Ep. 18, Nov. 6, 482, in Mansi, vii. 90.S). Acarius replied that he did not recognize John, but had received Mongus into communion by command of Zeno ; and Simplicius rejoined, blaming Aca( ins in no measured terms (Liberat. c. iX). Sinii>licius died March 2, 483, but John was w. irmly supported by his successor Felix III., who cited Acacius to answer certain charges brought against him by Talaia, and wrote to the emperor praying him to withdraw his countenance from Mongus and restore John (Libell. Citationis ad .4cac. Mansi, vii. 1108; Felic. Ep. 2, A.D. 483, in ih. 1032). On the re- turn of his legates from Constantinople, Felix held a synod at Rome which exconmiunicated Acacius for his persistent support of Mongus (Ep. 6, July 28, 484, in tb. 1053). Felix wrote to inform Zeno of this, and to let him know that " the apostolic see would never consent to communion with Peter of Alexandria, who had been justly condenmed lf>ng since" [Ep. 9, Aug. I, 484, in ib. 1065). Felix did not obtain his end, and John seems to have re- mained at Rome until the death of Zeno and the succession of Anastasius. a.d. 491, to whom John had shewn kindness at Alexandria after his shipwreck. Presuming that Anas- tasius would not be unmindful of this, John went to Constantinople to appeal to him. On hearing of his arrival Anastasius at once ordered him to be exiled, and lohn made his escape and returned to Rome (Theophan. s.a. 484, p. 118 ; Victor Tunun. s.a. 494, in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 948). Felix died Feb. 25, 492, but his successor, Cielasius I., equally interest- ed himself in John (C.elas. Epp. 13. I5. 'n Mansi, viii. 49 seq., c. 493-495)- All these efforts to procure his reinstatement were of no avail; John never returned to Alexandria, but received, as some compensa- tion, the see of Nola in Campania, where, after many years, he died in peace (Liberat. c. 18). During his episcf>pate there he appar- ently wrote an diroXo-jia to Gelasius, in which he anathematized the Pelagian heresy, IVla- gius himself, and Celestius, as well as Julia- nusof Eclana. Phot. B16/10/A. Cod. liv. ; l.c Ouien, Or. Christ, ii. 417, 419; Remondini, Del Xolana Eccl. Storia. iii. 56-59 : Ughelli, Jtal. .Sacr. vi. 2SI ; Tillem. Mim. xvi. 313 seq.; Hefele. Concil. ii. ^o4 seq. [t.w.d.] Joannes (31), bi). of Antioch (429-448). Our knowledge of him commences with his elfction as successor to Theodotus in the see of Antioch. In 429 the bishops of the Fast. according to the aged Aca(Uis of Heroea, congratulated themselves on having such a leader (Labbe, iii. 386) ; but the troubles which rendered his episcopate so unhanpily famous began immediately to shew them- selves. His old companion and fellow-towns- 1 man Nestorius had just been appointed to the see of Constantinople, and had inaugurated his episcopate with a sermon in the metro- prjlitan church repudiatmg the term " Mother 554 JOANNES of God," 6eor6Kos. Celestine, the Roman pontiff, summoned a synod of Western bishops in Aug. 430, which unanimously condemned the tenets of Nestorius, and the name of John of Antioch appears in the controversy. The support of the Eastern prelates, of whom the patriarch of Antioch was chief, being of great importance, Celestine wrote to John, Juve- nal of Jerusalem, Rufus of Thessalonica, and Flavian of Philippi, informing them of the decree passed against Nestorius (Baluz. p. 438, c. XV. ; Labbe, iii. 376). At the same time Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, wrote to John calling upon him, on pain of being separated from the communion of the West, to accept Celestine's decision and unite with him in defending the faith against Nestorius (Baluz. p. 442, c. xviii. ; Labbe, iii. 379). Such a declaration of open hostility against an old friend, of whose virtual orthodoxy he was convinced, was very distasteful to John. He dispatched a letter full of Christian persua- siveness, by the count Irenaeus, to Nestorius, in his own name, and that of his brother- bishops Archelaus, Apringius, Theodoret, Heliades, Melchius, and the newly appointed bp. of Laodicea, Macarius, entreating him not to plunge the church into discord on account of a word to which the Christian ear had become accustomed, and which was capable of being interpreted in his own sense. He enlarged on the danger of schism, warning Nestorius that the East, Egypt, and Mace- donia were about to separatefrom him, and ex- horted him to follow the example of Theodorus of Mopsuestia in retracting words which had given pain to the orthodox, since he really held the orthodox faith on these points (Baluz. p. 445, c. xxi. ; Labbe, iii. 390 seq.). John wrote also to count Irenaeus, Musaeus bp. of Antarada, and Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who were then at Constantinople, hoping to avail himself of their influence with Nestorius (Baluz. p. 688). Nestorius's reply indicated no intention of following John's counsels. He declared himself orthodox in the truest sense. He had no rooted objection to the term 0€ot6kos, but thought it unsafe, because accepted by some in an Arian or Apollinarian sense. He preferred Xpia-roTOKO^, as a middle term between it and dvOpwrroTOKOs. He pro- posed to defer the discussion to the general council which he hoped for {ib. p. 688). The divergence of the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools of thought in their way of regarding the mystery of the Incarnation lay at the root of this controversy about the term, and it was brought into open manifesta- tion by the publication of Cyril's twelve " anathematisms " on the teaching of Nesto- rius. Nestorius, on receiving these fulmina- tions at the end of 430, at once sent copies of them to John, together with his two sermons of Dec. 13 and 14, in which he professed to have acknowledged Mary as the " Mother of God " (ib. p. 691, c. iv.). John declared him- self horror-stricken at the Apollinarian heresy which characterized Cyril's articles. He made them known far and wide, in Cappadocia, Galatia, and through the East generally, accompan>nng them with earnest appeals to the bishops and the orthodox everywhere to openly repudiate the grave errors they JOANNES contained (ib. p. 838, No. xxxvi. Ep. Alexandri Episc). His letter to Firmus is preserved (Baluz. p. 691, c. iv.), in which he expresses abhorrence of the " capitula," which he con- siders so unlike Cyril both in style and doctrine that he cannot believe they are his, and calls upon Firmus, if they reach Pontus, to get them abjured by the bishops of the province, without naming the supposed author. He rejoices over Nestorius's public acceptance of the test-word, in the two sermons he has sent him, which has quieted the storm and restored tranquillity to the church of Constantinople. John was also careful to have Cyril's heretical formularies refuted by able theologians. [Andreas Samosatensis ; Theodoret.] The breach between the two patriarchs was complete. Each denounced the other as heretical. A larger arena was supplied by the general council summoned by Theodosius to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost, 431. John's arrival having been delayed more than a fortnight beyond the time fixed for the opening of the council, he wrote that Antioch was 42 days' journey from Ephesus, at the fastest. He had been travelling without interruption for 30 days ; he was now within five or six stages of Ephesus. If C>Til would condescend to wait a little longer, he hoped in a veryfewdays to arrive (^6.p. 451, cxxiii.). Cyril would not delay. On Mon. June 22, 431, 198 bishops met in the church of St. Mary the Virgin, and in one day Nestorius was tried, condemned, sentenced, deposed, and excom- municated. Five days later. Sat. June 27, John arrived with 14 bishops. His reasons for delay were quite sufficient. His patri- archate was a very extensive one. His attendant bishops could not leave their churches before the octave of Easter, Apr. 26. The distances some of them had to travel did not allow them to reach Antioch before May 10. John's departure had been delayed by a famine at Antioch and consequent outbreaks of the populace ; their progress was impeded by floods (Labbe, iii. 602) ; the transport broke down ; many of the bishops were aged men, un- fit for rapid travelling. There was nothing to support Cyril's accusation that John's delay was intentional. Cyril sent a deputation of bishops and ecclesiastics to welcome John, apprise him in the name of the council of the deposition of Nestorius and that he must no longer regard him as a bishop (ib. iii. 761). John, who had already heard from count Irenaeus of the hastv decision of the council, refused to admit the deputation, and they complained that they were rudely treated by the guard whom Irenaeus had sent to do honour to and protect the Eastern bishops. The deputation were compelled to wait for some hours at the door of the house where John took up his quarters, exposed to the insults of the soldiers and the attendants of the Orientals (tb. 593, 764), while a rival council was being held within. The bishops who sided with John had hastened to his lodgings, where, " before they had shaken the dust off their feet, or taken off their cloaks " (Cvril. Ep. ad Colest. Labbe, iii. 663), the small synod— the " conciliabulum " their enemies tauntingly called it— of 43 bishops, passed a sentence of deposition on JOANNES Cyril and Memnon, bp. of Ephesus, and of excommunication on all the other prelates of the council, until they should have condenmed CvTil's " capitula," which they declared tainted not only with Apc^llinarian, but with Arian and Eunomian heresy {ib. 506, 637, 657, 664 passim). The sentences of excommunica- tion and deposition were posted up in the city. There John vouchsafed an audience to the deputies of the other council. They communi- cated its decrees as to Nestorius. but received, they asserted, no reply but insults and blows («6. 764). Returning to Cyril they formally complained of John's treatment, of which they shewed marks on their persons. The council iramediatelydeclaredjohnseparatedfrom their communion until he explained this conduct. John's attempts to reduce Cyril and his adherents to submission by his own authority proved fruitless, and he had recourse to the emperor and the ecclesiastical power at Con- stantinople. Several letters were written to Theodosius, to the empresses Pulcheria and Eudocia, the clergy, the senate, and the people of that city (Labbe, iii. 6oi-6og ; Liberal, c. vi.) to explain the tardiness of John's arrival and to justify the sentence pronounced on Cyril, Memnon, and the other bishops. Theodosius wrote to the council, declaring their decisions null (Labbe, iii. 704). The letter reached Ephesus June 29. John and his friends welcomed it with benedictions, assuring the emperor that they had acted from pure zeal for the faith which was im- perilled by the Apollinarianism of Cyril's " anathematisms." Relying on imperial favour, John strove in vain to persuade the Ephesians to demand a new bishop in the place of Memnon. Meantime, the legates of Celestine had arrived from Rome, and the council, strengthened by their presence and the approbation of the bp. of Rome, pro- ceeded, July 16, to summon John before them. Their deputation was informed that John could hold no intercourse with excommuni- cated persons {ib. 640). On this the council declared null all the acts of John's " concili- abulum," and, on his persisting, separated him and the bishops who had joined him from the communion of the church, pronounced them disqualified for all episcopal functions, and published their decree openly {ib. 302). Two counter-deputations from the opposite parties presented themselves to Theodosius in the first week of September at Chalcedon. John himself did not shrink from an open de- fence of the orthodoxy of Nestorius, declaring his deposition illegal and exposing the heresy of Cyril's anathematisms (Baluz. pp. 837, 839). To support their evidently failing cause, Jf>hn and his fellow-deputies wrote to some leading prelates of the West, the bps. of Milan, Aquileia, and Ravenna, and Rufus of Thessa- lonica, laying before them in earnest terms the heretical character of Cyril's doctrines (Theod. Ep. 112; Labbe, iii. 736), but apparently without favourable result. The victory was substantially with the Cyrillian party. After six audiences the emperor, weary of the fruit- less strife, declared his final resolve. Nes- torius, generally abandoned by his supporters, was permitted to retire to his former monas- tery of St. Euprepius at Antioch. Maximian, JOANNES .%M a presbyter of Constantinople. In defiance of I the protest of John and his party, was ronse- ; crated (Oct. 2.s) bp. «.f the imperial srr m his room. Menuion and Cyril were reinstated : the fornuT to remain at Ephesus as bishop ; j Cyril and the other bishops t<i return home. John and the Orientals were onlv ii<>l (orniallv condemned because the dogmatic ipirstion ! had not been discussed. Hefore he retired vanquished. J.ihn delivered a final remon- strance. The churches <if Chalcedon were closed against the Oriental bishops, but Ihry had obtained a spa< ions hall for public worship and preaching. Large crowds assembled to listen to the powerful sermons of Theodoret and the milder exhortations of John. The mortification with which John left Chalcedon j was deepened by the events of his homeward i journey. At Ancyra he found that letters from its bp. Theodotus, who was one of the eight deputies of the coimcil, as well as from Firmus of Caesarea. and Maximian the newly appointed bp. of Constantinople, had com- manded that he and his companions shoidd be regarded as excommunicate. From Ancyra John proceeded to Tarsus. I Here, in his own patriarchate, he immediately j held a council, together with Alexander of Hierapolis and the other deputies, at which he confirmed the deposition of Cyril and his brother-commissioners (Balu/. 840. 843, 847). Theodoret and the others engaged never to i consent to the deposition of Nestorius. On [reaching Antioch, about the middle of Dec, I John summoned a very numerously attended council of bishops, which pronounced a fresh sentence against Cyril and wrote to Theo- dosius, calling upon him to take measures for the general condetnnation of the doctrines of Cyril, as contrary to the Nicene faith which they were resolved to maintain to the death (Socr. H. E. vii. 34 ; Liberat. c. vi. ; Baluz. p. 741, c. xxxix.). Soon after his return to Antioch John, accompanied by six bishops, visited the venerable Acaciusof Beroea. whose sympathy in the controversy had greatly strengthened and consoled him. The old man was deeply grieved to hear the untoward result of their proceedings. The battle was now over and the victory remained with Cyril. His return to Alexan- dria was a triumphal progress (I. abbe. iii. los). But the victory had been pur( based by a schism in the church. Alexandria and An- tioch were two hostile camps. For three years a bitter strife was maintained. The issue, however, was never doubtful. John, alarmed for his own safety, soon began to shew symptoms of yielding. The emj)eror, at the urgent demand of Celestine, had pro- ! nounced the banishment of Nestorius. John might not unreasonably fear a demand for his own deposition. It was time he should make it clear that he had no real sympathy with the errors of the heresiarch. The pertinacity with whii h Nestorius continued to promulgate the tenets which had proved so ruinous to the peace of the church irritated John. The newly elected bp. of Rome. Sixtus. who had warmly embraced Cvril's cause, in a lett«r addressed to the prelates of the East in the interests of reunion, a.d. 432. declared that John might be received again into the Catholic 556 JOANNES church, provided he repudiated all whom the council of Ephesus had deposed and proved by his acts that he really deserved the name of a Catholic bishop (Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. i. 47). Cyril was disposed to limit his require- ments to the condemnation of Nestorius and the recognition of Maximian. John sum- moned Alexander of Hierapolis, Andrew of Samosata, Theodoret, and probably others, to Antioch and held a conference to draw up terms of peace. It was agreed that if Cyril would reject his anathematisms they would restore him to communion. Propositions for union were dispatched by John to Cyril. John and his fellow-bishops next sought the intervention of Acacius of Beroea, who was universqjly venerated, in the hope that his influence might render Cyril more willing to accept the terms (Baluz. 756, c. liii. ; Labbe, iii. 1 1 14). Cyril, though naturally declining to retract his condemnation of Nestorius's tenets, opened the way for a reconciliation with John. John, eager to come to terms with his formidable foe, declared himself fully satisfied of Cyril's orthodoxy ; his explanation had re- moved all the doubt his former language had raised (Labbe, iii. 757, 782). Paul, bp. of Emesa, was dispatched bv John to Alexandria to confer with Cyril and bring about the much- desired restoration of communion {ib. 783). These events took place in Dec. 432 and Jan. 433. Cyril after some hesitation signed a confession of faith sent him by John, de- claring in express terms " the union of the two natures without confusion in the One Christ, One Son, One Lord," and confessing " the Holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, because God the Word was incarnate and made man, and from His very conception united to Him- self the temple taken from her" (Labbe, iii. 1094 ; Baluz. pp. 800, 804 ; Liberat. 8, p. 30), and gave Paul of Emesa an explanation of his anathematisms which Paul approved (Labbe, iii. 1090). CvTil then required acceptance of thedepositionof Nestorius, recognition of Max- imian, and acquiescence in the sentence passed by him on the four metropolitans deposed as Nestorians ; terms acceded to by Paul. Each party was desirous of peace and disposed to concessions. Paul, placing in Cyril's hand a written consent to all his requirements, was admitted to communion and allowed to preach at the Feast of the Nativity (Cvril. Ep. 32, 40 ; Labbe, iii. 1095 ; Liberat. 'c. 8', p. 32). John, however, sent letters stating that neither he nor the other Oriental bishops could consent so hastily to the condemnation of Nestorius, from whose writings he gave extracts to prove their orthodoxy (Baluz. p. 908). Cyril and the court began to weary of so much inde- cision, and, to bring matters to a point, a document drawn up by Cyril and Paul was sent for John to sign (Cyril, Epp. 40, 42), together with letters of communion to be given him if he consented. Fresh delays ensued, but at last, in Apr. 433, the act giving peace to the Christian world was signed and dispatched to Alexandria, where it was an- nounced by Cyril in the cathedral on Apr. 23. John, in a letter to Cyril, stated that in signing this document he had no intention to derogate from the authority of the Nicene Creed, and expressly recognized Maximian as the lawful JOANNES bp. of Constantinople in place of Nestorius, sometime bishop, but deposed for teaching which merited anathema. He also wrote a circular letter of communion addressed to pope Sixtus, Cyril and Maximian (Labbe, iii. 1087, 1090, 1094, 1154; Cyril, Ep. 41). The East and West were once more at one. Cyril tes- tified his joy in the celebrated letter to John, commencing " Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad " (Labbe, iii. 1106-riii). John wrote to Theodosius thanking him for the peace which his efforts had procured, and begged him to render it universal by restoring the deposed bishops. This accommodation was far from being satisfactory to the extreme members of either party. Isidore of Pelusium and other adher- ents of Cyril expressed a fear that he had made too large concessions; while John had given great offence to many of his warmest sup- porters, who accused him of truckling to powerful advocates of a hollow peace to secure his position as bishop. Theodoret refused to abandon Nestorius. Alexander of Hierapolis broke off communion with his patriarch John (Baluz. pp. 799, 832). During the next two years John sought to force the bishops of his patriarchate to accept the terms of peace. Thei)doret's unwillingness to aban- don Nestorius and rooted dislike to Cyril's articles raised a coldness between him and John which was much strengthened by an unwarrantable usurpation on John's part, who at the close of 433 or beginning of 434 had ordained bishops for Euphratesia. This ag- gression caused serious irritation among the bishops of the province, who, led by Theo- doret, withdrew from communion with John. John unhappily continuing his acts of usurpa- tion, the disaffection spread. Nine provinces subject to the patriarch of Antioch renounced communion with John, who had at length to request the imperial power to force them into union by ejecting the bishops who refused the agreement he had arranged with Cyril. Theodoret, yielding to the entreaties of James of Cyrus and other solitaries of his diocese, consented to a conference with John and was received by his old friend with great cordiality. All reproaches were silenced, and as John did not insist on his accepting the sentence against Nestorius, he embraced the concordat, and returned to communion with John and Cyril {ib. pp. 834-836). The way towards peace had been smoothed by the death of Nestorius's successor, Maximian, Apr. 12, 434, and the appointment as archbp. of Constantinople of the saintly Proclus, who, in the early part of the Nestorian controversy, had preached the great sermon on the Theo- tokos (Socr. H. E. vii. 40; Baluz. p. 851). Proclus's influence was exerted in favour of peace, and so successfully that all the remon- strant bishops, except Alexander of Hierapolis and five others, ultimately accepted the con- cordat and retained their sees. Alexander was ejected in Apr. 435. John made a strong representation to Proclus in 436 that Nestorius in his retirement was persisting in his blas- phemies and perverting many in Antioch and throughout the East (Baluz. p. 894), and form- ally requested Theodosius to expel him from the East and deprive him of the power of doing JOANNES mischief (Evagr. H. E. i. 7 ; Theophan. p. 78). ' An edict was accordingly issued that all the heresiarch's books should be burnt, his f<il- lowers called " Simonians " and their nieetinps suppressed (Labbe, iii. 1209 ; Cod. Tlunnl. XVI. V. 66). The property of Nestorius was confiscated and he was banished to the remote and terrible Egyptian oasis. Nestorian doctrines were too deeply rooted in the Eastern mind to be eradicated by persecution. Cyril, suspecting tliat the union was more apparent than real and that some of the bishops who had verbally condemned Nes- torius still in their hearts cherished his teach- ing, procured orders from the Imperial government that the bishops should severally and explicitly repudiate Nestorianism. A formula of CsTil's having been put into John's hands for signature, John wrote in 436 or 437 to Proclus to remonstrate against this nmlti- plicity of tests which distracted the attention of bishops from the care of their dioceses (Labbe, iii. 894). Fresh troubles speedily broke out in the East in connexion with the writings of the greatly revered Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus, whose disciple Nestorius had been. The bishops and clergy of Armenia appealed to Proclus for his judgment on the teaching of Theodore (ib. v. 463). Proclus replied by the celebrated doctrinal epistle known as the " Tome of St. Proclus." To this were attached some passages selected from Theodore's writings, which he deemed de- serving of condemnation (ib. 511-513). This letter he sent first to John requesting that he and his council would sign it (Liberal, p. 46 ; Facundus, lib. 8, c. i, 2). John assembled his provincial bishops at Antioch. They ex- pressed annoyance at being called on for fresh signatures, as if their orthodoxy was still questionable, but made no difficulty about signing the " Tome," which they found worthy of all admiration, both for beauty of style and the dogmatic precision of its definitions. But the demand for the condemnation of the ap- pended extracts called forth indignant pro- tests. They refused to condemn passages divorced from their context, and capable, even as they stood, of an orthodox interpretation. A fresh schism threatened, but the letters of remonstrance written by John and his council to Proclus and Theodosius put a stop to the whole matter. Even Cyril, who had striven hard to procure the condemnation of The(;dore, was compelled to desist by the resolute front shewn by the Orientals, some of whom, John told him, were ready to be burnt rather than condemn the teaching of one they so deeply revered (Cyril. Epp. 54, 199). Theodosius wrote to the Oriental bishops that the church must not be disturbed by fresh controversy and that no one should presume to decide anything unfavourable to those who had died in the peace of the church (Baluz. p. 928, c. ccxix.). The date of this transaction was prnbably 438. It is the last recorded event in John's career. His death occurred in 441 or 442. Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. xiv. xv.; QeWhcT, Auteurs eccL; Cave, Hist. Lit.i. 412; Neander, Church. Hist. vol. iv., Clarke's e<l. ; Milinan, Latin Christ. V(j1. i. pp. 141- 177; Bright, Hist, of Church, pp. 310-365. tt.v.j JOANNES II. 657 Joannes (113), sumamrd StUtUiarius, bp. of Colonia and afterwards one of the nxnt celebrated of the monks. Mis Life wan written by Cyril of Scythop..lis. He was b-rn in 4^. at Nicupulis in Armenia. Mis father and inother, noble and wealthy Christians, k,»v.? him a Christian education. John conscrr.ncd himself to God when 18 years old, built .1 church at Nicopolis in hi>noiir of the N'lrKin Mary, and taking ten brethren set up a monas- tery. In his 2Sth year (c. 4S1) ihe bp. <>f Sebaslia, metropolitan of the district, at the request of the people ,4 Cnl..nia. roiisecratrd him bishop of that see against his will. Mc continued his monastic life, specially avoiding the baths. " He thought it the greatest of all virtues never to be washed"; "detenninrd never to be seen, even by his own eyes, without his clothes." His character had the happiest effect on his own family. When he had been bp. ten years he went to Constantinople with an appeal to the emperor. Here he embarked on a ship unknown to his friends, made his way to Jerusalem, and dwelt there in a hospital for old men, whi-rein was an oratory of (li-orge the Martyr, but was supernaturally guided to the community of St. Sabas, who presided over 150 aiu burets and received John, and appointed him to some petty office. A guest-house was being built ; the former bp. of Colonia, the noble of the Byzantine court, fetched water from a torrent, cooked for the builders, brought stones and other materials for the work. Next year the steward appointed John to the humble duty of presiding over the kitchen. At the end <>f three years he was appointed steward. Sa- bas, ignorant of his ecclesiastical rank, con- sidering it high time for John to be ordained, took him to Jerusalem, and introduced him to archbp. Elias. John was obliged to con- fess that he was a bishop. Archbp. Elias wondered at his story, summoned Sabas, and excused John from ordination, promising that from that day he should be silent and nobody should molest him. He never left his ceil for four years afterwards, and was seen by none but the brothers who served him, except at the dedication of a church in the community, when he was obliged to pay his respects to archbp. Elias. The patriarch was captivated with his conversation and held him in lifelong honour. In 503 John went into the desert of Kuba. Here he remained silent about seven years, only leaving his cave every third or fourth day to collect wild apples, the usual food of the solitaries. Sabas eventually persuaded John to return to his old community when 56 years old. A.D. 510. Here he continued to live a life that seemed to the people of those days abso- lutely angelical and many stories arc told ol his miraculous endowments. He must have died c. 558. Cyril. Mon. ap. .^.^. i.S. Uolland. 13 Mai. iii. 232 ; Baron. Atinal. ad aim. 457, Iviii. etc. ; Ceillier, xi. 277- [w.m.s.1 Joannes (124) 1!., surnamed (appaJot, 27th bp. of Constantinople, 517-520, appoint- ed by Anastasius after an enforced coiiilriniia- tion of Chahedon. His short patrunhatr is memorable for the rcli-lirated Ace laiiiations of Constantinople, and the reunion of l.ast and West alter a schism of 34 years. At the death 658 JOANNES II. of Timothy, Johnof Cappadocia, whom he had designated his successor, was presbyter and chancellor of the church of Constantinople. On July 9, 518, the long reign of Anastasius came to a close, the orthodox Justin succeed- ing. On Sunday, July 15, the new emperor entered the cathedral, and the archbishop, ac- companied by twelve prelates, was making his way through the throngs that crowded every corner. As he came near the raised dais where the pulpit stood shouts arose, " Long live the patriarch ! Long live the emperor ! Why do we remain excommunicated ? Why have we not communicated these many years ? You are Catholic, what do you fear, worthy servant of the Trinity ? Cast out Severus the Manichee ! O Justin, our emperor, you win ! This instant proclaim the synod of Chalcedon, because Justin reigns." These and other cries continued. The procession passed into the inclosure, but the excited congregation went on shouting outside the gates of the choir in similar strains : " You shall not come out unless you anathematize Severus," referring to the heretical patriarch of Antioch. The patriarch John, having meanwhile gained time for thought and consultation, came out and mounted the pulpit, saying, " There is no need of disturbance or tumult ; nothing has been done against the faith ; we recognize for orthodox all the councils which have con- firmed the decrees of Nicaea, and principally these three — Constantinople, Ephesus, and the great council of Chalcedon." The people were determined to have a more formal decision, and continued shouting for several hours, mingling with their former cries such as these : " Fix a day for a festival in honour of Chalcedon ! " " Commemorate the holy synod this very morrow ! " The people being thus firm, the deacon Samuel was instructed toannounce the desiredfestival. Still the people continued to shout with all their might, " Severus is now to be anathe- matized ; anathematize him this instant, or there's nothing done! " The patriarch, seeing that something must be settled, took counsel with the twelve attendant prelates, who agreed to the curse on Severus. This extemporaneous and intimidated council then carried a decree by acclamation : " It is plain to all that Severus in separating himself from this church condemned himself. Following, therefore, the canons and the Fathers, we hold him alien and condemned by reason of his blasphemies, and we anathematize him." The domes of St. Sophia rang with shouts of triumph and the crowd dispersed. It was a day long remem- bered in Constantinople. The next day the promised commemoration of Chalcedon took place. Again as the patriarch made his processional entrance and approached the pulpit clamours arose: " Re- store the relics of Macedonius to the church ! Restore those exiled for the faith ! Let the bones of the Nestorians be dug up ! Let the bones of the Eut^'chians be dug up ! Cast out the Manichees ! Place the four councils in the diptychs ! Place Leo, bp. of Rome, in the diptychs ! Bring the diptychs to the pulpit ! " This kind of cry continuing, the patriarch replied, " Yesterday we did what was enough to satisfy my dear people, and we JOANNES II. shall do the same to-day. We must take the faith as our inviolable foundation; it will aid us to reunite the churches. Let us then glorify with one mouth the holy and consubstantial Trinity." But the people went on crying madly, " This instant, let none go out ! I abjure you, shut the doors ! You no longer fear Amantius the Manichee ! Justin reigns, whyfearAmantius?" Sotheycontinued. The patriarch tried in vain to bring them to reason. It was the outburst of enthusiasm and excite- ment long pent up under heterodox repression. It bore all before it. The patriarch was at last obliged to have inserted in the diptychs the four councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and the names of Euphemius and Macedonius, patriarchs of Constantinople, and Leo, bp. of Rome. Then the multitude chanted for more than an hour, " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for He hath visited and redeemed His people ! " The choir assembled on the raised platform, and, turning eastwards, sang the Trisagion, the whole people listening in silence. When the moment arrived for the recitation of the names of the defunct bishops from the diptychs, the multitude closed in silence about the holy table; and when the deacon had read the new insertions, a mightv shout arose, " Glory be to Thee, O Lord ! " To authenticate what had been done, John assembled on July 20 a council of 40 bishops, who happened to be at the capital. The four general councils and the name of Leo, bp. of Rome, were inscribed in the diptychs. Severus of Antioch was anathematized after an ex- amination of his works in which a distinct condemnation of Chalcedon was discovered. John wrote to John of Jerusalem and to Epiphanius of Tyre, telling them the good news of the acclamations and the synod. His letters were accompanied by orders from Justin to restore all who had been banished by Anastasius, and to inscribe the council of Chalcedon in the diptychs. At Jerusalem and at Tyre there was great joy. Many other churches declared for Chalcedon, and during the reign of Justin 2,500 bishops gave their adhesion and approval. Now came the re- conciliation with Rome. The emperor Justin wrote to the pope a fortnight after the scene of the acclamations, begging him to further the desires of the patriarch John for the reunion of the churches. John wrote saying that he received the four general councils, and that the names of Leo and of Hormisdas him- self had been put in the diptychs. A deputa- tion was sent to Constantinople with instruc- tions that Acacius was to be anathematized by name, but that Euphemius and Macedonius might be passed over in silence. The deputies arrived at Constantinople on Mar. 25, 519. Justin received the pope's letters with great respect, and told the am- bassadors to come to an explanation with the patriarch, who at first wished to express his adherence in the form of a letter, but agreed to write a little preface and place after it the words of Hormisdas, which he copied out in his own handwriting. Two copies were sent by the legates to Rome, one in Greek, the other in Latin. Emperor, senate, and all present were overjoyed at this ratification of peace. JOANNES III. The sting of the transaction still remained ; they had now to elTace from the diptychs the names of five patriarchs and two emperors — Acacius, Fravitta, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus ; Zeno and Anastasius. All the bishops at Constantinople pave their con- sent in writing ; so did all the abbats, after some had raised a difhrulty. On Easter Day the pacification was proinvilgated. The court and people, equally enthusiastic, surged into St. Sophia. The vaults resounded with ac- clamations in praise of God, the emperor, St. Peter, and the bp. of Rome. Opponents, who had prophesied sedition and tumult, were signally disappointed. Never within memory had so vast a number communicated. The emperor sent an account of the proceedings throughout the provinces and the ambassa- dors forwarded their report to Rome, saying that there only remained the negotiations with Antioch. John wrote to Hormisdas to con- gratulate him on the great work, and to offer him the credit of its success. Soon after, Jan. 19, 520, John died. Baronius, ad ann. 518, x.-lxxvii. 520, vii. ; Fleury, ii. 373 ; Acta SS. BoUand. 18 Aug. iii. 633;Theoph. Chronogr. § 140, Patr. Gk. cviii.; Niceph. Callist. iii. 456, Patr. Gk. cxlvii.; Pho- tius, iii. § 287 a, Patr. Gk. ciii. ; Avitus, Ep. vii. Patr. Lat. lix. 227; Hormisdas, Epp., Patr. Lat. Ixiii. p. 426, etc. [w.m.s.] Joannes (125) III., surnamed Scholastjcus, "The Lawyer," 32nd bp. of Constantinople (.Apr. 12, 565-Aug. 31, 577), born at Sirimis, in the region of Cynegia, near Antioch. There was a flourishing college of lawyers at Antioch, where he entered and did himself credit. This was suppressed in 533 by Justinian. John was ordained and became agent, and secretary of his church. This would bring him into touch with the court at Constanti- nople. When Justinian, towards the close of his life, tried to raise the sect of the .A.phthar- todocetae to the rank of orthodoxy, and deter- mined to expel the blameless Eutychius for his opposition, the able lawyer-ecclesiastic of Antioch, who had already distinguished him- self by his great edition of the canons, was chosen to carry out the imperial will. Little is known of his episcopal career. Seven months after his appointment Justinian died. The new emperor, Justin II., was crowned by the patriarch, Nov. 14, 565. John himself died shortly before Justin. One of the most useful works of that period was the Digest of Canon Law formed by John at Antioch. Following some older work which he mentions in his preface, he aban- doned the historical plan of giving the decrees of each council in order and arranged them on a philosophical principle, according to their matter. The older writers had sixty heads. He reduced them to fifty. To the canons of the councils of Nicaea, Ancyra, Neocaesarea, (iangra, Antioch, Ephesus, and Constanti- nople, already collected and received in the (ireek church, John added 89 " Apostolical Canons," the 21 of Sardica, and the 68 of the canonical letter of Basil. Writing to Photius, pope Nicholas I. cites a harmony of the canons which includes those of Sardica, which ci>uld only be that of John the Lawyer. When John came to Constantinople, he edited the Aumo- JOANNES IV. 5^9 ca>wn, an abriilgment of his former work, with the addition of a cmip.irison of the imperial rescripts and civil laws (especially the Novels of Justinian) under each head! Halsamon cites this without naming the author, in his notes on the first canon of the Trullan council of Constantinople. In a MS. of the Paris library the Nomocanon is attributed to Thei.- doret, but in all others to John. Theodoret would not have inserted the " apostolical canons " and those of Sardica, and the style has no resemblance to his. In i6(ii these two works were printed at the beginning of vol. ii. of the Bibliotheca Catumica of J ustel- lus, at Paris. Photius (Cud. Ixxv.) mentions his catechism, in which he established the Catholicteachingof the consubstantial Trinity, saying that he wrote it in 568, under J ustin 1 1., and that it was afterwards attacked by the impious Philoponus. Fabricius considers that the Digest or Harmony and the Nomocanon are probably rightly assigned to John the Lawyer. Fabricius, xi. loi, xii. 146, 193, 201, 209 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 38, v. 13, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. pt.2; Theoph. Chronogr. 204, etc., Patr. Gk. cviii. ; Niceph. Callist. iii. 455, Patr. Gk. cxlvii. ; Victor Tunun. Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 937 ; Baronius, ad. ann. 564, xiv. xxix. ; "iOs, xvii. ; 57S, 5 ; Patr. Conslatit. in Ada SS. Bolland. .\ug. i. p.* 67. [w.M.s.] Joannes (126> IV. (surnamed The Easter, Jejunator, sometimes also Cappadox, and thus liable to be confused with the patriarch John II.), 33rd bp. of Constantinople, from Apr. II, 582 to Sept. 2, 595. He was born at Constantinople of artisan parents, and was a sculptor. In 587 or 588 he summoned the bishops of the East in the name of " the Oecumenical Patriarch " to decide the cause of Gregory, archbp. of Antioch, who was ac- quitted and returned to his see. Pelagius II., bp. of Rome, solemnly annulled the acts of this council. In 593 we find John severely blamed by pope Gregory for having allowed an Isaurian presbyter named Anastasius, accused of heresy, to be beaten with ropes in the church of Constantinople. In 595 the controversy was again rife about the title of universal bishop. Gregory the Great wrote to his legate Sabinianus forbidding him to communicate with John. In the case of a presbyter named -Athanasius, accused of being to some extent a Manichee, and con- demned as such, tiregory shews that the accuser was himself a Pelagian, and that by the carelessness, ignorance, or fault of John the Faster the Nestorian council of Ephesus had actually been mistaken for the Catholic, so that heretics would be taken for orthodox, and orthodox condemned as heretics ! His Writings. — Isidore of Seville [de Script. Eccl. 26) attributes to him only a letter, not now extant, on baptism addressed to St. Leander. John, he says, " i)ropounds nothing of his own, but only repeats the opinions of the ancient Fathers on trine immersion." But there are extant four works attributed to John the Faster. (i) His Penitential, Libellus Poenitentialis, or, as it is described in bk. iii. of the work of Leo Allatius, de Consensu Utriusque Ecclesiae (Rome, 1635, 4to), Praxis Graecis Praescrtpta in ( on/esswne Peragenda. The Greeks of the middle ages 560 JOANNES always attributed this and (2) to John the Faster. (2) Instrudio, qua non niodo confitens de con- fessions pie et integre edenda instituitur, sed etiam sacerdos, qua ratione confessiones excipiai, poenitentiam imponat et reconciliationem praestet informatur. (3) Homily on Penitence, Continence, and Virginity. Often printed among Chrysostom's homilies, but now agreed not to be Chrysos- tom's. Montfaucon, Vossius, and Pearson held it to be by John the Faster ; Morel and Savile printed it among Chrysostom's works. (4) Homily on False Prophets and False Doctrine. Attributed occasionally to Chrysos- tom, by Peter Wastel to John of Jerusalem, but by Vossius, Petavius, and Cave to John the Faster. (5) A set of Precepts to a Monk, in a MS. at the Paris library. Migne reproduces the Penitential, the In- structions for Confession, and the Homily on Penitence in Patr. Gk. Ixxxviii. 1089. See also Baronius, ad. ann. 588-593 ; A A. SS. Bolland. Aug. i, p. 69 ; Fleury, ii. bk. xxxiv. 0. 44, etc. ; Ceillier, xi. 427, etc. ; Fabricius, Bibl. Grace, xi. 108, xii. 239. [w.m.s.] Joannes (160) (called of Asia and of Ephesus), Monophysite bp. of Ephesus, born c. 516, and living in 585, a SjTiac writer whose chief work was his History of the Church, in the extant portion of which he describes him- self once as " John, who is called superin- tendent of the heathen and Breaker of Idols " (ii. 4), and twice as " John who is over the heathen, who was bp. of Ephesus " (ii. 41 ; iii. 15). Elsewhere he styles himself, " John bp. of Ephesus" (iv. 45), or simply, "John of Ephesus" (v. 1); and, lastly, "John of Asia, that is, John of Ephesus " (v. 7). Hence John of Ephesus is clearly the historian so often mentioned by Syriac writers as John bp. of Asia, " Asia" meaning the district of which Ephesus was the capital. Dr. Land (Johann von Ephesus der erste syrische Kirchenhistoriker) discusses his identi- fication with one or other of his numerous namesakes who wrote during the same period ; and has pronounced in the negative. What we know of the personal history of John of Ephesus is gathered from the meagre extracts from pt. ii. of his great work, pre- served in the Chronicon of Dionysius ; and from the extant pt. iii., which is to some extent an autobiography. Dionysius [ap. Assemani, Bibl. Or. 83-90) tells us that John's birthplace was Amid in N. Mesopotamia. He stood high in the confidence of the emperor Justinian, by whom he was commissioned in 542 as " Teacher of the heathen " in the four provinces of Asia, Caria, Phrygia, and Lydia. His success was such that in four years 70,000 persons adopted Christianity. In the third part of his history (ii. 44) John mentions that Deuteriuswas 35 years his fellow-labourer, and his successor in Caria. Together they had built 99 churches and 12 monasteries. John tells (iii. 36-37) how the work began among the mountains round Tralles. His chief monastery, Darira, rose upon the site of a famous temple which he had demolished. In 546 he was entrusted with an inquiry into the secret practice of pagan rites by pro- JOANNES fessing Christians. Members of all ranks were inculpated : Phocas, prefect of the capital, being informed against, poisoned himself. John was appointed to instruct the accused in Christian doctrine ; and an imperial edict prescribed conversion within three months ! Theophanes tells us that heathens and heretics were to be excluded from public office. From pt. iii. of John's history we learn that in the 2nd year of Tiberius (a.d. 579), upon the rumour of a heathen plot to destroy the Christians of Baalbec, the emperor ordered an officer named Theophilus to suppress paganism in the East. Torture, crucifixion, the sword, wild beasts, were among the means employed. Numbers were accused ; the prisons teemed with victims of every rank ; and a permanent inquisition was established for their trial. As bp. of Ephesus or " Asia," John appears to have supervised all the Monophysite con- gregations of Asia Minor. His 30 years of influence at the court of Justinian and his high personal qualities gave him very con- siderable authority among his own party- He tells us (v. i) that in the reign of Justin II. he " was dwelling in the royal city and con- trolling all the revenues of all the congrega- tions of the Faithful there and in every place." In a chapter written a.d. 581 he mentions his old intimacy with Tiberius at the court of Justin : "He and I were often together, and stood with the other courtiers before the serene Justin" (iii. 22). John suffered grievously in the persecution instigated first by John Scholasticus, whom he calls John of Sirmin, and afterwards by Euty- chius. Together with Paul of Aphrodisias (subsequently patriarch of Antioch), Stephen, bp. of Cyprus, and the bp. Elisha, John of Ephesus was imprisoned in the patriarch's palace. In the heated debates which followed, the four Monophysite bishops stoutly charged John of Sirmin with breach of the canons in annulling the orders of their clergy, and, when the patriarch demanded of them " a union such as that between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch," declared their willingness provided they might drive out the council of Chalcedon from the church, as Cyril had driven out Nestorius. The vacillating em- peror, of whom John testifies that for six years he had been friendly to the " orthodox," attempted to secure peace by drawing up a dogmatic formula, in the shape of an imperial edict, which he sent to the four captive bishops for revision. Their changes were admitted, but the " Nestorians and semi-Nestorians " of the court— so John puts it — scared the timid emperor into further alterations, of which the chief was an inserted clause, " that the cus- toms of the church were to be maintained," which meant that the obnoxious council was still to be proclaimed from the diptychs. Weary of the dispute, and probably not under- standing its grounds, Justin now signed the document, and required the subscription of John of Ephesus and his companions. They declined, and 33 days passed in constant wrangling between them and the patriarch. Meanwhile they were kept under close guard ; the patriarch's creatures stripped them of everything ; friends were denied admittance JOANNES to their prison ; and their personal followers were also confined in the dungeons of the palace. The misery of the four bishops was aggravated by the reproaches of the leading Alonophysite laymen, who supposed that their obstinacy alone hindered a compromise which would stop the persecution. The cunning patriarch was careful to encourage this belief. At last his victims gave way, the patriarch promising upon oath that the council of Chalcedon should be sacrificed. The four bishops twice communicated with him ; but when they reminded him of his promise, he referred them to the ]iope ; he could not, for their sakes, risk a schism from Rome. Our historian touchingly describes the sorrow of himself and his companions over this fraud ; even their opponents pitied them, until they once more faced them with galling taunts, which led to a second imprisonment (i. 17-23). The emperor made further fruitless attempts at conciliation. The upshot of a discussion before the senate was that the four bishops boldly uttered their anathema " upon the whole heresy of the two natures," and re- nounced communion with their deceivers for ever. Thereupon they were sentenced to " banishment." The sentence was at once carried out. They never saw each other again. John of Ephesus was confined in the hospital of Eubulus at Constantinople. Though help- less from gout and exposed to swarms ol vermin, he was denied all assistance. As he lay in his filthy prison, it seemed to him that his feverish thirst was slaked and his misery comforted by a heavenly visitant, whose coming he describes with much pathos and simplicity. After a year he was removed to an island, where he remained 18 months, when the Caesar Tiberius ordered his release. For three years, however, he was under sur- veillance, until the patriarch died (a.d. 578). Before the outbreak of this persecution, John of Ephesus and Paul of Aphrodisias had argued publicly with Conon and Eugenius, the founders of the Cononites, nicknamed Tri- theites, in the presence of the patriarch and his synod, by command of Justin (v. 3). Conon had vainly tried to win the support of John, who proved to him that he was a heretic and afterwards wrote him a letter ot warning (v. 1-12). Eutychius, who, upon the death of John of Sirmin, was restored to the patriarchal throne, was hardly more tolerant of Monophysites than its late occupant. Per- secution was renewed, and John of Ephesus again met with disgraceful injustice. By another imprisonment Eutychius wrung from him the resignation of a properly which Callinicus, a chief officer of the court, had bestowed, and which John had largely im- proved and converted into a monastery. After being further deprived of his right of receiving five loaves at the public distribu- tions, for which he had paid 300 darics, John was released. Tiberius, Justin's successor, though imwill- ing to persecute, was overcome by popular clamour. The mob of the capital groundlcssly suspected their new emperor of Arian leanings (iii. 13, 26). An edict was therefore published ordering the arrest of .\rians, .Manirheans, etc. Under cover of this, the " orthodox " were JOANNES finl once more harried and plundered. The first victim was John of ICphcsus (iii. is), who had now lived manv vears and suffered much in Constantinople. He and his friends were incarcerated at Christmas in a miserable prison called the Cancrllum (a.d. 578 ?) ; an<l after much fruitless argument were finally ordered to leave the city. It is greatly to our historian's credit that. during the bitter strife which raged long among the Monophysites themselves, in the matter of the double election of Thecnlore and Peter to succeed Theodosius as their patriarch of Alexandria, he maintained an honourable neutrality, standing equally aloof from I'aul- ites ancl Jacobites, although his sympathies were with Theodore, the injured patri.iri h (iv. Q-.t«). John wrote his account of this pernicious quarrel in 583, the 2nd year of Maurice ; for he says that it had already lasted 8 years (iv. ii), and that he is writing an outline of events from the year of Alexander 886 (a.d. 573) onwards (iv. 13). In his anxiety to heal the schism, John sent 10 epistles to " the blessed Jacob" [Jacoius Baradaeus], protesting his own neutrality, and urging reconciliation between the two factions (iv. 46); and after Jacob's death (a.d. 581) his party made overtures to John of Ephesus, then living at the capital, to induce him to recognize Peter of Callmicus as patri- arch of Antioch in i)lace of Paul (iv. 45). In reply the historian rebuked them for violating the canons. John accuses both sides of an utter want of mutual charity, and an entire aversion to calm examination of the grounds of their quarrel. He adds that he has briefly recorded the main facts from the outset to the current year, 896 (a.d. 585) — the latest date observable in his work. The Ecclesiastical History. — John states (pt. iii. bk. i. c. 3) that he has already written a history of the church, " beginning from the times of Julius Caesar, as far as to the sixth year of the reign of Justin II., son of the sister of Justinian." If, as Dr. Payne Smith assumes, pt. i. was a mere abridgment of Euscbius, its loss is not a great one. The disappearance of pt. ii. is more unfortunate, as it would probably have furnished much important matter for the reign of Justinian. It brought the history down to 571. Pt. iii. continues it to c. 583, thus covering the period between the 6th year of Justin II. and the 4th of Maurice. It was called forth by the per- secution above mentioned, which broke out in the 6th or 7th year of Justin, and the writer often apologizes for want of chronological order, occasional repetitions, and even inconsistencies of statement (see csp. i. 3 ; ii. 50), as defects due to the stress of untoward circumstances: "This should be known t(» critics : many of these stories were penned in time of persecution . . . j)eoi>le conveyed away the pajiers inscribed with these < hapters, and the other papers and writings, into divers places, and in some instances they remained hidden so long as two or three years in one place or another" (ii. 50). John had no memoranda of what he ha(l already written, and never found opportunity for revisif>n. With these drawbacks, the work possesses special interest as an original account. John 3ii 562 JOANNES was contemporary with most of the characters described ; he writes of what he himself saw and heard and of doings in which he was personally concerned. For 30 years he was a trusted servant of Justinian; and Gibbon would probably have recognized in the second part of his history a valuable gauge of the servility and the malice of Procopius. Had Gibbon possessed the third part of John's work, he would hardly have surmised that " the sentiments of Justin II. were pure and benevolent," or believed that the four last years of that emperor " were passed in tranquil obscurity" (cf. iii. 1-6) ; had he read what John has to say of the worthless stepson of Belisarius he might have rated " the gallant Photius " less highly ; and he would have learned that it was the thoughtless improvid- ence of Tiberius which forced the unhappy Maurice to appear a grasping niggard (ct. iii. 11; v. 20). As regards chronology, Assemani, who did not love a Monophysite, accuses John of inaccuracy, asserting that he used a pecu- liar Greek era, making almost all Justinian's acts and his death ten years later than the dates assigned by Evagrius, Theophanes, and Cedrenus. But in pt. iii. (v. 13) John gives the usual date for Justinian's death— Nov. 14, 876 [565]. Of Theophanes Gibbon has said that he is " full of strange blunders " and " his chronology is loose and inaccurate " ; his verdict in regard to John of Ephesus would have been very different. His attitude to the great controversy of his day is that of one thoroughly convinced that his own party holds exclusive possession of the truth. The Mouophysites are " the orthodox," " the faithful" ; their opponents " Synodites," " Nestorians," or at least " half- Nestorians " ; the synod of Chalcedon is " the stumbling-block and source of confusion of the whole church " ; " it sunders Christ our God into two natures after the Union, and teaches a Quaternity instead of the holy Trinity " (i. 10, 18) ; the four bishops taunt the patriarch with " the heresy of the two natures, and the blasphemies of the synod, and of the tome of Leo" (1. 18). Yet John does not labour to blacken the memory of his adversaries ; the strong terms in which he speaks of the pride of power and savage tyranny of John Scho- lasticus are warranted or at least excused by facts (1. 5, 12, 37) ; and Baronius denounces John of Sirmin in language equally decided (H. E. ad ann. 564). In regard to Eutvchius, John protests his adherence to truth :' " Al- though we declare ourselves opposed to the excellent patriarch Eutychius, yet from the truth we have not swerved in one thing out of a hundred ; nor was it from eagerness to revile and ridicule that we committed these things to writing " (iii. 22). His impartiality IS manifest in his description of the great schism which rent asunder his own com- munion ; unsparing in his censure of both factions, he refers their wicked and worse than heathenish rancour to the instigation of devils (IV. 19, 22, 39). Credulous John was, but credulity was a common attribute of his age. More serious objection might be taken to his approval of the cruelties connected with the suppression of heathenism (iii. 34) and his intolerance of " heresy " other than JOANNES II. his own. In 550 he dug up and burnt the bones of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla, the false prophets of Montanism (Extr. ap. Dionys.). Herein also he shared the temper of his contemporaries. The spirit of persecu- tion is not the peculiar mark of any age, church, or sect. Apart from these blemishes we may recognize in him an historian who sin- cerely loved truth ; a bishop who was upright and devoted ; and a man whose piety rested upon a thorough knowledge of Scripture. His style, like that of most Syriac writers, is verbose and somewhat unwieldy, but has the eloquence of simple truth and homely pathos. The Third Part of the Ecclesiastical History of John of Ephesus was first edited from the unique MS. in the Brit. Mus. by Dr. Cureton (Oxf. 1853) — a splendid reproduction of the original — and translated into English by Dr. Payne Smith (Oxf. i860) and into German by Schonfelder (Miinchen, 1862). These ver- sions are of great assistance, many chapters being defective in the original. [c.j.b.] Joannes (216) II., bp. of Jerusalem, 386-417, in succession to Cyril ; a prelate known to us chiefly through the invectives of Jerome, and hence particularly difficult to estimate. Imbued with that tendency of Eastern church teachers which formed their chief difference from those of the Western church, he with difficulty brought himself to acquiesce in the condemnation of Origenism or to take any steps against Pelagius, with whom he was brought in contact at the close of his epis- copacy, and the presence of Jerome and other immigrants from Italy, and the anti-Origen- istic vehemence of Epiphanius of Salamis and Theophilus of Alexandria, made it impossible for him to escape the reproach of laxity and even at times of heresy. Born between 350 and 356 (Hieron. Ep. Ixxxii. 8, ed. Vail.), he passed as a young man some time among the monks of Nitria in Egypt. There he, no doubt, imbibed his affection for Origen's teaching, and probably became acquainted with two persons who had much to do with his own subsequent history and with that of the Origenistic controversy — the monk Isidore (one of the Long Monks) and Rufinus. During the troublous times before the accession of Theodosius, when Arianism was in the ascendant, he declined, teste Jerome (cont. Joan. Jents. 4), to commu- nicate with the orthodox bishops exiled by Valens. But no imputation of Arianism rests upon him. He was evidently esteemed very highly, and of great eloquence (ib. 41) and subtlety of mind. His flatterers compared him with Chrysippus, Plato, andDemosthenes (z6. 4) . He was little more than 30 years old (Hieron. Ep. Ixxxii. 8, ed. Vail.) when chosen to succeed Cyril as bp. of Jerusalem. It was a see of great importance, subject in certain respects to the metropolitan at Caesarea, but acting at times independently ; of great wealth {cont. Joan. Jertis. 14), and of great interest for its holy places, which were visited by pilgrims from all parts. It had also a special interest from the settlements of distinguished persons from the West, which made it during his episcopate a focus of Christian and literary activity, and with two of which, that of Rufinus and Melania on the Mount of Olives, JOANNES II. and of Jerome and Paula at Bethlehem, he was destined to have close but similar rela- tions. Jerome accuses him of making a gain of his bishopric and living in luxury (Comm. in Joann.c. 14, and £/>. Ivii. 12) ; but this may be only the common aninms of monk against bishop, embittered by momentary resentment. The clergy of Jerusalem were certainly at- tached to him. Rufinus thought it a suflicient defence of his own faith to say that it was that preached at Jerusalem by the holy bp. John (Ruf. Apol. i. 13). But the most' important testimony is given by the pope Anastasius, in a letter to him in 401, a time when the adver- saries of John, Pammachius, and Marcella had access to the pope, and only two or three years after Jerome's Philippic was composed. Anastasius speaks of the splendour of his holiness and his divine virtues ; his eminenc e and his praise are so conspicuous that he can- not find words equal to his merits. He accounts it an honour to have received praise from one of so serene and heavenly a dis- position, the splendour of whose episcopate shines throughout the world (see Vallarsi's Rufinus, pp. 408, 409 ; Migne's Pair. Lot. xxi.). When John became bishop, Rufinus had already been settled on the Mount of Olives some nine years, and Jerome and his friends were just entering on their work at Bethlehem. At first he lived in impartial friendship with them both, seeking out Jerome especially (" nos suo arbitrio diligebat," Hieron. Ep. Ixxxii. II, ed. Vail.), and making use of Rufinus, whom he ordained, as a learned man, in business which required his special talents. After some six years their peace was disturbed. A certain Aterbius (Hieron. cout. Ruf. iii. 33), who by his officious insinuations and imputa- tions of Origenistic heresy caused the first breach between Jerome and Rufinus, had, no doubt, some dealings with the bishop also ; and, probably through him, the suspicions of Epiphanius, the venerable bp. of Salamis, were aroused. When Epiphanius came to Jeru- salem in 394, the strife broke out. For the controversy see Epiphanius (1) and Hierony- Mus (2). During the dispute between Jerome and Rufinus, John in no way intervened. Zockler (Hieron. p. 249) thinks him to have inclined rather to the side of Jerome. We certainly find Jerome, in a letter to Theo- philus, in commendation of his encyclical (Ep. Ixxxvi., ed. Vail.), jileading for his bishop. John had accepted a person under the ban of Theophilus who had come from Jerusalem to Alexandria, and thus had incurred the wrath of that fierce prelate ; but Jerome repre- sented that Theophilus had sent no letters condemnati >ry of this person, and that it would be rash to condemn John for a supposed fault committed in ignorance. As regards Rufinus, J ohn wrotea letter topope Anastasius, the ten< )r of which can be only dimly inferred fr(jm the pope's extant reply. ' John was apparently less anxious todefendkufinusthantosecurehisown freedom from implication in the charges made against Rufinus by Jerome's friends at Rome. The pope, with fulsomeexpressiunsof esteem for John, bids him put such fears away and judge Rufinus for himself. He professes to know nothing about Origen, not even who he was, while yet he has condemned his opinions ; and JOANNES II. '.(13 as to Rufinus, he only says that, if his trans- lation of the works of Origen implies an accept- ance of his opinions (a matter which ho leaves to his own conscience), he nmst see where he can iirocure absolution. That John was not then in familiar conmiunication with Kuiirius, but was with Jerome, may be inferred from the fact that Jerome used this letter in his controversy with Rufinus (cont. Ruf. ii. 14), while Rufinus did not know of its existence, and, when he heard of it, treated it as an invention of Jerome (ib. iii. 20). The recon- ciliation of John with the m.mks of Uethlihem is further attested by Sulpicius Severus (Dtal. i. 8), who had stayed six months at Bethlehem, and says that John had entrusted to Jerome and his brt>ther the charge of the parish of Bethlehent. A letter from Chrysostoni to John in 404 (Migne's Pair. Gk. vol! Iii.) shews that he had taken Chrysostom's part ; then we hear nothing more of John for 12 or 13 years, when the Pelagian controversy brings him forward once more. Pelagius and Coelestius, having come in 415 to Jerusalem, were en- countered by Orosius, the friend of Augustine, who had come to visit Jerome, and afterwards by the Gaulish bishops Heros and Lazarus. Orosius, who recounts these transactions in the first nine chaps, of his Liber de Arbitrii Ltber- tate, addressed himself to John, as did also I\'lagius ; but John was not willing to accept without inquiry the decrees of the council of Carthage and resented their being pressed upon him by Orosius. The two parties were in secret conflict for some time, till Jtjhn determined on holding a synod to end the strife, on July 28, 415. John was the only bishop present ; the rest were presbyters and laymen. He shewed some consideration towards Pelagius, allowing him, though a layman, to sit among the presbyters ; and when there was a clamour against Pelagius for shewing disresi)ect for the name and authority of Augustine, John, by saying, " I am Augustine," undertook both to ensure respect to that great teacher and not to allow his authority to be pressed too far against his antagonist. " H," cried Orosius, " you repre- sent .Augustine, follow Augustine's judgment." John thereupon asked him if he was ready to become the accuser of Pelagius; but Orosius declined this duty, saying that Pelagius had been condemned by the African bishops, wh(»se decisions John ought to accept. The pro- ceedings were somewhat confused from the necessity of employing an interpreter. Final- ly, it was determined to send a letter to pope Innocentius and to abide by his judgment. Meanwhile, John imposed silence upon both parties. This satisfied neither. The opinions of Pelagius continued to be spread by private intercourse, and Augustine wrote to remon- strate with John against the toleration of heresy. On the arrival of the (laulish bishops Heros and Lazarus, another synod was held at Diospolis (416) under the presidency of Euzoius, the metropolitan bp. of Caesarea, in which John again took part. Augustine, in his work against Julianus, records tjie decision of this council, which was favourable to Pelagius, but considers his acquittal due to uncertainties occasioned by difference of language, which enabled Pelagius to express 564 JOANNES in. himself in seemingly orthodox words ; and both in this work and in his letter to John he treats John as a brother-bishop whom he holds in high esteem. Meanwhile, the more intemperate partisans of Pelagius resorted to open violence. The dialogue of Jerome against the Pelagians, though mild compared with his other controversial works, incensed them, and they proceeded to burn the monas- teries of Bethlehem. The attitude of John at this time cannot be gathered with any certainty. That he was in any way an accomplice in such proceedings is incredible. Nothing of the sort appears from the letters of Jerome, though he speaks in a resigned manner of his losses. Complaints, however, of the ill-treatment of Jerome and the Roman ladies at Bethlehem reached pope Innocent, who wrote to John a letter (Hieron. Ep. cxxxvii., ed. Vail.) of sharp rebuke. He does not imply that John had been accessory to the violence ; but, considering that a bishop ought to be able to prevent such acts or at least relieve their consequences, he bids him take care that no further violence is done, on pain of the laws of the church being put in force against him. The view here taken of these transac- tions, which is that of Zockler (Hieron. pp. 310-316), is opposed by Thierry (St. Jerome, bk. xii. c. iii.), who looks upon John as a partisan of Pelagius and as the enemy of Jerome to the end. John was now at the close of his career. Possibly the letter of Innocentius never reached him, for it can hardly have been written, as Vallarsi shews (pref. to Hieron. sub. litt. cxxxv.-cxxxviii.), before 417, and John died (see Ceillier, vii. 497, etc.) on Jan. 10 in that year. After a troubled episcopate of 30 years and a life of from 60 to 65 years, failing health may have prevented his exercising full control in this last and most painful episode of his career. Several works are attributed to him (see Ceillier, vii. 97, etc.). Gennadius (30) men- tions one which he wrote in his own defence ; but no work of his is extant. He must, therefore, always be viewed through the medium of other, mostly hostile, writers, and through the mists of controversv. [w.h.f.] Joannes (217) III., bp. of Jerusalem, 513- 524. On the banishment of Elias, bp. of Jerusalem, by the emperor Anastasius, John, deacon of the Anastasis, was forcibly thrust into his episcopal seat by Olympius, prefect of Palestine, on his engaging to receive Severus of Antioch into communion and to anathema- tize the decrees of Chalcedon (Cyrill. Scythop. Vit. S. Sab. cc. 37, 56). Such an engagement awoke the orthodox zeal of St. Sabas and the other fathers of the desert, who successfully used their influence with the new-made bishop to prevent the fulfilment of the compact, which Olympius lacked sufficient firmness to enforce. Anastasius, recalling Olympius, dis- patched in his room a name-sake of his own, who had offered to forfeit 300 pounds of gold if he failed to induce John to fulfil his agree- ment, A.D. 517. The prefect Anastasius sur- prised the unsuspicious bishop and threw him into prison until he should fulfil his promise. This step delighted the populace, who re- garded John as having obtained Elias's seat by fraud. Zacharias, one of the leading men JOANNES 1. of Caesarea, gaining a secret interview with the imprisoned bishop, persuaded him to feign assent to Anastasius's requirements and promise, if he would release him from prison, to publicly signify, on the following Sunday, his agreement to the original conditions. .Anastasius, believing John's professions, liberated him. On the Sunday a vast con- course assembled, including 10,000 monks. Anastasius was present with his officials to receive the expected submission. John, having ascended the ambo, supported by Theodosius and Sabas, the leaders of the monastic party, was received with vociferous shouts, " Anathematize the heretics ! " " Con- firm the synod ! " When silence was secured, John and his two companions pronounced a joint anathema on Nestorius, Eutyches, Soterichus of the Cappadocian Caesarea, and all who rejected the decrees of Chalcedon. Anastasius, utterly unprepared for this open violation of the compact, was too much terrified by the turbulent multitude, evidently prepared for violence, and hastily escaped to Caesarea. The emperor, though furious, had too much on his hands to attend to ecclesias- tical disputes at Jerusalem, and John was allowed to go unpunished. The death of Anastasius in 518, and the succession of Justin, changed the whole situation. Orthodoxy was now in the ascendant. The whole East followed the example of the capital, and John could, without fear of con- sequences, summon his synod to make the same profession of faith with his brother- patriarch in the imperial city, and was received into communion by pope Hormisdas, at the request of Justin (ib. c. 60). John died A.D. 524, after an episcopate of 11 years. Theophan. Chronogr. p. 136 ; Tillem. Mem.eccl. xvi. 721 ; Fleury, H. E. livre xxi. cc. 27, 28 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, iii. 185. [e-v.] Joannes (346) I., bp. of Rome after Hormisdas, Aug. 13, 523, to May 18, 526. The emperor Justin, having during the pontificate of Hormisdas restored the churches in the East to orthodoxy and communion with Rome, continued to shew his orthodox zeal by the persecution of heretics. Having already suppressed the Eutychians and Nestorians, he issued in 523 a severe edict against Manicheans, condemning them, where- ever found, to banishment or death (Cod. Justin, leg. 12). Justin's edict had debarred other heretics from public offices, but had excepted the Arian Goths because of his league with Theodoric, the Gothic king of Italy. Soon afterwards, however, he pro- ceeded against the Arians also, ordering all their churches to be consecrated anew for the use of the Catholics. Theodoric, who, though an Arian, had hitherto granted toleration to Catholics in his own dominions, remonstrated with the emperor by letter, but without effect. He therefore applied to the bp. of Rome, whom he sent for to Ravenna, desiring him to go to Constantinople to use his influence with the emperor, and threatening that, unless toleration were conceded to Arians in the East, he would himself withhold it from Catholics in the West. John went (a.d. 525), accompanied by five bishops and four sena- tors. The unprecedented event of a visit by JOANNES II. a bishop of Rome to Constantinople caused a great sensation there. He was received with the utmost respect by acclaiming crowds and by the emperor. Invited by the patriarch Epiphanius to celebrate Kaster with him in the great church, he consented only if seated on a throne above that of the patriarch. He officiated in Latin and according to the Latin rite. None were excluded from his communion except Timotheus, patriarch of Alexandria (Theophan. ; Marcellin. Ci>m.). Anastasius {Lib. Poutif.) states that the emperor, though now in the 8th year of his j reign, bowing to the ground befure the vicar of St. Peter, solicited and obtained the honour of being crowned by him. There is con- currence of testimony that John obtained a cessation of Justin's' measures against the Arians. Baronius and Binius, anxious to clear a pope from tolerating heresy, insist that John dissuaded the emperor from the conces- sions demanded. Against this supposition Pagi (Critic.) cites the following: "Justin, having heard the legation, promised that he would do all, except that those who had been reconciled to the Catholic faith could by no means be restored to the Arians" [Anonym. Vales.) ; " The venerable pope and senators returned with glory, having obtained all they asked from Justin " (Anastasius) ; " Justinus Augustus granted the whole petition, and restored to the heretics their churches, accord- ing to the wish of Theodoric the heretical king, lest Christians, and especially priests, should be put to the sword" {.4uctor. Chron. Veterum Pontiftcum) ; " Having come to Augustus, they requested him with many tears to accept favourably the tenour of their embassy, howev-er unjust ; and he, moved by their tears, granted what they asked, and left the Arians unmolested" (Miscell. lib. 15. ad ami. vi. Justin). Whatever the cause, it is certain that John and the legates were, on re- turning, received with displeasure byTheodoric and imprisoned at Ravenna, where the pope died on May 18, 526. His body was buried in St. Peter's at Rome on May 27, on which day he appears in the Roman Martymlogy as a saint and martyr. See also Fragm. Vales. Cireg. Dial. i. iii. c. 2. [j.b — y.] Joannes (347) II. (called Mercurius), bp. of Rome after Boniface IL, Dec. 31, 532. to May 27, 535, a Roman by birth who had been a Roman presbyter (Anastas. Lib. Pont.) The canvassings and contests then usual delayed the election 11 weeks. Church funds were used and sacred vessels publicly sold for bribery (Ep. Athalaric. ad Joann. pap. ; Cassi- odor. Variar. 1. ix. ; Ep. 15). The most noteworthy incident of his brief reign is a doctrinal decision, in which he appears at first sight to differ from one of his predecessors. Pope Hormisdas had in 522 written in strong condemnation of certain Scythian monks who had upheld the statement that " One of the Trinity " [Unus ex Trinitate) " suffered in the flesh." His rejection of the phrase had at the time been construed so as to imply heresy (Ep. Maxent. ad Hormisd.), and now the. 4 coemetae. or " Sleepless Monks," of Constantinople argued from it in favour of the Xestorian position that Mary was not truly and properly the mother of God ; saying JOANNES III. 605 with reason that, if He Who suffered in the flesh was not of the Trinity, neither was ]lc Who was born in the flesh. The rniprror Justinian, supported by the patriarch Kpi- phanius, havuiK condemned the position o( the "Sleepless Monks," they sent a deputation to Rome, urging the pope to support their deduction from the suppose<l doctrine of his predecessor. The emi>eror, having enib<Klied his view of the true doctrine in an imperial edict, sent it with an embassy to Rome and a letter requesting the pope to signify in writing to himself and tlie patriarch his acceptance of the tloctrine of the t-dicl, whi( h he lays down as intlubilably true, and assumes to be, as a matter of course, the doctrine of the Roman see (Inter. Epp. Joann. H. Labbe). Hut the edict was a distinct assertion of the correctness of the phrase contended f<ir by the Scythian monks and so much objected to by Hormisdas. Its words are, " The sufferings, as well as miracles, which Christ of His own accord endured in the flesh are of one and the same. For we d<i not know dod the Word as one and Christ as another, but one and the same " (Lex. Justin. Cod. I, i. 6). In his letter Justinian expresses himself similarly. John, having received both deputations, assembled the Roman clergy, who at first could come to no agreement. But afterwards a synod convened by the pope accepted and confirmed Justinian's confession of faith. To this effect he wrote to the emperor on Mar. 25. 534 (Joann. II. Ep. ii. ; Labbe) and to the Roman senators, laying down tin- true doctrine as the emperor had defined it, and warning them not to communicate witii the " Sleepless Monks." It is true that we do not find in the letters of Hormisdas any distinct condemnation of the phrase itself, however strongly he in- veighed against its upholders, as troublesome and dangerous innovators. But the fact remains that a doctrinal statement which one pope strongly discountenanced, as at any rate unnecessary and fraught with danger, was, twelve years afterwards, at the instance of an emperoi-, authoritatively propounded by an- other. J ustinian's view, which J ohn accepted, has ever since been received as orthodox. In 534 John, being consulted by Caesarius of Aries as to Contumeliosus, bp. of Riez in Ciaul, wrote to Caesarius, to the bishops of Caul, and to the clergy of Riez, directing the guilty bishop to be confined in a monastery. A letter assigned to this pope by the Pseudo-Isidore, addressed to a bp. Valerius, on the relation of the Son to the Father, is spurious. [JB — v.] Joannes (348) III., bp. of Rome, alter Pelagius, July 18, 560, to July 12, !,7^, it- dained after a vacancy of 4 months and 17 davs, was the son of a pirson of distincti<-n al Rf.'me (Anastas. Lib. Pont.). Ther<- are two incidents in which his name appears. Two bishops in (iaul had been deposed by a synod held bv order of king (iuntraui at Lyons under the liietropolitan Nicetius. The deposed prelates obtained the king's leave to appeal to Rome, and John III. ordered their restoration (dreg. Turon. //is/. I. v. cc. 20, 27). The second incident is nHiitioued by Anastasius (Lib. Pont, in lit. Juann. IIL), and by I'aulus 666 JOANNES PRESBYTER Diaconus (i. 5). The exarch Narses, having retired to Naples, there invited the Lombards to invade Italy. The pope went to him, and persuaded him to return to Rome. This inci- dent, discredited by Baronius (^nn. 567, Nos. 8-12) is credited by Pagi and Muratori (cf. Gibbon, c. xlv.). [j.b — y.] Joannes (444) Presbyter, a shadowy per- sonage of the sub-apostolic age, the reasons for belief in his existence being solely derived from an inference drawn by Eusebius from language used in a passage of Papias. In the middle of the 3rd cent. Dionysius of Alex- andria (Eus. H. E. vii. 25) had maintained on critical grounds that the author of the fourth gospel and of the Catholic epistle could not also have been the author of the Apocalypse. Dionysius takes for granted that the author of the gospel was John the apostle, and has no difficulty in conceding that the name of the author of the Apocalypse was also John, since the writer himself says so ; but urges that he never claims to be the apostle. He calls himself simply John, without adding that he was the disciple whom Jesus loved, or who leaned on our Lord's breast, or the brother of James, or in any way forcing us to identify him with the son of Zebedee. Now, there were many Johns, and it is said that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each called John's. Except in the statement last made, Dionysius does not pretend to have found any actual trace of any John of the apostolic age besides John the apostle and John Mark. His argu- ment is merely that if we have good critical reasons for believing the authors of the gospel and of the Apocalypse to be distinct, the fact that both bore the name John does not force us to identify them. Some 75 years later Eusebius found historic evidence for regarding as a fact what Dionysius had suggested as a possibility. He produces from the preface to the work of Papias an extract, for a fuller discussion of which see Papias. What con- cerns us here is that Papias, speaking of his care in collecting oral traditions of the apos- tolic times, says, " On any occasion when a person came in my way, who had been a fol- lower of the elders, I would inquire about the discourses of the elders — what was said by Andrew, or by Peter, or by Philip, or by Thomas or James, or by John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and what Aristion and the Elder John, the disciples of the Lord say " (Lightfoot's trans.). Eusebius points out that as the name John occurs here twice : the first time in a list of apostles, no doubt representing John the apostle ; the second time in a different list, after the name of Aristion and with the title elder prefixed, it must represent a different person. Thus the John whose traditions Papias several times records is the elder, not the apostle. We find thus, remarks Eusebius, that " the account of those is true who have stated that two persons in Asia had the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present time, bears the name of John." " It is likely that the second (unless we allow that it was, as some would have it, the first) beheld the revelation as- cribed to John" (H. E. iii. 39). Although Eusebius does not here name Dionysius of JOANNES PRESBYTER Alexandria, he plainly had in mind that passage of his writings which he gives at length elsewhere. The ambiguous way in which he speaks of the Apocalypse shews that his personal inclination was to pronounce it non- apostolical, but that he was kept in check by the weight of authority in its favour. The silence of Eusebius indicates that the other passages in Papias where John was mentioned contained no decisive indications what John was intended. Modern writers have not been unanimous in their judgment on this criticism of Eusebius. Several reject it, judging Papias to be men- tioning one John twice. So Milligan {Journal Sac. Lit. Oct. 1867), Riggenbach {Jahrb. fiir deutsche Theol. xiii. 319), Zahn {Stud, und Knt. 1866, p. 650, Acta Johannis, 1880, p. cliv.). But a far more powerful array of critics endorses the conclusion of Eusebius — e.g. Steitz {Stud, und Krit. 1868, p. 63), Light- foot {Contemp. Rev. Aug. 1875, p. 379), West- cott (A'. T. Canon, p. 69) ; while less orthodox critics with one consent base their theories with confidence on John the Elder being as historical as SS. Peter or Paul. The argument of Eusebius, on the other hand, seems to have made little impression at the time and his successors seem to know only of one John and go on speaking of Papias as the hearer of John the apostle. In this they follow Irenaeus ; and it is an important fact that Irenaeus, who was very familiar with the work of Papias of which he made large use and whose Eastern origin ought to have acquainted him with the traditions of the Asiatic church, shews no symptom of having heard of any John but the apostle, and describes Papias (v. 33, p. 333) as a hearer of John and a com- panion of Polycarp. That Polycarp was a hearer of John the apostle is stated explicitly by Irenaeus in his letter to Victor (Eus. H. E. v. 24 ; see also his letter to Florinus, v. 20). That Polycarp was made bp. of Smyrna by John the apostle is stated by Tertullian {Praes. v. 30) and was never doubted by sub- sequent writers. Polycrates, appealing to the great lights of the church of Asia (Eus. v. 24), names John, who leaned on our Lord's breast, who sleeps at Ephesus, but says nothing about any second John buried there or elsewhere. The silence of Dionysius of Alexandria is positive proof that no tradition of a second John had reached him. If he knew and re- membered the passage in Papias it did not occur to him to draw from it the same infer- ence as Eusebius. Neither, though he men- tions the two monuments at Ephesus, both bearing the name of John, does he say what would have been very much to his purpose, that he had heard that they were supposed to commemorate different persons ; and in fact Jerome, who in his " catalogue " repeats the story, tells us that some held that the same John was commemorated by both.* The Acts of Leucius are notoriously the source whence the Fathers, from the 4th cent., derived J ohannine traditions. While disagreeing with • Zahn {Acta Johannis, p. cliv. sqq.) tries to prove that one memorial church was erected outside the walls where John was buried ; the other inside on the site of the house where he resided and had celebrated his last communion. JOANNES PRESBYTER Zahn's opinion that Lcucius was earlier than Papias, it is hiRhly probable that he was a full century earlier than Eusebius, and we can assert, with as much confidence as such a thing can be asserted of a book of which only fragments remain, that Leucius mentioned no John but the ap<istle. If when I.eurius put his stories together any tradition had remained of a second John, this would surely have been among the Leucian names of the apostle's disciples, so many of which we are able to enumerate. Eusebius had not thought of his theory at the time of his earlier work, the Chronicle, in which he describes Papias as a disciple of the evangelist. Jerome also is not self-consistent, speaking in one way when immediately under the influence of Eusebius, at other times following the older tradition. In the East the only trace of the theory of Eusebius is that the Apostolic Consliluiiotis (vii. 46) make John ordain another John, as bp. of Epliesus in succession to Timothy. The writers who used the work of Papias do not seem to suspect that any John but the apostle was the source of his information. One frag- ment ((jebhardt and Harnack, 2nded. No. iii. p. 93) was preserved by Apollinarius, who de- scribes Papias as a disciple of John; some authorities add " the apostle," but wherever John is mentioned without addition no other is meant. Anastasius of Sinai (Gebhardt, No. vi.) describes Papias as 6 ^v t<^ (VtffTTj^iv 0o<r^cras and No. vii. as 6 'luidvi'ov toO evayye- \i(TTOu <poiTi)Tr)s ; Maximus confessor (No. ix.) describes him as cwaKfiaixavTa ri^ 6ti({j fuo77e\i(rrjj lojavvr}. An anonymous but ancient note even makes Papias the scribe who wrote the gospel from the apostle's dictation. Thus Eusebius stands completely alone among ancient authorities, differing alike from his predecessors and successors. It by no means necessarily follows that he was wrong. If he has correctly interpreted the language of Papias, the authority of so ancient a witness outweighs that of any num ber of later writers. We can conceive either that there were two Johns in Asia, and that the latter's fame was so absorbed by the glnry of his greater namesake that all remembrance of him was lost ; or else we may imagine that the second John, the source of apostolic tradi- tions to the Asiatic churches, was held in such high consideration that, though not really so, he passed in common fame as the apostle. The supposition that John the apostle was never in Asia Minor has been embraced by Keim (Jesu von Nazara), Scholten (Der A pastel Johannes in Kleinasien) and others. But except that the recognition of the residence of a different John in Asia opens the possi- bility of a confusion, their reasons for disbelief in the apostle's residence in Asia are worthless. There is an immense mass of patristic testi- mony that John the apostle lived to a great age and died in Asia in the reign of Trajan. If, then, both J ohn the apostle and the elder taught in Asia, can we transfer to the second anything traditionally told of the first ? Dionysius and Eusebius transfer to him the authorship of the Apocalypse, but those who now divide the Johanninc books between these two Johns unanimf)usly give the Apoca- lypse to the first. St. Jerome assigns to " the JOANNES PRESBYTER r.fl7 Elder " the two minor epistles, and this i» a very natural inference from their inscription. That is a UKulest <ine, if the writer could have claimed the dignity of apostle; hut if not. it seems arrogant to designate himself a* the elder when there must have been elders in every city. There is also a great assumption of authority in the tone of the ud epistle. The writer sends his legates to the rhurchc-s of the district, is angry if these legates are not respectfully received, and addresses the churches in a tone of command. It may be suggested as an explanation of this, that the writer knew himself to be the sole survivor in the district of the first Christian generation; and it agrees with this that Papias desrnbrs him as a disciple of our Lord, yet speaks of him in the present tense while he speaks of the apostles in the past. Hut this hypothesis is scarcely tenable if we believe what is told of the great age attained by the apostle John, who is said to have lived to the reign of Trajan. This hardly leaves room for any one who could claim to have heard our Lord to acquire celebrity after the apostle's decease. Further, no one who used the fourth gospel only could know that there had been an apf>stle named John. Even our Lord's forerunner, called in other gospels John the Baptist, in this is simply John, as if there were no need to dis- tinguish him from any other. The apostle alone would not feel such need, therefore if he were the author of the gospel, all is intel- ligible ; but if the author were his disciple, is it conceivable that he should thus suppress the name of his great master and predecessor in labour in Asia ; and if beside the apostle there were in our Lord's circle another John, is it conceivable that the writer should not have distinguished between them ? Thus the Eusebian interpretation of Papias must stand on its own merits. It f)btains no confirmation from independent testimony, nor does it solve any perplexing problems. It is certainly possible that we with our more powerful instruments of criticism may be able to resolve a double star which had appeared to the early observers single. Yet con- sidering how much closer and more favourably circumstanced they were, we have need to look well that the mistake is not our own. One Eusebian argument must then be re- jected, namelv, that by calling his second John the elder, Papias meant to distinguish him from the apostle. This would be so if he had called the first John an apostle, but actually he calls him an elder. If wc suppose, as do I.ightfoot and others, that he uses the word elder in two different senses, at least the word cannot be used the second time to distinguish him from those to whom U is applied the first time. If it is to distinguish him from any one it is from Arislion, to whom, though also called a disciple of the Lord, this name is not applied. Hence Eusebius's second argument, that Papias by placing John alter Aristion meant to assign to hiin a less honour- able place, fails since John is given a title of dignity which is refused to Aristion. Some light is thrown on the sense in which the word elder is applied to John by Papias in his preface by the fact that one of his traditions is told with the formula. " These things the 568 JOANNES elder used to say." This must surely mean more than that the authority cited was one of the many presbyters of the church and we cannot help connecting with it the fact re- vealed by the minor Johannine epistles, that there was some one in the Asiatic church who spoke of himself, and no doubt was habitually spoken of by others, as " the Elder." The only Eusebian argument then that remains is that Papias mentions the name John twice over and therefore may be pre- sumed to speak of two Johns. But might he not first enumerate John in his list of seven apostles, concerning whom he had been able to glean traditions, and a second time in his shorter list of men of the first Christian genera- tion who had survived to his own day ? Papias wrote for the men of his time, to whom the facts were well known, and the idea of being misunderstood would no more occur to him than it would to us, if we spoke of one of our leading statesmen at one moment by his surname only, the next with the addition of his title or Christian name. The second time the title " elder " is used it does not mean " one of the first generation of Christians," for Aristion to whom the title is refused was that ; it does not mean merely one holding the office of presbyter, for then the phrase " the elder" would have no meaning. What remains but that the second John had the same right to the title as Andrew, Peter, and the rest to whom it is given in the beginning of the sentence ? Hence while we own the Eusebian interpre- tation of Papias to be a possible one, we are unable to see that it is the only possible one ; and therefore while willing to receive the hypothesis of two Johns, if it will help to explain any difficulty, we do not think the evidence strong enough to establish it as an historical fact : and we frankly own that if it were not for deference to better judges, we should unite with Keim in relegating, though in a different way, this " Doppel- ganger " of the apostle to the region of ghostland. [g.s.] Joannes (504), surnamed Climacus, Scho- lasiicus, or Sinaita. At the age of i6 he entered the monastery of Mount Sinai, sub- sequently became an anchoret, and at 75 abbat of Mount Sinai. At the entreaty of John abbat of Ralthu he now composed his works, the Scala Paradisi and the Liber ad Pastorem ; from the title (KKiixa^) of the first of these he gained his name of Climacus (Climakos). It contains his experiences in the spiritual life, with instructions for the attainment of a higher degree of holiness, and is dedicated to the abbat of Raithu who after- wards wrote a commentary upon it (Patr. G^. Ixxxviii. 1211-1248). Returning into soli- tude, John died at an advanced age early in the 7th cent. Boll. Acta SS. Mart. iii. 834 : Migne, m.s. 631-12 10 ; a new ed. of the Gk. text of his works was pub. in 1883 at Constantinople by Sophronius Eremites; Surius, de Probatis Sanct. Historiis, Mar. 30. [i.g.s.] Joannes (507) Saba, a native of Nineveh, fl. in 6th cent. ; an orthodox monk of Dilaita or Daliatha, a small town on the W. bank of the Euphratrs. His works are 30 discourses and 48 epistles, of which Syriac and Arabic JOANNES MSS. exist in the Roman libraries. Though abounding in digressions, the style is marked by persuasive eloquence. They are headed : " On the divine gifts and spiritual solaces vouchsafed to monks for their comfort and delight." Assem. Bib. Or. i. 433-444, iii. i. 103, 4 ; Bickell, Consp. Syr. p. 26. [c.j.b.] Joannes (509), called of BMh-Rabbdn or Bethnarsi, disciple and successor in the 6th cent, of Jacobus the founder of the monastery of Beth-Haba. Jesujab, bp. of Nineveh, stated that Joannes had been a monk 70 years before his departure from Beth-Haba ; 30 years he had lived as a solitary, 40 with Jacobus as a coenobite. Joannes was for some time in the monastery of Beth-Rabban, which was subject to the same abbat as Beth- Haba. Ebedjesu (ap. Assem. Bibl. Or. in. i. 72) states that he wrote a commentary on Ex., Lev., Num., Job, Jer., Ezk., and Prov., also certain tracts against Magi, Jews, and heretics. He also wrote prayers for Rogation days, a prayer on the death of Chosroes I. (d. 579), and on a plague which befel Nisibis, besides paracletic addresses for each order in the church (i.e. metrical discourses read in the office of the dead), a book of questions relating to O. and N. T., psalms, hymns, and chants. One of his hymns is in the Mosul Breviary, p. 61, and in a MS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Cat. p. 135). Rosen and Forshall (Cat. MSS. xii. 3 n.) mention another hymn of his. Cf. also Lelong, Bibl. Sacr. ii. 794. [c.j.b.] Joannes (520), surnamed Moschus and Eucratas (also Everatas and Eviratus, cor- ruptions of Eucratas as Fabricius remarks), a monk, author of Pratum Spirifuale. c. 620. The materials of his Life are to be collected from his book (which exhibits no historical arrangement), a brief notice by Photius (Cod. 199) and a Greek Vatican MS. of which Migne has printed a Latin version entitled Elogium A uctoris. This document extends the chrono- logical material, and purports to have been composed while the laura of St. Sabas in Palestine was standing. Photius states that Moschus commenced the recluse life in the monastery of St. Theodosius, perhaps c. 575. In the Pratum Moschus is found at two monasteries named after two Theodosii, near Antioch and Jerusalem re- spectively. The one intended by Photius is a laura founded c. 451 by the younger St. Theo- dosius a little E. of Jerusalem (Boll. Acta SS. J an. i. 683). The Pratum (c. 92) shews Moschus at this spot, described as " in the desert of the holy city," Gregorybeingarchimandrite. Inthe reign of Tiberius (Prat. 112) John Moschus was sent by his superior on monastic business with a companion, Sophronius Sophista (said to have been afterwards patriarch of Jerusalem), to Egypt and Oasis. This circumstance, un- noticed by Photius, is assigned by the Elogium to the beginning of the reign of Tiberius (i.e. 578). The absence was perhaps temporary, and Moschus's more protracted wanderings in Egypt may be assigned to a much later day. His Palestine life lasted more than 25 years, and Sophronius Sophista is frequently 'men- tioned as his companion, once with a remark that it was " before he renounced the world." Photius states that he began monastic life at St. Theodosius, he afterwards resided with JOANNES M\0 JOANNES the monks of the Jordan desert and in the new laura of St. Sabas. The Fralum fills up this outline. The laura of Pharon (4>opu>i', <PapQv. >i>apa, Pharan in the Latin version) was his residence for ten years (40). It was within burying distance of Jerusalem (42), and near the laura of Calamon and that of the Towers of Jordan (40). The laura of Calamon where Moschus visited was near Jordan (137. 163). Another ten years (67) he resided at the laura i>f Aeliotae. This also was near Jordan (134) and still under the rule of its founder Antonius (06). Mosciius was at Jerusalem at the consecration of the patriarch .^mos {149), probably therefore .\.d. 594 (Le Quien, Or. Clir. iii. 246) ; he records having ascended from "holy tiethsemane " to the "holy n\ount of Olives" (1S7). He resided at the laura of St. Sabas, called New Laura (3,128) near the Dead Sea (53), and a few miles ^ E. of St. Theodosius (Bull. u.s.). He visited ; of his own time, as he states in his drdirat>>ry the /uo*-^ of the eunuchs near " holy Jordan " address to Sophronius ; but some whose (135-137), the xenodochium of the fathers at stories were related belonged to an earlier Ascalon (189), and Scythopolis (50). That he period, e.g. John of Sapsas. The work is now held the office of a Kavovapxos is a mistake of i distributed in 219 chapters, but was originally Fabricius, citing Prat. 50, where it is a nar- ! comprised, says Photius, in 304 narrations rator, not Moschus, who thus describes him- | (^iTjYTJ^ora). The discrepancy may be partly self. From the wilderness of Jordan and 1 tlue to arrangement, as some chaps, (e.g. 5, 55, the New Laura, says Photius, John went to ' 92, 95. 105) contain 2 or even 3 distinct narra- Antioch and its neighbourhood, the Elogiuvi ' tions, introduced by the very word 5177717^0. adding that this occurred when the Persians i Moschus (To 6'o/>/)ro«.) compares the character attacked the Romans because of the murder | of his worthies to various flowers in a spring assists the chronology ; for as the IVrsians obtained possession of Jerusalem in 015 and in 6i6 advanced from Palestine and took Alexandria (Kawl. 503, 504). the rumour of their approach would cause the retiremtnt of Moschus in one of those years. The J'ralum (i«5) records a visit to Samos. Tlie FloKium relates how on his deathbed at Rome he delivered his book to Sophronius, requesting to be buried if possible at Mount Sinai or at the laura of St. Theodosius. Sophronius and 12 fellow-discii>les sailed with tlie b<Klv to Palestine, but, hearing at Asi alon tlut Sinai was beset by .Arabs, took it up to Jerusalem (in the beginning of the eighth indiction, i.e. c. Sept. I. ()2u) and buried it in the cemetery of St. Theod.'sius. The work of Moschus c<insists of anec<lotes and sayings collected in the various monas- teries he visited, usually of eminent anchorets (Nov. 27, 602) of the emperor Maurice and his children. In 603 Chosrocs declared war against Phocas. The Pratum shews Moschus at Antioch or Theupolis (88, 89) and at Seleucia while Theodorus was bp. (79) ; but as this bp. is not otherwise known we get no date (Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii. 780). He visited the ixovaarripiov (also fjiOfij) of the elder St. Theodosius, on the Rhosicus Scopu- lus, a mountain promontory between Rhosus in the gulf of Issus and Seleucia (80-86, 95, 99). At a village six miles from Rhosus, in the seventh indiction {i.e. between Sept. i, 604, and Aug. 31, 605), he heard the story of meadow, and names his work accordingly Aei/ioiJ' (Pratum). In the time of Photius some called it Neoc llapaSfiVioi' (Hmtulus Noviis), and it has since been named Virt- dariitm, "Seos Uapd5(i(Xos {\ovus Paradisus) and Afinuivapiof. The title Pratum .^ffintuale ap- parently originated with the first Latin trans- lator, said by Possevinus to have been Am- brosius Camaldulensis (oh. 1439), who trans- lated numerous works of the (ircek Fathers (Oudin. iii. 2437). Tlie Pratum in this version forms lib. x. of Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum (1615), which Migne reprinted in 1850 {Pat. Lat. Ixxiv.), prefixing to the Pratum the Llo Joannes Humilis. From those parts, says • ^tww Auctoris already described. In 1624 an Photius, he went to .\lcxandria and Oasis and the neighbouring deserts. This was his prin- cipal visit to Egypt, the only one noticed by Photius and the most prominent one in the incomplete Greek text made its appearance, accompanying the Latin, furnished by Fronto Ducaeus in vol. ii. of the Auctarium to the 4th ed. of La Bigne's Magna Biblmtheca Pa- Elogium, which states his reason for leaving \trum. In La Bigne's ed. of 1654 it stands in Syria tohave been the invasion of the empire I voL xiii. p. 1057. In 1681 Cotelier {Pedes. by the Persians, i.e. when Chosroes overran N. Syria in and after 605 (as detailed by Rawlinson, Seventh Monarchy, 501, 502). At Alexandria Moschus remained eight years (as the Latin version renders XP"^"*"'' 6stu}, Prat. [3 fin.) in the pLovaarripiov of Palladius (69-73) Gr. Mon. ii. 341) supplied more of the dretk and gave an independent Latin translation of some parts. In i860 Migne {Pat. tik. Ixxxvii. 2814) reprinted the thus augmented dreek, leaving a gap of only three chaps. (121, 122, 32), retaining the Latin of Ambrosiust hrough- The names of monastic localities in and about > out. Other bibliographi( al partii ulars, in- Alexandria occur in Prat. 60, 105, no, iii, I eluding an account of tlie Italian and French 145, 146, 162, 177, 184, 195. There are re- versions, will be found in Fabricius (/ii6/. Gr. corded also visits to the thebaid cities of I x. 124. ed. Harles). The authorship of the Antinous and Lycus (44, 143, 161), to the laura of Raythu (115, 116, 119) on the Red Sea shore (120, 121), and to Mount Sinai (122, [23). Photius states that from Egypt Mos- Pratum used sometimes to be attributed to Sophronius, in whose name it is cited by John of Damascus (de Imagtn. orat. i. 328, Ii. 344, 352 in Patr. (ik. xciv. 1279, 131.S, 1335) ami chus went to Rome, t<juching at some islands likewise in actio iv. of the seventh syiKKl in en route, and at Rome composed his book. 787 (Mansi, xiii. 5<)). John Moschus and his What drove him from Egypt appears in the book are treated by Cave (i. 581) and more Elogium. The holy places had fallen into the fully by Ceillier (xi. 700). Dupin gives an hands of the enemy and the subjects of 1 analysis of the Pratum for illustrations of the empire were terror-stricken. This again church discii)lme (Lug. trans. 1722, 1. 11. ['. 11). 570 JOANNES PHILOPONUS Cf. S. Vailhe, Sf. Jean Mosch. in Echos d'orient, igor. [c.h.] Joannes (564) Phlloponus, a " grammati- cus " of Alexandria ; a distinguished philo- sopher, a voluminous writer (Suidas, s.v. 'Iwdt'vrjt Tp.), and one of the leaders of the Tritheites of the 6th cent. (Sophron. Ep. Synodic. Co. Const, a.d. 68o ; act. xi. in Mansi, xi. 501 ; Leont. Byzant. de Sect. act. V. in Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. i. 1232). From his great industry he acquired the surname of Philoponus. He was a native of Alexan- dria. His earliest known appearance as an author was in his irepl aioioTrp-o^, a reply to Proclus Diadochus. It shows great dialectic ability and learning, the quotations in it covering the whole range of the literature of his own and previous times (Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. ed. Harles, x. 652-654), and is said by Suidas to have been a complete refutation of the great neo-Platonist and to have con- victed him of gross ignorance (s. v. Up6K\o%). Apparently about the same time Philoponus was engaged in a controversy with Severus, the deposed bp. of Antioch (Suidas, s.v. 'Iwac ; Galland. Bihl. Vet. Patr. xii. 376 ; Cureton, Fragments, 2 12, 245 seq.). To the same period may be assigned a treatise de Universali et Particulari, described by Assemani in his cata- logue of Syriac MSS. (Bibl. Or. i. 613). At the request of Sergius (ordained patriarch of Antioch by the Monophysites c. 540) Philo- ponus wrote his liaLTr]Ti)^, Arbiter, the Umpire. It is an attempt to shew that the doctrine which he and his followers held upon the subject of the union of the two natures in the person of our Lord was dialectically necessary. The argument is admirably condensed by Prof. Dorner in his History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ (Clark's trans, ii. 1. 416). At what period Philoponus distinctly avowed what is known as Tritheism (Eulog. Patr. Alex. Orat. Phot, ccxxx. ed. Schott. p. 879) does not clearly appear, but it must have been before the middle of the 6th cent, as Mar Abas, " Primas Orientis " (d. 552) was one of his converts to that doctrine (Assem. Bibl. Or. ii. 411). Notwithstanding this, if not because of it, the emperor Justinian sent one of his officers named Stephanus to Alexandria to summon Philoponus to Constantinople " in causa fidei," but he wrote excusing himself because of age and infirmity. In his letter he urged Justinian to issue an edict prohibiting the discussion of the " two natures." On the death of Joannes Ascusnaghes, the founder of the Tritheites, his Demonstrationes were sent to Philoponus at Alexandria. The latter then wrote a treatise on the subject and sent it to his friend at Constantinople. The Monophysites, finding that this publication brought them into great disrepute, appealed to the emperor Justin 1 1., whohad married Sophia, a granddaughter of the empress Theodora, and was known to be favourable to their party. He complied with their request, and the matter was committed to Joannes Scholas- ticus, who had succeeded Eutychius on his refusal to subscribe the Julianist edict of Jus- tinian, A.D. 565 (Greg. Bar-hebr. ; Asseman. Bibl. Or. ii. 328). We hear no more of Philoponus until 568, JORDANIS when, John, patriarch of Constantinople, having delivered a catechetical discourse on the \' Holy and consubstantial Trinity," he published a treatise in reply to it. Photius is unsparing in his criticism of this work, charg- ing the author with having perverted the authorities whom he quotes (Bibl. Ixxv.). Philoponus must now have been very old, but apparently lived some years longer. During his lifetime the Tritheites appear to have been united under his leadership (Tim. Presb. Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. i. 62), but after his decease they became divided because of the opinions he had maintained on the resurrection-body, both in his writings against the heathen and in a special work on this subject. This last was in several books, of which Photius speaks in no respectful terms (Bibl. xxi. xxiii.), though it found great favour with that section of the Monophysites which persevered in their adherence to Philoponus and with Eutychius the Cathohc patriarch of Constantinople. [Eutychius (18).] Those Tritheites who still followed him were dis- tinguished as Philoponiaci, or Athanasiani because of Athanasius's prominence amongst them (Schonfelder, Die Tritheiten, app. to his German trans, of John of Ephesus, 269, 274, 297), while their opponents were called Cononitae, after Conon of Tarsus who wrote a reply to the Ilept avaffTdcxews. Philoponus wrote numerous other works, many of them non-theological. His work de .Aeternitate Mundi has been ed. by Rabe (Leipz. 1899) ; his de Opificis Mundi by Reichardt (Leipz. 1897), and a Libellus de Pas- chale by Walter (Jena, 1899). [t.w.d.] Joannes (565) Scythopolita, a schoiasticus of Scythopolis in Palestine. Photius had read a work of his in 12 books, Against Separatists from the Church or Against Eutyches and Dios- corus, written at the request of a patriarch Julianus, probably Julian patriarch of An- tioch, A.D. 471-476 (Phot. Cod. 95, in Patr. Gk. ciii. 339 n). John of Scythopolis was also the author of wapaOea-eis or commentaries on the Pseudo-Dionysius, which had a wide circu- lation for some centuries. Among the Syriac MSS. in the Brit. Mus. there is a Syriac trans, of Dionysius, with an introduction and notes by Phocas bar-Sergius of Edessa, a writer of the 8th cent. The notes are largely a trans- lation of the irapaBiaeis (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. pt. ii. p. 493). Cf. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanz. (T887). [t.w.d.] JordaniS (Jomandes, the Gothic name, on his becoming an ecclesiastic was changed to Jordanis, Wattenbach, p. 62), historian of the Goths (and probably bp. of Crotona, in Bru- tium) in the middle of 6th cent. I. Authorities. — Grimm, Kleinere Schriften, iii. 171, etc. ; Ebert, Geschichte der Christlich Lat. Lit. (Dahn, 1875) ; Die Konige der Ger- manen, ii. 243-260, for Jordanis's use of words of constitutional importance ; Anekdoton Hol- deri (Hermann Usener, Bonn, 1877) ; and for other authorities, Wattenbach, p. 55- II. Writings. — His only works of which we have certain knowledge are the de Brevia- tione Chronicorum (more commonly but wrong- ly called de Regnorum Successione) and the de Getarum Origine et Rebus Gestis. (i) The de Breviatione Chronicorum (Mura- JORDANIS tori, Scripfores Rerum Hal. i. 222-242) is a compendium of the history of the world, of littlo value, and only important as indicating the strong feeling of the Goth Jordanis that the power of the Roman empire was to last to the end of time. {2) The de Getarnm Origine et Rtbus Gfstis is one of the most important works written during the period of the Teutonic settlements in Western Europe. In amount of matter it may equal about 20 pages of this Diet. Its contents are most conveniently arranged under four heads (cf. Ebert. p. 532). 1 (c. i. 13). The work opens witii a geo- graphical account of the world and in par- ticular of N. Europe and the island " Scandza." Jordanis then identifies the Goths with the Scythians, whose country he describes, and praises their learning and bravery. He then recounts their wars with the Egyptians and .Amazons, and. identifying the Goths with the Getae, describes the deeds of Telephus and Tom>Tis. Cyrus, Xerxes, Alexander the Great, Caesar and Tiberius are mentioned. With chap. 18 he suddenly passes to the de- vastation of the banks of the Danube by the Goths and their victory over the Romans. He then pauses to give fuller details about the royal Gothic race of the Amali. 2 (c' 14-23). He carries the genealogy of the Amali down to Mathasuentha, the grand- daughter of Theodoric and widow of Vitigis, who had just married, as he tells us, Germanus brother of Justinian. He then returns to the Goths and their movement into ISIoesia and Thracia. Claiming for the emperor Maximus a Gothic father, he thus raises the Goths to high honour. The deeds of Ostrogotha are then related, the victory over the Ciepidae, the expeditions to Asia Minor, and Geberich's conquest of the Vandals. After Geberich came Hermanaric conqueror of the Heneti and many other tribes. 3 (c. 24-47). This division begins with an account of the Huns, their victory over the Goths, and the death of Hermanaric. He traces the separation of the Visigoths from the Ostrogoths, and follows their history. He shortly recounts Alaric's invasion of' Italy, and introduces the story of Attila's invasion of Gaul and defeat. The battle of Chalons is described at considerable length. At the close of the section he describes the subjugation of Italy by Odoacer and the deposition of Augustidus. 4 (c. 48-60). Jordanis now returns to the Ostrogoths, once more mentions the defeat of Hermanaric, and this leads him to speak of the death of Attila. He describes the move- ment of the Ostrogoths into Pannonia, the reign of Theodemir and the birth of Theodoric. The dealings of Theodoric with Zeno, his en- trance into Italy and his victory over Odoacer are recounted. The outline of the fortunes of the Goths in Italy is related very briefly, and the work closes with the captivity of Vitigis, and another mention of the marriage of Mathasuentha with (iermanus. His own words in the dedication of the de Getarnm Origine or History of the (ioths, convey an impression that he had written an abstract from memory of a three days' reading of the History of the Goths by Cassiodorius, JORDANIS iTI adding extracts of his own from Latin and Greek writers, and that the beginninff. middle, and end of the work were his i>wn composition. It might certainly have been supposed that the preface at least was the composition o| Jordanis himself. \\\\\. the most ronvin« inc evidence of the writer's want of originality : has been shewn by the discovery made bv Von j Sybel with reference tr. this prefarp (Schmidt. I Zeitschrift fur Geschichtc. vii. 2HK). It is l.irgily ' a literal copy of the introducti.m bv Rnfinus to his trans, of Origen's Comm. on Romans. If the general view of the History of the (,oths by Jordanis, first propounded bv Srhirren, and afterwards worked out by Konke, Uessel, and others, be true, the plate o| Jordanis as a iiistorian is but low. He does not acknow- ledge several authorities whom he largely uses and disjilays an array of authorities whom he only knows at second-hand. Hut it must be remembered that Jordanis does not claim originality, except under the clause in the preface (" initium finemque et pliira in medio mea dictione permiscens "). The sid>- stratum of the whole work must still be ascribed to Cassiodorius. Is it, then, possible to disentangle the work of Cassiodr>rius from the setting in which Jordanis has placed it? A complete separation can, from the circum- stances of the case, hardly be possible, ^'et we may be tolerably sure that, though many of the extracts bear the traces of the treat- ment and colouring of Jordanis, enough re- mains of the lost work to bring us in to close contact with the mind and words of Cassio- dorius, and, to a certain extent, to enable us to understand his purpose in his great work. The history of the Goths was certainly completed before the death of Athalaric in 534 (Variae, ix. 23) ; Kopke and others suppose c. 533. Since the discovery of the Anek- doton Holdcri, however, it has become practi- cally certain that the (iothic History of Cas- siodorius was comiiosed some years before 533 ; probably not later than 521. In two passages of his I'ariae Cassiodorius refers to his (iothic History. By far the more important passage, of which nearly every word helps to shew his purj^ose, is in ix. 25, where Cassiodorius describes his History in a letter addressed nominally by king Athalaric to the senate in 534. Cassiodorius clearly shews that his primary object was not literary, but political. He saw the growing antagonism between (Ioths and Romans and Theodoric's eflorts to lessen it. He saw the king trying to combine the old and the new elements and to form a kingdom in which both could live with mutual respect. He determined to assist by his writing his master's plans. He would try to draw the Goths and Romans togetlur by shewing that both nations were alike honourable f> r the antiquity of their race and the glorv of their history. He would tell the (.oths .,( the grealn<ss of the Roman empire, with whom they fought in ancii-nt days, and would shew the Romans that the kingly family of the Amali was as noble as any Roman house. No one was better fitted than he to write a history of the Goths. His real knowledge of ancient writers, his constant opportunities of con- verse with the king and Gothic nobles, his 572 JORDANIS father's share and his own in all the later or contemporary events, provided him with ample material. In the earlier part of the work we can clearly see from Jordanis how the political theory of Cassiodorius was worked out. He adopted the belief that the Getae and the Goths were the same nation. Further, he accepted the identity of the Goths with the Scythians, a theory stated by several Greek writers. Thus the Goths were brought into contact or conflict with the great nations of antiquity and even the Amazons appear as Gothic women. Yet even with all the notices he could collect from Greek or Roman authori- ties and the stories and sagas he heard at the court of Ravenna, his stock of accurate infor- mation about the early history of the Goths cannot have been large. The very theory with which he wrote shews that much must be accepted with reserve. Thirty years later the Gothic bishop, in his adaptation of the work, shewed that he rested his hopes of the future quite as much on the Roman empire as on the Gothic race itself. However little individuality as a historian Jordanis may have had, it lay with him to choose and adapt his extracts from Cassio- dorius in accordance with his own feelings, and there is enough of himself in the work to enable us to catch something of his spirit. For him the end of the great struggle between Goths and Romans had come ; the war between Totila and Belisarius, or Narses, which was yet going on, had no supreme interest. The race of the Amali, with which he was connected and on which all his hopes were centred, had ceased to rule the Goths. His desires for the future rested rather on the union of the brother of the emperor with the granddaughter of Theodoric than on the issue of a struggle which he probably and rightly thought hopeless. His Catholic sympathies, rejecting the idea of an Arian ruler, and his family pride, alike contributed to this result. Three times he alludes to the marriage of Mathasuentha, widow of Vitigis (with whom she had been brought captive to Constanti- nople), to Germanus, brother of the emperor Justinian (cc. 14, 48, 60). In c. 60 he tells how Germanus died, leaving an infant son : " Item Germanus : in quo conjuncta Anici- orum gens cum Amala stirpe spem adhuc utri- usque generis Domino praestante promittit." Jordanis was the first since Tacitus to treat the history of the Teutonic nations from their side. The eternity of the Roman empire had impressed itself on the mind of Jordanis. The idea, therefore, that the Goths were equally learned and ancient must have been a support to him (and others like him) when Theodoric was ruling almost as a miniature emperor in Italy. But the thought of a union between the imperial family and the Amali could alone satisfactorily reconcile his hopes for the great family to which he belonged and his belief in the church and empire of Rome. This traditional belief in the empire and church was destined never to be altogether broken in Italy. After two centuries of struggles between rival principles in church and state the next Italian ecclesias- tic who attained importance as a historian, Paulus Diaconus, himself, like J ordanis, of j JORDANIS Teutonic race, was able to witness the return of imperial power of old Rome and to have friendly intercourse with the new Teutonic emperor. To Jordanis the first Teutonic historian of a Teutonic race such a possibility was unknown, and he could only fix fruitless hopes on a union of the Greek and the Goth to solve his difficulties. For the spirit of the age and times which we thus seem to gather from Jordanis's work we owe him a debt of gratitude, and also for his preservation, if only in a broken form, of fragments from the greatest work of Theodoric's great secretary. The most important editions of the History of the Goths are : Muratori, Scriptores Rev. Ital. i. 187-241 (Medial. 1723). Migne, Pair. Cursus, Ixix. Appendix to works of Cassio- dorius. Jordanis, de Getarum Origme et Rebus Gesiis, ed. C. A. Closs (Stuttg. 1861). In the Monumenta Germaniae the two works of Jordanis are undertaken by Mommsen himself. Neues Archiv. D. G. F. dltere Deut- schen Geschichtskunde, ii. 5. III. Life. — Jordanis tells us that his grand- father was notary to Candac, chief of the Alani in iMoesia, that he himself was a notary before becoming an ecclesiastic, that he was of the Gothic race and apparently connected with the royal family of the Amali. We know from his own writings no more, and nothing further can be absolutely certain. But a discovery, first made by Cassel, has led to an extremely important and very highly probable conjecture about his identity. The name of one Jordanes Crotonensis, bp. of Crotona (now Cotrone) in Bruttium is found, with those of several other bishops, appended to a document sometimes called the Damnatio Theodori, issued by pope Vigilius in Aug. 551 at Con- stantinople. If this should be our Jordanis, it becomes exceedingly probable that the Vigilius to whom the Chronicle of Jordanis is dedicated and sent, along with the History of the Goths, is pope Vigilius. Vigilius was pope from 537 to 555. He had been made pope by the influence of Belisarius at Rome, at the request of the empress Theodora. After the issue of the Three Chapters by Justinian, which Vigilius apparently dared not sign when in Italy, the pope was summoned to Constan- tinople, which he reached on Christmas Day, 547. He was retained at Constantinople, or in the neighbourhood, for seven years, till he at last obtained permission from Justinian to return to Italy. At Constantinople he was much persecuted by the emperor and his party, who tried to force him to sign a confession of faith in accordance with their views. He was bold enough to excommunicate the bp. of Caesarea, and then, fearing the emperor's wrath, took sanctuary in the basilica of St. Peter in Constantinople. While in this church with his companions, and, among others, several Italian bishops, he issued (Aug. 551) the document in which the name of Jordanes, bp. of Cotrona, is found. Several considerations make it exceedingly probable that Jordanis wrote his work at Constantinople. His almost complete ignor- ance of the later and contemporary events in Italy is thus explained, and his detailed ac- quaintance, shewn in several passages, with the affairs of the empire accounted for. JOSEPHUS The bp. of Cotrona lived not far from the monastery in Bruttium (inonasterium Vivari- ense) to which Cassiodorius had retired after his active life as a statesman. Here Jordanis first saw the 12 books of the Gothic history, and was allowed by the steward of Cassio- dorius a second perusal of the work. When he was, as we presume, with the pope in Constan- tinople he was suddenly called upon to write his Gothic history, and, as he tells us, had to make the best of what materials he had at hand or could remember. The de Getarum Ori- gi)ie et Rebus Gestis was the result, [a.h.d.a.] JosephUS (2), catholicos of Armenia (Le Quien, Or. Christ, i. 1079). St. Martin (Miv>. stir I'Arm. i 437) places him between Mesrob and Melidc, giving his dates as 441-432, but these figures do not represent his place in the series accurately. The Persian king contem- porary with him was Isdigerd II., and the governor of Armenia was an Armenian Chris- tian Vasag, prince of the Siounians (442-432). Joseph was one of the band of Armenian scholars trained under Mesrob and Isaac the Great and afterwards in the schools of Athens and Constantinople. [Mesrobes.] He re- turned to Armenia probably c. 434. His patriarchate occurred at a most critical period, when Isdigerd II. was endeavouring to supplant the Christianity of Armenia by Zoroastrianism. For a full contemporary ac- count of this see Elisha V'artabed's Hist, of Vartan, trans, from the Armenian by Neu- mann and Langlois. Isdigerd issued a pro- clamation to the Armenians — one of the utmost valuable ancient Zoroastrian docu- ments we possess. A reply was issued in 430 bv a synod of 17 bishops held at Ardashad. The name of Joseph, bp. of Ararat, heads the subscriptions (Neum. 13, 14, 87), the province of Ararat being one of 15 into which Armenia was divided. This seems J oseph's first appear- ance in these events. The reply is given in full by Elisha ; for the spirit of it see Isdigerd II. Exasperated by that bold manifesto, the king ordered the leading Armenian princes to appear before him, and they, depositing a confession of their faith with Joseph, obeyed (ib. 21). In the royal capital on the feast of Easter, 430, they were summoned into the king's presence, and peremptorily ordered to adore the sun on its rising the next day. Finding Isdigerd inexorable, they feigned compliance, and Isdigerd, accepting the act as a formal submission of their country, sent them home accompanied by a band of magi, who, supported by a large military force, were to instruct the Armenians in the Zoroastrian religion and laws. On the appearance of this armed mission the bisiiops went am<jng their flocks exhorting them to resist. The people were resolved, and a Holy League was formed. On behalf of his distressed country Joseph appealed to the emperor Theodosius II., but shortly afterwards (July 28, 450) Theodosius died, and Marcian his successor would not help (ib. 36, 37). The Armenian Christians nevertheless assembled in arms, 60,000 in number, among them Joseph, Leontius the priest, many other priests and a multitude of deacons. On June 2, 431, at the Dekhmud, a tributary of the .\raxes (St. Martin, i. 41), led by their prince Vartan they were dis- JOVIANUS FLAVIUS C73 astrously defeated (Neum. si). A fortrrss where the priests had tak.ii nfugf fell. Joseph and Leontius, when about to he put to death, asked to be sent to the king, hoping to make terms for their people. Thev were sent, but would not waver in their steadfast- ness (tb. 63, 66). Thus much HIisha relates of Joseph in his 7th chap., his last as Nemiiann believes. In an 8th chap, added bv Langlois in 1867, and in another Armenian writer, Lazarus of Barb (c. 48 in Langlois, ii. 31 sK >t IS stated that in the 6th vear of Isdigerd {i.e. 435) and on the 23th of the month Hroditz, the patriarch Josei)h, Sahag, bp. of Kesch- douni, the priests .Arsenius, Leontms, Mousch*^, and the deacon Kadchadch were executed in the province of Abar, near Kevan, a village of the Moks. Lazarus (I.e.) records his dving words. On the position of Abar see Langlois (t. ii. p. 186, note i), and Neumann (p. 77, note 18). [Leontius (74). | [o.t.s.1 Joshua (1) Stylites, a Syrian monk, a native of Edessa, entered the monastery of Zuenin near Amida in Mesopotamia. After some vears he determined to imitate St. Simeon and live the rest of his days on a column, from which he derives his distinguishing name. Before this he had written in 307 the history of his times from 403, entitled, Htslorx of the Calamities which befel Edessa, .i mi da, and all Mesopotamia. A full description, with quota- tions from the original Svriac, is given by .A.ssemani (Bibl. Or. i. 260)'. It was published at Leipzig in 1878, in the Abhandiungen fur dte Kundedes Morgenlandes, in the original Svriac, with a F'rench trans, by Abbe Paulin Martin. The translator describes it as the most ancient history extant in Syriac, and specially valu- able because of Joshua's personal share in the events. His text C(jrrects many omissions and mistakes in Assemani's abstract. He fixes its composition between 510-313, and classes Joshua as a Monophysite, while Assemani re- garded him as orthodox, [i.c.s. andc.t.s.] Jovianus (l), Flavlus, Christian emperor from June 27, 363, to Feb. 16, 364. The authorities for the Life of Jovian are generally the same as those for that of Julian. The fifth oration of Themistius, and certain tracts printed among the works of St. Athanasius, are important for the special points of his edict of toleration and dealings with the Arians. There is a useful Life of Jovian bv the Abbe J. K H. de la Bli-terie (Paris. 1748, 2 vols., and 1776, i vol.), containing also a translation of some of Julian's works. Life. — Jovian was born c. a.d. 331. His father, the count Varronianus, was an inhabit- ant of the territory of Singidunum (Belgrade) in Moesia, the country which gave birth to s<» many emperors (Victor, Epit. 68). At the time of his unexpected elevation he was the first of the imperial bodyguard, a position of no very great distinction (Amm. xxv. 3, 4). Julian diod of a wound at midnight, be- tween June 26 and 27, 363, in the midst of his retreat fn^m Persia, leaving his army sur- rounded by active enemies. Early in the morning the generals and chief officers met to choose an emperor. Saturninus Secundus Sallustius, the prefect of the East, a moderate heathen, who was respected also by Christians, was elected ; but he refused 674 JOVIANUS FLAVIUS the dangerous honour, and Jovian was chosen. The new emperor was a Christian and a firm adherent of the Nicene faith. He had, indeed, some claim to the honours of a confessor under his predecessor, but Julian, it is said, did not wish to part with so good an officer (Socr. iii. 22). He was in other respects a man of no very marked ability (Amm. xxv. 5, 4 ; Eutro- pius, X. 17). He was a generous, bluff, and hearty soldier, popular with his companions, fond of jest and merriment, and addicted to the pleasures common in the camp (Vict. Epit. 6 ; Amm. xxv. 10, 15)- He had a bright and open face, always cheerful, and lighted with a pair of clear grey eyes. His figure was extremely tall and his gait rather heavy, and it was long before an imperial wreath could be found to fit him. He was only a moderate scholar, and in this and many other points was a strong contrast to Julian (Amm. I.e.). Though he was a sincere believer, we cannot credit the statement of Rufinus that he would not accept the empire till he had obliged all his soldiers to become Christians [H. E. ii. i). But the greater part of the army did, no doubt, return without difficulty to the profession of faith to which they had been accustomed under Constantius. The labarum again be- came their standard; and Jovian's coins present, besides the 'j/, the new and striking type (now so familiar) of the ball surmounted by the cross, the symbol of the church domin- ating the world (see Eckhel, Num. Vet. viii. p. 147). Ammianus notes that sacrifices were offered, and entrails of victims inspected on the morning of Jovian's inauguration to decide on the movements of the army (xxv. 6, i). But directly the reins of power were in his hands such things apparently ceased at once. We need not describe at length the per- plexities of the Roman generals in their endeavours to escape from Persia, and the protracted negotiations with Sapor, to whose terms Jovian felt it imperative to submit (Eutrop. Brev. x. 17 ; Amm. xxv. 7, 8). The terms were ignoble and humiliating : the cession of the five Mesopotamian provinces which Galerius had added to the Roman dominions, and of the fortresses of Nisibis and Singara, the former of which had been the bulwark of the empire since the reign of Mithridates. No less disgraceful was the sacrifice of Arsaces, king of Armenia, the firm ally of the Romans and a Christian prince, allied to the house of Constantine by his marriage with Olympias (.\mm. ib. 9-12; cf. Greg. Naz. Or. v. 15). But probably no better terms could have been obtained without the loss of nearly all the army. After crossing the Tigris with difficulty, the Roman forces marched for six days through very desert country to the fortress of Ur, where they were met by a convoy of provi- sions (Amm. xxv. 8, 16). The scenes at Nisibis were heartrending when the inhabit- ants were bidden leave their homes. Jovian, however, was firm (xxv. 9, 2). The Persian standard was hoisted on the citadel, in token of the change of ownership and the weeping and broken-hearted people were settled in the suburb of Amida. The emperor proceeded to JOVIANUS FLAVIUS Antioch. The remains of Julian were sent to be buried at Tarsus, where he had in- tended to reside on his return from the Persian war. The consternation of the pagans at the news of the death of Julian and the accession of Jovian was as sudden and as marvellous as the triumph of the Christians. All Antioch made holiday, churches, chapels, and even theatres being filled with cries of joy, and taunts at the discomfiture of the heathen party. " Where are the prophecies and foolish Maximus ? God has conquered and His Christ " (Theod. iii. 28). St. Gregory was writing his bitter and brilliant invectives at Nazianzus, where but a few months before the Christian population had trembled at the approach of Julian (Orat. iv. and v., the ffrrjXiTevTiKoi : they were probably 7iot de- livered from the pulpit ; see p. 75 of the Benedictine ed. Paris, 1778). Some acts of violence were committed, especially in the destruction of temples and altars, and more were apprehended. At Constantinople a prefect of Julian's appointment was in danger of his life (Sievers, Libanius, p. 128 ; cf. Lib. £/)/>. 1 1 79, 1 1 86, 1489). Heathen priests, philosophers, rhetoricians, and magicians hid themselves in fear, or were maltreated by the populace. Libanius himself was in peril at Babylon, and was accused before Jovian of never ceasing his ill-omened lamentations for his dead friend, instead of wishing good fortune to the new reign (Liban. de Vita sua, vol. i. pp. 93, 94, ed. Reiske ; cf. Sievers, Libanius, pp. 128 ff. ; Chastel, Destruction Uu Paganisme, pp. 154, 155, who, however, is not accurate in all details). Libanius was saved by the intervention of a Cappadocian friend, who told the emperor that he would gain nothing by putting him to death, as his orations would survive him and become cur- rent. This looks as if his Monody was already written and known at least by report, though probably only delivered to a select circle of friends. The Epitaphius was probably not completed and published till five or six years later (Sievers, p. 132). To appease this disturbed state of feeling Jovian issued an edict that all his subjects should enjoy full liberty of conscience, though he forbade the practice of magic (Themistis Oratio, v. pp. 68-70; cf. Chastel, p. 156). This was probably one of the earliest of his laws. It is impossible to reconcile the positive statements of Themistius with that of Sozomen, that Jovian ordered that Chris- tianity should be the only religion of his subjects (Soz. vi. 3) ; and Socrates, who quotes the oration of Themistius, says that all the temples were shut, and that the blood of sacrifices ceased to flow (iii. 24). Jovian may very probably have strongly recommended the Christian faith in his edicts without pretending to enforce it, and the cessation of sacrifice seems to have been a popular rather than a directly imperial movement (the passage in Libanius's Monodia, vol. i. p. 509, appears to refer to Constantius rather than Jovian ; and that in the Epitaphius, pp. 619, 620, was probably written later). Jovian allowed the philosophers Maximus and Prisan, the intimate friends of Julian, to enjoy the honours they JOVIANUS PLAVIUS had received during 1 uliaiiS riit^ii (Hiis. Vila Maximi, p. 38, ed. Boissonade, 1S22). The reaction under Jovian, so far as it was directed by his orders, consisted rather in favours granted to Christians than in acts of oppression towards paganism. The edict of tok^ration was perhaps issued at Antioch, which he reached some time in Oct., having been at Edessa on Sept. 27 (Cod. Theod. vii. 4, g = Cod. Just. xii. 37, 2 ; it is omitted by accident in Hanel'sSer/Vs Chronologia, p. 1654, but is given by C.odefroy and Kruger). He restored the immunities of the cK»rgy, and the stipends paid to the virgins and widows oi the churcli, and such part of the allowance of corn which Julian had withdrawn as the state of public finances allowed (Soz. vi. 3 ; Theod. i. II, iv. 4). A count named Magnus, who had burned the church of Berytus in the late reign, was ordered to rebuild it, and nearly lost his head (Theod. iv. 22, p. 180 b). At the same time probably Jovian issued a law con- demning to death those who solicited or forced into marriage the virgins of the church (Cod. Theod. ix. 25, 2, this law is addressed to Secundus, prefect of the East, and is dated at Antioch, Feb. 19, a day or two after Jovian's death according to most accounts. Either we must read Aucyrae or suppose the month wrongly given, see the commentators ad loc). Jovian is remembered in church history on account of his connexion with St. Athanasius more than any other of his actions. The death of Julian was, it is said, revealed to his companion Theodore of Tabenne, and the bishop took courage to return to Alexandria. Here he received a letter from the new em- peror praising him for his constancy under all persecutions, reinstating him in his functions, and desiring his prayers (.\than. Op. i. 622 = vol. ii. col. 8i2, ed. Migne). Jovian in another letter (no longer extant) desired him to draw up a statement of the Catholic faith. He accordingly summoned a council, and wrote a synodal letter, stating and confirming the Nicene Creed (I.e. and Theod. iv. 3). Armed with this, he set sail for .Antioch (Sept. 5, 363), where he met with a most gracious reception. The leaders of other ecclesiastical parties had been able to gain little beyond expressions of the emperor's desire for unity and toleration. The Arians, and especially bp. Lucius, who had been set up as a rival of Athanasius, followed Jovian about in his daily rides in hopes of prejudicing him against the champion of Catholicity (I.e. pp. 624, 625 = vol. ii. col. 819 ff.). The bluff emperor reining up his steed to receive their petitions, and his rough and sensible answers mixed with Latin words to their old and worn-out charges and irrele- vant pleas, stand out with singular vividness. We can almost hear him saying, " Feri, feri," to his guard, in order to be rid of his trouble- some suitors. Little seems to have been effected by Athanasius with the Arians at Antioch, and Jovian was disappointed in his endeavour to | terminate the schism between the Catholic , bps. Meletius and Paulinus (Basil, Ep. 89, ' vol.iii. p. 258, ed. (iaume). A coldness ensued between Meletius and .\thanasius, and the 1 latter was led to recognize the bishop of the Eustathians as the true head of the Antiochene JOVINIANUS r.75 church on his m.iking a d. cl.iration of ortho- doxy. Soon after this he returned in triumph to Alexandria. Jovian quitted Antioch in Dec, and came by forced inarches to Tarsus, where he adorned the tomb of Julian. At Tvana, in Cappadocia, he received the news that Mala- rich had declined the charge of (laul, and that Jovinus still continued in his own position, but faithful to the new regime. Jovian also learned that his father-in-law Lucilliantis had been murdered at Rheiins in an accidental mutiny of the Batavian cohorts (.\min. xxv. 10; Zos. iii. 35). The deputies of the Western armies salutetl their new sovereign as he descended from Mount Taurus. With them was Valeiitinian, so soon to be his suc- cessor, whom he appointed captain of the second division of scutarii (Amm. xxv. 10, u). Another and a heavier blow followed — the news of the loss of his father Varronianus, whom he had for some time hoped to associate with himself in the consulship of the ensuing year. The loss was softened by the arrival of his wife Charito and infant son Varronianus, who, it was determined, should fdl the place destined for his grandfather. The inaugura- tion of the new consuls took place on Jan. i at Ancyra (.Amm. xxv. 10, 11 ; cf. Themist. Or. V. p. 71). Zonaras (.4nnal. xiii. 14) says that Charito never saw her husband after his elevation, but this seems a mistake (see De Broglie, iv. p. 483 n.). The oration of The- mistius was, it seems, delivered at this time. Jovian still pushed on, notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, and arrived at an obscure place calKil Dadastane, about halfway between Ancyra and Nicaea. About Feb. 16, after a heavy supper, he went to bed in an apartment recently built. The plaster being still damp, a brazier of charcoal was brought in to warm the air, and in the morning he was found dead in his bed, after a short reign of only 8 months. (.Amm. xxv. 10, 12, 13, de- scribes his death ; the date is variously given as Mar. 16, 17, and 18 ; see Clinton.) He was buried at Constantinople, and after 10 days' interval Valentinian succeeded. Owing to the shortness of Jovian's reign, inscriptions relating to him (other than those on milestones) are very rare, but there is one over the portal of the church of Panaghia at Palaeopolis in Corfu. It may be found in the Corpus Inscr. Graec. vol. iv. 8608, from various authorities, and was also copied on the spot by bp. Wordsworth of Lincoln in 1832, who alone gives the first line: " aCrr) »i)\ij ToO KVploV SiK€Ol €la(\lVUOVTt [i.e. SucMot (lafXfvJovTai.^ (v avTT]. (j-W.) Jovlnlanus (2), condemned as a heretic by synods at Kome and Milan c. 390. Our fullest inlormation about him is derived from St. Jerome, who wrote two books, aJversus Jovinianum. From these we learn that he had been a monk, living austerely, but adopted certain views which led him to sub- stitute luxury in dress and personal habits and food for the asc«'ticism of the convent, the opinions ascribed to him by Jerome being : (i) A virgin is no better as such than a wife in the sight of (iod. (2) Abstinence is no better than a thankful partaking of food. (3) A person baptized with the Spirit as well as 676 JULIANA with water cannot sin. (4) All sins are equal. (5) There is but one grade of punishment and one of reward in the future world. We learn further from St. Augustine (lib. i. contra Julian, c. ii.), and from the letter of the Milanese synod to Siricius (Ambros. Op. Ep. 42), that jovinian maintained tenets as to the Virgin Mary's virginity in giving birth to Jesus Christ in opposition to the orthodox view. He was living at Rome (Hieron. Prolog, adv. Pdag.), and wrote in Latin {ib. lib. ii. adv. Jovin. § 37). Certain Christians at Rome, amongst them Jerome's correspond- ent Pammachius, brought the book to the notice of Siricius, bp. of Rome, who called a meeting of his clergy and condemned the new heresy. Hoping for protection from Theo- dosius, who was now at Milan, Jovinian and his friends proceeded thither ; but Siricius sent three of his presbyters with a letter of warning to the church' at Milan. Ambrose responded warmly to Siricius, and with eight other bishops endorsed the sentence passed by the Roman church. In a letter by Ambrose in the name of the synod of Milan to Siricius conveying this judgment, it is stated that the emperor " execrated " the impiety of the Jovinianists, and that all at Milan who had seen them shunned them like a contagion. In 409 Jerome, writing against Vigilantius, refers to Jovinian as having recently died. The heresies of Jovinian would be especially obnoxious to the great ecclesiastics of his time, who were wont to insist strongly upon the merit of virginity and of abstinence. Jerome writes against Jovinian, he says, in answer to an appeal made by holy brethren at Rome who desired that he should crush the Epicurus of the Christians with evangelical and apostolic vigour. The vigour of the reply was a little too much even for them (quod nimius fuerim). His praise of virginity seemed to do some wrong to marriage. Ac- cordingly Pammachius (prudenter et amanter, as Jerome acknowledges) thought it best to suppress the copies of Jerome's answer. But the books had already circulated too much to be recalled. Whatever Jerome wrote was seized upon by friends or enemies, and quickly made public (£/>. 48, 49). Jovinian is not accused of any worse immorality than an indulgence in good living, which was probably exaggerated rhetorically by Jerome. Augus- tine reproaches him with having led conse- crated virgins of advanced age to accept husbands. He himself abstained from mar- riage, merelv because of the troubles involved in it. See Hieron. lib. i. adv. Jov. § 3 ; August. de Haer. § 82, lib. ii. de Nupt. et Concep. § 23 ; Retract, lib. ii. § 23 ; also Haller, Jovinianus sein Leben und seine Lehre in Texte und Unter- siich. xvii.new ser. (Leipz. 1S97). [j.ll.d.] Juliana (8), mother of the virgin Demetrias, to whom we have letters from Jerome, .Au- gustine, pope Innocent, and Pelagius. She was of noble birth, being connected through her mother Proba and her husband Olybrius with some of the greatest families of Rome, and was possessed of great wealth. When her daugh- ter proposed to take vows of virginity, she refrained from influencing her ; but when Demetrias appeared in the church clad in the dress of a virgin she shewed her great delight JULIANUS at this step. She supported the cause of Chrysostom at Rome and entertained his messengers. His thanks were conveyed in a letter from his place of exile (a.'d. 406), exhorting her to hold fast and aid in allaying the waves of controversy (Chrys. Ep. 169). She fied with her daughter to Africa from Rome when it was sacked by Alaric, but fell into the rapacious hands of count Hera- clion, who robbed her of half her property. She was commended to the African churches by pope Innocent in a laudatory letter (Ep. 15), which takes the rank of a decree in the collection of papal rescripts by Dion. Exig. (Coll. Dec. 39 ; Hieron. Ep. 130, ed. Vail.). She became acquainted with Augustine while in Africa, and she and her daughter had relations with Pelagius, who wrote a long letter to Demetrias (given among the Sup- posititia of Jerome; ed. Vail. vol. xi.) vindi- cating free will by her example. Augustine, with Alypius, wrote to Juliana (.A-Ug. Ep. 188, A.D. 418), arguing that all the virtues of Deme- trias were from the grace of God. [w.h.f.] Julianus (15) (Edanensis), bp. of Eclana or Aeculanum (Noris, ad Hist. Pelag. in 0pp. iv. 747, ed. 1729-1732), near Beneventum (ib. i. 18, in 0pp. i. 178 ; Pagi, Critic, s.a. 419, ix.), a distinguished leader of the Pelagians of 5th cent. A native of Apulia (.August. Opus Imperf. vi. 18 in Pair. Lat. xlv. 1542), his birth is assigned to c. 386 (Garner, Diss. i. ad part. i. 0pp. Mar. Merc. c. 6, in Patr. Lat. xlviii. 291). His father was an Italian bishop named Memor or Memorius (Mar. Merc. Subnot. iv. 4, Garner's n. g. u.s. p. 130 ; Pagi, U.S.; Cappelletti, Chies. Ital. xx. 19) and his mother a noble lady named Juliana (Mar. Merc. U.S.). Augustine of Hippo was intimate with the family, and wrote of them in terms of great affection and respect, c. 410 (Ep. loi ; Noris, 0pp. i. 422, iv. 747). Julian, c. 404, became a "lector " in the church over which his father presided, and while holding that office married a lady named la. Paulinus, afterwards bp. of Nola, composed an elaborate Epithalamium, which represents him as on terms of great intimacy with the family (Poem. XXV. in Pali. Ixi. 633). By c. 410 Julian had become a deacon, but whether la was then living does not appear. He was consecrated to the episcopate by Innocent I. c. 417 (Mar. Merc. Commonit. iii. 2), but the name of his see is variously given. Marius Mercator, who was his contemporary, distinctly speaks of him as " Episcopus Eclanensis " (Nestor. Tract, praef. § i, Migne, 184; Theod. Mops, praef. § 2, Migne, 1043). Innocent I. died Mar. 12, 417. Up to that date Julian had maintained a high reputation for ability, learning, and orthodoxy, and Mercator concludes that he must have sym- pathized with Innocent's condemnation of the Pelagians (Commonit. iii. 2). Vet there is reason to believe that even Innocent had ground for at least suspecting his proclivities (.August, cont. Julian, i. 13). When the cases of Pelagius and Coelestius were reopened by Zosimus, shortly after the death of Innocent, Julian seems to have expressed himself strong- ly in their favour in the hearing of Mercator (Subnot. vii. 2 ; Noris, 0pp. i. 183) ; and when Zosimus issued his Epistola Tractoria against JULIANUS the Pelagians (a.d. 417; Jaffe, Reg. Pont., Rom. 417) and sent it to the bishops of the East and West for subscription, Julian was among those who refused. He was \ accordingly deposed, and afterwards exiled j under the edicts issued by the emperor Honor- | ius in Mar. 418 (Mar. Merc. Comttxonit. iii. i). Julian now addressed two letters to Zosimus (.■\ugust. O/). Imp. i. 18), one of which was very generally circulated throughout Italy before it reached the pontiff. Of this .Mercator has ! preserved some fragments [Subnot. vi. 10-13, ' ix. 3). Of the other we have no remahis (Pagi, Critic. A.D. 418, Ivii.). .•\bout the same time Julian addressed a letter to Rufus, bp. of Thessalonica (410-431), on his own behalf and that of 18 fellow- recusants. Rufus was vicarius of the Roman see in llhTicum (Innocent's ep. to Rufus, June 17, 412, in -Mansi, viii. 751) and just then in serious collision with Atticus the patriarch of Constantinople. As .\tticus was a strenu- ous opponent of the Pelagians (Noris, 0pp. iv. 884), Julian and his brethren perhaps thought Rufus might be persuaded to favour them [ib. i. 201, 202). Zosimus died Dec. 26, 418, and was succeeded by Boniface I., .\pr. 10, 419. The letter of Julian to Rufus, with another to the clergy of Rome which he denied to be his (.August. Op. Imp- i. 18), were answered by Augustine in his contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum. Julian avows an earnest desire to gain the aid of the Oriental bishops against the " profanity of .Mani- cheans," for so he styles the Catholics (cont. Duas. Ep. ii. i) ; accuses Zosimus of tergiver- isation and the Roman clergy of having been unduly influenced in their condemnation of the Pelagians (ii. 3) ; charges both with various heresies (ii. 2-5) ; and protests that by their means the subscriptions of nearly all the Western bishops had been uncanoni"ally extorted to a dogma which he characterizes as " non minus stultum quam impium " (iv. 8, § 20 init.). Garnier assigns the letter to Rufus and the two to Zosimus to a.d. 418 [ad Primam Partem, diss. i. Migne, 292). When Julian addressed his two letters to Zosimus he was preparing a reply to the first of Augustine's two books de Nuptiis el Con- CHpiscentid (Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef. § 7), which he addressed to a fellow-recusant named Turbantius, whose prayers he earnestly asks that the church may be delivered from the defilement of .Manicheism {ib. iii.). He sent some extracts from the work, which was in four books, and apparently entitled Contra eos qui nuptias damnant et fructus earum diabolo assignant (.\ugust. de \uptiis et Con- cupisc. ii. 4, § II), to Valerius, who forwarded them to his friend .\ugustine. who at once rejoined in a second book de Nuptiis et Con- cupiscentid (.\ugust. Retract, ii. 53). When Julian's work subsequently came into his hands, Augustine (mblished a fuller rejoinder in his contra Julianum Pelagianum. .Augus- tine freely quotes his antagonist, and we see that Julian again insisted upon the Mani- cheism of his opponents (lib. ii. passim) ; again charged Zosimus with prevarication (iii. I, vi. 2), and elaborated the whole anthro- pologv for which he contended. When driven from the West, Julian and JULIANUS 677 some of his fell..w-ixilrs went into Cilicia and remained for a time witti Thcodorus, bp. o( Mopsuestia (Mar. .Mere. I heod. .Mops, praef. § 2), who is charged by Mercator with having been one of the originators of Pelagianism (Subnot. praef. § i, Symb. Theod. Mops, nracf. § 2) and who wrote against .Vugustine (Phot. Btbl. Cod. 177 ; Mar. Merc. C.arnier, ad Prim. Partem, diss. vi.). .Meanwhile tlie rejoinder of .\ugusline had reached Julian, who an- swered it in 8 books, addressed to Florus, a fellow-recusant (Co. F.ph. a.d. 4^1, actio v. in Mansi, iv. 1337 ; Mar. Merc. Subnot. praef.). Mercator has given various extracts (Subnot. passim), but it is best known from .AuRustiive's elaborate Opus Imperfcctum, whic li was evoked by it (.August. Opp. t. x. in Patr. iMt. xlv. 1050), but left incomplete. On the death of Boniface I. and the succession of Celestine I. in Sept. 422, Julian apparently left Cilicia and returned to Italy, probably hoping that the new pontiff might rec Misider the case of the Pelagians, especially as a variance had then arisen between the Roman see and the .African bishops. Celestine repulsed him, and caused him to be exiled a second time (Prosper. contr. Collator, xxi. 2, in Patr. Lat. Ii. 271). Julian was also condemned, in his absence, by acouncil in Cilicia, Theodorus concurring in the censure (.Mar. Merc. Symb. Theod. .Mop s. praef. § 3 ; Garnier, ad Prim. Part. diss. ii. Migne, 339). On this Julian went to Con- stantinople, where tiie same fate awaited him both from Atticus and his successor Sisinnius (a.d. 426, 427) (Gamier, u.s. 361 ; Coelest. ad Sestor. in Mansi, iv. 1025). On the accession of Nestorius to the patriarchate (a.d. 428) the expectations of Julian were again raised, and he appealed b>th to Nestorius and to the emperor Theodosius II. Both at first gave him some encouragement (Mar. Merc. Sestor. Tract, praef. § i), which may be why there is no menti m of the Pelafiians in the celebrated edict which the emjjeror issued against here- sies at the instance of Nestorius (Cod. Theod. XVI. v. 65, May 30, 428 ; Socr. H. E. vii. 29). The patriarch wrote to Celestine more than once in his behoof and that of his friends (Nestor. Ep. to Celest. in .Mansi, iv. 1022, 1023), but the favour he shewed them necessitated his defending himself in a public discourse delivered in their presence, and translated by .Mercator (u.s. .Mi«ne, 1H9 sei).). In 429 Mercator presented his Commoni- torium de Coelestio to the emperor, wherein he carefully relates the proceedings against the Pelagians and comments sevi-nlv upon th( ir teaching. Julian and his frienils were then driven fr. ra Constantino])le by an imperial edict (Mar. Merc. Commonit. praef. § i). I Towards the close of 430 Celestine c<mvened acouncil at Rome, which condenmed Julian ' and others once more (Garnier, u.s. diss. ii.). I Whither he went from Constantinople does not appear, but he with other PelaRJans s<"em to have accomi)anie(l Nestorius to the convent of liphesus, AD. 431, and to.ik part in the " Conciliabulum " held by Joannes of .Antiixh (Relat. ad Coel. in .Mansi, iv. I3V«)- Baronius (s.a. 431 Ixxix.) infers from one t>f the letters of Gregorv the (ireat (lib. ix. ind. ii. ep. 4r) in Pair. Lat. XV. Ixxvii. 981) that the "Conciliabulum" absolved Julian and his friends, but Cardinal 37 578 JULIANUS Noris (0pp. i. 362) has shewn that the council repeat their condemnation of the Pelagians, expressly mentioning Julian by name (Relat. M.S. ; Mar. Merc. Nestor. Tract, praef. § 2). Sixtus III., the successor of Celestine (July 31, 432), when a presbyter, had favoured the Pelagians, much to the grief of Augustine (Ep. 174). Julian attempted to recover his lost position through him, but Sixtus evidently treated him with severity, mainly at the instigation of Leo, then a presbyter, who became his successor, a.d. 440 (Prosper. Chron. s.a. 439). When pontiff himself, Leo shewed the same spirit toward the Pelagians, especially toward Julian {de Promiss. Dei, pt. iv. c. 6 in Patr. Lat. li. 843). We hear no more of JuHan until his death in Sicily, c. 454 (Gen- nad. Script. Eccl. xlv. in Patr. Lat. Iviii. 1084 ; Gamier, u.s. diss. i. Migne, 297). Some years after his death Julian was again condemned by Joannes Talaia, formerly patri- arch of Alexandria, but c. 484 bp. of Nola in Italy (Phot. Bihl. Cod. liv. ; s.f. August. 0pp. in Patr. Lat. xlv. 1684). Julian was an able and a learned man. Gennadius speaks of him as " vir acer ingenio, in divinis Scripturis doctus, Graeca et Latina lingua scholasticus " (u.s.). He was of high character, and especially distinguished for generous benevolence (Gennad. u.s.), and seems actuated throughout the controversy by a firm conviction that he was acting in the interests of what he held to be the Christian faith and of morahty itself. Besides his works ahready mentioned, Bede speaks of his Opuscula on the Canticles, and among them of a " libellus " de A more, and a "libellus" de Bono Constantiae, both of which he charges with Pelagianism, giving from each some extracts (in Cantica, praef. Migne, 1065- 1077). Garnier claims Julian as the translator of the Libellus Fidei a Rufmo Palaestinae Pro- vinciae Presbytero, which he has published in his ed. of Marius Mercator (ad Pritnam Partem, dissert, v. Migne, 449, dissert, vi. Migne, 623), and as the author of the Liber Defmitionum seu Rattocinationum, to which Augustine re- plied in his de Perfectione Justitiae (note 6 in Mar. Merc. Subnot. Migne, 145, 146). Cf. A. Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum (Leipz. 1897) in Texte und Untersuch. xv. 3. [t.w.d.] Julianus (27), bp. of Cos, the friend and frequent correspondent of Leo the Great. He was by birth an Italian. Being educated at Rome (Leo. Mag. Ep. Ixxxi. 1042 ; Migne, Ep. cxiii. 1 190) he was acquainted with Latin as well as Greek (Ep. cxiii. 1194) and was thus useful to Leo, who was ignorant of Greek. Leo found in him a man after his own heart. He describes him as a " part of himself " (Ep. cxxv. 1244). Long experience led him to put the fullest confidence in his orthodoxy, erudi- tion, watchfulness, and zeal (Ep. xxxv. 875, xci. 1066). Nothing could exceed the value of such a man to Leo to watch over the inter- ests of the faith and the Roman see in the East. Julian was present at the council of Constantinople in 448 and professed his belief in the " two natures in one Person " — an ex- pression which Dioscorus could not tolerate when he heard it read at Chalcedon— and sub- scribed the condemnation of Eutyches (Labbe, Concilia, iv. 188 b, 231 b). In Apr. 449 he JULIANUS was present at the synod in Constantinople, granted by the emperor at the demand of Eutyches to verify the records of the former council. Here we find him disputing occa- sionally the exact accuracy of the "Acta" (Labbe, iv. 231 (2), c. 234 (2) b ; Tillem. xv. 511). He wrote to Leo a letter which pro- duced two replies dated the same day, J une 13, 449, the first of a long series of letters from Leo to Julian (Epp. xxxiv. xxxv.). The latter of the two contains an elaborate dogmatic state- ment against Eutyches. After this Julian became one of the pope's chief mediums for impressing his wishes and policy on the East. [Leo.] Through the Eutychian troubles Julian remained true to the faith and suffered so much that, as he tells Leo, he thought of retiring to Rome (Ep. Ixxxi. 1042). It was Julius of Puteoli, however, not this Julian, who was papal legate at the council of Ephesus. Leo commended Julian to the favour of Pul- cheria and Anatolius of Constantinople as one who had always been faithful to St. Flavian (Epp. Ixxix. Ixxx. 1037, 1041, dated Apr. 451). In June 451 he begs him to associate himself with his legates, Lucentius and Basil, to the council of Chalcedon (Ep. Ixxxvi. 1063). He is commended to Marcian the emperor as a " particeps " with them (Ep. xc. 1065). His exact position at that council appears some- what ambiguous. He is not mentioned among the legates in the letter of Leo to the council (Ep. xciii. 1070), but in the Acts of the council is always spoken of as holding that position (Labbe, iv. 80 c, 852 c, 559 £)• In the list of signatures he does not appear among the legates of Rome, yet higher than his own rank, as bp. of Cos, would entitle him to appear, and among the metropolitans (cf. Tillem. xv. 645, and note, 43). His condem- nation of Dioscorus, with reasons assigned, appears in the acta of the third session of the council (Labbe, iv. 427 c). In the matter of the claims of Bassian and Stephen to the see of Ephesus, he gives his voice first for setting both aside, then for allowing a local council to choose (701 D, 703 d). He displeased Leo by not resisting the 28th canon of the council in favour of the claims of Constantinople (Ep. xcviii. 1098), and by writing to Leo begging him to give his assent to it (Ep. cvii. 1 1 72). After this, however, he is in as good favour as ever. From Mar. 453 he was apocrisiarius or deputy of the see of Rome at the court of Constantinople. Leo requests him to remain constantly at court, watching zealously over the interests of the faith (Epp. cxi. 1187, cxiii. 1190, "specularinon desinas"; cf. Tillem. xv. 761). In Mar. 453 Leo re- quested him to make a complete translation of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon (Ep. cxiii. 1194). Julian seems to have returned to his diocese in 457 (cf. Tillem. xvii. 762, 791) and wrote a reply, in his own name only, to the circular letter of the emperor Leo on the excesses of Timothy Aelurus and the authority of the Chalcedonian council. [Leo, emperor.] Julian lu^ges that Timotheus should be pun- ished by the civil power and maintains strongly the authority of the council. "For where were assembled so many bishops, where were present the holy Gospels, where was so much united prayer, there, we believe, was JULIANUS also present with invisible power the author of all creation " (Labbe, iv. 942 ; Or. Chr. i. 935). After this no morels known of him. [ccl Jullanus (47). bp. of Halicarnassus in the province of Caria ; a leader of the Mono- physites. In 511 he was active in conjunction with Severus and others in instigating the emperor Anastasius to depose Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople (Theod. l.ect. ii. 26). Theophanes erroneously speaks of him as bp. of Caria before he was bp. of Halicar- nassus (Chron. \.c. 503, in Pair. G/;. cviii.362). On the accession of Justin I. in 518, severe measures were taken against the Monophvsites and Julian was driven from his see. He went to .Alexandria, followed quickly by Severus on his expulsion from .\ntioch (Liberatus, Brfv. c. 19 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 4 ; Vict. Tunun. Chron. s.a. 539). Timotheus the successor of Dioscorus the younger received both kindly, and they settled near the city. Shortly afterwards a monk appealed to Severus as to whether the body of our Lord should be called corruptible. He answered that the " fathers " had declared that it should. Some .\lexandrians hearing this asked Julian, who said that the "fathers" had declared the contrary. In the fierce con- troversy thus evoked the Julianists charged the Severians with being Phthartolatrae or Corrupticolae, while the Severians charged the Julianists with being Phantasiastae and Manicheans (Liberatus, u.s. ; Tim. Presb. de Recept. Haer. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 58 ; Niceph. Call. E. H. xviii. 45). The designation by which the Julianists were more generally known was .\phthartodocetae or Incorrup- ticolae (Jo. Damasc. de Haer. §84). Much was written on either side. The only writings of Julian that remain are his Ten .-inathemas, a S\Tiac version by Paulus, the deposed bp. of Callinicus, being published by Assemani {MSS. Cod. Biblioth. .Apost. Vatic. Catalog, iii. 230, 231). .\ Latin trans, of this valuable document is given by Gieseler in his Commen- tatio qua Monophysitarum veterum variae de Christi persona opiniones imprimis ex ipsorum effatis recens editis illustrantur (P. ii. p. 5). Three letters from Julian to Severus, also translated by Pauhis, and several fragments are among the Syrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. pt. ii. 554, 929, 960, 961, pt. iii. 1059). .\ssemani also gives three letters of his to Severus from the Syriac MSS. in the Vatican (u.s. iii. 223). Leontius of Byzantium tells us that Julian earnestly contended for the " Incorrupti- bility," because he considered the view of Severus made a distinction (bia0opav) be- tween the body of our Lord and the Word of God, to allow of which was to acknowledge two natures in Him {de Sect, act v. 3, in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 1230). This explanation is also given by Theodorus Khaituensis (de Incarnat. in Patr. Gk. xci. 1498) and is fully sustained, especially by the eighth Anathema as pub. by Gieseler. He was certainly no Phan- tasiast and far from being a Manichean ; but, as Uorner justly observes, in asserting " the supernatural character of our Lord's body," Julian and his followers did not intend to deny its "reality," but only aimed at " giving greater prominence to Mis love by JULIANUS 579 tracmg not merely His suflferinRs themselves, but oven the possibility of suflcring " to Hii self-sacrifice {Person of Christ, cd. Clark, ii. i. 129). Jo. nam.vsc. Orlh. Fid. iii. 28 ; lius. Thess. contr. .Andr.; Phot. lUhl. Cod. 162; Thom. .\i]uin. Sum. p. iii. q. i. art. 5 concJ. Julian by some means recovered his sec o( Halicarnassus, but in the council of Constanti- nople A.D. 536, under AK.inetus bp. of komr, he was again deposed (Theoph. s.a. 529 • Mansi, viii. 869 ; Libeil. S\n. in Labbc, v. 276). After this he disappears, but 'his opinions continued to spread long afterwards especially in the Hast ; where his followers ultimately divided, one part holding " that the body of our Lord was absolutely (aotA irdcra TftiTov) incorruptible from the very ' Unio ' itself " (^^ ai'T^t n/t tuixrtu^) ; another, that it was not absolutely incur. ruptible but potentially (Jii'd^fO the reverse, yet could not become corruptible because the Word prevented it; and a third that it was not only incorruptible from the very " Unio," but also increate (oi"' ix6vov AtpOaprof /f ai'-r^t ^fuxreus, aWa nal AKTiffrov). These last were distinguished as Actistitae. Tim. Presb. u.s. 43 : Leont. Bvzant. contr. Xestor. et Fulxch. ii. in Patr. G*. Ixxxvi. 1315, 1358; Id. de Sect. act X. ib. 1239; Anastas. Sinait. Viae Dux, c. 23, in Patr. Gk. Ixxxix. 296; Isaac. .Arm. Cath. Orat. contr. .irnien. c. i, in Patr. Gk. cxxxii. 1155 ; Id. de Reb. Arm. ib. 1243. Four scholastic! from Alexandria visited Ephesus c. 549, and prevailed upon bp. Procopius to avow himself a Julianist. In 560, immediately after his decease, seven of his presbyters, who were also Julianists, are said to have placed the hands of his corpse on the head of a monk named Eutropius, and then to have recited the consecration prayer over him.* Eutropius afterwards ordained ten Julianist bishops, and sent them as mis- sionaries east and west, among other places to Constantinople, .Antioch, and .■Mexaiidria, and into Syria, Persia, Mesopotamia, and the country of the Homeritt-s (.Asseman. litbl. Or. i. 316, ii. 86, 88, iii. pt. ii.cccclv. ; Wright. Cat. Syr. MSS. ii. 755). By A.D. 565 the emperor Justinian had become an Incorruptibilist. He issued an edict avowing his change of opinion and gave orders that " all bishops everywhere " should be compelled to accept JuJianism (Evagr. H. E. iv. 39 ; Theoph. s.a. 557 ; Cedrenus, Comp. //is/, ed. Bonn. i. 680 ; Pagi, Critic. s.a. 565, ii.). This naturally encountered great opposition, especially, among others, from .\nastasius patriarch of .Antioch (a.d. 559-569) and Nicetius bp. of Treves (527-566) (Nicetius, Ep. 2 in Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 3H0). Hut the (Jaianites of Alexandria took courage from the edict to erect churches in that city, and elected Helpidius, an archdeacon, as their bishop (Theoph. u.s.). He almost immediately incurred the displeasure of the emperor and died on his way to Constantinople, whither he had been summoned. They then united with the Theodosians under Dorotheus. who, Theo- phanes says, was one of that party, but who • The corpse of J\ilLm Is »;il<l to h;ivc l)rcn trratcd in the same manner by hb p<T»on;il (ollottct» (IttuiC. Arm. Cath. tit Rtb. Arm. u.a. 1248). 580 JULIANUS both Sophronius of Jerusalem and John of Ephesus, the latter of whom especially was likely to be much better informed than the Chronographer, say was a Julianist (Sophron. Ep. Syn. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvii. 3191 ; Jo. v. Eph. Kirchengesch. uebers, v. Schonfelder, i. 40, p. 47). Justinian died Nov. 565. Tlie julianists were still numerous at Alex- andria during the patriarchate of Eulogius (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 227) and continued so still later. Sophronius of Jerusalem speaks of " Menas Alexandrinus, Gaianitarum propug- nator " as his contemporary (u.s. 3194), and Anastasius Sinaita relates a public disputation with the Gaianites of that city in which he took part (Viae Dux, u.s. 150 seq.). They were known in the West as late as the com- mencement of 7th cent. (Greg. I. Ep. lib. ix. ind. ii. ep. 68, ad Eus. Thessal. in Patr. Lat. Ixxvii. A.D. 601 ; Jaffe, Reg. Pont. 145 ; Eus. Thessal. M.S.). In Armenia they were very numerous in the time of Gregory Bar-heb- raeus(Assemani. M.s.ii. 296; Dorner, «.s. 13 n.). Julian achieved a very high reputation as a commentator on the Scriptures. Nicetas bp. of Heraclea, c. 1077, selected many of the most striking passages in his Catena Graecorum Patrum in Beatum Job from Julian's exe- getical and other writings. This catena was first published by Patricius Junius, with a Latin trans. (London, 1637, fob), and after- wards in Greek only at Venice (1792, fob). The quotations from Julian are in the " Proe- mium " and pp. 37, 45, 66, 93, 170, 178, 228, 230, 273, 437, 465, 480, 505, 539, 547-613, of the former of these editions. Fabric. Bibl. Or. ed. Harles, viii. 647, 650 ; Cave, i. 495 ; Ceillier, xi. 344. Cf. Usener in Lietzmann's Katenen, Freib. in Breisq (1897), p. 28, and the Rhein Mur. f. Phil. 1900, iv. p. 321; also Loots in Leont. von Byzanz. (Leipz. 1887), i. p. 30. [t.w.d.] Julianus (73), missionary priest to the Nubians in the reign of Justinian. John of Ephesus (R. Payne Smith's trans, pp. 251 seq.) and Bar-hebraeus (in Asseman. Bibl. Or. ii. 330) give an account of him. He was an old man of great worth, and one of the clergy in attendance on Theodosius, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, then residing at Con- stantinople. Julian had long desired to Christianize the Nobadae or Nubians, a wandering people E. of the Thebais and be- yond the limits of the empire, which they greatly harassed. The empress Theodora warmly encouraged the undertaking and con- sulted Justinian about it, who became inter- ested but objected to Julian as a Monophysite, and named another instead, whilst Theodora persisted in favouring Julian. John of Ephesus describes fully the rival missions and the triumph of the empress's schemes. J ulian reached the Nubian court first, won over the king and secured the rejection of the emperor's envoy when he arrived. Thus the Nubians were gained to the Monophysite creed and to the jurisdiction of Theodosius. After labour- ing there two years Julian placed Theodore, a Thebaid bishop, in charge and returned to Con- stantinople, where he soon afterwards died. For the subsequent history of the mission see LoNGiNus. [t.w.d.] Julianus (103), Flavlus Claudius, emperor, JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS often called Julian the Apostate; born a.d. 331 ; appointed Caesar, Nov. 6, 355 ; pro- claimed Augustus, Apr. 360 ; succeeded Con- stantius as sole emperor, Nov. 3, 361 ; died in Persia, June 27, 363. For the authorities for Julian's life, see D. C. B. (4-vol. ed.), s.v. The first and still in some respects the best English account of J ulian is to be found in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- pire, cc. 19, 22-24 — a forcible and on the whole very just picture. Like some other cold and sceptical people (e.g. Strauss), Gibbon despised Julian's superstitious enthusiasm, and, though he cannot restrain some sneers at the church and the orthodox faith, this part of his history has generally met with comparative favour at the hands of Christian critics. Mr. J. W. Barlow on Gibbon and Jtilian in the Dublin Hermathena for 1877 endeavours to shew that Gibbon, in order to gain a reputation for impartiality, is unfair to the emperor, whom he thinks morally and intellectually the best man " of the whole series." In the first three quarters of the last century little or nothing was published in England specially on this subject. An interesting and valuable essay, written for a Cambridge historical prize by the Hon. Arthur Lyttelton, has been kindly placed at the disposal of the writer of this article, who owes to it several important references. It is embodied in the Chtirch Qtly. Rev. for Oct. 1880, vol. xi. pp. 24-58, The Pagan Reaction under Julian, which gives a fresh and vigorous view of the subject. Mr. Gerald H. Rendall's Hulsean Essay for 1876, The Emperor Julian; Paganism and Christianity is decidedly the best account of Julian's religious position in English, perhaps in any modern language. In French we have the invaluable Tillemont and other writers of church history. Besides the articles in vol. iv. of the Empereurs there is a special treatise on the Persecidion de VEglise par J . I'Apostat, in vol. vii. of the Memoires. We miss, however, a critical treatment of the authorities and wide generalizations in Tillemont. He also seems to exaggerate the scope of the law against Christian professors. The fullest history of Julian is that of Albert de Broglie in vols. iii. and iv. of his L'Eglise et I'empire romain au quatrieme siecle (Paris, 1866, etc.). This is indispensable to the student of the period. Its general attitude is that takenin this article, but he is too anxious to make points to be careful of minute accuracy, and therefore of entire fairness, and his references often want cor- rection. These volumes were reviewed by C. Martha in the Revue des deux mondes for Mar. 1867, vol. Ixviii. pp. 137-169, who paints the emperor more favourably. In German J. F. A. Miicke, Flavius Claudius Julianus : nach den Quellen (Gotha, 1867 and 1869, 2 parts) is the most complete modern account. Fr. Rode, Geschichte der Reaction Kaiser Julians gegen die christliche Kirche (Jena, 1877) ; a useful study, and generally very accurate, paying proper attention to chronology. The writer takes up something of the same position as Keim does in his essay on Constantine's conversion — striving after fairness towards the church, without accepting its doctrines. He admires Julian's books against the Chris- tians as anticipating the line of modern critical JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS «RI theology in many points, pp. lo^, loj ; cf. p. 32, n. 10. § I. Early years of Julian as a Christian (a.d. 331-351)- § 2. Conversion to heathenism 35I-355- § 3- Julian as Caesar from Nov. 6, 355 to Nov. 3, 361. § 4. Residence at Con- stantinople as Augustus, Nov. 3, 3(11 to May, 362. § 5. Journey through Asia Minor. May to July, 362. § 6. Residence at Aniioch, July, 362 to March 5, 363. § 7. Persian cam- paign and death, March 5 to June 27, 363. § I. Early Years of Julian as a Christian (a.d. 331-351). — Flavius Claudius Julianus was the youngest son of Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine the Great. His mother, Basilina, was of the noble family of the Anicii, and daughter of Julianus the praetorian prefect, whose name was given to her son. Julian was born at Constantinople in the latter part of a.d. 331, the year after the dedication of the new capital. Upon the death of Constantine in May 337, and the accession of his three sons, there was a general massacre of the male branches of the younger line of the Flavian family de- scended from Constantius Chlorus and his second wife Theodora. In this tragedy there perished the father and eldest brother of Julian, his paternal uncle, his cousins the Caesars Delmatius and Hanniballian, and four other members of the family. J ulian and his elder half-brother Gallus, who was sick of an illness which was expected to be mortal, were alone preserved, by the compassion or the policy of Constantius (cf. Socr. H. E. iii. I ; Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 58 b. Julian, ad S. P. Q. Athen. p. 270 c, gives the list of those who perished, and ascribes their deaths to Constantius, who he says wished at first to slay both himself and Gallus). Julian is said to have owed his life to the interference of Mark, bp. of Arcthusa, who gave him sanc- tuary in a church (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 80 c). The boy was taken charge of by his mother's family, and his education conducted under the direction of the Arian Eusebius, bp. of Nico- media, who was distantly related to him (.\mm. xxii. 9. 4; cf. Soz. v. 2). When Eusebius was translated in 388 to the see of Constantinople Julian probably went with him, and attended the schools of that city (cf. Libanius, t7rtr(i</nos, ed. Reiske, i. p. 525 ; Julian, Ep. 58; and Rode, Die Reaction Julians, p. 22, n. 10). His constant attendant and guardian was his mother's slave Mardonius, wh'ise influence evidently had great power in moulding the character and tastes of his pupil, and who insisted strongly on a staid and perhaps rather pedantic demeanour (Liban. I.e.; Jul. MisopogoH, pp.351 seq. ; Miirke. in his Julianus nach den Quellen. zweite Ab- theilung, pp. 6 and 9, makes a curinus blunder in supposing that Julian disliked .Mardonius). Though educating him only for a private posi- tion, he set before him a high standard, and particular! V held up to his imitation the names and characters of " Plato, Socrates. Aristotle, and Theophrastus " l.Misop. p. 353 b). He kept him from the theatre and the circus, and taught him rather to love the Homeric de- scriptions of Fhaeacia and Demodocus and Calypso's isle, and the cave of Circe (i*. 35» »)• Such tearhiiig doubtlrxs f,<l th.- n.itur.illy dreamy temperanieiit of his i>ui>il. Julian tells us that from a rliild he had a MranRe desire of gazing at the sun, and that hr |ovr<l to spend a clear night in looking fixe<llv at the moon and stars, so that he almost gainrtl the character of an astrologer (Jul. Or. iv. ad regem Solem ad init. ; < f. th«- fahlr. Or. vii. p. 229, in which he speaks of himself a» en- trusted by Zeus to the sim's guardianship). Th«'se pleasant days of freedom were brought to an abrupt conclusion bv Ihr com- mand of Constantius. The death of his rela- tive Eusebius (in 342) deprived Juli.in of a powerful protector, when he was about 11 years old ; and soon after (pmbablv in 34 x or 344) the emperor recalled Gallus ^nm exili-. and sent the two brothers to the distant palace of Macellum in Cappadoria. Here for six years they were kept under surviillance. with no lack of material comforts, but apart from young men of their own age and with only the S(>ciety of their slaves (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 58 B ; Julian, ad Ath, p. 271 c). Their seclusion was only once broken bv a visit from Constantius (Jul. ad .4th. p. 274. prob- ably in 347, see laws of the Cnd. Theod. in this year). Masters and teachers were not wanting, especially of that fonn of Arianism to which Constantius was devoted ; and Julian now, if not before, made a considerable verbal acquaintance with the Bible, an acquaintance which frequently appears in his writings. He and Gallus were admitted to the office of Reader in the church — a proof that he had been baptized, though no mention of his baptism is recorded. They interested themselves zealously in the buildinc of chapels over the relics of certain martvrs (Greg. Naz. Or. iii. p. 58 ; Soz. v. 2). The success of Gallus in this building and the ill-success of Julian was remarked at the time, and was (afterwards, at any rate) considered as an omen of his apostasy (Greg. Naz. I.e. p. 59). In the spring of 351 Constantius felt himself forced by the burden of empire to take a col- league, and Gallus was appointed Caesar. Julian with difficulty was permitted tf> leave Macellum, and seems to have returned for a short time to Constantinople ; there he studied grammar with Nicocles, and rhetoric with Hecebolius then a zealous Christian (Socr. H. E. iii. i). Constantius, fearing lest his presence in the capital might U-ad to his becoming too popular, ordered him to remove to Niconiedia (Liban. Epitaph, p. 526, wpra<f<u- vfiTindi. p. 408). Hecebolius exacted a promise from his pupil that he would not attend the lectures of the famous heathen sophist I.i- banius ; Julian kept his promise, perhaps fearing to excite suspicion by outward inter- ' course with a chief partisan of the old re- ligion, but contented himself with a study of the written lectures of the master (liban. /.c. 526 seq. Libanius does not name Hecebolius, but the description seems to point to him : , Sievcrs, Libanius, p. 54, n. 5. suppose* Nicocles i to be meant). Others, however, in Nicomrtlia besides Libanius attracted the attention of ! the young prince. He here learnt to know some of the more mystical of the heathen j party, to whom paganism was still a reality 1 and the gods living beings, visions of whom 682 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS were to be seen by night and whose power still worked signs and wonders. " He is sent to the city of Nicomcdes," says Libanius, " as a place of less importance than Con- stantinople. But this was the beginning of the greatest blessings both to himself and the world. For there was there a spark of the m antic art still smouldering, which had with difficulty escaped the hands of the impious. By the' light of this" (turning to Julian) " vou first tracked out what was obscure, and learnt to curb vour vehement hatred of the gods, being rendered gentle by the revelations of divination" (Liban. Prosphonetictis, ed. Reiske, i, p. 408). While Julian was thus having his first ex- perience of the inner circle of heathen life. Callus met his brother for the last time as he passed through Bithynia to undertake the government of the East with which Constan- tius had invested him (Liban. Epitaph, p. 527. dta TTJs Bidwlas). The two brothers, ac- cording to Julian's account, corresponded but rarely after this, and on few subjects (Jul. ad Aih. p. 273 ; Liban. Epitaph, p. 530). Callus, it is said, having reason at a later date to suspect his brother's change of belief, sent the Arian Aetius to confer with him (Philo- storgius, 3, 27). Julian, if we may believe Libanus, sent Callus good advice on his political conduct, which had he followed he might have preserved both the empire and his life (Liban. ad Jul. COS. p. 376, ed. Reiske). § 2. Conversion to Heathenism (a.d. 351- 355). — The secret apostasy of Julian was the result of his residence at Nicomedia, though it was not completed there. The chief agent in effecting it was the neo- Platonist Maximus of Ephesus, a philosopher, magician, and political schemer. The fame of the wisdom of Aedesius first attracted J ulian to Pergamus, but he, being old and infirm, recommended him to his pupils, Chrysanthius and Eusebius. The latter was, or pretended to be, an adversary of the theurgic methods of Maximus, and a follower of the higher and more intellectual Platonism, and used to finish every lecture by a general warning against trickers' and charlatans. Juhan, much struck with this, took the advice of Chrvsanthius upon the point, and asked Eusebius to explain what he meant. The latter replied bv an account of Maximus, which gave a new edge of the already keen curiosity of Julian. "Some days ago" (he went on) " he ran in and called our company together to the temple of Hecate, thus making a large body of witnesses against himself. . . . When we came before the goddess and saluted her, he cried, ' Sit down, dearest friends, and see what will happen, and whether I am superior to ordinary men.' We all sat down, then he burnt a grain of frankincense, and as he repeated some sort of chant to himself he so far succeeded in the exhibition of his power that first the image smiled and then even appeared to laugh. We were confounded at the sistht, but he said, ' Let none of you be disturbed at this, for in a moment the torches which the goddess has in her hands will be lighted up ' — nnd before he had done speak- ing light actually burned in the torches. We then retired, being amazed and in doubt at JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS the wonder which had taken place. But do not you wonder at anything of this kind, just as I also through the purifying effects of reason conceive it is nothing of great import- ance." Julian (says Eunapius) hearing this, exclaimed, " Farewell, and keep to your books, if you will ; you have revealed to me the man I was in search of " (Eunapius. Vita Maximi, pp. 48-51, ed. Boissonade). It is difficult to believe that Eusebius was not in league with Chrysanthius to bring Julian under the influence of Maximus. The young prince hurried off to Ephesus, and there threw himself with eagerness into the teaching of his new master, which seems exactly to have suited his fantastic temperament. Julian had no practical Christianity to fall back upon. The sense of being watched and sus- pected had sunk deeply into his mind at Macellum, and he had learnt to look upon Constantius not only as his jailor, but as the murderer of his nearest relations. This naturally did not incline him to the religion inculcated by Arian or semi-Arian court bishops, who' probably laid stress upon their peculiar points of divergence from the ortho- dox faith, and neglected the rest of Christian theolog}'. JuUan therefore conceived of Christianity, not as a great body of truth satisfying the whole man, but as a set of formulas to be plausibly debated and distin- guished. On the other hand, he had a real, though pedantic, love of Hellenic authors and literature, and a natural dislike to those who destroyed the ancient monuments of the old faith. His characteristic dreaminess and love of mystery found satisfaction in the secret cults to 'which men like Maximus were addicted — all the more zealously as public sacrifice was difficult or dangerous. He was by nature ardent and superstitious, and never fell into good hands. The pagan coterie soon discovered the importance of their con- vert, and imbued him with the notion that he was the chosen servant of the gods to bring back again Hellenic life and religion. By the arts of divination a speedy call to the throne was promised him, and he vowed to restore to the temples if he became emperor. (Libanius, Epitaph, pp. 529 and 565, who agrees substantially with Socrates, iii. i, p. 168, and Sozomen, v. 2, p. 181 ; of. Theod. iii. i). For the present, however, the ful- filment of such hopes seemed distant, and Julian for ten years pretended zeal for Chris- tianity {Lihdin.' Epitaph, p. 528; Amm. xxii. 5, I ; Socr. iii. i ; Soz. v. 2). He had, indeed, good reason to fear the suspicions of his cousin. In 354 Callus was craftily removed from his government and executed [Callus], and Juhan was apprehended, on obscure charges (Amm. xv. 2, 7 — the charge of leaving Macellum without pemiission seems strange, since the brothers had been released from their retirement some four years before). For seven months he was confined in N. Italy near the court, being removed from place to place (Jul. ad Ath. p. 272 d ; Liban. Epitaph. p. 530 ; cf. Jul. ad Themist. p. 260 a) — an imprisonment brought to an end by the inter- vention of the gentle empress Eusebia, who procured for him an interview wth Constan- tius, and leave to return to his studies (Jul. JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS ad Aih. pp. 272. z7-\\ Or. },. y. iiSn). At first ho determined to retire tn his mother's property in Bithynia, Constantius haviiip confiscated all the estates of his father (Jul. ad .nil. p. 273; Ff>. 40, p. 417 A, to lamblichus — an interesting letter written 3 years later, and not concealing his religions opinions). He had hardly arrived in Asia Minor when the suspicions of Constantius were aroused by two reports brought by informers, one of treasonable proceedings at a banquet given by Africanus, the governor of Pannonia Secunda at Sirmium, the other of the rising of Silvanus in Gaul (Jul. ad .Ath. p. 273 c, d; cf. .\mm. xv. 3, 7 seq.). The first was no doubt connected in his mind with Julian, who had just passed through that country, and whom he in consequence recalled, but on his way back received permission, or rather command, to turn aside into Greece, a privilege which Eusebia had procured for him (ad Ath. 273 d ; Or. 3, p. 118 c). He thus could gratify a long-cherished wish of visiting Athens. The young prince was naturally well received by professors and sophists, such as Prohaeresius and Himerius, then teaching at Athens. He had a turn for philosophy, and could discourse eagerly, in the modern neo-Platonic fashion, about the descent and the ascent of souls. He was surrounded by a swarm of young and old men, philosophers and rhetoricians, and (if we may believe Libanius) gained favour as much by his modesty and gentleness as by the qualities of his intelligence (Liban. Epitaph, p. 532). Two of the most distinguished of his familiars among his fellow-students at this time were the future bishops Basil and Gregory Nazianzen, then as always close and intimate friends. Gre- gory, however, seems to have detected some- thing of his real character ; he noticed an air of wildness and unsteadiness, a wandering eye, an uneven gait, a nervous agitation of the features, an unreasoning and disdainful laugh, an abrupt, irregular way of talking, which betrayed a mind ill at ease with itself, and exclaimed, " What a plague the Roman empire is breeding ! God grant I may be a false prophet ! " (Or. pp. i6i, 162). Gre- gory, who had many friends among the professors, may well have been aware of the real state of the young prince's mind, and of his nightly visits to Eleusis, where he could indulge his religious feelings without reserve. Maximus had introduced him to the hiero- phant there, a great miracle-worker wim was in league with the heathen party in Asia Minor (Eunapius, Vita Maximi, pp. 52, 53). § 3. Julian as Caesar (from Nov. 6, 355, to Nov. 3, 361 — death of Constantius). — About May 355 Julian was permitted to go to Athens, but a few months later was summoned again to the court (Jul. ad Ath. p. 273 d). He left the city in low spirits and with many tears, and, stretching out his hands to the Acropolis, besought Athena to save her suppliant — an act which, he tells us, many saw him perform (ib. p. 475 a). Those who did so could hardly have doubted his change of religion, and there were doubtless many sympathizers who looked to him as the future restorer of the old faith. He first crossed the Aegean to Ilium Novum, where JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS r.H.T he visited the antiquities uiidir tlir KuidancA of the then thristi.ui bp. rcg.isius, who delighted him bv onuttiiig llie sign of the cross in the tcinplcs, ami otherwise shewing heathen sympathies (|iil. Ep. 7K - the letter, first edited by C. Henning. in Urtmrs, vol. ix.). On his arrival at Milan, Con- stantius was absent, but Julian was well received hy the eunuchs of the empress [ad Ath. pp. 274, 275 n). His first impulse was to write to his protectress and implore her to obtain leave for him to return home ; but on demanding a revelation from the gods, he received an intimation of their displeasure and a threat of disgraceful death if he did so, and, in consequence, schooled himself to yield his will to theirs, and to become their instrument for whatever purposes they chose (ib. pp. 275, 276 ; cf. I.iban. ad Jul. cnnsuUm, t- I. P- 378)- Constantius soon returned, and determined, under the persevering pres- sure of his wife and notwithstanding stronK opposition, to give the dignity of Caesar to his sole remaining relative (Amni. xv. 8. 3 ; Zos. 3, i). On Nov. 6, 355, Julian received the insignia in the presence of the army at Milan, and was given control of the prefec- ture of Gaul (i.e. Spain. Gaul, Britain, and Germany), and especially of the defence of the frontiers (ad Ath. p. 277 a ; Amm. I.e.). As he drew the unwonted garb around him in place of his beloved pallium, he was heard to mutter the line of Homer, to which his wit gave a new shade of meaning : "Him purple death and destiny embraced " (Amm. XV. 8, 17). At the same time he received, through the management of Eusebia, the emperor's sister Helena as his bride, and the gift of a library from the empress herself (Or. iii. p. 123 d). Thus the reconciliation of the cousins was apparently complete. Julian produced a spirited panegyric upon the reign and just actions of Constantius, which it seems right to assign to this date (Or. i ; cf. Spanheim's notes, p. 5). He set out, on Dec. I, for his new duties with a small retinue, from which almost all his personal followers were carefully excluded (Amm. xv. 8, 17, 18 ; Jul. ad Ath. p. 277 B, c). Of his four slaves, one was his only confidant in religious matters, an African named Euhemerus (ad Alh. p. 277 B ; Eunap. Vita .Maximi, p. 54). His physician, Oribasius, who had charge of his library, was only allowed to accomi>any him through ignorance of their intimacy (ad Alh. I.e. ; Eunap. Vita Oribasii, p. 104). He entered Vienne with great popular rejoicing (for the province was hard-pressed by the barbarians) and possiblv with secret expecta- tions amongst the heathen party, which had been strong in the time of Magnentius. A blind old woman, learning his name an«l office as he passed, cried out, "There goes he who will restore the temples of the gods I " (Amm. xv. 8. 22). During the next five years the young Caesar api'ears as a strenuous and successful general and a popular ruler. The details «>f his wars with the Franks and Alamanns, the Salii and Chamavi, will be found in Ammianus and Zosimus. Perhaps we ought to recollect that he was his own historian, writing "com- 584 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS mentaries " (now no longer extant) which were no doubt intended to rival those of the author of the Gallic War. After an ex- pedition against the Franks in the autumn of 357 he wintered for the first time at Paris, which became a favourite abode of his. He gives a well-known description of his ^^Xt; AovKeria in the Misopogon (pp. 340 seq.). His military successes endeared him to both troops and people. His internal government, particularly as lightening public burdens, was equally popular. He had specially to contend with the avarice of Florentius, the praetorian prefect, who desired to increase the capitatio, and who, on Julian's refusal to sign the indiction, complained of him to Constantius (Amm. xvii. 3, 2, and 5, in 357). Constantius, while reproving him for discrediting his officer, left him a practically free hand, and the tax, which on his entering Gaul was 25 aurei a head, had been reduced to 7 when he left (Amm. xvi. 5, 14 ; cf. xvii. 3, 6). His ambition was to imitate Marcus Aure- lius as a philosopher upon the throne, and Alexander the Great as a model in warfare (ad Themist. p. 253). His table was very plainly furnished, and he refused all the luxuries which Constantius had written down for him as proper for a Caesar's board (Amm. xvi. 5, 3). His bed was a mat and a rug of skins, from which he rose at midnight, and, after secret prayer to Mercury, addressed him- self first to public business and then to literature. He studied philosophy first, then poetry, rhetoric, and history, making himself also fairly proficient in Latin. His chamber was ordinarily never warmed ; and one very cold night, at Paris, he was nearly suffocated by some charcoal in a brazier, but erroneously attributed it to the dampness of the room (Misopogon, p. 341). All this attracted the people, but was not agreeable to many of the courtiers. Julian knew that he was surrounded by disaffected officials and other spies upon his conduct, and continued to conceal his religious sentiments, and to act cautiously towards his cousin. During his administration of Gaul he produced another panegyric upon Constantius, and one upon Eusebia, though the exact occasion of neither can be determined (Or. 2 and 3). In these orations JuHan, though indulging to the full in classical parallels and illustrations, takes care to hide his change of religion. He speaks even of his prayers to God for Constantius, naturally indeed and not in a canting way (Or. 3, p. 118 d). Nor did he hesitate to join with him in issuing a law denouncing a capital penalty against those who sacrifice to or wor- ship idols (Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 6, Apr. 356), in repressing magic and all kinds of divination with very severe edicts (ib. ix. 16, 4-6, in 357 and 358), in punishing renegade Christians who had become Jews (ib. xvi. 8, 7), and in granting new privileges to the church and clergy, and regulating those already given (ib. xvi. 2, 13-16 ; the last as late as Mar. 361). To have hinted at dislike to any of these measures would, indeed, have aroused at once the strongest suspicions. One of the edicts against magic, which threatens torture for every kind of divination, seems almost person- ally directed against Julian (Cod. Theod. ix. JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 16, 6, dated July 5, 358, from Ariminum). The effect upon his conscience of condemning as a public officer what he was secretly prac- tising must have been hardening and demoraliz- ing. For Julian was not without thought on such subjects. At another time he declared he would rather die than sign the oppressive edict brought him by Florentius (Amm. xvii. 3, 2) ; and in his later famous decree against Christian professors he writes vehemently of the wicked- ness of thinking one thing and teaching another (Ep. 42). In Apr. 360 Constantius ordered the flower of the Gallic auxiliaries to be sent to aid him in his expedition against the Persians (Amm. XX. 4). This request produced great irritation among men who had enlisted on the under- standing that they were not to be required to cross the Alps — an irritation fomented no doubt by the friends of Julian, particularly, it is said, by Oribasius (Eunap. Vita Oribasii, p. 104). The troops surrounded the palace at Paris and demanded that their favourite should take the title of Augustus (ad Ath. p. 284 ; Amm. xx. 4, 14). Julian, according to his own account, was quite unprepared for such a step, and would not accede till Jupiter had given him a sign from heaven. This sign was no doubt the vision of the Genius of the Empire, who declared that he had long been waiting on his threshold and was now unwill- ing to be turned away from it. Yet he warned him (so Julian told his intimates) that his residence with him would in no case be for long (Amm. xx. 5, 10 ; cf. Lib. ad Jul. cos. p. 386). We have no reason, however, to think that Julian had any real hesitation, except as to the opportuneness of the moment. When he came down to address the troops, he still appeared reluctant, but the enthusiasm of the soldiers would take no denial, and he was raised in (iallic fashion upon a shield, and hastily crowned with a gold chain which a dragoon (draconarius) tore from his own accoutrements. He promised the accustomed donative (Amm. xx. 4, 18), which the friends of Constantius, it would seem, secretly tried to outdo by bribes (ad Ath. p. 285 a). The discovery of their intrigue only raised the popular enthusiasm to a higher pitch, and Julian felt strong enough to treat with his cousin. He dispatched an embassy with a letter declining to send the Gallic troops, who (he declared) positively refused to go, and could not be spared with safety ; but he offered some small corps of barbarian auxili- aries. He related the action of the army in proclaiming him Augustus, but said nothing of his own wish to bear the title. As a com- promise he proposed that Constantius should still appoint the praetorian prefect, the chief governor of that quarter of the empire, but that all lesser offices should be under his own administration (ib. D, and for particulars, Amm. XX. 8, 5-17), who gives the substance of the letter at length). But to these pubHc and open requests he added a threatening and bitter private missive, which had the effect, whether intentionally or not, of rendering his negotia- tions abortive (Amm. I.e.). Such a state of things could only end in war, but neither party was in a hurry to precipitate it. In Vienne Julian celebrated the fifth JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS anniversary of his appointment, ami apjieared ' for the tirst time in the jcwolleil iliacleni ; which had become the symbol of imperial dignity (Amni. xxi. i, 4). Meanwhile both ' Eusebia and Helena had been removed by j death, and with them almost the last links ! which united the cousins. Julian still kept I up the pretence of being a Christian. At ! Epiphany, 361, he kept the festival solemnly and even ostentatiously, joining in the public prayers and devotions (tb. 2). He witnessed calmly the triumphant return of St. Hilary after his exile, and permitted the Gallic bishops to hold a council at Paris (S. Hilarii, Frag. Hist. \ pp. 1353. 1354)- His name also appears, after that of Constantius, attached to a law issuetl 1 on Mar. t at Antioch, giving privileges to Chris- tian ascetics. But all this was mere dissimula- | tion for the sake of popularit v. In secret he was ' anxiously trying, byallpossibleheathen means, I to divine the future (Amm. xxi. i,6seq.). He I sent in particular for the hierophant of Eleusis, I with whose aid he performed rites known to themselves alone (Eunap. Vila Maxim i, p. 53; ' cf. Amm. xxi. 5, i, " placata ritu secretiori Bellona"). . The irritation against Constantius was I further increased by an arrogant letter, [ addressed of course to the Caesar Julian, requiring his immediate submission and merely promising him his life. Julian, on i receiving this, uttered an exclamation which , betrayed his religion : " He would rather , commit himself and his life to the gods than to Constantius " (Zos. iii. 9, 7). The moment seemed now come for action. In a speech to the soldiers in which he referred in ambiguous language to the will of the God of heaven — " arbitrium dei caelestis " — he called upon them to take the oath of allegiance and follow him across the Alps. He spoke in general terms of occupying lUyricum and Dacia, and then deciding what was to be done (.Amm. xxi. 5). Having thus secured the Western provinces, he made a rapid and successful passage through X. Italy, receiving its submission. He reached Sirmium without opposition, having ordered the different divi- : sions of his army to concentrate there. Then | he took and garrisoned the important pass of [ Succi (Ssulu Uerbend) on the Balkans, between Sardica and Philippopolis, thus securing the power to descend into Thrace. For the time he established his quarters at Naissus (Nish), and awaited further news. From there he wrote to the senate of Rome against Constan- ; tins, and in self-defence to the Athenians, Lacedemonians, and Corinthians (Zos. iii. 10). > The Athenian letter was possibly entrusted ' to the Eleusinian hierophant, who returned home about this time. It was perhaps also | under his guidance that Julian underwent the | secret ceremonies of initiati'jn described by Gregory N'azianzen (Or. 4, 52-56, pp. 101-103). j According to common report, he submitted to the disgusting bath of blood, the taurobolium , or criobolium, through which the worshippers : of Mithra and Cybele soucht to procure eternal ! life. Julian's object, it is said, was not only 1 to gain the favour of the gods, but also to ; wash away all defilement from previous contact with the Christian mysteries. This miserable Story is yet a very credible one. Existing JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS r.hS monuments pr. .vrtii.it iii.mv |>agan>; ..f position continued the taurob.ilium till the .-n.l ..f the 4th cent, (see the inscriptions in Wilmann*. Exempla Inscr. luil. 107-126). Such secret incidents preceded Julian's public declaration of his change uf religion. .At Naissus or Sirmium he threw ofl thr mask, and professed himself opmlv a hralhrn. Of his first public s.acrifirc he wrote with exultation to his friend Maxitnus : " \Vr worship the gods openly, and the greatest part of the troops who accompanied me prof«-ss the true religion. We have acknowledged our gratitude to the gods in manv heratombs. The gods command me to consecrate mvself to their service with all my might, and most readily do I obey them. They promise us great returns for our toils if wc are not remiss " (£/.. 38. p. 415 c). Now came the news of hLs cousin's sudden death at Mopsucrene, at the foot of Mount Taurus, on Nov. 3. and Julian learnt that he was accepted without opposition as the successor designated by his dying breath, a report of which we cannot guarantee the truth (Amm. xxii. 2, 6). § 4. Julian as Auguslus at Constantino pU (from Nov. 3, 361, to May 362).— Julian hastened to Constantinople, through the pass of Succi and bv Philippopolis and Heraclea, entering the Eastern capital amid general rejoicings on Dec. 11. He conducte<l the funeral of Constantius with the usual honours ; laying aside all the imperial insignia, except the purple, and marching in the pro- cession, touching the bier with his hands (I.iban. Epitaph, p. 512, cf. Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 16, 17, pp. 157, 158). Constantius was buried near his father in the Church of the Apostles, but whether Julian entered it is not stated. Almost his next act was to appoint a special commission under the presidency of Satur- ninus Sallustius Secundus (to be distinguished from the prefect of the Gaids) to bring to justice the principal supporters of the late government. Julian himself avoided taking part in it, and allowed no appeal from its decisions. The conuuission met at Chalcedon, and acted with excessive rigour. Julian next turned his attention to the palace, with its swarm of neetlless and over- paid officials, eunuchs, cooks, and barbers, who battened on bribes and exactions. All these he swept awav, to the genera I satisfaction (Amm. xxii. 4 ; I.iban. Ilpit. p. 565). Towards Christians he adopted a policy of tolr-ration, though desiring nothing more keenly than the humiliation of the Church. His object was to set sect against sect by extending equal licence to all (cf. Amm. xxii. 5). He issued an edict allowing all bishops exiled luider Constantius to return, and restoring their confiscated pr«>pertv (S<>rr. iii. I, p. 171). On the other hand, the extreme Arian, .Aetius, as a friend of Gallus, received aspeci.al invitation to court (Ep. 31). .K letter " to Basil," seemingly of the same date, and of similar purpart, may possibly have been addressed to St. Basil of Caesarea (Ep. 12 ; He Broglie assumes this, t. iv. pp. ni, 23V •»•)• To Caesarius, a court physician of lii^h repute and the brother of (ireg-irv, Julian shewed great attention, and strove for his ronveriion. 586 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS He even entered into a public discussion on religion with him, and was much mortified by the ill success of his rhetoric (Greg. Naz. Ep. 6 ; Orat. vii. 11-14). The Donatists, Nova- tianists, and perhaps some extreme Arians were not loth to appear before the new emperor, who sought to destroy unanimity by extending free licence to all Christian sects, but there is no trace of any important Catholic leader falling into the snare. In the same spirit he ordered Eleusius, Arian bp. of Cyzicus, to restore the ruined church of the Novatianists within two months (Socr. ii. 38, p. 147 ; iii. II ; cf. Ep. 52, p. 436 a). Toleration was also extended to the Jews, from a real though imperfect sympathy. Their ritual seemed to Julian a point of contact with Hellenism, and with their rejection of an Incarnate Saviour he was quite in harmony. He approved of their worship of the Creator, but could not tolerate their identification of Him with the God Whose especial people they claimed to be — and Whom he, in his polytheism, imagined to be an inferior divinity (S. Cyril, in Jul. iv. pp. 115, 141, 201, 343, 354, ed. Spanheim). The great task which lay nearest his heart was the restoration of heathenism to its former influence and power, and its rehabiUtation both in theory and practice. He composed an oration for the festival of the sun, no doubt that celebrated on Dec. 25, as the " Natalis Solis invicti," in connexion with the winter solstice. Though Constantinople had never been a heathen city, or polluted with public heathen ceremonies, he called this " the festival which the imperial city celebrates with annual sacrifices " (Orat. 4, p. 131 d). The main body of the oration is occupied with the obscure theorj' of the triple hierarchy of worlds: the k6<t/xos vo-qrbi or " intelligible world," the K6crf.ios i'oep6i or " intelligent," and the Kda/uot aiaffrjTos the " visible " or " phenomenal." In each of these three worlds there is a central principle, who is the chief object of worship and the fountain of power ; the Sun king being the centre of the inter- mediate or " intelligent " world. This ideal god was evidently a kind of counterpoise in Julian's theology to the Word of God, the mediator of the Christian Trinity (m^c'? th, ovK dirb Twv &Kp(j3v KpaOficra, reXe/a 5^ Kal d/xiyris a.<p' SXwv tQv deOiv ifj.(t>avC)v re Kal dtpafQv Kal e.l<Tdy}TQiv Kal vorjrCjv, i] rov ^acriX^ccs 'HX/oi' voepd, Kal 7rdyKa\o^ ovcria. p. 139 b, and tQv voepQv 0eu)v /x^aos iv /xiaoii Teray/x^vos Karci TvavTolav fxi(jf}Tr)Ta. Cf. Naville, Jul. VA. et sa philosophic du polythHsme, pp. 102 seq.). This oration should be read in connexion with the fifth oration " on the Mother of the Gods," which he delivered at her festival, apparently at the vernal equinox, and while still at Con- stantinople. It is chiefly an allegorical platonizing interpretation of the myth of Attis and Cybele, very different from the modern reference of it to the circle of the seasons. In the practice of all superstitious cere- monies, whether public or mystic, Julian was enthusiastic to the point of ridiculous osten- tation. He turned his palace into a temple. Every day he knew better than the priests themselves ^what festival was in the pagan calendar, and what sacrifice was required. JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS He himself acted as attendant, slaughterer, and priest, and had a passion for all the details of heathen ritual (Liban. Epitaph, p. 564, ad Jul. COS. pp. 394 seq. ; Greg. Orat. 5, 22, p. 161 ; de Broglie, iv. pp. 126, 127). No previous emperor had so highly prized his office of pontifex maximus, which Julian valued as equal to all the other imperial prerogatives (xaipei KaXov/xevos lepeiis ovx ^tou ij /SatJ-tXeiyj, Liban. ad Jul. cos. p. 394). In this capacity he apparently attempted to introduce something of the episcopal regimen into the loose system of the heathen priesthood, him- self occupying the papal or patriarchal chair (cf. Greg. Or. 4, ii.p. 138). Thus he appointed Theodorus chief priest of Asia and Arsacius of Galatia, with control over inferior priests ; the hierophant of Eleusis was set over Greece and Lydia, and Callixene made high priestess of Pessinus. {Ep. 63 Theodoro is early in his reign, and the long Fragmentum Epistolae may j be a sequel to it ; Ep. 49 Arsacio is later, as is that to CalUxene, Ep. 21. The appoint- ments of the hierophant and of Chrysanthius are described by Eunapius, I'ita Maximi, PP- 54. 57-) As chief pontiff he issued some remarkable instructions to his subordinates, some of which have been preserved. His " pastoral letters," as they may properly be called, to the chief priests of Asia and Galatia, shew a striking insight into the defects of heathenism considered as a religious ideal, and a clear attempt to graft upon it the more popular and attractive features of Christianity. He regrets several times that Christians and Jews are more zealous than Gentiles, espe- cially in charity to the poor {Ep. 49, pp. 430, 431 ; in Frag. p. 305 he refers to the influence of the Agape and similar institutions. In Ep. 63, p. 453 D, he describes the persistency of the Jews in abstaining from swine's flesh, etc.). He promises large endowments of com for distribution to the indigent and the sup- port of the priesthood ; and orders the establishment of guest-houses and hospitals {^€vo5ox(ia, Karayibyia ^ivuv Kal tttwx^'v, Soz. V. 16, Jul. Ep. 49, p. 430 c). In the very spirit of the Gospel he insists on the duty of giving clothing and food even to enemies and prisoners {Frag. pp. 290-291). " Who was ever impoverished," he writes, " by what he gave to his neighbours ? I, for my part, as often as I have been liberal to those in want, have received back from them many times as much, though I am but a bad man of business ; and I never repented of my liberaUty " (Frag. p. 290 c). Elsewhere he enters into minute details on the conduct and habits of the priesthood. He fixes the number of sacrifices to be offered by day and night, the deportment to be observed within and without the tem- ples, the priest's dress, his visits to his friends, his secret meditations and his private reading. The priest must peruse nothing scurrilous or indecent, such as Archilochus, Hipponax, or the old comedy ; nothing sceptical like Pyrrho and Epicurus ; no novels and love- tales ; but history and sound philosophy like Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics ; and must learn by heart the hymns to the gods, especially those sung in his own temple , {Frag. pp. 300-301 ; cf. Ep. 56, to Ecdicius, ordering him to train boys for the temple JDLIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS choirs). He must avuid theatres and taverns, and all public resorts where he is likely to hear or see auythiiic vulvar or indecent {Frai^. p. 304 B, c ; Ep. 40, p. 430 b). Not only ]iriests, but the sons of priests, are forbitlden to attend the " venationcs " or spectacles of wild beasts {Frag. p. 304 d). The true priest is to be considered superior, at least in the temple, to any public official, and to be honoured as the intercessor between gods and men {Frag. p. 296 B, c ; cf. the edict to the Byzantine apainst applauding himself in the Tychacuni, Ep. 64). He, however, who does not obey the I rules laid down for his conduct, is to be ] removed from his office (Frag. p. 297 ; Ep. j 49, p. 430 b) ; and we possess an edict of Julian's suspending a priest for three months for injury done to" a brother priest {Ep. 62). | Further, " he intended," says Gregory {Or. \ iv. Ill, p. 13S), "to establish schools in all : cities, and professorial chairs of different grades, and lectures on heathen doctrines, both in their bearings on moral practice and in explanation of their abstruser mysteries." Of such lectures, no doubt, he wished his own , orations on the Sun and the Mother of the Gods to be examples. Besides this imitation of Christian sermons and lectures, he desired to set up religious communities of men and women, vowed to chastity and meditation {a'^/VevTripid re Kai Trap6ev(Vfj.aTa icai <ppovTi- crrripia. cf. Soz. v. 1 61. These were institu- j tions familiar to Oriental heathenism, but out ' of harmony with the old Greek spirit of which J Julian professed himself so ardent an admirer. ; He was, indeed, unconsciously less a disciple j of Socrates than of the Hindu philosophy, a champion of Asian mysticism against Euro- pean freedom of thought. Julian used not only his literary and per- sonal influence and pontifical authority in favour of the worship of the gods, but also his imperial power. The temples where stand- ing wore reopened, or rebuilt at the expense of those who had destroyed them, and received back their estates, which had been to some extent confiscated under Constantius (Amm. xxii. 4, 3, " pasti ex his quidam templorum spoliis " ; Liban. Epitaph, p. 564, describes the general plan of restitution ; cf. his Ep. 624, Tracrt Krjpi'^ai KOfU<^(<T0ai ra aiTuii'.) A friend of the gods was as a friend of the emperor's, their enemy became his (Liban. /.c. andmore strongly p. 617). Yet direct persecution was forbidden and milder means of conversion practised {Ep. 7 to Artabius ; Liban. 564). Julian even bore with some patience the public attacks of the blind and aged Maris, Arian bp. of Chalcedon, who called him an " impious atheist," while he was sacrificing in the Tychacum of Constanti- nople. Julian replied only with a scoff at his infirmitv : " Not even your Galilean God will heal vou." Maris retorted, " I thank my God for my blindness which prevents me from seeing your apostasv," a rebuke which the emperor ignored (Soz. v. '4, where we must of course read rvxalv for r«x/w. cf. Jul. Ep. 64, liyzantinis). Not a few persons of position apostatized, among them JuHan's maternal uncle Julianus. his former tutor Hecebolius, the officials Felix, Modestus, and Elpidius, and the former bp. of Ilium Novum, Pegasius, all of whom were rewarded by promotion. (Philost. vu. 10; JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 587 So( r. iii. n ; I iban. /re Attstnphanr, pp. 435. 4 V>. and Ep. 17 ; Greg. Naz. Or. iv. 62, j>. lo.i : Jul. F.p. 78; cf. Sievers, l.ihantus, p. 105. On the readiness of many of thrsr ri>nvrrt« to ret>iru to the church rf. Astrrius of .Aniava, Horn, in At'aritiam, p. 227, and Hom. xix. in Psalm. V. p. 433, Migne.) Hut the iiutnhrr of these new converts was less than nuRht perhaps have been exi^ected from the diviclrd state of the church and the |i>w standard of court Christianity under Constantius. It wa» far less, no doubt, than Julian's sanguine expectations. Caesarius, as wc have vrn, stood firm, and so did three prominent officers in the army, destined to be his successors in the empire — Jovian, Valentinian, and Valrns (Valentinian was banished, Soz. vi. 6 ; Philost. vii. 7 ; cf. (Ireg. Or. iv. 6^, p. 106). The steadfastness of the court and the army was indeed sorely tried. The monogram of Christ was removed from tlie I abaruin, and rei^laccd hv the old S.P.O.F<. ; and heathen svmbols again began t<i appear upon the coinage, and upon statues and pictures of the emperor, so that it was difficult to pay him respect without appearing to bow to an idol. (Greg. Or. iv. 80,81, pp. 116, 117; Sorr. vi. 17. Socrates probably somewhat exaggerates. The ob- scure letter of Julian to a painter, F.p. 65, appears to reprimand him for painting him without his customary images in his hands or bv his side.) J ulian even condescended to a trick to entrap a number of his soldiers, prob- ably of the praetorian guard, by persuading them to offer incense when receiving a dona- ! five from his hands (Soz. v. 17 ; Greg. Or iv. 83, 84, pp. 118, no ; cf. Rode, p. 62). Some of the s<tldicrs, on discovering the snare from the jeers of their com])anions, protested loudly and threw down their money ; and Julian, in (■..iisequence, dismissed all Christians from his liMdvguard (Greg. I.e.; Socr. iii. 13). Many common soldiers were doubtless less firm, and conformed, at least outwardly, but the sub- sequent election of Jovian by the army of ' Persia looks as if their cimviclion was not deep). (Liban. ad Jul. cos. Jan. i, 363. P- 399 : Greg. Or. iv. 64. <>.S, p. 106; St. Chr>-s. de Babyla contra Jultanum, § 23, vol. ii. pp. 686. 687,' ed. Gaume ; cf. Sievers. Libamus, pp. I 107-109). It was pretty well understood ' that no Christian official would be promoted to high civil functions, while converts like Felix and Elpidius were. Julian is reportetl to have stated in an edict that the Christian law forbade its subjects to wield the sword of justice and therefore he could not commit the government of provinces to them. Such a sentiment w-.uld be characteristic, and this edict is probably an historical fact (Kufin. i. 32), but perhaps did not extend to persons ;ilr< ady in office or in the army, unli-«* they offered resistance to the course of events. ' Other measures were aimed at the clergv as a body, and intended to reduce the church \ generally to the position which it held before Constantine. The church surtrred as much perhaps as private owners of proixrty by ttie order to restore the temples aiul refund temple lands. The clergy and widows who had re- ceived grants from the municipal revenues were deprived of them and obliged to repay their previous receipts— an act of great in- 688 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS justice (Soz. V. 5). The church lost its power of inheritance, and its ministers the privileges of making wills and of jurisdiction in certain cases (Jul. Ep. 52, p. 437 a, Bostrenis). But perhaps what was felt most of all was the loss of immunity from personal taxation and from the service of the curiae or municipal councils, who were held responsible for the taxes of their district. A short decree issued on Mar. JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS shewed a further advance in intolerance and in- consistency. Julian determined to take the control of education into the hands of the state. On June 17, while e» rou^e between Constanti- nople and Antioch, he issued an edict, promul- gated at Spoleto, to the Western empire, on June 28. This document said nothing about Christian teachers, but required for all professors and schoolmasters a diploma of approval from 13, 362, made all persons, formerly privileged 1 the municipal council in every city before they as Christians, liable to the office of decurion | might teach. This was to be forwarded to (Cod. Theod. xii. i, 50). We may readily j himself for counter-signature (Cod. Theod. admit that the church would have been safer -■•" - -' -rt-:- ^ --^- -~ j„..v.4. and holier without some of its privileges, which bound it too closelv to the state. But to abolish them all at once, without warning, was a very harsh proceeding, which caused much suffering, and Ammianus only spoke the general opinion when he censured the conduct of his hero (Amm. xxv. 4, 21, cf. xxii. 9, 12) xiii. 3, 5). This power of veto was no doubt aimed at Christian teachers ; and another edict, supposed to have been issued soon after, struck an open and violent blow at the church. This may have been issued even earlier ; it can hardly have been much later (Ep. 42, with no title or date) . 1 1 declares that " only a cheat and charlatan will teach one thing while he thinks A Greek decree of apparently the same date, another. All teachers, especially those who in- addressed to the Byzantines — i.e. the citizens of j struct the young, ought . . . not to oppose the Constantinople — extended this measure to all privileged persons whatsoever, except those who had " done public service in the metropolis " — i.e. probably, those who had as consuls or praetors exhibited costly games for the public amusement (Ep. 11) ; a later decree also confirming the " chief physicians" in their im- munities (Cod. Theod. xiii. 3-4, nearly equivalent to Ep. 25*). In the spring of this year, while he was still at Constantinople, the affairs of the church of Alexandria attracted Julian's attention, and led to the first decided step which violated his policy of personal toleration. The intruded Arian bishop, George of Cappadocia, had made himself equally detested by pagans and Catholics. On Dec. 24 he was foully mur- dered by the former (without any intervention of Christians) in a riot. Dracontius, master of the mint, who had overturned an altar common belief and try to insinuate their own. . . . Now Homer, Hesiod, Demosthenes, Hero- dotus, Thucydides, Isocrates, and Lysias all founded their learning upon the gods, and con- sidered themselves dedicated to Hermes or the Muses. It is monstrous, then, that those who teach these writers should dishonour their gods. I do not wish them to change their religion that they may retain their offices, but I give them the choice, either not to teach, or, if they prefer to do so, to teach at the same time that none of these authors is guilty of folly or impiety in his doctrine about the gods. . . . If teachers think these authors which they expound wise, and draw philosophy from them, let them emulate their religion. If they think them in error, let them go to the churches of the Galileans and expound Mat- thew and Luke, who forbid our sacrifices. I wish, however, the ears and tongues of you recently set up in his office, and Diodorus, who { Christians may be ' regenerated,' as you would wasbui'lding a church and gave offence to pagan prejudices by cutting short the hair of some boys employed under him, were both torn to pieces in the same sedition (Amm. xxii. 11, 9). Julian WTote an indignant reprimand to the people, but inflicted no punishment (Ep. 10, Amm. I.e. ; cf. Julian's letter to Zeno, Ep. 45). On Feb. 22 St. Athanasius was again seatedupon his throne amid the rejoicing of the people. Julian saw in him an enemy he could not afford ] sons to such schools to tolerate. He wrote to the Alexandrians (ap- [ Gregory, as if from th sav, by these writings which I value so much.' Christians considered the decree practically to exclude them from the schools. For J ulian expressly orders all teachers to insist on the religious side of their authors. Grammar- schools were to become seminaries of pagan- ism. No indifferent or merely philological teaching was to be allowed. No sincere Christian parents therefore could send their A quotation given by decree, is not found in parently at once), saying that one so often banished by royal decree ought to have awaited special permission to return ; that in allowing the exiled bishops to come back he didnot mean to restore them to their churches ; .\thanasius, he feared, had resumed his " episcopal throne," to the great disgust of " god-fearing Alexandrians." He therefore ordered him to leave the city at once, on pain of greater punishment (Ep. 26). Athanasius braved the emperor's wrath and did not leave Alexandria, except, perhaps, for a time. Public feeling was with him, and an appeal was apparently forwarded to the emperor to reconsider his sentence. (Ep. 51, written probably in Oct. 362, speaks of Athanasius as eTrifjjroiVfos by the Alexandrians.) The sequel of this appeal will appear later. Another change of policy about this time the text of the edict as we have it (Or. 4, 102, p. 132). Perhaps he may be quoting some other of J ulian's writings, e.g. the books against the Christians. The words are characteristic : " Literature and the Greek language are naturally ours, who are worshippers of the gods ; illiterate ignorance and rusticity are yours, whose wisdom goes no further than to say ' believe.' " The last taunt is borrowed from Celsus (Origen, c. Celsum, i. 9). Two celebrated men gave up their posts rather than submit to this edict — Prohaeresius of Athens, whom many thought superior to Libanius, and C. Marius Victorinus of Rome. Julian had already made overtures to the former (Ep. 2), and even ofiered to except him from the action of the edict ; but he refused to be put in a better condition than his fellows (Hieron. Chron. sub anno 2378 ; cf. Eunap. JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS. FLAVlUS CLAUDIUS 689 Prohaeresius, p. 92 ; Himerius, p. 95 ; and Frag. 76, p. 544, ed. Boissonade). Victoriniis was equally famous at Rome, and his con- stancy was a subject of just glory to the church (see the interesting account of his conversion, etc. in August. Coiif. viii. 2-5)- Attempts were made to supply the place of classical literature by putting iiistorical and doctrinal portions of Scripture into dreek prose and verse. Thus the elder Apolmnakis wrote 24 books in hexameters, which were to form a substitute for Homer, on the Biblical history up to the reign of Saul, and produced tragedies, UtIcs, and even comedies on Bibli- cal subjects (Soz. v. 18). The younger Apol- linaris reduced the writings of the N.T. into the form of Platonic dialogues (Socr. iii. 16) ; and some of the works of Victorinus in Latin, such as the poem on the seven Maccabean brothers, and various hymns, may have been written with the same aim (cf. Teuffel, Gesch. der Rom. Lit. § 384, 7), as also the Greek tragedy, still extant, of Christus patien.<;. Whatever their merit, these books could not properly supply the place of the classical training; and if Julian had lived and this edict had been put in force for any time, it would have been a very dangerous injury to the faith. (Socrates has some very good remarks on this subject, iii. 16.) § 5. Julian's Journey through Asia Minor — (May to July 362). — After a sojourn of about five months in Constantinople Julian began to think of foreign affairs. Fears of internal resistance were removed by the surrender of Aquileia, which had been seized by some troops of Constantius. He determined upon an expe- dition against Persia, the only power he thought worthy of his steel. Shortly after May 12 he set out upon a progress through Asia Minor to Antioch. He passed through Nicaea into Galatia, apparently as far as Ancyra, from which place, perhaps, he dispatched the edict about education just described (.•Vmm. xxii. 9, 5. If the law. Cod. Just. i. 40, 5, is rightly attributed to Julian, he was at Anc\Ta on May 28, to which visit belongs a somewhat hyperbolical inscription celebrating his tri- umphant march from the Western Ocean to the Tigris, beginning, do.mino totivs orbis 1 IVLIANO AVGVSTO EX OCEANO BRI | TAN- Nico (C. /. L. iii. 247, Orell. 1109, Wilmanns 1089). From Ancyra he visited Pessinus in Phrygia to pay homage to the famous sanc- tuary of the Mother of the Gods, at which he offered large and costly presents (.A.mm. I.e. ; Liban. ad Jul. cos. p. 398). The oration in honour of this deity, who, with the Sun-god, was Julian's chief object of veneration, was probably delivered earlier; but he took occasion about this time to vindicate the doctrine of Diogenes from the aspersions of false and luxu- rious cynics {Or. vi. ets tous airaidfirroi'S AriVai, delivered about the summer solstice, p. 181 a). He was not satisfied with the progress of heathenism amongst the people of the pilace {Ep. 49, Arsacio pontifict Galatiae, ad fin.). .\t Anc>Ta, according to the Acts of the Martyrs, a presbyter named Basil was accused of exciting the people against the gods and speaking injuriously of the emperor and his apostate courtiers. Basil was cruelly treated in his presence, and, after a second trial, was put to death by red-hot irons (Boll. Mar. as ; also in Kuinart, Acta .Mart. Sincrra. p. 3^9; Soz. n. 11). (Basimus or Ascyka.) Julian left Ancyra, accordiuR to the same Act«, on June 29, and soon after was met by a crowd of litigants, some clamouring for a restoration of their property, others complaining that thev were unjustly forced into the curia, othrr» accusing their neighbours of treason. Julian shewed no leniency to the second riass, even when they had a strung case, bring deter- mined to allow as few imminiitics as possible. To the rest he was just and fair, and an amusiuK instance is recorded of the summary way he disposed of a feeble charge of treason (Amin. xxii. 9, 12 ; cf. XXV. 4, 21). In Cappadixia his ill-humour was roused by finding almost all the people Christian. " Come, I beseech you," he writes to the philosopher Aristoxenus, " and meet me at Tyana, and shew us a genuine Greek amongst these Cappadocians. As far as 1 have seen, either the people will not sacrifice, or the very few that are ready to do so are ignorant of our ritual " (Ep. 4). He had already shewn his anger against the people of Caesarca, the capital of the jirovince, who had dared, after his accession, to destroy the Temple of For- tune, the last that remained standinn in their city. According to Sozomen (v. 4), he erased the city from the " list of the empire and called it by its old name Mazaca." He fined the Christians 300 pounds of gold, confiscated church property, and enrolled the ecclesiastics in themilitia of the province, besides imposing a heavy poll-tax on the Christian laity. Hut either these severe measures must have been justified by great violence on the part of the Ciiristians or Sozomen's account is exaggerated ; fi>r Gregory Nazianzen says that it is perhaps nL>t fair to reproach him with his violent conduct to the Caesareans, and speaks of hini as " justly indignant " {Or. 4, 92, p. 126). Such mild language in this instance may well make us attach more weight to Gregory's statements astojulian'smisdoingsonother occasions. The emperor was further incensed by the tumul- tuous election of Eusebius to the bishopric of Caesarea, in which the soldiers of the garrison took part. This Eusebius was still a catechu- men, but a man of official rank and influence, known to be an enemy of the emperor (Greg. Or. in Patrem, xviii. 33, p. 354)- The .Id.r Gr.gory firmly resisted theremonstrancesoftheguverni>r of the province, who was sent to him by J uhan, and the storm passed awav {ib. 34, p. 355). " Youknewus," cried (iregory, " y*)U knew Basil and myself from the time of your soj.iurn in Greece, and you paid us the compliment whii h the Cvclops paid Ulysses, and kept us to l»c swallowed last " {Or. '5, 39, p. 174)- The silence of Gregory may be taken as clenching the arguments from style against the genuineness of the supposed correspondence between Julian and St. Basil, which would otherwise be assigned to this date (see pp. 4<>o f.). The letters referred to are Epp. 40, 41. >" t*'* editicms of St. Basil, the first of these- Jul. Ep. 75 (77 Heyler) ; cf. Kode. p. «(>. note 11. A more pleasant reception awaited lulian in the neighbouring province, Cilicia. Enter- ing it bv the famous pass of the Pylae Ciliciae, he was met by the governor, his friend Cclsus, 690 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS once his fellow-student, aad probably his confidant at Athens, who greeted him with a panegyric — a greeting more agreeable to Julian than the customary presents made to emperors in their progresses (Amm. xxii. 9, 13; Liban. £^f<. p. 575, and£/7. 648). Julian shewed his high esteem for his encomiast by taking him up into his chariot and entering with him into Tarsus, a city which evidently pleased him by its welcome. Celsus accom- panied him to' the southern boundary of his province, a few leagues N. of Antioch. Here they were met by a large crowd, among whom was Libanius (Liban. de Vita Sua, p. 81 ; Ep. 648 ; see Sievers, Libanius, p. 91). He reached Antioch before July 28, the date of a law found in both the Codes, permitting pro- vincial governors to appoint inferior judges or judices pedanei (Cod. Theod. i. 68 = Corf. Just. iii. 3- 5 ; cf. C. I. L. iii. 459)- § 6. Julian's Residence at Antioch (July 362 to March 5, 363). — The eight months spent at Antioch left Julian yet more bitter against the church, and less careful to avoid injustice to its members, in fact countenancing per- secution even to death, though in word still forbidding it and proclaiming toleration. (Libanius says that Juhan spent nine months at Antioch, Epit. p. 578, 15, but it is hard to make more than eight.) The narrative of this period may be divided into an account of [a] his relations with the citizens of Antioch ; (b) his relations to the church at large ; (c) attempt to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem. (a) Internal State of Antioch.— On. his en- trance into the city Libanius greeted him in a speech in which he congratulated him on bringing back at once the ancient rites of sacrifice and the honour to the profession of rhetoric [Prosphoneticus Juliano, ed. Reiske, i. p. 405). But other sounds saddened Julian with a presage of his coming doom. It was the festival of the lamentation for Adonis, and the air resounded with shrieks for the lover of Venus, cut down in his prime as the green corn fails before the heat of the summer sun. This ill-omened beginning was followed by other equally unpropitious circumstances, and the residence of Julian at Antioch was a dis- appointment to himself and disagreeable to almost all the inhabitants. He was impatient, or soon became so, to engage upon his Persian campaign ; but the difficulty of making the necessary preparations in time determined him to pass the winter at the Syrian capital (Liban. Epit. p. 576 ; Aram. xxii. 10, i). He had anticipated much more devotion on the part of the pagans and much less resistance on that of the Christians. He was disgusted to find that both parties regretted the pre- vious reign —" Neither the Chi nor the Kappa" (i.e. neither Christ nor Constantius) " did our city any harm " became a common saying (Misopogon, p. 357 a). To the heathens themselves the enthusiastic form of reUgion to which Julian was devoted w.as little more than an unpleasant and somewhat vulgar anachronism. His cynic asceticism and dislike of the theatre and the circus was unpopular in a city particularly addicted to public spectacles. His superstition was equally unpalatable. The short, untidy, long- bearded man, marching pompously in pro- JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS cession on the tips of his toes, and swaying his shoulders from side to side, surrounded by a crowd of abandoned characters, such as formed the regular attendants upon many heathen festivals, appeared seriously to com- promise the dignity of the empire. The blood of countless victims flowed everywhere, but seemed to serve merely to gorge his foreign soldiery, especially the semi-barbarous Gauls ; and the streets of Antioch were disturbed by their revels (Amm. xxii. 12, 6). Secret rumours spread of horrid nocturnal sacrifices and of the pursuit of arts of necromancy from which the natural heathen conscience shrank only less than the Christian. The wonder is, not that Julian quarrelled with the Antioch- enes, but that he left the city without a greater explosion than actually took place. Not a little of the irritation between the emperor and the citizens was centred upon the suburb of the city, called Daphne, a delicious cool retreat in which, as it was fabled, the nymph beloved by Apollo had been trans- formed into a laurel. Here was a celebrated temple of the god, and a spring that bore the name of Castalian, in former days the favour- ite haunt of the gay, the luxurious, and the vicious. Gallus had counteracted the genius loci by transposing to it the relics of the martyr bp. Babylas, whose chapel was erected opposite the temple of Apollo. The worship of the latter had almost ceased, and JuUan, going to Daphne in Aug. (Loiis), to keep the annual festival of the Sun-god, was surprised to find no gathering of worshippers. He himself had returned for the purpose from a visit to the temple of Zeus Casius, several leagues distant. To his disgust the city had provided no sacrifice, and only one poor priest appeared, offering a single goose at his own expense. Julian rated the town council soundly (Misop. pp. 361 d, seq.). He took care that in future sacrifices should not be wanting, and eagerly consulted the oracle and un- stopped the Castalian spring. After a long silence he learnt that Apollo was disturbed by the presence of the " dead man," i.e. Babylas. " I am surrounded by corpses," said the voice, " and I cannot speak till they are removed " (Soz. V. 19 ; Chrys. de S. Bab. § 15, p. 669 ; Liban. Monodia in Daphnen, vol. iii. p. 333). All the corpses were cleared away, but espe- cially that of the martyr (Amm. xxii. 12, 8 ; Misop. p. 361 B). A remnant of religious awe perhaps prevented Julian from destroying the relics of which his actions practically acknow- ledged the power, and they were eagerly seized by the Christians and borne in triumph to Antioch. The procession along the five miles from Daphne to the city chanted aloud Ps. xcvii. : " Confounded be all they that worship carved images and that delight in vain gods." Julian, incensed by this person- ality, forced the prefect Sallustius, much against his will, to inquire into it with severity and punish those concerned. One young man, Theodorus, was hung upon the rack (e^juuleus) and cruelly scourged with iron nails for a whole day, till he was supposed to be dying. Rufinus, the church historian, who met him in after-life, asked him how he bore the pain. Theodorus replied that he had felt but little, for a young man stood by him JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS C91 wiping ofi tlu> sweat of liis aj;»iiv and com- forting liini all tin- time (Kntin. i. 33, 36, re- ferred to by Soc. iii. 19, and given in kuinart, Ada Martyrum, p. 604, ed. Kabisbou. iSso). The anger of Julian was also braved by a widow named Publia, the head of a small community of Christian virgins, who sang in his hearing the Psalms against idols and against the enemies of God. She was brought before a court and buffeted on the face with severity, but dismissed (Theod. iii. 19). Shortly after the translation of the relics of St. Babylas to Antioch, on the night i^)f Oct. 22, the temple of Daphne itself was burnt to the ground. The heathens accused the Christians of maliciously setting it on lire ; they attri- buted it to fire from heaven and the prayers of St. Babylas. A story also got about that Asclepiades the cynic had left a number of lighted candles burning in the shrine (.\uun. xxii. 13 ; Soz. V. 20 ; Chrys. de S. Bab. § 17, p. 674). Julian's wrath was intense. He accused the Christians of the deed, and sus- pected the priests of knowing about it {Misofy. pp. 346 B, 361 B, c). As a punishment he ordered the cathedral church of Antioch to be closed, and confiscated its goods (Amm. xxii. 13, 2 ; Soz. v. 8). The order was exe- cuted by his uncle Julianus, now count of the East, with all the zeal of a new convert and with circumstances of disgusting profanity. Theodorct, a presbyter, who still collected a congregation of the fiiithful, was tortured and beheaded (Ruinart, Acta Mart. p. 605). The Christian account tells us that Julian reproved his uncle as having brought liim into disgrace, but in the Misopugon he gives him nothing but praise (»6. p. 607, Misop. p. 365 c). The count's miserable death, which followed soon after, was naturally treated as a judgment from heaven (Soz. v. 8 ; Theod. iii. 12, etc.). That of Felix, another renegade, had, a little earlier, been equally remarkable for its suddenness. The two were regarded as a presage of the emperor's own doom, for now that Julianus and Felix were gone, Augustus would soon f'jllow, a play upon the imperial title Julianus Felix .Augustus (.\mm. xxiii. i, 5). This was a trivial saying, but calculated to disquiet and irritate a mind like Julian's. Antioch meanwhile was afflicted by a dearth, which almost became a famine, and the emperor's efforts to alleviate it failed. He imported a large quantity of grain from Egypt, and fixed the market price at a low figure. Speculators bought up his importa- tions, and would not sell their own stores, and soon there was nothing in the markets. J ulian declared that the fault was in the magistrates, and tried in vain to infuse some of his own public spirit into the farmers and merchants (Liban. Lpit. p. 587). The town council were sent to prison (Amm. xxii. 14, 2 ; Liban. Epil. p. 588). Their confinement, however, did not last a day, and they were released by the intercession of Libanlus. who tells us that he was not deterred from his petition by the sarcastic hint that the Orontes was not far off (de Vita Sua, vol. i. p. 85). The whole winter, indeed, was clouded with misfortunes. On Dec. 2 the rest of Nicomedia was des- troyed by earthquake, and a large part of Nicaea suffered with it (.\nim. xxii. 13, 5). News was l.ioUf;ht tli.it Coii>t.iiitiuoi,|,. was m danger from tin- s.mie c.iuse. ami some suggested that the wrath of the carlh-shakfr Poseidon must be appeased. This gave j ulian, who had a real affection for the citv, an oppor- tunity of showing his cnthusiasni. He stood all day long in the open air, un<l.r rain and storm, in a fixed ami rigid attitude, like an Indian yogi, while his courtiers looked on in amazement from under cover. It was calcu- lated afterwards that the earthquake stopped on the very dav of the imp.rial intercession, and Julian, it is said, took no li.iriii from his exposure (l.iban. Kpit. \k ySi). Hut this partial success did not make him feel secure of the favour of the gods. He was convinced that Apollo had deserted Daphne and the other deities were not propitious. Even the day of his entering the consulship, J.m. i, ^h], graced with an oration of I.ibanius (aJ Jul. imp. consulem), was disfigured by a bad omen : a priest fell dead on the steps of the temple of the Genius. This was the more annoying, as he had no doubt intended to make his fourth consul- ship mark a new era by taking as his colleague his old friend Sallustius prefect of the ( iauls, an honour paid to no one outside the imperial family since the days of Di.K-letian (Amm. xxiii. I, i). At the same time too he received news of the failure of the attempt (see (f), infra) to rebuild the temple at Jerusalem (Amm. xxiii. i, 3). Meanwhile his designs for involving the city in heathen rites caused considerable ex- citement and odium. He profaned the fountains of the city of Daphne according to Christian ideas, and consecrated them according to his own, by thr(jwing into them a portion of his sacrifices, so that all who used them might be partakers with the gods, and for a similar reason ordered all things sold in the market, such as bread, meat, and vege- tables, to be sprinkled with lustral water. The Christians complained but followed the precept of the apostle in eating freely all things sold in public, without inquiry (Theod. iii. 15). Two young oflicers, Juventinus and Maximinus, were one day lamenting this state of things, and quoted the wonls from the (ireek Daniel, c. iii. 32, " Thou hast delivered us to a lawless king, to an apostate bevond all the heathen that are in the earth." Their words were repeated by an informer, and they were ordered to appear before the emperor. They declared the cause of their complaint, the only one (as they said) which they had to bring against his government. They were thrown into prison, and friends were sent to pnjinise them large rewards if they would change their religion ; but they stood firm, and were beheaded in the middle' of the night, on the charge of having spoken evil of the emperor (Chrvs. in Juvent. el Max. 3 ; cf. Theod. iii. 15). The date of this " mar- tyrdom " may have been Jan. 25, as it appears in Latin calendars (Boll. Jan. p. 61S). Julian discharged his spleen upon the Antiochenes by writing one of the most re- markable satires ever published — the Misopu- gon. " He had been insulted," says Gibbon, "by satires and libels; in his turn hecomposed, under the title of The Enemy of the Heard, an ironical confession (^f his uwn faults .uid a 592 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS severe satire on the licentious and effeminate manners of Antioch. The imperial reply was publicly exposed before the gates of the palace, and the Misopogon still remains a singular monument of the resentment, the wit, the humanity, and the indiscretion of Julian " {Decline and Fall, c. 24, vol. 3, p. 8, ed. Bohn). Julian's own philosophic beard gives the title to the pamphlet, which throws much light upon the character of the emperor. In form it is a dialogue between himself and the people, in which he describes his own virtues under the colour of vices, and their vices as if they were virtues. Occasionally he lays aside his irony and directly expresses his indignation against them, and reveals his own character with a humorous simplicity that in turn attracts and repels us. This pamphlet was written in the seventh month of his sojourn at Antioch, probably, that is, in thelatter half of Jan. ; and he left the city in the first week of March. " I turn my back upon a city full of all vices, insolence, drunkenness, incontinence, impiety, avarice, and impu- dence," were his last words to Antioch (Liban. Legatio ad Jul. pp. 469 seq.). (b) Julian's Relation to the Church at Large during his Residence at Antioch. — The general object of the emperor's policy was to degrade Christianity and to promote heathenism by every means short of an edict of persecution or the imposition of a general penalty on the profession of the faith. We do not possess the text of many of Julian's edicts, a number of which were naturally removed from the statute book. We know that he ordered the temples to be reopened and their estates to be restored, but we do not know the terms in which this order was couched. Probably he used bitter lan- guage against the " atheists " and " Gali- leans," ordering all chapels of mart>TS built within the sacred precincts to be destroyed, and all relics of " dead men " to be sum- marily removed. Something of this kuid must have been the awdT^fxa or " signal," of which he speaks in the Misopogon as having been followed by the neighbouring "holy cities" of SvTia with a zeal and enthusiasm which exceeded even his wishes {Misop. p. 361 a ; Soz. p. 20, ad fin., mentions an order to destroy two Christian chapels near the temple of Apollo Didymaeus at Miletus). This con- fession from his own mouth goes far to justify the statements of his opponents. Riots oc- curred in consequence of this " signal " in many cities, particularly of Syria and the East, where the Christians were numerous and popular passion was strong. The details of Julian's relation to some of these cases form perhaps the gravest stains upon his character. The earliest case after his entry into An- tioch which can be dated exactly was that of Titus, bp. of Bostra, in Arabia Auranitis. Julian had informed Titus that he should be held responsible for any breach of the peace (Soz. V. 15, p. 102 b). The bishop answered by a memorial, declaring that the Christian population was equal in numbers to the heathen but that under his influence and that of their clergy they were careful to abstain from sedition {ib.). Julian on Aug. i, 362, replied by a public letter to the people of Bostra, representing this language as an imper- JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS tinence, and calumniating Titus as the accuser of the Christian body. After quoting the memorial of Titus, he proceeds : " These are the words of the bishop concerning you. Ob- serve, he does not ascribe your regularity to your own inclination ; unwillingly, he says, you refrain ' by his exhortations.' Do you then use your wills, and expel him as your accuser from your city. . . . Such is their fate who turn from the worship of the immortal gods to dead men and relics " {Ep. 52). A month or two later, probably in Oct., he continued his attack upon Athana'sius, the first acts of which have already been described. The great champion had never left Alexandria, or had soon returned. Julian was thoroughly enraged to find his first order had not been executed. He wrote angrily to the prefect Ecdicius: " I swear by great Serapis if he does not leave Alexandria and every part of Egypt, by the ist of Dec, I will fine your cohort a hundred pounds of gold. You know that I am slow to condemn, but when I have condemned much slower in pardoning," add- ing in his own hand, " I am thoroughly pained at being treated in this way with contempt. By all the gods, no sight, or rather no news, of your doings could give me greater pleasure than that of Athanasius being driven from Egypt, the scoundrel who in my reign has dared to baptize Greek ladies of rank. Let him be expelled " (Ep. 6). At the same time he wrote to the people of Alexandria, mingling personal abuse of their bishop with arguments to enforce the worship of Serapis and the visible gods, the sun and moon, and to de- preciate the worship of " Jesus, Whom neither you nor your fathers have seen," and " Whose doctrine has done nothing for your city." " We have long ago ordered him," he con- cludes, " to leave the city, now we banish him from the whole of Egypt " [Ep. 51). The news of these decrees was brought to Athanasius on Oct. 23, and he felt it time to depart. " Be of good heart," he said to those who clustered round him, " it is but a cloud ; it will soon pass " (Ruf. i. 32 ; Festal Epistles, Chronicle, p. 14, for the date). During the rest of J ulian's reign he lived in retirement in the monasteries of the Egyptian desert. To Hecebolius (who was perhaps his old master advanced to some place of authority) he wrote concerning a sedition at Edessa, in much the same terms as he had written to the people of Bostra, but apparently with more justice. " 1 have always used the Galileans well, and abstained from violent measures of conversion ; but the Arians, luxuriating in their wealth, have treated the Valentinians in a manner which cannot be tolerated in a well- ordered city. In order, therefore, that they may enter more easily into the kingdom of Heaven in the way which their wonderful law bids them, I have ordered all the money of the church of Edessa to be seized for division amongst the soldiers, and its estates to be confiscated " {Ep. 43, cf. Rufin. i. 32 ; Socr. iii. 13). This twisting of the gospel precept against the church is a close parallel to the alleged edict forbidding Christians to exercise the sword of the magistrate, and sup- ports its authenticity (so Rode, p. 85, n. 9, see supra). Another disturbance was reported JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS as occurrini; botwooii ttu- cities of ("i.iza and Maiuma in Palestine. The latter, originally a suburb of Gaza, had been raised by Constantius to the rank of an independent corporation. The people of Gaza had successfully peti- tioned the new emperor for a withdrawal of these privileges, and now in their exultation attacked their neighbours, and set fire to their chapels, with other acts of violence. Three brothers of a resi)ectable family named Euse- bius, Nestabus, and Zeno, were murdered with circumstances of great atrocity. The people were considerably alarmed by fear of what the emperor might do, and the governor arrested some of the ringleaders, who were brought to Antioch. In this case Julian's sense of justice seems entirely to have deserted him. Not only was no reprimand addressed to the people of Gaza, but the governor was himself put on his trial and deprived of his office. " What great matter is it if one Greek hand has slain ten Galileans ? " were words well calculated to bear bitter Iruit wherever they were repeated, and equivalent, as Gregory argues, to an edict of persecution (Greg. Or. 4, 93, p. 127 ; Sozomen — a Gazene himself — v. 9). Rode accepts most of this story, but re- jects without sufficient reason the words attributed to Julian, p. 92, n. 12, who did and said many things in a fit of passion, of which his cooler judgment disapproved. Dis- turbances against the Christians broke out in many parts of Palestine. Holy places and holy' things were profaned, and Christian people maltreated, tortured, and destroyed, sometimes in the most abominable manner (Chron. Pasch. p. 546, ed. Bonn. ; Soz. v. 21 ; Philost. vii. 4). Meanwhile Mark, bp. of Arethusa, a small town in Syria, who was said to have saved the life of the infant Julian, had refused to pay for the restoration of a temple which he had destroyed in the preceding reign. He was scourged in public, his beard was torn, his naked body was smeared with honey and hung up in a net exposed to the stings of insects and the fierce rays of the Syrian sun. Nothing could be wrung from him, and he was at last set free, a conqueror (Greg. Or. 4, 88-91, pp. 122-125 ; Soz. V. 10). Wherever he went, he was surrounded by admirers, and this case became a warning to the more temperate and cautious pagans not to proceed to extremities. Libanius intercedes for an offender, lest he should turn out another Mark {Ep. 730) ; and Sallust, the prefect of the East, admonished Julian for the disgrace this fruitless contest with an old man brought upon the pagan cause (Greg. I.e. ; Sallust's name is not men- tioned, but his office and character are de- scribed with sufficient clearness). (c) .Attempt to rebuild the Temple at Jerusa- lem. — Julian had apparently for some time past wished to conciliate the Jewish people, and was quite ready to grant Jehovah a place amongst the other' local deities (cf. Frag. p. 295 c ; St. Cyril, in Spanheim's Julian, pp. 99, 100, and p. 305, on Sacrifice). It seems probable, therefore, that his chief motive in wishing to restore the temple at Jerusalem was the desire to increase the number of divinities who were propitious to him, and to gain the favour of the Jewish God in the prose- JULIANUS. PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 593 cution of his I'lisi.ui cami>.li^;n. This is substantially the account given by Socrates, who tells us that he summoned the Jews to him and asked why they did not offer sacrifice. They replied that it was not lawful for them to do so, except at Jerusalem, and he there- fore determined to rebuild the temple of Solomon (Socr. iii. 20). This account agrees best with the statements of the emperor him- self in his epistles and in his books against the Christians, and other motives attributed to him may be considered as subordinate (cf. Greg. Or. 5, 3, p. 149 ; Rufin. i. 37 ; Soz. v. 21). There is, however, an air of great prob* ability in the statement of Philostorgius that he wished to falsify the prediction of our Blessed Lord as to the utter destruction of the temple (vii. 9). Nor could the enmity of the Jews against the Christians be otherwise than very pleasing to him (Greg. I.e. iratpriKt koI t6 'loi'Soiwi' (pvXov i^^itf). Julian provided very large sums for the work, and entrusted its execution to the oversight of Alypius of .\ntioch, an officer who had been employed by him in Britain and who was his intimate persona! friend (.-Vrnm. xxiii. i. 2 ; Epp. 29 and 30 are addressed to him). The Jews were exultant and eager to contribute their wealth and their labour. The rubbish was cleared away and the old foundations were laid bare. But a stronger power intervened. To quote the words of .A-mmianus: "Whilst Alypius was strenuously forcing on the work, and the governor of the province was lending his assistance, fearful balls of flames, bursting out with frequent assaults near the founda- tions, and several times burning the workmen, rendered access to the spot impossible ; and in this way the attempt came to a standstill through the determined obstinacy of the cle- ment" (xxiii. I, 3). No doubt the Christians saw in this defeat of their oppressor not only a miracle of divine power, but a pecu- lliariy striking fulfilment of the old prophecies I in which fire is so often spoken of as the em- blem and instrument of judgment {e.g. Ueut. xxxii. 22, Jer. xxi. 14, and particularly, per- ! haps, the historical description of Lam. iv. ir, ' " The Lord hath accomplished His fury ; He hath poured out His fierce anger, and hath I kindled a fire in Zion, and it hath devoured I the foundations thereof"). They thought ! also, of course, of our Lord's own words, now i more completely verified than ever. Julian retained his wide knowledge of the text of Scripture, as we see by his writings, and these prophecies doubtless irritated him by their literal exactness. The " glot.i flammarum prope fundavwnta erumpentes" of the heathen I iiistorian are an undesigned coincidence with the words of Hebrew prophecy. From heathen testimonies, and from the fathers and historians of the church, Dr. Newman has put together the f.illowing de- tailed account of the occurrence, in which he chiefly follows Warburton. The order of the ! incidents is, of course, not certain, but only i a matter of probable inference ; nor can we guarantee the details as they appear in the later writers. "They declare as follows: The work was interrupted bv a violent whirl- wind, says Thcodoret, which scattered about I vast quantities of lime, sand and other loose 38 594 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS materials collected for the building. A storm of thunder and lightning followed ; fire fell, says Socrates, and the workmen's tools, the spades, the axes, and the saws were melted down. Then came an earthquake, which threw up the stones of the old foundation, says Socrates ; filled up the excavation, says Theodoret, which had been made for the new foundations; and, as Rufinus adds, threw down the buildings in the neighbourhood, and especially the public porticoes in which were numbers of the Jews who had been aiding in the undertaking, and who were buried in the ruins. The workmen re- turned to their work ; but from the re- cesses, laid open by the earthquake, balls of fire burst out, says Ammianus ; and that again and again as often as they renewed the attempt. The fiery mass, says Rufinus, raged up and down the street for hours ; and St. Gregory, that when some fled to a neighbour- ing church for safety the fire met them at the door and forced them back, with the loss either of life or of their extremities. At length the commotion ceased ; a calm succeeded ; and, as St. Gregory adds, in the sky appeared a luminous cross surrounded by a circle. Nay, upon the garments and the bodies of the persons present crosses were impressed, says St. Gregory ; which were luminous by night, says Rufinus ; and at other times of a dark colour, says Theodoret ; and would not wash out, adds Socrates. In consequence the attempt was abandoned" (Newman, Essay on Miracles in Early Ecd. Hist. p. clxxvii.). All these incidents present a picture consistent with the extraordinary operations of the forces of nature. Even for the luminous crosses there are curious parallels in the history of storms of lightning and volcanic eruptions (see those collected by VVarburton and quoted by Newman, p. clxxxii. notes). The cross in the sky has its likeness in the effects of mock suns and parhelia. But even so, a Christian may still fairly assert his right to call the event a miraculous interposition of God's providence. It fulfilled all the pur- poses we can assign to the Scripture miracles. It gave " an impression of the present agency arid of the will of God." It seemed to shew His severe disapproval of the attempt and fulfilled the prophecy of Christ. It came, like the vision of Constantine, at a critical epoch in the world's history. It was, as the heathen poet has it, a " dignus vindice nodus." All who were present or heard of the event at the time thought it, we may be sure, a sign from God. As a miracle it ranges beside those Biblical miracles in which, at some critical moment, the forces of nature are seen to work strikingly for God's people or against their enemies. § 7. Julian's Persian Campaign and Death (Mar. 5 to June 27, 363). — Julian's route into Persia is marked with considerable exactness ; the first part of it by a letter which he wrote to Libanius from Hierapolis (Ep. 27). At Beroea, the modern Aleppo, he " conversed with the senate on matters of religion — all praised my discourse, but few only were con- vinced by it " {Ep. 27, p. 399 d). At Batnae (the scenery of which he com- pared to that of Daphne) he found ostenta- JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS tious preparations for sacrifice upon the public roads, but thought them too obviously studied and too redolent of personal flattery. Leaving Edessa on his left hand, probably as a city too distinctly Christian to be visited with comfort, he had reached Carrhae, a place of vigorous pagan traditions, on Mar. 19. At some distance from the town there was a famous temple of the Moon, in which it was worshipped both as a male and a female deity, and near which the emperor Caracalla had been murdered (Herodian. iv. 13, 3; Spartian. Caracallus, 6, 6 ; 7, 3). Julian made a point of visiting it and offered sacrifices " according to the local rites." Of his secret doings in this temple there are different accounts. Ammianus had heard that he invested his relative Procopius, who was his only com- panion, with his paludamentum, and bid him seize the empire in case he died in the cam- paign on which they were engaged (Aram, xxiii. 3, 2). Among Christians a report was current that he offered a human sacrifice. The story ran that he sealed up the temple and ordered it not to be opened till his return : and that after the news of his death people entered it and found a woman hanging by the hair of her head, and her body cut open as if to search for omens (Theod. iii. 26). On Mar. 27 he was at Callinicum and cele- brated the festival of the Mother of the Gods (Amm. xxiii. 3, 7). At the beginning of Apr. he came to Circesium (Carchemish) at the junction of the Chaboras and the Euphrates. Here he received distressing letters from his friend Sallustius in Gaul, urging him to give up his campaign as he felt sure that the gods were unfavourable (Amm. xxiii. 5, 6). At Zaitham (where Ammianus first begins to speak in the first person) they saw the high mound which marked the burial-place of the emperor Gordian. The historian records numerous portents on their march ; among them, a lion which appeared at Dura gave rise to a curious dispute between the Etruscan augurs and the philosophers who followed in his train. The former shewed from their books that it was an ill omen ; the latter (amongst whom were Maximus and Priscus) had historical precedents to prove that it need not be so regarded. A similar dispute occurred next day as to the meaning of a thunderstorm (xxiii. 5, 10 seq.). Such super- stitious discussions were not likely to embolden the soldiery ; but Julian decided in favour of the philosophers, animated the army with his own courage, and tried to dispel the pre- judice that the Romans had never invaded Persia with success. One of his most import- ant officers, Hormisdas (elder brother of Sapor, the reigning king of Persia), had angered the nobles of his country by threats, had been imprisoned by them, and escaped to the court of Constantine. He became apparently a sin- cere Christian, yet remained a useful and trusted officer of Julian. By his intervention several Assvrian towns opened their gates to the invaders (xxiv. i, 6, etc.). The country was ; inundated by the natives, and it required all j Julian's inventive quickness and personal example to carry the army through the marshes. After various successes he arrived at the bank of the Tigris, at the ruins of JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS the old Greek city of SoUnuia opposite Ctesiphon. He forced the passage of the river by a very vigorous and dangerous move- ment in the face of the enemy, and foimd himself under the walls of the capital (xxiv. 6, 4-14). But no threats or sarcasms could draw the inhabitants fnnn their impregnable defences, and Sapor himself made no a])- pearance. Part of the Roman army had been left in Mesopotamia, where the two ambitious generals, Procopius and Sebastiau- us, fell out, and the support expected from Arsaces was not forthcoming. But though Sapor did not appear to give battle, he sent a secret ambassador with offers of an honourable peace, the exact terms of which are unknown to us (Liban. Epit. p. 608; Socr. iii. 21 ; Ammianus is here defective). These Julian declined, against the advice of Hormisdas. He was fired with all sorts of vague and enthusiastic projects ; he longed to visit the plain of Arbela and to overrun the whole Persian empire (Liban. Epit. p. 6og). These ideas were kindled into action by the arts of a certain Persian noble, who pretended to be a deserter, indignant against his sovereign, but who in reality played the part of a second ZopvTus (Greg. Naz. Or. 5, 11, p. 154; cf. Aurel. Victor. Epit. 67 ; Soz. vi. i, p. 218). Julian's fleet presented a difficulty, and he determined upon the hazardous measure of burning it, except a very few vessels, which were to be placed on wheels. This was done at Abuzatha, where he halted five days (Zos. iii. 26). A short time of reflection and a discovery that his Persian informants were deceiving him made him regret his decision. He attempted too late to save some of the ships. Only twelve out of some 1,100 were still uninjured. What had been intended to be a triumphant progress almost insensibly became a retreat. The Persian cavalry were perpetually harassing the outskirts of the army, and though beaten at close quarters were continually appearing in fresh swarms. The few ships that remained were insufficient to build a bridge by which to open communica- tions with Mesopotamia. Nothing was left but to proceed along the E. bank of the Tigris to the nearest friendly province, Corduene in S. Armenia, as quickly as possible. This was determined on lune 16, only ten days before the death of Julian (.A.mm. xxiv. 8, 5). How far he had previously penetrated into the interior is not easy to determine. In the next few days the Romans fought several battles with success, but not such as to ensure them a quiet march forwards. They suffered from want of food, and Julian shared their priva- tions on an equality with the commonest soldier (Amm. xxv. 2, 2). On the night of June 25, as he was studying some book of philosophy in his tent, he had a vision (as he told his intimates) of the Genius of the Re- public leaving his tent in a mournful attitude, with a veil over his head and over the cornu- copia in his hand — reminding him by contrast of his vision of the night before he was pro- claimed Augustus. He shook off his natural terror, and went out into the night air to offer propitiatory sacrifices, when he received an- other shock from the appearance of a brilliant meteor, which he interpreted as a sign of the JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS r.Ort wrath of M.irs. wh.-m |i,- li.i.l .i1i.m,|v on.-ii.lrj (xxv. 2. 4 : (f. xxiv. (1, 17). When d.iy dawned the Etruscan <liviners imi>lore«l him to make no movement that day, or at least to put off his march for some hours. Hut his courage had returned with d.tvliKht, ami he gave the <irder to adv.uico. Sudden att.ick* of the enemy from different qu.irlirs ihrrw the army into confusion, and Julian, ex- cited by the danger, rushed forwanl without his breastplate, catching up a shield as h« went. As he raised his hands above his head to urge his men to pursue, a cavalry spear from an unknown hand grazed his arm and lodged in his right side. He tried to draw out the spear-head, but the sharp e<lgcs cut his fingers. He threw up his hand with a con- vulsive motion, and fell tainting fr'>m his ht>rsc (xxv. 3, 7, compared with other accoimls), utter- ing a cry which is differently reported. Some said he threw his own blood towards heaven with the bitter words, " O Galilean, Thou hast conquered ! " (Theod. iii. 25). Others thought they heard him reproach the gods, and especially the Sun, his patron, for their desertion (Philost. vii. 15 ; Soz. vi. 2). He was borne to his tent and his wound dressed, no doubt by his friend Oribasius. For a moment he revived, and called for a horse and arms, but a gush of blood sliewed how weak he really was. On learning that the place was called Phrygia he gave up all hope, having been told by some diviner that he should ilie in Phrygia. He addressed those who stood around him in a highly philosophic speech in the style of Socrates, of whii;h Ammianus has preserved a report. He considered that death was sent him as a gift from the gods. He knew of no great faults he had committed either in a private station or as Caesar. He had always desired the good of his subjects, and had endeavoured to be a faithful servant of the republic. He had I<mg known the decree of fate, that his death was impending, and thanked the supreme God that it came, not in a disgraceful or painful way, but in a glorious form. He would not discuss the appointment of his successor, lest he should pass over one who was worthy, or eiulanger the life of some one whom he thought fit, but hoped that the republic woul<l find a good ruler after him. He then distributed his I>ersonal effects to his intimate friemls, and asked among others for AnatoUus. the master (.f the offices. Sallustius (the prefect of the i East) replied that he was happy. Julian I understood that he had f.illm, but lamented j the death of his friend with a natur.il feeling which he h.id restrained in thinkuig of his I own. Those who stood round couhl no i longer restrain their grief, but he still kept his habit of command, and rebuked them for their want of high feeling. " My life gives ine confidence of being taken to the islands of the blest, to have converse with he.iven and the stars; it is me.-in to weep as if I had ileserved to be condemned to Tartiriis " (Liban. Epit. p. 614. i^triua roU r» d\\o«t, irfi2 oiix fjAicra (roU 0i,\oa<S'^o<» ) tl tuk ol a liij tt^/ut Taprdpov ti'/itUK^ra ianpi'-oytTty : Amm. xxv. 1, 22, " humile esse caelo sidcri- busque concUiatum iugeri principem dicens "). 596 JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS His last moments were spent in a difficult discussion with Maximus and Priscus on " the sublimity of souls." In the midst of this debate his wound burst afresh, and he called for a cup of cold water, drank it, and passed away quietly at midnight on the evening of June 26, having not yet reached the age of 32 (Amm. XXV. 3, 23 ; 5, i ; Socr. iii. 21, etc.). It was never found out who threw the fatal spear, though the Persians offered a reward. The suggestion of Libanius that it was a Chris- tian was such as he would naturally make in his bitterness [Epit. pp. 612, 614). Gregory, Socrates, and Rufinus consider it uncertain whether it was a Persian or one of his own soldiers (Greg. Or. v. 13, p. 155 ; Ruf. i. 36 ; Socr. iii. 21). Sozomen notices the suspicion of Libanius, and defends it in a spirit which cannot but be condemned (Soz. vi. i). The news of Julian's death and that the army had elected a Christian, Jovian, to succeed him caused enormous rejoicings, especially in Antioch. Jovian was obliged to make peace by ceding the five Mesopotamian provinces, including Nisibis, which had been the bulwark of the empire in the East. Pro- copius was ordered to carry back the body to Tarsus, where it was interred with pagan ceremonies opposite that of Maximinus Daia. Character. — Julian's story leaves the im- pression of a living man far more than that of most historical personages. The most opposite and unexpected estimates of him have been formed. He has been admired and pitied by religious-minded men, detested and satir- ized by sceptics and atheists. His own friend Ammianus despised his superstition, and paints it in terms not much weaker than the invectives of Gregory and Chrysostom ; Gibbonsneers at him alternately with hisChris- tian opponents. A. Comte wished to appoint an annual day for execrating his memory in company with that of Bonaparte, as one of the " two principal opponents of progress," and as the " more insensate " of the two (System of Positive Polity, Eng. trans, vol. i. p. 82 ; an ordinance afterwards withdrawn, ih. vol. iv. p. 351). Strauss treats him as a vain, re- actionary dreamer, comparable to medieval- ists who tried to stay the march of modern thought. On the other hand, pietistic his- torians like Arnold, Neander, and even Ull- mann, unlike the ancient writers of the church, are tolerant and favourable. The simple reason of this divergence is, of course, that the strongest force working in him was a self-confident religious enthusiasm, disguised under the form of self-surrender to a divine mission. Such a character constantly appears in different lights, and some of those who have judged him have looked chiefly at the sentimental side of his life, without considering his actions ; while others have estimated him by his actions apart from his principles — the more so because he was inconsistent himself in his conduct, and some- times acted with, sometimes against, his principles ; and hence any one who chooses to take a partial view may easily find a justi fication in the positive statements of this or that historian, or of Julian himself. A Christian who attempts to judge Julian without prejudice will probably go through JULIANUS, PLAVIUS CLAUDIUS several phases of opinion before he comes to a final estimate. All but the cold-hearted will sympathize, to some extent at least, with his religious enthusiasm, and with the sacri- fices which he was ready to make in its behalf. It is impossible to doubt that he had a vein of noble sentiment, and a lofty and, in many ways, unselfish ambition. He had a real love of ideal beauty, and of the literary and artistic traditions of the past. There was something even pathetic in his hero-worship and his attachment to those whom he sup- posed to be his friends. If he was often pedantic and imitative, if he had a somewhat shallow and conceited manner, yet we must confess that much of this was the vice of the age, and this pettiness was thrown off in critical moments. Under strong excitement he often became simple, great, and natural. Or again, many persons will sympathize with his conservative instincts, and his wish to retain what was great in the culture and art of past ages ; while others will be attracted by his mystic speculations and ascetic prac- tices, which were akin to much that has been valued and admired in many great names in the history of the church. But on reflection we see that all this was combined with a ruling spirit and view of things which was essentially heathen, and therefore fundament- ally defective, as well as antagonistic, to all that we hold dearest and most vital. Julian was at bottom thoroughly one-sided. He was enthusiastic and even passionate in his religion ; but it was the passion of the intellect and senses rather than of the heart. Much of his natural warmth of feeling had been chilled and soured by the sense of in- justice and secret enmity under which he so long laboured. He could not forget the murder of his nearest relations, nor the sus- picions, intrigues, and actual personal indig- nities of which he was the subject. What we know of his early surroundings inclines us to suppose that their influence for good was but slight. His relation, Eusebius of Nicomedia, does not bear ahigh character. His pedagogue Mardonius was evidently more heathen than Christian in his sympathies, and a time-serving creature like Hecebolius was not likely to make much impression upon his pupil. We have endeavoured to give a fair general estimate of this remarkable character, with the full consciousness how hazardous such an estimate is. If any one wishes for a catalogue of qualities, which can, as it were, be ticketed and labelled, he cannot do better than read Ammianus's elaborate award (xxv. 4). The historian takes the four cardinal virtues — temperance, prudence, justice, and courage — and gives a due amount of praise tempered with some fault-finding under each head. His chastity and abstinence were remarkable. He aimed at justice, and to a great extent earned a high reputation for it. He was liberal to his friends, and careless of his own comforts and conveniences in a very remark- able degree ; while he did much to lighten and equalize the burden of taxation upon his subjects. His successes in Gaul gained him the affection of the people, and his popularity with the soldiers may be gathered from the manner in which the dwellers in northern and JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS western lands followed him intn the midst of Persia. He may be said to have quelled a military tumult by the threat of retiring into private life. The lighter qualities of his character present him in rather a disagreeable aspect. He was loquacious and inconsistent in small things and in great. He was ex- tremely superstitious, and even fanatical in his observance of religious rites, to a degree that made him appear trifling and undignified even to his friends. His manner was obvious- ly irritating, and such as could not inspire respect in his subjects ; and, on the other hand, he was too eager to gain popular applause. No one can doubt his cleverness and ability as a writer, but the greater number of his writings do not shew method, and they are often singularly deficient in judgment. An exception, perhaps, may be made in respect to the first oration to Constantius, the letter to the .\thenians, and the Caesars. The latter, however, was a strange performance for one who was himself an emperor. In person he was rather short, and awk- wardly though very strongly built. His features were fine and well-marked, and his eyes very brilliant ; his mouth was rather over-large and his lower lip inclined to droop. As a young man he grew a beard, but was re- quired to cut it off when he became Caesar, and seems only to have grown it again after taking possession of Constantinople. .\t .\ntioch it was allowed to grow to a great size. His neck was thick, and his head hung forward, and was set on broad and thick shoulders. His walk was ungraceful ; and he had an unsteady motion of the limbs. There is a fine life-size statue of Julian, of good and artistic work- manship, in the ruined hall of his palace in the garden of the Hotel Clugny at Paris. It is figured as the frontispiece to E. Talbot's translation of his works. Theory of Religion.— Julian's theory was too superficial and occasional to leave much mark upon the history of thought. His book against Christianity became indeed a favourite weapon with infidels, but he never founded a school of positive belief. He was, in fact, an enthusiastic amateur, who employed some of the nights of a laborious career of public business in writing brilliant essays in the neo-PIatonic manner. He tells us that the oration in praise of the Sun took him three nights (p. 157 c) ; that on the Mother of the Gods was composed, "without taking breath, in the short space of one night " (p. 178 d). Such work may astonish us even now, but it is not surprising that it should be incomplete, rambling, and obscure. There are, however, certain constantly recurring thoughts which may be regarded as established principles with Julian. Julian forms one of that long line of remarkable men in the first four centuries after Christ who endeavoured to give a rational form to the rel'gion and morality of the heathen world in opposition to the growing power of Chris- tianity — men whose ill-success is one of the strongest proofs of the deadness of their own cause, and the vitality of that against which they strove. Seneca, Plutarch, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Celsus, Plotinus, Porph>Ty, lamblichus, and Hierocles were in this sense JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS .107 prrcursurs ..( Juli.ui. Wi- mav d< linr thr ob- jects of their efforts on behalf of paganism »%: (1) To unite popular l>rlirfs in many Rods with some conception of the unity of thr divinr being, and to give some consistent, if nut rational, account of the origin of the world and of the course of human history. (2) To defend the myths and legends of heathenism, and generally to establish heathen morals on a higher basis than mere custom. (3) To satisfy the yearnings of ihc soul for the knowledge of (iod, while rejicting thr exclusive claims of the Jewish and Christian revelation. (I) Doctrine as lo the Xature of (ioJ.—Thc birth of Christ took place in the fulness of time, i.e. when mankind had been prepared for it, by many influences bearing them to- wards the acceptance of a revelation. One of the most important of these preparations was the movement towards monotheism. The old simple belief in many gods living together in a sort of upper world was g'>nr, and thinking mm w^uid accept no systcni which did not assume the supremacy of one I divine principle, and in some degree "justify" ! the action of Providence in dealing with man- kind as a whole. But the worship of man v gods had too deep a hold upon the fancy and affec- tions, as well as the mind, of the people to be surrendered without a long struggle, and various methods were advanced to shelter and protect the current belief. The systems thus formed were naturally all more or less pantheistic, finding unity in an infonnal abstraction from the phenomena of nature. But, as we should expect to be the case on European soil, they were neither logically pantheistic in the abstract way <>f the Hindu philosophical sects nor sharply dualistic like the speculations of the Gnostics and .Mani- cheans. The more practical minds of the Graeco- Roman world were satisfied to give an account of things as they appeared without overpowering and paralyzing themselves by the insoluble question as to the existence and potencies of matter ; and thus they were at once more inconsistent and less absurd than some of their contemporaries. While looking upon matter as something degrading, and upon contact with it as a thing to be avoided, they nevertheless did not define matter to be non-existent, or merely phenomenal, nor did thev regard it as absolutely evil. In the same wav, while they lost all true hold upon the personalitv of God, and believed in the eternity of the world {e.g. Jul. Or. iv. p. 112 c), Ihev used the terms creation and providence, and spoke of communion with and likeness to God. Into an eclectic system of this kind it was not difficult to incorporate the gods of the heathen world, and to make them subserve a sort of philosoi)hv of history. With Julian they take a double position: (a) as inter- mediate beings employed in creation who pro- tect the Supreme Being from too intimate contact with the world ; (b) as accounting for the difference between nations, and so en- abling men to uphold tr.iditional usages with- , out ceasing to hold to one ideal law and one truth (Jul. Or. vi. p. i«4 c. Cxrwtp yip iX^iffna I The chief source of information on this part 598 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS of Julian's theory is his Fourth Oration, in praise of the Sovereign Sun. The most striking feature of the theology proper of this system is its triple hierarchy of deities and worlds. Such a triple division was a common feature of neo-Platonism and had its roots in thoughts current before the Christian era ; but it was no doubt emphasized by later theorists as a counterpoise to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. That of Julian was probably bor- rowed from lamblichus of Chalcis (uncle, it has been supposed, of his correspondent), to whom he frequently appeals in terms of the highest veneration (e.g. Or. iv. p. 146 a, 150 d, 157 D ; see Ueberweg, Hist, of Philosophy, § 69, vol. i. pp. 252-254, Eng. trans.). According to this belief there are three worlds informed and held together by three classes of divine beings. The highest and most spiritual is the Koa/xos voijrds, or " intelligible world," the world of absolute immaterial essences, the centre of which is the One or the Good, who is the source of beings and of all beauty and perfection to the gods who surround him (p. 133 c). Between this highly elevated region and the grosser material world comes the K6<T/xoi foepds, or " intelligent world," the centre of which is the sovereign sun, the great object of JuHan's de- votion. He receives his power from the Good, and communicates it not only to the gods around him, but also to the sensible world, the K6<rfj.os alcrdr^rds, in which we live. In this sphere the " visible disk " of the sun is the source of light and life, as the invisible sun is in the intelligible world. Any one who will read this oration with care will be convinced that Julian wished to find in his sovereign sun a substitute for the Christian doctrine of the second person of the blessed Trinity, and this appears in particular on pp. 14T, 142 (cf. Naville, p. 104 ; Lame, pp. 234 ff.). The position specially given to the sun is a proof of the advance of Oriental thought in the Roman empire, and it was certainly no new idea of Julian's. Amongst others, Aurelian and Ela- gabalus had made him their chief divinity, and Constantine himself had been specially de- voted to the " Sol invictus." Julian, we have seen, had from his childhood been fascinated with the physical beauty of the light. To- wards the close of the century we find Macro- bius arguing somewhat in the spirit of some modern inquirers that all heathen religion is the product of solar myths. Yet it is curious to observe the shifts to which Julian is put to prove this doctrine out of Homer and Hesiod, and from the customs of the ancient Greeks and Romans (pp. 135-137 and 148 ff.). He seems, indeed, conscious of the weakness of his arguments from the poets, and dismisses them with the remark that they have much that is human in their inspiration, and appeals to the directer revelations of the gods themselves — we must suppose in the visions which he claimed to receive (p. T37 c). The connexion of this theory with the national gods is nowhere distinctly worked out. It is, in fact, part of the pantheistic character of this belief that the idea of the personahty of the gods recedes or becomes prominent, like the figures in a magic lantern, according to the subject under discussion, JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS without any shock to the dreamy neo- Platonist. At one time they are mere es- sences or principles, at another they are Zeus, Apollo, Ares, etc., ruling and directing the fortunes of nations, and imposing upon them a peculiar type of character and special laws and institutions. At one moment they are little more than the ideas of Plato, at another they are actual Sainovts, acting as lieutenants of the Creator. This last view is in essentials the same as that put forward by Celsus (probably in the reign of Marcus AureUus) in liis book, known to us from its refutation by Origen (bk. v. cc. 25-33). It is the view as- serted at length by J ulian in his books against the Christians, especially as a defence of the customs and institutions of antiquity against the innovations of the religion which strove to break down all prejudices of class and nation. (St. Cyril, adv. Jul. iv. pp. 115, 116, 130, 141, 143, 14S, etc. ; cf. Fragmentum Epistolae, p. 292 c, D, dvOpuTToi TOis yevedpxat-s Gfoh avoKKripudivTCi, ol koL Trporiyayov avrovs, dtrd Tov ST]/j.iovpyov ras ^t'xas irapaXafi^dvovTes i^ aiQvos ; for the subject generally, see Naville, c iii. " Les Dieux Nationaux.") It is easy to see how fatal such a doctrine must be to moral progress. If everything is as it is by the will of the gods, no custom, how- ever revolting, lacks defence. It is strange that, after the refutation of this absurdity by Origen, any one should have been bold enough to put it forward as a serious theory (cf. Orig. contra Celsum, v. cc. 25-28 and 34-39). With regard to the relation of images and sacrifices to the gods, who are worshipped by these means, there is an interesting passage in the Fragment of the Letter to a Priest (pp. 293 ff.). He warns his correspondent not to consider images as actually receiving worship, nor to suppose that the gods really need our sacrifices. But he defends their use as suitable to our own bodily condition (ivabrj yap rj/jLcis fiirar ev cwjulolti adj/naTiKas ^5et iroietcr- dat. To:s deoh Kai rets Xarpeias, dcrvb/uLaroi 54 ticTiv avToi, p. 293 d). "Just as earthly kings desire to have honour paid them and their statues without actually needing it, so do the gods. The images of the gods are not the gods, and yet more than mere wood and stone. They ought to lead us up to the un- seen. And yet being made by human art, they are liable to injury at the hands of wicked men, just as good men are unjustly put to death like Socrates, and Dion, and Empedo- timus. But their murderers afterwards were punished by divine vengeance, and so have sacrilegious persons manifestly received a due reward in my reign" (pp. 294 c to 295 b). (2) Defence of Pagan Morality. — We have already described at some length Julian's attempts to raise the morality of his heathen subordinates, especially in the priesthood. He was conscious of a defect, and strenuously set himself to remedy it, though he could do little more in the way of quotation of texts than allege a few general maxims drawn from ancient writings as to kindness to the poor, etc. His strongest argument is one that might well have made him hesitate — the shame of being so much outdone by the " Galileans." An- other branch of this subject was the relation of JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS morality tti Clreek mythology, .iiicl with this he busied himself on two occasions, about the | same time. The two orations, The Praise of the Mother of the Goiis and Against the Cynic Heraclius, were probably both lielivered about i the time of the vernal equinox, wiiile he was ' still at Constantinople, A.n. 36::. In the first ; of these he gives an elaborate explanation f>f | the story of Attis ; in the second he rebukes I Heraclius for his immoral teaching in the form of myths, and gives an example of one which 1 he thinks really edifying, which describes his own youth under the protection of the gods. '. The explanation of the myth of Attis is ; important as a specimen of Julian's theology. I According to modern interpreters, this myth, as well as that of Adonis in its hundred forms, describes merely the succession of the seasons ; Julian adapts it to his speculations on the triple hierarchy of worlds. With him the | mother of the gods is the female principle of | the highest and most spiritual world. He 1 calls her the lady of all life, the mother and bride of great Zeus, the motherless virgin, she who bears children without passion, and creates things that are together with the father (p. 166 a. b). Here we are landed into the full obscurity of Gnostic principles and emanations, and the whole story is evidently only a kind of converse arrangement of that which meets us in the Valentinian myth of Achamoth (see Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, lects. II, 12). Attis is a principle of the second or intelligent world, " the productive and creative intelligence, the essence which descends into the farthest ends of matter to give birth to all things " (p. 161 c). It is difficult to see how he is distinguished in his functions with regard to creation from the sovereign sun, but this is only one of the many weak points of this fanciful exposition. His material type in the lowest world is the Milky Waj', in which philosophers say that the impassible circumambient ether mingles with the passible elements of the world (p. 165 c). The mother of the gods engages Attis to remain ever faithful to herself, that is, to look always upward. Instead of this, he descends into the cave, and has commerce with the nymph, that is, produces the visible universe out of matter. The sun, who is the principle of harmony and restraint, something like the Valentinian Horus (opos), sends the lion or fiery principle to put a stop to this production 1 of visible forms. Then follows the ^tttomij of I Attis, which is defined as thefiroxv ttjs direipLai, the limit placed upon the process into infinity. The part played by the sun is indicated by the season at which the festival took place, the vernal equinox, when he produces equality of day and night (p. 168 c, d). All this is ex- plained as a mere passionless eternal procedure on the part of the supposed gods. A real creation proceeding from God's love and good pleasure was a thought far above the scope of this philosophy, to which the world was as personal as the so-called gods. Enough has been said to shew how thor- oughly pantheistic was Julian's interpreta- tion of the mytiis ; how destructive of any true conception of the divine nature, how thorough- ly unmoral, how utterly incapable of touching the heart, was his tbeology. Yet he felt the JULIANUS. FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 500 need of some person.il commercr wilh Cod, however inconsistent such a wish w.i-. with his intellectual view of divine things. (3) Intercourse with r7o</. — When Julian w.m in .-Vsia Minor under the influcnrr of the philosophers ICusebius and ("hrvsanthius and heard the details of the wonderful works of Maximus, he said (according to i:imapiiis). " E'"arewell, and keep to your books if vou will ; you have revealed to me the man I w.is in search of " (Eunap. I'lta Matimt, p. si). Thi< story has been discredited by some, who think it strange that so great a lover of books a» Julian shonld speak slightingly of them. But it is confirmed by his own language in his Oration on the Sun (p. 137 c) : " I^t us sav farewell to poetic descriptions ; for thcv have much that is human mixed up with the divine. But let us go on to declare what the god him- self seems to teach us both about himself and the other gods" (ix. ii, 5). Julian here appeals from a book revelation, as it were, to a direct instruction given him in the numerous visions in which he was visited by the gods. We have already noticed Julian's enthu- siasm for the mysteries and his love of all rites and practices which promised a closer intercourse with the gods. He could never bring himself to acquiesce in the colder methods of some of the masters of the neo- Platonic school. He was not satisfied with the intellectual ecstasy described by Plotinus, nor with the self-purification of Porphyry, who generally rejected sacrifice and divination (Ueberweg, Hist, of Philosophy, § 68, notes, vol. i. p. 251, Ivng. tr.Tti-^.). The party of lamblichus, to which Julian belonged, required something approaching a conti'il of a god ^,theurp,y), a quasi-mechanical methorl of com- munication with him, which could be put in force at will, and the result of which could only be called a " Bacchic frenzy " (Or. vii. pp. 217 D and 221 D. etc.). Julian was duped by men who were half deceivers and half deceived. He is one among many who are forced by an inward conviction to believe in supernatural revelation, but who will <inly have it on their own terms. I.ibanius tells us that Julian knew the forms and lineaments of the gods as familiarly as those of his friends, and we have mentioned the visions which appeared to him at great crises of his life. He himself says, " .\esculapius often healed me, telling me of remedies" (St. Cyril, adv. Jul. viii. p. 234), and elsewhere he speaks of this deity as a sort of incarnate Saviour (Or. iv. p. 144 B, c). This temper of mind, while it speaks in high-flown, positive language of the knowledge of God and pours contempt on the uninitiated, yet means something by " knowledge " very different from the sober .-ind bracing certainty attained by Christian faith, hope, and love. Here, as elsewhere, the pantheistic temper speaks grandly, but feels meanly. Death indeed is looked forward to with some composure as the emancipation of the divine element in man from d.-u-kncss. Julian several times prays for a happy death, andexpected after it to be raised to communion with the gods. His orations to the Sun and the Mother of the Ciods both conclude with such prayers, and we have seen how he 1 actually met his end (Liban. Ep. p. O14 ; Amin. 600 JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS XXV. 3, 22). But the doctrine of the ascent [sublimitas) of souls, on which he was con- versing with Maximus and Priscus when that end came, was a very different thing from the Christian's hope. It was, in fact, the same in substance as the barren and deadening Oriental doctrine of transmigration ; and it is remarkable that Julian, who felt himself so favoured by the heavenly powers, in one of his most ardent prayers to the sun, looks forward to a felicity which has no certainty of being eternal i,Or. iv. p. 158 c ; see some good remarks on the contrast between this and the Christian doctrine in Naville, pp. 59 ff.). Julian's Polemic against Christianity. — How near measures against Christianity were to his heart may be seen in his prayer to the Mother of the Gods, where he speaks of " cleansing the empire from the stain of atheism " as the great wish of his life (Or. v. p. 180 b). He preferred, however, the method of persuasion to that of constraint, and his books against the Christians are an evidence of this temper. He begins by saying that he wishes to give the reasons which have convinced him that the Galilean doctrine is a human invention (Cyr. ii. p. 39). He then goes on to attack the narratives of the Bible as fabulous. He allows that the Greeks have monstrous fables likewise (p. 44), but then they have philosophy, while Chris- tians have nothing but the Bible, and are in fact barbarians. If Christians attack the idolatry of heathens, Julian retorts, "you worship the wood of the cross, and refuse to worship the ancile which came down from heaven" (Cyr. vi. p. 194). On the whole, he does not spend much time in such questions, but accepts the Bible as a generally true narrative, and rather attacks Christianity on grounds of supposed reason, and in connexion with and in contrast to Judaism. We may follow Naville in considering the main body of his works under three heads : (i) his polemic against the monotheism of the O.T. ; (2) his attack upon the novel and aggressive character of Christian doctrine ; (3) especially against the adoration of Christ as God, and the worship of " dead men," such as the martxTs (cf. Naville, pp. 175 ff.). (i) Against the Monotheism of the O.T. — Julian regarded the gods of polytheism as links or intermediaries between the supreme God and the material world, and so as render- ing the conception of creation easier and more philosophical. He contrasts Plato's doctrine of creation in the Timaeus with the abrupt statements of Moses, "God said," etc. (pp. 49-57)- One might almost suppose (he urges) that Moses imagined God to have created nothing incorporeal, no intermediate spiritual or angelic beings, but to have Himself directly organized matter (p. 49). He proceeds to argue against the supposition that the supreme God made choice of the Hebrew nation as a pecu- liar people to the exclusion of others. " If He is the God of all of us, and our common creator, why has He abandoned us ? " (p. 106). Both in acts and morals the Hebrews are inferior. They have been always in slavery, and have invented nothing. As for morality, the imitation of God amongst the Jews is the imitation of a "jealous God," as JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS in the case of Phinehas (Cyr. v. pp. 160-171). The worst of our generals never treated subject nations so cruelly as Moses treated the Canaanites (vi. p. 184). The only precepts in the Decalogue not held in common by all nations are the commandments against idolatry and for the observance of the sabbath. The true view, to his mind, was that the God of the Jews was a local, national god, like those of other peoples, far inferior to the supreme God (iv. pp. 115, 116, 141, 148, etc.). Sometimes he seems inclined to accept Jehovah as the creator of the visible world, while at other times he throws doubt upon this assumption ; but in any case he considered Him a true object of worship (Ep. 25, Judaeis. But in Cyril, iv. p. 148 he blames Moses for confounding a partial and national god with the Creator). Further, the Jewish usages of temples, altars, sacrifices, purifications, circumcision, etc., were all observed to have a close resemblance to those of heathenism, and were a foundation for many reproaches against the Galileans, who had abandoned so much that was laudable and respectable (vi. p. 202 ; vii. p. 238 ; ix. pp. 298, 299, 305, etc.). (2) Julian's Attack upon Christianity as a Novel and Revolutionary Religion. — In the same spirit he puts Christianity much below Judaism. " If you who have deserted us had attached yourself to the doctrines of the Hebrews, you would not have been in so thoroughly bad a condition, though worse than you were before when you were amongst us. For you would have worshipped one God instead of many gods, and not, as is now the case, a man, or rather a number of miserable men. You would have had a hard and stern law, with much that is barbarous in it, instead of our mild and gentle customs, and would have been so far the losers ; but you would have been purer and more holy in religious rites. As it is, you are like the leeches, and suck all the worst blood out of Hebraism and leave the purer behind " (C>t. vi. pp. 201, 202). It was thus natural that St.' Paul should be the special object of his dislike. " He surpasses all the impostors and charlatans who have ever existed" (Cyr. iii. p. 100). Julian accuses the Jewish Christians of having de- serted a law which Moses declared to be eternal (ix. p. 319). Even Jesus Himself said that He came to fulfil the law. Peter declared that he had a vision, in which God shewed him that no animal was impure (p. 314), and Paul boldly says, " Christ is the end of the law " ; but Moses says, " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it " ; and " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things " (Cyr. ix. p. 320 = Deut. iv. 2, xxvii. 27 ; cf. X. pp. 343. 351, 354, 356, 358, where he attacks Christians for giving up sacrifice, circumcision, and the sabbath, and asserts that Abraham used divination and practised astrology). He sneers at baptism, which cannot cure any bodily infirmity, but is said to remove all the transgressions of the soul — adulteries, thefts, etc. — so great is its pene- trating power ! (vii. p. 245). The argument against the Christian interpretation of pro- phecy is also remarkable. He comments textually on the blessing of Judah, Gen. xlix. JULIANUS, FLAVIUS CLAUDIUS 10 ; on the prophecy of Hala.iin, Num. xxiv. 17 ; on that of Moses, Dcut. xviii. 15-18 ; and on that of Emmanuel, Is. vii. 14 ; and tries to shew that they have no reference outside J udaism itself, though the last is evidently a difficulty to him (pp. 253, 261. 262). (3) The Worshif^ of Jesus as God and the Adoration of the Martyrs are the great t)bjects of Julian's attacks. His argument is partlv concerned with the prophecies just quoted, partly with the N-T. itself. He asserts that Moses never speaks of " the first-born Son of God," while he does speak of " the sons of God," i.e. the angels, who have charge of different nations (Gen. vi. 2). But Moses says expressly, " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy (iod, and Him onlv shalt thou serve " (C>T. ix. p. 290). Even if the pro])hecy of Emmanuel in Is. refers to Jesus, it gives you no right to call His mother ^eor6(cos. How could she bear God, being a human creature like ourselves ? And how is her son the Saviour when God savs, " I am, and there is no Saviour beside Mc " ? (viii. p. 276). " John began this evil. You have gone on and added the worship of other dead men to that of the first dead man. You have filled all things with tombs and sepulchres ; though Jesus speaks of ' whited sepulchres full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness ' " (p. 335)- " Why, then, do vou bow before tornbs ? The Jews did it, according to Isaiah, to obtain visions in dreams, and four apostles also probably did so after their master's death " (p. 339). (The reference is to Is. Ixv. 4, " which remain among the graves and lodge among the monuments " : the words di' euinrvia are added in the Greek version.) In his letter to the .Alexandrians he puts with equal force the folly of adoring a man, and not adoring the sun and the moon, especially the former, the great sun, the living, animated, intelligent, and beneficent image of the intelligible or spiritual Father (Ep. 51, p. 434). It is strange to find this slighting disregard for men as objects of wor- ship in one who assumed that he was a champion of pure Hellenism, especially in an emperor who succeeded a long line of deified emperors. A great deal of his dislike to what he considered the Christian doctrine arose, doubtless, from aristocratic pride. He looked down upon Christ as a Galilean peasant, a subject of Augustus Caesar (C>t. vi. p. 213). | " It is hardly three hundred years since He began to be talked about. During all His life [ He did nothing worth recording, unless any 1 one reckons it among very great acts to have cured halt and blind people, and to exorcize demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany " (vi. p. 191). He looked upon Christians as parvenus who had assumed a [ position of power for which they were not j fitted, and exercised it wantonly in destroying temples and prosecuting their own heretics, etc. " Jesus and Paul never taught you this. They never expected that Christians would fill so important a place, and were satisfied with converting a few maidservants j and slaves, and by their means to get hold of ; their mistresses, and men like Cornelius and Sergius. If under the reigns of Tiberius and | Claudius they have succeeded in convincing | JULIANUS SABAS AOl , a single distinguislu-d p.rN.>u. vou m.w h<>ld I me for a liar in every thiug " (vi. p. 2oh). I It is remarkable that Julian shews pr.irtic 1 ally no appreciation of the need of r<-drn>ption or of the contrast between Christian and j heathen life. This we must ascribe in ktvaI pleasure to the misfortime of his c-»rlv train- ing, to the .\rianism of his teachers, and tho unloveiincss and unlovingness of his early surroundings. Some allowance must also ' be made for the corruption and extravagance of some f.)rms of popular religion, and for the rash and violent arts of fanaticism comriiilted by many Christians. The su|H'rstitious rultiis of martyrs, for instance, was no doubt dis- avowed by the highest minds of the 4th rent., such as St. .\thanasius and St. Augustine. But in the masses newly converted from I paganism it formed a natural centre for much j of the old superstition and fanaticism (.Vlhan. \0r. conl. Arian. ii. 32; August, de Vera I Relig- 55 : and esp. cont. Fauttum. xx. 21). I But besides all this there was in the family of Constantinc generally a hardness and self- assertion, though acronipaiiied with strong religious pressure, which made them inarres- sible to Christian feditiu on the subject of sin. The members of it believed strongly in their providential vocation to take a great p.irl in re- ligious questions, but were very rarely troubled by scruples as to their personal unworthiness. I Julian's own character, as we have seen, was specially inconsistent, but its ruling element was self-confidence, which he disguised to himself as a reliance upon divine direction. In conclusion, we may draw attention to some of Julian's admissions. He accepts the account of the tiospel miracles. He rejects the Gnostic interpretation of St. John, which separated the Word of God from the Christ. He witnesses to the common use of the term dfOT^KOi long before the Nestorian tnuibles. His remarks about martyr-worship and the adoration of the cross have some importance as facts in the history of Christian worship. On the Coins of Julian see D. C. B. (4- vol. ed.) s.v. We conclude that from policy J ulian did not make any general issue of coins with heathen inscriptions or strongly marked heathen symbols which would have shocked his Christian subjects. The statements of Socrates and Sozomen are in perfect harmony with this conclusion. []■'*■'■] Jullanus (105) Sabas, Oct. 18, an anchorite, whose historv Theodoret tells. Sabas or Sabbas, says theixloret, was a title of venera- tion, meaning an elder, corresponding with " abbas " or father, commonly applied to anchorites in the East. His cave was in Osrhocne ; he practised extraordinary ascetic ism and endured extremes of heat and fatigue. In 372, on the expulsion of Meletius. bp. of Antioch, the triumphant Arian party gave out that Julian had embraced their views; whereupon Acacius (subsequently bp. o( Berrhoea), accompanied by Asterius, went to Julian and induced him to visit Antioch, where his presence exposed the slander and encouraged the Catholics. He returned to his cave and there died. Theod. //. E. iii. 19, iv. 24 ; Hvil. ReliKio'i. No. ii. ; .Menol. Grace. Sirlct. ; Ceillicr, viii. 238 ; Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. ii. 700, iii. 1084. »o9o- [c-h.J 602 JULIUS Julius (5), bp. of Rome after Marcus, Feb. 6, 337, to Apr. 12, 352, elected after a vacancv of four months. His pontificate is specially notable for his defence of Athanasius, and for the canons of Sardica enacted during it. When Julius became pope, Athanasius was in exile at Treves after his first deposition by the council of Tyre, having been banished by Constantine the Great in 336. Constan- tine, dying on Whitsunday 337, was succeeded by his three sons, by whose permission Athan- asius returned to his see. But the Eusebians continuing their machinations, the restoration of Athanasius was declared invaUd ; and one Pistus was set up as bp. of Alexandria in his stead. A deputation was now sent to Rome to induce Julius to declare against Athanasius and acknowledge Pistus; but having failed to convince the pope, desired him to convene a general council at which he should adjudi- cate upon the charges against Athanasius. Socrates (H. E. ii. 11) and Sozomen (H. E. iii. 7) state that Eusebius wrote to Julius requesting him to judge the case. But this is not asserted bv Julius, and is improbable. Julius undertook to hold a council wherever Athanasius chose, and seems to have sent a synodical letter to the Eusebians apprising them of his intention. The dates of the events that followed are not without difficulty. Early in 340 Pistus had been given up as the rival bishop, and one Gregory, a Cappa- docian, violently intruded by Philagrius the prefect of Egypt into the see ; and the Lenten services had been the occasion of atrocious treatment of the Catholics of Alex- andria. Athanasius, having concealed him- self for a time in the neighbourhood and prepared an encyclic in which he detailed the proceedings, seems to have departed for Rome about Easter 340, and to have been welcomed there bv Julius, who, after his arrival, sent two presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenes, with a letter to' Eusebius and his party fixing Dec. 340, at Rome, for the proposed synod. The Eusebians refused to come, and detained the envoys of Julius beyond the time fixed. Elpidius and Philoxenes did not return to Rome till Jan. 341, bringing then a letter, the purport of which is gathered from the reply of Julius to be mentioned presently. Julius suppressed this letter for some time, hoping that the arrival of some Eusebians in Rome might spare him the pain of making it public, and in this hope he also deferred the assem- bling of the council. But no one came. The Eusebians now shewed themselves by no means prepared to submit to his adjudication, but took advantage of the dedication of a new cathedral at Antioch to hold a council of their own there, known as the " Dedication coun- cil " (probably in Aug. 341) and attended by 97 bishops. They prepared canons and three creeds, designed to convince the Western church of their orthodoxy, confirmed the sentence of the council of Tyre against Athan- asius, and endeavoured to prevent his restora- tion by a canon with retrospective force, debarring even from a hearing any bishop or priest who should have officiated after a canonical deposition. Julius meanwhile had made public their letter, and, not yet knowing of the proceedings at Antioch, assembled his JULIUS council in the church of the presbyter Vito at Rome, apparently in Nov. 341, Athanasius being stated to have been then a year and a half in Rome. It was attended by more than 50 bishops. Old and new accusations were considered ; the Acts of the council of Tyre, and those of the inquiry in the Mareotis about the broken chalice, which had been left at Rome by the Eusebian envoys two years before, were produced ; witnesses were heard in disproof of the charges and in proof of Eusebian atrocities ; and the result was the complete acquittal of Athanasius and con- firmation of the communion with him, which had never been discontinued by the Roman church. Marcellus of Ancyra, who had been deposed and banished on a charge of heresy by a Eusebian council at Constantinople in 336 and had been 15 months in Rome, was declared orthodox on the strength of his confession of faith which satisfied the council. Other bishops and priests, from Thrace, Coelesyria, Phoenicia, Palestine, and Egypt, are said by Julius in his subsequent synodal letter to liave been present to complain of injuries suffered from the Eusebian party. Socrates (H. E. ii. 15) and Sozomen {//. E. iii. 8) sav that all the deposed bishops were reinstated by Julius in virtue of the preroga- tive of the Roman see, and that he wrote vigorous letters in their defence, reprehending the Eastern bishops and summoning some of the accusers to Rome. But there seems much exaggeration here. Paul certainly, the de- posed patriarch of Constantinople (whom Eusebius had succeeded and who is mentioned by Socrates and Sozomen among the successful appellants), was not restored till the death of Ills rival in 342, and then only for a time and not through the action of Julius; nor did Athanasius regain his see till 346. Indeed, Sozomen himself acknowledges (iii. 10) that Julius effected nothing at the time by his letters in favour of Athanasius and Paul, and consequently referred their cause to the emperor Constans. Julius's real attitude and action are best seen in the long letter he addressed to the Easterns at the desire of the Roman council, which has been preserved entire by Athanasius {Apol. contra Arian. 21-36). He begins by animadverting strongly on the tone of the letter brought to him by his envoys, which was such, he says, that when he had at last reluctantly shewn it to others they could hardly believe it genuine. His own action had been complained of in the letter. He therefore both defends himself and recriminates : " You object to having your own synodal judgment [that of Tyre] ques- tioned in a second council. But this is no unprecedented proceeding. The council of Nice permitted the re-examination of synod- ical Acts. If your own judgment were right, you should have rejoiced in the opportunity of having it confirmed ; and how can you, of all men, complain, when it was at the instance of your own emissaries, when worsted by the advocates of Athanasius, that the Roman council was convened ? You certainly cannot plead the irreversibility of a synodical de- cision, having yourselves reversed even the judgment of Nice in admitting Arians to communion. If on this ground you complain JULIUS of my receiving Athanasius, much more may j I complain of your asking me to acknowledge j Pistus, a man alleged by the envoys of Athan- ' asius to have been condemned as an Arian at Nice and admitted by your own representa- tives to have been ordained by one Secundus, who had been so condemned. It must have j been from chagrin at being so utterly refuted i in his advocacy of Pistus that your emissary ' Macarius fled by night, though in weak health, from Rome." He next refers sarcasticallv to an allegation of his correspondents as to the equality of all bishops, maile either in justitication of their having judged a bp. of .\lexandria or in deprecation of the case being referred to Rome. " If, as you write, you hold the honour of all bishops to be equal, and unaffected by the greatness of their sees, this view comes ill from those who have shewn themselves so anxious to get translated from their own small sees to greater ones." He here alludes to Eusebius himself, who had passed from Berytus to Nicomedia, and thence to Constantinople. Having treated as frivolous their plea of the short time allowed them to get to the Roman council, he meets j their further complaint that his letter of summons had been addressed only to Eusebius and his party, instead of the whole Eastern episcopate. " I naturally wrote to those who | had written to me." He adds emphatically, " Though I alone wrote, I did so in the nanie of, and as expressing the sentiments of, all the Italian bishops." He then justifies at length his action and that of the Roman council. The letters of accusation against Athanasius had been from strangers living at a distance, and contradicted one another : the testimonies in his favour from his own people, who knew him well, had been clear and consistent. He exposes the false charges about the murder of .\rsenius and the broken chalice, and the unfairness of the Mareotic inquiry. He contrasts the conduct of Athan- i asius, who had come of his ow-n accord to ', Rome to court investigation, with the un- I willingness of his accusers to appear against him. He dwells on the uncanonical intrusion of Gregory the Cappadocian by military force into the Alexandrian see, and on the atrocities committed to enforce acceptance of him. " It j is you," he adds, " who have set at nought ! the canons, and disturbed the church's peace ; not we, as you allege, who have entertained a just appeal, and acquitted the innocent." After briefly justifying the acquittal of Mar- cellus from the charge of heresy, he calls upon those to whom he writes to repudiate the base conspiracy of a few and so remedy the wrong done. He points out what would have been the proper course of procedure in case of any just cause of suspicion against the bishops. This part of his letter is important, as shewing his own view of his position in relation to the church at large. "If," he says, "they were guilty, as you say they were, they ought to have been judged canonically, not after your method. All of us [i.e. the whole episcopate] ought to have been written to, that so justice might be done by all. For they were bishops who suffered these things, and bishops of no ordinary sees, but of such as were founded by apostles personally. Why, then, were you JULIUS fiiM unwilling to write to us [i.e. to thr Roman church) fsi)eci.illv about thr Alexandrian srr ? Can you be ijjnor.mt that this is the custom ; that we sho\ild be written to in thr first place, so that hence [i.e. from this church! what i-s just may be defined ? Whrrrforr, if a sus- picion against the bishop had arisrn thrrr [t.e. in .Mexandria), it ought to have hrrn referred hither to our church. Hut now, having never informed us of the case, thry wish us to accejit their condemnation, in which we had no part. Not so do the ordin- ances of St. Paul direct ; not so do thr Fathers teach : this is pride, and a new ambition. I beseech you. hear me gladlv. I write this for the public good : for what we have received from the blessed Peter I signifv to vou." This language will hardlv bear the inferences of Socrates (ii. 8, 17) and of Sozomen (iii. 10). that, according to church law, enactments made without the consent of the bp. of Koine were held invalid. It certainlv implies no claim to exclusive jurisdiction over all churches. All that Julius insists on is th.it charges as.unst the bishops of great sees ought. arcording to apostolic tradition and canoniral rule, to be referred to the whole episcopate ; and that, in the case of a bp. of Alexandria at least, custom gave the initiative of proceedings to the b|i. of Rome. In this reference to custom he probably has in view the case of Dionysius of Al>xandria, the charges against whom had been laid before Dionysius of Rome. The allegation in the earlier part of his letter of the fathers of Nice having sanctioned the reconsideration of the decisions of synods is more difficult to account for. He may be alluding to the action of the Nicene council • in entertaining the case of Arius after he had been synodicallv condemned at Alexandria. The action of pope Julius appears open to no exception, for if the synod consisted of Westerns only, that was becau'ie the Easterns refused to attend it, though Julius had convened it at the suggestion of their own emissaries ; and, after all, the Roman synod only confirmed the continuance of communion with Eastern prelates whom it deemed un- justly condemned. It had no power to do more. Still, the action of Julius may have served as a step towards subsequent papal claims of a more advanced kind ; and it prob- ably suggested the canons of Sardica. pregnant with results, which will be noticed presently. Athanasius remained still in Riune, till, in his fourth year oi residence there — probablv in the summer of 343 — he received a summons from Constans, now sole emperor of the West, to meet him at Milan (Athan. A pot. ad Imp. Constantium, 4), about the holding of a new council, at which both East and West should be fully represented. With the conrurrrnce of the Eastern emperor Constantius, this council was summoned at the Morsian town of Sardica on the confines of their empires, probably towards the end of 343. The scheme of united action failed, the Eastern bishops holding a separate synod at Philip- popolis. The rest met at Sardica under the • Tills indeed wa.s one of the nurpo»en which the emperor had at hnirl in conveninR it. Just n» the synfKl of Aries hnd iiImi met by hU ordein to recon- sider the ac<|iiittnl of St. Cnecillan, decrerd in the 1 previous synod of Rome under Melchiadcs.— B.s.rv. 604 JULIUS venerable Hosius of Cordova. In some editions of the Acts of the council he is desig- nated one of the legates of the Roman see. But this designation seems due only to the desire, which appears in other cases, of assign- ing the presidency of all councils to the pope. According to Athanasius {Apol. contra Arian. 50), Julius was represented by two presbyters, Archidamus and Philoxenes, whose names appear in the signatures to the synodal letter of the council after that of Hosius. Hosius undoubtedly presided, and there is no sign of his having done so as the pope's deputy either in the Acts of the council or in the letter sent to Julius at its close. Nor can the initiative of the council be assigned to Julius, for this is inconsistent with the statement of Athanasius, who calls God to witness that when summoned to Milan he was entirely ignorant of the purpose of the summons, but found that it was because " certain bishops " there had been moving Constans to induce Constantius to allow a general council to be assembled {Apol. ad Imp. Consianttum, 4). If Julius had been the mover, it is unlikely that Athanasius, who was with him at Rome, would have been ignorant of the purpose of his summons or would have spoken only of " certain bishops." The council was con- vened by the emperors on their own authority, to review the whole past proceedings, whether at T>Te, Antioch, or Rome, without asking the pope's leave or inviting him to take the lead. It confirmed and promulgated anew all the decisions of the Roman council, decreed the restoration of the banished orthodox prelates, and excommunicated the Eusebian intruders. It also passed 21 canons of discipline, 3 being of special historic importance. The extant Acts of the council give them thus. Canon III. {al. III., IV.) " Bp. Osius said : This also is necessary to be added, that bishops pass not from their own province to another in which there are bishops, imless perhaps on the invitation of their brethren there, that we may not seem to close the gate of charity. And, if in any province a bishop have a controversy against a brother bishop, let neither of the two call upon a bishop from another province to take cognizance of it. But, should any one of the bishops have been condemned in any case, and think that he has good cause for a reconsideration of it, let us (if it please you) honour the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter, so that Julius, the Roman bishop, be written to by those who have examined the case ; and, if he should judge that the trial ought to be renewed, let it be renewed, and let him appoint judges. But, if he should decide that the case is such that what has been done ought not to be reconsidered, what he thus decides shall be confirmed. Si hoc omnibus placet ? The synod replied, Placet." Canon IV. [al. V.) " Bp. Gaudentius said : Let it, if it please you, be added to this decree that when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of bishops who dwell in neighbouring places, and he has proclaimed his intention of taking his case to Rome, no other bishop shall by any means be ordained to his see till the cause has been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop." Canon V. [at. VII.) " Bp. Osius JULIUS said : It has seemed good to us (placuit) that if any bishop has been accused, and the assembled bishops of his own region have deposed him, and if he has appealed to the bishop of the Roman church, and if the latter is willing to hear him, and considers it just that the inquiry should be renewed, let him deign to write to the bishops of a neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into everything, and give their sentence according to the truth. But if the appellant in his supplication should have moved the Roman bishop to send a presbyter [al. pres- byters] 'de suo latere,' it shall be in his [i.e. the Roman bishop's] power to do whatever he thinks right. And if he should decide to send persons having his own authority to sit in judgment with the bishops, it shall be at his option to do so. But if he should think the bishops sufficient for terminating the business, he shall do what approves itself to his most wise judgment." * In these canons we notice, firstly, they were designed to provide what recent events had shewn the need of, and what the existing church system did not adequately furnish — a recognized court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes. The canons of Nice had provided none beyond the provincial synod, for beyond that the only strictly canonical appeal was to a general council, which could j be but a rare event and was dependent on ' the will of princes. The need was felt of a readier remedy. Secondly, this remedy was provided by giving the Roman bishop the power to cause the judgment of provincial synods to be reconsidered ; but only on the appeal of the aggrieved party, and only in certain prescribed ways. He might refuse to interfere, thus confirming the decision of the provincial synod ; or he might constitute the bishops of a neighbouring province as a court of appeal ; he might further, if requested and if he thought it necessary, send one or more presbyters as his legates to watch the pro- ceedings, or appoint representatives of himself to sit as assessors in the court. But he was not empowered to interfere unless appealed to, or to summon the case to Rome to be heard before himself in synod ; still less, of course, to adjudicate alone. Thirdly, it is evident that this course was sanctioned for the first time at Sardica. The canons, on the face of them, were not a confirmation of a tradi- tional prerogative of Rome. The words of Hosius were, " Let us, if it please you, honour the memory of the blessed Apostle St. Peter," i.e. by conceding this power to the Roman bishop. Fourthly, the power in question was definitely given only to the then reigning pope, Julius, who is mentioned by name ; and it has hence been supposed that it was not meant to be given his successors (cf. Richer. Hist. Concil. General, t. i. c. 3, § 4). But the arrangement was probably at any rate in- tended to be permanent, since the need for it and the grounds assigned for it were per- manent. Fifthly, since it was the causes of * The editions of these canons, extant in Greek and Latin translations, vary in their wording and ar- rangement of them, but all agree in the drift as given above. Doubts have been entertained of their authenticity, but they are generally accepted. See Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. 2nd period, div. i, c. iii. note 7. JULIUS Eastern bishops that led to the enactment, the canons were probably meant to apply to the whole cluirch, and not to the Western only. The tireek canonists, Balsamon ami Zonar.is, maintain their narrower scope ; and it is true that, the council having consisted of Westerns only, they were never accepted by the churches of the East. But though the council of Sardica was not in fact oecumenical, the emperors had intended it to be so, and the Roman canonists call it so in virtue of the general summons. They, however, regard it as an appendage to that of Nice ; and prob- ably its canons were from the first added at Rome to those of Nice as supplementary to them, since in the well-known case of Apiarius, the African presbyter (a.d. 417), pope Zosimus quoted them as Nicene ; and pope Innocent (a.d. 402) seems previously to have done the same in defending his appellate jurisdiction over Gaul. In the African case the error was eventually exposed by reference to the copies of the Nicene canons preserved at Constan- tinople and Alexandria, and the Africans thereupon distinctly repudiated the claims of Rome which rested upon this false foundation. But Boniface and Celestine, the successors of Zosimus, refer to these canons as Nicene, as did Leo I. in 449 ; and this continued to be the Roman position. The persistence of the popes in quoting them as Nicene after the mistake had been discovered is an early instance of Roman unfairness in support of papal claims. It is further a significant fact that in some Roman copies the name of Sylvester was substituted for that of Julius, as if with an intention of throwing their date back to the Nicene period. The scope also of the canons came in time to be unduly extend- ed, being made to involve the power of the pope to summon at his will all cases to be heard before himself at Rome. Our proper conclusion seems to be that, though probably intended by their framers to bind the whole church, their authority was not really ade- quate to the purpose ; and that the popes afterwards appealed to them unfairly in sup- port of their claims by misrepresenting both their authority and their scope. At the close of its sittings the council of Sardica addressed letters to the two emperors, to Julius, to the church of .Alexandria, to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and an encyclic "to all bishops." In that to Julius the reason he alleged for not attending — viz. the necessity of remaining in Rome to guard against the schemes of heretics — is allowed as sufficient ; and he is presimied to have been present in spirit. The documents sent him and the oral report of his emissaries would inform him of what had been done, but it was thought fit to send him also a brief summary : The most religious emperors had permitted the council to discuss anew all past proceedings, and hence the following questions had been considered: (i) The definition of the true faith ; (2) The condemnation or acquittal of those whom the Eusebians had deposed ; (3) The charges against the Eusebians themselves of having unjustly condemned and persecuted the orthodox. For full information as to the council's decisions he is referred to the letters written to the emperors ; and he is directed, JULIUS 608 rather than requested (" Ui.i autem excrllcn* prudentiadisponere debet, ut per tua scripta," etc.), to inform the bishops of Italy, Sardinia, and Sicily of what had been done, that they might know with wliom to hold coinniuiiion. A list is appended of those excommunicatrd by the synod. The whole drift of the letter is inconsistent with the council having been convened by the pope himself, or held in his name, or considered dependent on him for ratification of its decrees. He is not even charged with the promulgation of them, except to bishops immediately under his jurisdiction. The only expression pointing to his pre-eminent position is that it would appear to be best and exceedingly fitting ("optimum et valde congruentissimum") that "the head, that is the see of St. Peter," should be informed respecting every single province. Nor is there in the letter to the .Alexandrians, or in the encyclic to all bishops, any reference to him as having initiated or taken part in the council; only in the latter a passing allusion to the previous council which he ("comminister noster dilectissimus") had convened at Rome. The letter to Julius is signed, first by Hosius, and then by 58 other bishops, being probably those present at the close of the council. But as many as 284 are given by Athanasius (Apol. contra A nan. 49, 50) as having assented to its decrees and signed its encyclic letter. They include, from various parts of the West with a few from the East 78, from Gaul and Britain 34, from Africa 36, from Egypt 94, from Italy 15, from Cyprus 12, from Palestine 15. Not till Oct. 346, some three years after the council, was Athanasius allowed to return to his see. Before that he again visited Rome, and was again cordially received by Julius, who wrote a letter of congratulation to the clergy and laity of Alexandria, remarkable for its warmth of feeling and beauty of expression. He regards the return at last of their beloved bishop after such prolonged affliction as a reward granted to their unwavering affection for him, shewn by their continual prayers and their letters of sympathy that had consoled his exile, as well as to his own faithfulness. He dwells on the holy character of .Athanasius, his resoluteness in defence of the faith, his endurance of persecution, his contempt of death and danger. He congratulates them on receiving him back all the more glorious for his long trials and fully piroved innocence. He pictures vividly his welcome home by rejoicing crowds at Alexandria. The letter is the more admirable for the absence of all bitterness towards the persecutors. The oidy further notice of Julius is of his having received the recantation of Valens and Ursacius, two notable opponents of Athan- asius who had been condenmed at Sardica. Thev had alreadv recanted before a syn»»d at Milan, and written a pacific letter to .Athan- asius ; but went also of their own accord, I A.D. 347, to Rome, and presented a huuible i apologetic letter to Julius, and were admitted to communion (Athan. //u/. Arian. ad Mon- achos,2h; HiUiT. Fragm. i.). Their profession however (in which they owned the falsity of their charges against Athanasius and renounced Anan heresy), proved insincere. 606 JULIUS For when, after the defeat of Constans in 350 and the defeat of Maxentius in 351, the tide of imperial favour began to turn, they recanted their recantation, which they said had been made only under fear of Constans. But Julius, who died Apr. 12, 352, was spared the troublous times which ensued. The fresh charges now got up, and sent to him and the emperor, arrived at Rome too late for him to entertain them. [Liberius.] His only extant writings are the two letters, to the Eusebians andthe Alexandrians, referred to above. Ten decreta are ascribed to him in the collections of Gratian and Ivo. One is interesting for its allusion to certain usages in the celebration of the Eucharist — viz. using milk, or the expressed juice of grapes, instead of wine; administering the bread dipped in the wine, after the manner of the Greeks at the present day ; and using a linen cloth soaked in must, reserved through the year and moistened with water, for each celebration. All these are condemned, except the use of the unfermented juice of the grape, in which (it is said) is the ef&cacy of wine, in case of need, if mixed with water, which is declared always necessary to represent the people, as the wine represents the blood of Christ. Julius was buried, according to the Liberian and Felician Catalogues, "in coemeterio Calepodii ad Callistum " on the Aurelian Way, where he had built a basilica, [j.b — v.] Julius (9) (Jiilianus), bp. of Puteoli (Gesta de Nom. Acacii, in Labbe, iv. 1079 d), probably the bp. Julius to whom, a.d. 448, Leo the Great entrusted the execution of certain dis- ciplinary measures in the church of Beneven- tum (Leo Mag. Ep. xix. 736). Certainly he, with Renatus the presbyter and Hilarus the deacon, carried to Flavian of Constantinople the famous "tome" of St. Leo in June 449, ♦ and acted as his legate in the " Robber " council of Ephesus (Leo Mag. Ep. xxxiii. 866, Migne). The legates are described by Leo as sent de latere rneo (Ep. xxxii. 859, xxxiv. 870. He was not the first pope to use this phrase ; see the Ballerini in loc. Migne). Because Julius appears in the " acta " of the council most frequently as Julianus he has been confused with Julian of Cos. That it was our Julius who was the papal legate at Ephesus is proved by Leo's letter to the latter (xxxiv. 870) and by the fact that the legate did not know Greek, which Julian of Cos certainly did (see Julianus (27) ; Labbe, iv. 121 B ; Tillem. xv. note 21, pp. 901-902). Evagrius (H. E. i. x.), Prosper (C^j^oh), and Gesta de Noin. Acac. (in Labbe, iv. 1079 d), call the papal legate Julius, not Julianus (see also Marianus Scotus, Chron. ann. 450 in Pair. Lat. cxlvii. 726). On Quesnel's hypothesis, that Julius and not Renatus died on the road to Ephesus, and that Julian took his place, cf, Tillemont, I.e., and Hefele, Concil. ii. 368, 369. On their arrival at Ephesus the legates lodged with Flavian; on the ground that they had lived with him and been tampered with by him (<xvv€KpoTridr)aav, Lat. munerati), Euty- ches took exception to their impartiality as judges (Labbe, iv. 149 b). The assertion of Liberatus {Breviarium, c. xii.) that the Roman legates could not take part in the council (" assidere non passi sunt " JUNILIUS are his words) because the precedence was not given to them as representing Rome, and because Leo's letter was not read, is not in harmony with the acta of the council (see Tillem. xv. notes 26 and 27, p. 904). They undoubtedly did take part in the proceedings of the council, and Julius ranked after Dios- corus. His interpreter, as he could not speak Greek, was Florentius, bp. of Sardis (Labbe, iv. 122 b). We read that he made several efforts to resist Dioscorus, especially urging that Leo's letter should be read, but he does not seem to have been so prominent in opposition as Hilarus the deacon {ib. 128 b, 149 B, 302 d). Leo, however, expresses high commendation of the conduct of his legates generally. They protested in the council, he says, and declared that no violence should sever them from the truth {Ep. 45, 922). He speaks to Theodosius, the emperor, of intelli- gence having been brought him of the acts of the synod by the bishop whom he had sent, as well as by the deacon {Ep. xliii. 902) ; but this in other letters (xliv. 911, xlv. 919) is corrected by the statement that only Hilarus escaped to Rome. What happened to Julius we do not know, nor do we hear of him sub- sequently (Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vi. 272). Ughelli and Cappelletti (xix. 647, 669) name him Julianus and make him 6th bp. of Puteoli between Theodore and Stephen. [c.o.] Junilius (ioiiyiXos. Junillus), an African by birth, hence commonly known as Junilius Africanus. He filled for seven years in the court of Justinian the important office of quaestor of the sacred palace, succeeding the celebrated Tribonian (Procop. Anecd. c. 20). Procopius tells us that Constantine, whom the Acts of the 5th general council shew to have held the office in 553, succeeded on the death of Junilius, which may therefore be placed a year or two earlier. Junilius, though a lay- man, took great interest in theological studies. A deputation of African bishops visiting Constantinople, one of them, Pkimasius of Adrumetum, inquired of his distinguished countryman, Junilius, who among the Greeks was distinguished as a theologian, to which Junilius replied that he knew one Paul [Paul OF NisiBis], a Persian by race, who had been educated in the school of the Syrians at Nisibis, where theology was taught by public masters in the same systematic manner as the secular studies of grammar and rhetoric else- where. Junilius had an introduction to the Scriptures by this Paul, which, on the soli- citation of Primasius, he translated into Latin, breaking it up into question and answer. Kihn identifies this work of Paul with that which Ebedjesu (Asseman. Bihl. Or. HI. i. 87 ; Badger, Nestorians, ii. 369) calls Maschelmonu- tho desurtho. The work of Junilius was called " Instituta regularia divinae legis," but is commonly known as " De partibus divinae legis," a title which really belongs only to chap. i. It has been often printed in libraries of the Fathers {e.g. Galland, vol. xii. ; Migne, vol. Ixviii.). The best ed., for which 13 MSS. were collated, is by Prof. Kihn of Wiirzburg (Theodor von Mopsuestia, Freiburg, 1880), a work admirable for its thorough investigations, and throwing much light on JuniUus. The introduction does not, as has beea JUNILIUS often assumed, represent an African school of theology, but the Syrian ; and Kilin conclu- sively shews that (although possibly Junilius was not aware of it himself) it is all founded on the teaching of TnEODORE of Mopsuestia. Junilius divides the books of Scripture into two classes. The first, which alone he calls Canonical Scripture, are of perfect authority ; the second added by niany are of secondary (trudiae) authority ; all other books are of no authority. The first class consists of (i) His- torical Books : Pentateuch, Josh., Judg., Ruth, Sam., and Kings., and in N.T. tlie four Gospels and Acts ; (2) Prof^helical (in which what is evidently intended for a chronological arrange- ment is substituted for that more usual) : Ps., Hos., Is., Jl., Am., Ob., Jon., Mic, •Nah., Hab., Zeph., Jer., Ezk., Dan., Hag., Zech., and Mai. (he says that John's Apoca- lypse is much doubted of amongst the Easterns); (3) Proverbial or parabolic: the Prov. of Solomon and the Book of Jesus the Son of Sirach ; (4) Doctrinal: Eccles., the 14 epp. of St. Paul in the order now usual, including Heb., I. Pet., and I. Jn. In his second class he counts (1) Historical: Chron., Job, Esdras (no doubt including Neh.), Judith, Est., and Mace; {3) Proverbial: \Visdom and Cant.; (4) Doctrinal: the Epp. of Jas., II. Pet., Jude, II. III. Jn. Lam. and Bar. were included in Jer. Tobit is not mentioned, but is quoted in a later part of the treatise. Kihn is no doubt right in regarding its omission as due to the accidental error of an early transcriber ; for no writer of the time would have designedly refused to include Tobit even in his list of deuterocanonical books. Junilius gives as a reason for not reckoning the books of the second class as canonical that the Hebrews make this differ- ence, as Jerome and others testify. This is clearly incorrect with regard to several of them, and one is tempted to think (pace Kihn) that Junilius himself added this reference to Jerome and did not find it in his Greek original. The low place assigned to Job and Cant, accords with the estimate formed by Theodore of Mopsuestia. Junilius quotes as Peter's a passage from his second epistle, which he had not admitted into his list of canonical books. He describes Ps., Eccles., and Job as written in metre (see Bickcll, Metrices Biblicae Regulae). The work of Junilius presents a great number of other points of interest, e.g. his answer, ii. 29, to the question how we prove the books of Scrip- ture to have been written by divine inspiration. The publication of the work Kihn assigns to 551, in which year the Chronicle of Victor Tununensis records the presence at Constanti- nople of the African bishops Reparatus, Firmus, Primasius, and Verecundus. He thinks that Junilius probably met Paul of Nisibis there as early as 543. We do not venture to oppose the judgment of one entitled to speak with so high authority ; but we should have thought that the intro- duction into the West of this product of the Nestorian school of theology took place at an earlier period of the controversy about the Three Chapters than 551. It is not unUkely that Primasius paid earlier visits to Constan- tinople than that of which we have evidence. JOSTINIANUS I. 607 .\ commentary >>n *..». i. wron^'lv aM-rib<«d to Junilius is now generally attributed to Wede. [r,.s.] Justlna (5), empress, second wife of Valen- tinian 1., a Sicilian by birth, and, teste Zosinius (iv. 19 and 43), the widow of M.iKnmtius, killed in 353. Valentinian mav h.iv.- (livorced his first wife (Chron. Pasch. \it2), and then espoused Justina, probably in 3().H. She was an Arian, but tluring her husband's lifetime concealed her opinions (Ruf. //. /•.. ii. 15, in Migne, I'atr. I.at. xxi. 523). She, however, endeavoured to prevent him fr.mi allowing St. Martin of Tours to enter his presence (Snip. Sev. Dial. ii. in i/>. xx. 205). After her husband's death she at once used her influence as mother of the infant em- peror Valentinian 11. to advance the inter- ests of her sect, and soon came into collision with St. Ambrose. Their first contest was probably c. 380, when St. .Ambrose was sum- moned to Sirmium to take part in the consecra- tion of Anemius as bishop of that see. the empress being desirous that the new bishop should be consecrated by the Arians (Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii, in ib. xiv. 30). After the murder of Gratian and the seizure by Maxiinus of Spain. Gaul, and Britain in 383, Justina (who, with her infant son, was residing in the imperial palace at Milan) had recourse to her former opponent St. Ambrose. She placed her son in his hands, and induced him to undertake the delicate task .)f going as ambassador to Maximus, to pcrsuadi- him to be contented with Gratian's provinr<-s anil to leave Valentinian in undisturbi-d posstssion of Italy, Africa, and Western lllyri< urn (St. -Ambrose, Epp. 20, 21, 24 ; Id. de Obttu Valentiniani, 1182 in Patr. Lat. xvi. looi, 1007, 1035, 1368). His mission was success- ful, at any rate for a time ; but the ungrateful Justina assailed him at Easter 385 with the object of obtaining a church at Milan for the use of her fellow-Arians. For an account of this memorable struggle see Ambrosil'S. By a constitution (Cod. Theod. xvi. i, 4), dated Jan. 21, 386, and drawn up at her direction (Soz. H. E. vii. 13), those whi> held the opinions sanctioned by the council of Arimi- num were granted the right of meeting for public worship. Catholics being forbidden under ])ain of death to offer opposition or to endeavour to get the law repealed. When danger again threatened, Justina again had recourse to Ambrose's services. After Easter 387 he was sent to Trier to ask that the body of (Iratian should be restored to his brother and to avert Maximus's threat- ened invasion of Italy (Ep. 24). His mission was unsuccessful ; Maximus crossed the Alps in the auturnn and made himself master of Italy without striking a blow. Valentinian and his mother and sisters fled by sea to Thessalonica, whence she sent to Theodosius imploring his help. Zosimus (iv. 44) narrati>s how she overcame his reluctance by the charms of her daughter, the beautiful Galla, whose hand pai<l for his assistance. (See Due de Broglie, E'Egltse et I'emp. iii. 228.) In 3««, the year of her son's restoration, Justina died (Soz. H. E. vii. 14 ; Ruf. H. E. ii. 17). [f.d.] Justinianus (6) I., Roman pmperor(275-5<J5)- I. Life and (haracter. — Justwiian was born 608 JUSTINIANUS I. most probably in 483 at Tauresium, on the borders of lUyricum and Macedonia, a spot probably a little S. of Uskiub, the ancient Scupi (see Procop. Aedif. iv. i, and Tozer, High- lands of European Turkey, ii. p. 370). After his accession he built at his birthplace a city which he named Justiniana Prima and made the capital of the province and seat of an arch- bishop. [The tale regarding his Slavonic origin started by Alemanni in his notes to the Anecdota of Procopius seems to be baseless ; see art. in Eng. Hist. Rev. Oct. 1887, by the present writer.] Early in life he came to Constantinople, and attached himself to his uncle Justin, who, serving in the imperial guards under the emperors Zeno and Anas- tasius, had risen to high place. At Constan- tinople Justinian dihgently studied law, theo- logy, and general literature, and the influence of his uncle doubtless procured him employ- ment in the civil service of the state. When Justinian was 35, the emperor Anastasius was succeeded by Justin, an illiterate soldier, weakened by age, to whom the help of his more active nephew was almost indispensable. Ecclesiastical affairs and the general adminis- tration of the state fell under the control of Justinian. He became co-emperor in 527, and on Justin's death, a month later, assumed without question the sole sovereignty of the Roman world, retaining it till his death in 565, at the age of 82, when he was peaceably suc- ceeded by his nephew Justin II. In 526 he married Theodora, a woman of singular beauty, and still more remarkable charms of manner and intellect, said to have been a native of Cyprus and a comedian. The gossip of the time, starting from this un- doubted fact, has accumulated in the Anecdota, or unpublished memoirs, ascribed to, and no doubt written by (although there has been a controversy on the point), Procopius, a variety of scandalous tales regarding her earlier career. [Theodora.] She soon acquired an almost unbounded dominion over Justinian's mind, and was commonly regarded as the source of many of his schemes and enterprises. She died in 548, and he did not marry again. Most of what we know directly about Justinian comes from Procopius, which does not diminish the difficulty of forming a com- prehensive and consistent view of his abilities and character. For Procopius wTote of him with servility in his lifetime, and reviled him in the Anecdota, a singular book which did not come to light till long afterwards. Setting aside exaggerations in both directions, it may be concluded that Justinian was a man of considerable, if not first-rate, abilities. He was well educated, according to the ideas and customs of the time, and more or less conver- sant with many branches of knowledge. Procopius accuses him of being a barbarian both in mind and speech, which probably means only that he spoke Greek like an Illy- rian provincial [Anecd. c. 14). His artistic taste is shewn by the many beautiful buildings which he erected, two among which — those of St. Sophia at Constantinople and St. \'italis at Ravenna (though it does not appear that he had any share in designing this latter) — have had the unique distinction of becoming archi- tectural models for subsequent ages, the one JUSTINIANUS I. for the East and the other for the West. Several hymns still used in the orthodox Eastern church are ascribed to his pen, and he is the author of a treatise against the Monophysites, which Cardinal Mai has pub- lished. The records of his government and administration shew that he possessed great ingenuity and enterprise ; but the enterprise was often prompted more by vanity and lust of power than by regard to the welfare of his people, and his ingenuity was not guided by prudence or by a solid knowledge of the economical conditions of prosperity. There was much more cleverness than wisdom about him ; we see in his policy fevs- indications of deep and statesmanlike foresight. The chief feature of his character is his extraordinary industry. He seemed to live for work, and toiled harder than any of his own clerks. He was naturally abstemious and regular in life, observing the church fasts very strictly, able to go long without food, taking little sleep, and spending most of his time, when not actually giving audiences, in pacing up and down the rooms of the palace listening to readers or dictating to an amanuensis. He cared little for vulgar pleasures (though he shewed an excessive partiality for the blue faction, he does not appear to have been personally addicted to the games of the circus), and yielded to no influences except those of his wife Theodora. We are told that he was easy of access — a rare merit in the despotic centre of a highly formal court — pleasant and reassuring in manner, but also deceitful and capable of treachery and ingratitude. How far this ingratitude was in the most notable case, that of Belisarius, excused by apprehen- sions of danger, is a problem not wholly solved or soluble. Wantonly cruel he does not seem to have been, and on several occasions shewed an unexpected clemency, but he shrank from no severities that his intellect judged useful. In person he was well formed, rather above the middle height, with a ruddy and smiling countenance. Besides his effigy on coins, we have two probably contemporary portraits among the mosaics of Ravenna — one in the apse of the church of San Vitale, built in his reign, in which he appears among a number of other figures ; the other now preserved in the noble church of Sant' Apollinare in Urbe. II. The political events of his reign may be read in Procopius, Agathias, Theophanes (all three in the Bonn ed. of the Byzantine histo- rians), in the ecclesiastical history of Evagrius, in Gibbon (see cc. xl.-xliii. for a full and brilliant picture of Justinian's times), and in Le Beau (Histoire du bus empire, vols. viii. and ix., with St. Martin's notes). Finlay (Greece under the Romans, vol. i. of new ed.) has some valuable remarks, as also Hertzberg, Griechenland unter der Romer, vol. iii. ; see also Dahn, Prokopios von Caesarea. At Justinian's accession the empire was generally at peace. An expedition was dispatched in 533, under Belisarius, which landed in Africa without opposition and reduced the whole Vandal kingdom to submission in little more than three months. The Vandals who sur- vived seem to have been rapidly absorbed into the African population ; anyhow, we hear no more of them. The fleet of BeUsarius received JUSTINIANUS I. in rapid succession the siihinission of Sardiiii.i, Corsica, and the Balearic Isles. Orthodoxy , was re-established there and in Africa, j Justinian directed the laws against heretics to be put in force against the Arians and Donatists in Africa, and their meetings to be altogether forbidden (Baron, ad aim. 535). The orthodox bishops met in a council, at which 207 prelates were present (Baron, ad ann. 535). The orthodox churches of .-Vfrica were restored to the full enjoyment of tlieir rights, property, and privileges. But the African church and province never regained its former prosperity. The misgovcrnnicnt of the imperial lieutenants completed the ruin which the Vandals had begun, and the wild Moorish tribes encroached in all directions on the Roman population. Great part of the country, once the most productive part of the Roman dominions, relapsed into solitude and neglect ; the Christians there were still divided by the mutual jealousies of Donatists, Arians, and orthodox. The success of his enterprise against the Vandals encouraged Justinian to attempt the recovery of Italy from the Ostrogoths, who had held it and Sicily since the invasion under Theodoric in 493-494. The emperors at Constantinople considered themselves, ever since the extinction of the Western branch of the empire in 476, de jure sovereigns of Italy and the whole West, regarding the Ciothic kings partly as their lieutenants, partly as mere usurpers. Justinian dispatched Beli- sarius from Constantinople with a fleet and over 7,000 men in the autumn of 535. He reduced Sicily easily in a few weeks. Then he attacked Italy, occupying Rome in Dec. 536. The Ostrogoths had shortly before risen against their king Theodahad, and chosen Witigis, whom Belisarius took at Ravenna and carried to Constantinople, leaving the imperial power supreme in Italy. Totila, whom the Goths chose in the room of Witigis, recovered fortress after fortress from the incompetent generals who succeeded Belisarius, till he was master of most part of Italy ; and at length restored the Ciothic kingdom to a better position than it had held since the death of Theodoric. But in 552 his army was defeated, and himself slain by Narses, and with him died the last hopes of the Gothic kingdom of Italy. After Narses had destroyed Butelin and his host in a great battle near Casilinum in Campania, 544, the small remains of the Gothic nation either passed into Spain and Gaul to mingle with other barbarians or were lost among the Roman population of Italy, which now was finally in Justinian's hands. It was, however, a desolated and depopulated Italy. Nor was it long left to his successors. The third great struggle of Justinian's reign was against the Persian empire, then under Kobad and Chosroes Anushirvan in the zenith of its power. After several campaigns Chos- roes concluded in 533, on obtaining from the emperor 11,000 pounds of gold, a peace which gave rest to tiie eastern provinces. In 539 war broke out again, and also a revolt against Justinian in Armenia, a part of whose people appealed to the Persians for holi>. Chosrues commanded a vast force, which the Roman JUSTINIANUS fl60 generals were quite unable to resist in the open field. In 540 .\ntioc!i, far the greatest town of the eastern part of the empire, was sacked and many thousand inhabitants carried to a new city, built for them near Ctesiphon his own capital. Towards the end of Justinian's reign the fighting slackened ; a peace for 50 years was conchided in 562 on terms humili- ating to Justinian, wlio undertook to pay yearly 30,000 gold pieces. This peace lasted only 10 years ; but the war which began in 572 lies outside Justinian's reign. Less famous, but perhaps even more ruinous, were the contests which Justinian had to maintain against the barbarians of Scythia and the Danube. From the Alps to the Black Sea, the N. border of the empire was the scene of seldom intermitted warfare. The various tribes whom the Roman historian calls Huns, and who included the race subsequently dis- tinguished as Bulgarians, poured from the S. of what is now Russia down upon Thrace, ravaged it and Macedonia, penetrated on one occasion to the isthmus of Corinth, and six years before Justinian's death, in '559, ap- peared in great force under the walls of Con- stantinople, from which they were repulsed by the skill and vigour of Belisarius. In the N.W. provinces villages were destroved, cultivated land laid waste, and inunense numbers of the inhabitants carried into slavery. The only serious efforts the emperor made against these enemies (besides the building of fortresses) were by diplomacy. His policy was to foment hostilities between neighbouring tribes, taking sometimes one, sometimes another, into alliance with the empire, and offering large presents, often so regular as to amount to a kind of blarkmail. to buy them off for the moment or induce them to turn their arms against some other barbarian power. His activity as a negntiator was unwearied. Embassies from all parts of the barbarian world arrived at Constanti- nople, excited the wonder of the people by their strange garb and manners, and returned home laden with gifts and j)romises. Even the tribes of the Baltic and the Turks of Cen- tral Asia seem t'l have thus come into relations with him. His policy was much blamed in his own time (see esp. Procop. A need.), and may appear sh<irtsiglited as supi>lying fresh inducements to the barbarians to remw their attacks and letting them kmiw the wealth of the capital ; but perhajis no other policy was possible, and the incidental ailvantagcs of Roman influence and culture upon the b.irder tribes may have been considerable. III. We possess no systematic account of the internal state of the emjiire in Justinian's time, and depend only upon occasional notices by historians like f'rocopius and Agathias, and a study of Justinian's legislative measures. The civil service was, and had long been, in a high state of efficiency. Such alterations as Justinian made tended t<> perfect this organization and t > render all its members more comjiletely subservient to the crown. He spent enormous sums not only on his wars but in the erection of chiinhes. fortresses, and public buildings of every kind (a list will be fouiul in the df Afdiftcnt of I'rocopius), and was therefore always in want of money. Op- 3U 610 JUSTINIAKUS pressive as taxation had been before, he seems to have made it even more stringent ; and when the land-tax and other ordinary sources of revenue failed, he was driven to such ex- pedients as the sale of public offices, and even to the prostitution of justice and the confisca- tion of the property of private persons. Though the instances of this rest chiefly on the untrustworthy authority of the Anecdota of Procopius (who ascribes the worst to the immediate action of the empress), stories in other historians give some support to the accusation. On one occasion he attempted to debase the coin, but was checked by a threatened insurrection in the capital. The same charges of venaHty and extortion are brought against Tribonian, John of Cappa- docia, and others of Justinian's ministers. The administration of justice must have been greatly improved bv the promulgation of the whole binding law in the Codex, Pandects, and Institutes ; and great importance was evident- ly attached to the maintenance of the law schools of Berytus and Constantinople ; cor- ruption may, however, have largely prevailed among the judges. Brilliant as Justinian's reign may appear to us, the sufferings endured by the people from war, taxation, the per- secution of heretics, the blows struck at the privileges of various classes and professions, as well as from the great plague and from destructive earthquakes, made his rule un- popular, as shewn by the rebellions in Africa and the disaffection of the reconquered Italians. In Constantinople, not to speak of minor seditions, there occurred a tremendous insurrection in Jan. 532, arising out of a tumult in the hippodrome, and apparently due, partly to resentment at the maladminis- tration of John of Cappadocia, partly to the presence in the city of a large number of starving immigrants. The revolters held the city for some days, set fire to some of the finest buildings, drove Justinian into his palace fortress, and proclaimed Hypatius, nephew of the deceased emperor Anastasius, emperor. Having no concerted plan of action, part of them were induced to abandon the rest, who were then surprised and slaughtered by the imperial guards under the command of Behsarius. It is said that 30,000 people perished in this rising, which is known as the Nika sedition, from the watchword used by the rebels. (See an interesting account by W. A. Schmidt, Der Auf stand in Constantinopel unter Kaiser Justinian.) He made efforts to open up new channels for the traffic in silk, and ultimately suc- ceeded, through the boldness of two Persian monks, who conveyed the eggs of the worm in a hollow cane from China to the empire. The manufacture of silk was thus no longer at the mercv of the Persians, who had stopped the supply in time of war, and the culture of the silk-worm became an important branch of industrv in the Roman East. As a whole, the faults of Justinian's domes- tic government appear greatly to outweigh its merits. His subjects had grown tired of him long before his death ; but later ages looked back to his reign as a period of conquest abroad and magnificence at home, and accept- ed the surname of the Great. JUSTINIANUS I. IV. Ecclesiastical policy occupied no small share of Justinian's thoughts and care. During the lifetime of Justin I., he sought to re-establish the communion of the churches of Constantinople and Rome, which had been interrupted owing to the Monophysite contro- versies. On his accession in 527 he professed himself a zealous supporter of the Two Natures and the decrees of Chalcedon, and the firmness of his throne was no doubt partly due to this C(uncidence of his theological views with those of the bulk of his subjects in Constantinople, Thrace, and Asia Minor. He had great con- fidence in his own powers as a theologian, and took an active part in all the current con- troversies. A diligent student and having some literary pretensions, he read and wrote much on theological topics. His ecclesiastical policy apparently had two main objects, not, however, consistently pursued — the mainten- ance of the orthodox doctrine of the Four Coun- cils, and especially of Chalcedon, and the re- conciliation of the Monophysites, or at least the inducing by apparent concessions the more moderate Monophysites to accept the decrees of Chalcedon. There was in his court an active, though probably concealed, Monophy- site party, headed bv, and sheltering itself under, the empress Theodora. One of the emperor's first acts was to summon a confer- ence of leading theologians on both sides, so as to bring about a reconciliation. After several sittings, however, in one of which Justinian delivered a long allocution, vital points were reached on which neither side could yield, and the conference was dissolved. Among the Monophysite leaders were Severus, deposed from the patriarchate of Antioch in the time of Justin, and Anthimus, bp. of Trebizond. They seem to have acquired much influence in Theodora's coterie, and, probably owing to her, Anthimus was raised in 535 to the patriarchate of Constantinople, in spite of the doctrinal suspicions attaching to him. Pope Agapetus, having heard of these suspicions, and disapproving, as Rome was wont to do, of translations from one bishopric to another, refused to communicate with the patriarch till he should have purged himself from the charge of heresy, and insisted that, when purged, Anthimus should return to Trebizond. Justinian (perhaps owing to the support which Theodora seems to have given Anthimus) was at first displeased and resisted, but Agapetus prevailed. Anthimus was deposed, and Mennas, head of the hospi- tium of Samson in Constantinople, appointed in his place and consecrated by Agapetus, who soon afterwards died. By the directions of Justinian, Mennas called a local synod, which met during May and June 536 (Mansi, viii. ; cf. Hefele, Conciiiengeschichte, ii. pp. 742- 753), and deposed Anthimus from his see of Trebizond. The synod anathematized Sever- us, Peter of Apamea, and Zoaras as suspected of Monophysitism. In Aug. 536 Justinian issued an edict addressed to Mennas confirm- ing all that the synod had done. After this there appears to have been a comparative calm in the ecclesiastical world of Constantinople, till the emperor's attention was called to the growth of Origenistic opinions in the East, and especially in Syria. JUSTINIANUS I. About the boi^iiiiuui,' of the 6th cent, there had been in the monasteries of Palestine, and , particularly in that great one called the New Laura, a considerable diffusion of Origen's opinions, which excited the alarm of St. Sabas and of the patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. The latter in 543 induced I'elagius, apocrisiarius of the Roman bishop, to make representations to the emperor on the subject, and sent with him four monks to accuse the followers of ; Origen. The four monks were supported by Mennas the patriarch. Two Origenist bishops, ; Theodore Ascidas, archbp. of Caesarea in Cap- [ padocia, and Domitian, bp. of .\ncyra, resided 1 usually at Constantinople and had much in- | fluence with the emperor. Nevertheless they | seem to have) feared the charge of heresy j too much to resist the monks from Palestine, 1 and perhaps did not own their attachment j to Origen's writings. Anyhow, the emperor promptly condemned the accused opinions, issuing a long edict addressed to the patriarch Mennas, in which he classes Origen among the heretics, and singles out for anathema ten particular doctrines contained in his writings. A local council, con\-oked by Mennas, dutifully echoed the emperor's edict, publishing its anathemas against 14 propositions drawn from Origen, and condemning his person. Theodore and Domitian had submitted, but their mortification drove them to take action in another way, and thus to awaken a long, needless, and most mischievous controversy. Justinian was at work upon a treatise on ttie Incarnation, whereby he trusted to convince and conciliate the stubborn .\cephali (or e.\- tremer Monophysites) of Egypt. Theodore, according to our authorities, suggested to him that a simpler way of winning back those who disliked the council of Chalcedon would be to get certain writings condemned which that council had approved, but which the Mono- physites disliked as being of a distinctly Nes- torian tendency. (See Liberatus ap. (ialland. Bibl. Patr. .xii. 160, as to Theodore, and Facun- dus, bk. i. c. 2, as to Domitian of Ancvra ; cf. Evagr. H. E. iv. 38 ; Vita S. Sahae.) They singled out 3 treatises for condenmation, which soon became famous as the rpia KecpaXaia (tria capitiila), which we usually translate Three Chapters, but would be better called the Three Articles, \'iz. the writings of Theodore of .Mopsuestia, the treatise of Theo- doret against Cyril and his twelve articles, and the letter of (or attributed to) Ibas, bp. of Edessa, to the Persian bp. .Maris. Later, the term rp/a *.-f</)d,\oio came to mean both the persons and writings impugned. This latter is the usual sense in the authors of the time (e.g. Facundus of Hermiane, whose treatise is entitled Defensio pro Tribus Capitulis) and in the protocols of the fifth general council. The Nestorians still appealed to Theodore as their highest authority, and triumphantly pointed to the fact that he had never been condemned. Against Theodoret and Ibas the case was weaker. Both had joined in ana- thematizing Nestorius at Chalcedon, and been restored to their sees. But both had attacked Cyril, who, though claimed by the .Mono- physites, was also a bulwark of orthodoxy, and the ep. to Maris was a violent assault on the council of Ephesus. It might therefore be JUSTINIANUS 611 with some show of pj.iusil.ilitv allr^rd that the authority of tli.«t council was n».t estab- lished while these assailants seemed to be protected by the aegis of Chalcedon. Seconded by Theodora (says I.ibrratus, U.S.), Theodore Ascidas and Domitian per- suaded Justinian to compose and issue a treatise or edict against the Three Articles. Desisting from his book against the .\cephali, he forthwith composed the suggested edict, which was issued between 543 and 545, prob- ably in 545. It has perished, only three or four short extracts being nreserved by Fa- cundus. It was circulated through the church for the signatures of the bishops. The four Eastern patriarchs were naturally afraid of reopening any question as to the authority of Chalcedon. Mennas, after some hesitation, signed, but subject to a promise given him on oath, that he might withdraw his signature if the bp. of Rome refused to agree. The other three, Ephraini of .Antioch, Peter of Jerusa- lem, Zoilus of Alexandria, under real or imagined threats of deposition, obeyed and signed, and after more or less intimidation and the offer of various rewards, the great n>a- jority of bishops through Syria, .\sia Minor, Greece, and Macedonia signed also. In the West, the bishops having less to lose and being accustomed to face Arian potentates, Jus- tinian found a less ready compliance. The bishops of .Africa led the opposition, and were largely supported by those of Italy, Caul, Illyricum, and Dalmatia. In Rome much alarm was produced by the arrival of the edict, and by the emperor's command to X'igilius, lately chosen pope, to repair to Constantinople. Theodora enforced by terrible threats his appearance. V'igilius, not venturing openly to oppose the emperor, and fearing the anger of Theodora, had also to reckon with the all but universal loyalty to the council of Chalce- don of the Roman church and of the Western churches generally, and so temporized. He arrived in Constantinople in 547, having delayed nearly a year in Sicily. In 548 he issued a document called the Judicalum, con- demning the Three Articles, saving, however, the authority of Chalcedon. In 548 Theo- dora died, but Justinian was now thorouglily committed against the Three Articles. He continued to coerce the recalcitrant bishops of .Africa, depri\irig some of their sees, and. after various negotiations with X'igilius, issued in 551 a second edict .ig.iiiist theThni- .ArtirUs addressed to the wh(jle Cluisti.in world, which has been preserved under the name of the Con- fession of Faith, ofioXoyla vlarfwi ']oi-<TTifiai'oi' avTOKfiaTopoi (.Mansi, ix. 537). This edict is really a theological treatise, taking the writings of the three impugned doctors and discovering heresies in them by minute scru- ! tiny and inference. V'igilius was required to subscribe it, but refused, and took refuge in the basilica of St. Peter at Constantinople, j and afterwards in the church of St. Euphemia I at Chalcedon. Here he remained, until the ' emperor, anxious for his concurrence in sum- moning a general council as the only solution for the dissensions, induced him to withdraw his censure of the edict. He then returned to Constantinople to await the opening of the I council. The first sitting was on May 5, 553. 612 JUSTINIANUS I. Eutychius, who, upon the death of Mennas in Aug. 552, had become patriarch of Constan- tinople, presided. By hira sat Apollinaris of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch. Eus- tochius of Jerusalem was represented by 3 bishops. Altogether 151 bishops were present at the opening, while 164 signed at the end, the very large majority belonging to the East. Six from Africa attended, but more than 20 were kept away by Vigilius, who himself refused to attend, but sent his views in writ- ing in a document called the ConstHutum (Mansi, ix. 61), presented, not to the council, but to Justinian himself, who refused to receive it. Justinian addressed a letter to the fathers, reproaching Vigilius, and requiring his name to be struck out of the diptychs, as having by his defence of Theodoret and Ibas excluded himself from the right to church- fellowship. He also produced evidence that the pope had solemnly promised, both to him- self and Theodora, to procure the condemna- tion of the Three Articles. Thereupon the council, troubling no further about the pope, proceeded to examine the writings impugned. (Hefele, u.s. 267-274- For the Acta see Mansi, vol. ix. and under Constantinople, D. C.A.) Theodore of Mopsuestia was ana- thematized absolutely, and anathema was pronounced against Theodoret's treatise in opposition to Cvril's Twelve Articles and against the letter to Maris, which passed under the name of Ibas. A series of 14 articles, or anathemas, was prepared, most of them corre- sponding closely with the articles of J ustinian's o/xoXoyia irlcTTem, in which the orthodox faith as to the Trinity and Incarnation was restated. The first four general councils and their decrees were formally accepted, and art. 11 anathematizes Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Origen, Nestorius, Eutyches, and their adherents. It has been often sup- posed that the opinions of Origen and his followers were formally condemned at this council. (See Evagr. iv. 38 ; Theoph. Chronogr. p. 354 of Bonn ed. vol. i.) But this has arisen from confounding the former local council under Mennas in 543 with this general coimcil. Origen is only referred to in its general anathema, and thus no particular doctrines of his have ever been condemned by the whole church. The 14 articles were sub- scribed at the last sitting, on June 2, 553, "by all the 164 bishops, headed bv Eutychms of Constantinople. Eight African bishops signed. Justinian sent the decrees all over the empire for signature by the bishops. Little opposition was experienced in the East. The monks of the New Laura, who attacked the decrees, were chased out bv the imperial general .\nas- tasius. The council had threatened with de- position any bishops or other clerics who should teach or speak against it. We hear, however, of only one bishop, Alexander of Abydus, whi was deposed. Vigilius and the Western ecclesiastics who had signed the Constitutum appear to have held out for some time, but in Dec. 553 Vigilius issued a letter (Mansi, ix. 414), addressed to the patriarch Eutychius, in which he owns that he was in the wrong and is now glad to confess it. He then anathematizes Theodore, Theodoret, and the letter of Ibas, without prejudice to JUSTINIANUS I. the authority of the council of Chalcedon, which of course never meant to approve these heresies. Being then released by Justinian, Vigilantius set off for Rome, but died in S>Ta- cuse upon his way. A serious schism fol- lowed in the West. The bishops of Dalmatia and Illyricum were hottest in their opposition to the anathemas of the fifth council, and their archbp. Frontinus was taken to Con- stantinople and thence banished to Upper Egypt. A manifesto by Justinian, addressed to some Western bishops {ib. 589), has been supposed to be an answer to remonstrances from these Illyrians. The resistance in Africa was broken by similar violent means, a good many bishops being deposed and imprisoned in convents, under the auspices of the metro- politan Primasius of Carthage, and by the secular arm of the governor. In Gaul and Spain there was great discontent, though not a omplete breach with Rome ; while in N. Italy the bishops of Tuscany, the province of Milan, and Istria and Venetia, broke off communion with the pope. The patriarchate of Aquileia, afterwards removed to Grado, and finally divided into the two small patriarchates of Grado and Aquileia, arose out of this schism, which did not end till the beginning of the 8th cent. Ultimately the whole Western church was brought by the efforts of the popes to re- cognize the fifth general council. The effect, however, which Justinian had been encouraged to expect was not attained. Not a single Monophysite seems to have returned to the orthodox church. The Egyptian Acephali in particular were as stubborn as ever. Justinian in his last days himself lapsed into heresy. The doctrine that the body of Christ was insensible to fleshly passions and weaknesses, was in fact incorruptible, and so not ordinary flesh at all, had been broached early in the century by bp. Julian of Hali- carn'assus, a leading Monophysite, in opposi- tion to the view of Severus, patriarch of .A.ntioch, that Christ's body was corruptible up to the resurrection, and only afterwards ceased to be so. Justinian published an edict declaring the doctrine of Julian orthodox and requiring the assent of all patriarchs and bishops to this new article. Eutychius of Constantinople was deposed for rejecting the edict. Before more could be done, Justinian died (a.d. 565) and the controversy at once collapsed, for his successor took comparatively slight interest in theological questions. The general character of Justinian's eccle- siastical policy has been sufficiently indicated. In spite of his protestations of respect for the clergy, the important place they held at his court, and the privileges which his legislation gave them, he never hesitated to resort to despotism and banishment to bend them to his will. No previous Roman emperor had been so much interested in theological dis- putes, nor arrogated to himself so great a right of interference even with the popes. His control of the fifth council was much more direct and considerable than his predecessors exercised at Ephesus and Chalcedon. Justinian was through his life a resolute, though not always consistent, persecutor. Nestorians and Eutychians were punished with deposition from ecclesiastical office, ex- JUSTINIANUS I. communication, and occasionally with banish- ment. Manichcans, (.Inostic^, and Montanists were more severely dealt with, deprived of all civil rights and forbidden to meet for worship. These penalties were often enforced with much cruelty and sometimes produced sanguinary contests. The Montanists of Phrypia, being required to undergo baptism, shut themselves up in their churches, killed their wives and children, and set fire to the buildings. Similar rigours were inflicted on Jews and Samaritans, though the Jews, as a serviceable element in the population, seem to have in practice fared somewhat better than the others. It is not very easy to determine precisely how far the laws directed against heathenism were carried out. They punish apostasy with death, require all persons to undergo baptism, deprive pagans of all civil rights and privileges, and forbid any public pagan worship. In spite of this, a great number of pagans continued to exist even among the cultivated and wealthy classes of the capital. An inquisition at Constanti- nople in the 3rd year of Justinian's reign (Theoph. Chron. p. 153) shewed a large ntmiber of pagans in the higher official classes. An ordinance was then issued, forbidding all civil employment to persons not orthodox Chris- tians and three months were allowed for con- version. Not long before. Justinian had taken away all the churches of the heretics, except one of the Arians, and given them to the orthodox f«6. 150). Energetic inquiries throuirh W. Asia Minor are said to have led to the enforced baptism of 70,000 persons. Among the mountain tribes of Tavgetus paganism survived till the days of Basil I. (867-886). Only at Athens, however, did persons of intellectual and social eminence continue to openly avow themselves heathens. The pro- fessors of its university, or at least the most distinguished among them, were not Chris- tians. Although speculative moralists and mystics, making philosophy their rule of life, rather than worshippers of the old deities of Olympus, their influence was decidedly anti- Christian. In 528, on the discovery of crypto- paganism in his capital, Justinian issued several stringent constitutions, one of which, forbidding " persons persisting in the madness of Hellenism to teach any branch of know- ledge," struck directly at the Athenian pro- fessors. In 529 he sent a copy of the Codex Constitutionum, containing this ordinance, to Athens, with a prohibition to teach law- there, and shortly after the teaching of philo- sophy was similarly forbidden, and th<' n- maining property of the Platonic .-Academy was seized for public purposes. This finally extin- j guished the university. Its head, Damascius, a 1 neo-Platonistof Syrian birth, and byconviction a resolute heathen, and six of his colleagues > proceeded (in 532) to the court of Chosroes, king of Persia, at Ctesiphon, but soon returned to the Roman empire, in which Chosri>es ; secured for them, by a treaty he negoti.ated : with Justinian, the freedom to live unbaptized ! and unmolested. They did not, however, 1 settle again in Athens, which rapidly became ; a Christian city even in externals, its temples : being turn^^d into churches. So one may , ascribe to Justinian the extinction in the] JUSTINIANUS I. nin Roman world of open and < nltiv.itcd paganism as well as of the Pl.itonic philosophy. y. Juslinian's Ugislalton falls under two principal heads— his work as a rcxlifirr and consolidator of jire-existing law ; and his own new laws, some of which were incorporate*! in the Codex Conslttulionum, while others. pti>»- lished subse<iurntly, remain as dotache<l statutes, and go hv the name of the Nt)Vrls {\ovellae Conatiluliones). The vast change* involved in tiu> establishment of Christianity had rendered much of the <<\i\ l.iw. th'>UKli still formally mirei^.iled, i>ractii.illv obsolete. There was therefore overwhelming necessity for sweeping reforms both in the substance and in the outward form and expression of the law. Such reforms had been attempte<l in the time of Theodosius II., when the The'>- dosian Codex, containing a collection of the later constitutions, had been prepared and published a.d. 438. This, however, dealt only with the imperial constitutions, not with the writings of the jurists ; and now, nearly a cen- tury later, the old evils were found as serious as ever, while the further changes in society had made the necessity for abolishing anti- quated enactments even great<-r. Justinian set to work so iiromptlv after his accession that he had probably meditated already upon the measures which were called for and fixed his eyes on the men to be used as instruments. He began with the easier part of the task, the codification of jtts novum, the imperial constitutions of more recent date. A commission was appointed in Feb. .'i28 to go through the whole mass of constitutions and select for preservation those still in force and of practical importance. In Apr. 520 the Codex Constitutionum was formally jiromnl- gated, and cojues sent into every province of the empire, with directions that it should supersede all other constitutions previously in force. (See Const. Summa Reipublicae prefixed to the Codex.) The next step was to deal with the jus velus, the law contained in the writings of the authorized jurists, which practically included so much of the old leges, senatus consuUa, and edicta as retained any practical importance. But there were many clifTerenccs of opinion among the jurists whose writings had legal authority. Justinian accordingly issued a series of 50 constitutions, known as the Quinquaginta Decisiones, settling the dis- puted points (see Const. Cordi Xobis pre- fixed to the Codex). At the same time a large number of other ordinances were pro- mulgated, amending the laws and abolishinR obsolete provisions. The ground being thus cleared, he appointed a commission of 16 lawyers, under the presidency of Tribonian. Their instructions were chiefly : to collect into one body all best worth preserving in the writings of the authorized jurists, making extracts so as to avoid both repetition and contradiction, and give one statement of the law upon each of the many points where dis- crepant views had formerly prevailed. He- dundancies were to be cut off, errors in manu- scripts or in expression set right, alteratif>ns introduced where necessary, no nntinnmta (contradiction) allowed to remain, nothing repealed which had been already enacted in 614 JUSTINIANUS I. the Codex. Obsolete rules of law were to be passed over. The work was to be distributed into 50 books. The constitution containing these directions is dated Dec. 530. The com- missioners promptly set to work, reading no less than 2,000 treatises for the purpose of making extracts. The work, to which the names of Digesta or Pandectae (UavS^KToi — all receivers) are indifferentlv given by Justin- ian, was completed in the autumn of 533 and published with two prefatory constitutions on Dec. 16. Each book is divided into titles, each title into extracts. The total number of titles is 432, and of extracts from 39 jurists 9,123. The whole book is published as an imperial constitution, deriving its force from the imperial sanction, which abrogated all pre-existing law, except that contained in the Codex and subsequently published constitu- tions. No judge nor advocate might travel out of the four corners of these two new statutes, the Codex and the Digesta. While the Digest was in progress, Justinian directed three of the chief commissioners — Tribonian, Theophilus professor of law in the university of Constantinople, and Dorotheus professor of law at Berytus (Beyrut in Syria, the other great law-school of the empire)— to prepare an elementary manual for educational purposes, based on the existing treatises, and especially on the deservedlv popular Institutes of Gains, but brought up 'to the state of the law as changed by recent emperors and by Justinian himself. This treatise, dealing in four books with the law of Persons, of Things, and of Actions, was published shortly before the Digest, not only as a text-book for teach- ing, but also as a law, a constitution with full imperial authority. It is the treatise now known as Justinian's Institutiones. On Nov. 16, 534, a revised Codex, including constitutions published since 529, and omitting laws that had been in the interval repealed or become unnecessary, was issued with an in- troductory constitution (now prefixed to it) called Cordi nobis, abrogating the former edition altogether. The Codex we now have is this new one. It is divided into 12 books and 765 titles, containing 4,652 constitutions, the earliest dating from Hadrian, while far the larger part of the constitutions in the Codex were more recent, and perhaps half of them the work of the Christian emperors. Between 534 and the end of Justinian's reign a large number of new laws appeared, the majority during the lifetime of Tribonian (d. 545). These are called Novellae Constitu- Hones post Codicem (veapal Siard^eLs), or shortly Novellae (vtapal). Novels. They mostly have the form of edicts or general laws rather than of the earlier rescripta. They do not appear to have ever been gathered into one officially sanctioned volume (although this had originally been promised, see Const. Cordi nobis), but several private collections were made, from which our present text is derived. (See as to the Novels Biener, Gesch. der Novellen Justinians, and generally as to the history and edd. of the Corpus Juris, Rudorff, Romische Rechtsgeschichte, Leipz. 1857.) The Corpus Juris Civilis, consisting of the four parts already mentioned— the Codex, the Digesta, the Institutiones, and the Novellae — JUSTINIANUS I. became under Justinian the sole law of the Roman empire, was accepted in the early Middle Ages as the law of Germany, S. France, and Italy, and has exerted a great influence on the jurisprudence even of countries which, like England, repudiate (except in special departments) its authority. As we now understand by codification the reduction of the whole law into one scientific system of rules, new in form and expression though mostly old in substance, the work of Justinian would be better described as a Consolidation than a Codification. On the whole, it may be said that he exercised a wise discretion in attempting no more, and many as are the faults in the arrangement of his Codex and Digest and in the occasional disproportion of treatment, the work was done decidedly better than other literary and scientific productions of Justinian's age would have led us to expect. The Corpus Juris held its ground as the supreme law book of the empire for little more than three centuries. Much of the earlier law had then become obsolete, and something shorter, less elaborate, more adapted to the needs and lower capacities of the time was re- ! quired. Accordingly the emperors, Basil the Macedonian, Constantine, and Leo the philo- sopher, directed the preparation of a new law , book, which, revised and finally issued under I Leo c. 890, received the name of the Basilica, ' or Imperial Code. It contains, in 60 books, a complete system of law for the Eastern empire, retaining a great deal of the substance of the Corpus Juris, but in a wholly altered form ; the extracts from the Codex of con- stitutions, and those from the Pandects and Novels being all thrown into one new Codex, and intermingled with later matter. It is in Greek ; is much less bulky than the Corpus Juris, and has come down to us imperfect. The best ed. is Haimbach's (Leipz. 1833- 1851), with supplement by Zacharia (Leipz. 1846). The Codex is cited in Herzog. vol. ix. (1901), according to the ed. of P. Krijger (Berlin, 1877) ; the Novellae according to the ed. of C. E. Zacharias a Lingenthal (2 vols. Leipz. 1881). The new legislation of Justinian is contained partly in the Codex and partly in the Novels. The legal changes made by the constitutions of the first seven years of his reign, which have been incorporated in the Codex, are often merely solutions of problems, or settlements of disputes which had perplexed or divided the earlier jurists. These were promulgated in the Quinquaginta Decisiones already men- tioned. A considerable number more relate to administrative subjects ; while the rest are miscellaneous, running over the whole field of law. For his ecclesiastical constitutions see articles in D. C. A., to which this subject more properly belongs. A few remarks may, how- ever, be profitably made here on the emperor's ecclesiastical laws as contained firstly in the Codex Constitutionum, where they are abbre- viated ; and, secondly, in the Novels, where they appear at full and often wearisome length. The earlier ones are in the Codex, the Novels extend from 534 to 565. In Justinian's Codex the first 13 titles of bk. i. are occupied by laws relating to Christian theology and doctrine. Title I., styled " De JUSTINIANUS I. Summa Trinitate ot Fide Cafholica et lit nemo j de ea publice contendere audcat," contains i (besides extracts from laws of earlier emperors) four laws by Justinian, beginning with the fifth, some of which have been taken into the Codex from the ColUctio Conslitutionutn Ecclesiasticaruttt. laying down the true ortho- ' dox faith as defined by the first four general ^ councils, and anathematizing " Xestorius the ; man-worshipper, Eutyches the iii'^ane, Apol- linaris the soul destroyer," and all who agree with these heretics. One of these constitu- tions is an edict addressed by Justinian to pope John (as well as to Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople), with the reply of the pope confirming the edict as a declaration of the faith. Title II., " De Sacrosanctis Ecclesiis et de rebus et privilegiis earum," contains eight laws by Justinian dealing chiefly with legacies to churches or other charitable uses, and with the management of church property. Title III. is, " De Episcopis et clericis et orphanotrophiis et xenodochiis et l>repho- trophiis et ptochotrophiis et asceteriis et monachis et privilegiis eorum et castrensi peculio et de redimendis captivis et de nuptiis clericorum vetitis seu permissis." Sixteen laws in it (less than one-third in number, but more than half in bulk) are by Justinian, and treat of a great many topics, including the election and qualifications of bishops and priests, the choice of heads {qyovufvoi, at) of monasteries and nunneries, the observance of a pure and strict life in monasteries, the man- agement of church property by the bishop and steward, with various provisions relating to charitable foundations, to the residence of the clergy at their churches, the regular mainten- ance of divine service there, and to wills of property for church purposes. Title IV'., " De Episcopali Audientia et do divorsis capitulis quae ad jus curamque et reverentiam pontificalem pertinent," is almost equally miscellaneous in its contents. Fourteen Cfin- stitutions in it are by Justinian. The fifth, " De Haereticis et Manichaeis et Samaritis," contains a selection of persecuting or disabling laws from the time of Constantine down to and including Justinian's own. The penalties threatened, and the general severity of tone, steadily increase as time goes on, and the number of different kinds of heretics included in the denunciations is enlarged. In one case (c. 2i) a distinction is drawn by the emperor between various degrees of heresy and infidelity. " Manichaeis Borboritis et paganis, necnon Samaritis et Montanistis et Ascodrogitis et Ophitis omne testimonium sicut et alias Icgitimas conversationes sanci- mus esse interdictum. Aliis vero haereticis tantum modo judicialia testimonia contra orthodoxos, secimdum quod constitutum est, volumus esse inhibita." Title VI., " Ne sanctum baptisma iteretur " ; VII., " De Apostatis " ; VIII., " Nemini licerc signum Salvatoris, Christi humi vel in silicc vel in marmore aut insculpcrc aut pingere " ; IX., " De Judaeis et coelicolis " ; and X., " Ne Christianum mancipium haereticus vel pagan- us vel Judaeus habeat vel pnssideat vel cir- cumcidat," are comparatively short and contain only laws of earlier emperors. In XI., " De Paganis Sacrificiis et Templis," is an JUSTINIANUS I. 61S intorcsting rolli(ti"ii <>f various rnartmrnts against paganism from the f.iinoiis rdirt <>( Constantius (a.p. ^vO onwards, rxm liidinR with a general command to all heathrns t<> be baptized forthwith, <>n P'^i" "f losing all thrir property and all civic rights ; while dr.ith is the pcn.ilty for any one who, having l)rrn baptized, relapses into heathenism. All sacrifices, or other acts of pagan worship, are strictly forbidden and seveicly punishable ; all gifts of property to any heathen temple or purpose are confiscated, the temples bring all destroyed or appropriated to other uses, and the teaching of paganism, and indeed any teaching bv anv pagan, is absolutelv pro- hibited. Titles XII. and XI 11., " De his qui ad ecclesias confugiunt vel ibi exrlamant," and " De his qui in ecclesiis manumittuntur," are less important. They illustrate the growth of the right of sanctuary in churches, and the practice of manimiission there. With title XIV., " De I.egibus et Constitutionibus Prin- ri]iuin et edictis," ordinary civil legislation begins. A good many references to eccle- siastical matters, and especially to the juris- diction of the bishops, are scattered through other parts of the Codex. It is clear fron> this summary that neither Justinian nor his predecessors intended to frame a complete body of laws or rules for the government of the church, its hierarchical constitution and administration, much less for its internal discipline or its ritual. These things had been left to be settled by custom, by the authoritv of patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops, bv the cinons of councils as occasion arose. Not that the civil monarch supposed such to lie bevond his scope, for in Constan- tinopile the emperors, and Justinian most of all, regarded themselves as clothed with a supreme executive authority over the religious no less than the secular society. The dis- tinction afterwards asserted in the West between the temporal and spiritual powers had not then been imagined. No Eastern ecclesiastic denied the emperor's right to smnmon general councils, direct them, and confirm their decrees. But the emperors had been content to leave to churchmen the settling of what were regarded as more or less technual and professional matters, which thev wore fittest to settle. The narrow and bigoted spirit, which runs through the perse( uting laws included in the Codex, is fully as con- spicuous in Justinian's own as in those of any of his predecessors. Moreover, by re-enactrng them he made himself responsible for all that thev contained. In that age of the world it was believed possible to stamp out heresy by ■ a sufficiently vigorous •■xercise of the arm of flesh. Paganism was in fact thus stamped ' out, though in one or two mountainous dis- I tricts of Greece and perhaps of Asia Minor it lingered secretly for 2 or ^ centuries more. I The topics of the Novels, or constitutions issued by Justinian from S^;s till his death in 565, are very vario Of the IST to which the 168 appearing in the largest collection may be reduced, 3^ forming the largest group, relate to ecclesi-^stical and religious matters. Next in number come those dealing with civil and military administration. Marriage and the legal relations arising therefrom are 616 JUSTINIANUS I. dealt with in various Novels. Justinian was fond of tinkering at this subject, and not always successfully. The most remarkable provisions are in Novels 117 (§§ 10 and 12) and 134 (§ 11), in which he greatly limits the freedom of divorce previously allowed, almost indeed abolishing it. But this severity was found unmaintainable : such complaints arose that in 566, ten years after the 134th Novel appeared, Justin 11., nephew and successor of Justinian, repealed (Nov. cxl.) the penalties provided by it and by the 117th, leaving the law as it had stood under earlier sovereigns. The Novels have a great many provisions regarding dowries, simplifying a rather com- plicated branch of the law and securing the interests of the wife. Several constitutions, prompted bv a desire for moral reforma- tion, deal with criminal law, several relate to guardianship, the position of freedmen, and other parts of the law of persons, and nine deal with the law of obligations ; none of them of any great importance. Among the eccle- siastical Novels, several groups may be dis- tinguished. One group contains those which deal with the temporal rights and relations of the church and her ministers as holders of property. Eight constitutions may be re- ferred to it, most of which are occupied with the length of time needed for a good title to lands originally belonging to the church to be acquired by adverse enjoyment ; and with the conditions under which ecclesiastical lands might be alienated for a term or in perpetuity. Both topics gave Justinian much trouble and he was sometimes obliged to modify his enactments. A second group com- prises constitutions merely local in application, referring to a particular province (e.g. Nov. 37 to Africa), church {e.g. Nov. 3 to the Great Church of Constantinople, Nov. 40 to the Church of the Resurrection at Jerusalem), or see {e.g. Nov. 11 to the privileges of the archiepiscopal chair of Justiniana Prima in Illyricum). To a third and more important group may be referred the 13 constitutions dealing with ecclesiastical organization and discipline, the mode of choosing bishops and other clerics, their qualifications, the juris- diction of bishops, the restrictions on the jurisdiction of civil courts in causes where clerics are concerned (a matter of great interest in view of the questi'ins which were to occupy medieval Europe), the rights, immunities, and position generally of the clergy {e.g. the exemption of a bishop from patna potestas, Nov. 81, the devolution of the property of a cleric dying intestate without legal heirs^ Nov. 131, § 13), the regulations under which a church or oratory might be built, endowed, and consecrated, the internal discipline of monasteries and regulation of monastic life. A fourth and last group includes four ordin- ances levelled at heretics (a good many pro- visions affecting whom incidentallv occur in other Novels, especiallv in those oif the third group). One of these four, called Edictura de Fide, is a short appeal to heretics to return to the safe teaching and anathematizings of the Catholic church (Nov. 132) ; another is directed against Jews and Samaritans, refusing them immunities from public burdens such as their exclusion from public offices and honours JUSTINIANUS I. might otherwise have appeared to imply (Nov. 45) ; a third deprives heretic women of the privileges granted by Justinian's laws to women in respect of their dowry ; and the fourth is a sentence of deposition and anathe- rna against Anthimus patriarch of Constan- tinople, Severus patriarch of Antioch, Peter of Apamea, Zoaras, and others charged with Monophysitism, issued in confirmation of the sentence passed by the synod at Constanti- nople under the patriarch Mennas in 536. The most generally remarkable characteristics of these ecclesiastical statutes, apart from their spirit of bitter intolerance, are the strong dis- position to favour the church, the clerical order, and the monastic life ; and the assump- tion throughout of a complete right of control by the imperial legislator over all sorts of ecclesiastical affairs and questions. Although there are some matters, such as ritual, penance, etc., touched not at all or very slightly, still the impression conveyed here, as in the Codex, is that the civil power claimed a universal and paramount right of legislating for the church ; nor is there any distinction laid down or recognized between matters reserved for the legislative action of the church in her synods and those which the emperor may deal with. He always speaks with the utmost respect of the sacred canons, sometimes quotes them, professes to confirm them, and (Nov. 131, § i) expressly declares that all the canons of the four great general councils are to have the force and rank of laws {raS^iv vofjiwv iwix^iv). But there is no admission of the exclusive right of the church or of any ecclesiastical dignitary or body to legislate on any particular topics ; this is indeed implicitly excluded by the laws, especially those in bk. i. of the Codex, which deal with the most specially spiritual of spiritual questions, the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith. It is therefore not surprising that the African bishops who wrote against him in the matter of the Three .\rticles complain of his conduct as arrogating to the magistrate what belonged of right to the duly constituted officers of the church. Sub- sequent history shows that the Eastern em- peror always maintained his authority over the church ; while different political conditions enabled the Western patriarch and the Western church generally to throw off the control of the civil power and even extend its own jurisdiction over civil causes. These ecclesiastical Novels throw much light on the state of the 6th-cent. Eastern church, and the evils which it was thought necessary to remedy. We hear once or twice of the ignorance of the clergy, persons being sometimes ordained who could not read the prayers used in the sacramental services of the Supper and Baptism (Novs. 6, 137). Irregu- larities in monastic life were frequent, as appears from the penalties threatened (Novs. 5, 133). Bishops too often resided away from their sees, so that a prohibition to the admin- istrator to send money to them while absent was needed (Nov. 6, § 3 ; Nov. 123, § 9). That a bishop must be unmarried, and a priest either unmarried or married only once and to a virgin, was insisted on. The habit of building churches without funds sufficient for their due maintenance and service is checked JUSTINUS MARTYR (Novs. 57, 67). as also that of having private chapels, or celebrating the sacred mysteries in houses (Xovs. 58, 131). The often neg- lected canonical direction to hold provincial synods twice, or at least once, a year is re- newed (Nov. 138). The substance of the enactments contained in these Novels and in the Codex, upon such matters as the election of bishops, celibacy of clergy, permanency of monastic vows, etc., will be found under the appropriate heads in D. C. A. The regula- tions regarding a monastic life have a special interest as very shortly anterior to the creation of the rule of St. Benedict of Nursia, who was a contemporarv of Justinian. [J.b.] Justinus (2) Martyr, St., son of Priscus, grandson of Bacchius ; born at Flavia Nea- polis, hard by the ruins of ancient Sychem (now Nablous), in Palestine [Apol. i. i). He calls himself a Samaritan (Dial. c. 120, § 349 c), so that his family had probably settled there definitely ; but he is obviously not a Samaritan by blood or religion ; nothing in his writing would point to such an origin. He has not heard, even, of Moses or of the prophets until well on in life ; he classes him- self among those Gentiles to whom the Gospel was opened so largely when the main mass (Apol. 1. 53, § 88 b) of the house of Jacob, in which he includes b}- name the Samaritans as well as the Jews, rejected it. He speaks of being brought up in heathen customs, being uncircumcised (Dial. c. 29, § 246 c), and receiving a thoroughly Greek education (Dial. c. 2, § 219). The name of his grandfather is Greek ; of his father and himself Latin. What we know of him is gathered almost entirely from his own writings, and chiefly from his famous description of the studies through which he passed to his conversion, given in his Dialogue with the New Tryphon. The opening of the Dialogue discovers Justin walking in the colonnades of a city, which Eusebius identifies with Ephesus (//. £. iv. 18), shortly after the wars of the Romans against Bar-Cocheba in 132-136 (Dial. c. i, §217). To the Jew, who greets him as a philosopher, he recounts his philosophic experiences, though we gain but little clue as to where or at what time these experiences occurred. He speaks of his first longing to share in that wisdom " which is verily the highest possession, the most valued by God, to Whom it alone leads and unites us " ; when with this hope he went successively to a Stoic teacher, a Peripatetic, and a famous Pytha- gorean, but in each case to no purpose. Much grieved at this, he thought of trying the Platonics, whose fame stood high. He went chiefly to one lately settled in his town, who was thought highly of by his school ; ad- vanced some way with him, giving him the greater part of every day ; was delighted with the perception of the Incorporeal ; the con- templation of the Ideas " gave wings to my mind, quickly I thought to become wise, and expected that, if it were not for my dull sight, I should be in a moment looking upon God ; for this sight is the fulfilment of the Platonic philosophy." " While in this frame of mind I one day had a wish for quiet meditation, away from the beaten track of men, and so went to a bit of ground not far JUSTINUS MARTYR r.l7 I from the sea ; and there, just as I was nearinR the place where I looked to be alone with my I thoughts, an old man, of a pleasant countrn- i ance, and with a gentle and dignified nii< 11. came following me a little behind." The old man asked Justin, "'For what are you conic here ? ' 'I delight,' I answered, ' in these strolls, in which I can hold converse with myself, without interrujUion ; a place like this is most favourable for such talking as I love.' ' Ah ! you are a lover of talk, and not of action or of reality,' he said. ' You are one, I suppose, who cares more for reasons than for facts, for words than for deeds.' 'And how, indeed,' I answered, 'can a man act more efficiently than in exhibiting the reason that go\'erns all, or t!ian in laying hold of it, and there, borne aloft on it[ looking down on others who stray helplessly below, and do notiiing sane, or dear to God ? With- out philosophy and right reason there is no possible wisdom. Every man, therefnre, ought to esteem philosophy as his noblest work, and to let all else come second or third to it ; for by philosophy things are made right and acceptable, without it they become common and vulgar.' ' Philosophy, then, is the true cause of happiness, is it ? ' he asked in reply. ' Yes, indeed, it is,' I said, ' it and it alone.' " A discussion follows on the possibility of philosophy giving the true knowledge of God, which is Happiness ; at its close Justin con- fesses that his philosophy supplies no clear account of the soul, of its capacity to perceive the Divine, nor of the character of its life ; the old man speaks with a decision that he professes to owe neither to Plato nor to Pytha- goras, who are the bulwarks of philosophy. What teacher is there who can give certainty where such as these fail? asks Justin. The old man replies that there have been men, far older than all these philosophers, men blessed and upright and beloved of God, who spoke by the spirit of God, and are called Prophets. These alone have seen the truth, and spoken it to men ; not as reasoners, for they go higher than all argument, but as witnesses of the truth, who are worthy to be believed, since the events foretold have come to pass and so compel us to rely on their words, as do also the wonders they have worked to the honour and glory of God the Father and of His Christ. " Pray thou, then, that the gates of the Light may be opened too for thee ; for these things can only be seen and known by those to whom God and His Christ have given understanding." Justin saw the old man no more ; but in his soul the flame was fired and a passion of love aroused for these pro- phets, the friends of Christ ; and as he retU cted upon it he found that here indeed lay the one and only sure and worthy philosophy. This is all we know of his conversion. The scene is, perhaps, idealized ; it has a sa\<)ur of Plato; but the imagination of Ju>-tin was hardly equal to producing, unaided, such vi\ id detail of scenery and character. The de- scription would imply that he was somewhat advanced in study, but not past the enthu- siasms of earlier life. The event, apparently, occurred in Flavia Neapolis, i.e. "our town," in which the Platonist teacher had settled; 618 JUSTINUS MARTYR but " our town " may mean that in which he and Tryphon were conversing, i.e., according to Eusebius, Ephesus. It must have been before the Bar-Cocheba wars, if it is from them that Tryphon was flying when Justin met him. The conversion takes the form of a passage from the imperfect to the perfect philosophy ; throughout his life it retains that impress. He was not rescued from intellectual despair, but was in the highest condition of confidence when the old man met him. The aim with which he started on his studies was achieved when he became a Christian. Hence he is not thrown into an attitude of antagonism to that which he leaves ; his new faith does not break with the old so much as fulfil it. He still, therefore, calls himself the philosopher, still invites men to enter his school, still wears the philosopher's cloak {Dial. i. § 2:7 ; Eus. H. E. iv. II ; cf. the Acts of Justin). From the first, philosophy had been pursued with the religious aim of attaining the highest spiritual happiness by communing with God ; the certified knowledge of God, therefore, pro- fessed by the prophets, and made manifest in Christ, comes to him as the crown of his existing aspiration. One other motive he records to have affected his conversion, i.e. his wondering admiration at the steadfastness of Christians under perse- cution. " When I was still attached to the doctrine of Plato, and used to hear the accusations hurled against Christians, and yet saw them perfectly fearless in the face of death and of all that is terrible, I understood that it was impossible they should be living all the time a life of wickedness and lust " (Apol. ii. 12, § 50 a). This appeal, which the moral steadfastness of the Christians had made to him, he continually brings to bear upon others (i. 8, § 57 ; i. ii', § 58 e, etc.). Per- haps, too, the lack of moral reality and energy in the doctrines of philosophy was not unfelt by Justin, for his words seem sometimes to recall the old man's taunt, "You are a man of words, and not of deeds " (cf. i. 14, § 61 e, " For Christ was no Sophist, but His word was the power of God "). We have no details of his life after baptism. He seems to have come to Rome, and, perhaps, to have stayed there some time, according to Eusebius (H. E. iv. 11). His peculiar office was to bring the Christian apologetic into the publicity of active controversy in the schools. The collision with Tryphon in the Colonnades is probably but a specimen of the intellectual intercourse which Justin challenged by wear- ing the philosopher's cloak. The introduction to the Dialogue appears to record a familiar habit. The Second Apology mentions a dis- pute with Crescens the Cynic (3, § 43, b, c). The memory of Justin's characteristic attitude is recorded by Eusebius : " It was then that St. Justin flourished, who, under the dress of a philosopher, preached the word of God, and defended the truth of our faith by his writings as well as by his words " ; and the Acts of his martyrdom speak of Justin as sitting in the house of Martinus, a recognized place of meet- ing for Christians, and there conversing with any who visited him, imparting to them the true doctrine. The persons condemned with him are companions whom be has gathered JUSTINUS MARTYR about him and converted. " I took delight," says one of them, Evelpistus, " in listening to Justin's discourse." When persecution fell sharply upon the church, he was in the van of those who con- sidered it their first duty to make public to their judges the doctrine and life so foully accused (Apol. i. 3, § 54). So, in the Dia- logue with Tryphon, he speaks of the guilt he would incur before the judgment seat of Christ if he did not freely and ungrudgingly open to them his knowledge of the meaning of Scripture (Dial. c. 58, § 280 b). This freedom of apologetic crowned itself towards the close of Justin's life in the three works which alone can be accepted as un- doubtedly authentic : the two Apologies and the Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew. This same freedom brought him to his death. The secret cause of his seizure is supposed by Eusebius to have been the enmity of an opponent whom he had convicted of ignorance, Crescens the Cynic. " Crescens," Tatian writes, " who made himself a nest in Rome, while professing to despise death, proved his fear of it by scheming to bring Justin and myself to death as to an evil thing " (Or. c. 32 ; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. 16). For the reality of his violent death for Christ we have the indubit- able testimony of his historic title, Justin Martyr. For the actual account of it we are dependent on the Acts of his martyrdom, which embody, probably without serious change, the simple and' forcible tradition which the 3rd cent, retained of the death- scene. They have the appearance of contain- ing genuine matter. According to these, he and his companions are brought before Rusticus, the prefect of the city, and are simply commanded to sacrifice to the gods, without any mention of Crescens, or of Justin's Apologies to the emperors. Justin, on examination, professes to have found the final truth in Christianity, after exploring all other systems ; this truth, he declares, con- sists in adoring the one God, Who has made all things, visible and invisible, and Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who was foretold by the prophets to be coming into the world to preach salvation and teach good doctrine. He declares that Christians meet wherever they choose or can, seeing that their God is not limited to this or that place, but fills heaven and earth ; but that he himself, on this, his second visit to Rome, held meetings for his followers in the house of one Martinus only, near the baths of Timotinus. After a brave refusal to sacrifice, and an assurance of salvation in Christ, he and those with him were condemned to be beaten with rods and I beheaded. They died praising God and con- fessing their Saviour. The faithful secretly carried their bodies to a fit burial. Such are the fragments left to us of his life ; between what dates do they fall ? The title of the First Apology is decisive ; it is addressed to the " Emperor Titus Aelius Antoninus Pius, Augustus, Caesar ; to Verissimus his son, philosopher, and to Lucius, the natural son of a philosophic Caesar, the adopted son of a pious Caesar." Here we have Antoninus Pius as sole emperor, with his two imperial companions, adopted by him as JUSTINUS MARTYR sons at the request of Hatlrian, t.e. Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (cf. Neander, Ch. Hist, [trans.] vol. ii. 446, 1851). With this the Eusebian tradition agrees; according t<> it. the first Apology was addressed to Antoninus ; in the Chrontcon it is assigned to c. 141, the fourth of that reign. Antoninus reigned from 137 to 161 ; will 141 suit Justin's language ? According to some, this is not early enough, for the title omits to salute Aurelius as Caesar, which he became publicly in 140. Against this lie several weighty objections : (i) Lucius Verus is called, possibly philosopher, certainly " €pa<iTr)$ TraiHeiai," lover of culture ; b»it by 140 he is only ten years old. (2) Marcion is in the Apology the greatest type of heresy, " with a following spread over every race of men." Justin's language seems to belong to a time when Marcion's pre-eminence had over- shadowed the earlier heretics (cf. Lipsius, Die Quellen der Ketzergeschichte. 1873, pp. 21, 22), and this could hardly be till well after 140. It was under Antoninus (according to general authority, cf. Tertullian. Clement, etc.) that Marcion succeeded in putting himself in the front, and arrived at Rome. Yet, already before the Apology, Justin has written a book against him, with other heretics (Apol. i. 26, § 70 c). It is difficult to attribute to Marcion this immense position in the very first years of Antoninus (cf. contra, Semisch, Justin, p. 73, 1840). (3) Justin professes to be writing 150 years after our Lord's birth, a round number, it IS true, but in a context where the object is to diminish the interval. Without very positive evidence against it, the year 148 — i.e. Justin's A.D. 130 — should be taken as the approximate date. These reasons would place the first A po- logy near the end of the first half of the reign of Antoninus. This would not conflict with two other references to times — to the deifica- tion of Antoninus, i.e. 131 {Apol. i. 29, § 72), and to the wars of Bar-Cocheba, 132, 136 (31, § 72). Both have the same formula : t<^ vvv yeyfVT]fxiviL) TroXf^w and 'Avrivdov tov vvv yeytvriix^vov. The expression is vague, but requires the two events to be well within the memories of Justin's readers. The address of the second Apology has at last, after many confusions, been determined to refer to Antoninus again, and Marcus Aurelius. It is indirect, and found in 2, § 42 c, where a single emperor is definitely meant, and in the last chapter, where the rulers are spoken of in the plural ; in 2, § 43 b there are two people in office, Pius the ai'TOKpdrwp, antl a philosopher, who is saluted as son of Caesar ; and continued reference is made to the mingled piety and philosophy of these per- sonages. These two, with the well-known titles, can hardly be other than Antoninus and Marcus Aurelius. This is made almost a certainty when we consider that the second Apology seems to have followed close upon the first and bears all the mark of a sequel or appendix (cf. Volkmar, in Theolog. Jahrh. 1H33, N. 14; cf. Hort, in Journ. of Classic and Sacred Philol. vol. iii. p. 155 (1857), of which much use is made in the art.). This is clear, among other things, from the references in the second to the first Apology {Apol. ii. 4. § 43 : 6, § 45 ; 8, § 46) as to a writing close at hand and fresh- ly remembered. The date of the Apologies JUSTINUS MARTYR rtin : may be thrown bark as f.ir in the r< ign of Antoninus as is consistent with the prominrnce attributed to Marcion. Of the date of Justin's birth wc have no- [ thing certain. Lpiphanius states th.it he died I when 30 years old. The evidrnrr is not forth- I coming. For the date of his conversion wc I have scarcely any evidence except th.it it was before the wars of Bar-Civh<ba, 1 32- j ^(t I f)tat. I i. I, § 217). Kusebius supposes he w.is (mron- verted at the date of Antinous. a.d. m (//. F. iv. S), but it is doubtful if Lusebius h.id anv ground for this except Apol.i. 20, § 72, which certainly rlops not r<M]iiirf it. The genuineness of the three writings al- readv mentioned is universally accepted. The first .-ipology definifelv pronotinces itself to be Justin's ; the second obviouslv belongs to the first ; the Dialogue claims to be written by a Samaritan, who had addressed the emperor — its personal history of the writer exactly tallies with Justin's attitude towards philo- sophy in the Apologies. The peculiar |)hrase aironvrjfioyet'naTa tQv ' Aw oar dXuv occurs in these three works, and in them alone. The whole tone of the works agrees with the period assigned. The external evidence gathered bv Eusebius is strong and unbroken (cf. Eus. H. !■:. iv. 18). But it is otherwise with an Oraiin ad Graecos ; a X(J>05 TrapaivtriKb^ wpb^ 'Y.Wriva^, j or Cohortatio ad Graecos ; a fragment, wtpl \'kva<jTa(Tfw^ \ and a book, rtpi. Mocapx'at. { which must be classed as very doubtful ; ! others are decidedly not genuine. I Several works of Justin have been entirely I lost : (i) The book Against all Heresies, to which he refers in Apol. i. 26, § 70- (2) Against Marcion. referred to by Irenaeus (iv. contra Hiier. c. 14; cf. v. 26), supposed bv some to be part of (i). (3) A book called 4'tt\r7)j, and (4) Trepi <pvxT)f, in which he contrasts his own doctrine with that of the Greek philo- sophers (Eus. H. /•'. iv. 18). " Many other works of his," says Eusebius, " are in the hands of the brethren." Evi- j dently he must have written a great deal, and I the three undoubted works still extant per- ' haps account for this voluminous character of I his writings. For these three pieces are written loosely and unsystematically, and read like the outpouring of a mind that had ' ranged widely in heathen literature and philo- sophy, and had massed a large store of general knowledge, which could be easily and effec- 1 tively brought to bear upon ciirrent topics, without any scrupulous regard to the artistic or symmetrical appearance of the result. Justin's writing, especially in the first Apology, is full of direct and striking force; it moves easily and pleasingly ; his thinking is fresh, healthy, vigorous, and to the point ; his wide knowledge is used with practical skill ; his whole tone and character are im- menselv attractive by their genuineness, simplicity, generous high-niindcdness, and frank and confident energy. In the first Apology, composed with much ; more care and completeness than the second. ' he defines and justifies his position of apologist before the rulers, with supreme dignity and confidence. Me calls upon them to let it be seen whether they are the loyal guardians of 620 JUSTINUS MARTYR right and lovers of culture, which they are reported to be. He demands for himself and his fellows the justice of an exact and critical examination, without regard to prejudice, superstition, irrational panic, or any long- established evil fame. It is, as it were, for the sake of the governors and their justice that he seems to be asking a trial, for, "as for us Christians," he proudly declares, "we do not consider that we can suffer any ill from any one, unless we are convicted of wicked- ness or evil-doing ; you can kill us indeed, but damage us you cannot" (Apol. i. 2, 54 a) ; " Princes who prefer prejudice to truth can do no more harm than robbers in a desert " (Apol. i. 12, § 59 e). So he opens his Apology, which can be roughly divided into three divi- sions, cc. 3-23, in which he refutes, generally, the false charges made against Christianity ; cc. 23-61 exhibiting the truth of the Christian system and how it has got misunderstood ; cc. 61-68 revealing the character of Christian worship and customs. The charges against the Christians, en- countered in pt. i., are: (i) The very fact of Christianity is itself treated as a punishable crime (c. iv.). (2) Atheism (c. vi.). How can they with any justice be called atheists, who reverence and worship the Father of all Righteousness, the Son Who came from the Father and taught us this, the whole Host of Angels and the Prophetical Spirit? "These are they whom we honour in reason and truth, offering our knowledge of them to all who will learn of us." (3) That some Christians have been proved malefactors. Yes, very likely, for we all are called Christians however much we vary. Therefore let every one be tried on his merits. If convicted of evil, let him pay the penalty, only as an evil-doer, not as a Christian. If innocent of crime, let him be acquitted though a Christian. (4) Christians are charged with aiming at a king- dom. But this can hardly be a kingdom on earth ; for, then, we should be ruining all our hopes of it by our willingness to die for Christ. Yet we never attempt to conceal our faith ; and here Justin makes a direct appeal. "Surely," he cries, "we are the best friends that a ruler could desire, we who believe in a God Whose eye no crime can escape, no false- hood deceive ; we who look for an eternal judgment, not only on our deeds, but even on our thoughts ! So our Master, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has taught us." For the reality and true character of this faith in God through Christ, he offers the proof of the Christian's moral conversion. "We who once delighted in adultery, now are become chaste ; once given to magic, now are conse- crated to the one good God ; once loving wealth above all things, now hold all our goods in common, and share them with the poor ; once full of hatred and slaughter, now live together in peace, and pray for our enemies, and strive to convert our persecutors." All this is emphasised by our belief in the resurrection of the body, in which we shall hereafter suffer pain for all our sins done here (c. 18). Is this incredible ? Yet it is be- lieved not only by us, but by all who turn to magic rites, to spiritualists, to witches, to frenzied seers, to oracles at Dodona or Delphi ; JUSTINUS MARTYR by Empedocles and Pythagoras, Plato and Socrates, by Homer and Virgil. Here begins a defence of Christian doctrine, on the ground of its likeness to doctrines already held in heathenism (c. 21). We alone are hated, even though we hold the same as the Greeks ; we alone are killed for our faith, even though we do nothing bad. (C. 30.) He turns to a new objection. "How do you know the genuineness of your Christ, or that He was not some clever magic- worker ? " Justin's answer is, by the proof of prophecy. The books of the Jews, trans- lated in the LXX, in spite of the bitter hatred of the Jews against us, speak, years before the event, of us and of our Christ. (C. 46.) A new objection : were all men irresponsible before 150 years ago, when Christ was born under Quirinus ? No ; there were Christians before Christ, men who lived in the power of the Word of God, So- crates and Heraclitus, Abraham and Elias. (C. 56.) The demons have deceived men before Christ by the tales of Polytheism ; and, after Christ, by the impieties of Simon, Menander, and Marcion : but have never been able to make men disbelieve in the end of the world and the judgment to come, nor to con- ceal the advent of Christ. (Cc. 61-67.) He has spoken of Faith in Christ and Regeneration of Life ; he will now tell what this exactly means ; and so proceeds to describe the baptism by which the regen- eration is effected ; the reasons for this rite ; its accomplishment in the Name of the Name- less God called the Father, in the Name of the Son Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the Name of the Holy Spirit Who spake by the Prophets. He describes (c. 65) the Eucharistic Feast to which the baptized are admitted, and gives a brief account of the character to be attributed to the bread and wine then consecrated and of the authority on which this rests. He speaks once more of the feast, as it recurs on the Sundays, when they all assemble together, and (c. 68) closes rather abruptly, with the personal directness which throughout gives dignity to the Apology. " If my words seem to you agreeable to reason and truth, then give them their due value ; if they strike you as trifling, then treat them lightly as trifles ; but, at least, do not decree death against those who do nothing wrong, as if they were enemies of the state. For, if you continue in iniquity, we foretell that you will not be able to escape the future judgment of God ; we shall be content to cry, God's will be done ! " He adds an epistle of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, by which he could claim a fair trial ; but he would rather ask that as a matter of plain justice than by right of law or precedent. This letter of Hadrian's, we are told by Eusebius, was preserved by Justin in its Latin form (H. E. iv. 8), and thrown by him into Greek. Its style suits the age of Hadrian (Otto, ed. of Justin, vol. i. note on p. 190) ; it is considered genuine by Aube, Ueberweg, doubted bv Keim (Theol. Jahrb. t. XV. Tiib. 1856, p. 387). It gives so little to the Christians, that it seems hardly likely to be fictitious. JUSTINUS MARTYR The second Apology, po>-iMy an appeiulix to the tirst (Otto, ed. p. Ixxxi. ; Nolkiuar, Baur tiiui Zdl. I'hfolog. Jahrb. t. xiv. Tiih. 1855 ; Keim, Protest. K.-Z. Ber. 1873. n. 2«. col. 610). anyhow written at no long interval after the tirst, begins abruptly with an appeal directly to tlie Romans, but in reality ad- dressed to the imperial rulers (cf. cc. 3, i-j, 13), together with the whole people. These rulers, under whom the affairs which led to the Apology occurred, are, it has been argued, the emperor Pius and the philosopher Marcus .■\.urelius, and, according to a suggested read- ing, Lucius V'erus son of Caesar. The opening betrays by its suddenness, and emphasizes by dwelling on the speed with which the Apoloi^y had been produced, the excitement under which it was composed. "Things had hap- pened within the last two days in Rome," such as the irrational actions of the magistrates, which had driven Justin to write an Apology for his own people, who are, though the Romans know it not and will not have it, their brothers, of like feelings with them- selves. (C. 2.) He relates the case which had so fired him with indignation ; it is very typical of what Christians were subject to. The dis- solute wife of a dissolute man is converted and is anxious to separate from her husband. He holds out some hopes of amendment, so she forces herself to remain, but he plunges into worse debauchery. She sends a writ of divorce and leaves him. Then this " good and noble husband " bethought himself of accusing her of being a Christian. While her case was pending, a certain Ptolemaus, the wife's master in the faith, whom Urbicus had im- prisoned, is challenged with being a Christian. Ptolemaus, brought up before Urbicus, is asked, " Are you a Christian ? " and on con- fessing it is at once condemned to death. Lucius a Christian publicly challenges Urbicus to justify a decision wliioh punished a man simply for the name of Christian. " You, too, are a Christian, I suppose ? " is the only answer he gets from Urbicus ; and on con- fessing it he is condemned to death, declaring as he goes that he is glad to be free of rulers so unjust and to depart to the Father and King of Heaven. A third in the same way passes to a like punishment ; " And I myself," breaks in Justin, " look for the same fate, for I, too, have enemies who have a grudge against me, and are likely enough to take this way of avenging themselves ; Crescens espe- cially, the sham philosopher, whom I have convicted of entire ignorance about the Chris- tianity which he slandirs." (C. 4.) It may be said in scorn, " Be off, then, to your God in Heaven by killing your- selves, and trouble us no longer ! " But Christians believe the world to be made by God to fulfil His puqiose; they are not at liberty to destroy, as far as in them lies, the human race, for whom the world was created. Nor yet can we deny our faith ; for this would be to allow its guilt and to lie, and would leave you in your evil prejudices. (C. 5.) " Why does God not help His own ? " He spares to punish and destroy the evil world, for the sake of thi-i holy seed, the Christians, who are the real reason why <iod JUSTINOS MARTYR r.LM still preserves the order ..( inture, win. h tJio I fallen angels h.ive so corrupted. The effect of these Apologtfs up,.n the rulor« I of Ronie IS unknown; but Justin's cxpecta- tion of death was not disappMiiUwl, and .Marcus Aurelius still mistrusted the m.itivct which made Christi.iiis niartvrs and mw no I reason to stay the outc rv of the Roman crowd when it demanded Christian vi( tims. It remained a legal crime to be a t hrisli.m. I Indeed, acrording to Roman ideas of Kovein- ment, it miild hardly ccise t-i be criminal a« long as Christianity continued its private and pe( uliar organization and found it impossible to conform to the tests of kk.kI citizenship, ' such as the oath to the emperor. The Apol„l I ffi« never hint at conct-^sion on such p..iiits, but persist that their present position is entire- ly innocent. Their vigour must have reveale<l I the irreconcilability of Christi.in life with the I mass of pagan custom and temper in which i the soliditv of Rome had its foundation. The Dialogue with Trypho follows the first Apology, and jirobably the second also, be- tween 142 and 148 aci:ording to Hort ; in 155 (Volkmar) ; or in 160-164 (Keini). It was written to report to a dear friend, Marcus I Pompeius (cf. c. 8, § 225 d ; c. 141, ^ i;i n), ja discussion which Justin had held with the j Jews during the Bar-Ct)ch. ba wars. The dis- 1 cussion represents the Christian polemic I against the Jews ; but Trypho makes his I advance as a philosopher rather than as a Jew, and it is Justin who turns the talk to the Jewish Scriptures by expressing his surprise at a Jew being still engaged in searching for truth in the pagan philosophers when he pos- sessed already in those Scriptures the au- thorized exponent of revealed wisdom, for the sake of whose secured certainty Justin himself had left all other human systems. Trypho is, indeed, a curious type of Judaism ; a light and superficial inquirer in the courts of the schools, surrounded by a band of loud and lively friends, he begins with a reference to a Socratic at Argos, who had taught him to address courteously all who wore the philo- sopher's cloak, in the hope of finding, through the pleasant interchange of thoughts, some- thing useful to both. He smiles gracefully as he inquires \vhat opinion Justin holds about j the gods, and, apparently, justifies his philo- sophic studies in the face of Scripture, by I claiming that the philosophers are equally with Moses searchers after the Being of (hkI. The noisy friends having been avoided by retirement to a quiet seat, Trypho opens the question with the air of a free and tolerant seeker after truth ; he has read the (lospel. and found in it a morality too high for real practice, and is ready to acknowledge the piety of the better Christians. What he wonders at is that with so much giHKlncss. they should nevertheless live as (ientil(*s without keeping the pure laws of ti<Hl, t.g. the Sabbath and eireiinir ision, by whi< h Me separates the holy from sinners ; he wonders, too, how those wiio place their hope in a man can yet hope for a reward from (hhI He would gUdIv have all this explaine<l (ef. c. 57, S 280 A : c.'68, § 203 A). Trypho. then, is n.j fierce Jewish opponent, prepared to atlaek, but adopts the tone alinuil uf an inquirer. Il 622 JUSTINUS MARTYR is the Jew under a new aspect that we find here, the Jew of culture, of open and tolerant mind, with the easy courtesy of the literary world. Before such apparent openness and easy-going lightness it is perhaps not without artistic skill that Justin hints at the fierce and implacable hatred of Jew against Chris- tian which had tortured and slain Christians without pity under Bar-Cocheba and made Jews everywhere the most violent and re- morseless of the church's slanderers and persecutors (c. io8, § 335). The Dialogue takes two days. Some fresh friends of Trypho join him on the second day (c. 118, §3460); he speaks sometimes of them as if only two, at other times as if many. One is named Mnaseas (c. 85, § 312). They shout disapproval once, as if in a theatre (c. 122, § 351 a). The whole is spoken as they sit on some stone seats in the gymnasium, Justin being about to sail on a voyage. The actual argument begins at c. 10. The points especially raised by Trypho were two, i.e. how the Christians could profess to serve God and yet (i) break God's given law, and (2) believe in a human Saviour (cf. c. 10, § 227 D). The purity of Christian living is acknowledged ; the problem is its consistency with its creed. Justin's argument may be roughly divided into three parts (Otto, Prolegomena). In cc. 11-47 he refutes Trvpho's conception of the binding character of the Jewish law, which refutation involves him also in a partial answer to -the second part of the problem, i.e. the nature of the Christ in Whom they trust • for the passing away of the Law turns on the character of the Christ of Whom it prophesies. In cc. 48-108 he expounds the absolute divinity of Christ, His pre-existence, incarnation, passion, resurrection, and ascen- sion, by virtue of which the belief in Him is proved consistent with behef in God alone. In c. 109 he passes to the necessary outcome of these two principles — the conversion of the Gentiles, the new Israel, and the abandonment of the old Israel, unless they accept the new covenant. The whole is rested on the Scriptures, on the interpretation of prophecy. Justin starts with a claim to believe abso- lutely in the God of Israel ; here is his common ground with Trypho (c. 11)— both accept the old revelation (c. 68, § 298 a ; cf. 57, § 279 b ; 56 § 277 d). " I should not endure your argu- ment," Trypho says (c. 56. § 277 d), " unless you referred all to the Scriptures ; but I see you try to find all your reasons in them, and announce no other God but the Supreme Creator of the world." The Dialogue, therefore, is a perfect store- house of early Christian interpretation of Scripture. This forms its wonderful value ; it carries us back to that first effort at inter- pretation which dates from St. Peter's speech at the election of Matthias, and knits itself so closely with the walk to Emmaus, when the Scriptures were first opened and it was seen from them that Christ must suffer. The O.T. is still the sacred guide and continual com- panion of the Christian life, the type of the written revelation ; everything is there. Yet by the side of it we already feel in Justin that a new power has appeared, a fresh canon is JUSTINUS MARTYR forming, another book is beginning to assert itself. The work is full of crucial interest, just because Justin appears at the moment when this is gradually becoming clear. In the two Apologies and the Dialogue Justin covers a large part of the theological field. His treatment is peculiarly typical of the earliest form of Christian speculation out- side and beyond the immediate lines laid down by the apostolic writings. The apostolic Fathers were rather practical than speculative. The doctrinal works of people like Melito of Sardis are lost. In the Apologists Chris- tianity, according to its preserved records, first prominently applies itself to the elucida- tion of its dogmatic position, and of them Justin is among the earliest and the most famous. But in considering his theology we must remember that we only possess his exoteric utterances. He is not spontaneously developing the Christian's creed, but is striv- ing, under the stress of a critical emergency, to exhibit it most effectively and least sus- piciously to an alien and unsympathetic audience, prepared not merely to discuss but to judge and kill. The whole position tended to quicken the natural tendency of Justin's mind towards an optimistic insistence on like- nesses and agreements, rather than on differ- ences between himself and his opponents. This is not said to discredit his utterances, but simply in order to consider them, as all intelligent criticism must consider them, under their actual historical conditions. Jus- tin is on what is yet new ground to a great extent ; he is pioneering, he is venturing along unmarked and unexamined roads. Christian doctrine is still forming itself under his hands, even on some essential and cardinal points. Justin's Theology, then, begins in the pre- sence of (i) Jewish Monotheism, and (2) of the Primal and Absolute and Universal Cause of all Existence, posited by the philosophic con- sciousness of paganism. He has to state how his conception of the Deity stands to these. He answers, that he believes (i) in a God identical with the God of the Jews : " There is no other God, nor ever has been, but He Who made and ordered the Universe ; that very God Who brought your fathers, Trypho, out of Egypt, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" {Dial. 11, § 228 a). This God of creation is the one cause of all existence, therefore known as the Father : 6 Trarijp tQiv 6Xwv (ib. 114, § 342 a), or tQjv irdvTwv {Apol. i. 8, §57 a). In Apol. ii. 6, § 44 d, he sums up all the names by which the absolute God may be known, iraT-qp, Ge6s, KTia-rrj^, icvpios, deawdr-qs. This is his cardinal and prevailing expression for God the Father — that He is the Maker and Ordainer and Lord of all creation. (2) But, besides the Father, Justin undertakes to ex- hibit the Divinity of a Second Person, the Son, 6 /advos \fy6iJ.€vos Kvpius vlos {Apol. ii. 6, § 44), vldv avTou Tov fiiTws Oeov {ib- i. 13, § 60 c), to whom is allotted the second place, in honour and worship, after the arpeirTov Kal ad bvra Qfbv yevvrjTopa tCcv airdvTuv. He is, primarily, 6 A670S, the Word of God, with God before creation began, crw^v ry irarpl irpb ndvTuv rdv TroirjfiaTMV {Dial. 62, § 285 d). With Him the Father communicated {wpoaoiJuXd), having JUSTINUS MARTYR begotten Uiin hofore all tliiii^;s (y^wyjua, vr6 T«v Ofov ^-ye-f^vfijro). The manner of this ' begetting is spoken of as a projection (ru- 6vTi dir6 ToO iraTf>6i irpofiX-qOii' y^vy-ijua). Such , is the A6yos, called by Solomon the Wisdom, who co-existed with the Father at that ; moment when, at the beginning, by Him thej Father made and perfected all things (Apol.. ii. 6. § 44 E ; Dial. O2, § J83 n). He it is Who is 6 Hf6s, dw6 ToC> Trarpdt tiSv S\wi> ^ffi'Tje^tij, j and Who is known as the Word, and the Wis- dom, and the Power, and the Cilorv of Him 1 Who begat Him {Dial. 61. § 284 a, b). The Son is the instrument of " Creation " [Si arroe I irdvra f^rifff) ; hence (in addition to His ' primal names, \6yoi, Tioj) called XpurSs, Kara j t6 Kexfti(J'Oat to. Trdi'ra Sl' ainrdf ; but this name is in itself of unknown significance, just as the title " God " is no real name, but rather expresses a natural opinion, inborn in man, about an unutterable fact. Christ's Being, therefore, as well as the Father's, is beyond all human expression, and is known only econo- mically ; for, if this is true of the title Xptur6t. it can hardly but be true of the higher names. \6yoi and f i6j. This A6705 is identical with the Man Jesus, conceived through the will of the Father on behalf of man. named Jesus as being a Man and a Saviour. Justin holds, then, the entire Divinity of Him Who was born a Man and crucified under Pontius Pilate. Nothing can be more pronounced or decided than his position ; it is brought to the front by the necessities of his arguments both with the Jew and the Gentile. He starts with this position, that he worships as God, a man Christ Jesus ; it is this that he has to justify to the Gentile (cf. Apol. i. 21, 22, § 67). " In that we say," he says, " that the Word, Which is the tirst-begotten of God, has been born without human mixture, as Jesus Christ, our Master, Who was crucified and died, and rose again;" or, again, " Jesus Christ, Who alone was begotten to be the only Son of God, being the Word of God, and the first-born and the Power of God (npoiTbTOKOi Kal bvvapm), became .Man by the will of the Father, and taught us these things." He justifies the possibility of these statements to the emperors by appeals to Greek mythology, i.e. he is so fast bound to this belief that he has to run the risk of all the discredit that will attach to it in the minds of the philosophic statesmen to whom he is appealing from its likeness to the debasing fables which their intellectualism either rationalized or discarded. That J ustin is conscious of this risk of discredit is clear 1 from cc. 53 and 54 of the first .Apology, with which we may compare the taunt of Trypho (Dial. 67. § 219 B). So again, in the Dialogue, j it is the Christian worship of a man that puzzles Trypho ; and the first necessity for J ustin is to exhibit the consistency of this with the supreme monarchy of God. " First shew me," asks Trypho {ib. c. 50), " how you can prove there is any other God besides the Creator of the universe ? " and this not in any economical sense, but verily and indeed (cf. ib. 55, § 274 c); and Justin accepts the task, undertaking to exhibit Jesus, the Christ, born of a virgin, as Qidi koI Kvpiot rCiv ivvi- fuuv (ib. 36, § 254 E), to shew Him to be. at JUSTINUS MARTYR A23 the same tim.-, l.,,th (»,6t ^ai Kiv^oi. .iiid also dWjp i^at Aft'puwot {lb. yt, f \Si » ). The rigour with which this is Posited may lie tested by the cruri.il case of the appear.inre to .\braham at Mamre. Here, it is allowed, after a little discussion, that no aMKelic manifestation satisfies the Lmgu.iKe tisrd by Scripture. It is c.rt.iinlv (.od HmiMlf Who In spoken of. Justin und.rt.ik.s to prove that this cannot be God the Fath.r. but must be other than He Who created all things— "other," he means, "in nundKT. in person, not in will or spirit " {tb. s<>. § 276 i>. tnpoi, dptO/xi^ \^yu dX\' oi"' yyuifif)). .So. again, he applies to this Divine Being the tremendous words delivered to Moses from the midst of the burning bush, and he will not suffer this to be qualified or weakened bv anv such subtle distinctions as Trvjilio attempts to draw between the angel seen of .Moses and the voice of God that spoke. He insists, against any such subtleties, that whatever Presence of (lod was actually there manifested was the Pre- sence, not of the Supreme Creator. Who cannot be imagined to have left His Highest Heaven, but of that Being Who. being God. announces Himself to Moses as the (iod Who had shewn Himself to .Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. To Him, therefore, apply the words " I am that I am." By these two cases, specimens of a hundred others drawn from Law and Psalm and Prophets, it will be seen how clearlv the problem was present to Justin, and how definitely he had envisaged its solution s.i far as the O.T. was concerned ; in dirert collision with the Montitheisin of the Jew. he tlefmds himself, not by withdrawing or modifying his assertions, but by discovering the evidence for His dual Godhead in the very heart of the ancient Revelation itself ; not in any by-ways or minor incidents, but in the very core and centre of those most essential manifestations of God to Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and Joshua, on the truth of which the whole fabric of Jewish faith and worshiji was reared. Justin has next to consider in what relation these two Divine Beings stand to each otiu r. Given the existence of a Second Person \\ li<> can so effectually identify Himself with the First as to be called 6 6(65, how can we con- ceive the harmony and unity of such a duality ? Justin is clear that the distinction between the two Beings is real ; it is a numer- ical distinction. The Word is no mere emanation of the Father, inseiiarable from Him as the light is inseparable from the sun. He is a real subsistence, burn of the Father's Will {Dial. 12H, { 35«B)- The words used, therefore, to express their relation .ire words of companionship, of intercourse, of OKnif^, KpoaofuXil (cf. tb. 62, i 2K5 c, I), where he brings out the fact of this personal intercour^^ as involved in the consultations at tin- creation of man). They are two distinct Brings, but yet must be One in order not to dissolve the absoluteness of the only liudhead. Such a unity may be pictured by the ronnrxion between a thought and the Keason that think* it, or by the unity of a flame with the hrc from which it was taken. Fach of these examples of the unbroken unity has the short- coming that they compel us to think of a 624 JUSTINUS MARTYR JUSTINUS MARTYR stage prior to the dual condition in which that fount of the Divine life, the expressions used which is now dual was single. What, then, abi^ut Him, and abjut the Son, must neces- of the existence of the Word before It became sarily impute to Him an underivative, to the the TTpo^Xrjdev yevv-qixal Justin is content Son a derivative Being ; and must, therefore, with the statements: (i) That "before all tend to class the Son rather with the rest of things," already " at the beginning," this pro- jection had been effected, the two Persons were already distinct (cf. ib. 62, § 285 d ; 56, § 276 Tov Kai TTjJo TToiqcrtwi Koafiov 6vTa Weov) rd yevrird than with the sole a-yevnTov. It could only be at the end of a most subtle and dehcate reflection that Christian logic could possibly realize that it was bound, if it would (2) That besides this actual projection of the I be finally consistent with itself, to class the A670J there is a state which may be described as a condition of inner companionship with God the Creator (awriv). This precedence is never distinctly asserted to be temporal by Justin. In the Dialogue the uvvtLv is stated to be eternal in exactly that sense in which the yivvrina is eternal, i.e. as being " before all things." Justin does not appear to definitely pro- nounce on the question how the process of Begetting consists with the absolute eternity of the Personal Word begotten. There is no precise realization of a A670J ifdidOtros and irpocpopiKOi He hardly seems conscious of this difficulty in his two analogies of the thought and the flame ; he is satisfied with expressing, by them, the unity, and yet dis- tinctness, of the Father and the Son. He is content to state that this unity in difference existed from the very first, before all created things. His analysis seems hardly to have pressed back to the final question, which Arian logic discovered to lie behind all minor issues, i.e. was there a moment when the Father was not yet a Father ? Such a suspension of analysis is not unnatural, since Justin, in the writings before us, hardly enters on the con- templation of the Nature of God in and to Himself. It is always as the source of all things — the Father, the Maker, the Lord of the Universe — that he presents God to us. It is God in His relation to His works that we contemplate. What He was in Himself before all His works does not seem considered, and it is therefore all the more sufficient to state that God came to the making of the world already dual in character. The moment at which creation was to begin found the Son already existent, as 6 Qeos. in personal intercourse with the Father. With this he leaves us, only affirming that that character of paternity which constitutes the relation of God to the world had a prior and peculiar significance and reality in the relation that united the absolute God and His Word (cf. Apol. ii. 6, § 44, 6 fxdvos \fy6,ui(vos Kvpiws vi6i). Justin's metaphysic, then, culminates in the assertion of this essential Sonship pre-existent to the creation. This being so, his language remains as indecisive on the ulterior question of the origin of the Sonship as is the language of Proverbs on the eternity of the Wisdom. In both cases the utmost expression for eter- nity that their logic had attained to is used. It is useless to press them for an answer to the puzzles of a later logic, which carried the problem back into that very eternity which closed their horizon. It was inevitable thai the natural and unsystematized language used before the Arian controversy should be capable of an Arian interpretation. Since the Father is indeed slone dy^yqru^, the sole unoriginate derived Being of the Son, by virtue of the absolute eternity of its derivation, on the side of TO d')fvi-)Tbv rather than on that of rd yiv-qra. Justin, in the full flush of readiness to sweep in to the service of faith the dear and familiar language of his former Platonism, may have left himself unguarded and careless on this uttermost point of the philosophy of the Incarnation ; but it will not easily be doubted — by any one who has observed how he de- velops the full divinity of the Son over all the ground which his logic covered with a bold- ness and a vigour that, in face of the inevitable obstacles, prejudices, misunderstandings ex- cited by such a creed, are perfectly astonishing — what answer he would have given if the final issue of the position had once presented itself definitely to him. Justin had also affirmed the moral unity of the Son with the Father. This is not stated to be the ground of the Unity. The analogies of the thought and of the flame, on the con- trary, imply a unity of substance to be the ground of the Kvpiu)i viorrjs, but it is introduced in order to explain the consistency of his belief with the reality of a single supreme Will in the Godhead {Dial. 56, § 274), and the explanation naturally led him to affirm the complete subordination of the Son to the will of the Father. The Son is the expression of the Father's mind, the 5in'a,uii' XoyiKrjv. which He begat from Himself. He is the interpreter of His Purpose, the instrument by which He designs. In everything, therefore, the Son is conditioned by the supreme Will ; His office. His very nature, is to be 6 dyyeXo^, 6 uirripfTr]s. All His highest titles, vl6s and Xoyos, as well as others, belong to Him by virtue of His serving the Father's purpose and being born by the Father's Will {iK tov dnb TOV vaTpos t)e\ri<T€L yeyevrjcrdai, ib. 61, § 284 b). " I say that He never did anything but what the Maker of the world, above Whom there is no God at all, willed that He should do " {ib. 56, § 276). The Father is above all. Trypho would not endure to listen to Justin if he did not hold this {ib. 56, § 278 b). The Son is then subordinate, and perfectly sub- ordinate, but this subordination is such that it can allow the Son to identify Himself utterly with the Father, as with Moses at the bush, and so to be called 6 Kvpios and 6 Beds. In the expression " born of the Father's Will " we are once more close to Arian con- troversy. Was there, then, a moment when the Father had not yet willed to have a Son ? If so, how can the Son be eternal ? Yet, if not, how was the Father's will free ? Justin has no such questions put to him. He states this dependence of the Son for His very Being on the Will of the Father without anxiety as to His right to be named 6 Gecj, and to receive JUSTINUS MARTYR worship ill the abs.ihito soiiso in whicli a Jew would understand that title and that worship. And here, again, surely it was inevitable that the Christian consciousness should have so stated frankly the subordinate and dependent character of the eternal Sonship, before it appreciated the subtle puzzle that would ensue when logic began its critical work upon the novel and double-sided conce[Uion. Subordination of the Son to tiie Father must represent the immediate, primary, natural, and intelligible method of presenting to the reflecting mind the reconciliation of the duality of Persons with the unity of Will. The very name of Son, or of the Word, implied it. So far, too, the logic inherited from the philosophies would supply the needful formula. It would take time to discover that Christian- ity held implicitly, in its faith in the entire Divinity of the Son, a position which, if ever it was to be made consistent with the explicit formula of the subordination, must necessitate an entirely new and original logical effort, such as would justify the synthesis already achieved by the Christian's intuitive belief iii the absolute Di\inity of a dependent and subordinate Son. This new logical effort was made when Athanasius recognized the dilemma into which the old logic of the Schools had thrown the Christian position, and, in- stead of abandoning either of the alternatives, evolved a higher logic, which could accept both. For it must be remembered, if we are to be impartial to Justin, that the Nicene controversy was not closed by the church throwing over the subordination, while the Arian threw over the entire Divinity of the Son. Xicaea confessed the subordination, and made it theoretically consistent with the absolute Divinity. This being so, the only possible test by which to try Justin (who certainly held b )th the divinity and the subordination) would be to ask whether, if he had seen the dilemma, he would have held the subordination of the Son to be the primary and imperative truth to the logical needs of which the fulness of the divine Sonship must be thrown over, or whether he would have felt the latter truth to be so intimately essential that a novel logic must be called into existence which should interpret it into accordance with the subordination. It cannot but be felt that Justin's faith is a great deal more pronounced and definite than his Platonic logic ; that the one is clear and strong where the other is vague and arbitrary ; and, if so, that in a conflict between the two his faith would have remained supreme. Justin's temper of mind is the complete reverse of that of Arius. On the ministerial activities of the Son for the Father Justin is much more explicit. The Word has one chief mission from the Father, that of interpreting Him to man ; hence He received the name of SLyyt\os (cf. Dial. 56, § 275). He accomplishes this (i) to the Jews by means of the Theophanies and through the lips of the pr(jphets. The Word is the direct inspirer Whose spirit moves the prophets, and Whose words they speak (cf. Apol. i. 36, § 76 d). The whole manifold Scripture, with all its many parts and voices, is, as it were, a great play written by a single author, the Word of God, Who alone speaks JUSTINUS MARTYR G2B through .ill the ( h.ir.i. t.r-. dihpl.iyid. of thi> Justin gives instances in cc. 37. \^, 39. Again, He is not only the inward forrr, but i\\e outward object also, to Which all prophecy is directed. The Jewish Siripturc has in Him a permanent aim, a f>xi-d canon ; it all arranges itself round Him (cf. Apol. i. ji, § 7i A). To foretell Hiin and His work is the one purpose of prophecy. Uy it His whole life in Its main outlines is described, His advent. His birth from the virgin. His coming to man's estate. His curing of the sick, His raising the dead. His being hated, and un- known, and crucified, His death, resurrection, and ascension. His divine sonship, His mission of the apostles, His success among the Gentiles (ib. i. 31, § 7j). (2) Justin attributes a revelation of the Word to the Cicnliles, as well as to the Jews ; to them He is the dy><.\of, the interpreter of the Father, not hy prophetic anticipations, but by partial manifestation, of Himself. Every man in every race pos- sesses a germ of the Word, by the power of which men knew what truth they did know, and did what good they did do; above all, the philosophers and lawgivers who, in their rational inquiries and speculations, were obeyhig the measure of the Word within them {Kara \6yoi' fxipo^ . . . 5i tvp^atuf Kal Otutftiat, ib. ii. 10, § 48c). It is Justin who promul- gates the famous formula: "Offa irapo waffi Ka- \u)S flprjTai r)fiu)v Tixiv Xpiariavu)!' iari. (ib. ii. 13, § 51). " We do not believe less, but more, than Empedocles and Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato," he says: "we approve what they rightly said ; but our doctrine is higher than theirs ; " and so too with the Stoics, poets, and historians (cf. ib. i. 18, § 65 c ; ii. lo, 13). This is the principle the .Alexandrians are to develop. These ancient friends of Christ, for their obedience to the Word, were hated as Christians are hated, as impious and curious busy-bodies ; chief of them was Socrates, who was martyred for Christ. With him are men- tioned Heraclitus, Musonius the St<jic, etc. In the exercising of human reason to search out (iod such as these obeyed the power of the Word, the Reason of God (\6r^<^ TrapatilvTfi rA ir/3d7juaTa deup^aai Kal iXiy^ai . . . 5ii \6yov frjTriJews dtov tov dyfiiiTTov ^irlyi'uyni'; tb. ii. 10, § 48 ; cf. i. 5, § 55 E : \6yif) dXijOii kcU fitraa- ri/kiDs). This general differs from the Christian revelation in the /»ar/«<j/ character of the \6>oi (TrfpfiaTinds ; each philosopher, etc., saw only a part of the Word. Hence the contradictions of the philosophic system, the inconsistencies of human law ; some had one right part, some another. Christians possess the whole Word <»£ (iod, in the person of Christ Jesus; they, there- fore, hold the canon of truth which distinguishes all that was good and true »>f old, from the false and the confused with which it was mixed {ib. ii. 9, 10, § 47). This distinction is radical ; " since the germ and image of somelhiiitf, given to iiiaii arcording to the measure of hi* capacity, is <juile tlisliiict from that very thing itself which permits itself, by its own favour, to be so given and communicatetl " {ib. ii. 13, § 51 c). This clear ilLstinction exhibits the full reality of the personality attributed by Justin to the Word revealed itt Christ ; it is personality which distinguishes 40 626 JUSTINUS MARTYR itself so decisively from the influence and energy which it exercises ; it is it again which makes the distinction between a partial and a complete revelation to be so radical. The completeness of the Christian revelation lies in its being the revelation of Christ's Person (cf. ib. ii. 10, § 48, 6j iaTi Xpia-rdi ; ii. 13, § 51). Hence, the Revelation of the Word concen- trates itself in the Incarnation ; for so onlv, and then only, is the Word Himself in His personal reality, as distinct from all his activities, and superior to all His influences, made manifest and actual to man. " Our truth is more sublime than all human doc- trine," says Justin, " on account of the entirety with which the Divine Reason has appeared, for our sakes, as Christ, being manifested as body, and reason, and spirit " {ib. ii. 10, § 48 b). It is because the Word of the absolute and ineffable God has " become a man for our sakes, sharing our passions, and curing our ills," that we surpass all the philo- sophers whose wisdom we claim to be ours {ib. ii. 13, § 50). Christians now can worship and love the Word. Thev possess in Him a doctor who will authoritatively determine the truth, separating it from the confusions intro- duced by the demons {ib. ii. 13, § 51 ; ii. 9, § 48 b). He has thus made the certain and secure revelation of the Father, which Soc- rates pronounced to be so difficult and perilous by the way of human reasoning ; and He has made this revelation effective and universal, by being Himself no mere reasoner, but the very Power of the Ineffable God {Suvapdi ian Tov Tlarpdt, ib. ii. 10, § 49 A ; cf. i. 23, § 68 b). This Power of God avails to ensure security of truth to those even who cannot use reasoning effectively, to artisans and utterly unlearned people. The identification of the man Christ Jesus with the antecedent Word of God is entire and unhesitating. Nothing can exceed Justin's preciseness. " Christ Who was known in part by Socrates, for He was and is the Word which is in everv man, and foretold things both by the prophets and in His own Person, when He took upon Him our nature and taught these things " {ib. ii. 10, § 49 a). Here it is identically the same Per- son Who is known to Socrates, and inspires the prophets, and taught mankind in the flesh (cf. ib. i. 23 : " Jesus Christ, Who is the Word of God, His First-born, His Power, His only Son, was also made man " ; cf. i. 63, § 96 a). In consequence of the pre-existence, the In- carnation could only be effected by a super- natural birth. Because the Christ existed personally in Himself before the ages and then endured to be born as a man, He could not be begotten by man, but must be bom solelv by the will of the Father Who originally begat Him. Such a birth would be unnecessarv for a human Christ ; those, therefore, who held that God's Christ was not pre-existent or divine, would not hold that He was born supernaturally of a virgin. So Justin claims that Tr>T)ho might accept the proofs that Jesus was Christ, even though he should fail to convince him of the eternal pre-existence and virgin-birth of Jesus {Dial. 48, § 267 b) ; and here Justin confesses that some who are called Christians and acknowledge Jesus to be Christ, yet hold Him to be a man bom of JUSTINUS MARTYR men. He himself could never agree with them even if the main mass of Christians were to turn against him ; but he speaks of these Ebionites with a mildness that is rather startling in view of the immense strength and definiteness of his own belief, with which his own church, as he tells us, fully agreed. Apparently he is justify- ing the possibility of the pis a//t;r,'which he pro- poses to Trypho. It is a novelty to Trypho, it seems, to hear of there being such Christians : he expects them to hold what Justin holds. Evidently, the common church faith in the pre-existence and divinity of Christ is so entire that it already has a theology which is anxious to use the agony in the garden and the bitter cry on the cross as proofs that Christ was actually a man Who could suffer pain {ib. 103. § 331 D, etc.), as if it were the humanity that was more hkely to be doubted than the divinity. This supernatural birth is justified by Isaiah's prophecy (which he accuses the Jews of having corrupted, by changing irapdivoi into vtavt.^, and which the demons have caricatured in the myth of Perseus) {ib. I 68, § 294) ; by Psalm ex. :' " From the womb j I begat Thee " {ib. 63, 286 d) ; and from many I other texts in which Justin sees it fore- shadowed that the blood of Christ would come not bv human mixture, but solely bv the will of God {Apol. i. 32, § 74 ; Dial. 76, § 301). His language on this goes so far that it seems sometimes hardly consistent with the perfect manhood of Christ. He is " like a son of man," i.e. not born of human seed. His blood is called the " blood of the grape," because it came not to Him from man, but direct from the will of the Father. He is the " stone cut without hands," etc. The purpose of the Incarnation is to save men from evil deeds and evil powers, and to teach assured truth {Apol. i. 23, § 68 c ; in' dX\a73 Kox iirayayuyri tov avOpwireloij yivovi ; ii. 9 § 48, b). He brings to bear the full divine energy (i) Siifafiis tov Ilarpjs) on a race diseased and deceived through the action of devils. So He is the medicine to cure {ib. ii. 13, § 51 d), which He becomes by sharing our humanity {twv iradQiv rCof rifj.€Tipwv avfj.n(roxos). He is therefore called the Saviour {ib. i. 61, § 94 a), in Whom we receive remission of sins and regeneration. His mode of action is by (i) teaching, as the Word, which is no mere persuasive argument but is a Power penetrat- ing deeper than the sun into the recesses of the soul {Dial. 121, § 350 a), enabling us not only to hear and understand, but to be saved {.Apol. ii. 12, § 49). His truth is an absolute canon by which to sift the true from the false in human speculations, since He, the Entire Word, distinguishes with certainty, amid the confusion of the philosophies, that in them which is His own working. So completely and uniquely authoritative is He, that it is by His teaching alone that men rightly know and worship the one Father and God {ib. i. 13). (2) He saves, secondly, by suffering on the cross : so sharing in all the reality of our flesh (cf. Dial. 98, § 324 D, fiyovev 6.vdpu-no% avTi.- \-t)i?TLKbi iraddov). He destroys death by death. He gains possession of men by the cross {cf ib. 134, § 364 c, 5t' a'l/xaTOi kuI fivcrTijpiov toO arravpov KT7]ad/j.€vos avroijs). By His blood JUSTINUS MARTYR He loosens the power of tlic lievil (ib. 04, § 322 a) ; He removes death (ib. 105. § i^z) ; by His blood He purifies those who believe (Apol. i. 32, § 74 a) : hence, He, as crucified, is the Priest, the Eternal High Priest (c/. Dial. 116, 343 e). Man's power to keep blameless, and to drive out devils, follows the economy of His Passion {ib. 31, § 247 n). Hence He is called ^ioijOds and Xi'rpujr^v (16. 30, § 247 c), the hope of Christians is huuK on the cruci- fixion of Christ (ib. q6, § 323 c). Hy His stripes we are healed {tb. 17, § 234 e, 336 d). So He is the Paschal Lamb, Who saves from death by the sprinkling of blood (ib. in, § 338 c). He saved, by submitting to that which all men deserved for sin, i.e. the curse pronounced on all who kept not the law ; therefore He was crucified, because the curse lay on crucifixion ; but He was no more under God's curse when He endured our curse than was the brazen serpent, which was ordered by God, though He had condemned all images. (iod saved of old by an image without violating the Second Commandment ; He saves now, by a Crucified, those who are worthy of the curse, without, for that, laying His curse on the Crucified. It is the Jews, and not God, who now fulfil the text by "cursing Him that hung on the tree" (ib. 96, 323). This cross and suffering the Father willed for man's sake, that on His Christ might fall the curse of all men : He willed it, knowing that He would raise Him again from this death, as Christ testified on the cross by His appeal to the Father. This coming of Christ to be despised, to suffer, to die, is justified by many appeals to prophecy, especially to Ps. xxii. (ib. 98, § 325), to Jacob's blessing, Gen. xlix. 8, 12, etc. It is the " hidden power of God which is exhibited in the crucified Christ " (ib. 49, § 269 c). This power (lax^'^ ''<''' fJ-i'<^rripiov Toii aravpoO, ib. 91, § 318 b) began to manifest its hidden efficacy from the day of the resur- rection ; those who have faith in the cross, and exercise penitence, are, through the power of Christ, the great and eternal priest, stripped of the filthy garments of sin, and clothed with new robes, and made priests, through whom everywhere sacrifices are offered (16. 116, § 344). Christ Himself is raised from the grave, to be led up into heaven, by the Father, there to dwell until He shall strike down all the devils His enemies and the number of the elect righteous shall be fulfilled, when He will be shewn in glory on the throne of His mani- fested kingdom. Then will be the great judg- ment of devils and sinners which is delayed solely for the sake of gathering in all who may yet be willing to believe and repent (Apol. i. 45, § 82 D ; ii. 7, § 45 B) ; till it comes, Christ sends down power on His Apostles, by which they, and all who will, consecrate them- selves to the one God (ib. i. 50, J 86 b ; 49, § 85 B). This present efficacy of Christ is evident in the power of Christians over devils, who are bound and expelled by their adjura- tion (of. Dial. 76, 5 302 a). This power, I offered to all, manifests itself especially among | the Gentiles, and is rejected by Jew and Samaritan, as many a prophecy had foretold (ib. 91, § 319 A ; cf. I20, § 348, etc. to end of I Dial.). It calls men by the road of faith into friendship and blessing, penitence, and com- ' JUSTINUS MARTYR 627 pimction, and assures thriu of a kiiiKdnin to come, eternal and incorruptible (if. 16. 139, § 369 A). All on whom the power of the cross comes arc gathered with one mind into one synagogue, one church, a church born «>( and called by His name, addres>.«(l by Ihr Word in Scripture as His daughter, " Mr.irktMi, O daughter" (16. 63, § 287 11). This church is descril>ed, with St. Paul, as one body, tt> naXfiTai Aai (<tti aCifux (tb. 42, { 261 a). The eternal kingdom comes with ( hrist's second advent, in glory, as judge. He will judge every man, up to Adam himself (16. 13-. § 362 a) ; then shall sinners and di-vils weep, for to them He will allot a place in that eternal fire which will destroy this world ; believers He will admit to the kingdom, re- calling the dead to life and est.iMishing them in an eternal and indissoiublr kingdom, them- selves incorruptible, immortal, iniiiless (16. 117. § 345. b). This is the Melchisedec, King of Salem, eternal Priest of the Most High, Who will remake a new heaven and a new earth, into which holv land His circumcised shall enter (ib. 113, § 341 a). This kingdom is generally spoken of as in heaven, as not earthly (cf. Apol. i. II, § 59 A, etc.) ; it is a home with God, for the sake of which Christians easily despise all earthly delights and lusts and the fear of death. In one famous passage in the Dialogue (80, § 306 b ; cf. 113, § 341 a) he accepts the Jewish belief of a millennium in a restored and beautified Jerusalem ; he claims to have dealt already with this point, though no such explanation is in the Dialogue ; many share this belief with him, he says, yet many pious and orthodox Christians reject it ; only those whoarc, according to J ustin, ip^o-^vJ^fiovt^ Kara, iravra XpicTtavoi, hold this faith with him, based on Is. Ixv. 17 and on the Revela- tion of " one of themselves, by name John, an apostle of Christ," who speaks of a first resur- rection and then a second eternal resurrection and judgment of all men. Evidently there are no words of our Lord's to support this belief ; it is a pious opinion, resting on the literal reading of the Apocalypse, held by the most strict believers, but not necessary to a pure and true faith («rotfo/)4 *oi ii'at(iT)x yvufjir)). Far different are those who deny the future resurrecticm of the body altogether and believe in an inmiediate entrance of the souls of Christians into heaven : " let Trypho be- ware of deeming such to be Christians at all." The resurrection of the body is a cardinal point of Justin's creed (cf. Apol. i. 18 fl.) ; essential to the reality of future punishment, and to the fullness of a Christian's security against all loss in death, and justified by an appeal to the wonder of our first creation and to Christ's miracles (Dial. 69, f 296 a). When this Advent will be, we know not, though it may be soon. It will be preceded by the appearance of the .Man of Iniijuitv. On the action of the Third Person, Justin is not so definite ; he is continually speaking of Him, but His person and office arc nt)t always distinguished with precision from those of the Second Person. He is there, in Justin's creed, a recognized element in it, constantly occur- ring; but apparently Justin's metaphysic had not yet had time or occasion to dwell on this point with anxiety or exactness. The most 628 JUSTINUS MARTYR definite mention of Him is in the typical formula for the object of Christian worship and sacramental service ; here He is distinctly allied to the First and Second Persons as the alone Third, Who shares with Them the adora- tion of Christians and the ministration of grace (cf. Apol. i. 13, § 60 e, Uvev/xa wpo<pt)TiKbv iv Tpirri Ta^ei Tifji.Cj/j.fv, where he is explaining what it is that Christians worship) ; again {ib. i. 60, § 93 b), he claims for the Spirit the truth of that rb rpiTov which Plato was sup- posed to have suggested. Here, as in the former case, the rpirov is parallel to r; Seinepa Xwpa, the place of the Son, and must, there- fore, be understood in something of the same significance as that ; and that " second place " signified, we know, a difference in number, in fact, in personality, not a mere logical distinction ; yet it included such a unity of substance and will that the termino- logy of the Godhead could be directly applied to it, with the exception of those symbols of absolute supremacy, i.e. the titles, " Father," " Creator," etc. As the Holy Spirit is directly included within the lines of the object wor- shipped, so is He directly implicated in the divine action upon men : thus the baptismal and sacrificial formula unite His name with that of the Father and the Son (ib. i. 61, § 94 A ; 65, § 97 D ; 67, § 98 c). He, with the Son, is the medium by which praise and thanks- giving are offered to the Father ; His is the third name in the might of which the Christian receives regeneration. One curious passage gives Him a strange place: Justin refutes (ib. i. 6, § 56 c) the charge of atheism by claiming that Christians honour and adore (o-efi'^fKOa Kal TrpoaKwov/nep) " both God the Father, and the Son Who came from Him, and the host of good angels that follow Him, and are made like to Him, and the Prophetic Spirit also." Here the angels are brought in front of the Spirit, through the need, probably, of expressing their unity with Christ by virtue of which they become the objects of Christian reverence (e^o/xoiovp.^vwi'). Several attempts have been made to avoid this sudden intro- duction of the angels, by various interpreters (cf. Otto's note in loc. ed. vol. i. i, 21) ; but it is hardly possible to read the passage otherwise than as it stands. It must be explained by its position ; Justin is quite precise and clear in other passages, where the position attri- buted to the Holy Spirit is definitely marked, and this sentence, therefore, must be inter- preted in accordance with them, not they be confused by it. The angels are best intro- duced in close company with that Divine Person to Whom they are peculiarly attached, and from Whom especially they derive their title to sanctity (cf. Dial. 31, § 247 e ; Apol. i. 52, §§ 87-88 ; Dial. 61, § 284 b), our Lord being Himself 6 &yye\os, and being therefore named apxicyrpaTtf^os, the captain of the angelic host. Only through Him can they be reverenced ; while the Holy Spirit receives worship by right of Himself. Justin, by throwing in at the end cre^6fj.eda with -n-pocKv- voO/xev,^ covers all the varieties of adoration that his inclusion of angels may have made requisite ; and he adds \6yv Kal aXrjdeig. Ti/j-QvTts, as if to suggest that there were JUSTINUS MARTYR carefully guarded lines of distinction in the Christian's worship. Elsewhere he shews himself perfectly conscious of the impossibility of paying absolute worship to any but God alone {Apol. i. 16, § 63) ; in order to justify the adoration of Christ, he knows clearly that he must shew Him to be higher than all angels {Dial. 56, § 276). The whole argument with the Jew exhibits the precision of Justin's dis- tinction between God and His angelic ministers ; but, on the other hand, his language in this unique passage evidences the reverential service that could be offered, according to Christian use, to those who had been fashioned into the likeness of Christ. The Holy Spirit is concerned with creation {tb. i. 60, § 93 b), in His distinct personal full- ness, as 6 Tp'iTos, with a third station peculiar to Himself {"^pi-Tr) X^P"-) in the Godhead. His main office is with inspiration ; He is t6 rivev/xa rb TrfO(l>7)TiK6v ; this is His cardinal name. He speaks as Himself to man, using men as His organ (Sia MwiJa-fcjs ir po( pli)vv(T€ , ib. i. 60, § 93 b) ; here, since the words follow the statement of the place of the Holy Spirit in the Triad, they must definitely intend Him, in His distinction from the Word, to be the spring of inspiration ; so, too, in the formula of baptism, it is the name of 7rpo</)r;Tt\6s, which marks His distinction from the Word ; and we must, therefore, apply to Him, in His separ- ate right and existence, the constantly recur- ring use of this name (cf. ib. i. 38, § 77 c ; 47, § 84 A, etc., etc.), on all which occasions He is spoken of as the direct author and speaker of prophecy, and prophecy is spoken of as peculiarly the note of God {ib. i. 30, § 72 b, etc.). This Spirit is one throughout ; It spoke once in Elias, and afterwards in the Baptist {Dial. 49, § 268). Yet Justin sometimes attri- butes to the Word this action of inspiration which gives to the Spirit His name (cf. Apol. i. 36, § 76 d) ; the prophets speak through the Word which moves them (so again ib. i. 33, § 75 D, OeocpopouvTai X67uj fffiu) ; cf. Dial. 61, § 284 c ; 62, § 285 ; 63, § 236 d). In both cases it is the effective agency by which the prophets are stirred to speak which is attributed to the Word; and Justin attributes this on grounds which he expects the heathen em- perors to acknowledge, it is language they must understand {Apol. i. 33). The action of God on man is so intimately bound up with the Word, in Justin, that it is wonderful how much inspiration he attributes to the Spirit, rather than how little. Justin holds very decisively the belief (i) in good angels, attached intimately to our Lord (cf. former quotations), messengers of God in O. and N. T., fed in heaven on some manna {Dial. 57, § 279 c), accompanying Christ in His glory on the last day ; and (2) more particularly in bad angels, to whom the earth and man had been committed by God {Apol. ii. 5, § 44 a), but who overstepped their limits in wicked intercourse with women, who, from them, bore sons, the devils ; they reduced the human race to servitude, by deceitful magic, and by terror, and by instituting sacrifices, etc., to themselves, for which they lusted now that they had known the passion of fleshly desires : they sowed the seeds of war, adultery, JUSTINUS MARTYR crime. Chief aniDiij; tlitMn is the Serpent, the tempter of Adam and live, the Devil, Satanas, | a name ascribed to him by our Lord Himself [ at His temptation, signifyinR Apostate and Serpent {ib. i. 28, § 71 b ; Dial. 103, § 331 b). ; The problem of the human soul ore iipies the chief place in the account of Justin's con- 1 version ; the philosophers were felt to be un- certain and insecure in their conception of it, especially as regards its immortalitv, its con- sequent transmigration, and its relation to the divine substance. Justin holds that the soul is no particle of the absolute mind ; has no life in itself ; is created ; is not life, but par- taker of life, so that it could perish ; but receives immortality by the will of God, as is proved by a mass of practical testimony, by the word of Revelation, and by its consonance with the needs of justice ; this immortality ' includes as its essential requisite the resur- ', rection of the body, without which Justice j could not fulfil itself ; it will be given both to , the just and to the unjust (cf. Dial. 4, 5, 6 ; Apol. i. 21, § 67 D ; 18, 19, § 63). though it is j only rightly " immortality " for the just ; j for the others, eternal fire. Man. according to Justin, has been impri- soned in sin since the fall of .A.dam, the first man, deceived of the devil, who fell greatly , by deceiving Eve ; hence " ye shall die " ' {Dial. 124, § 353 D, 6jttoiu;s Ttp 'ASan vai rrj K6(f. f^ofioiovfXfvOL. Odvarov eavroii ipyd^ovTai), \ though originally made flt(^ ofioiw dirathh Kai | dOavdTovs (cf. ib. 88, § 316 a). Man, as the angels, was made incorruptible, if he kept j God's laws. This Biblical view falls in with | his account of the whole human race, as j sinning through the deceit of evil angels who 1 made them think their own bad passions j possible in gods. This evil state, thus brought ' on, is spoken of as a tyranny from which man had to be delivered by another (cf. ib. 116, j § 344 a; Apol. ii. 6, § 45 a) ; Christ comes firi (caraXiVft rJjf 5aifj.6vwp. The whole race is under the curse ; for, if the Jews were^ by | the laws of Moses, much more were the Gen- [ tiles with their horrible idolatry {Dial. 95, § 322 d). Only by Christ is the curse removed ; He, our Israel, wrestles for us with the devil {ib. 125, § 354 d)- Only by His grace are the devils made subject. I3ut Justin com- bines with this a great anxiety to keep man's free-will intact ; he is continually explaining himself on this point. Man is never deserted of God ; he possesses, after the fall, the ger- minal A(5vos, by which he discerns between good and evil, between true and false (cf. ib. 93, § 320 D ; Apol. ii. 10). The gift of Christ to man is primarily re- mission of sins (cf. Dial. 116, § 344, ftc), effected through penitence on man's part, excited by his call into true faith in the Creator ; by Christ's power, sin is stripi)ed off and remitted ; we are made regenerate lApol. i. 61, §94 d). This regeneration accomplished and the truth being now known and confessed, we become bound, and fit, to accomplish a good life, to keep the commandments, to attain eternal life {ib. i. 65. § 97 c). We are clothed with garments i)repared of Christ (Dial. 116, § 344) ; we are to imitate God's own virtues, to exhibit ourselves worthy of His counsel by works {Apol. i. 10, § 58 b). JUSTINUS MARTYR A20 The entire rli.mge ..( . h.»r.»< ter is beautifully given in .4pol. i. 14, § M, 15, etc. The most eflertivp guard "of this nurr living is belief in the rcs\irrerti<in of the body ; for this hope consecrates the entire man to the holiness of the eternal kingil^.m and render* real the sense of future puni'^hment ; we shall feel torture, hereafter, in our bo<lies ; without this, future pain would be unreal and mr.ming- less {ib. i. 18, § 65). God will raise and endue with incorruptibilitv the dead bodies, now dissolved and scattered like seeds over the earth {ib. i. 19). This human race will endure until the number of those willing to become Christians is complete. It is because God acts by the free choice of man that He docs n<it destroy evil by force, but offers men the chance o( escape, and gives them time to use the chance {Dial. 102, § 320 a). The punishment that awaits sinners, when the end comes, will be by fire and for ever. On this Justin is very pronounced (cf. .Apnl. i. 8, § 57 b^ : "an eternal punishment " {aiuivtov «f6\o(T.r), he says, " and not a mere period of a thotisand years," ajrai'/rrroj? KoXditfOai {Dial. 45, § 264 b) ; the kingdom is aiwvios Kai dXiroj. the K6Xa(rts irvpb'i is aiJcvio^ too {Dial. 117, ^ 34IS). He uses the language freely and fr.inkiy, un- hampered, apparently, by his theory of the soul, which makes its immortality dependent on the Will of God, Who wills it in the shape of Holiness (cf. Iren. bk. iii. 36 ; cf. .4pol. i. 21. § 67). He justifies the existence of reward and punishment by the forcible argument, that, without them,' you are compelled to believe God indifferent to good and evil, or else good and evil to have no real actuality ; both which beliefs are impious. The judgment is the wit- ' ncss of (iod's regard to the reality of the dis- tinction (cf. .ipol. ii. 9, § 47 E ; i. 28, § 71 c). j The church is that society of Christians in I which the power of the regencrati m is faith- fully manifested and the pure knowledge re- I veaied in Christ loyally held; so Justin is ! anxious to explain that not all so-called ! Christians are real Christians, any more than i all so-called philosophies mean the same thing {ib. i. 7, § 56 d). Many, professing to confess Christ, hold impious and immoral doctrine, with whom the " disciples of the true and pure doctrine " do not communieate ; they are marked as heretical by assuming the names of their founders, e.g. .Marcion, Valcn- tinus, Basilides {Dial 35. § 2S3 £>>• The true Christians hold " the pure teaching of Jesus Christ " ; possess " a pure and pious doctrine" based r>n Scripture, and the words of Christ, not on human doctrine {ib. 48, § 269 d) ; prove them true by holiness (cf. .4 pot. i. 26, § 70 b) ; heretics may be capable of any wickedness for all Justin knows. He himself I has written a work against all the heresies {ib. i. 26, § 70 c). The heresies confirm true ! believers in the faith, since Christ foretold them (cf. Dial. «2, § 308 h ; 35, f 253 c). though thev lead many away. i True b«-lievers are admitted to the body by the rite of baptism, on their acceptance of Christian verity and their promise to live j accordingly {Apol. i. 61, §93 k). This \>.i\>- I tism is the true circunicision of the Spirit (Dial. 43, J 261 D) ; works with the cross to 630 JUSTINUS MARTYR expiate our sins {ib. 86, § 314 a) ; is appointed by Christ Himself for the remission of sins ; and is our regeneration, by which vve are born again out of a state of sin into Light and Holiness ; so called " Illumination," <pom<Jix6s {Apol. i. 61, 74). It presupposes penitence and a confession of faith {ib. i. 61, 65). Bap- tism admits to the brotherhood, the assembly, where common prayers are made {ib. i. 65, § 97 c), the kiss of peace given, and the Euchar- ist offered by the leader of the brethren, 6 TTpoeardis ; who takes the bread and water and wine brought him, and sends up praise and glory to the Father, in the Name of the Son and the Holy Spirit ; at the end of his thanksgiving the people give their consent by saying, " Amen " ; after this thanksgiving, evxapi-<TTia, the deacons administer the ele- ments, with which thanks have been offered (toO ei'xaptcrrT;^^^^^ iprov), to each one present and carry some to the absent. This food is itself called the Eucharist ; no one may eat of it who does not believe the truth taught and has not been washed by baptism ; for it is not ordinary bread or wine, Koivdv Aprov, but "in the very manner that Jesus Christ becoming incarnate by the word of God, had, for our salvation, both flesh and blood, so have we been taught that the food, which has been made a thanksgiving by the word of prayer which He gave us, by which food our own flesh and blood are, through a process of transforma- tion, nourished, is both the flesh and the blood of that same incarnate Jesus." He proceeds to quote, from the books of the apostles, the account of the institution of the Last Supper, and compares it with the initiatory offerings in the mysteries of Mithra {ib. i. 65-66, § 97). In this passage the Incarnation is spoken of, as elsewhere, as the work of the Word Him- self ; though He is Himself the Incarnate One (cf. ib. i. 32, 74 B, 6 X670S 5j (TapKoiroirjdeh dvdpwrroi yt/ovev). The principle of the Eucharist is found in the principle of the In- carnation (though the analogy is hardly to be pressed into details) ; it is the flesh and blood of Christ, taken for our salvation, that are identified with the food ; which food is itself so intimately allied with our flesh and blood that it still nourishes our actual bodies Kara. /j.€Taj3o\Tju, though it is the flesh and blood of Jesus, after the word of prayer, di evxvi \6you (by some rendered, " prayer of His word," cf. Otto's notes, p. 181 of 3rd ed.), which He Himself instituted, i.e. the words ordained by Christ, given by Justin as "Do this in remembrance of Me : this is My body : this is My blood." In the Dialogue, 117, § 345 A, Justin speaks again of the " dry and liquid food " in which memorial is made by Christians, according to a received institution, of the suffering of the Son of God, t6 ttci^oj 6 ir^TTovde. This memorial is there identified with those prayers and thanksgivings, offered by holy people, which alone are the sacrifices perfect and well-pleasing to God, in contrast with the Jewish sacrifices, and in fulfilment of Mai. i. 10. These sacrifices {6valai) occur at the Eucharist of the bread and of the cup ; the spiritual sacrifice of praise is then and there alone accomplished, by God's injunction. Isa. xxxiii. 13 is fulfilled in the bread which JUSTINUS MARTYR our Christ ordered us (irapeSwKfv) to offer (woteTv) for a memorial of His having taken to Himself a body, and so become passible (wadrjTds) {Dial. 70, § 296 e). Justin mentions, beside the Eucharist which followed the baptism, that the Christians met every Sunday {i) tou ijXlov i]p.epa), the day on which God began creation and raised Christ j {Apol. i. 67, § 97). All came in who could, I from country and town, to one place ; the memorials of the apostles or the books of the 1 prophets were read publicly ; then, the leader j preached and admonished ; after which all < rose together and prayed ; then the Eucharist j is administered as before described. At such times, offertories were made of voluntary gifts, laid in the hands of the leader, who dis- ! tributed them to the sick, widows, etc. " Ever," says Justin, " do we remind ourselves of this rite " which followed our baptism ; and " ever we live together ; we who are rich give to the poor ; and for everything that we have we bless the Creator of all through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit " {ib. i. 67) ; send- ing up to Him solemn prayers (7ro/x7rds) and hymns, not deeming Him to be in need of blood and libations and sweet smells {ib. i. 13, § 60 c). Sunday, then, was observed as a peculiar day (cf. Dial. 24, 241 b) ; this is in contrast with (ra/S/SaTifeif, and " regarding the stars," which mean, distinctly, keeping the Jewish feasts; this the main body of Chris- tians repudiated, so that it was by most treated as a criminal heresy to keep the sab- bath, and they refused to hold communion with those Christians who still held to these Jewish customs. This severity Justin con- demns ; but his whole argument with Trypho accepts thoroughly the abolition of the Fourth Commandment. The sabbath symbolizes Moses, and Christians hope not in Moses but in Christ ; the Christian does not think him- self pious for keeping one day idle, but for keeping a continual sabbath. The sabbath was given for the hardness of the Jews' hearts (cf. ib. 10, § 227 B, etc. ; 19, § 237 c ; 21, § 238), Justin's conception of the Law is very strong and decided. Definite as he is against Marcion, in his belief in the revelation of the true God made in O.T., he yet takes an ex- treme view of the partial, local and temporal character of the law. He bases himself, mainly, on his principle of the complete uni- versality of God : God is everlasting, through- out all time, over all people ; He is J udge of all the earth ; His justice must be alike every- where. Hence He cannot shut up His rela- tions to man within the limits of a law ad- dressed to a single people, and for a limited period of time {Dial. 23, § 240 e ; 93, 320 c). Facts prove this : for God was well -pleased with Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisedec, though they were uncircumcised and kept no sabbaths (cf. ib. 19, § 236 c). Again, if virtue lay in the mere act of circumcision, women would be in a worse case than men {ib. 23, § 241 c). It would be against God's nature to value such rites, and limitations, and new sacrifices, for their own sake, as if the good lay in them. Did the Law, then, not come from Him ? Yes ; but God in it accommodated Himself to the Jews ; it was for you Jews alone that it was necessary ; because you forgot Him, He had JUSTINUS MARTYR JUSTINUS MARTYR on I to decree your sabbatlis ; because you fell of the Christianit v ..( 14.. At.. Me rPKards the away to idols, He had to demand of you sacri- i Law rather as an evidence of peculiar evil (ices (tb. 19, §236e). He ordered you a 1 than of peculiar ro.kI, in the Jews ; v> he even temple, lest you should worship images. All says in scorn that circumcision only srrven tn was done to distinguish the Jewish race from ! mark them out for condrmnalicn. as the the heathen ; and this, not on account of the accursed who are forbidden t.i rnttr Jrru*a- race's virtue, so much as for its proneness to lem ; it enables the Kom.ms to ex< luilr them evil. To justify this. Justin appeals to the from the Holy Land. "everlasting voice of prophecy" ; he quotes! But if Justin is hard upon the Law, he is the many words of the prophets in which very ditterent towards Prophecy. (Jn Pr<»- sabbaths and sacrifices are declared un- phecv. on Scripture, he relics absolutely ; ho pleasing and unavailing. " I am not invent- asks to be believed, oidv so far as he can j.'rove ing all this," he says, but " this is what David his truth by S< rii>lure. It is the word nilxtd, sang, Isaiah preached, Zechariah proclaimed, given by dod through the Word, or chiefly Moses wrote * {ib. zq). Where the prophets ; through the Spirit. This is reiterated con- insist on the laws, it was because of the tinually. The whole O.T. is as a great people's sin {ib. 27, § 244 d). But Justin has, drama, with various actors, but <>( which there still, to account for the Law being, in a relative is a single author, the Spirit of <;<k1 {Afnit. i. 36, sense, worthy of Crod ; and this He does by § 76 d). It is a unity ; so that Justin does not distinguishing two elements in it, one eternal, : believe that any one p.irt can contradict anv the other temporal ; the two stand to each | other; rather he would feel bound to confess other chiefly as sign and reality; so Justin j his own ignorance, where such seemetl the case discovers in the temporal provisions of the ! (/^f<i/. f>5. § 2'<o c). His definition is :" Certain Law allegories of eternal truths. This is what men existed among the Jews, CukI's prophets, was meant when Moses gave minute rules about meats and herbs and drinks ; it was to symbolize the moral laws (cf. ib. 20, § 237 c), but the Jewish people took it literally. They supposed, e.g., some herbs to be evil, some good ; while, in truth, God meant all to be good, if it was profitable to men. The cir- cumcision under Joshua was allegorical (cf. through whom the prophetic, spirit foretold things before they occurred" {.4pol. i. 31, § 72 b). Moses he calls the first ; after Moses he speaks of an "eternal prophecy going forth " {ib. i. 31 ; Dial. 30, § 247 a), they foretold Christ, His coming. His birth from a virgin, His man's estate. His curing disease and raising the dead, His being hated and despised and iii- § 332). So, again, meat was a symbol fixed to a cross, His death, resurrection, and of Christ ; so, too, the Passover Lamb, and ascension. His being, and being called, the Son the scape-goats {ib. 40, 41, §259 a). But if of Uod, His sending out apostles, His success the Law was allegorical, symbolic, it neces- among the Gentiles {.-ipol. i. 31, § 73 a). sarily ceased when the reality came. So it 1 Justin offers a very storehouse of Christian ended with Christ Who has enabled us to interpretations of Scripture, such as cann>)t be sever the eternal from the temporal elements : ' classified briefly ; the strongest lines lie : — He is the test and canon of what was real (i) In the exhibition of the divine plurality, in the Law {ib. 67, § 292 c). through which Justin cm, while retaining the If Christ took awav sin. He took away the 1 absolute purity and separateness of (iod the reason for the Law ; He gave us the circum- Father such as the Jewish moni>theism made cision of the heart, which made the carnal imperati%-e, yet justify and correlate all the circumcision needless (cf. ftaimuerfTi ttjc manifold manifestations ui Himself by God x^vx^v dTo 6py^5 Kal i5ov, t6 (TcD/ua KaOapSy under local and temporal qualiftc.itions, .ill re- iTTi: ib. 14, 231 D). Justin does not con- ] ceiving their true and complete elucidation m sider that such a principle as this negatives the Incarnation. He Whose nature it is to be the necessity of an outward baptism, or of an the expression and exhibition of the Father s outward Sunday; for both these he holds. I will, was at the tent door with Abraham in the Prophecy speaks of a new covenant to be made : dream with Jacob, m the burning bush with in a Christ ; and this for Jew as well as for Moses at the camp side with Joshua, ab-vo Gentile, for both are to be saved in the same the cherubim with Isaiah, and now is m.i.lc Christ {lb. 64, § 287 B). Why, then, did Christ man of M.iry (cf. Dial. 75. § 301 a). keep the Law ? Out of the economy of God ; ' (2) Justin ably gathers into one the many- He accepted the Law as He accepted the ; sided characteristics of the Messi.inic prophecy Cross, and the becoming-man : it was in order —the many human, mingled with the many to carry out the Father's will ; but He was not divine, names attributed to the C hrist : He is otherwise He man— yet t to carry justified by keeping the Law, could not be the Saviour of all men {ib. 67, ] triumphant § 292 a) nor have introduced a new covenant. ---*--« »-■• The admission of the eternal significance of Christ necessarily carries us back behind the Law, to the conditions under which all men had always lived {ib. 23, § 241 b). The failure of the Jews to believe in the Christ is no argument for their being right ; for it is foretold all along that the Gentiles are the children of prophecy, the true Israel, the be adoretl ; He is suflering, yet He saves His people, Hr is rejected by His people. Justin, in the para- dox of the Cross, h.is a key to the endless paradox of prophecy. All the shifting double- sided revelations of (;<Klhe.id and manho.Kl. of triumph and suffering, meet in a crucihe<l king. He can give a unity of solution to a Christ Who is called " Angel of great Counsel " and " .Man" bv Ezckiel, " As a Son of man " by Daniel. "Servant " or " Child " by Isaiah. " Christ " perfect proselytes ;' it is of them that all the and " God " and " Adorable" by David good promises are spoken. The whole <>{ the Christ " and " the Stone " by many. " Wis- ■ scph, Judah, and the end of the Dialogue is devoted to shewing this. I dom " by Solomon. " Joseph. Judah and the We realise in J ustin the complete GentUism 1 Star " by Moses, ' the Morning btar b> 632 JUSTINUS MARTYR Zechariah, " Suffering," and " Jacob," and "Israel" by Isaiah, and "Rod," and " Flower," and " Corner-stone " " cut without hands," and " Son of God," Who is " despised and rejected," vet also is proclaimed " King of Kings, King of Hosts, King of Glory," and is " Set on the right hand of God," " Born of a virgin," yet " Existent before all the world," " the power of God, the glory of God," " the Word," " the Lord," " the Captain of the Hosts," "King," " Priest," yet also " Man," " the Stone," " the Child," the Sufferer " (ib. 126, § 355 b ; 61, § 284 a ; 34, § 251 d). In giving force to this last charac- teristic of the Christ, i.e. 6 naO-nros, at the same time that he gave reality to the highest title, 6 debs TTpo(TKvvr]Tbs, Justin shews his power over the Jew, who can only hover aim- lessly between the two, unable to deal with or accept either the lowest or the highest. Justin declares that no one ever understood the prophecv of the sufferings, until Christ opened it to His apostles. (3) He is powerful in his deduction from prophecv of the failure, unbelief, and rum of the Jewish race— as the favoured people ; and in the change of the manifestation of God from them to the Gentiles. Here he had much to use which was onlv a stumbling-block to strict Jewish reliance on blood and privilege. (4) He is successful in exhibiting the newness of Christ's covenant, the Neii) Law, \.\\e New Heart ; imder this conception the continual discontent of God with the old sacrifices and sabbaths gains intensitv of meaning ; the calls to wash and be clean, and put away sins, are vivified ; the prophetic types of a new and wider dispensation are brought into daylight. Cf. the whole latter part of the Dialogue. Where Justin is weakest is, naturally, m knowledge. He is ignorant of the original tongue and verv arbitrarv in his interpreta- tion of details ; he uses Christ as the accepted kev to the whole complicated history, in a way that to a believer is often full of devotional suggestiveness, but to an unbeliever has no argumentative force. Instances may be found in such chaps, as 77. 78 of the Dialogue, or c. 81, etc. He often takes the wrong sense of a passage. He interprets the passages con- demnatory of the Jewish sacrifices, etc., in a wav that wins them a new meaning from Christ, but is certainly not their intended meaning. He can onlv meet Tr\-pho's sharp criticism on this point by appealing to his own presumption that God's approval of the Law can onlv have been an accommodation to the people's sins (Dial. 27, § 244 b). Prophecv is to Justin the main form of Christian evidences ; and this for Gentile as much as for Jew. It is to prophecy he turns to prove that the Christian story of the Incar- nation is not a poetic tale, without foundation ; Greek mvthologv offers no testimony to its own realitv (Apol. i. 54, § 89 a). Christ's miracles were no magic or conjuring because thev were foretold [ih. i. 30, 31, § 72 a). Justin is shv of arguing from miracles : there had been too much false wonder-working for him to appeal to them. The miracles of the old Prophets he speaks of as worthy towin them credit, since they were coincident with a lofty (iesire to reveal God and with prophecy of JUSTINUS MARTYR Christ (Dial. 7, § 225 a). Christ's miracles are to be believed on the ground of prophecy (Apol. i. 30). Miracles are, to him, proofs, when they have been testified to, but cannot stand alone as evidence. The other evidence to which Justin appeals is the (i) purity of Christian precepts (Apol. i. 14, § 6r) ; (2) their constancv under torture (ib. ii. 12, § 50 A ; Dial, no, § 337 b) ; (3) the consecrated lives of uncorrupt virginity, the conversion of penitents to holiness (Apol. i. 15, 62 B, c ; cf. ib. i. 29, § 71 e) ; (4) the exorcising of demons (ib. ii. 6, § 45 b) ; (5) the existence of prophetical gifts in the church (cf. Dial. 82, § 308 b), as well as of gifts of spiritual power (ib. 35, § 254 b), miracle, and healing (ib. 39, § 258 a). We mav briefly ask what knowledge Justin shows of (i) Jewish, and (2) Gentile learning. (1) He refers frequently to Jewish modes of interpreting texts and seems used to dealing with them (cf. ib. 50, § 269 d) ; but perhaps he knows them rather in their polemic against Christians than in their own inner teaching. He charges them with escaping from texts against them by throwing doubts on the LXX, while all the Messianic texts that can be accommodated to human affairs they attach to whom they choose, but not to Christ [ib. 63, §294b). Thus they attribute the fulfil- ment of the triumphs spoken of in the Psalms to Solomon, in Isaiah to Hezekiah (ib. 64, § 287 A ; 77, % 302 b). Justin does not seem to know of any Jewish theorizing on the problem of the A670S. The Jews expect a purely human Christ (ib. 49, § 268 a), to be heralded by Elias in person, and anointed by him ; till which time the Christ is to be in obscuritv ; He will not even know Himself (ib. no,' §3360). The texts that speak of Christ as passible, yet as God and adorable, thev are compelled, Justin says, to attribute to Christ, but they refuse to allow this Jesus to be the Christ, though they have to confess that the Christ will suffer and be worshipped. The divinity of Christ is, according to this, forced upon the Jews' belief by Christian logic, but they do not know what to make of it, and are in straits. (2) .\s to Gentile philosophy, Justin's general knowledge was evidently large ; but it is a question how far he held to any system accurately or scientifically ; he sits pretty loose- ly to them all. He places Plato highest, and delights in his doctrine of Eternal Ideas, but no definite Platonic formulae are used ; the Ideas do not appear ; the doctrine of the Word has general relations to Platonism, but that is all ; it is itself utterly unlike any teaching in Plato ; it belongs to the process of thought which has its roots in O.T., and works through Philo up into Christianity. He gives us no- thing of Plato's except the account of the " X " as the law of creation, in the Timaeus, which Justin supposes him to have taken from the account of the brazen serpent ; and the statement of the triad character of things, which is taken from an epistle attributed till lately to Plato. He declares Plato's account of creation from formless matter to have been taken from Genesis ; but he only means this in the most general way, for he seems to fancy that Plato's formula is consistent with Moses' JUSTINUS MARTYR statement that this fi>riiiloss matter had itself been made by God (cf. Apol. i. 59, § 92 d). It is obvious that Justin's relation to Platon- ism is quite external ; he holds the Christian formulae, and whenever he detects a likeness to them in Plato, he ilelights in bringing it out, without regard to context or system ; these likenesses are entirely arbitrary and super- ficial, and can never be pressed. Justin's canon of truth is absolutely in Scripture ; from that standpoint his kindly love for Plato pleases itself in exhibiting in him frag- mentary resemblance to the truth ; but if these fragments of truth are rooted in error, so much the worse for Plato ; Justin has no idea ' of following them down. There is some- ' thing to be said for his connexion with Stoic- ism; he approved their morals, and found them right, to some extent, as to the ultimate end of Nature ; but objects strongly to their physical doctrines, their belief in fate, their physico- Pantheistic conception of God, by whicli they must either identify God with evil and change, or else deny the reality of evil (ib. ii. 7, 8) ; he considers their physics inconsistent with their ethics. Musonius and Heraclitus he honourably distinguishes ; of the KiMcureans he speaks scornfully {ib. ii. 15, § 32 b). | One problem remains to be considered, i.e. | the relation of Justin to our four Gospels. ; The amount and frequency of his references . to our Lord's life and words, in the generation immediately preceding the day in which the \ present Gospels emerge, secure and alone, 1 into the full daylight of history, make him ' of salient importance in determining their character ; and the state of the present controversy, which has detected the subtle ' transition, through which the gospel story passed, from the conditions of a living, oral tradition to those of formal written exemplars. [ increases the importance of Justin, as he ' begins the definite references to written re- ' cords, of a fixed character, capable of being used for devotional purposes. Are these records identical in substance and in form with our Gospels ? I (i) The substantial characteristics of our Lord's life, down even to minute details, are, [ obviously, the same for Justin as for us. We '' can compose, from his quotations, a full summary of the whole gospel life, from the j angel's message to the Virgin until the ascension, entering into many particulars, illustrating prophecies, supplying the very words of our Lord, in many instances relating all the circumstances ; and, as a whole, it is perfectly clear that the lines which limit and determine in detail our Gospel did so, too, to his. The same body of facts is selected ; the same character, the same limits preserved, the same characteristics bnjught forward ; the same motives, the same interests are con- cerned ; the same prophetic aspects dwelt upon. This is noticeable, when we remember how very special and remarkable a choice must have been originally exercised upon our . Lord's life, to select and retain the peculiar fragments, no more and no less, which are collected and sorted by our Synoptists. (2) Justin makes some additions or changes in detail to this main story ; so few that they can be mentioned and their character seen. JUSTINUS MARTYR n3S He had a gi-ncdogv whi. h. whrllier <>urs or not, he attributed t<> Marv. not to Jnjwph : Cyrenius he calls the first Procurator o( Judaea; our Lord's birthplace is a ravr ; the Magi come from Arabia ; all the childrrn m Bethlehem are killed ; our Lord is not " come- ly of aspect •• ; He made i)loiighs an.l vokr*. emblems of righteousness ; the Baptist sal by Jordan ; a fire shone in Jordan at our Lord't baptism, and the words from heaven c omplrte the text of the second Psalm; the Jrw» ascribed (>ur Lord's miracles to magic ; John ceased his mission at our Lord's public appear- ance. The Lord said, " There shall b*" schisms and heresies " ; and " In whatsoever I find you, in that will I judge you." Of these several are, probably, confusions or amplifications of Justin's own; some rei'rtsent additions found in various texts o( our present Gospels, and were, probably, floating, popular, traditional interpretations of various passages. The onlv remaining points definitely distinct arc, the home of the Magi, the cave of the Nativity, the posture of the Baptist, the two sayings of our Lord. Does Justin, then, take these from tradition or from any uncanonical gospel ? We must hypothesize the gospel that he used, if it is not ours ; for we have no relic f)f it in f>ur hands, and here the remark seems convincing (Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, p. 10 1) that this gospel, if it existed, belongs not to an earlier but to a later stage of the story than our canonical works. That they were books that he used he tells us frequently ; it is all " written " ; the books are called by a name peculiar to Justin, diroij.vrifioi'fvuara twv "AiroffriVwc ; they are records of our Lord's sayings and doings, written either by apostles or their followers {Apol. i. 66, § 98 B ; Dial. 103, § 333 n). These books constitute rd (ia-)-f4\ii>i' (tb. 10, § 227 E) ; a quotation is referred to this €va-yy(\iov {ib. too, § 326 c) ; the arofirrj- ixovtvfxara are themselves called <i"a-)->Ajo, he tells us, if the text is right {Apol. i. 66). All this points obviously to the existence of various records, " written either by apostles or by their followers," constituting altogether a single story, t6 ti'ayy^Xioi'. So far our Gospels exactly correspond. .More than this, it is almost incredible that he should n^-t have known Matlhexf, at least ; besides the general mass of reference, which exhibits remarkable resemblance to this Gospel, he has marked notices that distinguish Matthew from the other forms of the evangelical tra- diti'>n : the visit of the Magi, the desient into linypt. Joseph's suspicions of .Marv, texts, elsewhere unparalleled, from the Sermon on the Mount, the application of Is. xlii. 1-4 to the colt with the ass ; above all, the commrnt of the disciples upon the identification ">f the Baptist with HIias {Dial. 49. § 269 a ; Malt. xviii. 11-13). the expressions hoxoi *i\ (M.itt. V. 22), iyiaptiiati (v. 41), etc., etc. The resemblance to l.uke in places where we can distinguish St. Luke's peculiar work from the general tradition are in a few cases almost im- possible to resist, such as the quotation of xviii. 27 (Apol. i. 20, § 66) ; the use of the unique expression laiyyiXoi. xx. 3^-36 ; and the most remarkable expressions at the annunciation, 634 JUSTINUS MARTYR iiria-Kid^eiv Siivafiis vfiarov, etc., which are directly Lucan. Cf., also, the last word on the cross. The only statement entirely peculiar to Mark is the naming of the sons of Zebedee. Thus not only is the whole body of quotation accounted for with a few rare exceptions, from our Gospels, but in some cases where SS. Matthew and Luke affect by their individuality the common original tradition Justin reproduces them. The inexactness of quotation is the one opposing element. Justin is inexact, it is true, in his O.T. quotations, but he is more than three times as inaccurate in his N.T. ones. It is intensely difficult to know how much to discount for free combination which Justin uses extensively, how much for lack of memory, how much for mere paraphrase ; or to determine, after such discounting, how much evidence remains to shew Justin's use of any other gospel besides our own. But if Justin used some form of the gospel not now in the canon, it was either a text used by the side of Matthew and Luke, and not differing from them in any degree more than they differ from each other ; and if so, it would multiply the evidence for the authenticity of the narrative embodied in our canon ; or else it was a text compounding and combining with some freedom the other two ; and if so, it supposes these canonical gospels to be already the formal authorities. The suppo- sition that Justin used a perfectly distinct form of the gospel story from any we now possess is met by the invincible difficulty that, though ex hypothesi of sufficient importance and acceptance to be used in the public offices of the metropolitan church as late as the boyhood of St. Irenaeus, it has, neverthe- less, totally disappeared. As to John, the main argument against its use is that from silence. Justin is full of doctrine on the subject of the Word, on the pre-existence and divine authority of Christ, yet no words from the Johannine discourses appear in his work. This argument has necessarily great weight, yet any single dis- tinct reference to John must outweigh such a negative. Is there any such reference ? In Dial. 88 Justin attributes to the Baptist himself the words of the prophet, rptjjvri (ioQivros. This attribution is one of those remarkable distinctions peculiar to St. John's Gospel. We know of no other ground for it. Twice (in Apol. i. 22, § 68 b, and Dial. 69, § 296 a) he speaks of our Lord healing people infirm ex yeviTrj'i : the only recorded instance of this is the blind man in Jn. ix. 20, (k yeverij^. In Apol. i. 6r, Justin, it can hardly be doubted, is paraphrasing Jn. iii. 3-5. He is referring to a definite statement of our Lord ; and the statement — a most marked and peculiar one — occurs here only. Justin refers to it in a way that makes it hardly possible to suppose him unacquainted with the continuation in John. In its context in the Apology the reference to the physical impossibility of a literal new birth is singularly awkward (cf. Otto, note in loc). Justin, moreover, claims that he is believing Christ's own teaching when he believes in His Divine pre-existence ; which would be more intelligible of John than of the other Gospels {Dial. 48, § 267 d). There is, again, a notice JUSTINUS MARTYR of our Lord {ib. 106, § 333) which receives its proper interpretation only in Jn. xiii. and xvii. ; Christ, says Justin, knew that the Father gave everything to Him, and Himself demanded this. Such are the possible direct references, rare, indeed, but in one case, at least, remarkably noticeable. Indirectly, Justin holds a doctrine of the Word, clear, pronounced, decisive, such as finds no home or base for itself but in the Fourth Gospel. This doctrine Justin does not originate ; it is the accepted, familiar. Christian faith put forth for the whole body, as their common belief, without hesitation, apology, anxiety, scruple, or uncertainty. It presents the exact features of the Johannine teaching ; the universalism of the Philonic A670S is identified with, and made concrete by, the living, vivid individualism of the Incarnate Messiah. The synthesis is done, is complete, without con- fusion or doubt. Justin is as definite, as full of sanctioned certainty on the reality of this doctrine of the Incarnate Word, as he is on the facts and discourses represented by our Synoptists. The Life of our Lord is already for him the Life as it is in fusion with the dogma of the Word — the Life as it is under the manipulation that is displayed in the Fourth Gospel. Have we any cause of suffi- cient force to have achieved so decided a result but the Gospel of St. John ? (Cf. Thoma, in Zeitsch. fiir Wissenschaft. Theolog. pt. 4 (1875, Leipz.) : an elaborate discussion which concludes, " Justin cites only the Synopt., but he thinks and argues with the Fourth Gospel, evidencing its existence, but not its apostolicity " ; but cf. on last point, Westcott, Canon of N.T. p. 100.) In connexion with this there must be men- tioned a passage in Dial. 123, § 353 b, in which, if not the gospel, then the first ep. of St. John can hardly be supposed absent from the writer's mind. The peculiar conjunction of KaXovfieda Kal icTfj.^i' is essentially Johannine (I. John iii. i, 2) ; as is the connexion of " sonship " with keeping ras evroXcis Justin, again, knows the writings of the Valentinians, and this (according to the evidence of Hip- polytus and Irenaeus) must have involved a knowledge of the Fourth Gospel. Altogether, the problem presented by his not quoting John is far easier to solve than the problem of his not knowing it. As to the rest of the canon, Justin mentions the Apocalypse by name, attributing it to St. John (Dial. 81, § 308 a). He can hardly but be thinking of Romans in ib. 23, § 241 b. He has references to /. Corinthians {ib. 14, § 231 d; iiii § 333 c ; Apol. i, 60, § 93), and to //. Thessalonians {Dial. 32, § no). He constant- ly repeats the irpuiTdroKOS trdffrjs Kxiaews, which suggests Colossians ; he has references which seem to recall Hebrews {ib. 13, § 229 d ; Apol. i. 12, § 60, dTr6(TToKo% . . . 'I77<ro0s X/)i(r- t6s) ; his words appear in several places to point to Acts (cf. Apol. 50, § 86 b ; 40, § 79 a). Everywhere he exhibits traces of St. Paul ; and his controversy with Marcion must have involved a complete acquaintance with the theology and language of the great apostle. Throughout Justin claims to shew forth, with a certainty attested by sacrifice and death, a solid body of certified doctrine, which JUSTINUS apostolic authority sealed and secured ; Christ, as He had been foretold by prophets and announced to the world by apostles, is the assured ground of his faith (cf. Dml. 119. § 343 A ; Afol. i. 39, 42). The apostles are the twelve bells on the border of the high- priest's garment, with the sound of whose ringing the whole world has been filled {Dial. 4.J, § 263 c) ; the apostles are the evangelical preachers in whose person Isaiah cried, " Lord, who hath believed our report ? '" the apostles are " the brethren in the midst of whom " Christ gives praise unto God {ib. 106, § 333 c). The Apologies have been pub. in Eng.in the.-} fttf-\ic. Fathers (T. & T. Clark) and in a cheap form in the A. and M. Tluol. Lib. (Ciriffith). [h.s.h.] JustiDUS (3), a Gnostic writer, author of several books, only known to us by the abstract which Hippolytus {Ref. Harr. v. 23, p. X48) has given of one of them, called the book of Baruch. The account which that book gives of the origin and historv of the universe makes it to have sprung from three underived principles, two male, "one female. The first of these is the Good Being, and has no other name ; He is perfect in knowledge, and is remote from all contact with the created world, of which, however. He is after- wards described as the Ultimate Cause. It is the knowledge of this Good Being which alone deserves the name, and it is from the posses- sion of it that these heretics claimed the title of Gnostics. The second principle is called Elohim, the Father of the creation, deficient in knowledge, but not represented as subject to evil passion. The third, or female principle, identified with the earth, is called Eden and Israel, destitute of knowledge and subject to anger, of a double form, a woman above the middle, "a snake below. Of her, Elohim becomes enamoured, and from their intercourse spring 24 angels — 12 paternal, who co-operate with tiuir father and do his will, and 12 maternal, who do the mother's will. The principal part is played by the third paternal angel, Baruch, the chief minister of good, and the third maternal, Naas, or the serpent, the chief author of evil. Lipsius regards this work of Justinus as probably wTitten later than the middle of 2nd cent., representing in its fundamental ideas one of the oldest, perhaps the very oldest, form of Gnosticism, and as exhibiting the passage of Jewish Christianity into Gnosis. We cannot share this view. On comparing the system of Justinus with that of the Ophite sect described by Irenaeus (i. 30), the points of contact are found to be too numerous to be all accidental. In the system of these Ophites the commencement is made with two male principle;, and one female On the whole, we feel bound t"^) refer the system of Justinus to the latest stage of Gnosticism, when a philosophy, in which any unproved assumption was regarded as suffi- ciently justified by any remote analogy, had reached its exhaustion, and when its teachers were forced to seek for novelty by wilder and more audacious combinations ; and we are not disposed to quarrel with the verdict of Hip- polytus that he had met with many heretics, but never a worse one than Justinus. [g.s.] Justinus (12) I., proclaimed emperor (July 9, 518) on the death of the emperor Anastasius JUSTINUS II. fl35 by the troops under hLs comm.uid .»n.| l.v the people {Chron. Pasch. 331. m I'atf. (,k. x<lu 85S). the choice brills appro%r<l bv th« senate (Marcell. Chmn.). H,- was 4 man ..f no education, and the aHaini of the »tatr were managed chieflv bv his prudent ministrr Proclus the (juaest<>r and aftrrwards bv liif nephew and eventual surrpssor Justinian. For the most meni<>r.ib|o event of his rrntn, the end of the schism between the K.istrni and Western churches, sec Hokmisuas. For his relations with Persia see Choskoes I. m I). C. H. (4. vol. ed.). In 523 Justin issued a constitution af;ainst theManicheansand otlu-r heretics ((oi/n, i. m. v. 12). The former were punished with exile or death; other heretics, pagans, Jews, and Samaritans, were declared incapable of holding a magistracy or entering mihtarv srrvirr. The allied Goths were exempted from tlirs*; provisions. Because of the persecution of hij .\rian co-religionists, Theodoric sent pope John I. in 525 to Constantinople to remon- strate with the emperor. [Epiphanius (17) ] In .Apr. 527 Justin caused Justinian, who had long taken the chief part in government. to be proclaimed emperor and crowned, and on .Aug. I died, in his 75th vear. [r.o.] Justinus 113) II., emperor, nephew uf Jus- tinian, son of his sister Vigilantia. He was appointed Curopalates or Master of the Palace by his uncle (Corip. i. 138). The ni^ht Justinian died, a deputation of the senate, headed by the patrician Callinicus. hurried t-'i his house and persuaded him to accept the I crown. In the early morning he was saluted ; emperor by the populace in the hippociromc. I The same day (Nov. 14, 565) he was crowned I by the patriarch John (Theophan. Cron. in [ Patr. Gk. cviii. 525), and received the homage of the senate and people in the hippodrome. J ustin, on his accession, declared himself an 1 adherent of the decrees of Chalcedon, and j restored to their sees the bishops who had been banished by his predecessor (V'enantius I Fortunatus, ad Justinum, 25-26, 39-44, in I'alr. I Lat. Ixxxviii. 432). The edict is given in prob- ably a corrupt form by Evagrius (//. f.. v. i. in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 2789), and also by Nice- [ phorus Callistus (//. E. xvii. 33). Soon after- j wards another edict was published, given at length by Evagrius (//. E. v. 4), in which, after ■ setting forth the orthodox belief as to the doc- trines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, he exhorted all to return to the Catholic Church, which should remain firm and unchanged for ' ever ; and that no one should for the future dispute about persons or svllables. probably referring to the person of Theodore and the writings of Theodoret and I has. and also to the question as to the Incorruptibility of the body of Christ. This edict gained general approval, as all interpreted it in favour of their own views, but none of the variout sects returned to communion, in consequence of the emperor's declaration that no chaiiKc was to be made in the church. Justin also early in his reign sent Photinus, the stepson of Belisarius, with full powers to reconcile the churches of Egy[>t and Alexandria, but his mission seems to have been fruitless. I For the secular events of his reign see Jfs- 1 Ti.sus II.. D. of G. and H. Btogr. 636 JUVENALIS In May 568 a rescript was issued to Spes- in-Deum, the archbp. of the Byzacene pro- vince in Africa, confirming the privileges of his church and synod by which he was the sole judge of charges brought against any bishops or clergy within his jurisdiction, and in Nov. (Clinton, Fasti, 825) a law (Nov. cxlix.) was promulgated addressed to the bishops and leading men of each province directing them to choose the governors (praesides) themselves and to submit the names to the emperor, who would invest them with their offices. At the end of 570 or the beginning of 571, Anas- tasius, bp. of Antioch, was deposed and Gre- gorius substituted in his place. [Anastasius Sinaita(I); Gregorius (31).] On May 18, 572, a stringent law was passed against the Samaritans (Nov. cxliv.). They were declared incapable of inheriting under a will or an intestacy and of exercising testamentary powers except in favour of Christians. Other- wise the goods of the deceased were forfeited to the treasury. For the sake of agriculture farmers were exempted from these provisions. Samaritans were also declared incapable of holding any civil or military employments. Baptized Samaritans who observed the sab- bath or other rites of their creed were punished with perpetual exile. A Samaritan was de- clared incapable of having a Christian slave ; if he bought one, the slave ipso facto became entitled to his freedom ; while a Samaritan slave became free on embracing Christianity. Justin at length was seized with madness, and died, Oct. 5, 578, after reigning nearly 13 years. [f-d.] Juvenalls (2) succeeded Praylius as bp. of Jerusalem c. 420. The ruling object of his episcopate was the elevation of the see of Jerusalem from the subordinate position it held in accordance with the seventh of the canons of Nicaea, as suffragan to the metro- politan see of Caesarea, to a primary place in the episcopate. Juvenal coveted not merely metropolitan, but patriarchal rank, and in defiance of all canonical authority claimed jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, from which he sought to remove Arabia and the two Phoenicias to his own province. Scarcely had he been consecrated bp. of Jeru- salem when he proceeded to assert his claims to the metropolitan rank by his acts. A letter of remonstrance against the proceedings of the council of Ephesus, sent to Theodosius by the Oriental party, complains that Juvenal had ordained in provinces over which he had no jurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii. 728). Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Leo, then archdeacon of , Rome, informing him of this and begging that his unlawful attempts might have no sanction from the apostolic see. J uvenal, however, was far too useful an allyagainst Nestorius for Cyril lightly to discard. When the council met at ; Ephesus, Juvenal was allowed to take pre- j cedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea and to occupy the position of vice-president of the 1 council, coming next after Cyril himself (ib. iii. j 445), and was regarded in all respects as the ; second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant [ assertion of his supremacy over the bp. of Antioch, and his claim to take rank next after j Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open i remonstrance. At the "Latrocinium " Juvenal i JUVENALIS occupied thethirdplace, after Dioscorusandthe papal legate, by the special order of Theodosius (ih. iv. 109). When the council of Chalcedon met, one of the matters before it was the dispute as to priority between Juvenal and Maximus, bp. of Antioch. The contention ended in a compromise agreed on in the Seventh Action. Juvenal surrendered his claim to the two Phoenicias and to Arabia, on condition of being allowed metropolitical jurisdiction over the three Palestines (ib. iv. 613). The claim to patriarchal authority over the bp. of Antioch put forward at Ephesus was discreetly dropped. The terms arranged be- tween Maximus and Juvenal received the consent of the assembled bishops (ib. 618). Maximus, however, soon repented his too ready acquiescence in Juvenal's demands, and wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo, who, replying June 11, 453, upheld the au- thority of the Nicene canons, and promised to do all he could to maintain the ancient dignity of the see of Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maxi- mum, 119 [92]). No further action, however, seems to have been taken either by Leo or by Maximus. Juvenal was left master of the situation, and the church of Jerusalem from that epoch has peaceably enjoyed the patri- archal dignity. On the opening of the council at Ephesus, June 22, 431, Juvenal took a prominent part in the condemnation of Nestorius. As one of the eight legates deputed by the council, he aided in the consecration of Maximian in Nes- torius's room, Oct. 25, 431 (Labbe, iii. 780; Baluz 571 seq.). In retaliation, John of Anti- och and the Orientals on their way back from Ephesus held a synod at Tarsus, which excom- municated Cyril and the deputies of the council, Juvenal at their head (Baluz. 939). When, in 449, the " Latrocinium " met at Ephesus, Juvenal was the first to sign the instrument of Flavian's deposition (Labbe, iv. 306). The natural consequence of this open patronage of heresy was that the name of Juvenal, together with those of Dioscorus and the other bishops of the " Latrocinium," was removed from the diptychs of Rome and other orthodox churches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Ana- tolium, 80 [60]). This alarmed Juvenal, and he faced completely round at Chalcedon in 451, denouncing the doctrines he had sup- ported two years before at Ephesus. The place he occupied in the council indicated that he had been compelled to abate somewhat of his overweening pretensions. Anatolius of Constantinople and Maximus of Antioch both took precedence of him, as did the Roman legates and Dioscorus (Labbe, iv. 79 et passim). The proceedings had not advanced far when Juvenal, seeing the course events were taking, rose up with the bishops of Palestine in his train, and crossed over from the right, where he had been sitting with the Alexandrine pre- lates, to the Orientals on the left amid shouts of "Welcome, orthodox one ! It is God Who has brought thee over here " (ib. 178). This desertion of his old friends barely saved him. Evidence being read as to the violence with which Flavian's condemnation had been en- forced, and the brutality with which he had been treated, the imperial commissioners pro- posed Juvenal's deposition, together with that i JUVENALIS of l^ioscorus, Eusebiiis, and the otiurs who had taken a leading part in these disgraceful transactions (ib. 323). J iivenal evidently felt that consistency must now be sacrificed to the maintenance of his position, and having given his vote and signature to the deposition of Dioscorus (ib. 458) and signed the tome of Leo {ib. 7gS). the objections of the commissioners were overruled. Juvenal and his four com- panions were allowed to resume their seats, amid a shout of welcome, "This is the Lord's doing." " Many years to the orthodox ! This is the peace of the churches" {ib. 509). He subsequently took part in drawing up the declaration of faith (ib. 559-362) and signed the letter sent to Leo (Baluz. 1370). We have a Latin translation of a synodical letter written in his own name and that of the bishops of Palestine, a.d. 453, to the archi- mandrites, presbyters, and monks of the province confirming the decrees of Chalcedon (Labbe, iv. 889). j His enjoyment of his newly acquired diijnity was speedily disturbed. The decrees of Chalcedon were not at all acceptable to a large number of the archimandrites and monks of Palestine, who generally held Eutychian views, and they, in 452, addressed letters to Marcian and to Pulcheria against the conduct of their bishop. The emperor and empress j administered severe rebukes to the remon- strants (ib. 874, 879). The imperial dis- , pleasure, however, failed to repress the turbu- lence of the malcontents, and under the 1 leadership of Theodosius, a fanatical Mono- physite monk, patronized by the empress- > dowager Eudocia, who had made Jerusalem her home, they threw the whole province into confusion. J uvenal's life was threatened. The ! walls and gates were guarded to prevent his ' escape. But he concealed himself, and to- j gether with Domnus made his way to the 1 desert, whence he fled to Constantinople and laid his complaints against Theodosius and j his partisans before the emperor (ib. 858 ; I C>Till. Scythop. Euthym. Vit. 82 ; Evagr. ; H. E. ii. 5 ; Theophan. p. 92). iMarciaa took decided measures to restore order. After \ holding possession for two years, Thei)dosius \ was expelled from Jerusalem, 453, and Juvenal was restored. Eudocia returned to Jerusa- lem, and renewed communion with Juvenal, her example proving influential to bring back the large majority both of monks and laity to the cathedral church (Euthym. Vit. 86). One of Juvenal's first acts on his restoration was to hold a council which issued a syni>dical letter to the two Palestines, declaring the perfect orthodoxy of the decrees of Chalcedon and denying that anything had there been altered in, or added tf>, the Niceiie faith (Labbe, iv. 889). Mutual ill-will and suspicion still embittered the relations of Juvenal to his province, and Evagrius complains of the evils ^ which had followed his return (Evagr. H. E. ' ii. 5). Leo (Sept. 4. 454) offered congratul.i- tions on his rest<jration, but told him plainiv that he had brought his troubles on himself by his condemnation of Flavian and admission of the errors of Eutyches, and that having favoured heretics he cannot now blame them. Leo expressed his satisfaction that he had ] come to a better mind, and advised him to | JUVENCUS 037 study his toni.- lo (..nnnii him in thr (jith (Leo Magn. Ep. 139 (171]). la 457 Lm ad- dressetl Juvenal among tlie mctropohtans of the East, with refi-renco to the trouble* at Alexandria, urging hun to defend the (aith as declared at Chalcedon (Ep. 150 [119)). I The statement of Basil of Silruria that Juvenal first " began to ceUbr.Ue the gloriou* and adorable salvation-bringing nativity of the I.onl " (I'atr. Gk. Ixxxv. ^in)) must be iiiter- preti'd to mean that he separated the n-lc- i)ratioii of the Nativity and the Epiphany, which, till then, had been kept on the same day, Jan. 6. We may gather from a letter professing to be addressed by the bp. of Jeru- salem to the bp. of Rome that this change was in accordance with the Western practice. Basil of Selcucia, being a contemporary of Juvenal and associated with him in his jiublic acts, may be regarded as trustworthy evidence for the fact. According to Basil, Juvenal I built a basilica in honour of St. Stephen on the site of his martyrdom, for which the empress Eudocia furnished the funds. The death of Juvenal probably occiured in 458 (cf. Tillem. Note sur Juvenal, xv. 867). He was succeeded by Anastasius. Tillem. .\tim. eccl. XV. ; Ceillier, xiii. z\7 ; Cave, Script. Ecd. i. 419 ; (Judin, i. 1270.) [e-v.] Juvencus, C. Vettius AquIIinus, a Christian poet, by birth a Spaniard, descended from a noble family. He was a presbyter, and com- posed his poem on the gospels during the reign of peace established by Constantine (//m/. Af. iv. 808 sqq. ; Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 84 ; Ep. Ixx. Chronica ad 332 a.d.). His works shew an acquaintance with the chief Latin poets. (i) Historia Evangelica. This is the only extant work attributed to him on the authority of St. Jerome. It is an hexameter poem on our Lord's life, based upon the gospels. It is of interest as the first Christian epic, the first effort to tell the gospel story in a metrical form. Its chief merit lies in its literal adherence to the text. Commencing with the events of Luke i. ii. (i. 1-258), it passes to the account of St. Matthew (i. 18), and follows that to the end, omitting only a few short passages (xiii. 44-53. XX. 29-34, xxi. 10-13, xxiii. 15-26. 29-36, xxiv. 28), rarely supplemented from the other Synoptists (v. i. 355, ii. 43), but having larije extracts from St. John, viz. i. 43-iv- (lib. li. 99-348), V. 19-47 (ii. 639 sqq.), xi. (iv. 306-404). It is saved from baldness by a clear fluent style, which shews a knowledge of Vergil, Ovid, and Lucan. It seems to have been widely known from the first and (pioted with approval bvSt. Jerome (ad Matt. ii. 1 1), pope (.el.isius, Venantius Fortunatus (de Vita S. Martini, i), Isidore, Jonas Scotus, Bede, and Alcuin (Migne, ProleRg. col. 42 sqq.). It has been edited no less than 30 times. The best separate wld. arc by Keusch (Frankfort, 1710); Arcvalo (Rome, 1792) (reprinted in Migne) ; and tsp. Hueincr (Vienna, 1891) in Corpus Script. Eccl. Lai. xxiv. Cf. C.ebser, de C. Vett. Aq. Vila tt S<:r«7>/«.? (lib. i. with intro. and notes), Jena, i8a7; C. Mar..ld. Ueber d. Evang.-buch des Juimcus in semen Verhultnis^ z. Hibeltext in Zeitschr. lur wtisen-icha/t. I he»l. xxxiii. p. 3^') (i*<9o) ; Kritische Beitrdge tur Hut. EvangiUi Juventus von Ur. J. HuenuT in Wiener Studien (Vienna, 1880), pp. 8l-H2. 638 KENTIGERN (ii) St. Jerome (u.s) attributes to him " nonnulla eodem metro ad sacramentorum ordinem pertinentia," but these are not extant. (iii) Historia Vet. Testamenti. Only extant in parts, and its authorship doubtful. (iv) Some later writers attribute hymns to him, but there is no trace of any except the can- ticles in Hist. Ev. and Hist. Vet. Test, [w.l.] K Kentigern (Conthigemus, Cyndeym, Kente- gernus, Quentigern, Mongah, Munghu, Mungo, bp. of Glasgow and confessor). St. Kentigern shares, with St. Ninian and St. Columba, the highest honour among the early evangelizers of Scotland. The time, extent, and sphere of St. Kentigern's missionary enterprise are suffi- ciently recognized. Strictly speaking, there is only one Life of St. Kentigern known, that by Joceline of Furness, written probably c. 1180, for bp. Joceline of Glasgow (a.d. 1174-1199), from two earlier memoirs, but there is an older fragment which was probably one of the two used by him. From these all others are derived. St. Kentigern, perhaps better and more popularly known as St. Mungo, was a Strath- clyde Briton. His parentage is doubtful. He was born at Culross in Perthshire. From his master there he secretly departed, and travelling westward, crossing the Forth prob- ably near Alloa, arrived at Carnock near Stirling, and tlience was led by the oxen which carried the corpse of Fregus to Cathures, now Glasgow, where St. Ninian had already con- secrated a cemetery. There he took up the unfinished work of St. Ninian. The picture presented of the time and field of his labour is a deplorable one. He was consecrated by a single bishop, called for the purpose from Ireland (c. 11). He was raised to the episco- pate in his 25th year (c. 12), but all we know of the date is that it was before his departure to Wales. Ussher places it in 540, which is accepted by Stubbs (Reg. Sacr. Angl. 157). At Glasgow he formed a monastic school, and a beautiful account is given (cc. 12-18) of the man, his austere life and humble piety. He had a wide province, which he traversed mostly on foot, and his message was to the lapsed from the faith and to the morally degraded, as well as to the ignorant pagans. The disorders in the kingdom, and probably the increasing power of the pagan faction, induced the bishop to leave his see and find refuge in Wales a few years after his conse- cration (a.d. 543, Ussher). On his way he spent some time in Cumberland, where his work is marked by churches still dedicated to him (c. 23) ; thence he advanced as far as Menevia, where he visited St. David, and then appears to have returned northwards, settling for a time on the banks of the Clwyd and building his church at its confluence with the Elwy, at Llanelwy, now St. Asaph's, in Flint- shire (cc. 23-25), c. 545 (Stubbs). The monas- tery which he erected at Llanelwy was soon filled. Old and young, rich and poor, prince and peasant, flocked to it, and we have a very graphic picture of how monasteries were raised in ancient days before stone was used for such erections, and how the laus perennis was carried out in large communities, such as LACTANTIUS this must have been with its 965 brethren in their " threefold division of religious observ- ance " (cc. 24-25). Meanwhile the sovereign had changed, and, as a direct consequence, the religious feeling of the kingdom of Strathclyde. Rhydderch Hael, son of Tudwal Tudglud, had come to the throne, and at the battle of Ardderyd (now Arthuret, on the Esk near Carlisle), had de- feated {573) the heathen party under Gwen- dolen, at Ceidio, whereby his kingdom was made to extend from the Clyde to the Mersey, and thus to the confines of St. Kentigern's Welsh see. The first-fruit of this battle was the recall of St. Kentigern to his Cumbrian diocese by Rhydderch, who, himself of Irish extraction, had received the Christian faith during his exile in Ireland. This date is of importance, giving one fixed point in St. Kenti- gern's chronology. Rhydderch's call he at once obeyed ; and consecrating his disciple St. Asaph to fill Ills place in N. Wales, returned to Strathclyde, but went no farther than Holdelm (now Hoddam, Dumfriesshire), where for some years (probably eight) he had his episcopal seat. His leaving Llanelwy was a cause of much lamentation, and a great number of the monks accompanied him. At Hoddam a joyous welcome was given to the saint by king Rhydderch, who is represented (cc. 31-33) as going out with his people to meet him and as conceding to him all power over himself and his posterity. At Glasgow the still more famous meeting took place between St. Co- lumba and St. Kentigern. The districts they evangelized were contiguous. Their meeting was typical of the two currents of Christian faith and practice running alongside and over- flowing the land — viz. the Irish and the Welsh — which were to come in contact again at the great rampart of the Grampian range and give their character to the Scotic and the Pictish churches. The dedications to the N. of Glas- gow, and on Deeside in Aberdeenshire, make it probable that St. Kentigern had extended his labours into the regions of the South Picts, and up, at least, to the dividing line between them and the Northern. His death is various- ly dated from 601 to 614 ; the Welsh autho- rities generally giving 612, as in Annates Cambriae ; but the true date is probably 603 (Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 197 n. ; Bp. Forbes, Lives, etc., 369-370). He died on Sun., Jan. 13, and was buried where the cathedral of Glas- gow now stands. The favourite name in dedications is St. Mungo. There are none to him in Wales, but there are in Cumberland at Aspatria, Bromfield, Caldbeck, Crosfeld (in Kirkland), Crosthwaite, Grinsdale, Lethington, Mungrisedale (in Greystock), and Sowerby. His chief dedication and episcopal seat, which, as in like cases, was near, but not quite at the ancient civil capital, .\lclwyd or Dumbarton, is the cathedral church of Glasgow ; and there appears to have been a Little St Mun- go's kirk outside the city walls. [j-c] Laotantius (1), Lucius Caelius (or Caeclllus) Firmianus, a well-known Christian apologist of the beginning of the 4th cent. : " Rhetor erat ille, non theologus : neque inter ecclesiae LACTANTIUS doctores locum iiiiquaiii obtiiiuit," as bp. Bull says of him (Def. ttd. Nic. ii. 14, 4. and iii. ID, 20). Lactaiitius, eiiuinerating previous Christian apologists, seems only conscious of three — Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian — but this is explained by supposing tliat he limits himself to his countrymen, viz. African apologists. St. Jerome mentions an Itinerary written by him, in hexameter verse, j of his route fron^ Africa to Nicomedia, as though he were then leaving home for the [ first time. The .African church produced, as ! did no other country, a succession of learned j advocates or rhetoricians, men of the world, who embraced Christianity from conviction, and wrote vigorously in its defence, culminat- ing in St. .\ugustine, each employing Latin with the freedom of a vernacular, and in the case of Lactantius with so much purity as to have procured for him the title of the Christian Cicero ; while Italy produced no Christian apologists and, till St. Ambrose, no great theologian. Divines and men of letters, j as well as emperors, had to be sought in the ' provinces. In all his empire Constantine ! could find no better preceptor for his eldest i son Crispus, then destined to succeed him at Rome, than this .\frican Latin. This brought him to Gaul c. 313, the first date we can fix in his career on any tangible grounds. Lactan- , tius had previously been invited to set up a school of rhetoric at Nicomedia. There, | doubtless, he was converted on witnessing j the superhuman constancy displayed by the Christians, and by his " best beloved " [ Donatus in particular, on whose sufferings in the tenth and savagest persecution, under Diocletian, he dwells with so much tender- ness (de Morte Persecut. cc. 16, 35, and 52). Donatus, he tells us himself, had lain in prison six years when the edict of Galerius, published A.D. 311, procured his release. In Gaul, Lac- tantius died, perhaps in the year of the Nicene council, A.D. 325. To judge from his extant writings, he must have been somewhat austere, i soured it may be by failures, as he had no mean estimate of his own |)owers (de Opif. Dei, c. I ; Inst. V. 1-4) : a man of few and warm rather than of many friends ; thoughtful, learned, conscientious, and pure. liusebius (Chron. a.d. 319) speaks of him as having always been so poor as freiiuently to have lacked the necessaries of life. St. Jerome says it was his ill-success in getting pupils at Nicomedia, from its being a (ireek city, that induced him to write. St. Jerome gives a list of his writings, but whether in the order in which they were published or not he omits to say. The first he names is the Symposium, which he calls a youthful performance ; the second is the Itinerary ; the third, the Gram- marian. Then comes the well-known treatise de Ird Dei, still extant, which St. Jerome calls pulcherrimum ; next, his Institutions, in seven books, extant also, on which his fame prin- cipally rests ; next, his own epitome of the same work. In Lxbro uno acephalo (" a com- pendium of the last three books only," as Cave explains it ; but the first half was claimed by Pfaff to have been recovered a.d. 1712 from a Turin MS., and its genuineness, though dis- puted, is still maintained). The seventh work named by St. Jerome was in two books, ad- LACTANTIUS n:iO dressed to Asclcpiad. •^ ; l>..tli .ur i,..w UM. The eighth, which had ilisappratrd aU... wa* claimed by Haluze as riTovi-red by hini ; it was published in i(>7i> it tin- roniniriirrniriit of his second bo..k ..J Mtsitllantf\. I>iit with the title I.ther ad Donatum ( ontf-^ofrm de Mortibus I'ersecutonim. instead «>( de I'ene- cutione I.ther unus. which is that o( St. Jrr«.mp. Judged by its contents, the first is the nmrc accurate title. His four Imm.Ks oI Irtter* to I'robus, two tt> Severus, and two to his pupil Demetrian, which St. Jrronic regards as rinht consecutive books (in (iai. ii. 4), arc lost. The twelfth and last work assigned to him hv St. Jerome is de Opi/um Dei. vel lurmatumt Hominis. The tract de Morte l'er\ecutorum ends with the joint edict of I.icinius and Con- stantine, published at Nicomedia by the former, a.d. 313, at which the author lays down liis pen in celebrating the triumph ol God, with thankful joy and prayers day and night for its continuance. He c>)uld not have wTitten thus after the diflerences betwi*rn Licinius and Constantine had commenced, and the former joined the ranks of the persecutors ; he therefore probably published it when leaving Nicomedia for (iaul. The hrst chapter of his tract de Opificio Dei shews it to have been written after, probably only just after, his conversion, and " <Juam mininie sin» quietus, et in summis necessitatibus " are just the words that might have been wrung from a recent convert in a heathen capital, where Christians were having to choose daily between death and their faith, and his old pupils were leaving him on learning what he had become. Supposing Lactantius to have been converted about midway in the persecution under Dio- cletian at Nicomedia, and then betaken him- self to writing, peniirid discipitlorum, as St. Jerome says, there was abundance of time for the composition of all his extant works during the rest of his abode there, with the exception of his Epitome. His Epitome and tlie con- fessedly later insertions in \\\s I nstitutions—e.g. his appeals to Constantine (i. i, ii. i, vii. 2(>). his mention of the .Arians, and of the Catholic church, his promise of a separate work on heresies {iv. 30) which it would seem he never fulfilled— would all naturally fall within the period of his removal to (Iaul and luttirship to the heir-apparent, to whom he could have scarce failed to dedicate anv fresh work, had such been afterwards written. Was he the pupil or hearer of Arnobius in his yoiiiigi-r days that St. Jerome makes him in one place (de Vtr. must. c. Ko), or conteinp..rary willi Arnobius, as we might infer from an..tli<r (Chron. A.D. 3if>) ? There is nothing in th.ir works to connect them, and at the ronuiienrr- ment of his fifth book, in sp.cdvmg. ei m yui mihi noli sunt (c. I), those who had written against the assailants of Christianity pre- viously to liimself. he could scarcely have passed over the work of Arnobius. if already published, and still less if Arnobius, beside* being an African, had been his old preceptor. We therefore prefer following St. Jerome in hi» continuation of I- usebius, and making I.artan- tius and Arnobius independent : L.ntantiu-k possibly the older of the two. Kus<bius findt a place for Lactantius in his (kronuoH. but I none (or his supposed master. 1 he work of 640 LAE6HAIRE Arnobius is limited to a refutation of the poly- theism of the day and the popular objections to Christianity ; that of Lactantius, like the City of God by St. Augustine, which cites Lactantius with approval (xviii. 23), first exposes the false religions, but also expounds the true. It has been analysed by Cave briefly (Hist. Lit. i. 162), by Le Nourry thoroughly (ap. Migne, Patr. Lat. vi. 823), by Dupin, with his accustomed vivacity (E. H. vol. i. 185-187, Eng. trans, by W. W.), and by Mountain [Summary of the Writings of Lac- tantius, i. 129). It is trans, in full, with notes, in the Ante- Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). The tract de Opificio Dei may challenge comparison with Cicero's de Naturd Deorum in point of style and is far superior to it in depth and originality. The tract de Ird Dei. against the Epicureans and Stoics, is intended to prove God as capable of anger as of com- passion and mercy. The tract de Morte Persecutorum is a collection of historical facts tending to show that all the emperors who persecuted the Christians died miserably, and may be compared with Spelman's de non Temerandis Ecclesiis of modern times. As for his theologv, the indulgence should be shewn him that all breakers of new ground may claim. TertuUian was the model that he looked up to most : and no writer had as vet eclipsed Origen. His account of the origin of all things (Inst. ii. 9) reminds us of the speeches of Raphael and Abdiel in Paradise Lost (v. 577 and 808). We cannot read his latest exposition of the Incarnation {Epit. c. 43) without discovering in it some well-known phrases of the Athanasian Creed — e.g. " The same person is the Son of God and of man, for He was twice born : first of God in the Spirit before the origin of the world ; and afterwards in the flesh of man, in the reign of Augustus." Dupin, after having expatiated on his many merits, sums up very justly : " He is accused of doubting whether the Holy Ghost was the third Person, and to have some- times confounded him with the Son, and some- times with the Father ; but it may be alleged in his defence that he meant nothing else but that the name of the Spirit in Scripture is common to the Father and the Son. But whatever the naatter is, we find no footsteps of this error in any of his works, what are now remaining ; though in some places he takes occasion to speak of the Holy Ghost. He seems to be of opinion that the Word was generated in time ; but it is an easy matter to give a Catholic sense to that expression, as we have seen it done to others : and we may be with justice allowed to do so, since he plainly establishes the Divinity of the Word in that verv place." For further particulars see besides autho- rities alreadv cited, Le Nourry (.ipparat. ad Bibl. Max. Vet. Pat. t. ii. diss. 3), Fabricius \Bibl. Lat. lib. xi.), Oudin [de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 307), Lardner (Cred. pt. ii. bk. i. c. 65), Schramm [.Anal. Ot). SS. Pat. vol. vii. p. 250), Fessler (Inst. Patrol, vol. i. p. 328), Nouv. Biog. Gen. vol. xxviii. p. 611. See esp. Brandt in Sitzungsberichte der phil.-histor. Klasse der Kgl. Akud der Wissensh. (Vienna, 1889-1891), cxviii.-cxxv. [e.s.ff.] Laeghaire (2) (Lagerie, phonet cally Leary), LAURENTIUS pagan monarch of Ireland, reigning at Tara in the county of Meath. In the fifth year of his reign St. Patrick, having spent the winter in the counties of Down and Antrim, in the spring determined to hold his Easter festival near Laeghaire's palace. The mon- arch, surrounded by his nobles and his Druid priests, saw with wonder and rage the distant light of the Christian paschal fire which was to quench the lights of heathendom, and rode over in force to Ferta-fer-Feic to expel the intruder. But moUified by the stranger's address, or frightened by his words of power, he allowed the Christian mission to be estab- lished. We can hardly believe that he con- tinued a persecutor while such progress was made in the spread of the Gospel around him and in his own family. His queen may perhaps have become a Christian ; his two daughters, Fedhelm the ruddy and Eithne the fair, were certainly converted and numbered among the saints. Several of his descendants (Reeves, St. Adamnan, 173) are beatified. He probably died a pagan. The Four Masters give the date as 458, but 463 is more likely [.Ann. Tig., eo an., ap. O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Script, iv. in). He reigned probably 35 years. His body was carried to and buried at Tara, in the S.E. side of the external ram- part, with his weapons upon him, and his face turned towards the Lagenians, as if still fighting against them. Vitae S. Patricii, ap. Colgan, Tr. Thaum. pass. ; Lanigan, Ch. Hist. Ir. i. c. 5 ; Moore, Hist. Ir. i. c. 10 ; O'Hanlon, Ir. Saints, i. 163 seq. ; Nennius, Hist. c. 59, ap. Mon. Hist. Brit. pt. ii. 72 ; Keating, Gen. Hist. Ir. B. ii. pp. 325 seq. ; Four Mast, by O' Donovan, i. 144-145 n. g; Wills, ///. Ir. i. 60; Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 100 seq. 428 seq. ; Todd, St. Patrick, 436 seq. ; Joyce, Irish Names of Places, 2nd ser. 230-231. [j.G.] Lampetius. [Euchites.] LaurentiUS (tO), antipope, elected on the same day as Symmachus, four days after the decease of Anastasius II., which, according to Pagi (Critic, in Baron.), occurred on Nov. 22, 498, Laurentius being brought forward in the interests of concession, Symmachus in the interests of unbending orthodoxy. Fierce conflicts ensued. The members of the senate as well as the clergy were arrayed in two parties. At length it was agreed to refer the settlement to Theodoric the Ostrogoth, now reigning at Ravenna as king of Italy, and he j pronounced Symmachus the lawful pope (Anastas.). Laurentius at first acquiesced, and accepted the see of Nucerina, but his partisans at Rome recalled him, and for three years after his election Rome was divided into two parties, headed by Festus and Pro- binus on the side of Laurentius, and by Faus- tus on the side of Symmachus. Anastasius i states that " those who communicated with I Symmachus were slain with the sword ; holy women and virgins were dragged from their houses or convents, denuded and scourged ; there were dailv fights against the church in the midst of the city ; many priests were killed ; there was no security for walking in the city by dav or night. The ex-consul Faustus alone fought for the church." His account implies that more influential laymen were on the side of Laurentius, but that the \ LAURENTIUS LEANDER Oil clergy generally adhered to Syinmachus. The the merits ol Christ. (. hi i^t llio vcoml Adam matter was finally settled in the '• svnodus simplv cancelled the ^in dirived from the palmans," the proceedings of which are sup- first Adam. Original sin therefore crrc posed to be given under Synod. Koinatui III. sponds, in a manner, with the prc-( hristian sub Syinmaclio, the date of which is x. Kal. period. For actual transgression each person Novenibris. Laurentius is said, in a fragment is himself alone responsilde and is to be re- of a catalogue of the popes iiriiited from a leased from it bv penitence, with which the remarkably ancient MS. by Joseph Blanchinus I treatise is maiti'lv occupied, and so ha* re- in his ed. of .A.nastasius, to have retired to a , ceived its present title. For other notices see farm of the patrician Festus. and to have died Ceillier (xi. 95), Dupin {Keel. W'ril. t. i. p. 540. there, "sub ingenti abstinentia." This ae- ed. 1 722). Tiflem. (.U/m. x. 259, 260). (cii.) count evidently emanated from the party of Laurentius (36). Auk. io. archdeacon of Laurentius, if not from Festus himself (cf. Rome, and m.irtvr umUr Valerian, a.d. 258. Pagi's note on Baronius, ann. 502 i.). Cyprian (Ep. Sz al. «o iui Suee^ssum) mention* Authorities. — Anastasius (in I'it. Sym- the rescript of Valerian directing that bishops, macht) ; Frag. Cat. Pontif. in .\nastas. Bibl. ed. | presbvtcrs, and deacons should fr)rthwith be 1718-1835, Rome, t. iv. Prolegom. p. Ixix. ; [punished, and records the martyrdom of Theodorus Lector (lib. ii.), Theophanes [Chron. \ .Kystus bp. of Rome, in accordance with it on p. 123, ed. Paris), and Niceph orus (lib. 16, c. 35) ; Acts of Councils under Symniachus ; Libellus Apologeticus of Ennodius written in justification of Symmachus after his final triumph. [j.b — v.] Laurentius (15), surnamed Mdlifluus, thought to have been bp. of Xovara c. 507. A Laurentius, surnamed Mdlitluus, from the sweetness with which he delivered homilies, is mentioned by Sigebert (Scr. Eccl. c. 120 in Pair. Lat. clx. 572) as the author of a treatise Duobus Temporibus, viz. one period from .\ug. 6. Laurentius, the first of the traditional seven deacons of Rome, suffered four days afterwards. The genuine .\cts of this martyr- dom were lost even in St. .Vususline's time, as he tells us {Scr. 302, de Saneto Laurent.) that his narration was gained from tradition in- stead of reciting the .Acts as his custom was (S. .Ambr. de Off. i. 41). Laurentius suffered by burning over a slow fire, the prefect think- ing thus to extort the vast treasures which he believed the Christians to have concealed. He was buried in the Via Tiburtina in the Adam to Christ, the other from Christ to the cemetery of Cyriaca by Hippolytus and Ju end of the world. That this Laurentius was the presbyter who instructed Gaudentius the first bp. of Novara was maintained by Cotta, an outline of whose arguments may be seen in the .4cla Eniditorum (suppl. t. ii. pp. 525, 526, ed. Lips. 1696). La Eigne (.Max. Bibl. Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lugd. 1677) suspects that Laurentius .Mellifluus was bp. of Novara, and subsequently the 25th bp. of Milan who is praised by Ennodius in his first Diclio. La Eigne grounds his opinion on certain allusions of Ennodius in his second Dictio, which was sent to Honoratus, bp. of Novara (e.g. Pair. LaMxiii. 269 b). Other corrob jrative passages have baen adduced by Mabillon (ut inf.), as where Ennodius describes Laurentius bp. of tinus, a presbyter, where Constantine the Great is said to have built a church in honour of the martyr, which pope l^amasus rebuilt or repaired. Few martyrdoms of the first three centuries are better attested than this one. St Laurentius is conunemorated in the canon of the Roman .Mass. His name occurs in the most ancient Calendars, as Catalog. Liberianus or Bucherianus (4th cent.), in the Calendar of Ptolemeus Silvius (5th cent.), and in others described under Cale.sdar in D. C. .4. (cf. Smedt, Introd. ad Hist. Ecclesiast. pp. 199-219, 514). He is commemorated by Prudenlius in his Peristeph. (Mart. Rom. Vet. ; Mart. .\don., Usuard. ; Tillem. Mim. iv. 38 ; Ceillier, ii. 423 ; Fleury, H. E. vii. 38, xi. 36, xviii. 33). Milan pacifving his haughty brethren by I Cf. Fronton, £/>. W D«ss<rr/. feed. p. 219 (1720), honeyed words of conciliation ("blandimen- | where, in a note on .\ug. 10, in Horn. Kal.. an torum melle," ib. 267 a). The historians of accurate account is given of the churches built literature usually therefore designate Lauren- at Rome in his honour. (c.t.s.) tins Mellifluus bp. of Novara, but he is not | Leander (2), metropolitan bp. of Seville admitted bv the historians of the see, as I from (?) 575 to 600. His life covers the mot Ughelli (Itai. Sac. iv. 692) and Cappelletti (Le j important period of VisiKothic Christianity, Chiesed'Ital.\\v.S26). Three extant treatises and with Leovioild, Hf.kmenioild. and are ascribed to Laurentius .Mellifluus, viz. two j Reccaked he plays an indispensable part in homilies, de Poenitentia and de Eleemosyna, printed by La Eigne in his Bibliotheca, and a treatise de Muliere Cananaea, printed by that drama, half- political, half -religious, which issued in the conversion council of 5«t>. .\11 that is historically known of the origin of Mabillon with a note on the author, supporting I the famous family, which included hi the view of La Eigne, in his Analecta (p. 55, brothers Isidore and Filcentms, and imi. ed. 1723). The homilies are in La Eigne ] only sister Flokentina. is derived from the (.Max. Bib. Pat. t. ix. p. 465, Lug. 1677) and 1 opening sentence in Isidore's Life of Leander the three treatises in Migne(Pa/r.LaMxvi. 87) i (<i«^ l'"-- /"■ c. 41; I-->-P- •*>"««'• v. 4^>3) and with both La Eigne's and Mabillon's notices of from the concluding chapter of Leander s the author. Cave mistakenly says (i. 4<ji)\ Regula, or Libellus ad Elorenttnatn (l-.ip. Sagr. that the de Duobus Temporibus is lost, for it I ix. 355)- Their father was Severianus" Car- is evidently the homilv de Poenitentia, which I thagiiiensis Provinciae." At some unknown opens with an exposition of the "duo tern- | dale, while Floreiitina was a child, the family pora," which terms he employs somewhat in 1 left their native place {Ltbell. ad llorent. c. the sense of the two dispensations for the 21), and settled probably at S.ville. It i-, divine pardon of sin. The sin inherited from \ probable that Leander was born between 535 Adam is in baptism entirely put away through ; and 540. He would thus be a youth at the 41 642 LEANDER time of the family exile. Before 579, the date of the outbreak of the Hermenigild rebellion, he had been a monk, and then raised to the metropolitan see of Seville, perhaps at that time the most important ecclesiastical post in Spain. The Catholics under the Arian king Leovigild had especial need of able and faithful leaders. Probably Leander saw the opportunity of the Catholics in Hermenigild's youth and the Catholicism of his wife Ingun- this, and this conjecture is warranted by the evidence that the persuasive and eloquent bishop, who afterwards led the conversion council, laid the first stone of his great work in the conversion and rising of Hermenigild against his Arian king and father Leovigild. Leovigild's Arian council of 581 was succeeded by civil war between father and son in 582. Hermenigild had already endeavoured to strengthen himself by alliances with the Catholic Suevi in the N. and the Catholic Byzantines in the S. and E. In connexion with this last alliance we next hear of Leander at Constantinople, " cum — te illuc injuncta pro causis fidei Visigothorum legatio per- duxisset," says Gregory the Great, describing in after-years (Pref. in Moralia, Patr. Lat. Ixxv. 510) his first friendship with Leander. The exact date of this mission is unknown (see Gorres, Zeitschriftfur historische Theologie, i. 1873, p. 103) ; but we incline to place it in 583, about the beginning of the siege of Seville, when effectual support from the empire might have given victory to Hermenigild. In 584 Seville fell and Hermenigild was captured at Cordova. Thenceforward Arianism was tri- umphant, and that persecution of the Catholics by Leovigild, which is described by Isidore (Hist. Goth. Esp. Sagr. vi. 491) and Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc, v. 39), was carried actively forward. In Apr. or May 586 occurred the death of Leovigild and the accession of his second son Reccared ; and Leander, on re- ceiving information as to the state of affairs, appears to have hurried home from Constan- tinople. (Cf. what Lucinian says of his " haste " on the journey homewards from Constantinople, Ep. Licin. ad Greg. Pat. Esp. Sagr. V.) In Feb. 587 the preliminary synod took place at Toledo, in which Reccared and his nobles abjured Arianism, and notice of the step was sent to the provinces. The Conversion Council. — In 589 a great gathering at Toledo of the king and queen, the court, and 62 bishops, Arian and Catholic, changed the whole outer face of Visigothic history and entirely shifted its centre of gravity. The causes which led to it had been long at work (cf. Dahn, Konige der Germanen, v. on the political causes) ; but this third council of Toledo remains one of the most astonishing and interesting events in history. For a detailed sketch of the proceedings see Reccared. Here we are only concerned with Leander's share in it. " Summa tamen synodalis negotii," says the contemporary bp. of Gerona, Joannes Biclarensis, "penes Sanc- tum Leandrum Hispal. ecclesiae episcopum et beatissimum Eutropiura mohasterii Ser- vitani abbatem fuit." This justifies us in attributing to Leander the main outline of the proceedings and the wording of a large propor- tion of the Acts. Reccared's speeches are prob- LEANDER ably to be traced to him. They are quite in accordance with Leander's known style, especi- ally with that of the homily which con- cludes the council and was avowedly written and delivered by him. The homily (Homilia Sancti Leandri in laudem ecclesiae ob conver- sionem gentis) is an eloquent and imaginative piece of writing, with an undercurrent of re- ference to the great semi-religious, semi-politi- cal struggle which marked the reign of the last Arian king. " The peace of Christ, then," says Leander, " has destroyed the wall of discord which the devil had built up, and the house which division was bringing to ruin is united in and established upon Christ the corner-stone." Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de Can. de la Igl. Espanola, ii. 247-260 ; Gams, Kirchengeschichte von Spanien, ii. (2), 6, 41 ; Dahn, v. 159, vi. 434 ; Helfferich, Entstehung und Geschichte der Westgothen Recht, 33-46 ; Hefele, iii. 44-49. First Synod of Seville. — Eighteen months after the conversion council, Leander, as metropolitan of Baetica, and in obedience to the 1 8th canon of the council of 589, sum- moned the bishops of Baetica to a provincial synod in the cathedral of Seville, "in ecclesia Hispalensi Sancta Jerusalem" (cf. Florez, ix. on the use of "Sancta Jerusalem"). The Acts, on matters disciplinary, are drawn up in the form of a letter to the absent bp. Pegasius of Astigi (Ecija). Correspondence with Gregory the Great. — Gregory and Leander, first made friends at Constantinople between 575 and 585, when Gregory was apocrisiarius of Pelagius II. at the East-Roman court. In May 591 Gregory, now pope, wrote a long letter to Leander (Ep. lib. i. 43, apud Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxvii. 497) in answer to his old friend, who had congratu- lated him on his elevation, reported the Visi- gothic conversion and the third council of Toledo, and inquired as to the form of bap- tism to be thenceforward observed in Spain, whether by single or threefold immersion. The pope expressed his joy in the conversion of the Visigoths, declaring that Leander's accounts of Reccared have made him love a man of whom he has no personal knowledge. Let Leander look to it diligently that the work so well begun may be perfected. In a country where unity of faith had never been questioned, single or threefold immersion might be observed indifferently, as represent- ing either the Unity or the Trinity of the God- head ; but as in Spain the Arian mode of bap- tism had been by threefold immersion, it would be well henceforward to allow one immersion only, lest the heretics be supposed to have triumphed and confusion ensue. Finally, the pope sent Leander certain codices; part of the Homilies on Job, which he had asked for, were to follow, as the librarii had not been able to finish the copy in time. Gregory's second letter, dated July 595, is a note accompanying the gift of the Regula Pastoralis with pts. i. and ii. of the Moralia. The Pallium. — In Aug. 599 Gregory wrote to Reccared, Claudius Dux of Lusitania, and Leander. The letter to Leander announces the gift of the pallium, to be worn at the celebration of Mass, " solemnia Missarum.". To Reccared the pope writes: "To our honoured LEANDER brother and fellow-bishop Le.uuler we liav<' sent the pallium as a gift from the see of the blessed apostle Peter, which we owe to ancient custom (aniiquae consuetud%fn), to your de- serts, and to his dignity and goodness." The exact force of the gift of the pallium to Lean- der has been much disputed. Florez (ix. 167) maintains it was nothing more than a mark of honour and distinction, and did not carry with it the apostolic vicariate, which had, however, been bestowed on his predecessors in the see, Zeno and Sallustius, bv popes Simplicius and Honnisdas (Tejada y Kainiro. ii. 962, 1015). In support of his supposition that pallium and vicariate were not necessarily combined, he quotes the case of bp. Auxanius of Aries, successor of St. Caesarius, to whom pope Vigilius gave the pallium when the vicariate had been previously bestowed (Vigil. Ep. vii. apud Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixix. 27). Gams, however, holds that in dregory's mind at any rate the pallium carried with it the vicariate, and that the phrase aniiquae con- suetudini is to be taken as referring to the vicariates of Zeno and Sallustius, and as implying the recognition by Ciregory of an ancient claim on behalf of the see of Seville to represent the apostolic see in Spain. The various other bestowals of the pallium on Western bishops by Gregory, especially the cases of .\ugustine of Canterbury (Ep. xi. 64, 65) and Syagrius of Autun (ix. 108), should be studied in connexion with the case of Leander (cf. Walter, Lehrbuch des Kirchen- rechis, pp. 308, 277, and Thomassin, Discipline de I'Eglise, ii. i. cc. 25, 26). Very sot)n after the arrival of the pallium, at latest in 600, Leander died, shortly before the king, whose constant friend and adviser he had been. Works. — The Libellus ad Florentinam con- sists of an introductory letter and 21 chapters, which constitute the Regula. The style is easy and flowing, rising at time to real pathos and sweetness, as in the beautiful concluding chapter with its well-known reference to Isidore. Its laudation of the celibate life and depreciation of marriage are quite in the taste of the time, and, to judge from can. 5 of C. Tol. iii., seem to have been then in Spain a dis- tinguishing mark of the Catholic as opposed to the Arian clergy. The Homily noticed above is the only other work of Leander now extant. Isidore, how- ever, in his Life of his brother (de Vir. III. c. 41) sjieaks of three controversial treatises against the Arians, composed by him during his exile from Spain under Leovigild. Isi- dore's description shews that they were especially intended to meet the arguments and ' expose the pretensions of the .Arian council of 581. The last-named was probably in cate- , gorical answer to the libellus issued after the I synod by the Arian bishops and expressly anathematized by the conversion council (J oh. Bid. ad an. 581 ; Tejada y Kamiro, ii. p. 224). Auihoriiies. — Besides those alreadv quoted, Baron. Ann. Eccl. a.d. 583. 584, 585, 589. 59i. 595. 599 ; Nicolas Antonio, Bibl. Vei. ed. Bayer, 1788, i. 290 ; de Castri Bibl. EspaHola, ii. 280 ; Aguirre, Coll. .Max. Cone. Htsp. iii. 281-302 ; Fabric. Btbl. Lat. iv. 252, ed. 1754 ; Mabillon, Ann. Ord. S. Bened. i. 287 ; M-4. SS. LEO I. (U.l Boll. M.ir. h ii. jrs ; Aiu.idor ilr |..s K,,.s, //,,/. (..//. d( la Lit. /-.s/MM. 1, Mi, u\. .Moiuulc,,,. bert, .Motnes Je l\)uuienl, n. [m.a.w.] Loo (1) L, emperor (surnanu-d the (.real, the Thracian, and the Hutchcr), born c. 400 in the country of the Bessi in Thrare. pro- claimed emperor Feb. 7, 457, and rrowufHl by .■\natolius, patriarch of Coust.intinoplr, bruijc the first Christian sovereign to receive his crown from the hands of a priest. Iniinrdi- ately upon the news of .M.irrian's death, religious troubles broke out in Alexandria, where the .Monophysite party murdered the patriarch I'roterius (Proteius). substitutinf( for him Timothy Aelurus. The orthodox bishops of Egypt rted to the emperor to make complaint. Anatolius, bp. of Constantinople, reported their sad case to pope Leo, who energetically seconded their eflorts for re- dress. The emperor, distracted by the demands of pojie and patriarch on the one hand, of Aspar and the heretical party on the other, addressed a circular letter to Anatolius and all other metropolitans, commanding them to assemble their provincial councils, and advise him — (i) whether the decrees of the council of Chalcedon should be held bind- ing ; (2) as to the ordination of Timothy Aelurus. He also consulted the three most celebrated ascetics of the time, Syineon Sty- lites, James the Syrian, and Baradatus. We possess in the Codex Encvclius the answers of all the bishops and hermits consulted, a iiMst valuable monument of ecclesiastical anti- quity. It was apparently composed by imperial order by some unknown CJreek, trans- lated into Latin at the order of the senator Cassiodorus by Lpii)hanius Scholasticus, and first published in modern times by Laurentius Surius. It is in all collections of the councils, but in full only in Labbe and Coss. Concil. i. 4, pp. 890-980 (cf. Cave, Scriptt. Lit. Htst. i. 495 ; Tillem. Mem. xv. art. 167). The bishops, in .\ug. 458, replied, unanimously upholding the decrees of Chalcedon and rejecting the ordin- ation of Timothy, who, however, maintained his position at Alexandria till 460. In 468 Leo sent an expedition under the command of Basiliscus, his brother-in-law, against the Arian Vandals of N. Africa, who were bitterly hostile to him on account of his orthodoxy. Aspar and Ardaburius secretly arranged with H.isiliscus for its failure, as they feared any diiiiinuti>>n of the gnat .Arian power. The emperor, having discovered the conspiracy, put .\sp.ir and Ardaburius to death, and banished Basiliscus a.u. 469. Tlie Gothic guards, in rev.-nge, raised a civil war in Constantinople, under one Ostrys, a friend of .Aspar, and attacketl the palace, but were defeated. Leo thereupon issued a severe edict against the Arians aiul forbade them holding meetings or possessing churches. In anf)ther quarter controversy burst forth. Gennadius, patriarch of Constantinople, dying in 471, was succeeded by .\cacius, whom Leo admitted a member of the senate, where no ecclesiastic had hitherto sat. Acacius ob- tained from Leo an edict confirniing the 28th canon of Chalcedon, which raised Constanti- nople to the same ecclesiastical Irvrl as Kome. Pope Simplicius resisted the claim, uid a bitter controversy ensued, lastmg many 644 LEO I. years and most fruitful in divisions (Milman, Lat. Christ, lib. iii. c. i.). Leo was very active in church legislation. He made laws in 466 confirming the right of asylum to churches ; in 468 forbidding any persons save Christians to act as advocates. In 469 he issued an edict against simoniacal contracts and one of almost piu-itan strictness upon the observance of Sunday. He forbade iudicial proceedings on that day, and even the playing of lyre, harp, or other musical instru- ment (Chron. Pasch. a.d. 467, where the words of the edict are given). The same year he passed stern laws against paganism and issued a fresh edict in favour of hospitals. In 471 a law was published, apparently elicited by the troubles at Antioch, commanding monks not to leave thfir monasteries. When Isocasius, a philosopher and magistrate of Antioch, was forced by torture to accept baptism at Con- stantinople, the emperor seems to have per- sonally suiierintended the deed (Joan. Malalas, Chronogr. lib. xiv.). Leo died Feb. 3, 474, aged 73, and was succeeded by his grandson Leo II. Evagr. H. E. lib. ii. ; Procopii, de Bell. Bandal. ; Theoph. Chronogr. [g.t.s.] Leo (5) L, the Great, saint, bp. of Rome, A.D. 440-461. We know but little of him before his papacy. He himself and Prosper of Aquitaine call Rome his " patria " (Prosp. Chron., Patr. Lat. li. 599 ; Leo Mag. Ep xxxi. 4, p. 85, Migne). His birth must have been about the last decade of the 4th cent. He is said (Vig. Taps, contra Eutych. lib. iv.) to have been baptized by Celestine ; but if so, this must have been while Celestine was still a sunple priest. There is no trace in his writings that his education comprised any study of pagan authors, and he was through- out iife ignorant of Greek (Epp. cxxx. 3, p. 1258 ; cxiii. 4, p. 1194) ; but his elaborate style indicates considerable training in com- position. In 418 we hear, in the letters of St. Augustine (Epp. cxci. cxciv. i), of a certain acolyte Leo, the bearer of a letter from Sixtus, afterwards pope, to Aurelius of Car- thage and apparently also of pope Zosimus's letter in condemnation of Pelagianism, addressed to Aurelius, St. Augustine, and the other African bishops. The mention of Sixtus, with whom Leo was afterwards connected, and the date of the occurrence, would lead us to identify this acolyte with Leo the Great. If so, it is interesting that he should have come in contact early in life with the greatest of Latin theologians. Under the pontificate of Celestine (422-432) he was a deacon, or (according to Gennadius, de Vir. Illus. 61) archdeacon of Rome. His important place in the church is shewn by two incidents. In 430 the treatise of Cassian, de Incarnatione, against the Nestorians, was written at Leo's exhortation, and dedicated to him with every expression of respect (Cassian, de Incarn. Praef. Migne, Patr. Lat. i. p. 11). In 431, during the council of Ephesus, St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Leo against the ambitious design of Juvenal of Jerusalem to obtain for his see the dignity of a patriarchate {Ep. cxix. 4, p. 12 16). In 439 Leo, on the alert against the Pelagians, urged the pope to ofier a vigilant resistance to the movements of Julian of Eclanum, who was seeking to obtain LEO I. readmission to the church without any real re- cantation of his errors (Prosper, Chron., Patr. Lat. li. 598). Very soon after, Leo was sent on an important civil embassy to Gaul. The Western empire was in a condition of extreme weakness. Nominally governed by Placidia and her youthful son Valentinian III., the real power lay almost wholly in the hands of the general .\etius, at this moment engaged in a quarrel in Gaul with general Albinus. It is a sign of the important civil position held by Leo the deacon that he was chosen to endea- vour to bring about a reconciliation (Prosper, Chron., Patr. Lat. li. p. 599). During his pro- longed absence pope Sixtus died, and Leo was promptly elected, and an embassy sent to recall him to Rome. " More than forty days," says Prosper, "the Roman church was without a bishop, awaiting with wonderful peace and patience the arrival of the deacon Leo." He was consecrated Sept. 29, 440. The first of his extant works is a brief sermon on this occasion, de Natali Lpsius, in which he praises God and returns thanks to the people, asking their prayers for the success of his ministry. (For date of consecration see Ballerini's note, Patr. Lat. Iv. 193 ; Tillem. XV. note 2 on St. Leo.) It was a difficult and trying time. The Eastern empire was in its normal state of " premature decay," the Western empire was tottering to its fall. Africa was already a prey to Genseric and the Vandals. The devastation of the African church was well- nigh complete. The church at large was in evil case. Without, she was encompassed by the .\rian powers; within the Manicheans, the Priscillianists, the Pelagians and the semi- Pelagians, were disturbing her peace ; in the East Nestorianism was still rife. There was an extraordinary paucity of men capable of leading, whether in church or state. A man was needed capable of disciplining and consolidating Western Christendom, that it might present a firm front to the heretical barbarians and remain in unshaken con- sistency through that stormy period which links the ancient with the modern world. The church, preserving her identity, must give the framework for the society which was to be. That she might fulfil her function, large sacri- fices must be made to the surpassing necessity for unity, solidity, and strength. Leo was the man for the post': lofty and severe in life and aims, rigid and stern in insisting on the rules of ecclesiastical discipline ; gifted with an indomitable energy, courage, and persever- ance, and a capacity for keeping his eye on many widely distant spheres of activity at once ; inspired with an unhesitating accept- ance and an admirable grasp of the dogmatic faith of the church, which he was prepared to press everywhere at all costs ; finally, possessed with, and unceasingly acting upon, an overmastering sense of the indefeasible authority of the church of Rome as the divinely ordained centre of all church work and life, he stands out as the Christian repre- sentative of the imperial dignity and severity of old Rome, and is the true founder of the medieval papacy in all its magnificence of conception and uncompromising strength. His is a simple character, if regarded with LEO I. sympathy, not hard to understand and appreciate; representing strongly that side of the developing life of the church specially identified with Rome — authority and unity ; and a special interest attaches to his history from the fact that he stands so much alone, as almost the one considerable man in Chris- tendom. " The dignity of the imperial name may be said to have died with Theodosius the Great." Among churchmen .Augustine was just dead, Cyril very soon to die. The best- known names are those of Theodoret, Prosper, Cassian, and Hilary of .Aries. There was not even an imposing representative of heresy ; " on the throne of Rome, alone of all the great sees, did religion maintain its majesty, its sanctity, its piety" (Milman, Lat. Christian- ity, voi. i. p. 228). In such an age and in such a position, a strong man like Leo could exercise an abiding influence. In strengthening the framework of the church, Leo was playing an important part in the reconstruction of civil society. In 452 Attila, having spread desolation over the plains of Lombardy, was encamped upon the Mincius, ready to advance towards Rome. In this extremity Leo, accompanied by the consular .Avienus and the prefect Trigetius, met the barbarian, and Attila, yielding to their persuasions, consented to' withdraw beyond the Danube. The terms were discreditable enough to the Roman empire ; but that the confidence and courage of St. Leo in meeting the fearful Hun made a great impression on the Eastern as well as the Western world may be seen from the somewhat curious allusion to it by the Eastern bishops in the appeal to pope Sym- machusc. 510 {Pair. Lat. Ixii. p. 63). "If your predecessor, the archbp. Leo, now among the saints, thought it not unworthy of him to go himself to meet the barbarian Attila, that he might free from captivity of the body not Christians only, but Jews and pagans, surely your holiness will be touched by the captivity of soul under which we are suffering." No doubt later ages have exaggerated the import- ance of Leo's action, as may be seen in Baronius's account and that of later Roman Catholic writers (.inn. 452, § 56 seq.). Later tradition has also introduced the well-known legend which represents Attila as confessing himself overawed by a miraculous presence, the apparition of St. Peter, and, according to another account, of St. Paul also, threatening him with instant death if he refused to yield. (Baronius boldly maintains the legend, which can plead no respectable evidence. See Tillem. xv. 751, etc.) Again, in 455, when Genseric and the Vandals were at the gates of Rome, the defenceless city, " without a ruler and without a standing force," found its sole hope in the dauntless courage of Leo. I'n- armed, at the head of his clerpy, he went outside the walls to meet the invader and succeeded in restraining the cruelty and licence of devastation. What exactly the barbarian promised, and how much of his promise he kept, is not quite certain, but at least " the mediation of Leo was glorif)Us to himself, and, in some degree, l>cneficial to his country " ((iibbon). To neither of these two encounters between Leo and the barbarians LEO I. (.45 do we find allusi.m in his extant writinRi. Cle.irlv, if I..-., w.is the "saviour ..| hi« country," he w.js not inrlinrd to |.o.«s» -f it He h.id little to mnipl.iin of in thr siveness of thr Wrstrrn nnprror in ! ;tions with himself. Nothing r.in r\, ecclesiastical authority which is rrro^;;.; belonging to the popr in the ronstitiition <>f Valenlinian. which accompanied I,ro'< Irtirr into (;aul in 448 when Leo wa>» in conflict with HiLiry of Aries (Leo M.ig. f:^. xi.). Thu constitution, which has the names of »H.th emperors, liastern and Western, at its hrad. speaks of the "merits" of St. IVtrr, the dignity of Rome and the authority of a roiinrij as conspiring to confirm the primacy of thr I Roman bishops. If declares that it is nrrrs- sary for the peace of all that all thr churrhr* , ("universitas") should recogni/e hiin as tlirir j ruler, and that his decree on thr subject of thr ^Gallic church would be authoritative rvrn without imperial sanction ; vet by way of giving this sanction, it asserts that "no bishops, whether of Gaul or of otlirr provinces. ^ are to be allowed, contrary to ancient customs, to attempt anything ("ne quid tentarc")with- , out the authority of the venerable man, thr I pope of the eternal city ; but that the onr law for them and for all is " quicquid sanxit vrl sanxerit apostolicae sedis aiictoritas " ; and if any bishop summoned to Rome neglect to come, the provincial magistrate (moderator) is to compel him. Nothing could be stronger I than this language ; the document, however, must be considered entirely Western, the result of pressure put by Leo on the feeble ! mind of Valentinian. (Sec Tillem. xv. 441, i who calls it " une loy . . . trop favorable Ik la puissance du siege fde S. L/'on) mais pen I honorable k sa piete.") That Valentinian and i his family were much under Leo's influence is ; proved also by the letters which in thr early part of 450 he induced him, his mother Placidia, and his wife Eudoxia, to write to Theodosius II., the Eastern emperor, in thr interest of Leo's petition for a council in Italy, all which letters reiterate the views of Leo and assert the loftiest position for the see of Rome (Leo Mag. lCf>p. liv.-lviii.). Thro<losius, however, was not so amenable to Leo's wishes. In the matter of the councils, the pope had to submit to the emperor. It was thr emperor who summoned the council of Enhcsus in 440 {Kpp. xxix. 840, XXX. 851); Leo sprakinfc always respectfully of him • (xxxi. 856, 840), but being inclined to complain at least of thr I short notice (857). The emperor drridrd thr occasion, place, and time ; and the popr ajiologizes for not attending in prrsrm (•'>.). .Again, after the disastrous termination <if thr Ephesine synod, Leo cannot obtain from thr emperor his request for a gathering in Italy. The summoning of coiinrils still rlrpindrd on the "commandment and will of prlnrrs " ; and Leo gives a constant |>rartiral rrcognition to thr interference of thr Eastrrn rnipirr in ecclesiastical appointments and affairs grnrr- ally {Ep. Ixxxiv. c. 3, etc. ; cf. aUo cliii. 1. remembering that A»i>ar was an Arian, Tillem. Empereurs, vl. 366). In grnrral Leo conceives of the right relation of the rinpire • CunsidcrinR the tone official liinKuaKr <hcti took I^co cannot l>c accused of nagKt^olctl lUltrrjr. 646 LEO I. and the church as a very intimate one. " Human affairs cannot," he says, " be safe unless the royal and sacerdotal authority combine to defend the faith " {Ep. Ix. 983). He tells the emperor Leo on his accession that his empire is given him " not only to rule the world, but to defend the church " (Ep. civi. 1323). When he praises an emperor he ascribes to him a " sacerdotal " mind [e.g. Ep. civ. 13 19). The civil power is constantly called upon, at any rate in the East, where Leo could not always depend on the eccle- siastical authorities, to do the work of the church (Epp. cxii. ii8g, cxv. 1203, cxxxvi.), 1 and he justifies the execution of Priscillian in the previous century on the ground " that though the lenity of the church, contented with a sacerdotal sentence, is averse from taking a bloody revenge, yet at times it finds assistance in the severe commands of Christian princes, because the fear of punishment for the body sometimes drives men to seek healing for the soul " (Ep. xv. 696). As an ecclesiastical ruler we will consider Leo first in his relation to the various heresies in the West. Septimus, bp. of Altina, in the province of Aquileia, writes (Ep. i. Migne) to inform Leo that Pelagian ecclesiastics are be- ing admitted to communion in that province without recantation, are being reinstated into their ecclesiastical degrees, and allowed, con- trary to the canons, to wander from chiu^ch to church. Leo writes to the metropolitan to complain, desiring him to summon a provin- cial synod and extract from suspected persons a condemnation of Pelagian errors (i. 591). Of his struggle with the Manicheans we know more. Recent troubles, especially the capture of Carthage by Genseric in 439, had driven many of these heretics to Rome. They were to be seen there moving about with pale faces, in mean apparel, fasting, and making dis- tinctions of meats. They seem to have pro- fessed Catholicism and done their best to escape attention (Leo Mag. Serm. xvi. 4, XXXV. ; Ep. XV. 16, p. 708). The vigilance of Leo, however, was too much for them. Of this sect he had a particular horror. Their heresy is a mixture, he says, of all others, while it alone has no element of good in it (Serm. xvi. 4, xxiv. 5). Accordingly, in the beginning of 444, Leo made a diligent search for them. A large number, both of teachers and disciples, and among them their bishop, were tried in the presence of numerous authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, a " senatus amplissimus," as Valentinian calls it, at which confession was made of the most hideous immoralities in their secret assemblies (Epp. vii. p. 624, XV. 16, p. 708 ; Serm. xvi. 4, and Constitutio Valent., Ep. viii.). Those who remained impenitent were banished tn per- petuum by the civil power, and a constitution of Valentinian reviving the previous laws against the sect, dated June 19, 445, put them under all kinds of civil penalties. Leo, by sermons (ix. xvii. xxiv. xxxv. xlii.) and a circular letter to the bishops of Italy (Ep. vii.), did all he could to publish their infamy, and his exertions appear to have stirred up other bishops, both in the East and West, to similar activity (Prosper and Idatius, Chron., Pair. Lot. li. 600, 882). Theodoret, writing in 449, LEO L counts this exhibition of zeal against the Manicheans one of St. Leo's greatest titles to fame (Leo Mag. Ep. lii. c. 2). In 447 we find Leo sending an account of these proceedings to Turribius, bp. of Astorga (Ep. xv. 16, 708). At this period the Priscillianists were exer- cising a very disastrous influence in Spain. St. Turribius, their active opponent, wTote to Leo for adWce, and Leo replies in July 447 (Ep. XV.). He views the heresy as a mixture of Manicheism with other forms of evil, heretical and pagan, and exhorts Turribius to gather a synod of all the Spanish provinces to examine into the orthodoxy of the bishops ; with this view he sends letters to the bishops of the various provinces, but urges that at least a provincial synod of Gallicia should be held (c. 17). We find subsequent allusions to a Galhcian council, to which Leo is said to have written (Labbe, Cone. v. 837 a ; Idat. Chron. xxiii.), and to a council of various provinces at Toledo in 447, which is said to have acted "cum praecepto papae Leonis'" (Labbe, ii. 1227 B ; cf. Tillem. xv. 555 seq. ; Ceillier, x. 668). Though we hear still of Novatianism j and Donatism in Africa (Ep. xii. 6), Leo did j not take any special measures against these nor other heresies in the West. Leo's introduction to Eastern disputes is a somewhat curious one. Eutyches early in 448 wrote to Leo apparently deploring the revival of Nestorianism. Leo replied on June I, applauding his solicitude, and apparently heard no more of Eutyches till early in 449 he received two letters announcing his con- demnation in the council of Constantinople — one from the emperor Theodosius, the other from himself. Eutyches (Ep. xxi.) appeals to the judgment of the Roman pontiff. Leo, however, maintains a cautious attitude ; writes to Flavian (Ep. xxiii.) complaining that he has sent him no information about the condemnation of Eutyches, that the appeal of the condemned to Rome was, according to his own account, not received and he himself j hastily condemned, though he professed him- self ready to amend anything in his faith which should be found at fault. At the same time Leo writes to the emperor, lamenting his ignorance of the true state of the case (Ep. xxiv.). Meanwhile, it appears that Flavian had really written soon after the close of the coimcil to inform Leo,and toDomnusof Antioch and other prelates. His letter, however (Ep. xxii.)hadnotreachedLeobytheend of Feb- 449. Had it arrived, it would have been calculated to give Leo a clearer view of the dogmatic question at issue. Flavian's second letter to Leo, in reply to his (Ep. xx\'i.), C'mtains no allusions to Leo's complaints of his silence 1 and want of consideration ; he characterizes i Eutvches's representations as crafty and j false, explains clearly the drift of his teaching, ' and urges the pope to send his subscription to the condemnation, and to keep the emperor on the right side (ih. p. 788) ; the matter, he adds, only needs his assistance to keep it all straight. Leo, now confirmed in his adhesion to Flavian, writes briefly in May 449, assuring him of his sympathy (Ep. xxvii.), followed in June by "the tome " (Ep. xxviii.), one of the most justly celebrated of pontifical decrees — nominally a letter to an indixddual bishop. LEO I. but rrally addressed to all the world. Western as well as Eastern. At the same time, Leo sent letters directed against Eutyches's doc- trine, and calling attention to his tome, to Pulcheria, Faustus, Martin, and the other archimandrites of Constantin<iple. t<i the Ephe- sine council itself, and two to his close friend Ji'LiAN of Cos (£■/>/>. xxxi.-x.xxv.)- Mean- while Theodosius. at the instance of Eutyches, had directed the assembling of a council, which, professing to be aimed at Nestorianism only, excited much alarm in the minds of Eastern prelates and in that of Leo, who, though praising the emperor's zeal for religion, ventures to hint that there is no occasion for assembling a synod in a matter where there is ! presence no possibility of doubt — an opinion which he Eudoxia LEO ft 17 appeal to the empress Pulrhrria {l-ff. xlv.). The ground of the re.jufst is rspr. i.illv the appeal of Fl.ivi,iii t.. K.>mo— .in appeal f..r thn justification of which Leo offers the aulhcrily of a Nicene canon {Ep. xliv. 016 ; vtd. inf.). On Dec. 25 Le.i, still surrounde<l bv hi« council, presses his request to the rmperor again (Ep. liv.) ; and in .Mar. 4S0 writes again to stir up Pulcheria, the archimandrites (Ep. xi.), and the clergv and people of Constanti- nople, to press his petition for a " plmaria synodus," and " next to the divine assistanrn to aim at obtaining the favour of the Catholic princes" {Epp. lix. s. qSi, Ix. Ixi). Mean- while, taking the opportunitv ■)f Valentinian'j in Rome with his wife Licinia (Theodositis's daughter) and his expresses more strongly to Flavian. Theo- } mother, (.alia Pladdia, Leo gets them all to dosius had sent a request that Leo would be j write letters urging the Eastern emperor to present at the council. This, as he writes to do what he wished {Epp. Iv. Ivi. Ivii.). (iaila Pulcheria, the circumstances of the city would not permit ; and there would, as he tells Theodosius. be no precedent for such a course {Epp. xxxi. 837 ; xxxvii. 887). He sent (" de latere suo ") three legates to represent on his behalf the spirit at once of severity and mercy {Epp. xxix. p. 841 : xxxiv. c. 2 ; xxxiii. p. 866). They seem to have left Rome before June 23. Apparently at the beginning of Oct. news reached Rome that the council had been packed and managed by Dioscorus ; that Leo's tome had not been read; that Euty- ches had been reinstated. St. Flavian and Eusebius condemned and deposed ; finally, that of Leo's legates one only had barely escaped to tell the tale ; and though Leo was ignorant of the crowning enormity of the murder of St. Flavian, his indignation boils over {Epp. xliii. p. 904 ; xliv. p. 912 ; xlv. p. 921; cxx. 3, p. 1224; xlv. 2). The pro- ceedings of the council are characterized as a " sceleratissimum facinus "; " it was no synod at all, but a " latrocinium," a den of robbers ; its acts are null and void ; it cuts to the root of the Christian faith {Epp. xliv. i. p. 913 ; Ixxxv. i. p. losi ; xcv. 2 ; xlv. 2, p. 923 ; Placidia wrote at the same time to Pulcheria, exjiressing detestation of the Ephesine synofl, and describing how Leo, when solemnlv asking their intercession with Theodosi>is, could hardly speak for grief {Ep. Iviii.). In his replies to Valentinian, Placidia, and Eudoxia (Epp. Ixii. Ixiii. Ixiv.) Theodosius asserts his continued orthodoxy, but professes his complete satisfaction with the Ephesine synod. His reply to Leo is not preserved, but contained an absolute refusal to do what he wished. Leo had another cause of anxiety. .\natolius had written to him in the end of 449, telling him of his election to succeed Flavian (ii^. liii.). Anatolius had been Dios- conis's representative at Constantinople, and what security had Leo for his orthodoxy ? Moreover, he' had simply announced his con- secration, without asking for I^o's consent to it. Leo wrote in July 450 to Theodosius, whom he still addresses with the utnio>t respect, requiring that Anatolius should read the Catholic Fathers and the Ep. of Cvril, without overlooking his own Ep. to Flavian, and then make a public profession of adher- ence to their doctrine, to be transmitted to the xliv. I, 913). Still, Leo is more indignant than apostolic see and all bishops and churches. ~ ~ This he demands somewhat peremptorilv, sending legates to explain his views, and re- newing his request for an Italian council (Ep. Ixix.). This letter he backs up with others to Pulcheria, Faustus, and the archimandrites (Epp. Ixx.lxxi. Ixxii.). Leo appears even now to have been full of hope (/•:/>. Ixxiii. to Martin), though Dioscorus had the audacity to excom- municate him and the emperor was all against him. But before his legates could reach Constantinople, his chief cause of anxietv was removed. Theodosius died, j uly 450. •"><• was succeeded by Pulcheria, always Leo's friend, who united to herself as emperor, .Marcian, equally zealous for his cause. Dioscorus'* hopes were gone. The letter of the new cm- mcing hi dismayed {Ep. xlviii.). The fearful and half- anticipated result of the synod only stirs his energies. There was then sitting at Rome a council apparently representing the whole West, and assembled to consider the present emergency (Epp. Ixi. i ; xlv. 2 : xlvi. 2 ; Ixix. p. 1008).' In his own name and that of the council Leo addresses letters to various quarters. The church of Constantinople and the archimandrites {Epp. 1. H.) are exhorted to be loval to the faith and to Flavian, whose death was not yet known in Rome, and they are assured that no one who usurps his place can be in the communion of Rome or a true bishop (p. 934). Besides those letters (Epp. xliii. xliv. xlv.), there are two to the emperor, urgentlv requesting that a more oecumenical | peror (Ep. Ixxiii.), announcing his election, council'mav be held in Italv. Till this has [ promised the council to be held specially under been done, Leo begs the emperor bv all that Uo's influence (" tc auctore ). and the Irttrr is most sacred to allow everything to remain which followed the arrival of Lt-o s messengers as it was before the first decision at Constanti- | at Constantinople asked him cither to come nople(£/>. xliv. 2, p. 915). This request, made to the East to assist at it or, if that was in the name of all the bishops and churches of the West (" nostrae partes," xliv. 3), is accompanied by the strongest condemnation of the Ephesine council and backed up by an impossible, to let the emperor summon the Eastern, Illyrian. and Thracian bishops to some place " ubi nobis placuerit " (Ep. Ixxvi.). We hear nothing of Leo's requirement that 648 LEO I. it should be in Italy, though he did not cease to wish that it should be there {Ep. xcv. i). Meanwhile Anatolius had willingly signed the tome, as had "all the church of Constantinople, with a number of bishops" — it appears that it was sent for signature to all the metropolitans {Ep. Ixxxviii. 3; Labbe, iv. 546 c) — the bishops banished for adherence to Flavian were recalled, and all honour shewn to Flavian's body {Ep. Pulcheria, Ixxvii.)- At the same time a large number of the bishops who had been induced by fear to assent to the decrees of the Ephesine synod (by July 451 almost all) had testified their sorrow, and, though by the decision of the papal legates not yet admitted to the communion of Rome, were allowed the pri\'ileges of their owm churches ; Eutyches was banished, though not far enough to satisfv Leo, and everywhere " the light of the Catholic faith was shining forth " {Epp. Ixxx. 2 ; Ixxxiv. 3 ; cxxxii. p. 1053). The legates, who returned at once, carried back a number of letters to their master, and in Apr. 451 we have a number of letters from him, expressing genuine satis- faction. He commends all that has been done, praises the " sacerdotal " zeal of Marcian, the diligent watchfulness of Pulcheria, and re- joices in Anatolius's adhesion to the truth {Epp. Ixxviii. Ixxix. Ixxx. ; cf. Ixxxv. 3). He praises the conduct of his legates and confirms their wish that the names of those bishops, Dioscorus, Juvenal, and Eustathius, who had taken a chief part in the crimes of the council of Ephesus should not be recited at the altar (Ixxx. 3; Ixxxv. 2). As for the council, he wishes it postponed, but has to yield to the emperor, and writes to him in June 451 (Ep. Ixxxix.), nominating the legates to represent him. He makes it a point that his legates should preside, and that the question of the true faith should not be treated as an open one {Ep. xc. ; cf. xciii.). H Leo, presiding in the person of his legates, secures the posi- tion of his see. and if the prohibition of main- taining heretical positions ("nee id liceat defendi, quod non liceat credi ") gives security to the faith, there will be no cause of anxiety about the council, but a caution is still needed that the condemnation of Eutyches must not be an excuse for any rehabilitation of Nes- torianism {Ep. xciii. end). When the synodal letter of the council of Chalcedon {Ep. xcviii.) reached Leo, it was couched in terms highly complimentary to himself, and brought the best news as regards the question of faith. Eutyches had been finally condemned and Dioscorus deposed. Leo expresses his satis- faction {Ep. to Marcian, civ.). The faith of the church was unmistakably asserted. In Mar. 453 he tells Maximus of Antioch {Ep. cxix.) that " the glory of the day is everywhere arisen." " The divine mystery of the Incar- nation," he tells Theodoret, "has been re- stored to the age "; " it is the world's second fes- tivity since the advent of the Lord" (£p.cxx.). While on this score Leo had every cause for joy, there was one decree of the council against which his legates had protested and which stirred his utmost indignation — viz. the 28th decree on the dignity of the see of Constantinople, which seemed to imperil the unique position of the see of Rome. LEO L Before treating of this, we will take a general review of the position and influence of Leo as bp. of Rome up to this point of his pontifi- cate. The age into which Leo was born was one which demanded, above all else, a firm consistency and therefore centralization in the church. It was an age of little intellectual energy, and was to be succeeded by ages of still less. The world wanted above all things unity and strength, and this was found in taking Rome for a centre and a guide both in faith and in discipline. Accordingly the papal supremacy made a great stride during Leo's life. He has been well called " the first pope," " the Cyprian of the papacy," for we associate with Leo's name the first clear assertion that metropolitans and patriarchs are subject in some way, still undefined, to Rome. What is Leo's own view of his position ? In his ser- mons preached on his " birthday," i.e. the day of his consecration — an occasion on which a provincial council used annually to be as- sembled at Rome — he expresses his sense of his own insignificance but of the magnitude of his position and of the presence of St. Peter in his see, "ordinatissima totius ecclesiae charitas in Petri sede Petrum suscipit " {Serm. ii. 2 ; cf. iii. 3; v. 4). St. Peter is the rock; St. Peter alone has to " strengthen his brethren " (iii. 3 ; iv. 3). Not only has he the primacy (iii. 4) but is the channel through which is given whatever graces the other apostles have, and so, though there are many bishops and pastors, yet Peter governs them all by his peculiar office ("proprie"), whom Christ governs by His supreme authority (" principaliter ") ; thus " great and wonderful is the share in its own power which the divine condescension assigned to this man " (Iv. 2). Just as the faith of Peter in Christ abides, so also does the commission of Christ to Peter, and " Peter's care rules still all parts of the church " (iii. 2 ; V. 4). Thus the see of Rome is the centre of sacerdotal grace and of church authority ; it represents Peter, " from whom, as from a head, the Lord wills that His gifts should flow out into the whole body, so that he should know he has no share in the divine mystery who has dared to retire from the solid foundation of Peter " {Ep. x. i, in re Hilary of Aries). The see of Rome again, occupies in the ecclesi- astical world more than the position which the empire of Rome occupies in the secular— " gens sancta, civitas sacerdotalis et regia, caput orbis effecta latins praesidet religione divina quam dominatione terrena " — because the Roman empire uniting the world was just the divine preparation for the spread of the universal Gospel (S^rw.lxxxii. I and 2). This, then, is his theory : let us see how he put it in practice. We see him standing as in a watch-tower, with his eye on every part of the Christian world, zealous everywhere for the interests of the faith and of discipline, and, wherever he sees occasion, taking the oppor- tunity of insinuating the authority of his see, not only in the West, but in the East. The " authority of the apostolic see " to regulate discipline and depose bishops is asserted very absolutely to the bishops of Aquileia and of the home provinces in the beginning of his pontificate ; as for the heretics, " obediendo nobis, probent se esse nostros " {Epp. i. v. iv.). I LEO I. With something more of apology (though with the precedent of his predecessors), he asserts his authority — " in order to prn<ent usurpa- \ tions" in Illyria (£/>. v. i). As his prede- j cessors had done, he appointed a vicegerent, j Anastasius of Thessalonica, to whom he wishes the Illyrian bishops to submit as to himself. He is to be to the metropolitans as they are to the ordinary bishops, ami a regular system of provincial administration is or- I dained, by which the assent of the papal : vicarius is required for all episcopal elections and by which metropolitans are to be ordained actually by him (£/>. vi. 4 ; but cf. xiv. 6, : where the latter point is modified). Biennial provincial councils, summoned by the metro- politans, referring graver matters to a repre- sentative synod, summoned by the vicar, whence again difficult questions are to be referred to Rome, are to maintain provincial discipline (Epp. xiv. 7 ; xiii. 2). Moreover, any individual bishop can appeal from the I metropolitan directly to Rome, as Atticus, 1 the metropolitan of Epirus Vetus, actually did j some years later, securing the pope's inter- i ference against the cruel treatment of Anas- I tasius {Ep. xiv. i, p. 6S5). This supremacy of the papal vicar, which is of great historical importance, seems to have been accepted without remonstrance by the lll>Tian churches j {Ep. xiii. i). Meanwhile, in 445, a letter from I Dioscorus of Alexandria, probably announcing ! his succession to St. C\Til, gave Leo an oppor- tunity of dictating to the church of Alexandria {Ep. ix.). That church owned St. Mark for her foimder ; should not the church of St. Mark be in complete accord with the church of St. Mark's master ? On the strength of this relation between the churches, Leo gives Dioscorus detailed directions about days of ordination and the celebration of mass. About the same time the restless energy of Leo was | engaged in his famous controversy with St. 1 Hilary of .Aries. This controversy (for which | see Hilary), which is of special importance as ■■ being the first case in which " the supremacy ! of the Roman see over Gaul was brought to the issue of direct assertion on the pope's part, of inflexible resistance on the part of his op- ponent," arose out of an appeal of a bishop, Celidonius, to Rome against the judgment of j Hilary. Though some blame attaches to ] Hilary, Leo's conduct was imperious, pre- I cipitate, unjust, and not over-scrupulous. The temptation to press a disputed claim of | the Roman Sfe and extend the Roman pre- ; rogative was too strong ; Leo's violent Ian- | guage about the saintly Hilary {Ep. x.), his | high-handed treatment of Gallic rights, and his attempt to give a sort of primacy in Gaul to Leontius on the mere sore of age cannot be defended. He seems conscious that he is treading on doubtful ground in the beginning of his letter U> the Gallic bishops, for he is ; careful to assert that there is nothing new in his proceedings, and that he is only defending the Gallic bishops from the aggressions of Hilary. He professes to consult them (c. 4) ; he forti- fies himself with an imperial edict, for which ! he must be held mainly responsible {vid. sup.) ; though he apparently excluded Hilary from his communion, he did not venture to depose him from his episcopal functions, and on his LEO 040 deatl) speaks of him as " sanctae inrmnriar " {Ep. xl. ; cf. Tilleni. xv. 80, K«)). The j^r- emptory orders of Lei> seem to havr obi.iinrd but inadequate execution in Gaul ( lillrni. xv. 86) as shown in the election ol Kavrnnni^, Hilary's successor. I eo had d<-*irr<| (hp'. Ixvi. 2) that the privileges he took from Hilary should be given to the bp. of Vienne ; but the latter seems to have taken no part in the consecration of Kavennius, yet Leo spraks of his consecration as constitutionally con- ducted and divinely inspired {Epp. xl. xli.) and appears in the directions he givrs Kavennius to recognize him as a metropolitan (Ep. xiii. ; Tillem. xv. 9^). Of the wav Kavennius was consecrated, the bp. of Vienne seems to have made no complaint. He did, however, rom- plain of the ordination bv Kavennius of a bp. of Vaison {Ep. Ixvi. i). This complaint was followed on the other side by a petition (mm 19 bishops of the three provinces formerly subject to .\rles, asking for the restoration to that see of its former dignity. Leo had now an opportunity to mediate. However im- perfectly subservient to Leo's wishes the Gallic church had hitherto been, the tone of this letter is suflicientlv abject. The pope's authoritative attitude and the imperial edirt had done their work. They simply put them- selves in Leo's hands. They ground the claim of Aries on ancient custom, civil dignity, and specially <m the fact that in Trophimus that town had had the first Gallic bishop, and Tro- phimus had been sent by St. I'eter ; they even claim for Aries a certain authority over all Gaul as the vicegerent of the Roman see. Having received this appeal, so sati-^factory in its tone, and the counter-complaint from Vienne, Leo proceeded to divide the authority. He examined carefully, he says, the rival claims of Vienne and Aries, and ultimately assigned a limited authority over four churches to the bp. of Vienne, and the rest of the province of Vienne to Aries ; of the claims of Aries to larger metropolitan rights, he says nothing {Ep. Ixvi.). This decision seems to have been acquiesced in by Kavennius, but did not finally stop the disputes of the rival sees (Tillem. xv. gs, q6). Leo sent also his tome to Ravennius for distribution in Gaul and secret communications, " (juae Ci)mniit- tenda litteris non fuerunt," by the mouth of the messengers. Probably c. 446 we find Leo correcting some scandals and asserting his authority in the church of Africa, too weak and disorganized now, from the devastations of Genseric and the recently concluded war, to resist interference as in the days of Celestine. He had sent a representative to make inquiries into allrgrd violations of discipline there in the elec tion of bishops; on receiving his report, Leo wrote {Ep. xii. to the bishops of .Manretania Caesari- ensis) assuming complete authority "ver the administration of their church. Me even re- ceived an appeal from an African bishop, I.rpi- ciNUS, and reversed the decision of the African church in receiving him to communion. In 447 we have seen Leo entering into the affairs of the church of Spain, distracted like the African with barbarian invasions, and I dictating the course to be pursued against the 1 Ptiscillianist heretics ; and the same year he 650 LEO I. sharply reprimanded the Sicilian bishops for the alienation of church property, of which complaints had been laid before him in a Roman synod by the clergy of the despoiled churches (Ep. xvii.). The Eutychian contro- versy went far to aggrandize the position of Rome as the seat of dogmatic truth and the refuge of oppressed orthodoxy. Rome's pre- tensions to a superior jurisdiction are older than her claims to be the source of dogmatic truth. The claim of infallibility was yet unheard, but it went far to lay the ground of this claim that in the last great controversy about the Incarnation Rome's utterance be- came the standard of orthodoxy. The glory of being the safest dogmatic guide coalesced with increasing authority as the centre of dis- cipline and government. True, the letter of Leo to Flavian went out for signature east and west on the authority of a council ; there is no approach to a claim to dogmatic authority as bp. of Rome on Leo's part ; still, the letter was Leo's letter and the stream of things was running in the direction of his exaltation. Moreover, the position of Rome at this period made Leo the recipient of appeal after appeal. Eutyches, Flavian, Eusebius, Theodoret, the presbyters Basil and John (£^lxxxvii.),made, or were supposed to have made, appeals, and gave Leo opportunities of asserting an old claim. The council of Sardica had framed a canon, allowing appeals from discontented bishops to pope Julius. This canon, with the others of this council, was in the Roman church included with the canons of Nicaea, and as such had been quoted by the popes ; but that it was not Nicene, the African church had shewn quite clearly in the time of Zosimus. Though Leo could not be ignorant of this fact, he still alleges the authority of Nicaea for the right of appeal (Ep. liv. p. 917, in the case of Flavian). No " custom of the Roman church " can justify this. (For the Roman canons, see collection in Migne's Patr. Lat. Iv. init. ; Gieseler, Eccl. Hist. § 92.) Leo appears to make no exact or definite claim over the Eastern bishops through the Eutychian controversy. He professes his " universalis cura " for the welfare of the whole church {Ep. Ixxv.) and claims to be kept fully alive to what goes on in the East (cf. Ep. to Flavian, xxiii.), while the power of exclud- ing from his own communion gave him some hold on episcopal elections, which he requires to be notified to him with satisfactory proofs of the orthodoxy of new bishops (cf. his lan- guage at his confirmation of Anatolius's elec- tion) ; " nostra communio " all through his writings is an expression of much meaning and weight. Moreover, we have seen that he claimed a right of receiving appeals from all parts of the Christian world, and we shall see him trying to annul the authority of a canon of Chalcedon which displeased him. But when he writes his celebrated letter to Flavian, on the subject of the true faith of the Incarna- tion, he writes in a tone no wise different from that adopted bv St. Cvril in his letters against Nestorius. The bp. of Ravenna (Peter Chrysologus), at the beginning of the Euty- chian controversy, wrote to Eutyches recom- mending him to listen to Rome, because " the blessed Peter who lives and presides in his LEO I. own see gives the truth of the faith to those who seek it " {Ep. xxv. ad fin.), but there is nothing of this tone in Leo's own words. He classes his letter with that of Cyril {Epp. Ixvii.; Ixix. 1006) : " non aspernetur Anatolius," he says, " etiam meam epistolam recensere, quam pietati patrum per omnia concordare re- periet " (ixx. loio). After the council of Chalcedon, he commends his own letter as confirmed by the council and witnessed to by patristic testimony {e.g. Ep. cxx. to Theo- doret, c. 4 ; cf. esp. Ep. ex. 3, 117, where he fortifies himself by the authority of St. Atha- nasius, and Ep. cxxiii. 2, where he speaks of his tome simply as " synodaUa decreta " ; Ep. cxxxix. 4 ; Leo attached the " testimonia pa- trum " to his tome after the Robber council, Ep. Ixxxviii. 3). Of the Eastern bishops, Theodoret, in making his appeal {Ep. lii.), addresses Leo in language very reverential to his see : " If Paul betook himself to Peter that he might carry back from him an explanation to those who were raising questions at Antioch about their conversation in the law, much more do I," etc. ; but while he admits it expedient that the pope should have the first place ("primas") in all things, he grounds this posi- tion on (i) the greatness of Rome; (2) the continuous piety of the church; (3) the posses- sion of the tombs of St. Peter and St. Paul : not the sort of prerogatives on which Leo would ground his primacy. Flavian ad- dresses Leo in a way entirely consistent with the dignity of his own see. He informs him of the condemnation of Eutyches {Ep, xxii.), but only that Leo may put the bishops sub- ordinate to him on their guard ; and when Flavian asks for Leo's subscription {Ep.xxvi.), he asks it for an already canonically made deposition. At the council of Chalcedon, Leo was treated with all possible respect. He had required {Ep. Ixxxix. to Marcian) that his legates should preside, " on account of the in- constancy of so many of his brethren." Cer- tainly the doubtful orthodoxy of so many of the chief Eastern bishops, and the connexion of Anatolius with Dioscorus, would have made it difficult to find any one so fit as the Roman legates to preside. Moreover, all the influence of Marcian and Pulcheria was on the side of Leo, " giving him entire authority " (Theodor. Lector, lib. i.), except as regards the place of the council ; hence there were reasons enough for giving him the presidency, even if Leo had not been Leo and Rome Rome. As it was, there was no direct opposition and the influence of his legates was strong enough to enforce in great measure his wishes as to Dioscorus. When the synod proceeded to read Leo's tome, some lUyrian and other bishops raised doubts on certain expressions in it. Explanations were given and confer- ences held, where those points were shewn by the legates and others to be in agreement with the doctrines of councils and the Ep. of Cyril (Labbe, iv. 367 c, d ; 491 d). Finally, his letter was unanimously received, because it was in agreement with the decrees of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the Epp. of St. Cyril (pp. 471 seq.). " Peter," the bishops cried, " spoke thus by Leo ! Leo teaches truly ! Cyril taught so ! Eternal the mem- LEO I. orv of Cvril ! Leo and Cvril toach alike ! This is the faith of the Fathers ! " (367, 368). Thus Leo's letter was treated by the council like the letter of any other highly respected churchman ; and in the eighth session of the council Leo's decision on the orthodoxy of Theodoret was not accepted till that bishop had satisfied the synod that he really was orthodox ((>2i c, d). On one or two points especial reverence for Leo was shewn in the council. According to the Acts of the council, the form in which the papal legates expressed the condemnation of Dioscorus was, "The archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us and through the holy synod now present, together with "the . . . apostle Peter, who is the rock . . . has stripped Dioscorus of all sacerdotal dignity" (426 c). This " sentence " indeed exists in a widely different form, as sent by Leo himself to the Gallic bishops {Ep. ciii.). in which Leo is described as " head of the universal church," and con- demns " by us his vicars with the consent of the synod." The Ada are probably the best authority, as we do not know exactly whence Leo's version came. In any case, the papal legates were regarded as passing sentence on Dioscorus with the consent of the council (cf. Pair. Lat. li. p. 9S9, note b ; Hvagr. H. E. ii. 4). The title " oecumenical archbishop " is used of Leo in the plea of Sophronius against Dios- corus (Labbe, iv. 411 d), and "bishop of all the churches," or "of the oecumenical church," by the papal legates.* It is, perhaps, in mis- taken allusion to these expressions of indi- viduals that pope Gregory I. states that the bishops of Rome were called " universales episcopi " by the council of Chalcedon (Greg. Mag. Epp. lib. v. ep. xviii. 743, Migne) and that the title thus offered had been consis- tently rejected (pp. 749, 771, 919). The synodical letter (Ep. xcviii.) which the as- sembled bishops wrote to Leo was highly complimentary. They speak of him as the "interpreter to all of the blessed Peter." He has presided by his legates as " the head over the members " (c. i ). It is he who took away his dignity from Lutyches (c. 2). They ex- press indignation at the monstrous attempt which Dioscorus made to exconmiunicate Leo, " he to whom the Saviour intrusted the care of the vine " (c. 3) ; but all this language, so acceptable to Leo, serves to usher in a very unpleasant matter. The first council of Con- stantinople had decreed that the bishop of that place should have the primacy of honour after the bp. of Rome, because " it is itself new Rome" (Labbe, ii. 94 7 t')- Leo's state- ment, that this canon had never taken effect, is entirely untrue. On the contrary, the pre- cedence of honour had become an extensive jurisdiction (Tiilein. xv. pp. 701 scq.); and this jurisdiction had now been sanctioned by the 28th canon of the council of Chalcedon, which professed to confirm the canon of Con- stantinople. "The Fathers," they say, "gave with reason the primacy to the chair of old Rome, because that was the royal city, and, with the same object in view, the 180 pious • Lest we attach tfX) nuich importance to these flattering titles in the Eastern world, we .ihould notice that the same title is applied to Dtoicorusai Rphcsiu (Labbe, iv. 270, 472 a, 479 e; Tillcm. xv. 564). LEO I. 651 bishops gavp equal primacy (rd l<ta wfnaflua) to the chair of new Rome" (which pha>w, however, is afterwards explained bv thr word* " being next after old Rome ") ; this addition to the rank of new Rome is groiindrd on her imperial position ; it is then further allowed that the see of Coiisl.uitinoplr shoiihl havr the right of ordaining the metropolitans o( I'ontnv .Vsi.i, and Thrace, and certain other bishops (Labbe, iv. 795Dseq.). From thr discus- sion on this subject the papal legates had retired, saving they had no directions from Rome in the matter; but when the i:astorn bishops had confirmed the canon, thry de- manded and obtained another session, when they protested in vain against it (Labbe. iv. sess. 12). Doubtless the bishops had been partly inspired by jealousy of R.mie. Leo's oft-repeated sneer, that they had been com- pelled to sign, they stoutly denied in session (16. 809. 813 B seq.). This canon the council announce to Leo : their object, they say. was to secure order and good discipline, and it was made at the wish of the emperor, the senate, and the citizens (Ep. xcviii. 1097) : thev therefore express a good hope that Leo will not resist it as his legates did. At the same time, Leo received letters from Marcian. Ana- tolius (Epp. c. ci.). and Julian, expressing joy at the successful suppression of heresy and endeavouring to conciliate him in regard to the 28th canon. .Anatolius writes in as con- ciliatory a tone as possii>le. urging that the jurisdiction actually reserved ifor Constan- tinople is less than custom had sanctioned, repeating that it was at the wish of emperor, senate, and consuls that the canon was i>assed, j and complaining gently of the conduct of the legates after so much deference had l>een shewn them. It would seem from the words of the " Commonitorium " which he intrusted I to his legates (Labbe, iv. 829 t) that Leo had ' had some inkling of what tlie council might do in this respect. Indeed Eusebius of Dory- laeum stated in session that he had actually read this canon to Leo, when at Rome, in I presence of some clerics from Constantinople, and that he had accepted it (815 h). I,eo is. , however, now extremely indignant. A very ! angry tone runs through the letters to Marcian, ! Pulcheria, .Anatolius, and Julian (Ept>. ci\.- ;cvii.). He urges that when .Anatolius s antr- I cedents were so doubtful, an attitude of humility wrnild have best beseemed him (I- pp. i civ. c. 2 ; cv. 3 ; cvi. 5), that secular import- I ance cannot confer ecclesiastical privilege, " alia enim est ratio rerum saecularium. alia divinarum " (civ. 3). and that the canon is in flat contradiction to the unalterable decrees of Nicaca. alluding probably to the sixth 1 canon, on the rights of certain metropolitan*. He treats very scornfully the assent of thr I Chalcedonian bishops ; it is an " cxtorta sub- scriptio " ; what can it avail against the protest of the legates? (Ep. cv. lo.^j). He ' thinks just as little of the decree of Ci>nstantl- noplc (Ep. civ. 2). He charges Anatoliu* with having diverted the council from its own proper object to subserve his ambitious pur- poses (Ep. cvi. 2). and finally takes up thr cudgels for Antioch and .Alexandria, though the bishops of those sees. Theodoret and Maxi- I mus, had signed the decree— which indeed doe* 652 LEO I. not appear to interfere with the prerogatives which the canon of Nicaea assigned them (cf. Tillem. xv. p. 709), while not only had custom long allowed to Constantinople a position of superior dignity, but that position had been secured to her by a council, of the authority of which Leo had no right to speak so scorn- fully. The exhortations to avoid ecclesi- astical ambition which Leo frequently uses and his contention for the canons of Nicaea did not come with a good grace from a bp. of Rome. If anything can justify Leo's claims, surely it is not the council of Nicaea. In Feb. 453 the emperor wrote to Leo, begging him to send as soon as possible his confirma- tion of the Acts of Chalcedon, that none might be able to shelter themselves under the excuse that he had not confirmed them {Ep. ex.). Leo replied, Mar. 11, to the council and to the emperor (Epp. cxiv. cxv-.), saying that, if Anatolius had shewn his letters, which he had motives for concealing, no doubt could have existed as to his approval of the decrees of the council, "that is, as regards faith ("in 'iola. vide- licet causa fidei, quod saepe dicendum est "), for the determination of which alone the council was assembled by the command of the Christian prince and the assent of the apos- tolic see " (cxiv. i). To the emperor he sent his assent to the decrees concerning faith and the condemnation of the heretics as a matter of obedience to him, and begged him to make his assent universally known (cxv. 1204, cf. also Epp. cxxvi. cxxvii.). Despite the reverential speeches of council, emperor, and bishops to Leo, neither this canon nor the attitude of the council towards Leo's tome, nor indeed Leo's own way of talking about it, give modern Romanists any great cause for satisfaction with the council of Chalcedon. Meanwhile, in maintaining the cause of the faith, Leo was asserting his prerogative in many quarters. In 451 Leo's tome was approved in a council under Eusebius of Milan, which sent him a highly complimentary letter [Ep. xcvii.), in which,' however, the tome is commended as agreeing with St. Ambrose, just as it was by the council of Chalcedon as agreeing with St. Cyril. About 452 the East was troubled by the tumultuous proceedings of the Eutychian monks in Palestine, headed by one Theodosius, who elected a bishop in place of Juvenal, seized Jerusalem, and committed all sorts of violences (Tillem. xv. § 138, etc.). These disturbances caused Leo great anxiety (Ep. cix.), and drew from him (Ep. cxxiv.) a clear and admirable exposition of the faith, as lying between Nestorian and Eutychian error. On the death of Marcian in 457 Eutychian risings were attempted in Constantinople and Alex- andria (Epp. cxl. cxliv.). Leo (Ep. cxiv.), writing to congratulate the emperor Leo on his accession, urged him to active measures against the heretics, and by constant letters did all he could to keep Anatolius and Julian also zealous for the Chalcedonian decrees and the suppression of heresy. He urged that the question of the faith should not again be allowed to come into discussion. He com- plained to Basil, the new bp. of Antioch, that he had not, " according to ecclesiastical cus- LEO I. torn," notified his consecration to him, and addressed other letters against Timotheus Aelurus to the bishops of Thessalonica, Jerusalem, Corinth, and Dyrrhachium, which he sends for distribution to Julian (Epp. cxlix. cl. clii.). He sent the expressions of agree- ment to his tome from the bishops of Gaul and Spain in a letter to Aetius, and wrote (Oct. II, 457) condoling with the refugee Egyptian Catholics now in Constantinople (Epp- cliv. civ. clx.). " They are not," he says, " exiles from God." Meanwhile, a circular letter from the emperor, asking all the metropolitans to summon provincial councils and collect the opinions of their bishops on the conduct of Timotheus Aelurus and the author- ity of the Chalcedonian decrees, gave Leo an opportunity of again impressing his views on the emperor, and urging him to make up by his zeal for any laxity in Anatolius (Ep. clvi. c. 6). He had both to resist all inclination on the emperor's part to listen to the suggestions which accused his doctrine of Nestorianism, and to oppose strongly the idea of assembling another council, which the emperor had enter- tained. When the emperor dropped the idea of a council, he proposed, wherever the sug- gestion may have come from, a conference between some of the Eutychian heretics and an envoy of the pope (Ep. clxii.). This again Leo could not consent to, for it involved the discussion of the faith which had been once for all determined, as if it were an open question (" patefacta quaerere, perfecta retractare, de- finita convellere "). He sent legates, not, however, to dispute, but to teach " what is the rule of the apostolic faith " ; and some time in the same year addressed to Leo a long dogmatic epistle (Ep. clxv.) sometimes, called the " second tome," closely parallel to the epistle he had before sent for the instruc- tion of the Eutychian monks of Palestine. To it is attached a collection of testimonies, more ample than he had previously sent to Theodosius. In 460 Leo saw his wishes realized in the expulsion of Timotheus Aelurus, who, however, was allowed to come to Con- stantinople. Leo writes in June to congratu- late the emperor on his energy against Aelurus, and to impress on him the need of a pious and orthodox bishop for Alexandria (" in summo pontifice," Ep. ccxix. c. 2). At the same time he writes to Gennadius, the new bp. of Constantinople, who had succeeded Anatolius in 468, urging him to be on his watch against Aelurus, whose arrival at Constantinople he deplored and who appeared Ukely to have a considerable following there. The bishop elected for Alexandria, Timotheus Solofacio- lus, met with Leo's warm approval. The letters which Leo wrote at this time (Aug. 461) to Timotheus, his church, and some monks of Egypt (Epp. clxxi. clxxiii.) are the last public documents of his life. Before his death Leo saw the peace of the church of .Alexandria established and orthodoxy su- preme, for a period at least of 16 years, in the elevation to its throne of Timothy Sol)faciolus. Though Leo was heedless of the rights of national churches, harsh and violent in his treatment of Hilary, and not always very scrupulous in his assertions about the canons of Nicaea, personal ambition was with him LEO I. wholly merged in the sense of the surpassing dignity of his see, and his zeal was alway high-minded and inspired by an overmastering passion for unitv in faith and discipline, and it might have fared ill with that faith and discipline in those days of weakness and trouble if a man of his persistence, integrity, piety, and strength had nut been raised up to defend and secure both the one and the other. The notes of the discipline which he enforced were authority, uniformity, and antiquity, the authorities to which he appealed Scripture, tradition, and the decrees of councils or the holy see. His zeal for uniformity shewed itself in the beginning of his reign by his care that the whole of Christendom should cele- brate Easter on the same day. In 444, according to the Roman calculation, it fell on Mar. 26, according to the Alexandrian on Apr. 23. In this difficulty Leo wrote to St. Cyril, who replied, of course, in favour of the Alexandrian computatii)n, and Leo had t<> surrender his point : " non quia ratio mani- festa docuerit, sed quia unitatis cura persua- serit," and the Roman cycle gave way to the Alexandrian (Epp. Ixxxviii. xcvi. cxxi. cxxii. cxxxiii. [from Proterius of Alexandria], cxxxvii. cxxxviii.). Where it did not clash with his own he could support the authority of other bishops. He maintained the rights of metropolitans and reproved a bishop for appealing to himself in a difficulty instead of consulting his metropolitan (Ef>. cviii. 2). The bishop was to rule with a strong hand. He must know the law and must not shrink ; from enforcing it, for it is " negligent rulers who nourish the plague, while they shrink from applying to it an austere remedy," and the " care of those committed to us requires that we should follow up with the zeal of faith those who, themselves destroyed, would destroy others" {Epp. i. 5; iv. 2; vii.). Among his disciplinary directions were regulations forbidding the ordination of slaves {Ep. iv.), which, though justified on the ground that they are not free for the Lord's service, are couched in language breathing more of the Roman patrician than of the Christian bishop (cf. " quibus nulla natahuin dignitas suffra- gatur," " tanquam servilis vilitas hunc honorem capiat," " sacrum ministcrium talis consortii vilitate poUuitur "). Moreover a second marriage, or the marriage of a widow or divorced woman, was a bar to orders lEpp. iv. 2, 3 ; xii. 3), and those in orders, even sub- deacons, must abstain from " carnale connu- bium, ut et qui habent, sint tanquam non habentes, et qui non habent, permaneant singulares" {Epp. xiv. 4 and clxvii. 3). The day of ordination and consecration was to be Sunday only {Ep. vi.) or Saturday night {Ep. ix.). The proper antecedents of the consecra- tion of a bishop he declared to be " vota civium, testimonia populorum, honoratorum arbitrium, electio clericorum " {Ep. x. 4, 6; ccxvii. i). In case of a division of votes the metropolitan must decide and be guided bv the preponderance of supporters and of qualifications {Ep. xiv. 5). When ordained no cleric was to be allowed to wander ; he must remain in his own church {Ep. i. ; cf. xiii. 4 ; xiv. 7). All must rise in due order from the lower to the higher grades (Ep. xii. 4 ; 'f- Ep. xix.). LEO I. 603 Unambiguous condemnation of hereby i» to bo requirwl befon- ordination from lh<«!kr who arc suspected ; and lh<<se who are rrconvcrtc*! must give up hope of pr.nuMiion (/■•T'f. xviii. ; cxxxv. 2). The niultiplicati.>n of bi»h..p4 in small pl.»ces where Ihcv are not nrnlrd 11 forbidden (< . id). .\s he insists on the rrUlivp dignity of dilTerent parts of the body ol Chrut {Ep. I xix. 0), so he reasons that rath part should fulfil only its own functions. I.avnirii and monks — i.e. those rWni orJinem nuer- dotaUm — are not to be allowed to preach {hpp. cxix. ; cxx. 6). He would enforce local dl«- cipline by insisting on provincial counnli. Baptism was only to be given at Kaster «r Pentecost, except in cases of necessity {Epp. xvi. and clxviii.). For the Mass, the rule of the Romait church, which he woul<i enforce on Alexandria also, is that where the rliurch will not hold all the faithful, it should be celebrated on the same dav as often as i» necessary for them all to " offer " {Ep. iz. 2). .\s to ecclesiastical penance, believing that "indulgence of (iod cannot be obtained except by sacerdotal supplication," he gives rules for receiving penitents, etc. {Epp. cviii. 2 ; clxvii. 2, 7-14), and directs that in ordinarv casrs (" de penitentia quae a fidelibus postulatur") private confession, first to (iod and then to the priest, should be substituted for public confession, the scandals in which might deter from penitence altogether (f:p. clxviii.). The laity under penitential discipline arc exhorted to abstain from commerce and the civil law courts {Ep. clxvii. 10, 11), and even those who have at any time been penitents are advised to abstain from marriage and ordered to abstain from military service (cc. 12-13). Xeo of Kavenna asked whether returned c.ii)- tives who had no memory of baptism should be baptized. On this, as a "novum it man- ditum" point, Leo consulted the synod, "that the consideration of many persons might lead more surely to the truth " {Ep. clxvi. p. 1406). He greatly dreads appearing to sanction a repetition of baptism, but decides that where no remembrance is possible and no evidence can be obtained, baptism may be given. Leo had a strong opinion on usury. " Fenus pecuniae," he says, "est funus animac." "Caret omni humanitate " {Serm. xvii.), and it is forbidden to the laity as to the clergy {Ep. iv. 2, 4). " Penitence," he savs. "is to be measured not by length of tune, but by sorrow of heart " {Ep. clix. 4) ; " "o' institut- ing what is new, but restoring what is old," is his canon of reformation {Ep. x. 2). Among his rules for ep)iscopal government wc may notice the following as characteristic : " In- tegritas praesidentium salus est sulKlilorum, et ubi est incolumitas obedientiae ibi sana r»t forma doctrinac " (xii. i); or this: " sic Mt adhibenda correptio, ut semper sit salva dilectio" ; or this: "constantiam maiisurtudo commendet, justitiam lenitas trmix-rcl. patientia contineat libertatein." Leo's theology is to be gathered chirflv from some six or seven dogmatic epistU-s ami from his sermons (Epp. xxviii. the tome to Flavian, XXV. to Julian, lix. to the church of ( oiutan- tinoplc. cxxiv. to the monks of I'alrsliiip. cxxxix. to Juvenal, cUv. the " wcond tomr," to the emp.Tor Leo, .dl written b«lwrrn 449 654 LEO I. and 458). These epistles are wholly occupied with the controversial statement of the doc- trine of the Incarnation. His others are devoted almost entirely to discipline and organization. Of his genuine sermons 96 remain, five, " de natali suo " (vid. sup.), on the see of St. Peter; si.x, " de coUectis," on the duty of almsgiving ; nine, " de dec. mens, jejuuio," on the duty of almsgiving, prayer, and fasting ; ten, " de Nativitate," theological and practical discourses on the Incarnation ; eight, "in Epiphaniae solemnitate," contain- ing more narrative than do the Christmas sermons, and specially applicable to an age no longer tried by persecution ; twelve, for Lent, on fasting and works of mercy ; one on the Transfiguration ; nineteen on the passion, preached on Sundays and Wednesdays in Holy Week, being devotional and practical com- mentaries on the Gospel narrative ; two for Easter, preached on the eve ; two for Ascen- siontide ; three for Pentecost, containing theological statements ; four for the Pente- costal fast ; four on the feasts on St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lawrence ; nine on the fast of the seventh month ; one on the Beatitudes ; and one against Eutyches when some Egyptian merchants arrived who tried to justify the doings of the Egyptian Eutychians. Leo's stvle is generally forcible, and always to the point — businesslike and severe, epi- grammatic and terse in expression. No doubt the love of epigram and antithesis, character- istic of his age, always tends to simple man- nerism and obscurity, but in Leo the tendency is under control ; he is almost always weighty and clear, and sometimes eloquent. To impress his meaning, he has no objection what- ever to repeating himself {Serin, xxv. init.). Some epistles (e.g. Epp. cxxiv. and clxv.) are extremely similar even in language. His sermons are in very much the same style as his epistles. Sozomen (vii. 19) says " that in his day in Rome neither bishop nor any one else teaches the people in the church." This statement is denied and its meaning disputed (cf. notes in loc. and Migne, Fair. Iv. p. 197), but at least we should judge from Leo's ser- mons that there is no tradition of pulpit eloquence behind him. His tone is that of the Christian bishop, reproving, exhorting, and instructing with the severity of a Roman censor (Milman, Lat. Christianity, i. 233). Sometimes indeed he rises to eloquence, but generally speaks with a terse brevity, more adapted, but for its epigrams which would ; catch the ear, to be read than merely listened I to. The sermons are mostly very short, and the practical aspect of the truth as opposed to the speculative is specially prominent. If Christ has renewed our nature, we must live up to the possibilities of the nature He has renewed. The mystery of the Incarnation is incomprehensible by the understanding ; but for that let us rejoice, " sentiamus nobis bonum esse quod vincimur " {Serm. xxix.). Christ must be God and man — man to unite us to Himself, God to save us, " Expergiscere igitur, o homo, et dignitatem tuae cognosce naturae ; recordare te factum ad imaginem Dei, quae etsi in Adam corrupta in Christo tamen est reformata " (xxvii. 6). Leo's theological statements are always LEO I. characterized by great clearness, fulness, strength, an intense reverence for dogma, and a deep conviction of its supreme importance. His theology is throughout of the Western type, for he is wholly on the practical, not on the speculative, side of theology. Philosophi- cal theory, speculation on the relation of the Persons in the Trinity, there is none, only a clear and powerful grasp upon the dogma as an inexpugnable truth of quite incompara- able practical importance. Moreover, his statement of the doctrine of the Trinity is Western, tallying with the Athanasian Creed, with none of the Eastern doctrine of " subor- dination " remaining, " In Trinitate enim divina, nihil dissimile, nihil impar est, ut omnibus existentiae gradibus exclusis, nulla ibi Persona sit anterior, nulla posterior " {Serm. Ixxv. ; Ixxvi. 2, cf. Serm. xxii. 2, where he interprets " My Father is greater than I " of the Incarnate Son only). Being ignorant of Greek, he could not be versed in Eastern theology ; but in the " testimonia patrum " {Ep. ccxv.), more Greek than Latin fathers are quoted (of course from translations). His Doctrine of the Incarnation. — This was produced in antagonism to Eutychianism and is coloured by this antagonism. The Euty- chianism which he opposes is not so much the particular doctrine of the particular man as that which he represents — namely, the denial of the real and permanent humanity of Jesus Christ. He presents a dilemma to Eutyches : either, he says, denying as you do the two natures in Christ, you must hold the impiety of .\pollinaris, and assert that the Deity was converted into flesh and became passible and mortal, or if you shrink from that you fall into the Manichean madness of denying the reality of the body and the bodily acts {Ep. cxxiv. 2). If he can escape from this dilemma, he is sure to be only veering to the opposite pole of Arianism. For Christ is spoken of as being "raised," "exalted," etc. What is exalted if the humanity is not real ? You must assert the divinity of Christ to be an inferior one, capable of exaltation (Ep. lix. 3). Thus Eutyches is to Leo the representative of the " Manichean impiety," as he is fond of calling it, which denies the reality of our Lord's manhood. This gives him his starting-point to assert our Lord's true and perpetual humanity, while avoiding the contrary Nes- torian error of abstracting from His perfect divinity, which was always being charged upon the anti-Eutychians, "in integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris . . . humana augens, divina non minuens " (Ep. xxviii. 3). The human nature was really created and really assumed ; created in being assumed (Ep. xxxvi. 3). There is the whole of human nature, body and soul, and the whole of the divine (Ep. xxxv. 2) ; each nature remains distinct in its operations, " glorificata per- manet in glorificante, Verbo scilicet operante quod Verbi est et carne exsequente quodcarnis est. Unum horum coruscat miraculis, aliud succumbit injuriis " ; " proprietas divinae humanaeque naturae individua permanet." All through the life he traces the duality of the operations in the unity of the Person (Epp. xxviii.; cxxiv. 5). And so perfect is this unity LEO I. that what is proper to one nature can be ascribed to the other (" conununicatio idionia- turn," c. 5). The unity is not a mere inhabita- tion of the Creator in the created nature, but a real mingling of the one nature with the other, though they remain distinct {Strm. xxiii. § I), and the result is " ut idem esset dives in paupertate, omnipotens in abjectione, impassibilisin supplicio, iinmortalisin morte " {Ep. XXXV. 2). Just as the visible light is contaminated by none of the tilth on which it sheds itself, so the essence of the eternal and incorporeal light could be polluted by nothing which it assumed {Serm. xxxiv. 4). In proof of this doctrine of the Incarnation Leo appeals to several classes of evidence, sometimes to the anakigies of reason — why, he urges, cannot the divinity and humanity be one person, when soul and body in man form one person ? {Ep. xxvi. 2) ; constantly to Scripture — the very soiurce of heresy is that man will not labour "in the broad fields of Holy Scripture " (" in latitudine SS.," Ep. xxviii. I and 2) ; constantly to the creeds and the past of the church (for he hates novelty) — it is the creed which introduces us to Scrip- ture {Ep. cxxviii. i) ; we need not blush to believe what apostles and those whom they taught, what niart\TS and confessors believed {Epp. clxv. 9 ; clii.j ; but Leo very often and very characteristically appeals also to conse- quences, and looks at a doctrine in the light of the necessities of the church's life. What becomes of the salvation of our human nature if Christ have it not ? How can He be the Head of the new race? How can He clothe our human nature with His divine ? (" Caro enim Christi velamen est verbi, quo onmis qui ipsum integre confitetur induitur," Ep. lix. 4). What is the meaning of the Holy Com- munion of His Body and Blood, the very pur- pose of which is that, receiving the virtue of the heavenly food, we may pass into (" tran- seamus in ") His flesh Who became our flesh ? {Ep. lix. 2 ; cf. also Serm. xci. 3). What becomes of the resurrection and ascension ; nay, what becomes of His mediation ? How does He reconcile man to God if He ha\'e not the whole of humanity, except sin ? {Ep. cxxiv. 6, 7, and Serm. xxv. 5, etc.). The Atonement. — Leo holds the view once prevalent, but now utterly abandoned, which may be stated out of his writings as follows. Man in his fallen state was in slavery to the devil, and, as by his own free will he had fallen, justly so. The devil had certain rights j over him which he would retain unless that humanity which he had conquered could conquer him again. In redeeming man, God chose to overcome the devil rather by the rule of justice than of power. To this end He • became Man. The Incarnation deceived the devil. He knew not with Whom he was matched. He saw a Child suffering the sor- rows and pains of childhood ; he saw Him ' grow by natural stages to manhood, and I having had so many proofs that He was mortal [ He concluded that He was infected with the | poison of original sin. So he set in force 1 against Him, as though exercising a right upon sin-stained humanity, all methods and uistru- | ments of persecution, thinking that, if He, ! Whose virtues exceeded so far those of all LEO ess sanits. must yield i.. d.-.uh and His mmt* availed not to deliver Mini, he w..ul,| |„. s.h iirc of every one else for ever. Hut in p.-rsecutin^ and slaying Christ, Whom was he slaviiiK " One Who was man. but sinless, Who .,wr<| him nothmg. and thus, bv i-x.icting the penally of inKinity from Mini in Whom he had f..uiid no fault, he went bev..nd his right. I ho covenant which bound man to the devil w.»» thus broken. His injustice in di manding too much cancelled the whole debt of tiian due to him. Man was free. {.Serm. xxii. ^ 4 |xix 3 ; cf. xvi. I, Ixi. 4. The nails whi< h pierre<i our Lord's hands and feet transfixed the devil with perpetual wounds, Ixiv. 2, 3.) Thus to effect our redemption, Christ must have b'ren both man and (.od ; and it was necessarv that He should suffer and die by the operations of the devil ; and His death has a value different in kind from that of all the saints {Serm. Ixiv 2. 3 ; hx. I). t)n the cross of Christ the ob- lation of human nature was made bv a saving victim (Iv. 3). His death, the Just for the unjust, was a price of infinite value (Ivi. 3 ■ Ivu. 4). According to this theory, the price was paid to the devil and man was free • " redemptio aufert captivitatem et regenerati.'i mutat t>riginem et fides justificat jieccatorem " (xxii. 4). Nothing is said about— there is hardly clear room left for— an oblation to Gotl. Elsewhere, however, Leo speaks of Christ as offering a " new and true sacrifice of recon- ciliation to His Father " {Sertn. lix. 5 ; cf. Ep. cxxiv. 2, where the sacrifice is clearly con- ceived as offered to the Father. Cf! also Serm. Ixiv. 2, 3). The Doctrine of Grace. — Living, though Leo did, in a time when this doctrine was still in dispute, and mixed up, as he ha«l been, in part of the dispute, we have little in' his genuine works on the subject. He speaks of it indeed {Ep. i. 3) in orthodox terms. " The whole gift of God's works depends upon the previous operation of God [' omnis bonoruin operum donatio, divina praeparatio est '], for no man is justified by virtue before he is [justified] by grace, which is to every man the beginning of righteousness, the fount of gootl, and the source of merit." Nothing in us, he implies, can antedate the operation uf gr.iVe ; all in us needs the salvation of Christ ; but this grace of (iod which alone justifies was given, not for the first time, but in larger measure (" aucta non coepta ") by Christ's birth, and this "sacrament of great holim-ss " (the Incarnation) was so powerful, even m its previous indications (" tain poteiis eliaiii in significationibus suis"), that they who hoped in the promise received it no less than thev who accepted the gift " {Serm. xxii. 4). On this subject he often dwells ; the Incarnation is the consummation of a previous presence and operation of the S..n {Serm. xxv. 4). .Ml through the O. T. men were justified by the same faith, and made part of the b.niy ..( Christ by the same sacrament {Serm. xxx. 7 ; liv. I). This same truth comes out in his sermons on Pentecost. There is perfec t eiiual- ity. he there says, in the Trinity. " It is eternal to the Father to be the Father of the ci>-eternal -Son. It is eternal to the Son to bo begotten of the Father out of all lime. It n eternal to the Holy Spirit to be the Spirit of 656 LEO I. the Father and the Son ; so that the Father has never been without the Son, nor the Son without the Father, nor the Father and the Son without the Spirit. Thus the unchangeable Deity of the blessed Trinity is one in sub stance, undivided and inseparable in operation, concordant in will, alike in power, equal in glory." " What the Father is, that is the Son, and that is the Holy Spirit " ; and what the Father does, that does the Son, and that does the Holy Spirit. There was no beginning to the operation of the Holy Spirit upon man since his creation. The descent at Pentecost was not the " beginning of a gift, but the addition of fulness" (" adjectio largitatis ") (Serm. Ixxvi. 3). The difference has lain not in the virtue and reality of the gifts, but in their measure (cf. on the unity of divine pur- pose and love, from first to last of the divine economv, the end of c. 3 of " the tome"). Leo holds that the " merits " of saints can work wonders and aid the church on earth (Serm. v. 4). He often speaks of St. Peter assisting his people with his prayers (xii. xiii. xvi. ad. fin., etc.) and with his merits (Ixxxi. 4). So also of St. Laurence (Ixxxv.). He attributes the deliverance of the city from the barbarians to the " care of the saints" (Ixxxiv. i). The Leonine Sacra- mentary, which certainly contains much of Leo's age, is full of such prayers as " adjuva nos, Domine, tuorum prece sanctorum, ut quorum festa gerimus sentiamus auxihum " (cf. Ep. Iviii. init. ; ci. 3, for similar sentiments). But he never speaks of the blessed Virgin as aiding, nor of any saints but St. Peter, St. Paul (Serm. Ixxxii. fin.), and St. Laurence ; nor does he invoke them, or direct them to be invoked, though he believes that they are aiding the church by their patronage, prayers, or merits. Elsewhere, distinguishing the value of the deaths of the saints from that of Christ, he very zealously guards the prerogative of Christ as the real source of merit. To relics he makes no allusion, except where he rejoices that those of St. Flavian had been brought back to Constantinople (Ep. Ixxix. 2), and perhaps when, writing to Eudocia and Juvenal in Palestine, he seeks to stir their faith through the local memorials of Christ's passion (Epp. cxxxix. 2 ; cxxiii.). Comparing his works with Gregory's, we are struck by the total absence of superstition in Leo. His sermons " are singularly Christian — Christian as dwelling almost exclusively on Christ : His birth, His passion. His resurrection " (Milman, Lat. Christ, i. p. 233). We find constant refer- ence to the special dangers and wants of his time — e.g. warnings against the prevalent Manicheism. When he converted a number of Manicheans, he at once applied his sermon, re- gardless of repeating himself, to instruct them (Serm. xxv. i). He reproves the people for for- saking the commemoration of the deliverance of the city, probably from Genseric, which he had instituted on the feast of SS. Peter and Paul, for games and spectacles, and he exhorts them to gratitude to God (Ixxxiv.). He reproves idolatrous practices in the church. Magic, charms, cabalistic doctrines, even a worship of the rising sun, were in vogue. Christians, on their way into St. Peter's basilica, would turn and bow to the sun (Ixxxiv. 2 ; xxvii. 4). LEO I. This worship, which, as he says, was half pagan, akin to that of the Priscillianists and Mani- cheans, and half due to ignorance in people who really meant to worship the Creator, but which in any case was akin to idolatry, he deeply deplores and earnestly prohibits. Leo especially urges purity, strictness, and severity of life, in an age no longer disciplined by persecutions. " Kings now," he says, " do not so much pride themselves on being born to empire as rejoice that thev are reborn in baptism." The devil tries by avarice and ease those whom troubles could not alienate (xxxvi. 3). Hence the interest of his sermons in Lent and at the other fasts of the " Quattuor Tempora " and those (on almsgiving) " de Collectis." * Prayers, fasting, and almsgiving are, in his view, the three chief parts of Christian duty. " By prayer the mercy of God is sought ; by fasting, the lusts of the flesh are extinguished ; by almsgiving, our sins are atoned for [ ' redimun- tur']." "The most effectual petition for pardon lies in alms and fasting, and the prayer which is assisted by such suffrages rises more speedily to the ears of God " (xii. 4, xvi. 2). He uses almsgiving in a large sense almost equivalent to love (xliv. 2). " Alms destroy sins " (Serm. vii., quoted from Ecclus. iii. 30), " abolish death, extinguish the penalty of eternal fire " (x.). It is a grace without which we can have no other (x.). " He who has cleansed himself by almsgiving need not doubt that even after many sins the splendour of the new birth will be restored to him" (xx. ad fin.). But we must look how we give, so as not, e.g., to overlook the retiring ; we must " understand about " the poor (ix. 3 ; " Bea- tus qui intelligii super," Ps. xl. i). Our gifts should go to those who do not yet believe as well as to Christians (xii. 3), and special thought- fulness is enjoined for slaves. What God looks to is, he often insists, not the amount, but the spirit of the gift : " ibi censetur quali- tus actionis, ubi invenitur initium voluntatis " (xciv. i) ; " nulli parvus est census, cui mag- nus est animus " (Serm. xl. 4) ; and gifts given not in the spirit of faith, though ever so large, avail nothing (xliv. 2). Love, he insists, is the fumUing of the law. Truth and mercy, faith and love, go together. "There is no love without faith, no faith without love" (cf. esp. Serm. xlv.). Fasting, too, is constantly en- joined. Virtue is a very narrow mean (xliii. 2), and strict self-disciphne is ever absolutely necessary. But fasting is a means, not an end. It must not proceed from any belief in matter being evil in itself. " No substance is evil, and evil in itself has no nature" (xlii. 4). The object of fasting is to make the body apt for pure, holy, and spiritual activity — to subject ihe flesh to the reason and spirit. " A man has true peace and liberty when the flesh is ruled by the judgment of the mind, and the tnind is directed by the government of God " fxxxix. 2 ; xhi. 2). He insists strongly on this dominion of the mind. Otherwise " parum est si carnis substantia tenuatur et animae for- titudo non ahtur " ; " continendum est a cibis • I.e. at that stated period of the year when offer- ings were made in the Roman church, by an old custom instituted in place of a still older pagan solemnity; cf. Admonit. in Serm. vi. Migne. i LEO I. sed multo inagis ab irroribus jtjuaaiuliiin " (xci. 2). The " abstiueiitia jcjuuantis " must be the " refectio pauperis" (xiii.) ; " seii- tiant hutnanitatem iiostram ae^ritudines de- cumbentiiini, imbecillitates dcbiliuin, hibores exuluni, destitutio pupilloruin et desolatarum maestitudti viduaruin " (xl. 4). Fasting with- out such works of mercy is not a puriftcation of the soul, but a mere affliction of the flesh (xv.). In Lent, prisoners are to be set free and debts forgiven (xli. 3). If a man cannot fast from bodily weakness, let him do works of love (Ixxxvii. 3). Through all Leo's sermons in jienitential seasons there runs a great sense of the unity of the church's work and the co-operation of all her members in the penitential discipline and prayers. " The fullest abolition of sins is obtained when the whole church joins in one prayer and one confession " (Ixxxviii. 3). The merit of holy obedience is the strength of the church against her enemies (Ixxxviii. 2, 3). Public acts are better than individual ones (Ixxxix. 2). Leo's remedies for sins — as well those of habitual laxity as the more venial and accidental — are self-examination, penitential works, fasts, prayers, works of mercy and moral self-dis- cipline as the means of purification (cf. 1. i, 2 ; Ixxxviii. 3 ; xli. i ; xliii. 3). Forgiveness of injuries (xliii. 4) and the exercise of love (xlv.) are insisted on from this point of view : " qui potuit malitia pollui, studeat benignitate pur- gari " (xlv. 4). The Christian is purified by moral effort and discipline and his sanctifica- tion is his purification (but cf. xcii. i ; 1. i, 2 ; Ixxxviii. 5). Another aspect of Leo's work as an ecclesi- astical writer remains to be considered. " The collect as we have it is Western in every feature : in that ' unity of sentiment and severity of style ' which Lord Macaulay has admired ; in its Roman brevity and majestic conciseness, its freedom from all luxuriant ornament and all inflation of phraseology " (Bright, Ancient Collects, append. 206) ; and there is no early Western writer to whose style it bears a closer resemblance and with whose character it is more consonant than that of Leo, its reputed inventor. How much of Leo's work the fragment of the Sacramentary attributed to him by its first editor in 1735. P. Joseph Blanchinius, actually contains, it is impossible to say. " Muratori holds it to be a series of Missae, clumsily put together by a private person at the end of the 5th cent., containing much that [Leo] wrote." Certainly it is Roman, certainly the oldest Roman ^ac- ramentarv, and certainly it contains much which is in the stvle and expresses the doctrine of St. Leo. As certainly Leo's work, (Juesncl with propriety specifies two noble " prefaces," for the consecration of a bishop and a pres- byter (" Deus honorum omnium," and " Domine sancte," § xxvii. 11 1 and 113, Migne), and an " Allocutio archidiacoiii ad episcopum pro reconciliaticme poenitentium " (at the end of the Sacramentary in Migne's ed.). In the Liber Pontificalis the addition of the words " sanctum sacrificium, immacula- tam hostiam " to the Canon of the Mass is ascribed to Leo (Migne, Pair. liv. p. 1233)- Collects in the F,nglish Prayer-book derived from the Leonine Sacramentary are those for LEO I. or. 7 the 3rd Sun. alter l-..ist.r (rrlerrniK' -.iiK'iuallv to those who had been baptiitxi <iii li.ntrr Eve), the ?ith Sun. alter Trinitv (suggested originally by thedisastersof the dying Western empire), and the <jth. nth, and 14th Simdav* after Trinitv. (See Hright, pp. joS. 2<x)). Before concluding this notice of Leo as a theologian, we must mention a statement o| Gennadius (de Script. Eccles. Ixxxiv. ; Patr. Lat. Iviii. 1107), that the letters of p..pr I.ro on the true Incarnation of Christ are said to have been addressed to their various destina- tions, and dictated (" ad divers<is datac cl dictatae ") by Prosper of Aquitaine. It is also stateil that one or two of Leo's sermons are found in one MS. assigned to St. IVospcr. But (lennadius himself attributes " the tome," the chief of Leo's letters on the Incarnation, absolutely to his own hand (c. Ixx). It is very probable that Leo shouUl have brought Prosper, " doctissimus illorum tcmporum," with him from (iaul to Rome, to assist him in his conflicts with heresy : he may have been secretary to him, as Jerome was to pope Damasus • ; he may S|)erially have exerted himself for St. Leo against the Pelagians. But the unity and individuality of style which run all through St. Leo's writings, and which appear not least strongly marked in his dog- matic epistles, forbid us to attribute to Pros- per in any sense their authorship, though he may have assisted in their compositi<in. (Cf. Tillem. xv. p. 540, xvi. 25, and note 7 on St. Prosper ; Arendt, Leo der Grosse, p. 417, etc.) Leo is said to have restored the silver ornaments of the churches of Rt.me after the ravages of the Vandals, and repaired the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, placing a mosaic in the latter which represented the adoration of the four-and-twenty elders ; and to have built a basilica in honour of St. Corne- lius, established some monks by the church of St. Peter, instituted guardians, called at first " cubicularii," and afterwards " capellani," for the tombs of the apostles (Tillem. xv. art. 73; Vita Anaslasii, .Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 55. 1234) ; and received St. Valentine, bp. of Passau, at Rome and sent him to missionary work in Rhaltia (Tillem. xv. 175). Leo died in 461 (Marcell. Chron., etc.). pos- sibly on Nov. 10 (Tillem. xv. n. 73). He was buried in the church of St. Peter, where, it is said, no previous pope not a martyr was burie<l (Anast. Vita Pontif., Patr. Lat. liv. p. 60, Migne). He has been honoured as a saint and confessor. Benedict XIV. in 17S4 decreed him the title of a doctor ecclesiae (Patr. Lat. Iv. H^s). He is commemorated in the Roman church on Apr. II ; in the Kastern on Feb. i« (.^.^. S.S. Apr. ii. p. 15)- I The genuine works of Leo which we possess are g6 sermons and 173 letters. On works ' ascribed to him (the de Vocatione, etc.) con- suit discussions in Mignc's Patr. IM. ^ For history of edd. see SchiM-nemann's Sotitia j Hist.-Lit. in S. Leonem, prefixed to Mignc's rd. The most famous editions of his whole works ' • II .appears pre.»>at.Ic that Fp. cxx. (to ThciKlorcl) wa.i written by a nccrctury. and Ihut \,tv'* prrw.nal saliitiitlon U atlilcl nt the mil. Sec cmclmllnK ' worcls, "ct aliii mnnu. Dciw tc lnc«>Iumrm ciutiMjUt, fratcr chnrUslme." Cf. conclusion of Ep. cxsxill. , (Protcriu* to l,co), and Marclan* letter, hp. c. 42 658 LEONTIUS are Quesnel's (Paris, 1675), a work of consum- mate learning, but condemned by the popes because of its strong Gallican opinions, and the ed. of the Ballerini (Venice, 1753-1757), which re-edited Quesnel in the Roman interest. This is now the standard ed. and is reproduced in the Patr. Lat. of Migne, vols. liv. Iv. Ivi. Select sermons and letters of St. Leo have been edited byH. Hurter, S.J., in Sanc.Patrum Opuscula Selecta, vols. xiv. and xxv. There is an Eng. trans, of selected sermons, with theo- logical notes and " the tome " in the original by Dr. Bright (Lond. 1862). Materials and Authorities. — i. Leo's own works, ii. The contemporary chronicles of Prosper, Idatius, etc. ; Acta of council of Chalcedon, etc. iii. Various Lives of Leo, church histories, etc., especially (i) a very brief life in Hist, de Vitis Romanorum Ponti- ficum of Anastasius Bibliothecarius (9th cent.) in Migne's Patr. Lat. cxxviii. pp. 299 sqq. ; (2) De Vita et Gestis S. Leonis in ib. Iv. 153 sqq. ; (3) The exhaustive, accurate, and impartial MemoireoiTiUemont(Ment. eccl. xv. 414-832), {4) Ceillier's Auteurs sacres, vol. x. (for Leo's works) ; (5) The BoUandist Life by Canisino, A A. SS. Apr. ii. 15, of very little value ; and, omitting various partisan lives on both sides; (6) an admirable judgment of Leo's life and works, viewing him chiefly as the architect of the papacy, in Bohringer's Die Kirche Christi und ihre Zengen, i. 4, pp. 170-309 ; (7) Mil- man's, Lat. Christ, vol. i. c. 4, an excellent account of Leo and his time ; (8) Bright's Hist, of the Church, cc. xiv. xv. ; (9) Alzog's Grundriss der Patr. § 78 ; and (10) " Leo I." in Herzog's Real-Encycl. A short popular Life by the present writer is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their series of Fathers for Eng. Readers. A trans, of Leo's letters and sermons is ed. by Dr. Feltoe in the Lib. of Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, [cc] LeontiUS (2), bp. of Antioch, a.d. 348-357 ; a Phrygian by birth (Theod. H. E. ii. 10), and, like many leading Ariaus, a disciple of the celebrated teacher Lucian (Philostorg. iii. 15). When the see of Antioch became vacant by the removal of Stephen, the emperor Constan- tius effected the appointment of Leontius, who strove to avoid giving offence to either Arians or orthodox. One of the current party tests was whether the doxology was used in our present form or in that which the Arians (ib. 13) maintained to be the more ancient, " Glory be to the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Ghost." Those who watched Leontius could never make out more of his doxology than " world without end. Amen" (Theod. ii. 19). Among the orthodox of his flock were two asce- tics, Flavian and Diodorus, who, though not yet advanced to the priesthood, had very great influence because of their holy lives. To them Theodoret ascribes the invention of the practice of dividing the choir into two and chanting the Psalms of David antiphonically, a use of the church of Antioch which legend soon attributed to its martyr-bishop Ignatius (Socr. vi. 8). They assembled the devout at the tombs of the martyrs and spent the whole night in singing of hymns. Leontius could not forbid this popular devotion, but re- quested its leaders to hold their meetings in church, a request with which they complied. Leontius foresaw that on his death the con- LEONTIUS duct of affairs was likely to fall into less cautious hands, and, touching his white hairs predicted, " When this snow melts there will be much mud." The orthodox, however, complained that he shewed manifest bias in advancing unworthy Arians. In particular he incurred censure by his ordination to the diaconate of his former pupil Aetius, after- wards notorious as an extreme Arian leader. On the strong protest of Flavian and Diodorus Leontius suspended Aetius from ecclesiastical functions. Philostorgius (iii. 27) relates that Leontius subsequently saved the life of Aetius by clearing him from false charges made to the emperor Gallus. When Athanasius came to Antioch, he communicated not with Leon- tius and the dominant party, but with the ultra-orthodox minority called Eustathians, who had refused to recognize any other bishop while the deposed Eustathius was alive and who worshipped in private conventicles, Leontius accused Athanasius of cowardice in running away from his own church. The taunt stung Athanasius deeply. He wrote his Apologia de Fuga in reply to it, and always speaks bitterly of Leontius, seldom omitting the opprobrious epithet 6 a.ir6Kviroi. He even (de Fug. 26) accuses the aged bishop of criminality in his early relations with Eusto- lium. If there had been any proof of this, Leontius would have been deposed not for mutilation but for corrupting a church virgin ; and if it had been believed at Antioch the respect paid him by orthodox members of his flock would be inconceivable. The censure of so great a man irretrievably damaged Leon- tius in the estimation of succeeding ages, and his mildness and moderation have caused him to be compared to one of those hidden reefs which are more dangerous to mariners than naked rocks. Yet we may charitably think that the gentleness and love of peace which all attest were not mere hypocrisy, and may impute his toleration of heretics to no worse cause than insufficient appreciation of the serious issues involved. The Paschal Chronicle, p. 503, quotes the authority of Leontius for its account of the martyrdom of Babylas. Leontius died at the end of 357 or beginning of 358. Athanasius, writing in 358, Hist. Ar., speaks of him as still living, but perhaps the news had not reached Athanasius. [g.s.] Leontius (62), a scholasticus of Byzantium, and afterwards a monk in Palestine, who wrote c. 610 a Gk. treatise de Sectis (Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 1193 ; Cave, 1-543; Ceillier, xi. 666). Cf. Fessler Jungmann, Inst. Patr. ii. 2, p. 95 ; but esp. F. Loofs, Leontius von Byzanzund die Gletchnamigen Schrifts teller der Griechischen Kirche (Leipz. 1887) ; also Herzog's Encycl. 3rd ed. s.v. " Leonz. von Byzanz." Ft.w.d] Leontius (74), priest and martyr of Ar- menia in the reign of Isdigerd II. of Persia. He acted a conspicuous part in the stand of the Armenian church against the court of Persia, as related chieflv in the History of Vartan by Elisha Vartabed and in the his- torical work of Lazarus of Barb. In Nov. 450 700 magian priests, sent under escort to in- struct the Armenians in the court religion, arrived at Ankes in the centre of Armenia. There having lain encamped for 25 days, they ordered the church to be broken open. Thus LEOVIGILD commenced the ixrsecutiiit; vi>)leiice of Persia. Leontius, putting himself at the head of his people, drove the inagiaii party to flight, after which divine service went on in the church unmolested through the day- A general rising followed, and in 451 ()6,ooo Armenian Christians mustered under prince Vartan in the plain of Artass to encounter the Persian army. Joseph and a large body of his clergy, including I.eontius, were present to encourage the Christian forces (Lazarus, § 34 in Langl. ii. I 296, 297 ; Elisha. u. inf.). I.eontius, who is everywhere mentioned with Joseph, and is usually the orator, as he is the cliief inspirer, of the whole movement, delivered a fervent address before the battle (given fully bv I.ang- lois), dwelling on the examples of IMiineas, Elijah, Gideon, and other famous believers in O.T. (Langl. ii. 218). The battle (June 2, 451, ib. 298 note) was lost and a remnant found refuge in the stronghold of Pag. This too was taken and many clergy were put to death. Joseph, Leontius, and their companions, were taken to the court of Persia, and put on their defence. Finally they and four others were executed on the 25th of the month Hroditz in the i6th year of Isdigerd (a.d. 455), in the \ province of Abar, near a village of the M<igs 1 named Revan. The account of the martyr- dom has every appearance of being a genuine coeval record, simple, natural, unlegendary. Lazarus himself wrote in the following genera- tion, and his position gave him access to the best authorities, which he describes, especially assuring his readers that he faithfully reports , the last words of the martyrs. The most 1 severely dealt with was Leontius, he being regarded as the chief instigator of the Ar- menian resistance. The general history of these events may be read in Saint-Martin's Le Beau, t. vi. pp. 258-318. [c.h.] Leovi^ld (Leuvichild), Arian king of the Visigoths in Spain from 569 to Apr. or May 586. His reign and that of his successor, the convert Keccared, represent the crisis of Visigothic history, religious and political. Upon the death of Athanagild in the winter of 567, the C.othic throne remained unfilled until in 568 Leova, dux of the Septiinanian province, was made king by the magnates of Gallia Gothica. In 569 he assigned to his younger brother Leovigild the government of the Spanish portion. In the first year of his reign Leovigild married (ioisvintha, the widow of his predecessor Athanagild and a strong Arian (Greg. Tur. H. F. v. 39). By a pre- vious marriage he had two sons, Hermenigild and Reccared. Leovigild faced the situation with success. His first campaign (a.d. 569) was against the Byzantine settlers and garri- sons of the Baza and Malaga districts. For 20 years Cordova had refused to acknowledge the lordship of the (;oths, and the great town of the Baetis had been the headquarters of the Imperialist and Catholic power in the Peninsula. Its fall (early in 572 ?) was a heavy blow to the imperial cause in Spain (Joannes Bid. Esp. Sagr. vi. 377). In 572 (573 according to J. Bid.) Leova died, and Leovigild remained master of both divisions of the kingdom. Hermenigild' s Rebellion.— \n 572 (or 573) the king had made both the sons of bis first LEOVIGILD fl59 marriage " consortes r.-K'iii " (). Hid. p. 378), and b.fore 580 b.tli wer.- h.-trothed to Krank- ish prinres'its. Hi-nnrnigild to his •itrp-nirc« Ingunthis, granddaughter of (.oisvintha, l.r<)- vigild's second wife, Reccared to InKuntliis'f first cousin, Rigunthis, daughter ..( i hilp.-ric and Frcdegonde. In sSo nernifiiigild's liridr, a girl of 12 or 13, passed the Pvrenrr*, " rum magno apparatu " ((Ireg. Tur. v. 39). having been exhorted on her way by bp. FMiiiinius of .\gde to hold fast her orthotlox profession in the midst of the Arian family into which she had married, and who no doubt expcrted hrr to become an Arian. Slie stood firm, and dissension speedily arose with her .^ri.ui grandmother. In order to secure f.miilv peace Leovigild assigned to Hermenigild and Ingunthis the town of Seville, where the in- fluence of his wife, says (iregory of Tours — of the famous metropolitan of Uaetica, I.eander, according to Gregory the Great, Dial. in. 41 — converted Hermenigild to Catholicism (Wis/. Fr. V. 39; Paul. Diac. VV. iii. 21). He was confirmed in the orthodox faith by I.eander. The son thus placed himself in opposition to his father and to all the Gothic traditions, and was brought into natural alliance with the forces threatening the (lothic state, with the Byzantines in the S., the Suevi in the N., and the disaffection smouldering among l.eovi- gild's i>rt)vincial subjects. The young coujile may well have appeared to the Catholics con- venient instruments for dealing a deadly blow at the heretical Gothic mt)narchy ; while in the case of the Byzantines a strictly political motive would also be present. The peril was a grave one. Leovigild, with a combination of energy and prudence, as- sembled a council of Arian bishops (581, men- tioned in C. Tol. iii. as occurring in the 12th year of Leovigild), which drew up a formula designed to facilitate the conversion of Catholics to Arianism. Rebaptism was no longer demanded as heretofore. Converts should give glorv to th.- Father " per Filiuin in Spiritu Sancto." (The Gloria Pafri plays an important part in the history of Spanish Arianism. Cf. Greg, of Tours's conversation with Leovigild's envoy, the Arian Oppila— Hist. Franc, vi. 40, and C. Tol. iii.) A Melius containing the decisions of the council was widely circulated (C. Tol. iii. 16 ; Tejada y Ramiro, ii.) and other temptations were offered to the Catholic bishops and clergv. Isiilore and Joannes mournfullv confess that many yielded. The king also began to pay scrupulous respect t<> Catholic fcding and bilief and to Catholic saints, and to pray in Catholic churches (Greg. Tur. vi. i»). " I believe." he is reported to have said. " with firmness that Jesus Christ is the Son ..f <..>d. ecjual to the Father, but I do not at all believe that the Holv Ghost is G.mI, since in no book of Scripture do we re.ul that He is G.hL" Bv such means Leovigild endeavoured to scrure the Catholic party within the ternt-Ty outside Hennenigild's influence. During isHi and 582 Hermenigild had as- sumed a more and more foniii.lablc positi.)n. but Leovigild ni.-irche<l S. to the siege of Seville, which Iast.-<1 through ^83 into ^^^. .iiid I after the fall of Seville up the (iuadal.iuivir I valley to Cordova. Here the rebeUioncoUap»<rd. 660 LEOVIOILD The imperial prefect was bribed to give up Hermenigild, who took refuge in a church, whence he was tempted by the promises of his father and brother. Leovigild embraced and pardoned him within the church, but as soon as he was drawn thence is reported to have ordered him to be despoiled of his royal dress and of his servants {Hist. Franc, vi. 43). He was conveyed to Toledo, and thence exiled to Valencia (a.d. 584) (Joh. Bid. p. 383), and in 586 met his death at Tarraco at the hands of Sisebert. Upon this brilliant success followed the final incorporation of the Suevi with the Gothic state in 585. Persecution of the Catholics. — Leovigild had crushed the Catholic and Byzantine con- spiracy of which Hermenigild had been the instrument, and there followed an outbreak of that savage and fanatical temper so charac- teristic of the Visigothic race. The persecut- ing temper of the Arian kings, however, had always some political justification. The Catholic church was the natural foe of her Arian rulers, and when her attempts to shake them off failed, it was inevitable that the penalty should fall heavily on her and on her bishops. Leander of Seville was banished, Fronimius of Agde was obliged to fly into Merovingian territory {Hist. Franc, ix. 24), an Arian bishop was sent to Merida, and Masona, after ineffectual attempts by the king to win him over to Arianism, was imprisoned (Paulus Emerit. Esp. Sagr. xiii. p. 369). From the signatures at the conversion council it is evident that in many sees, especially within the newly annexed Suevian territory, a large but indefinite number of Catholic bishops were replaced by Arians. (On the general subject of the persecution, cf. Greg. Tur. v. 39, and for various doubtful details of it, see Greg. Tur. Glor. Conf. xii. ; Glor. Mart. Ixxxii. ; and de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emerit. c. xi.) Leovigild died in Apr. or May, 586, at Toledo, according to some reports constant to the beliefs in which he had lived, according to others — less trustworthy — a repentant con- vert to Catholicism, mourning over the un- righteous death of his first-born son. " Leovigild's reign," says Dahn, "repre- sents the last attempt to maintain the Gothic state in its traditional aspects and character by the strenuous use of all possible weapons against its traditional dangers — war with Catholicism, chastisement of the nobility, reinvigoration of the monarchy, and defence of it against its hostile neighbours " (v. 150). An Arian monarchy, strong in all directions — towards its own pillars and supporters, the Gothic nobles, towards foreign outsiders, and towards its natural enemy Catholicism — this appears to have been Leovigild's ideal. To its influence may be traced most of the actions of his government, the association of his sons, his treatment of the rebellious and murderous nobles, his attitude towards the Catholic bishops, and, above all, certain alterations in the outer aspects of Gothic kingship which mark his reign and shew him prepared to accept just so much of Roman custom as would further his ends. The conversations which Gregory of Tours reports between himself and Leovigild's Arian envoys on their way through Tours to Soissons LEUCIUS or Paris (H. F. v. 44 ; vi. 40) throw much light upon the every-day social relations between Arianism and Catholicism at the time. Sources. — Joannes Biclarensis, abbat of Biclaro and bp. of Gerona, a contemporary of Leovigild, his Chronicon, apud Florez. Esp, Sagr. vi. ; Isidore of Seville, writing c. 630, Hist. Goth. ib. ; Paulus Diaconus Emeri- tensis, fl. 650, de Vit. et Mir. Patr. Emeriten- sium Esp. Sagr. xiii. Dahn's Konige der Germanen remains the best account of the reign in point of insight and treatment ; an exhaustive discussion of all the moot points is that by Prof. F. Gorres, " Kritische Untersuch- ungen iiber den Auf stand unddas Martyrium des westgothischen Konigssohnes Hermenigild," in Zeitschrift fur hist. Theol. (1873). [m.a.w.] Leucius (1), the reputed author of large apocryphal additions to the N.T. history, which originated in heretical circles, and which, though now lost, were much current in early times. The fullest account is that given by Photius {Cod. 114), who describes a book, called The Circuits of the Apostles, which contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, and purported to have been written by Leucius Charinus. This second name Charinus is peculiar to Photius, earlier writers calling the author simply Leucius, a name variously altered by tran- scribers. Photius characterizes the book as in style utterly unlike the genuine N.T. writings, and full of folly, self-contradic- tion, falsehood, and impiety. It taught the existence of two gods — an evil one, the God of the Jews, having Simon Magus as his minister, and a good one, from Whom Christ came. It confounded the Father and the Son ; denied the reality of Christ's Incarna- tion, and gave a Docetic account of His life on earth and especially of His crucifixion. It condemned marriage and regarded all genera- tion as the work of the evil principle ; denied that demons were created by God ; related childish stories of miraculous restoration to life, of both men and cattle ; and in the Acts of John used language which the Iconoclasts regarded as favouring them. From this description we can identify as the same work a collection of Apostolic Acts, from which extracts were read at the 2nd council of Nicaea (Actio v., Mansi, xiii. 167), the story of Lycomedes (see D. C. B. 4- vol. ed.) being that made use of by the Iconoclasts, and the Docetic tales being from this work. In the council was next read a citation from Amphi- lochius of Iconium, denouncing certain heret- ical Acts of the Apostles, and in particular arguing against the truth of a story, evidently that to which we have just referred, because it represented St. John as on the Mount of Olives during the crucifixion, and so contra- dicted the gospel, which relates that he was close to the Cross. With this evidence that the work read by Photius was in existence before the end of the 4th cent., we may prob- ably refer to the same source a statement of Epiphanius {Haer. 51, p. 427) that Leucius was a disciple of John and joined his master in opposing the Ebionites. Church writers frequently reject the doctrine of heretical apocrypha and yet accept stories told in such documents as true, provided there were no LEUCIUS doctrinal reason for rejecting tlieni. The Docetic Leucius, who denied the true manhood of our Lord, was at the opposite pole from the Ebionites, who asserted Him to be mere man, and therefore the Acts of John might well have contained a confutation of Kbionism. The Acts of Leucius were in use among the M.mi- chees in the time of St. Augustine. Faustus the .Manichean (bk. 30. c. 4, vol. viii. p. 447) appeals to .\cts of the four apostles men- tioned by Photius (Peter. Andrew, Thomas, and John), charging the Catholic partv with wrongly excluding them from their canon. In several places Augustine refers to the same Acts {Cont. Adimant. 17, viii. 137. 13c) ; Conl. Faust, x.xii. 79, p. 40Q ; Cont. adv. Leg. et Proph. i. 20, p. 570), and he names as the author Leutius, the name being written in some MSS. Levitius or Leuticius (.-let. cum Feltce, ii. 6, p. 489 ; see also de Fid. cc. 5. 38, .App. pp. 25, 33). In the passage last cited, the writer, supposed to be Evodius of I'zala, a contem- porary of Augustine, quotes from the .\cts of Andrew a story of Maximilla. the wife of the proconsul Egeas under whom St. .Andrew suffered, who, to avoid having intcrc<>ur-.e with her husband, without his knowledge substituted her maid in her own place ; and on another occasion, when she and her com- panion were engaged hearing the apostle, an angel, by imitating their voices, deceived the husband into the belief that they were still in her bedchamber. This story, which agrees with what Photius tells of the author's con- demnation of sexual intercourse, is much softened in the still extant Acts of Pseudo- Abdias, which are an orthodox recasting of a heretical original. We find still the names of Maximilla and Egeas ; but Maximilla does not refuse intercourse with her husband, and only excites his displeasure because, on account of her eagerness to hear the apostle, she can be with him less frequently ; and, without any angelic deception, providential means are devised to prevent Egeas from sur- prising his wife at the Christian meeting. These Augustinian notices enable us to infer that it was the same work Philaster had in view when he stated (Haer. 88) that the Manichees had Acts purporting to be written by disciples of St. .Andrew, and describing apostle's doings when he passed from Pontus into Greece. He adds that these heretics had also Acts of Peter, John, and Paul, containing stories of miracles in which beasts were made to speak ; for that these heretics counted the souls of men and of beasts alike (see lipiph. Haer. 66, p. 625). In the (ielasian decree on apocryphal books we read : " Libri omnes, quos fecit Leucius discipulus diaboli, apocry- phi," where we have various readings, Luci- anus and Seleucius (Thiel, Epp. Rom. Pont. 463). In the spurious cr>rrespondence be- tween Jerome and Chromatins and Heliodorus, Jerome is represented as giving an orthodox version of certain authentic additions to St. Matthew's narrative, of which a heretical version had been given by Leucius (or, as it is printed, Seleucus), the author of thi- .Arts already mentioned. In the letter of Inni>ccnt to Exsuperius (.Mansi, iii. 104 1) he condemns documents bearing the name of Matthew, of James the Less, of Peter and Paul written by LEUCIUS M\ Leucius, of Andrew writt.n l.y .\rn.«:h4ri\ and Leonidas the philosophers, «n<l of Thomat. It has been conjectured that in .\rn<>ch.irt\ an adjective has been joinrd with a proper n.imr, and that we have here a corruption of I h.irinu«! In the Latin vrrsion of the apocrvphal l>ti- census Chrisli ad inferos (Tisrhendorf. htan. ', .Apoc. p. 36i>), two sons of the aged Simeon, named Leucius and Charinns, are rrpmmtrd as having di<'d before our Lord, antl as mir.iru- lously returning to Itrar witness to lii» triumphs in the under world. The writer clearly borrowed these naim-s from the apocryphal Acts ; did he therr find w.irrant for regarding them as the names of distinrt persons, or was Photius right in reporting both names to have been given to tlie same person ? It would seem' that onlv the Act* of John and perhaps of Peter named Lriiriiit as their author : the necessities of the fiction would require the Acts of .Andrew to be attested by a different witness, possibly Charinus, and it is conceivable that Photius may have combined the names merelv from his judging, no doubt rightly, that all thr Acts had a common author. Concerning the Acts of Paul in use among the Manichcans see LiNis and TiitcLA. IJesides the authorities already cited, the .Acts of Leucius are men- i tioned by Turribius. a Spanish bp. of th<- first half of the 5th cent., from whom we learn that they were used by the Priscillianists, and that ! the .Acts of Thomas related a baptism, not in j water but in oil, according to the Manichean ! fashion ; and by Pseudo-Mellitus (Fabric. Cod. Apoc. X.T. ii. 604), who acknowledges the truth of apostolic miracles related by Leucius, but argues against his doctrine of two principles. Pacian {Ep. i. 2 ; .Mignc, Pair. Lat. xiii. 1053) says, "Phryges imbiliores qui seanimatos a Leucio nientiuntur, se insti- tutos a Proculo gloriantur." On this jiassagc Zahn (see infra) mainly relies for dating the Actsof Leucius earlier than 160. But no other writer mentions a Montanist use of these .Acts, and on this subject the authority of Pacian does not count for much. The context does not indicate that he had much personal knowledge of the sect, and his her«tical notices appear to be derived from the Syntagma of Hippf)lytus, where we have no reason to think that he would have found any mention of Leucius. It is highly probably that Pacian, as well as others of liis contcmpor.irn-s, tx-lieved that Leucius was a real companion of St. John, and therefore no doubt earlier than .Montanus ; but that he had any means of real know- ledge as to this we have no reason to Ix-lirve. Besides those authorities which mention leucius by name, oth«Ts speak of apocryphal I Acts, and probably reft r to the same litrratiirr. Thus the S\nopsis Scriplurae ascrif>rd to i .Athanasius (ii. 154) speaks of Inxiks ralbd the : Travels (f»^o3o<) of Peter, of John, and of Thomas ; and by the second the I.iucian story is probably iiit<iidrd. Eusebius (ill. 3^) tells of Acts of' An<lri w and of J..hn ; Fpi- phanius {Haer. 47) states that thr Eiicratltrs used .Acts of .Andrew, John, and Thomas; that the Apostolici relied on .Acts of Andrew and Thomas (16. (n); and that those whom he calls Origeniani UH<'d .Acts i>( Andrew (16. 63). It is worth remarking that it Is of the 662 LEUCIUS three apostles, Thomas, Andrew, and John, whose travels were written by Leucius, that Origen {ap. Eus. H. E. iii. i ) can tell where the lot of their preaching had fallen, viz. India, Scythia, and Asia respectively. The testimonies we have cited are not earlier than the 4th cent., and several of them speak of Leucius as a Manichean ; but Grabe, Cave, Mill, Beausobre, Lardner, and others consider that he lived in the 2nd cent. ; and, as he therefore could not have been a Mani- chean, was probably a Marcionite. Some have identified him with the Marcionite Lu- CANUS. But no Marcionite would have chosen for the heroes of his narrative the Jewish apostles, John, Thomas, and Andrew. Beausobre (Manichiisme, i. 350) gives six arguments for the early date of Leucius, not one of which is conclusive, all being vitiated by the tacit assumption that Leucius was a real person, and not, as we hold, merely the fictitious name of an imaginary disciple of St. John, whom the forger chose to make the narrator of the story. Zahn (Acta Johannis, 1880) published some new fragments of Leucius, which increase our power of recognizing as Leucian things which different fathers have told without naming their authority. The Leucian character of these fragments is verified by various coin- cidences with the old. Names recur, e.g. Lycomedes. There is a story of a miracle performed on one Drusiana, who had sub- mitted to die rather than have intercourse with her husband. This agrees with that of Maximilla and Egeas in revealing the vio- lently Encratitc principles of the author ; cf. that told in the Acts of Thomas (Tischendorf, Acta Apoc. p. 200). Zahn has argued the case for the early date of Leucius in a much more scientific way than previous supporters of the same thesis. He tries to shew that there are statements in earlier writers really derived from Leucius, though his name is not given. All Zahn's arguments do not seem to us con- clusive, yet enough remains valid to lead us to regard the Leucian Acts as of the same age as the travels of Peter (which are the basis of the Clementines) and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. When a writer, who in one place quotes Leucius, elsewhere makes statements we know to be Leucian, they doubtless come from Leucius though he does not there name his authority; e.g. Epiphanius names Leucius only once, but we may safely count as derived from Leucius his reference to the manner of John's death (Haer. 79, 5) and to John's virginity (ih. 28, 7 ; 78, 10). Further, in the immediate context of the passage where Epiphanius names Leucius, he names other heretics of the apostolic age, and the presumption that he found these names in Leucius becomes almost a certainty when in one of the new Leucian fragments one of them, Cleobius, is found as that of a person in John's company. Other names in the same context are Claudius, Merin- thus, and the Pauline Demas and Hermogenes ; concerning whom see the Acts of Thecla and the so-called Dorotheus (Paschal Chron. ed. Dindorf, ii. 124). The Augustinian and Hie- ronymian notices may be treated similarly. We can identify as Leucian several statements* ♦ In particular an account of a hymn supposed LEUCIUS which are described as found " in ecclesiastica historia " or "in patrum traditionibus," and hence probably others reported with the same formulae are from the same source. We next enumerate some of the statements which may be characterized as Leucian, nam- ing some of the early writers who have re- peated them, (i) A Leucian fragment (Zahn, p. 247) tells how John's virginity had been preserved by a threefold interposition of our Lord, breaking off the Apostle's designs each time that he attempted to marry. There is a clear reference to this story in a sermon ascribed to Augustine (Mai, Nov. Pat. Bib. \. i. 378), and from this soiu-ce probably so many of the Fathers have derived their opinion of John's virginity, concerning which the canon- ical Scriptures say nothing (Ambros. de Inst. Virg. viii. 50, vol. iii. 324 ; Ambrosiaster on IL Cor. xi. 2, vol. iv. 2, 232; Hieron. inlsaiam, c. 56, vol. iv. p. 658 ; adv. Jovin. L 26, vol. ii. 278 ; August, cont. Faust, xxx. vol. x. 535, in Johan. c. 21, vol. iv. 1082 ; Epiph. Haer. 58, 4). The Leucian Acts, in conformity with their strong Encratism, seem to have dwelt much on the apostle's virginity, describing this as the cause of our Lord's love to him, and as the reason for his many privileges, particularly the care of the virgin mother. In I Pistis Sophia the name of the apostle John has I usually the title 6 irapBh'os appended, and we may therefore set down Pistis Sophia as post- l Leucian, but uncertainty as to its date pre- vents us from drawing any further inference. The earliest mention of John's virginity is found in the epithet "spado" given to St. John by Tertullian (de Monog. 17), whence Zahn infers that Tertullian must have used the Acts of Leucius. We think Zahn does not sufficiently allow for the probability in the case of one who is said to have lived so long, that a true tradition that he never married might have been preserved in the churches of Asia. Zahn contends that because Jerome uses the word "eunuchus," not "spado," he is not copy- ing Tertullian, but that both writers use a common source, viz. Leucius. But when the passage in Tertullian is read with the rest of the treatise, it appears more likely that the epithet isTertuUian's own. (2) Other evidence of Tertullian's acquaintance with Leucius is found in his story of St. John's having been cast into burning oil. Speaking of Rome he says, "Ubi apostolus Johannes, posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est, in insulam relegatur." What was Tertullian's authority ? Now, though none of the extant fragments of Leucius relate to this, yet that these Acts contained the story is probable from the following evidence. Jerome (vol. vii. p. 655) commenting on Matt. xx. 23 states on the authority of " ecclesiasticae historiae" that the apostle had been " missus in fer- ventis olei dolium, etinde ad suscipiendam coronam Christi athleta processerit, statimque relegatus in Pathmos insulam." Now Abdias, whose work is notoriouslv based on Leucius (Hist. Ap. V. 2, Fabric. Cod. Ps. N.T. ii. 534), has "proconsul jussit eum velut rebellem in to have been sung on the night before the crucifixion by the apostles holding hands and forming a circle about our I,ord (see Aug. Ep. 237 ad Ceretium, vol. ii. p. 849). LEUCIUS dolio ferventis «>lei iiifi>;i, ((iii b.latiin ut con- jectus in aeneo est, veluti athleta, uiictus iion , adustus de vase exiit." The second passage ' will be seen to be the original, Jerome's use of athUla receiving its explanation from Alxiias. This conclusion is strengthened by another passage in Jerome (oi/r. Jovin. i. 26, vol. ii. 278), where, tiiough he naiues Tertullian as his authority, he gives particulars not f(umd in him, viz. the " dolium ferventis olei," and that the apostle came out fresher and more vigorous than he had entered. We feel 1 forced to believe that Jerome, who certainly used l.eucius, found in it the statement about the boiling oil ; and then there is a strong I case for suspecting that this was also the au- thority (if Tertullian. But though Tertullian names Rome as the scene of the miracle, it mav be doubted whether this was so in the (Ireek l.eucius. The mention by .\bdias of a " pro- consul" suggests .Asia. Hippolytus, however, agrees with Tertullian in placing John at Rome {de Christo el Atitic. 36). Some of the earliest Fathers who try to reconcile Matt. xx. 23 with the fact that John did not sufTer martyr- dom, do not mention this story of the baptism ' in oil (Origen, in loc. De la Rue, iii. 719). A later story makes John miraculously "drink a cup " cif poison with impunity. {3) .\n acquaintance with Leucius by Clem- | ent of Alexandria has been inferred from the agreement of both in giving on John's authority a Docetic account of our Lord. ' The " traditions of Matthias " may have been Clement's authority ; but that J ohn is appealed to no doubt gives probability to the cnnjocture that Clement's source is the Acts which treat of : St. John, a probability increased on an exam- ination of the story told by Clement (Hypotyp. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 14) as to John's composition j of the Fourth Ciospel at therequest of his friends. In the Muratorian Fragment the request is urged bv the apostle's fellow-bishops in Asia ; he asks them to fast three days, begging for a revelation of God's will, and then it is revealed 1 to Andrew that John is to write. The stories of ^ Clement and the Muratorian writer are too '■ like to be independent ; yet it is not ronreiv- able that one opied from the other ; therefore they doubtless used a oimmon authority, who was not Papias, else Eusebius, when he quotes the passage from Clement, would srarrely have failed to mention it. Now, several later writers (Jerome in pref. to Comm. on Matt., a writing 1 pub. as St. Augustine's— Mai, Nov. Pat. Bibl. I. i. 379 — Victorinus in his Scholia on the Apoc., | Galland. iv. 59 ; and f)thers, sec Zahn, p. 198) I tell the same story, agreeing, however, in addi- j tional particulars, which shew that they did , not derive their knowledge from either the Muratorian writer or Clement. Thus they tell that the cause of the request that John should write was the spread of Ebionite heresy, which \ required that something should be add<-d con- , cerning the divinity of our Lord to what St. j John's predecessors had told about His human- ity ; and that, in answer to their prayers, the apostle, filled with the Holy (ihost, burst into theprologue, " In the beginningwasthe Word." Other verbal coincidences make it probable that this story was found in the Acts of Ixucius. ' which Epiphanius tells us contained an arcount of John's resistance to the Ebionite heresy; LEUCIOS M3 and if so, I.ru< his in likilv lo luvc bem Clenienfx .iuth>>ritv al*«>. Combining the pr.ibabillllm under the thrrr heads enumerated, ihrre M^m* rravmAble ptouml for thinking that the I mrlau Art* were 2nd cent., and known to ( Irnirnt and Tertullian. Irrnacus, howrvrr, ithrwA no %ign of aequaintance with them, and ( Irmrnt Mui*t have had some other soiirre ..f (ohanninK traditions, hi« story ui John an<l the robhrr being, as Zahn owns, not drnvr^l (nm Leucius ; for no later writer who tclU lli« story shews anv sign of having had any ft<iurra of information but Clement. We cannot follow Zahn in combining the two statements of The-xloril {Haer. lab. nl. 4) that the Ouartoderimans appralrd to St. John's authority, and that thrv usr<| ap-rrv- phal Arts, and thiiire inff-rriiig tliat Lmc in* represented St. John as sanrtioning th«» Quarto<leriiuan practire. If so, wr think other traces of this Leurian statement w..ul<l have remained. The"xloret would have foun<l in Eusebius that the churches r>f Asia aj<pral<-<l to St. John as sanctioning their prartKe, and that mav have been a true tradition. A brief notice will suffice of other probable contents of the work of Leurius. He appears to have luentioned the exile to Patmos, ajnl as resulting from a decree of the Roman emperor; but that the emp«ror was not named is likely from the variations of sub- sequent writers. Zahn ref»>rs to Leu< ius the story of St. John and the partridge, told by Cassianus, wjio elsewhere shews arquaintance with Leurius. .\ ditlerent storv of .i partridgn is told in a non-Leurian fragment (Zahn, 190). The Leucian Acts very possibly contained an account of the Virgin's death. (.Mei.liti'S.J But the most important of the remaining Leucian stfiries is that concerning St. John's painless death. Leucius appears to have given what purported to be the apostle's sermon and Eucharistic praver on the last Sunday of his life. Then after breaking of bread — there is no mention of wine — the apostle commands Byrrhus (the name occurs in the Ignatiaii epistles as that of an Ephesine deacon) to follow him with two ( omp.mions, bringing spades with them. In a friend's bury- ing-plare thcvdig a grave, in whirh the apostle l.iid himself down, and with joyful prayrr blessed his disciples and resigned his soul ti» God. Later versions give other miraculous details ; in particular that which Augustine mentions {in Johann. xxi. vol. 3. p. Rio), that St. John lav in the grave not dea<l but sleeping, the dust hcipcd over him showing his breathing by its motions. For other J oh-uuiine stories, see PHocHOHrs. ... ... Besides the Arts Leucius has l)een crc«lite<l with a quantity of other aporrvphal literature. If .-xs we believe, he is onlv a fictitious |»ersi.n- age, it is likely enough that the auth<.r of the romanre wrote other like fictions, though our inf<irmation is too scanty f.-r us to idrniify his work. But there is no trustworthy evidence that he affixed the name of Leurius to anycom- position b«-si<les the Acts of Prter and John. From the natureof thecas* an apostles martvr- dom must be relatetl by one of the aiM.^tles' disripl«-s. but such a one would not be rrgarde*! as a competent witness to the «lec«l» of our Lorxl 664 LIBERATUS DIACONUS Himself, and accordingly apocryphal gospels are commonly ascribed to an apostle, and not to one of the second generation of Christians. The only apparent evidence for a connexion of the name of Leucius with apocryphal gospels is the mention of the name in the spurious letter of Jerome to Chromatius and Heliodorus, a witness unworthy of credit even if his testi- mony were more distinct. Probably the orthodox, finding in the .\cts which bore the name of Leucius plain evidence that the writer was heretical in his doctrine of two principles, still accepted him as a real personage of the sub-apostolic age, and when they met with other apocryphal stories, the doctrine of which they had to reject as heretical while willing to accept the facts related as mainly true. Leucius seemed a probable person to whom to ascribe the authorship. TLinus.] [g.s.] LiberatUS (7) Diaconus, archdeacon of Car- thage, a Latin writer on the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, an account of which he wrote entitled. Breviarimn Causae Xestorian- oriim et Eutychianorum, in which he records some circumstances of his life. He visited Rome in the pontificate of John IL on the affair of the Acoemetae order of monks (c. 20). In 535 he was deputed to Rome, with the bps. Caius and Peter, by the council of Carthage, to consult John IL as to how con- forming Arian bishops should be received. They arrived about the time of the pope's death (he was buried May 27. 535), and his successor Agapetus (consecrated June 3, 335) replied to the synod by the three envoys (Mansi. viii. 849). Liberatus was an ardent defender of the Three Chapters, and undertook many journeys in that cause. On his return home he composed his Breviarutn, so named as being an abridgment in 24 chapters of a history which, beginning with the ordination of Nestorius in 428, reached to the meeting of the fifth synod in 553. The work was prob- ably written c. 560. Liberatus intimates in his preface that he collected his materials from the Ecclesiastical History which had been recently translated from the Greek into Latin (as Garnier thinks, the Historia Tripartitia of Cassiodorus), from the Acts of the councils, and from episcopal letters. The Brcviarum was ed. with copious notes and dissertations by Garnier in 1675 (8vo, Paris), and this ed. is reprinted by Migne (Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 969). Accounts of Liberatus will be found in Dupin {Eccl. Wr. t. i. p. 55S, ed. 1722), Ceillier (xi. 303), Cave (i. 527), Fabric. {Bibl. Lat. t. iv. p. 272. ed. Mansi, i754)- [c.h.] LiberiUS (4). ordained bp. of Rome May 22, 352 (Catalog. Liber.), as successor to Julius I. The assassination of Constans (.\.d. 350) and the subsequent defeat of Magnentius in 351 had left Constantius sole emperor. New charges against Athanasius were sent to the emperor and Julius the pope, and the latter dying before they reached him, the hearing of fell to his successor Liberius. These charges were that Athanasius had influenced Constans against Constantius, corresponded with Mag- nentius, used an unconsecrated church in Alexandria, and disregarded an imperial summons calling him to Rome (Athan. Apol. ad Constantium). Thev were considered, together with an encyclic of 75 Egyptian LIBERIUS [ bishops in behalf of Athanasius, by a council under Liberius at Rome in 352, and on this occasion the first charge of compliance with heresy is alleged against Liberius. Among the fragments of Hilary (Fragm. IV.) there is a letter purporting to be addressed by Liberius to his " beloved brethren and fellow-bishops throughout the East," declaring that he agrees I and communicates with them, and that Athan- asius. having been summoned to Rome and refused to come, is out of communion with himself and the Roman church. Bower {Hist, of the Pdp^s ),Tillemont {Vie de S. Athan. t. viii. art. 64. note 68), and Milman {Lat. Christ, bk. i. c. 2). accept this letter as genuine. Baronius, the Benedictine editors of the works of Hilary, Hefele {Conciliengesch. bk. v. § 73) — the last very positively — reject it as an Arian forgery ; I their principal, if not only, ground being the improbability of his writing it. The death of Magnentius in the autumn of 353 left Constantius entirely free to follow his own heretical bent, when Liberius certainly stood forth as a fearless champion of the cause under imperial disfavour. He sent \'incentius I of Capua, with Marcellus, another bp. of I Campania, to the emperor, requesting him to call a council at Aquileia to settle the points at ', issue. Constantius being himself at Aries, sum- , moned one there, which was attended in behalf : of Liberius by legates. The main object of the \ leaders of the council, in which Valens and ' Ursacius took a prominent part, was to extort ; from the legates a renunciation of communion j with .\thanasius. After a fruitless attempt to obtain from the dominant party a simultaneous I condemnation of Arius, the legates at length complied. Paulinus of Treves refused, and I was consequently banished (Sulp. Sev. 1. 2 ; ; Hilar. Libell. ad' Const. ; id. in Fragm. ; Epp. Liber, ad Const, et Ens.). Liberius, on hearing the result, wrote to Hosius of Cordova much distressed by the weakness of his messenger Vincentius, and to Caecilianus, bp. of Spoletum (Hilar. Fragm. VI.). Subsequently (a. D. 354), most of the Western bishops having, under fear or pressure, expressed agreement with the East, Lucifer, bp. of Cagliari, being then in Rome, was, at his own suggestion, sent by Liberius to the emperor, to demand another council. The result was a council at Milan in the beginning of 355, attended by 300 Western bishops and but few Easterns. In spite of the bold remon- strances of Eusebius of V'ercelli, Lucifer, Dionysius of Milan, and others, the condem- nation of Athanasius was decreed, and required to be signed by all under pain of banishment. The pope's three legates were among the few who refused and were con- demned to exile (see Sulp. Sev. 1. 2 ; Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monachos). Liberius at Rome still stood firm. He wrote to Eusebius {ap. Act. Eus.) congratulating him on his steadfastness, and sent an encyclic (ib. et Hilar. Fragm. VI.) to all the exiled confessors, encouraging them, andexpressinghisexpectation of soon suffering like them. The emperor failed to turn him by threats or bribes. Finally Leontius, the pre- fect of Rome, was ordered to apprehend him and he was taken to Milan (see Athan. op. cit. c. 35 seq.). Theodoret (1. ii. c. 13) recounts in detail his interview with the emperor there. LIBERIUS "I have sent f«.>r you." said CtMislaiitius. " the bishop of my city, that you may repudiate the madness of Athanasius, whom the whole world , has condemned." Liberius continued to insist that the condemnation had not been that of a fair and free council, or in the presence of the accused, and that those who condentned him had been actuated by fear or regard to the emperor's gifts and favour. Liberius having w.irned the emperor against making use oi bishops, whose time ought to be devoted to spiritual matters, for the avenging of his own enmities, the latter finally cut short the dis- cussion by saying. " There is only one thing to be done. I will that you embrace the communion of the churches, and so return to Rome. Consult peace, then, and subscribe, that you may be restored to your see." " I have already," Liberius replied, "bidden fare- well to the brethren at Rome ; for I account observance of the ecclesiastical law of more importance than residence at Rome." " I give you three days," the emperor said, " to make up your mind : unless within that time you comply, you must be prepared to go wiu-re i may send you." Liberius answered, " Three days or three months will make no difference with me : wherefore send me where you please." Two days havim^ been allowed him for consideration, he was banished to Beroea in Thrace (a.d. 355). The emperor sent him, on his departure, 500 jneces of gold, which he refused, saying, " Go and tell him who sent me this gold to give it to his flatterers and players, who are always in want because of their insatiable cupidity, ever desiring riches and never satisfied. As for us, Christ, Who is in all things like unto the Father, supports us, and gives us all things needful." To the empress, who sent him the like sum, he sent word that she might give it to the emperor, who would want it for his military expediti<3ns; and that, if he needed it not, he might give it to Maxentius (the Arian bp. of Milan) and Epictetus, who would be glad of it. Euscbius the eunuch also offered him money, to whom he said, " Thou hast pillaged the churches of the whole world, and dost thou now bring alms to me as a condemned pauper ? Depart first, and become thyself a Christian." His banishment was followed by a general triumph of the Arian party. In Alexandria Athan- asius was superseded by George of Cappadocia, the orthodox there cruelly persecuted, and Athanasius compelled eventually to take refuge among the hermits and coenobites of Egypt. In Gaul, in spite of the fearless pro- test of Hilary of Poictiers, the orthodox were persecuted and banished, and there also heresy triumphed. With regard to Rome, we find traces of two conflii ting stories, one gathered from the practically unanimous testimony of contemporary or ancient writers of repute, some of whom have been our authorities so far — viz. Athanasius'//»s/. Arian. ad Monach. 75), Jerome {Chron. in ann. Abram. mccclx.). Ruftnus [H. E. x. 22), Socrates [H. E. ii. 37), Sozomen (H. E. iv. H, II), Theodoret IH. E. ii. 14). together with Marcellinus and Faustus, two contemporary Luciferian presbyters of Rome, in the preface to their Libellus Precum, addressed to the emperors Valentinian, Tiieodosius, and Arca- LIBERIUS C65 dius, during the pontilK.itc o( |).»nusu«, the success<ir of Liberius. 1 he other, in r.mflirt therewith, is in the Pontifical and the Artn o( Martyrs. From the former authorities wr Irarn that immediately after the rxilo of Librriu* all the clergy, including the deacon Fklix (arch- deacon according to Marcrlluius and Fau«lus), swore before thi- prop!,. t,i .vrrpt no other bishop while Liberius lived. The populace, who appear throughout stronglvon hi* Mile. ilrb.irrcd the .Brians from the churches, s.. that thr r|rr- tion of a successor, on whu h the eni|>er<>r wa» determined, had to be made in the imperial palace. The deacon Felix was there chosen and consecrated, three of the emperor's eunmhs re- presenting the people on the .K:c.isi> >ii. and three heretical bishops. Flpictetus of Centumellar, Acacius of Caesarea. and nasilius of ,\ncvra being the c .ns<( rators. It seems probable that a considerable party among the clergv at least concurred in this consecration. .Mar- cellinus and Faustus say that the clergy ordained him. while the people refused to take part ; and Jerome states that after the intru- sion of Felix by the .Arians very many of the clerical order perjured themselves bv support- ing him. Felix appears to have been himself orthodox, no distinct charge of heresy l)eiiig alleged by liis accusers ; only that of conniv- ance with his own unlawful election by .\riaiis I in defiance of his oath, and of communicatinK I with them. Two years after the exile of Liberius(A.D. 357), Constantius went to Kome. I and Theodoret tells us that the wives of the magistrates and nobles waited on the emperor, beseeching him to have pity on the city l»e- reaved of its shepherd and exposed to the : snares of wolves. Constantius was so far ' moved as to consent to the return of Liberius j on condition of his presiding over the church ' jointly with Felix. When the emperor's order was read publicly in the circus, there burst : forth the unanimous cry, " One tiod, one i Christ, one bishop ! " There appears to have i been some delay before the actual return of I Liberius, who was required to satisfy thr emperor by renouncing orthodoxy and Ath- ' anasius. This he was now, in strange contrast to his f<inner firmness, but too n-ady to do. It appears that bp. Fortunatian of Aquihia had been employed by the liusfbians to per- suade him (Hieron. Catal. Scrtf>t. 07). and that Ueinophilus of Ber'>ca had personally urged him to comply lEp. I.iher. aJ Orifttl. Episc. ap. Hilar. Eragm. 17.). Hilarv (Etagm. r/.) gives letters written by liberius from i Beroea at this time. One is to the Eastern I bishops and presbyters ; from which we give I extracts, with Hilary's parenthetical coni- ' ments : " I do not defend Athanasius : but I because my i)rcdecessor Julius had received 1 him, I was afraid of being accnunted a pre- varicator. Having leanit, however, that vou ' had justly condemncil him, I soon gave asM-nt I to your judgment, and sent a letter to that ' effect by bp. F'ortunati.an of .\quileia, to the emperor. VN'herefiire Atlianasius benig re- moved from the <-oinfnunion of \\s all 1 1 will not even receive his letters). I sav that I have peace and communion with you and with all . the Fiastern bish>)ps. Thai you may be I assured of my good faith in thus writing, know that my lord and brother Ueniophilus has 666 LIBERIUS deigned in his benevolence to expound to me the true Catholic faith which was treated, expounded, and received at Sirmium by many brethren and fellow-bishops of ours. (This is the Arian perfidy : — This I have noted, not the apostate : — the following are the words of Liberius.) This I have received with a willing mind (/ say anathetna to thee, Liberius, and thy companions), and in no respect contradict ; I have given my assent, I follow and hold it. [Once more, and a third time, anathema to thee, prevaricator Liberius .') Seeing that you now perceive me to be in agreement with you in all things, I have thought it right to beseech your holinesses to deign by your common counsel and efforts to labour for my release from exile andmy restoration to the see divinely entrusted to me." Another is to Ursacius, Valens, and Germinius, begging their good offices, and excusing his apparent delay in writing, as above, to the Oriental bishops. Before sending that letter he had already, he says, condemned Athanasius, as the whole presby- tery of Rome could testify, to whom he seems to have previously sent letters intended for the emperor's eye. He concludes, " You should know, most dear brethren, by this letter, written with a plain and simple mind, that I have peace with all of you, bishops of the Catholic church. And I desire you to make known to our brethren and fellow- bishops Epictetus and Auxentius that with them I have peace and ecclesiastical com- munion. Whoever may dissent from this our peace and concord, let him know that he is separated from our communion." In giving this letter, Hilary again expresses his indig- nation in a note : " Anathema, I say to thee, prevaricator, together with the Arians." A third is to Vincentius of Capua, the bishop whose defection at Milan he had once so much deplored. In this he announces that he had given up his contention for Athanasius, and had written to say so to the Oriental bishops, and requests Vincentius to assemble the bishops of Campania and get them to join in an address to the emperor, " that I may be delivered from my great sadness." He con- cludes, " God keep thee safe, brother. We have peace with all the Eastern bishops, and I with you. I have absolved myself to God ; see you to it : if you have the will to fail me in my banishment, God will be judge between me and you." No sufficient grounds exist for doubting the genuineness of the fragment of Hilary which contains these letters, or of the letters them- selves. It is resolutely denied by Hefele (Conciliengeschichte, Bd. v. §8i) and by the Jesuit Stilting in the work of the Bollandists {Acta SS. Sept. t. vi. on Liberius), but their arguments are weak, resting chiefly on alleged historical difficulties and on the style of the letters. All the great Protestant critics accept them ; and among the Roman Catholics Natalis Alexander, Tillemont, Fleury, Dupin, Ceillier, Montfaucon, Constant, and Mohler. Dr. Dollinger does the same. Dr. Newman also (Arians of the Fourth Century) quotes them without any note of suspicion. Baronius accepts the letters to the Eastern bishops and to Vincentius, but rejects that to Valens and Ursacius, though only on the ground of its LIBERIUS implied statement that Athanasius had been excommunicated by the Roman church. A refutation of Hefele's arguments is contained in P. le Page Renouf's Condemnation of Pope Honorius (Longmans, 1868), from which an extract, bearing on the subject, is given in Appendix to the Eng. trans, of Hefele's work (Clark, Edin. 1876). Even if the fragment of Hilary could be shewn to be spurious, the general fact of the fall of Liberius would re- main indisputable, being attested by Athan- asius (Hist. Arian. 41 ; Apol. contr. Arian. 89), Hilary (contra Const. Imp. 11), Sozomen (iv. 15), and Jerome (Chron. et de Vir. Illustr. 97). It was never questioned till comparatively recent times, when a few papal partisans — especially Stilting (loc. cit.), Franz Anton Zac- caria (Dissert, de Commentitio Liberii lapsu), Professor Palma (Praelect. Histor. Eccles. t. i. pt. ii. Romae, 1838) — have taken up his de- fence, relying primarily on the silence of Theodoret, Socrates, and Sulpicius Severus on his fall. Others, as Hefele, endeavour to extenuate its extent and culpability. In the letter to the Eastern bishops Li- berius speaks of having already accepted the exposition of the faith agreed upon " by many brethren and fellow-bishops " at Sirmium. It is a little uncertain what confession is here meant. There had been two noted synods of Sirmium and both had issued expositions of doctrine. The first in 351, assembled by the Eusebians, adopted a confession which asserted against Photinus and Marcellus of Ancyra the pre-existent divinity of the Son before His human birth and, but for its omission of the term consubstantial, was not heretical. Hilary of Poictiers (rfgSyn. 38 sqq.) allows it to be orthodox. Baronius and the Benedictine editors of Hilary (with whom agrees Dr. Dollinger in his Papst-fabeln des Mittelalters) maintain that this was the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. The formula of the second Sirmian synod, assembled in 357 by Constantius at the instance of the Ano- maeans, prohibited both the definitions, homoousios and homoiousios, as being beyond the language of Scripture, and declared the Father to be in honour, dignity, and majesty greater than the Son, and, by implication, that the Father alone may be defined as with- out beginning, invisible, immortal, impassible. The doctrine expressed was essentially that of the Homoeans, though the phrase " like unto the Father," from which they got their name, was not yet adopted. This may have been the creed accepted by Liberius at Beroea. His credit is not much saved by supposing it to have been the former one, since his letters are sufficient evidence of his pliability. Whichever it was, his acceptance was not enough to satisfy the emperor, who, having gone from Rome to Sirmium, summoned him thither, where he was required to sign a new formula, apparently prepared for the occasion. This was, according to Sozomen, concocted from three sources : first, the creed of the old Antiochene council of 269, in which the term consubstantial, alleged to be used heretically so as to compromise the Son's Personality by Paul of Samosta, was condemned ; secondly, one of the creeds issued by the Eusebian council at Antioch in 341, which omitted 1 LIBERIUS LIBERIUS f\^\^ I that term ; and thirdly, the first Sirmian (Dial. adv. l.uctler. i.,). " Ihr wh->lr world creed, above described. Sozonien adds that RTO'ined, and wondered to find itsrU Arun." he signed also a condemnation of those who Liberius was not presetit at Anniiiuiin, nor It denied the Son to be like the Father according there any reason to siippoxe that he asvrnird to substance and in all respects. When to the now dominant cun(rs<non. Jcnmirt Liberius is said by some writers to have been lanf;uaKe is rhrtoriral, and, on thr othrr hand, sumnioned from Beroea to the third synod of Theodoret {//. E. ii. 2i) »;ivp\ a Irttrr (f mi 4 Sirmium, and to have signed the third Sirmian svnod of Italian and dalliran bishops hrld at confession, we must not understand those Rome under pope I )amasus, statinK tlul the sometimes so called, viz. of May 350 (when .\riminian fr>rmula had thr a%srnt iirithrr o( a distinctly Homoean formula, prepared by the bp. of Kome, whose judKment was Itryond bp. Mark of .\rethusa, was subscribed), but all others to be expected, nor of Vincentiuv the compilation abine described. nor of others besides. Liberius was now allowed to return to Rome. The drath of Constantius (a.d. yf>i) and the Feli.x was compelled by the populace to retire accession of Juli.in the ,\postate haviuR left from the city after tumults and bloodshed, the orthodox free from direct prrsrcution. .Attempting afterwards to obtain a church beyond the Tiber, he was again expelled. Two ways have been resorted to of excusing, in some degree, the compliance of Liberius. One, taken by Baronius and Hefele. is that the .\th.inasius returned once more in triumph to .Alexandria (a.i>. 36^). In the council, fanioui for its reassjTtion of orthixloxv, thru hrld at .Vlexandria, Liberius seems to have takrn no prominent part. The glorv of rrstorinK formulae he subscribed were capable of being ! orthodoxy and peace to the church is mainly understood in an orthodo.x sense, and so sub- due, not to the bp.of Kome, but toAthanasiu*. scribed by him. though otherwise intended by Eusebius of V'crcelli, and Hilary of I'oiclirrv the emperor : that " Liberius renounced the [ Liberius comes next under notice in the formula 6/uooiVioj, not because he had fallen 1 last year of his episcopate, and during the from orthodoxy, but because he had been j reign of Valentinian and Valens. who br. ainr. made to believe that formula to be the cloak | -^t the beginning of 364. einpen-rs of the Wrst of Sabellianism and Fhotinism " (Hef.le). and East respectively. Valentinian Ix-ing a Baronius, however, condemns him so far as ' Catholic, Valens an extreme and prrserutinR to say that his envy of Felix and his longing j Anan. His persecutions extending to thr for the adulation to which he had been used I semi-Anans as well as to the orth'Klox. raiisrd at Rome led to his weakness. The other way i the former tu incline to union with the latlrr is that of Bellarmine. who acknowledges his and to the position that the differenrr brtween external but denies his internal assent to 1 them was one rather of words than of d.^tnne. heresy : a view which saves his infallibility at I They came about this lime to be calle<l Mare the expense of his morality. The facts remain that in his letters from Beroea he proclaimed his renunciation of .\thanasius and his entire agreement and communion with the Easterns, donians. and now turned to the Western emperor and the Roman bish<ip for support in their distress, sending three bishops as a deputation to Valentinian and 1 iberius. with and that at Sirmium he signed a confession 1 instructions to c(.mmuiiirate with the rhurrh drawn up by semi-.A.rians, which was intended I of Rome and to accept the tmn c'.nsu!»- to express' rejection of the orthodoxy for st.antial." \ alentini.m was absent in (.aul, but which he had once contended. Athanasius, l-iberius received them (a.d. 366). At hrst Sozomen, Hilary, and Jerome all allude to his i he reje. tod their overtures because of their temporary compliance with heresy in some 1 i'»pli'-at"'" '" heresy. They rep ir<l th.it form as a'known and undoubted fact. Athan- | they had n..w repented, and had ..Ir. ... v asius, however, unlike Hilary, speaks of it with acknowledged the Son to be 111 all thiiu;- UK- noble tolerance. He says,' " But they [1.^. u»to the Father, and that this expr- ■ i^n certain great bishops] not only supported me meant the sanie as consubstani.il. Mr with arguments, but also endured exile ; rcnt.ired a written crmfesMon of their faith. among them being Liberius of Rome. For. if , They gave him one, in which thry rrfrrrr.1 t. he did not endure the affliction of his exile to the letters brought by them from thr 1 ..t. rn bishops to him and the other Westrrn hist ; - anathematized Arius, the Sabellians. 1 itti passians. Marcionists. I'hotinians, M.ir. ■ ■ ists. and the followers of Paul of Sai;. the end. nevertheless he remained in banish- ment for two years, knowing the conspiracy against me " (Apol. contra Arian. 89). .Again, " Moreover Liberius. having been banished, after two years gave way, and under fear of threatened death subscribed. But even this proves only their [i.e. the .Arians'] violence, and his hatred of heresy ; for he supported me as long as he had free chf)ice " {Hist. .4rian. ad Monach. 41). Once in possession of his see and surrounded by his ortho<lox supporters. Liberius appears to have resumed ists. and the f< condemned the rrerd of .Ariininum as • repugnant to the Nirrne faith ; and -I- : .: I their entire assent to the Nirrne rrrrd. 1 lirv concluded bv saving that if any one had any charge against them, they were willing it shouhl br heard before such orth-nl.-x hi : ; s as I.iberiii* might approve. I ibrriis admitted them to communion, and dis' > • I his old position of resoiiite orthodoxy. In 350 them with letters, in the name of hhiivrli ..1. ^ the other Wr<(trrn bish->p». to the buho|.« ol the i:ast who had vnt the enibaMV. were held the two councils at Ariminum in the West and Seleucia in the East, resulting in the almost universal acceptance for a time Libmus dird m the autumn of ,W.(Marren. of the Homoean formula, which Constantius and Faust.), having thus had a notable op|H.r. was now persuaded to force upon the church in the hope of reconciling disputants. This j called forth the famous expression of J< tunity of atoning by his latrtt offirial art f. his previous vacillation. His extant writings arc the letters referred 668 LICENTIUS to above. There is also a discourse of his given by St. Ambrose {de Virginibus, lib. iii. c. i) as having been delivered when Marcellina (the sister of Ambrose, to whom he addresses his treatise) made her profession of virginity. The discourse is interesting as containing the earliest known allusion to the keeping of the Christmas festival, while the way in which Ambrose introduces it shews the estimation in which Liberius was held, notwithstanding his temporary fall. [j.b — y.] Licentius (1). [Romanianus.] Linus (1), accounted the first bp. of Rome after the apostles, and identified by Irenaeus (iii. 2) with the Linus from whom St. Paul sent greetings to Timothy (II. Tim. iv. 21). For the question of the order of succession of the alleged earliest bishops of Rome, and of the positions held by the persons named, see Clemens Romanus. As Linus there is no difference of opinion, since in all the lists he comes first. Eusebius {H. E. iii. 13) assigns 12 years to his episcopate ; the Liberian Cata- logue 12 years, 4 months, and 12 days, from A.D. 55 to 67 ; the Felician Catalogue 11 years, 3 months, and 12 days. These cannot be accepted as historical, nor can the statements of the last-named catalogue, that he died a martyr,, and was buried on the Vatican beside the body of St. Peter on Sept. 24- [j.b— v.] Under the name of Linus are extant two tracts purporting to contain the account of the martyrdom of SS. Peter and of Paul. These were first printed in 1517 by Faber Stapulensis as an appendix to his Cotnm. on Saint Paul's Epistles. These Acts of Linus have so many features common with the Leucian Acts [Leucius] that the question arises whether we have not in Linus either a translation of a portion of the collection des- cribed by Photius or at least a work for which that collection supplied materials. Linus does not profess to give a complete account of the acts of the two apostles. He begins by briefly referring to (as if already known to his readers) the contest of St. Peter and Simon Magus, his imprisonments and other sufferings and la- bours, and then proceeds at once to the closing scenes. The stories of the martyrdom of the two apostles are quite distinct, there being no mention of Paul in the first nor of Peter in the second. The apostles' deaths are immediately brought about, not by Nero himself, but by his prefect Agrippa, a name, we may well believe, transferred by a chronological blunder from the reign of Augustus. This name, as well as some others mentioned by pseudo- Linus, occur also in the orthodox Acts of Peter and Paul published by Tischendorf and by Thilo. The alleged cause of Agrippa's ani- mosity exhibits strongly the Encratite char- acter common to Linus and the Leucian Acts. St. Peter, we are told, by his preaching of chastity had caused a number of matrons to leave the marriage bed of their husbands, who were thus infuriated against the apostle. The intention to destroy Peter is revealed by Marcellus and other disciples, who pres- singly entreat him to save himself by with- drawing from Rome. Among those who thus urge him are his jailors, Martinianus and Processus, who had already received baptism from him, and who represent that the plan to LINUS destroy Peter is entirely the prefect's own and has no sanction from the emperor, who seems to have forgotten all about the apostle. Then follows the well-known story of Domine quo vadis. St. Peter yields to his friends' entreaties, and consents to leave Rome, but at the gate he meets our Lord coming in. Who, on being asked whither He is going, replies, " To Rome, in order to be crucified again." The apostle understands that in his person his Master is to be crucified, and returns to suffer. Linus tells of the arrest of Peter, and lays the scene of the crucifixion at the Naumachia near Nero's obeliskon the mountain. St. Peter requests to be crucified head downwards, desiring out of humility not to sufifer in the same way as his Master. A further reason is given, that in this way his disciples will be better able to hear his words spoken on the cross, and a mystical ex- planationis given of theinvertedposition which bears a very Gnostic character. An alleged saying of our Lord is quoted which strongly resembles a passage from the Gospel according to the Egyptians, cited by JuUus Cassianus (Clem. Al. Strom, iii. 13, p. 553, see also Clem. Rom. ii. 12), " Unless ye make the right as the left, the left as the right, the top as the bottom, and the front as the backward, ye shall not know the kingdom of God." Linus relates how during Peter's crucifixion God, at the request of the apostle, opened the eyes of his sorrowing disciples, and so turned their grief into joy. For they saw the apostle standing upright at the top of his cross, crowned by angels with roses and lilies, and receiving from our Lord a book, out of which he reads to his disciples. This story has a good deal of affinity with that told by Leucius of a vision of our Lord during His crucifixion, seen by St. John on the Mount of Olives. The story of Peter's crucifixion head downwards was in the Acts known to Origen, who refers to it in his Comm. on Gen. (Eus. H. E. iii. i). Linus relates that Marcellus took Peter's body from the cross, bathed it in milk and wine, and embalmed it with precious spices ; but the same night, as he was watching the grave, the apostle appeared to him. and bid him let the dead bury their dead and himself preach the kingdom of God. The second book, which treats of St. Paul, relates the success of his preaching at Rome. The emperor's teacher, his hearer and close friend, when he canno^ converse with him, corresponds with him by letter. The em- peror's attention is called to the matter by a miracle worked by Paul on his favourite cupbearer, Patroclus, of whom a story is told exactly reproducing that told of Eutychus in Acts. Nero orders St. Paul's execution, Paul turns his face to the east, offers a prayer in Hebrew, blesses the brethren, binds his eyes witha veillent bya Christian matron, Plautilla, and presents his neck to the executioner. From his trunk there flows a stream of milk — a cir- cumstance referred to by Ambrose and by Macarius in a work not later than c. 400. A dazzling light makes the soldiers unable to find the veil; returning to the gate they find that Plautilla has already received it back from Paul, who has visited her accompanied by a band of white-robed angels. The same evening, the doors being shut, Paul appears to the emperor, foretells his impending doom, and terrifies him LUCANUS, or LOCIANUS intoiirdtTing tlu- role.vse of tlu- pris.uu-rs lie h;ul apprelu'iidi'd. The story ends witli an arcoiml of the baptism of the three soldiers who had had charge of St. Paul, and been onverted bv him. After his death he directs them to ro tii his grave, where they fuul SS. l.uke anil Titus praving and receive baptism at their hands. Lipsius infers, from tlie coincidences of the tolerably numerous N.T. citations in Linus with the \'ulg., that our present Latin Linus must be later than Jerome ; but he does not seem to have appreciated the conservative character of Jerome's revision or to have con- sulted the older versions. We have found no coincidence with the Vulg. which is not equally a coincidence with an older version ; and in one case, "relinque mortuos sepelire mortuos suos," the text agrees with the quotations of Ambrose, Jerome's translation being " di- mitte." We conjecture the compiler to have been a Manichean, but he is quite orthodox in his views as to the work of creation, the point on which Gnostic speculation was most apt to go astray. [c;.s.] Lucanus (l). or Luclanus, Marcionite (Lucanu^. Pseudo-Tert. i8 ; Philast. 46, and so probably their source, the Syntagma of Hippolytus ; Tertull. de Kesur. Cam. 2 ; AovKavoi, Orig. cont. Cels. ii. 27 ; on the other hand, AovKiavos Hippol. Re/, vii. 37 ; Epiph. Haer. 43). The former is the better attested form, and more likely to have been altered into the other. The Lucianites are reckoned as a sect distinct from the Marcion- ites, as well by Origen as by Hippolytus and his followers ; but lack of authentic report of any important difference in doctrine leads us to believe that Lucanus did not separate from Marcion, but that after the latter's death Lucanus was a Marcionite teacher (probably at Rome), whose celebrity caused his followers to be known by his name rather than by that of the original founder of the sect. They may have been so called in contradistinction to the Marcionites of the school of Apelles, who approached more nearly to the orthodox. Origen's language (oi>aO implies that he had no very intimate knowledge of the teaching of Lucanus ; he will not speak positively as to whether Lucanus tampered with the (;ospels. Epiphanius owns that, the sect being extinct in his time, he had difficulty in obtaining accurate information about it. Tertullian alone (u.s.) seems to have direct knowledge of the teaching of Lucanus. He accuses him of going beyond other heretics who merely denied the resurrection of the body, and of maintaining that not even the soul would rise, but some other thing, neither soul nor body. Neander (Ch. Hist. ii. 189) interprets this to mean that Lucanus held that the y/i'X'J would perish and the irutOfia alone be immortal ; and possibly this may be so, though Tertullian's language would lead us to attribute to Lucanus a theory more peculiar to himself than this would be. Some commentators, taking a jest of Tertullian's too literally, have, without good reason, ascribed to Lucanus a doctrine of transmigration of souls of men into bodies of brutes. Thev have, however, the authority of Epiphanius (Haer. 42, p. 330) tor regarding this doctrine as one likely to be held by a Marcionite. Lucanus has been conjectured to LUCIANUS (109 be th.- author of the .ip.x-rvphal Acts wliirh bore the name of LKt'ciis. and Lardiirr trral* the idcntitiration as n-rtain. l:vrn, however, if it were certain that the .\cts of Lrucius were M.irciouite. not Manichean, and as early an the 2ud cent., there is no ground f..r this idrntih- cation t)Ut the similarity of name. (<•••«.) LU0lanUS(8), a famous satirist, the wittiesl. except .-Vristophanes, of all the extant writer* of antiquity. Born (probably r. i2o)atSanuj- sata on the Euphrates, the son of poor parent*, he gradually betook himself to the compoMUK and reciting of rhetorical exercises, which he did with continually increasing success as he journeyed westwards, visiting Cireece, Italy, and (iaul, where hissuccess reached the highe^t pitch. .-Vs in course of time his rhetorical vein exhausted itself, he betook himself, when about 40 years old, to that style of writing— tlialo^ue — on which his permanent fame has rested. .\bout the same time he returned eastwards through .Athens, and was at Olympia in a.o. 165, when he saw the extraordinary self- immolation by lire of the sophist I'eregrinus. A little later he visited Paphlagonia, where ' he vehemently attacked, and made a bitter enemy of, the impostor Alexander of Abono- teichos. Of the extraordinary success of this man in deluding the weak and credulous minds of the rude people of those parts, and even the cultivated senators of Rome, Lucian has left us an animated account in the lalse Prophet (\l/(\'56uavTi^). Lucian once had an interview with him. and stooping down, in- stead of kissing his hand, as was the custom, bit it severely. Luckily he had a guard of two soldiers with him, sent by his friend the governor of Cai)pad<)cia (a proof of Lucian's importance at this time), or he would have fared badlv at the hands of the attendants of Alexander.' The latter pretended reconcilia- tion, and subsequently lent Lucian a ship to return home in, but gave secret instructions to the crew to throw him overboard (»n the : voyage. The master of the ship, however, repented, and Lucian was landed at .Aegialos, and thence conveyed to Amastris in a ship belonging to the ambassadors of king Eupator. He endeavoured to get .Alexander punished for this piece of treachery, but the hitter's in- fluence was too strong. Of his later years we know but little; he was, however, appointed by the emperor (probablv Commodus) to a post ()f honour and emolument in Egypt. We do not know the cause, manner, or time of his death. His writings, with all their brilliancy, do not convey the impression of a \ warm-hearted man ; the I'eregrinus is especi- ally noticeable for the hard unconcern with which he describes both the sclf-sarrifxing love of the Christians and the tragic self- sought death of the sophist. For cool com- mon sense and determmation to see every- thing in its naked reality, apart from the dis- turbing influences of hoi>e, fear, enthusiasm, or superstition, he has never in any age been surpassed. His most ess<-ntial characteristic could not be better described than in his own words, in the dia|r>i;uc entitled 'A\i»i'«, of the Fisherman : " I am a hater of liiij)o»ture, jugglery, lies, and ostentation, and m short of all that rascally sort of men ; and there are very many of them " (§ ao). Shortly 670 LUCIANUS after he says very candidly that there was some danger of his losing his power of esteem and love, for want of opportunities of ex- ercising it ; whereas opportunities in the con- trary direction were ample and frequent. For a complete analysis of his works see D. of G and R. Biogr., s.v. Here it must suffice to indicate his relations to the religious influence of his time, and, above all, to Christianity. The progress of experience, the leisure of ; research, had in his time shattered all real ! belief in the gods of ancient Greece and Rome in the minds of cultured men. But the vast crowd of deities, which the conflux of so many nations under the protecting shadow of Rome had gathered together, received, collectively and separately, a certain respect from the most incredulous. To the statesman, the gods of Rome were the highest symbol of the power of the imperial city ; as such, he required for them external homage, to refuse which might be construed as rebellion against the state. Philosophers feared lest, if the particular acts of special deities were too rudely criticized, the reverence due to the gods in their remote and abstract sanctity might decay. Hence both classes favoured the sway of religious beliefs to which they had themselves ceased to adhere. The multitude was tossed about from religion to religion, from ceremony to ceremony, from rite to rite, in the vain hope that among so many super- natural powers some might lead men' rightly to safety and happiness. The urgent need felt for guidance and the actual deficiency of sound guidance formed a combination favour- able to the designs of greedy impostors. The Stoic philosophers, it is true, had formed a moral system capable of impressing on in- tellectual minds a remarkable self-restraint and large elements of virtue. But in hopeful- ness, the living sap which gives virtue its vitality, the Stoic was grievously deficient ; [ and hence his phil.isophy was powerless with [ the multitude, and apt to degenerate into a | hypocritical semblance even with its learned i professors. There probably was never a time i when so great a variety of hypocrisies and . false beliefs prevailed among men. Such a ; world Lucian, witha cold, penetrating intellect, | described with an audacity seld^im paralleled. ' The ordinary method of his satire on the mythology of Greece and Rome consists in | simply exhibiting the current legends as he finds them, stripped of the halo of awe and | splendour with which they had habitually been j surrounded, to the amused and critical reader. Sometimes his attack is more direct — as in the Zf I s Tpa7y56s, J upiter the Tragedian, where the plain insinuation is that the general pro- fession of belief in the gods was simply oc- casioned by the odium and alarm which a con- trary assertion would excite. Not so sweeping in extent, but still more unreserved in exposing the dtiings of the heathen deities, is the treatise nepl 6v(Tiu}v, on Sacrifices. The Zei'S Tpa7<jj5os shews Lucian's disbelief in any divine govern- ance of the world ; the treatise Trepi wefdovs, j on Mourning, his disbelief in immortality. I But what was Lucian's attitude towards Christianity, which in his age was beginning to be known as no inconsiderable power in all : parts of the Roman world ? Two dialogues I LUCIANUS have to be considered in answering this question — 'AX^i-apdpos fj '^evSdfj.aPTH, Alex- ander, or the False Prophet ; and wepi t^s Uepeypivov TfXtvnjs, Concerning the death of Peregrinus ; for the Philopatris may be dismissed at once as pretty certainly no genuine work of its reputed author. The most sympathetic allusion to the Christians by the genuine Lucian is in the " Alexander," where the Christians are joined with the Epicureans (whom Lucian much admired) as persistent and indomitable op- ponents of that fine specimen of rascality. A much fuller and more interesting account of the Christians is contained in the other work named. This (together with the Philopatris) was placed on the Index Expurgatorius, and hence does not appear in the first and second Aldine editions of Lucian (Venice, 1503 and 1522). Yet all that it says about the early Christians is very highly to their credit, ex- cept in attributing to them a too great eurjdiia, a simplicity and guilelessness which rendered them liable to be deceived by worthless pre- tenders to sanctity. The passage contains one or two statements — that about the new Socrates, and the eating forbidden food — which it is difficult to think strictly accurate. Peregrinus Proteus was a cynic philoS(5pher who flourished in the reign of the Antonines, and who, after a life of singularly perverted ambition, burnt himself publicly at the Olympian games, a.d. 165. We quote the passage from Francklin's translation : " About this time it was that he learned the wonderful wisdom of the Christians, being intimately acquainted with many of their priests and scribes. In a very short time he convinced them that they were all boys to him ; became their prophet, their leader, grand president, and, in short, all in all to them. He explained and interpreted several of their books, and wrote some himself, inso- much that they looked upon him as their legislator and high priest, nay, almost wor- shipped him as a god. Their leader, whom they yet adore, was crucified in Palestine for introducing this new sect. Proteus was on this account cast into prison, and this very circumstance was the foundation of all the consequence and reputation which he after- wards gained, and of that glory for which he had always been so ambitious ; for when he was in bonds the Christians, considering it as a calamity affecting the common cause, did everything in their power to release him, which when they found impracticable, they paid him all possible deference and respect; old women, widows, and orphans were continually crowd- ing to him ; some of the most principal of them even slept with him in the prison, having bribed the keepers for that purpose ; there were costly suppers brought in to them ; they read their sacred books together, and the noble Peregrinus (for so he was then called) was dignified by them with the title of the New Socrates. Several of the Christian de- puties from the cities of Asia came to assist, to plead for, and comfort him. It is incredible with what alacrity these people support and defend the public cause— they spare nothing, in short, to promote it. Peregrinus being made a prisoner on their account, they col- I LUCIANUS lected inoiipy tor liiin, and lie inadf a very pretty revenue of it. These po«.r men, it seems, had persuaded themselves tliat they should be immortal, and live for ever. They despised death, therefore, and offered up their lives a voluntary sacrifice, being taujjht by their lawgiver that they were all brethren, anil that, quitting our Grecian gods, they must worship their own sophist, who was crucified, and live in obedience to his laws. In com- pliance with them they lo«iked with contempt on all worldly treasures, and held everything in common — a maxim which they had adopted without any reason or foundation. If any cunning impostor, therefore, who knew how to manage matters came amongst them, he soon grew rich by imposing on the credulity of these weak and foolish men. Peregrinus, however, was set at liberty by the governor ol Syria, a man of learnini; and a lover of phiU>- sophy, who withal well knew the folly of the man, and that he would willingly have suffered death for the sake of that glory and reputation which he would have acquired by it. Think- ing him, however, not worthy of so honourable an exit, he let him go. . . . Once more, how- ever, he was obliged to fiy his country. The Christians were again his resource, and, having entered into their service, he wanted for nothing. Thus he subsisted for some time ; but at length, having done something con- trary to their laws (I believe it was eating food forbidden amongst them), he was reduced to want, and forced to retract his donation to the city, and to ask for his estate again, and issued a process in the name of the emperor to recover it ; but the city sent messages to him commanding him to remain where he was, and be satisfied." It would seem from the above that com- munity of goods, in some degree or other, was practised among the early Christians to a later date than is generally supposed. Lucian confirms the general opinion as to the con- tinual liability to persecution of the Christians f)f those ages. Moreover, though cjusidering them weak and deluded p>' ^ple, he charges them with no imposture or falsehood, though he was very prone to bring such charges. In fact, did we know nothing of the early Christians but whathehererecords.hisaccouut would raiseour interest in them in a very high degree; even their too great simplicity is not an unlovable trait. There is an excellent trans, of I.ucian by Wieland into German (Leipz. 1788- 1789, 6 v.ils. 8vo), and one of great merit into Hng. by Dr. Francklin in 2 vols. 4to (I.ond. 1780) and 4 vols. 8vo (Lond. 1781). For other edd. and trans, see D. of G. and R. liiogr. [j.k.m.] Luclanus (12), priest of Autioch, martyr; born at Samosata c. 240, educated at Edessa under a certain Macarius, a learned expounder of Holv Scripture (Suidas, s.v.). l.ucianus went to Antioch, which held a high rank among the schools of the East and was then, owing to the controversies raised by Haulus of Samosata, the great centre of theological interest. There he was probably instructed by Malchion, who seems to have been the true founder of the celebrated Antiochenc school of divines, of whom I.ucian, Chrysostom, Diodorus, Theodoret, and Theodore of Moi>- LUCIANUS n7i sueslia were aflrrwaid* some of |hr ini.st distinguished. During the ciMilroviTMcs ulirr I the dej>osition of I'aulus, I.ucian i>o«<in« l>> I have fallen under suspicion. S«inir liavr thought that he clu-rishtHl MMitiments akni !<• those of I'aulus himsril, which wire o| .1 S.iImI- lian character, while others tlunk th.it ni opjiosing I'aulus he us«-<l exprovjoiis akin to Ananism (cf. Newman's Anam, \>. 7. ami c. i. $ s). This latter view is supporiitl by the creed presented at the council of .\ntio< h, A.D. 341, and purporting to be drawn up by St. Lucian. which is extremely aiiti-Sabrlliaii. He was separated fr-mi the communion i.f the three immediate successors of I'aulus -I )oin- nus, Timaeus, and Cyrillus. During the epis- copate of Cyrillus he was restored, and became I with Dorotheus the head of the theological school, giving to it the tone of literal, as op- posed to allegorical, exposititm of Scripture which it retained till the time of C'hrvsostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. I.ucian pro- duceil, possibly with the help of Dorotheus, a revised version of the l.X.X, which was used, as Jerome tells us, in the churches of Coitstaii- tinoi)le, Asia Minor, and Antioch, and met with such universal acceptance that it received the name of the Vulgate (Vulgata, Ko<f^), while copies of the LXX in general passes! j under the title of Lucianea (Westcott, Hist, of Canon, p. 360). He also wrote some doctrinal treatises, and a commentary on Job. See Routh, Rtliq. Sacr. v. 3-17. i In the school of Lucian the leaders and sup- , porters of the Arian heresy were traine<l. , Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Maris of Chalcedon, Leontius of Antioch, Eudoxius, Theognis of Nicaea, and Asterius appealed to 1 him as their authority (but see Akits) and adopted from him the party designation of Collucianists (De Broglie, L'i.glise et V Empire, i. 375). Lucian bee ame afterwards iiKJre con- servative, and during Diocletian's persecuti.in he encouraged the martvrs to suffer courage- ously, but escaped himself till Theotecnus was appointed governor of .-Vntiixh, when he was betrayed by the Sabellian partv, seized and forwarded to Nicomedia to the emperor Maxi- minus, where, after delivering a speech in de- fence of the faith, he was starved fi.r many days, tempted with meats offered to idols, and ! finally put to death in prison, Jan. 7, 3«i "f 312. His b<xly was buried at Drepana in I Bithynia, where his relics were visited bv Con- I stantine, who freed the city from taxes anti ' changed its name to Helenopolis. \ fragment of the apology <lelivered by the martvr ha* been preserved by Kufinus and will be fouiul in Routh, I.e. Dr. Westcott, I.e.. accepts it as genuine. As to whether Lucian the martyr and Bibli- cal critic was the same person as I.ucian the 1 excommunicate<l heretic. Ceillier. Fleury. and De Broglie take one side. Dr. Newman the other. The former contend that neither Eusebius. Jerome, nor (.hrys-stoin inenliotn his lapse in early life. But their notices arc very brief, none of them arc professed bio- graphers, and we cannot depend much upon mere negative evitlencc. On the other hand we have the positive statements of Alexan- der, bp. of Alexandria (in The<Kl. //. E. i- \, and I'hilostorg. H. E. ii. 14 and 15 ; sec aUo 672 LUCIPERUS I. Epiphan. Ancorat. c. 33), which, together with the fact that the Arian party at Antioch sheltered themselves behind a creed said to have been " written in the hand of Lucian himself, who suffered martyrdom at Nico- media " (Soz. H. E. iii. 5), outweigh the im- probability involved in the silence of the others. He may easily have been 30 years in church communion when he died, and with the 4th- cent. Christians a martyrdom like his would more than atone for his early fall. The creed of Lucian is in Hefele, Hist, of Councils, ii. 77, Clark's ed. ; cf. Soz. H. E. iii. 5, vi. 12. Bp. Bull maintains its authenti- city and orthodoxy (Def. of Nic. Creed, lib. iv. c. xiii. vi. § 5). Wright's Syriac. Mart. Eus. viii. 13, ix. 6 ; Chrysost. Horn, in Lucian, in Migne, Patr. Gk. t. 1. p. 520 ; Gieseler, H. E. i. 248 ; Neander, H. E. ii. 498. Neander gives the numerous references to Lucian in St. Jerome's writings. [g.t.s.] Luciferus I., bp. of Calaris (Cagliari) in Sardinia, mentioned first in a letter of pope Liberius to Eusebius of Vercelli. Moved by great anxiety about the efforts then being made (a.d. 354) to procure a condemnation of Athanasius by the Western bishops, Lucifer had come from Sardinia to Rome, and Liberius accepted his offer to go as an envoy to Con- stantius to ask him to summon a council. The council met at Milan in 334. The Arian party, supported by the emperor, was strong in it, and a proposal to condemn Athanasius was immediately brought forward, but re- sisted by Lucifer with such vehemence that the first day's meeting broke up in confusion and his opponents prevailed on the emperor to confine him in the palace. On the fourth day he was released. The subsequent dis- cussions of the council were held in the palace and Constantius himself apparently took part in them. The proceedings were irregular and disorderly, and after some personal alterca- tions the emperor sent Lucifer into exile. His banishment lasted from 355 to 361, and was mostly spent at Eleutheropohs in Pales- tine, subject to the persecutions of the Arian bp. Eutychius. During his banishment, and probably at Eleutheropolis, his books or pamphlets on the controversy were written. Lucifer addresses Constantius in them with a remarkable vigour of denunciation. He evidently courted persecution, and even mar- tyrdom. He compares the emperor to the worst kings that ever reigned, and regards him as more impious than Judas Iscariot. He sent his vehement invective by a special messenger to Constantius himself. Aston- ished at this audacity, the emperor ordered Florentius, an officer of his court, to send the book back to Lucifer to ask if it were really his. Ihe intrepid bishop replied that it was and sent it back again. Constantius must be allowed to have shewn magnanimity in leaving these violent effusions unpunished. There may, however, have been some additional hard- ship in the removal of Lucifer from Palestine to the Thebaid, where he remained till the death of Constantius in 361. Hearing of his arrival in Egypt, Athanasius sent a letter from Alexandria, full of praise and congratulations, asking him to let him see a copy of his work. After receiving it, Athanasius thanked him in a LUCIUS I. still more laudatory letter, and calls him the Elias of the age. Very soon after his accession, a.d. 361, Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return to their sees. Lucifer and Eusebius of Vercelli were both in the Thebaid, and Eusebius pressed his friend to come with him to Alexandria, where a council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius, to attempt to heal a schism at Antioch. Lucifer preferred to go straight to Antioch, sending two deacons to act for him at the council. Taking a hasty part in the affairs of the much-divided church at Antioch, where the Catholic party was divided into two sections, the followers of Meletius and the followers of Eustathius, Lucifer ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bp. of the church. When Eusebius arrived at Antioch, bringing the synodal letter of the council and prepared to settle matters so as to give a triumph to neither party, he was distressed to find himself thus anticipated by the action of Lucifer. Unwilling to come into open collision with his friend, he retired immediately ; Lucifer stayed, and declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policyof the Alexandriancouncil, which had determined that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism under pres- sure should remain undisturbed. After remaining some time at Antioch, Lucifer returned to Sardinia, and continued, it would seem, to occupy his see. Jerome (Chron.) states that he died in 371. To what extent he was an actual schismatic remains obscure. St. Ambrose remarks that " he had separated himself from our communion " (de Excessu Satyri, 1127, 47) ; and St. Augustine, " that he fell into the darkness of schism, having lost the light of charity" {Ep. 185, note 47). But there is no mention of any separa- tion except Lucifer's own repulsion of so many ecclesiastics ; and Jerome, in his dialogue against the Luciferians (§ 20), calls him beatus and bonus pastor. (See a quotation from the Mim. de Trevoux in Ceillier, vol. iv. p. 247.) The substance of Lucifer's controversial pamphlets consists of appeals to Holy Scrip- ture, and they contain a very large number of quotations from both Testaments. His writings are in Migne's Patr. Lat. t. xiii. His followers, if they ever formed a distinct organization, disappeared in a few years. Jerome's dialogue adv. Luciferianos purports to be the report of a discussion between an orthodox Christian and a Luciferian. The dialogue was written c. 378, seven years after the death of Lucifer. Five or six years later an appeal was made to the emperor by the Luciferian presbyters. [j.ll.d.] Lucius (1) L, bp. of Rome, after Cornelius, probably from June 25, 253, to Mar. 5, 254, or thereabouts. These dates are arrived at by Lipsius (Chronol. der rom. Bischofe) after elaborate examination of conflicting data. The Decian persecution having been re- newed by Gallus, and Cornelius having died in banishment at Centumcellae, Lucius, elected in his place at Rome, was himself almost immediately banished. His banish- ment was of very short duration ; for Cyprian, in his one extant letter addressed to him, while i LUCIUS alluding to his election as recent, conj;ralul.ites him also on Ins icturii (/•/'. i.i). A large number of Roman exiles lor the faith appear from this letter to have returned to Rome with Lucius. In a letter to his successor Stephen {Ep. 68), Cyprian calls both Lucius and Corne- lius " blessed martyrs," but probably uses the word to include confessors. For, though the Felician and later editions of the Ltbfr Foiitificaiis say that Lucius was beheaded for the faith, the earlier Libcrian Catalogue men- tions his death only ; and it is in the l-iberian Depositio Eptscoporum, not Martyriim, that his name is found. With regard to the then burning question of the reception of the lapst, on which the schism of Novatian had begun under his predecessor Cornelius, he continued the lenient view which Cornelius, in accord with St. Cyprian of Carthage, had maintained (Cypr. Ep. 68). The Roman Martyrology, the Felician, and other editions of the' Liber Pon- ti/icalts, rightly assign the cemetery of Callistus as his place of burial, and De Rossi has dis- covered, in the Papal crypt, fragments of a slab bearing the inscription AOYKIC. Six decreta, addressed to the churches of Gaul and Spain, are assigned to Lucius by the Pseudo- Isidore, and three others by Gratian — all undoubtedly spurious. [j.b — v.] Lucius (11), the third Arian intruded into the see of Alexandria, an .-Uexandrian by birth, ordained presbyter by George. After the murder of that prelate Lucius seems to have been regarded as head of the Arians of .\lex- andria ; but Socrates's statement (iii. 4), that he was at that time ordained bishop, is cor- rected by Sozomen (vi. 5) and earlier author- ities. At the accession of Jovian, according to the Chronicon Acephalum, a Matfeian frag- ment, four leading Arian bishops put him forward to address the new emperor at .\ntioch, hoping to divert Jovian's favour from Athanasius. Records of these inter- views are annexed to .-Vthanasius's epistle to Jovian, and appear to have been read by Sozomen, who summarizes the complaints urged against the great hero of orthodoxy. The records are vivid and graphic. Lucius, Bernicianus, and other Arians presented themselves to Jovian at one of the city gates when he was riding into the country. He asked their business. They said they were "Christians from .\lexandria," and wanted a bishop. He answered, " 1 have ordered your former bishop, .\thanasius, to be put in pos- session." They rejoined that .\thanasius had ] for years been under accusation and sentence of banishment. A soldier interrupted them I by telling the emperor that they were tlie j "refuse" of "that unhallowed George" LUCIUS 6M who reported that tu do m. publicly wouKI imperii his life, whereupon Tatianii> and Irajanus. with a lar^e force, wnit t.i the house, and brought him out at i ji.iii. on Sept. 2.J. On Sept. i5 hr was conducted out of Fgypt (Chton. I'raftium and Acrphalum). .Athanasius died on May 2, 373, bciiij: suc- ceeded by Peter ; but t'lic prefect PalUduu attacked the churcli, ami Peter was either imprisoned or went into liiding. Iluzolus llic old .\riaii bp. of .Antioch, easily obtained from Valcns an order to install I.iirius. .Accord- ingly Lucius appeared in .Ah-xandria, escortetl, as Peter said in his encyclical letter ( Throil. iv. 25), not by monks and clergy and laH\. but by Euziuus, and the imperial treasurer Magnus, at the head of a large body of sol- diers ; while the pagan populace intimated their friendly feeling towards the .Arian bishop by hailing him as oin- who did not worship the Son of (iod and who must have Ihth sent to Alexandria by the favour of .Serapis. I.uciu« surrounded himself with pagan guards, and caused some of the orthixlox to be beaten, others to be imprisoned, exiled, or pill.iged, for refusing his communion, these seventies being actually carried out by Ma^;nus and Palladius as representing the sicul.ir power, (iregory of Nazianzus calls him a second Arius, and lays to his charge the sacrileges and bari)arities of the new Arian persecution {Oral. xxv. 12, 13). He took an active part in the attack on the monks of Egypt ; finding them immovably attached to the Nicene faith, he advised that their chief " abbats," the two Macarii, should be banished to a little pagan island ; but when the holy men converted its inhabitants, the Alexandrian people made a vehement demon- stration against Lucius, and he sent the exiles back to their cells (Neale, //is/. Alex. i. 203). When the .Arian supremacy came to an end at the death of Valcns, in 378, Lucius was finally ejected, and repaired to Constantinople, but the Arians of Alexandria still regarded him as their bishop (Socr. v. 3). He lived for a time at Constantinople, and contributed to the Arian force which gave such trouble to Gregory of Nazianzus, during his residence in the capital as bishop of the few Catholics, from the beginning of 379. In Nov. 380 the .Arian bp. Ueinophilus was expelled, and Lucius went with him. Theodoret (iv. 31) confounds Lucius with another .Arian prelate of that name, also a persecutor, who usurped the see of Samosata (Tillem. vi. 5<>3). {w.b.) Lucius (16) {l.lcttui:. I.le\, I IfuterStaur, Llfurui;). a mytiiical ch.uarter represented as the first ( hristi in king in IJrilaiii. Hy William of .Malmesburv (Ant. Gtasl. 11.). and more espe- cially bv Geolfrey of .Monmouth (WfU. //is/, iv. Jovian" spurred his'horse and'rode away. I v.), besides later writers, Lucius is assigned a Lucius does not reappear until 367, when, 1 most important place in the C hristianuing of having been consecrated, says Tillemont (vi. | Britain. 582), "either at Antioch, or at some other place! L As represented by (.eoflrcy of Mon- out of Egypt," he attempted to possess him- , mouth, whose narrative has made the dccjKTit self of the bishopric, and entered Alexandria ; impression on popular history. Lucius was by night on Sept. 23, and "remained in a 1 descended from Urutus, the founder and fir»l small house," next the precinct of the cathe- , king of Britain, and succeeded hi» father dral. In the morning he went to the house Coillus, son of Meirig or Marius. like hit where his mother still lived; his presence : father, besought and secured the (riendihip excited general indignation, and the people : of the Romans. 1 he fanic of the (.hristian beset the house. The prefect Latianus and I miracles inspired him with such love for th? the dux Trajanus sent officers to expel him, true faith that he petitioned pope Lieut heru» 43 674 LUCIUS for teachers, and on the arrival of the two most holy doctors, Faganus and Duvanus, re- ceived baptism along with multitudes from all countries. When the missionaries had almost extinguished paganism in the island, they dedi- cated the heathen temples to the service of God, and filled them with congregations of Christians ; they fully organized the church, making the flamens into bishops, and the arch- fiamens into archbishops, and constituting 3 metropolitans with 28 suffragan bishops. Lucius largely endowed the church, and, re- joicing in the progress of the gospel, died at Gloucester (Malmesbury says at Glastonbury) A.D. 156, without leaving any issue (Baron. Ann. A.D. 183 ; Cressy, Church Hist. Brit, iii.iv. at great length and diffuseness ; Lib. Landav. by Rees, 26, 65, 306, 309, but much shorter). II. Parallel to the preceding, but without such minute details, is the legend in the Welsh Triads and genealogies, which are of very uncertain date and authority. Lleirwg, Lleurwg, or Lies, also named or surnamed Lleufer-Mawr ("the great luminary," as all the names express the idea of brightness, corresponding to the Latin Lucius), son of Coel ap Cyllin ap Caradog or Caractacus ap Bran, was a Welsh chieftain of Gwent and Mor- ganwg in the S. of Wales. Two of the Triads (Myv. Arch. ii. 63, 68) state that he founded the church of Llandaff, which was the first in Britain, and endowed it with lands and privileges, giving the same also to all those persons who first embraced the gospel. The Welsh Triads would place him about the mid- dle of the 2nd cent. (Rees, Welsh Saints, c. 4 ; Williams, Eniin. Welsh. 276 ; Lib. Landav. by Rees, 309 n. ; Lady Ch. Guest, Mabinogion, ii. 130 ; Stephens, Lit. Cymr. 69.) III. In tracing the rise and growth of the legend there is comparatively little difficulty. Gildas makes no allusion to it. The earliest English author to notice it is Bede (Chron. A.D. 180) : " Lucius Britanniae rex, missa ad Eleutherium Romae episcopum epistola, ut Christianus efficiatur, impetrat " ; and again H. E. i. c. 4- The source from which Bede received the name of Lucius, and his connexion with Eleutherus, is shewn by Haddan and Stubbs [Comic, etc. i. 25) to have been a later inter- polated form of the Catalogus Pontificum Roma- noruin {ap. Boll. Acta SS. i Apr. i. p. xxiii. Catalogi Veteres A ntiquoriini Pontificum). The original Catalogue, written shortly after 353, gives only the name and length of pontificate by the Roman consulships, but the inter- polated copy (made c. 530) adds to the Vita S. Eleutheri " Hie accepit epistolam a Lucio Britanniae Rege ut Christianus efficeretur per ejus mandatum." Haddan and Stubbs con- clude : " It would seem, therefore, that the bare story of the conversion of a British prince [temp. Eleutheri) originated in Rome during the 5th or 6th cents., almost 300 or more 3'ears after the date assigned to the story itself ; that Bede in the 8th cent, introduced it into England, and that by the gth cent, it had grown into the conversion of the whole of Britain ; while the full-fledged fiction, con- necting it specially with Wales and with Glastonbury, and entering into details, grew up between cents. 9 and 12." MACARIUS MAGNES Of the dates assigned to king Lucius there is an extreme variety, Ussher enumerating 23 from 137 to 190, and placing it in his own Ind. Chron. in 176, Nennius in 164, and Bede [Chron.)in 180, and again [H. E.)m 156. But the chronology is in hopeless confusion (see Haddan and Stubbs, i. 1-26). Ussher [Brit. Eccl. Ant. cc. iii.-vi.) enters minutely into the legend of Lucius, accepting his existence as a fact, as most other authors have done. His festival is usually Dec. 3. [J-g.] IV. A final explanation of the Lucius legend was given by Dr. Harnack in 1904 in the Sitzungsberichte der Konigl. Preuss. Akademie der Wissensch. xxvi.-xxvii.. A recovered fragment of the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria suggested to him that the entry in the Liber Pontificalis was due to a confusion between Britannio and Britio. Dr. Harnack shews that the latter word almost undoubtedly refers to the birtha or castle of Edessa. Bede probably misread Britio in the Liber Pontifi- calis as Britannio, and referred the entry in consequence to Britain, whereas it relates to the conversion of Edessa in the time of Lucius Abgar IX. Harnack further shews that the original quotation was probably transferred from Julius Africanus to the Lib. Pont. See the review of the question in Eng. Hist. Rev. xxii. (1907) 769. Thus the mythic king Lucius of Britain finally disappears from history. [h.g.] Lupus (2). [Germanus (8).] M MacarlUS (1) 1., bp. of Jerusalem, the 39th from the Apostles, Hermon being his prede- cessor. His accession is placed by Tillemont in 311 or 312. In a list of defenders of the faith, Athanasius [Orat. /. adv. Arian, p. 291) refers to Macarius as exhibiting " the honest and simple style of apostolical men." A letter was addressed to him and other orthodox bishops by Alexander of Alexandria (Epiph. Haer. Ixix. 4, p. 730). He attended the coun- cil of Nicaea in 325 (Soz. i. 17 ; Theod. H. E, i. 15). During his episcopate, A.D. 326 or 327, Helena paid her celebrated visit to J erusalem. Macarius was commissioned by the emperor Constantine, a.d. 326, to see to the erection of a basilica on the site of the Holy Sepulchre. The emperor's letter is given by Eusebius [de Vita Const, iii. 29-32), Socrates [H. E. i. 9) and Theodoret [H. E. i. 17). Constantine subse- quently [c. 330) wrote to Macarius with the other bishops of Palestine about the profana- tion of the sacred terebinth of Mamre by idolatrous rites (Euseb. u.s. 52, 53). The emperor also presented Macarius with a vest- ment of gold tissue for the administration of the sacrament of baptism, as a token of honour to the church of Jerusalem (Theod. H. E. ii. 27). The death of Macarius is placed by Sozomen [H. E. ii. 20) between the deposition of Eustathius, a.d. 331, and the council of Tyre, a.d. 335. He was succeeded by Maxi- mus. [E.v.j Macarius (9) Magnes, a writer of the end of the 4th cent. Four centuries after, his name had sunk into almost complete oblivion, when in the course of the image controversy a MACARIUS MAGNES quotation from liiin was proiiucnl mi iln- iconoclastic side. Nicophonis. then or after- wards patriarch of Constantinople, had never heard of him, and only after lonj; search could he procure a copy of the work containing the extract (Sf^icile^ium Solfxnmt<if, i. 305). \ Nicephorus evidently hail no knowledRe of the author except from the book itself. The words ' Macarius Majjnes may be both proper names, i or else may be translated either as the blessed ' Magnes or as .Macarius the Magnesian. ! Nicephorus understood Macarius as a proper I name, and so he found it understood in the I title of the extract which he discusses, but will I not undertake to say whttiuT Magnes is a proper name or a geogr.iphical term. He ] concludes that .Macarius was a bishop, because ' the title described the author as ifpdpxv^ ^"d the very ancient MS. from which his infor- mation was derived contained a portrait of the author in a sacerdotal dress. Me dates Macarius as 300 years later than the " Divine and .-Vpostolic preaching," as could be gathered from two passages in the work. The work, called Af^ocritica. was addressed to a friend named Tiieosthenes, and contained objections by a heathen of the school of .\ris- totle. together with replies by Macarius. Nice- phorus finds that the extract produced by the Iconoclasts had been unfairly used, the context shewing that Macarius referred only to heathen idolatry and not to the use of images among Christians. But Nicephorus had no favourable opinion of him on the whole, thinking he discerned Manichcan, Arian, or Nestorian tendencies, and especially agreement with " the impious and senseless Origen " as to the non-eternity of future punishments. Macarius again sank into ob- scurity, only some very few extracts from his writings being found in MSS. of succeeding centuries. Near the end of the i6tii cent, he became again the subject of controversy through the Jesuit Turrianus, who had found a copy of the Apocritica in St. Mark's Library at Venice, whicli when afterwards sought for had disappeared. In 1S67 there was found at Athens what there is good reason to believe was this copy, which, by theft or otherwise, had found its wav to Greece. This was pub. by Paul Foucart '( Paris, 1876). Shortly after Duchesne pub. a dissertation on Macarius (Paris, 1877), with the text of all the attain- able fragments of .Macarius's homilies on (iene- sis. The Apocritica consisted of live books: of these we have only the third complete ; but enough remains to shew that the work pur- ports to contain a report of a viva voce dis- cussion between the author and a Grecian philosopher. In form it is perhaps unique. It is not a mere dialogue ; nor does it proceed in the Platonic method r)f short <pj«-stions and answers. Each speech (jf the heathen objector is made up of some half-dozen short speeches, each dealing with different objec- tions. To these Macarius severally replies, and then follow a few lines of narrative introducing a new set of objections. We doubtless have here a unique specimen of genuine heathen objections of the 4th cent. The blows against Christianity are dealt with such hearty goodwill and with so little re- straint of language that a Christian would MACARIUS MAGNES •17.', ii-rt.uuly ii.iM- r.^j.mi.d u .is 1 invent such .m att.ick. Th..! I not invent the objection* i» fir v his sometimes iuis>HiK thnr p.i... .i, answers bemg often very un'».iti»»act<>cv. There is also ,1 clear ilillrrmrr in st\ |r iM-twrrn the language of the objertoi ml .1 (lir respondent. It has therefor. I that Mar.irius reproduces the 1 1 as thesubst.mceof the armnm 1.: 1 and then arises the question, li... thr diali>gue recortl a real vtva voct di^^u^sion with a heathen objector, ur are tl>c hrathrn objections from a published work against Christianitv, and if so, whose ? " The earliest Christian apologists drfrtidrd their religion against men who had a vrrv v.igue knowledge of it. Mut towards tin- rl..sr of the 3rd cent, a svstem.itic .ittack w.»s ni.i<l«- on our religion by its most forniid.iblr adver- sary. Porphyry, founded on a careful study of our sacred books. Three or four of the Macarian objections have been at least ultimately derived from Porphyrv. They do not appear to be verbally copied from him ; and the Macarian objector plac«-s himvlf 300 years after St. Paul's death, which, with every allowance for round numbers, is too late for PorphNTy. .Again, there is scarcely any re- semblance between the objections in Macarius and what we know of those of the emperor Julian. Great part of these last is directi-tl against the O.T., those of .Macarius alnx^st exclusively against the New; and the .Mac- arian objections are not attacks of a general nature on the Christian scheme, but rather attempts to find error or self-contradiction in particular texts, e.g. how could Jesus say, " Me ye have not always," and yet " I am with you always, even to the end of the world " ? intermediate in time between Porphyry and Julian was Hierocles, and Duchesne ably advocates the view that the discussion in Macarius is fictitious, and that his book contains a literal transcript of parts of the lost work of Hierocles. We are ourselves inclined to believe that while no doubt .Macarius or the heathen i)hilosophers whom he encountered drew the substance of their arguments, and even in some cases their language, from pre- vious heathen writings, yet on the whole the wording is Macarius's own. We give a few specimens of the objections with .Macarius's solutions, with a warning that the selection i» scarcely f.iir to .Macarius, since it is not worth while printing such of his answer* a» an apologist of to-dav would give. Ob. Jesus told ilis disciples " Fear not them who can kill the body," yet when danger wa» threatening Himself, He prayed in an agony that the suffering might pass away. Hit words then were not worthy of a Son of (,(h1. 1 nor even of a wise man who denpisrs dratti. I Sol. We must see what it w.\* our I ord : really feared, when He prayed. The dr\ il had : seen so many proofs of ids divinity that he i dared not assault Him again, and »o there wai I danger that that Passion which was to Ix- the i salvation of the wfirld should never take place, i Our l.ord dissembles, therefore, and pretend* I to fear death, and thus deceiving the devil, I hastens the hour of his assault ; (or when He I prayed that His cup might pat*, what fie 676 MACARIUS MA6NE§ really desired was thai it should come more speedily. He thus caught the devil by baiting the hook of His divinity with the worm of His humanity, as it is written in Ps. xxii., " I am a worm, and no man," and in Job xli., " Thou shalt draw out the dragon with a hook." — The doctrine that the devil was thus deceived is taught by many Fathers, e.g. Gregory Nyssen. Ciregory the Great, commenting on Job xli. i, uses language strikingly like that of Macarius ; but the common source of Macarius and the rest was Origen's Comm. on Ps. xxii. Ob. How can Jesus say "Moses wrote of Me," when nothing at all of the writings of Moses has been preserved ? All were burnt with the temple, and what we have under the name of Moses was written i,i8o years after his death by Ezra and his company. Sol. When Ezra rewrote the books of Moses, he restored them with perfect accuracy as they had been before : for it was the same Spirit Who taught them both. Ob. " If they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them." If so, candidates for bishop- rics ought to be tested by offering them a cup of poison. If they dare not drink, they ought to own that they do not really believe the words of Jesus ; and if they have not faith for the cures promised in the same context and the power to remove mountains, no ordinary Christian is now a believer, nor even any bishops or presbyters. Sol. — Christ's words are not to be under- stood literally. Working cures is no test of faith : for such are often performed by un- believers or atheists. It is not to be supposed Christ intended His disciples to do what He never did Himself, and He never moved a literal mountain. What He meant by moun- tains was demons, and we have in Jer. li. 25 this metaphorical use of the word mountain. — Here we have another coincidence with Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi. 35 (Vulg.) ; Migne, i. 1000), both no doubt being indebted to Origen. It is important to note that St. Mark, as read by the objector and by Macarius, con- tained the disputed verses at the end, as is seen also from his mentioning that out of Mary Magdalen had been cast seven devils (see Orig. Adv. Cels. ii. 55). He speaks of the author of Hebrews as the Apostle, no doubt intending St. Paul. He appears to have used II. Peter (see p. 180). The phrase " the canon of the N.T." occurs p. 168. With respect to idolatry the heathen apologist argues : None of us supposes wood or stone to be God, or thinks that if a piece be broken off an image, the power of the Deity represented is diminished. It was by way of reminder that the ancients set up temples and images, that those who come to them might think of God and make prayers accord- ing to their needs. You do not imagine a picture of your friend to be your friend ; you keep it merely to remind you of him, and to do him honour. Our sacrifices are not intended to confer benefit on the Deity, but to shew the love and gratitude of the worship- per. We make our images of Deity in human form as being the most beautiful we know. We have not space to give other answers of Macarius, though some are clever enough. Sufficient has been quoted to show the MACARIUS MA6NES allegorical style of interpretation which Maca* rius used. Other examples could be easily added: e.g. the clouds by which Paul expected to be caught up mean angels (p. 174) ; the three measures of meal (Matt, xiii.) mean time, past, present, and future ; the thong (shoe-latchet) which could not be loosed is the tie between our Lord's humanity and divinity (p. 93) ; the four watches of the night (Matt. xiv. 25) mean the ages of the patriarchs, of the law, of the prophets, and of Christ ; in Elijah's vision the strong wind was the patriarchal dispensation which swept away the worship of idols ; the earthquake was the law of Moses, at the giving of which the mountains leaped like rams ; the fire was the word of prophecy (Jer. XX. 9) ; the still small voice was the message of Gabriel to Mary. Macarius thus belonged to the Alexandrian school of alle- gorical interpretation, as might be expected from the great use he makes of Origen, not to the Syrian literal school. [Diodorus.] Alex- andria might also be suggested by the fact that Macarius has some scientific knowledge. He admires extremely (p. 179) the skill of geometers in being able to find a square equal in area to a triangle ; he knows the astro- nomical labours of Aratus, and is aware that in the discussion of celestial problems the earth is treated as a point. On the other hand, many indications point to the East as his abode. He measures distances by para- sangs (p. 138) ; when speaking (p. 7) of the diversities which exist among the population of a great city, he chooses Antioch as his example. Speaking of the ascetic life, he draws his instances not from the celebrated solitaries of Egypt, but those of the East. In a short list of heretics the Syrian Bardesanes is included. The woman healed of an issue of blood is said to have been Berenice, queen of Edessa, a notion Ukely to have been derived from a local tradition. In a question of lan- guage which became the subject of much dispute in the East he sides with those who speak of rptC'v VTroardaeoji' iv ovirlq. jxiq.. Crusius pointed out, and the suggestion has been adopted by Moller (Schiirer, Theol. Lit. Zeit. 1877, p. 521), that at the Synod of the Oak in 403, one of the accusers of Heracleidas of Ephesus was a Macarius, bp. of Magnesia. His identification with our Macarius seems highly probable. It is not a weighty objec- tion that one of the charges brought against Heracleidas was Origenism, while Macarius, as we have seen, was largely indebted to Origen. Macarius had other grounds of hos- tility to Heracleidas, and we have no know- ledge that his own admiration of Origen was such as to induce him to incur the charge of heresy for his sake, or to refrain from bringing the charge of Origenism against an opponent. The Magnesian Macarius sufficiently satisfies the conditions of time and place. Duchesne conjectures that Macarius may probably have visited Rome. Of the heroes of the Eastern church he names only Polycarp, telling of him a story found elsewhere. Of Westerns he names Irenaeus of Lyons, Fabian of Rome, and Cyprian of Carthage. He has the story told in the Latin Abdias (Fabric. Cod. Ap. N. T. p. 455) of flowing milk instead of blood from St. Paul's headless body (p. MACARIUS 182). The duration of St. Pctor's episcopate is made only a few months (p. loi). [cs.] MaoariilS ( 12), presbyter of Athanasius. Earlv in his episcopate, perhaps in 329 or 330 (if his consecration was on June «, 328, as Hefele reckon*;. Councils, ii. 4), Athanasiis, on a visitation in Mareotis. was informed that a layman named Ischyr.is was exercising priestly functions. Macarius was sent to summon the offender before the archbishop, but Ischyras beiiij; ill, his fatiier was requested to restrain him from the offence. Ischyras, recovering, fled to the Meletians, who invented the accusation that Macuius, by order of .\thanasius. had forced the chapel of Ischyras, overthrown his altar, broken the chalice, and burnt the sacred books (Athan. Apol. c. At. c. 63 ; Socr. i. 27 \ Hilar. I'ict. Frai^m. ii. § 18). ^Iaca^ius is ne.xt found at the imperial court at Xicomedia on a mission with another priest, .\lypius, when three Meletian clergy, Ision, Kudaemon. Callinicus, brought their accusa- tion against Athanasius in reference to the linen vestments. Macarius and Alypius were opportunely able to refute the calumny (Socr. i. 27 ; Soz. ii. 22). This may have been late in 330 or early in 331 ; Paci's dale 32S seems too early. Macarius and the three .Meletians were still there when Athanasius arri\cd (331) on a summons from Constantine ; tlie .Nlele- tians brought against the archbisliop the fresh charge of supplying money to Phihinienus and Macarius was charged with the breaking of the chalice (Hefele, ii. 13). The charge was easily disproved. Macarius ag.iin assisted Athanasius when charged with the murder of Arsenius. When .\rsenius had been found alive and John .\rcaph had confessed the fraud, M.icarius was sent to Constantinople to inform Constantine of the collapse of the whole calumny (Athan. Apol. c. Ar. cc. 65, 66). Macarius was dragged in chains before the council at TyTe in 335, and when the com- mission was sent by that council to Mareotis to investigate the affair of the chalice, which was still charged against Athanasius, Mac- arius was not allowed to accompany it, but was left in custody at Tyre. Athan. Apol. c. Ar. cc. 71, 72, 73 ; .Mansi, ii. 1126, 1128, b, c ; Hefele, ii. i.}-23 ; Tillem. viii. 19-23. [cm.] Macarius (17). Two hermits or monks of this name both lived in ligypt in the 4th cent.; their characters and deeds are almost indis- tinguishable. The elder is called the Egyp- tian, the younger the Alexandrine. One of them was a disciple of .Anthony and the master of EvAORii's, and one of them dwelt in the Thebaid. Jerome speaks of Kufinus (ilp. iii. 2, cd. Vail. A.D. 374) as " being at Nitria, and having reached the abode of Macarius." ^'et Rufinus, who lived 6 years in .\le.xandria and the adjoining monasteries, describes the resid- ence of Macarius (Hist. Mon. 29) — which he names Scithium and says was a day and a half's journey from the raonastcricb of Nitria — from the accounts of others rather than as an eye-witness. Kufinus, however, icems to have seen both hermits (Apol. Ruf. ii. 12). The stories about them are of a legendary char- acter. Kufinus, Hist. .\fon. 28, 29. and //is/. Eccl. ii. 4, 8; Palladius, 19, 20; Soz. iii. 13; Socr. iv. 18; C.onn.id. d. V. III. 11; Uur- tyrolog. Rom. Jan. 5 and 15. [w.n.r.] MACEDONIUS 077 MaoarllU (34), .1 ( liiis(i.iii<'f Rome wh<>(ritd I of 4th cent.) wrote on the divmr providrnco in opposition to heathen nolionn ■>( l«tc itnd astrology. Fmdintc »on>c ili;i:. ihi- . hp dreamed of a ship bruiKlnK r<: it. Kufinus just at this tinir am %• tine, .Mac.irius saw in tint t : >n t>f his dream anil sought (ri.iu iin, ii, ' t ii.>ni the Cireek falliers. j<uflliiis tr.ilio. dT htm jOrigen's eulogy on the iii.»rtvr I'jinphilu* j (said by Jerome to be really by l.u-u-biu*) and also Origen's rtiA '.V^X"'. t*** publirjtiou of : which led to violent coiitrovc-rsv. lilir.MoNV- I Mus ; Oric.en.I Jerome c-ills him 'oV.^iot. I saying, "Tunc discipulus'oXjiioi. vrrrn<<tniiiit siii si in talem migistriim non iniprg>\*rt " \{Ep. cxwii. ad /'riHf. cd. Vail.) [w.ii.r.] maoedonlus (2). bp. <>( Constantinople. .\t bp. .Mrxandf-r's death in 3<fi party feeling ran high. His r>rth<>d(>x follower* supported Paul, the Arians rallied rouncl Maccdonius. The fr.nn»T was ordained bishop. I but did not hol.l his bi»h..;ii. In.: The I emperor Constantius came t ' 1<-, [ convened a synod of Arian I <l 1 Paul, and, to the disappon. ' donius, translated Eusrbius ■■! m m' ;ii to ' the vacant see (a.d. 1}8). Eusebius's death ; in 341 restarted hostilities between the par- tisans of Paul and Macedonius. Paul re- turned, and was introduced into the Irtnt church of Constantinople ; Arian buh<>|>s immediately ordained Macedonius in St. Paul's church. So violent did the tumult become that Constantius sent his general Hermogenes to eject Paul for a second time. His soldiers met with open resistance ; the general was killed and his body dragged through the city. Constantius at onrc left .\nti<x;h, and punislied Constantinople by de- priving the people of half their daily allowance I of corn. F'aul was e.xpclled ; M.ace<li>nius was severely blamed for his part in these dis- turbances, and for allowing himself to Im? I ordained without imperial sanction ; but practically the .\rians triumphed. Mace- donius was permitted to officiate in the church in which he had be<rn consecrate<l. Paul went to Rome, and he and .Athanasius and other orthmlox bishops expelled from their sees were sent back bv Julius with letters re- buking those who had deposed them. Philip the prefet t ex«-cuted the fr«-sh orders of the emperor in hiirrviiig Paul into « xi|e to i Thessalonica, and in reinstating Mace<|oniu«. but not without bl'>o<lsh«-<l (S-K^r. ii. ih). ; .Mac edonius held the see for about six vean. , while letters and delegates, the |H.pr and the -emperors, synods anil counter-svn'Kls. were i debating and disputing the treatment ••( Paul I and Athanasius. In 349 the alternative <i( war offer«-<l by Constans, emperor of the \V'e««. induced Constantius to reinstate Paul; and Macedonius had to retire |<> a private churr.h. The murder of Con»tan^ (a.h iv > y\^r'^^ the East under thesi)leci>ntrolof I .id Paul was at onrc exiled- <« followed, which permitte<l tt. ;:'i to be the dominant faction in i ■ .. Macetlonius is said to have signalled his ' return to power by acts which, if truly re- P'.rted, brand him as a cruel bi«ot. The Novalianists suffered perhaps even more 678 MACEDONIUS II. fearfully than the orthodox and some of them were stung into a desperate resistance : _ those of Constantinople removing the materials of their church to a distant suburb of the city ; those at Mantinium in Paphlagonia daring to face the imperial soldiers sent to expel them from their home. " The exploits of Mace- donius," says Socrates (ii. 38), " on behalf of Christianity, consisted of murders, battles, incarcerations, and civil wars." An act of presumption finally lost him the imperial favour (a.d. 358). The sepulchre containing the relics of Constantine the Great was in danger of falling to pieces, and ^lace- donius determined to remove them. The question was made a party one. The ortho- dox assailed as sacrilege " the disinterment of the supporter of the Nicene faith," the Macedonians pleaded the necessities of struc- tural repair. When the remains were con- veyed to the church of Acacius the Martyr, the excited populace met in the church and churchyard ; so frightful a carnage ensued that the place was filled with blood and slaughtered bodies. Constantius's anger was great against Macedonius because of the slaughter, but even more because he had removed the body without consulting him. When Macedonius presented himself at the council of Seleucia (a.d. 350), it was ruled that being under accusation it was not proper for him to remain (Socr. ii. 40). His op- ponents, Acacius, Eudoxius, and others, followed him to Constantinople, and, availing themselves of the emperor's indignation, de- posed him (a.d. 360) on the ground of cruelty and canonical irregularities. Macedonius re- tired to a suburb of the city, and died there. He is said to have elaborated the views with which his name is connected in his re- tirement. His doctrine was embraced by Eleusius and others ; and Marathonius brought so much zeal to the cause that its upholders were sometimes better known as Marathon- ians. Their grave, ascetic manners and pleas- ing and persuasive eloquence secured many followers in Constantinople, and also in Thrace, Bithynia, and the Hellespontine pro\inces. Under the emperor Julian they were strong enough to declare in synod at Zele in Pontus their separation from both Arians and ortho- dox. In 374 pope Damasus and in 381 the council of Constantinople condemned their views, and they gradually ceased to exist as a distinctive sect. For authorities, consult the scattered notices in Socrates, Sozomen Hefele, ConcUiengeschichte, i. ; the usual Church histories and Holy Ghost in D. C. B. {4- vol. ed. 1882). [J.M.F.] Macedonius (3) n., patriarch of Constanti- nople A.D. 495. For an accoimt of his election see EuPHEMius (4). Within a year or two (the date is uncertain) he assembled a council, in which he confirmed in writing that of Chalcedon, and openly professed, as he always did, his adhesion to the orthodox faith. In 507 Elias, patriarch of Jerusalem, who had been unwilling to sanction the deposition of Euphemius, united himself in communion with Macedonius. The heterodox emperor Anastasius employed all means to obUge Macedonius to declare against the council of Chalcedon, but flattery and threats were alike MACEDONIUS II. unavailing. An assassin named Eucolus was even hired to take away his life. The pa- triarch avoided the blow, and ordered a fixed amount of provisions to be given monthly to the criminal. The people of Constantinople were equally zealous for the council of Chalce- don, even, more than once, to the point of sedition. To prevent unfavourable conse- quences, Anastasius ordered the prefect of the city to follow in the processions and attend at the assemblies of the church. In 510 the emperor made a new effort. Macedonius would do nothing without an oecumenical council at which the bp. of great Rome should preside. Anastasius, annoyed at this answer, and irritated because Macedonius would never release him from the engagement he had made at his coronation to maintain the faith of the church and the authority of the council of Chalcedon, sought means to drive him from his chair. He sent Eutychian monks and clergy, and sometimes the magistrates of the city, to load him with public outrage and insult. This caused such a tumult amongst the citizens that the emperor was obliged to shut himself up in his palace and to have vessels moored near in case flight should be necessary. He sent to beg ^lacedonius to come and speak with him. Macedonius went and reproached him with the sufferings his persecutions caused the church. Anastasius pretended to be willing to alter this, but at the same time made a third attempt to tamper with the orthodoxy of the patriarch. One of his instruments was Xenaias, an Eutychian bishop. He demanded of Macedonius a de- claration of his faith in writing ; Macedonius addressed a memorandum to the emperor insisting that he knew no other faith than that of the Fathers of Nicaea and Constantinople, and that he anathematized Nestorius and Eutyches and those who admitted two Sons or two Christs, or who divided the two natures. Xenaias, seeing the failure of his first attempt, procured two infamous wretches, who accused Macedonius of an abominable crime, avowing themselves his accomplices. They then charged him \dth Nestorianism, and with ha\ang falsified a passage in an epistle of St. Paul, in support of that sect. At last the emperor commanded him to send by the hands of the master of the offices the authentic copy of the Acts of the council of Chalcedon signed with the autographs of the bishops. Mace- donius refused, sealed it up, and hid it under the altar of the great church. Thereupon Anastasius had him carried off by night and taken to Chalcedon, to be conducted thence to Eucaita in Pontus, the place of the exile of his predecessor. In 515 pope Hormisdas worked for the restitution of Macedonius, whom he considered unjustly deposed ; it had been a stipulation in the treaty of peace be- tween Vitalian and Anastasius that the pa- triarch and all the deposed bishops should be restored to their sees. But Anastasius never kept his promises, and Macedonius died in exile. His death occurred c. 517, at Gangra, where he had retired for fear of the Huns, who ravaged all Cappadocia, Galatia, and Pontus. Theod. Lect. ii. 573-578, in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. ; Evagr. III. xxxi. xxxii. in ib. 2661 ; Mansi, jviii. 186, 198; Vict. Tun. Chron. in Patr MACRINA Lat. Ixviii. g4S ; Liberal, vii. in tb. o8a ; Th(^oph. r/ir()>i. I20-12^, 128, 1^0. n2. fw.M.s.j Macrlna (1). the Khier, the i>atenial Rraud- motluT of Basil and clregory Nvssen, resident at and probably a native of Neoraesarea in Pontus. Both Macrina and her liiisband, of whose name we are ignorant, were deeply pious Christians. Macrina had been trained on the precepts of the celebrated bp. of Neo- caesarea, Gregory Thauniaturgus, by some of his hearers. In the persecution of Cialerius and Maximin, Macrina and her husband, to save their lives, left home with a slender equip- ment and escaped to a hill forest of Pontus, where they are said to have lived in safe retire- ment f'>r seven years. On the cessation of the persecution, a.d. 311, they returned to Neo- caesarea. On the renewal of the persecution they appear to have a^ain sutTered. Their goods were confiscated and Macrina and her husband obtained the right to be reckoned among confessors of the faith (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Macr. t. ii. pp. 178, 191). In due time their son Basil married Emmelia, and became the father of ten children, the eldest bearing her grandmother's name Macrina. and the second that of his father Basil. This boy, afterwards the celebrated bp. of Caesarea, Basil the Great, was brouglit ui> from infancy by his grandmother Macrina, at her country house at .\nnesi, to which slie seems to have retired after her husband's death (Basil. Ep. 204 ^75], § 6 ; 223 [79], § 3)- Her death cannot be placed before 340. [e-v.] Maorina (2), tJw Younger, the eldest child of her parents Basil and Emmelia, by her position in the family and still more by her force of character, high intellectual gifts, and earnest piety, proved the well-spring of good to the whole household, and so contributed largely to form the characters of her brothers. To her brother Basil in particular she was ever a wise and loving counsellor. Basil was born c. 329, and Macrina probably c. 327. She re- ceived her name from her paternal grand- mother. She was very carefully educated by her mother, who was more anxious that she should be familiar with the sacred writers than with heathen poets. Macrina com- mitted tf) memory the moral and ethical por- tion of the books of Solomon and the whole of the Psalter. Before her twelfth year she was ready at each hour of the day with the Psalm liturgically belonging to it (Greg. Nys. de Vita S. Macr. ii. 179). Her personal beauty, which, according to her brother Gregory, sur- passed that of all of her age and country, and her large fortune, attracted many suitors. Of these her father selected a young advocate, of good birth and position, and when he was cut off by a premature death, Macrina reso- lutely refused anv further pri>posals of mar riage {ib. 180). After her father's death {c. 349) she devoted herself to the care of her widowed mother, the bringing up of her infant hrothor Peter, and the sui)ervisii)n of the interests of her family. Kmmelia was left burdened with a large and extensive property, and the maintenance of and provision for nine children. Of the greater part of this load Macrina relieved her. They resided then, or soon afterwards, on the paternal estate near the village of Annesi, on the banks of the Iris, MACRINA 070 ' near Nc<»c.iesAr<a, \\\n< \\ M , fi. Basil returned from Athen-i . ,'.\\ his universitv su<ces<ir<i. M.i -u the enthuM.istir love l.>r .tn h she herself felt {tb. l8l). Hf 'r I settli'd on their p trrnal r>.t wr banks of the Irin. The pr. : . ,,f her most dearly loved brother Naa. i.ttiif.. <in a hunting expedition, 1^7. <ilrrnRthrnr<l her resolution to separate froni the world, and she persuade<l her mother aUo, who wat nearly broken-hearted at their loss, to ontbraco the ascetic life. The nucleus of the sistrrh.Kxl was formed by their female servants and slaves. Devout women, some of hiKh rank. soon gathered roimd them, while the birth and high connexions of Macrina .md hrr mother attr.icted the daughters ^f the nir»»t aristocratic families in Pontus ami t app.»d<icla to the community (ift. 1H4, i,S(>). .^ini-ng it« members were a widow of high rank and wealth, named V'estiana, and a virgin named Lampadia, who is <lescribed as the chief of the band (16. 197). Macrina took to her retreat her youngest brother Peter (16. 186). The elevation of her brother Basil to the see of Caesarea, 370. became a stimulus to a higher pitch of asceticism. Peter was ordaine<l pres- byter by his brother (ib. 187), probably in 371. In 373 Emmelia died, holding the hands of Macrina and Peter and offering them to (lod with her dying breath, as the first-fruits and tenths of her womb, and was buried by them in her husband's grave at the chapel of the " Forty Martyrs." Macrina sustained her third great sorrow in the death (Jan. i, 37<)) of Basil, whom she had long regarded with reverential affection. Nine months after, her brother (iregory Nyssen paid her a visit. Owing to his banishment under Valens and other persecutions it was eight or nine years since they had met. He found the aged invalid, jiarched with fever, stretched on planks on the ground, the wood barely covered with a bit of sackcloth. The pallet was carefully arranged to face the east. On her brother's approach she m.atle a vain effort to rise to do him honour as a bishop ; Gregory prevented her. and had her placed on her be<l (ib. 189). With great self-command Macrina. y\ fieydXr]. as he delights to call her, restrained her groans, checked her asthmatic pantings, and putting on a cheerful countenance en- deavoured to divert him from the present sorrow. She ventured to speak of Basil's death; Gregi.ry completely broke <lown ; and when her consolations proved un.ivailing. she rebuked him for sorrowing like th-.sr who hail no hope for one fallen asleep in C hrist. (ire- gory defending himself, she bid him arnue out the'point with her. .After a s.>mewh.»t prolix controversy, .Macrina. as though under divine inspiration— »a(»dwf/> tf»o<*o(>oi<«Vn »^v A>'v Uffufiari — her Wf>rds pouring out without stav, like water tmm a fountain itb. iRq), de- livered the long discourse on thr rrsurrertion and imm>irtality <'f the soul which (iregon,- has recf)rde<l— more probably in hi* "wn than his dving sister's words— in the d* .4ntma ac Resurrectione Dialogut, entltle<l t4 Materia (0pp. t. iii. pp. iHi-26o). On the conclu- sion of this remarkable discourse Mn which the purificatory nature of the (ire of hell U 680 MAGNENTIUS, FLAVIUS POPILIUS unmistakably set forth, the anguish being in exact proportion to the rootedness of the sinful habits — filrpov r^s a\yTi56v7)^ ij t^? KaKlas ev €Kd<XTu} woffdr-qs eariv, p. 227), she noticed that her brother was weary and sent him to rest awhile in an arbour in the garden. Towards the close of the same day he revisited her bedside. She began a thankful review of her past life, recounting God's mercies to her (ib. iqi, 192). At last her voice failed, and only by the motion of her lips and her out- spread hands — SiaaToXri tZv xf'pw" — was she known to be prating. She signed her eyes, mouth, and breast with the cross. Dusk came on ; lights were brought in ; she im- mediately attempted to chant the fTriXi'xno! evxcLpicrria — but " silently with her hands and with her heart." She once more signed her- self on the face with the cross, gave a deep sigh, and finished her life and her prayers together (ib. iqs). Round her neck was found an iron cross, and a ring containing a particle of the true cross {ib. 198). She was buried by her brother in the grave of her parents in the chapel of the " Forty Mart\TS," about a mile from her monastery. Gregory was assisted in carr>ang the bier by Araxius the bishop of the diocese (probably Ibora), and two of the leading clergy. After her death many miracles said to have been performed bv her were rpported to Gregory (ib. 199, 202-204). Tillem. Mfm eccles. ix. 564-573. Fe.v.] Magnentlus, Flavlus Popllius, emperor, 350-35.'^. He rose under Constantius to the rank of count ; and Constans gave him com- mand of the Jovian and Herculian legions embodied by Diocletian and Maximian I. On Jan. 18. 350, he was proclaimed emperor instead of Constans, then absent on a hunting expedition. Constans fled, but was murdered at Helena or Elve at the foot of the W. Pyrenees. Gaul and all the Western Empire, including Italy, Sicily, Spain, and Africa, submitted to the new emperor. Socrates {H. E. ii. 26) says that the general confusion of affairs now encouraged the enemies of Athanasius to accuse him to Constantius ; and Athanasius indignantly disclaims any corre- spondence or connexion with Magnentius, in the apology to Constantius ; some false charge of the kind may have been made (Athan. vol. i. pp. 603 seq. Migne). On Sept. 28, 351, the battle of Mursa on the Drave was fought, which deprived Magnen- tius of nearly all his provinces excepting Gaul. His last centre of operations was Lvons, and he fell upon his sword in Aug. 353. His coins, as Tillemont says iHisi. des Emp. iv. p. 354), prove his profession of Christianity ; and he employed bishops in his negotiations with Constantius (Athan. op. cit. p. 606). But his usurpation began an unbroken career of crimes. and Athanasins's somewhat pithy summary of him {ib. 603) as Thv ^lA^oKov '^\a.yvivTiov is confirmed after their fashion bv Zosimus and Julian. " [r.st.j.t.] Majorianus, Julius Valerius, declared em- peror of the West Apr. i, 457, at Columellae, six miles from Ravenna. Tillemont argues {Emp. vi. 634) that he did not become em- peror till some months later. Majorian appar- ently remained at Ravenna till Nov. 458, the year of his consulship, which was marked by MALCHION a series of remarkable laws, which may be foimd among the " Novels " at the end of the Theodosian Code. An outline of these laws is given by Gibbon ; the seventh enacted that a curialis who had taken orders to avoid the duties of his position, if below the rank of a deacon, should be at once reduced to his original status, while, if he had been ordained deacon, priest, or bishop, he was declared incapable of alienating his property. The sixth law, intended to encourage marriage, forbade mms to take the veil before the age of forty. A girl compelled bv her parents to devote herself to perpetual virginity was to be at liberty to marry if at her parents' death she was under 40. The whole of this law, except the restrictions on the testamentary power of widows, was repealed by Majorian's successor, Severus. It is remarkable that the Catalogue of the Popes given by the Bolland- ists {A A. SS. Apr. i. 33) states that Leo the Great forbad a woman taking the veil before 60 years of age, or according to a various reading 40, and that the iqth canon of the council of Agde (Mansi, viii. 328), following the law of Majorian, fixes the age at 40. On his arrival at Lyons, before the close of 458, Majorian was greeted by Sidonius with a long paneg^Tic {Cartn. v.). At Aries, Mar. 28, 460, he issued a law declaring ordinations against the will of the person ordained to be null ; subjected an archdeacon who had taken part in such an ordination to a penalty of ten pounds of gold to be received bv the informer, and referred abishop guilty of the same offence to the judgment of the apostolic see. By the same law parents who compelled a son to take orders against his will were to forfeit to him a third part of their property. On Majorian's return to Italy in 461 Ricimer excited a mutiny in the armv against him at Tortona, forced him to abdicate on Aug. 2, and five days afterwards caused him to be assassinated on the banks of the Ira. Ff.d.] Ma]orinus, a reader in the church at Car- thage, holding some domestic office in the household of Lucilla, who was, through her influence,chosenbp. inoppositiontoCAEciLiAN. This Augustine and Optatus denounced as an act of rebellion, and it was undoubtedly one of the first steps towards definite schism, a.d. 311. His party afterwards became known by the greater name of Donatt's. One of his con- secrators was Silvanus, Donatist bp. of Cirta, who was afterwards proved before Zenophilus to have been a " traditor." Majorinus died c. 315. Aug. Epp. 43 ; 3, 16 ; 89 ; c. Farm. iii. II, 18 ; c. Cresc. ii. 3 ; iii. 30, 32 ; iv. 9 ; de Haer. 69 ; Opt. i. 14, 15, 19 ; Mon. Vet. Don. iv. ed. Oberthiir ; Tillemont, Mem. vi. 15, 10, 24. 690,700; Sparrow Simpson's /I «^. and Afr, Ch. Divir^ions (1910), p. 18. [h.w.p.] Malchlon, a presbyter of Antioch in the reigns of Claudius and Aurelian, conspicuous for his prominent part in the deposition of the bp. of Antioch, Paul of Samosata, in 272. He was famed as a rhetorician and was a learned man well acquainted with heathen writers, from whom he was accustomed to make quotations (Hieron. Ep. Ixx. 4), and held, while a prp<;bvter "f the church, the office of I president of the facultv of rhetoric (Bus. vii. I 29). The bishop having announced or implied MALCHUS doctrines concemiiifr the nature of Christ which appeared to Malchion and most of his co-presbyters to be identiral with the heresy of Artenion, lie engageil liini in a public tlis- cussion, which was taken down by shorthand writers and published. He compelled Paul unwillingly to unveil his opinions, and ex- hibited him to the assembly as a heretic. A great council of bishops and i>resbyters having then been called together, and having con- demned Paul, Malchion was chosen to write the letter denouncing him as a heretic and a criminal to the bishops of Ri>nie and Alex- andria, and through them to the world. The letter and the report of the discussion were known in the 4th and 5th cents, bv Eusebins and Jerome ; the latter enrolled Malchion in his list of illustrious church-writers, while the former cites at length the principal portions of the condemning letter (Eus. H. E. vii. 29, 30 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 71). A trans, of the existing fragments of Malchion are in the A,ite-Nic. Lib. (T. & T. Clark). [w.h.f.] Malchus fl), one of the earliest hermits in S\Tia, was seen in extreme old age by Jerome in 374 and told him the story of his life, which was written down by Jerome 16 years after- wards. He was bom at Nisibis near Edessa, and was the only son of a proprietor of that district. He fled from his parents when they importuned hini to marry, and joined one of the monastic establishments in the desert of Chalcis. As life advanced he desired to re- visit his home. The caravan was surprised by .\rabs ; he was mad<> a slave, and set to feed flocks. He worked faithfully, and every- thing prospered in his hands. His master required him to marry a woman who was his companion in slavery. Malchus pretended to comply, but secretly told the woman that he would rather die bv his own hand than break his vow of continehcy. He found her of the same mind, and indeed she h.'\d a husband living. The pair agreed, though living separately, to pass as man and wife. After a time they escaped to the Roman settlements in Mesopotamia. Finding the abbat of his monasterv dead. Malchus took up his abode in the hamlet of Maronia, near .\iitioch, his reputed wife livins with the virgins near. Maronia came by inheritance to Evagrius, afterwards bp. ofAntioch, in whose company Jerome came from Italy in 374 ; and the story of the aged hermit confirmed Jerome in his desire for the life in the desert, on which he entfTpd in 37s (Hieron. Vita Malchi, 0pp. vol. ii. 1 1, fl. Vail.). rw.H.p.1 MamertUS (1), St.. i8th bp. of Vienne, the elder brother of Claudian the poet, whom he ordained priest, and who is said to have assisted him in his episcopal labours. Our first authentic information about him is in 463. The see of Die had been included by pope Leo in the prf)vincc <\i Arl'-s. but Mamer- tus had consecrated a bislmp of it. (iundeu- chus, or (iundioc, king of the Biircundians. complained to pope Hilary, who took up the matter wannlv, .-iddressing a lettir, Feb. 24, 464, to various prelates, solemnlv warning MamertUS. Mamertus was still aliv*- at the death of his brother in 473 "f 474 (Sid. Apoll. Ep. iv. II, in Pnlr. I at. Iviii. 515). but how long after is unknown. MAMEnrus CHI I Though not the inventor o( Kouationn or I Litanies. Manu-rtus w,is undowblrdlv thf j founder <if the Ro^.^tion I>.ivs. I ii.uiir^ o( the kind were, on the tvidiii. r o( n.»*il, in uw in the Ivasf and. on th.it of Stdoniu*. in ih* I West, but MamertUS first Nvstitn.ui/nl tlirni on the three d.ivs preceding .Ascension May. The story of their uistitulion ha« born given by his contemporarv Sidoniin, bv Avitu*. (iregory of Tours, and others. Viennr. in some year before 474. had been terrifte«l by portents and calamities. To atone for the sins of which these calamities were thought to be the penalties. Mamertus. with tlie joyful assent of the citizens. ordaine<l a three dav*' fast, with processions and an onlered vrvire of prayer and song, which, for gre.itir labour, was to take plac(> o»itsi<le the city. It» successful issue ensured its pennanenre, and from Vienne it spre.id over France and the West. Already in 470 or 4/4 Sidonius had established tluse services at Clermont, and looked to them as his chief hope in the threat- ened invasion of the C.oths. In 511 the first council of Orleans recognized theni .and <lirect- ed their continuance (.Mansi, viii. 35.S)- For accounts of this institution see Ceillier, x. 346 ; Bingham, .\nliquities, iv. 281 sqq. (18^5) ; Smith. I). C. .!. art. " RoRation Davs " ; Gall. Christ, xvi. iv H.a.v.] MamertUS (2), Claudlatius Ecdiolus. a learned writ'-r ..f the last half of the sth cent., one of the literary sclxxd of which Sidonius .\pollinaris is the best-known member. He was a native of Gaul, and brother of the more famous MamertUS, .archbp. of Vienne. Trainwl from his earliest years for the monastic life, he was educated in all the stores of (ircek. Roman, and Christian literature. During his brother's archbishopric he worked as a pres- byter in Vienne. and served so effectuallv as his right hand that some writers have repre- sented him as a " bishop " under his brother. This, however, seems the result of a misinter- pretation (cf. Sinnondi, i. p. 539)- '^* Pr'*- byter he was specially useful in training the clergv, organizing the services of the church, and arranging the ..rder of Psalms and Lessons for the ve.ir. and perhaps we mav attribute to his influence the regular use of litanies upon Rogation Davs establishe<l bv his brother. He w,is no less eminent for intellectual power. When, c. 470, Faustus, bp. of Rirz, ptiblishrd .inonvmouslv a treatise asserting the cori«.- reality of the soul, Sidonius and other friend* applied to Mamertus as best qualified to an- swer it, and the de Statu Antmat was the result. Sidonius also mentions with w-irm praise a hvmn he ha<l written, and represents him as a great centre «if intellectual <liv usiion. " homiinmi aevi. I.kI. populi siii ingri.iosi**. imus." full of learning, eater f-.r aruument. patient with those who could not understand, and. in his w.rk as a priest. thi>UKhtftil for all. opcn-h.-inde<l. humble, not letting his benr- volence be known, the adviser and helper of his brother in all dicK^esan matters. He died c. 474, and his epitaph, compowl by Sidonius, is the chief source of information about bis life. (Sid. Apoll. Ep. iv. 2, 3. ". V. 2 ; '".rn- nadius, de Scrip. III. rr. 67 (?) and Hi : and Ihr Preface to his own work, d* Statu Antmat.) Besides two letters of his, we have (i) the 682 MAMMAEA or MAMAEA, JULIA book mentioned above, de Statu Animae, and (2) some poems of doubtful authorship. Sidonius {u.s.) mentions with special praise a hymn by Claudian, but does not give its name. One schoUast says that it was the well-known " Pange lingua gloriosi," and one MS. of Gennadius {u.s.) states that that hymn was written by Claudian. It is, however, ordinar- ily found ascribed to Fortunatus (v. Daniel, Thes. Hymnol. iii. p. 285, iv. p. 68). Fabricius has also attributed to him an hexameter poem of 165 lines, " contra vanos poetas ad collegam," found in a Paris MS. without any author's name. Possibly there should be assigned to him also a few smaller poems found among the works of the heathen poet Claudian, viz. two short hexameter poems entitled " Laus Christi " and " Carmen Paschale," some short epigrammatic praises of the paradox of the Incarnation, an elegiac account of Christ's miracles, an elegiac appeal to a friend not to criticize his verses too severely, and two short Greek hexameter addresses to Christ, Eis t6v (Toyrrjpa and Ets rbv beffiroT-qv XpicTTOf. The works are in Migne, vol. liii. ; Bibl. Vet. Pair. Lugd. 1677, vi. p. 1050 ; ed. Galland. X. p. 417, and in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. vol. xi. (1885) ; the poems in Fabricius, Poet. Christ, p. 777. The de Statu Animae has been separately edited, notably by Peter Mosel- lanus (Basil, 1^04), Barth (Cycneae, 1655), Schulze (Dresden, 1883). [w.L.] Mammaea or Mamaea, Julia, the daughter of Julia Moesa, and niece of Julia Domna, the wife of the emperor Septiinius Severus. She played for a short time a conspicuous part in Roman history, not without some interesting points of contact with the Christian church. By her marriage with the S\Tian Gessius Mar- cianus she became the mother of Alexander Severus, and soon afterwards was a widow. With her mother and her sister Soaemias, the mother of Elagabalus, she went, at the command of Macrinus after the death of Cara- calla, to reside at Emesa. On the election of her nephew Elagabalus as emperor, she went with him and her son Alexander, then 13 years old, to Rome, and it speaks well for her prud- ence and goodness that she continued to secure the life of her son from the jealous suspicions of the t\Tant and to preserve him from the fathomless impurity which ran riot in the imperial court. There are sufficient reasons for assigning this watchfulness to at least the indirect influence of Christian life and teach- ing. Possibly, as in the time of Nero, there may have been disciples of the new faith among the slaves of Caesar's household, whom she learnt to respect and imitate. On the death of Elagabalus, a.d. 222, and the election of her son by the Praetorian Guard, she attained great influence. Her leanings to the Christian society were shewn more distinctly when she was with the emperor at Antioch, and hearing that Origen, already famous as a preacher, was at Caesarea, invited him to visit them with the honour of a military escort, welcomed him with all honour, and listened attentively as he unfolded the excellence of the faith of Christ (Eus. H. E. vi. 21). It does not appear that she ever made a definite profession of belief, and her religion, though it won from MANES Eusebius (I.e.) the epithets of deoaelBeaTdrr} and ev\a(3ris, and from Jerome (de Script. Eccles. c. 54) that of religiosa, was probably of the syncretistic type then prevalent, which shewed itself, in its better form, in Alexander's adoption of Christian rules of action, and in his placing busts of Christ, Abraham, Orpheus, and Apollonius of Tyana in his private oratory (Lamprid. Vit. Sev. c. 29, 43), and in its worst when Elagabalus wished to build a temple on the Capitol in which Jews, Samar- itans, Christians, and Romans were to unite in worshipping the Deity whose name he had adopted. Both mother and son, in conse- quence of these tendencies, came under the lash of Julian, who sneers at the childish unwisdom of the latter in submitting his own will to Mammaea's and gratifying her greed of gain [de Caesarr. p. 313), and represents him as weakly bemoaning his disaster. Mam- maea shared her son's fate when the troops rose and murdered him in Gaul, and her last moments were embittered by her son's re- proaches for the pride and avarice which had wrought their common ruin (Gibbon, cc. vi. and vii. and authorities cited above), [e.h.p.] Manes (called also Mani among Oriental writers, "Slavixaios and Manichaeus among Greeks and Latins). The lives of all ancient heretics have suffered much from the mis- representations of their opponents. In the case of Manes there is the additional difficulty that we have two contradictory accounts in the Western and Eastern traditions. The Western story is derived from the Acts of .\rchelaus, bp. of Caschar ; the Eastern from Persian and Arabian historians. Our earliest authentic notice of him is in Eusebius {H. E. vii. 31), w'here he is described " as a barbarian in life, both in speech and conduct, who attempted to form himself into a Christ, and then also proclaimed himself to be the very Paraclete and the Holy Spirit. Then, as if he were Christ, he selected twelve disciples, the partners of his new religion, and after patching together false and ungodly doctrines, collected from a thousand heresies long since extinct, he swept them off like a deadly poison, from Persia, upon this part of the world." The Acta Archelai were forged by some romancing Greek between a.d. 330 and 340, as we first find them quoted by Cyrill. Hieros. (Catech. vi., written a.d. 348-350), and Eusebius in his history, pub. 326-330, knows nothing of them. If genuine, it is scarcely possible that Eusebius, living but a few miles from Jerusalem and with all the imperial resources at his back, could have been ignorant of a dispute which must have made such a noise all over Syria and Mesopotamia. [Archelaus.] Upon the story told by the Syrian, Persian, and Arab historians and chroniclers known to Beausobre he places much more reliance than upon the Western tradition (pt. i. liv. ii. cc. i.-iv.). It runs thus : Manes was born c. 240, and descended from a Magian family. He was well educated in Greek, music, mathe- matics, geography, astronomy, painting, medicine, and the Scriptures. Being very zealous for the faith, he was ordained priest while yet young, but becoming a heretic he went to the court of Sapor, whom he prosely- tized to his views, c. 267, but as soon as he MANES opened his views inure fullv Ihe kinj; resolved to put him to death. In fact, a real revival of Zoroastrian doctrine had taken place uniler his reign, and as soon as Manes disclosed his full plan it was seen to involve the overthrow of the national religion. He tiien fled into Turkestan, where he gained nianv disciples, used his talents to adorn a temple with paint- ings, and hiding himself in a cave for 12 months produced his gospel in a book em- bellished with beautiful figures, lie returned to Persia, and presented this to king Hormis- das, who protected him antl embraced his views. This king, dying within two years, was succeeded by Varanes I. a.d. 273, who was at first favourable to Manes. The national priesthood, however, becoming al- armed at the power of his sect, challenged him to a disputation before the king, after which he was condemned to die as a heretic. .^Vccord- ing to some he was crucified, according to others cut in two or flaved alive (Hvde, Rel. Vet. Pt-rs. p. 283 ; ' Kenaudot, Hist. Pat. Alex. pp. 40-40; Eutvch. .iunal. Alex. t. i. p. 387 ; Hotting. Hist. Orient, i. 3). Varanes instituted a general persecution of the Manicheans after his death. Kutychius (I.e.) reports a savage jest of his on this subject. He put to death 200 Manicheans, and caused them to be buried with their heads down and their feet projecting above gromul. He then boasted he had a garden planted with men instead of trees. The persecution was so severe that adherents of the sect fled into all the neighbouring lands — India, China, Tur- kestan, etc. The pretext of the persecution was that the spread of the sect was hostile to the human race through their opposition to marriage (Assem. Bibl. Or. iii. 220). Since Beausobre's time the sources of Oriental knowledge have been much enlarged, and modern research inclines more and more to trust the concordant testimony of Persian, Arabic, and Armenian historians, as opposed to the Byzantines, about the affairs of W. .\sia. According to these Eastern authorities, the father of Manes came originally from Persia to Babylon, where Manes was born. One day his father heard in a temple a voice saying, " Eat no flesh, drink no wine, and abstain from women," whereupon he founded the sect of the Mugtasila rir the Washers, identical with the Sabians of the Marshes between tne Tigris and Euphrates, still found near Bass(jra. In this sect Manes was brought up, being instructed in all the knowledge of iiis time. .\l 12 years old an angel annouuffd to him that when older he should abandon that sect. At 24 the same angel sununoned iiim to found Manicheism in these words : " Hail, Manes, from me and from the Lord which has sent me to thee and chosen thee for his work. Now he commands thee to proclaim the glad tidings of the truth which comes from him. and bestow thereon thy whole zeal." .Manes, according to one tradition, entered on his office the day that Sapor, son of Artaxerxes, succeeded to the throne, Sun. Apr. i, 238, as Fliigel determines by a lengthened calculation (pp. 146-149). According to another (p. 8^) Manes appeared in the 2nd year of the em- peror (iallus, A.D. 252 (pp. 150-162). He claimed to be the Paraclete promised by MANICHEANS flR3 I Christ, and ih-nved hi>, d ^mas from lVr»Uu and Christian source*. Urforr Manr« inpt Sapor he travrllrtl for 40 \c»n lhr<tu«h various countries. Ipon lii-* return he in- vited 1-iru/. the brothrr of Sapor and »on »1 Artax.rxes, to accept his d.K-trinr*. ThroUKli him he was intr<Mlui <■<! t • Sip r wti . ■.! . \vr<i him great respi-ct. th- Iv intended to slay him. ,. tion of his own life .y , » adherents to ]>rearh tli. ii -.>■ ^^-. ml i r. tlip ! sect had spre.id into India, ihiiia, niid lur- i kestan. Manes was put to de.ith bv V.iranr« 1 I. (272-276), and his body, cut in two. w.i« I suspended over the two gates of the city I Dschundis.ibur. pp. 00. 3J')-3U- A version I of his history which later research has brought I to light is in .'Vlbinini's Chrnnologv <>/ .imtfnl I Xations, trans, bv E. Sachau and pub. by the Oriental Trans, l-und in 1879. It is a mo,t I iinpcirtant document, and well desrrvrs the I praise the learned editor lavishes upon it in i his introduction. In many particulars it strikingly confirms the narrative of ,an-Nadliii given bv Fliigel, l)i)th being prob.iblv derived from Manif hean sources. Alblninl w.is a native of Khiva, A.n. f)73-i04N. and lived and ' wrote near tiiere. This work proves him to I have possessed vast literary resources n'> longer available, but some of which may yet be found in Central .•\sia. (Cf. art. bv Thomas on Recent Pehh'i Decipherments in J«ur. Asiat. Soc. 1871, p. 417.) The writings of Manes were very numerous. F"roin Albiruni's work we learn that some were still in existence in the nth cent. They were written in Persian and Syriac. and, according to Muhammad ben Ishak, in a character jieculiar to the Mani- cheans. Of this alphabet Fliigel in his com- mentary, p. 167, gives a copy. It contained more letters than the Syriac, and was chiefly used by the Manicheans of Sainarkhand and Transoxania, where the Marcionites who still I existed there in the 10th cent, used a similar , character. The names of his books. acci>rding I to Beausobre, are his Ci'ispel ; his Treasure of I Life; Book of Chai>ters; Treatise about the Faith, which Beausobre (t. i. p. 427) believes identical with his Mysteries luiariffxa. Kpiph. ' Haer. Ixvi. 14), of which too he gives an i analvsis, with which cf. the verv different one ! by Muhammad ben Ishak in Fliigel, p. loa ; j Book about the (iiants, known in Svriar at the j court («f Baghdad so late as the gth rent. i (Jour. Asiat. Mar. 183s. p. 260). Ar. ..rding to I Epiphanius he also wrote treatis«-s on .istron- omy, astrology, ami magic. To his Funda- mental Epistle .\uKustine replies in his treatise cont. Ep. Fundament!. This last serins to have been specially popular in Africa. In I Fabric. {Dibl. Graec. lib. v. c. i.) will br found ! a collection of fragments from his epistles and ' a list of his w..rks. [c.t.s.I Manicheans (MaJ'tX'"'ot. Kpiph. Ha^r. txvi.. where they are also calle<l '.\..)i nn"' o, fr>m } 'A»ot'at. one of their leaders, -ic I heresy from Mesopotamia t' i 1. j For the personal history of Mi it. I VVc now treat of the origin, prin. i; i- ^, ■ uitu*. literature, and history of the sri t called after j him ; which was. indeed, not s>, niurh a I definite sect as a vast indefinite spiritual aiul I intellectual inoyeincnt, which from lt» very 684 MANICMEANS vastness eludes, or at least renders very diffi- cult, definite historical treatment. (i) Origin and Principles of Manicheism. — For the fountain of the Manichean heresy we must turn to India (see Baur, Das Manichd- ische Religionssysiem, Tiibingen, 1831, pp. 433- 451, where there is satisfactory evidence that elements derived both from Buddhism and from Zoroastrism are found in the Manichean system). Darmester recognized the influence of the Zend-Avesta and Zoroastrism upon Manicheism: ci. Zend-Avesta in Sacred Books of the East, t. iv. intro. p. xxxvii. For athorough exposition of this system see the two large works of Beausobre, Baur's vol. of 300 pp., and Neander's Church Hist. fBohn's ed.), t. ii. pp. 157-195. We must content ourselves with sketching the leading principles of the sect. Manes probablv at first merely desired to blend Christianity and Zoroastrism together. From Zoroastrism he took his Dualism, which consisted of two independent principles absolutely opposed to each other, with their opposite creations : on the one side God (Ahura-Mazda), the original good from whom nothing but good can proceed ; on the other side original evil (Angro-Mainyus), whose essence is wild, self-conflicting tumult, matter, darkness, a world full of smoke and vapour. The powers of darkness, contending in wild rage, approached so near in their blind struggle to the realm of light that a gleam from that hitherto unknown kingdom reached them, whereupon they strove to force their way into it. The good God, in order to guard His boundaries, produced the Aeon Mother of Life, by whom the first or spiritual man was pro- duced, together with the five elements, wind, light, water, fire, and matter, to carry on the struggle ; which, however, are not identical with the actual elements, but are the elements of the higher world, of which the mundane and actual elements are a copy framed by the Prince of Darkness, a view we find worked out by the Cathari of the 12th cent. (Gieseler, H. E. iii. 452). Primitive man is worsted by the spirits of darkness, who take from him some of his armour, which is his soul (^vxv)- He prays to the Light- King, who sends the Spirit of Life, who rescues him and raises him once more to the Light- Kingdom. Meanwhile the Powers of Darkness had succeeded in swallow- ing part of the luminous essence of the prim- eval heavenly man, which they proceeded to shut up in material bodies, as in a prison. But this very violence is the means of their destruction. The Divine Spirit is only en- closed in the material prisons for a time and with a view to final deliverance. To illustrate this Manes used a parable. A shepherd sees a wild beast about to rush into the midst of his flock. He digs a pit and casts into it a kid ; the beast springs into the pit to devour his prey, but cannot extricate himself. The shepherd, however, delivers the kid and leaves the lion to perish (Disp. c. Archel. c. 25 ; Epiph. Haer. Ixvi. c. 44). The Spirit of Life at once began his preparations for purifying the souls which had been mixed up with the kingdom of darkness. That part of the soul which had not been affected by matter he placed in the sun and moon, whence it might send forth its influence to release and draw MANICHEANS back towards itself, through the refining pro- cesses of vegetable and animal life, kindred souls diffused through all nature ; for the sun and moon play as important a part in the Manichean as they do in the Persian, Indian, and Mithraic systems (C. B. Stark, Zwei Mithraeen, Heidelberg, 1864, p. 43). To prevent this gradual despirituahzation the powers of darkness resolve to produce a being in whom the soul of nature, which was ever striving after liberty, might be securely imprisoned. This is man as he is now, shaped after the image of the primitive man with whom they originally waged war. He was formed by the prince of darkness, and em- braces in himself the elements of both worlds, the soul springing from the Light- Kingdom, the body from that of darkness. The powers of darkness now perceive that the light-nature, by concentrating itself in man, has become powerful. They therefore seek to attach him by every possible enticement to the lower world. Here comes in the Manichean story of the Fall, which resembles that of the Ophites. The Powers of Darkness invited man to partake of all the trees of Paradise, forbidding only the tree of Knowledge. But an angel of light, or Christ Himself, the Spirit of the Sun, counteracted their artifices in the shape of the serpent, the parts of the Biblical narrative being thus reversed, God's share being ascribed to the devil and vice versa. The Manichean standpoint with respect to the Fall determined their attitude towards the whole O.T., which they rejected as the work of the evil principle. Likewise their theory about the creation of the material part of man determined their view of the Incarnation, which they regarded as wholly Docetic ; if a material body was a prison and a burden to the spirit of man, Christ could scarcely volun- tarily imprison His divine Spirit in the same. " Moreover, the Son, when He came for man's salvation, assumed a human appearance, so that He appeared to men as if He were a man, and men thought He had been born " (Epiph. Haer. Ixvi. 49). This Docetic view of the Incarnation destroyed the reality of His life. His death, resurrection, and ascension, and struck at the root of all historical Christianity, so that we find at last some later Manicheans maintaining a distinction between the mun- dane or historical Christ, who was a bad man, and the spiritual Christ, Who was a divine deliverer (Gieseler, H. E. iii. 407, note 28). They attached a mystical signification to orthodox language about our Lord, whereby they could use it to deceive the unwary. Thus they could speak of a suffering son of man hanging on every tree — of a Christ crucified in every soul and suffering in matter. They gave their own interpretation to the symbols of the suffering Son of Man in the Lord's Supper (cf. Petrus Sic. Hist. Man. in Bigne's Bib. PP. xvi. 760). For a thorough exposition of the relations between Manicheism and Buddhism see Baur, I.e. pp. 433-451, vvhere he points out Buddhist influence on Manichean doctrines as to the opposition between matter and spirit, upon the creation and end of the world, and upon moral questions. The most striking pciints of contact are metempsychosis (Baur, I.e. p. 440), and the stress laid upon MANICHEANS gnosis. The former is tlic outi-r w.iy, wlicn-by souls can return lliitlu-r wiuiice they have descended. The latter is the inner and | highest way (cf. Colebrooke's Essays, ii. 382, 389, for the luiiversal influence <>f this view in India). In both systems asceticism was the practical result of the opposition between I matter and spirit ; the more matter could be 1 crushed, the nearer the spirit came to its ori- ' ginal source (cf. Lassen, /«</. Alterthum. iii. : 408-415). I (2) Organization. — Perhaps, however, it is on the practical organization of the system ; that Buddhist influence is most clearly seen. Manicheism ditlered from Gnosticism, for the latter did not wish to alter anything in the constitution of the existing church, but only j desired to add to the Confession of Faith for j the i/^i'^i\ot a secret doctrine for the wyfinariKoi; while Manes, as the Paraclete, set up a new < church instead of the old. which, even in the j persons of the apostles, had been corrupted by | Jewish traditions. In the Manichean church I the gradations were similar to those among ' the Buddhists (cf. H. H. Wilson's 0/)/>. t. ii. p. 360, Essay on Buddha and BudJhiam). There was first the great body consisting of the auditores, from whom a less strict course of life was demanded, and one of whose leading duties was to supply the other and higher class, the Elect or Perfect, with food and other necessaries. From these last an ascetic life was demanded. They should possess no pro- perty, were bound to a celibate and contem- plative life, abstaining from all strong drinks and animal food. They should hurt no living thing, from a religious reverence for the divine life diffused through all nature. Not only should they take no life, but not even pull up a herb or pluck fruits or flowers (.\ug. cont. Faust, v. 6, vi. 4). Thus Epiphanius (Haer. l.xvi. c. 28) tells us that when their followers presented one of the Elect with food, he first addressed it thus : " I have neither reaped nor ground, nor pressed nor cast thee into the oven. All these things another has done, and brought thee to me. I am free from all fault." Upon which he said to his disciple, " I have prayed for thee," and let him go (cf. Von Wegnern, de Munich. Indulgent, pp. 69 seq.). Here is an essential Pantheism, a tendency which -Manicheism manifestly draws from Buddhism (Hodgson, Jour. Roy. .is. Sac. 1835, p. 295 ; Matter, Hist, du Gnostic, t. ii. 357) and which develops further in the course of its history. St. .\ugustine noted this point in his reply to Faustus, ii. 5, xii. 13 ; cf. Aug. Epp. 165, 166, c. iii. § 7 ; Ep. 74 ad Deuterium F:piscop. ; Toll. Insig. p. 137; .Muratorii, A need. Ambros. Bibliolh. 'n.112. Manesderived from Christianity another element of his tys- tern. As the Paraclete promised by Christ, he, afterChrist's example, chose twelve apostles, in whom the government of the sect was placed. .At their head there was a thirteenth, repre- senting .Manes and presiding over all (Fliigel's Mani, pp. 97, 298, 316; Baur, I.e. p. 305); subordinate to them there were 72 bishops, under whom were presbyters, deacons, and travelling missionaries, a constitution which lasted to the 13th cent, and possibly may not be yet quite extinct. (3) Cm«ms.— The Manicheanshad their own MANICHEANS 688 peculiar rites, th..uK-h tli.n nivstiral intrrpre- tation of lan({u.iKe .n.ibliil th.iu U, hohl ihr highest position in the Christian ministry. a« in an-Nadim's lime. a.i>. .>87. it mublrd Ihcm to conform externally U> the .Mohanunrdan system (Fliigers Slant, pp. 107. 4.)4-4oH). Thus llulychius. Pat. .\\v\. Annal. t. 1. p. 51 j (cf. Kenaudot, //u/. I'atr. AUxand. p. loi). tells how Timothrus. Pat. Alex.. .Iisrovrrrd .Manicheans among the ICgvi.ti.in bishops at the council of Constantinople by pirmittiuK the bishops and monks to oat flesh on Sunday*, which the Manicheans would not do. Their worship consisted in prayers and hymn*. They had neither temples, altars, incense, n<T images. They fasted on Sunday. They re- garded Easter lightly, as a festival which in their system had no meaning. They obvrve*! Pentecost, but not Christmas or Epiphany. Their great festival was that •>( Henia, held in .March in memory of their founder's death. .\i\ empty chair or pulpit, richly upholstered, was then placed in their assembly, as a s>Tn- bol of his presence, while one of his works, probably his Fundamental Epistle, was read, together with the records of his martyrdom (cf. .Aug. Reply to Fund. Epist. c. viii. ; cont. Faust, xviii. 5). As to their sacraments, the authorities vary much. Beausobre (t. 11. liv. ix. c. vi.) maintained strongly that they baptized even infants, and that in the name of the Trinity. On the other hand Augustine. de Haer. c. xlvi. ; cont. Ep. I'elag. lib. ii. and other places cited by Beausobre, I.e. p. 714 n. ; Cedren. Hist. Comp., 0pp. t. i. col. 831, .Migne's Patr. (ik. t. cxxi., expressly assert that they rejected baptism with water ; and Timothcus C. P. in his Form. Recep. Haer. classes them among those heretics who must receive bap- tism on joining the church, a rule which seems to have prevailed from the 4th cent. (Uever- idge. Cod. Canon. Eccles. Primit. lib. ii. c. 12 ; Basil. Ep. clxxxviii.). Certainly their practice in the 12th cent, would support this latter view, as they then substituted their Consolamcntum or laying on of hands- which they called the baptism of the Holy (.host- for water baptism, which they scorned (cf. Gieseler, H. E.iii. 397. 410 n.). For the .Mani- cheans to admit baptism with water would seem inconsistent with their fundamental principle of the essentially evil nature of matter (cf. Tertull. conl. .Marcwn. 1. 23). But we cannot expect perfect consistency, as in another respect they seem to have retained from the Zoroastrian system an exaggerated reverence for water. As to their Eucharist there is the same diversity »if testimony and a similar accusation of filthy practices. They celebrated the communion, substituting water for wine, the use of which they abhorred. About the disgusting cerenumial of Ischas. which Cyril. Hier. {Cat. vi.), .\ugnsiine (Hart. xlvi.), and Pope Leo I. (itr. v. De Jefun. t. .Mens.) accuse them of adding to their com- munion ill a foul manner, see BeauMjbre, hv. ix. cc. 7-9 in t. ii. pp. 72o-7'»i- Manicheism has been the prolific parent of false gospels. [LciiiLs (I) ; MASt.s.) Hut the work «»f forgery was due not so much to Manes as to his followers, and it i\ almml certain that Manicheism merely adopted many apocryphal wTiting^. 686 MANICHEANS (4) History after Death of Manes. — (i) In the East, where they originated, the Manicheans made rapid progress, spreading, as an-Nadim (Fliigel's Mani, p. 105, cf. p. 394) tells us, into various lands. During their persecution upon the death of Manes, they fled into Trans- oxania, whence they maintained a constant communication with Babylon, their original seat, as the head of the sect always remained there till the Mohammedan invasion. They spread into S. Armenia and Cappadocia, where they found material ready to their hand in the HvpsisTARii of that region (Matter, Gnosticism, ii. 392), whence they came into immediate contact with Europe. A proof of their activity in Armenia is found in the work of Eznig, one of the leading writers of Armenia in the 5th cent., pub. by the Mekhitarite monks at Venice in 1826 under the title Re- futatio Errorum Persarmn et Manichaeoruin. Their progress seems to have been intensified by the Mazdakite movement in the 5th cent., which was only a revival of Manicheism. It displayed the same missionary activity which manifested itself in an aggression upon the orthodox of Armenia, a.d. 590, noted by the Armenian historian Samuel of Ani. He gives us a list of Manichean works which they in- troduced into .-Vrmenia, including the Peni- tence or Apocalypse of Adam (pub. by Renan in the Jour. A'siat. 1853, t. ii. p. 431), the Explanation of the Gospel of Manes, the Gospel of the Infancy, the Vision of St. Paul, and the Testament of Adam. (ii) In the West the first notice of an advance is found in an edict (given in Gieseler, H. E. i. 228) of Diocletian, directed to Julian, pro- consul of Africa, dated prid. kal. Apr. 287, wherein Manichean leaders are condemned to the stake, and their adherents punished with decapitation and confiscation of all their goods, as following " a new and unheard-of monster, which has come to us from the Persians, a hostile people, and has perpetrated many misdeeds." The genuineness of this edict has been challenged, but is defended by : Neander, H. E. ii. 195, n. The chief ground ( for disputing it is the silence of the Fathers, specially of Eusebius. But the argument e j silentio is never a safe one, and Ambrosiaster mentions it when commenting upon II.Tim. iii. I 7. It is addressed to the proconsul of Africa, ; where the Manicheans were making great pro- j gress. This coincides with the fact, known independently, that Manes sent a special envoy j to Africa, where, during the 4th cent., Mani- cheism flourished, both among the monks and clergy of Egypt and in proconsular Africa, 1 ensnaring souls like St. Augustine ; and where i they must have been very numerous and I powerful, since, notwithstanding the severe j and bloody laws enacted against them by Valentinian, A.D.372,andTheodosius, a.d. 381, they assembled, taught, and debated in public in Augustine's time. Yet in some places these laws were not empty threats, for the heathen rhetorician Libanius appealed in be- half of the Manicheans of Palestine {Ep. 1344). Probably, as in the case of the pagan per- secutions, the vigour with which they were enforced varied with the dispositions of local magistrates. From Africa the sect spread into Spain, Gaul, and Aquitaine (Philast. Haer. \ MARANA and CYRA c. 6r, 84), where it may have originated Pris* cillianism (Muratori, Anecd. ex Ambros. Bib- lioth. Codic. ii. 113, ed. 1698). Later we find the Arian king Hunneric persecuting it in Africa, together with the orthodox, a.d. 477 (Vict. Vit. Hist. Persec. Wand. ii. init.). We ! of course find the sect at Constantinople and at Rome. Constantine the Great commis- sioned a certain Strategius — who, under the name of Musonianus, rose to be praetorian prefect of the East — to report upon it (Am- mian. Marcell. xv. 13) ; while again, 200 years I later, in the end of the 5th and beginning of the 6th cent., Manicheism in the Mazdakite I movement made an imperial convert in An- astasius I. At Rome they were found from ancient times. Lipsius in Jahrb. Prot. Theol. ! 1879, art. on Neue Stud, ziir Papst-Chronologie, p. 438, discusses a constitution of pope An- astasius I. a.d. 398, enacted on account of their recent immigration from beyond the seas. After the barbarian invasion of Africa they fled to Rome in great numbers, and pope Leo I. was active in their repression. Leo says that the Manicheans, whom, with the aid of the civil magistrates, he arrested, acknow- ledged their dissolute practices ; whereupon Valentinian III. published a very severe law against them. Notwithstanding all the papal efforts, renewed from age to age, we still find the sect at Rome in 7th cent., under Gregory the Great (cf. Greg. Mag. lib. ii. Ep. 37 ; Gieseler, H. E. t. ii. p. 491, Clark's ed.). (5) Remains of the Sect and of its Literature. — In the Yezedees, or Devil-worshippers of Mosul, and the Ansairees of S>Tia, we have their direct representatives ; while mingled with the doctrines of the Sabians or Hemero- baptistae, who still linger in the neighbour- hood of Harran, we have a large Manichean element. See Badger's Nestorians, t. i. cc. ix. X. ; Lyde's Asian Mystery, and Layard's : Nineveh, c. ix., as confirming this view by several interesting facts, cf. also Notes sur les ! sectes de Kurdistan, par T. Gilbert, in Jour. : .Asiat. 1873, t. ii. p. 393. Cahier maintained, i in Mel. archeol. i. 148, that the Bogomili and the Massalians, branches of the same sect, still existed (1S8S) in Russia. We still possess some specimens of their hterature, and a criti- I cal examination of Mohammedan MSS. and a : complete investigation of the interior state of i Western and Central Asia would probably re- veal them in still larger abundance (Beausob. Hist. Man. t. i. p. 366, and n. 4). Renan pub- lished in 1853, in the Jour. Asiat. a Syriac document called the .Apocalypse of Adam, which he shewed to be one of those brought by the Manicheans into Armenia in 590 a.d. and condemned in the celebrated Gelasian decree. See Harnack, Dogmengesch. vol. ii. (4th ed. 1909), pp. 513-527- [Gelasius.] [g.t.s.] Mar Aba or Mar- Abas. [Nestorian Church ; Thomas (8).] Marana and Cyra, two ladies of birth and education of Beroea in Syria, who in their youth devoted themselves to a solitary life of the extremest austerity, which they had perse- vered in for 42 years when Theodoret wTote his Religiosa Historia. According to Theo- doret they left home with some female ser- vants whom they had inspired with the same ascetic fervour and built a small stone en- MARCELLA closure, open to the sky, the door of which they closed up with mud and stones, their only means of communication with the outer world being a small window tliroui;h whirh thev took in food. Only females were allowed to converse with Marana, ami that only at Easter ; C>Ta no one had ever heard speak. For their maidens a small hovel was con- structed within earshot, so that they could encouratre them by their example and bv their words to a life of prayer and holy love. Theodoret often visited these recluses and in honour of his priestly office they unwalied their door and admitted him into the en- closure, which he found devoid of any pro- tection against the heat or cold, rain or snow. Their heads and the whole upper jiart of their bodies were enveloped in long hoods, entirely concealing their faces, breasts, and hands. They wore chains of iron round their necks, waists, and wrists, of such weight as to pre- vent Cyra, who was of weak" frame, from raising herself upright. These they laid aside at Theodoret's request, but resumed after he left. Their fastings equalled in length those of Moses and David. Fired with a desire to visit holy sites, they made a pilgrimage to J erusa- lem, not eating once on the journey nor as they returned, and only breaking their fast at Jerusalem. They practised the same rigid abstinence on a second pilgrimage to the tomb of St. Thccla at the Isauriau .Seleucia. Theod. Hist. Relig. c. 29 ; Basil. Mowl. Feb. 28 ; Tillem. ii. 64 ; Ceill. x. 63. [e-v.] Marcella, the friend of Jerome, from whose writingsandmemoirof her (£/>.cxxvii.ed. Vail.) she is chiefly known. She was descended from the illustrious Roman family of the Marcelli, and had great wealth. Her mother Albina was a widow when Athanasius came as an exile to Rome in 340. From Athanasius and his companions she heard of Anthony and the monasteries of the Thebaid, and received her first impulse towards the ascetic life. She married, but her husband died after seven months, and she refused a second marriage offered her by the wealthy Cerealis, a man of consular rank but advanced in years. Her ascetic tendency was confirmed by the coming to Rome of the Egyptian monk Peter in 374. She was the first in the city to make the monastic profession. She continued to live with her mother in their palatial residence on the Aventine, but with the utmost simplicity. She was not immoderate in her asceticism, and followed the counsels of her mother, from whose society she never departed. When Jerome came to Rome in 382, she sought him out because of his repute for Biblical learning, and made him, at first against his will, her constant companion. .\ circle of ladies gathered round her, and her house became a Idnd of convent dedicated to the study of the Scriptures, and to i)salrno(ly and prayer. Marcella was eager for infonii.i- tion, and would not accept any doubtful ex- planation, so that Jerome found himself in the presence of a judge rather than a disciple. At times she took her teacher to task for his severity and quarrelsomeness (Ep. xxvii. 2, ed. Vail.). He wrote for her some 15 different treatises on difficult passages of Scripture and church history ; and on his departure in 385 MARCELLINUS 687 hoj;)ed that she mi^'ht have .irrompanied her intimate friends I'aiila and Kutt.K hiuiu to Palestine. \ letter wriUrn bv thosr iw,. I.ulies on their settlement at H.thlrhnn (in Jerome, l-.p. xliv. ed. Vail.) invites hrr in kImw- mg temis to come and enjoy with thrui the Holy Land; but she reinaiiic<l at Kciinr. After her mother's death in vS; she rriirnl t.. a little house outside the ritv with hrr vouuk friend Principia and dev..ted her whole tiinr to good works. She still had a keen interMt in Jerome's theological pursuits, and when Kufinus came to Rome and disputes aros«- a« to his translation of Origen's xtpi 'Apx*^'- *•>« threw herself eagerly into the controvrniv. Having, in conjunction with Paminachius and Oceanus, ascertained Jerome's viiw <.f the matter, she urged the pope .Anastasius {\oo- 403) to condemn Origen and his defender* ; and, when he hesitated, went to him and pointed out the passages which, she contended, though veiled in Rufinus's translation, dr- mantled the pope's condemnation. Anasta- sius completely yiehled, and like Theophilus of .^l.'xandria condemned Origen and hi* uiiholders. " Of this glorious victory," says Jerome, " Marcella was the origin." She lived till the sack of Rome by Alaric. The Goths, supposing her to be affecting poverty to conceal her wealth, used personal violence, but at her entreaty s[)ared Principia, and at last allowed them to take sanctuary in St. Paul's church. Her f.iith made her seem hardly sensible of her sufferings, but she only survived a few days and died in the amis of Principia, leaving all she had to the poor. Jerome, ed. Vail. Epp. 23-29, 32, 34, 37-44, 46, 97. 127. [w.ll.K.] Maroelllna (2), a sister of St. Ambrose, older than himself. His three books dt \'irginihus, addressed to her, were written by her request. From iii. i we learn that she was admitted as a consecrated virgin at Rome on Christmas Day, by pope Liberius, in the presence of a large concourse of virgins and others. The address then given by Liberius is recorded by Ambrose from what Marceiliiia had often repeated t<i him. Ambrose praises her devotion and ailvises her to relax the severity of her fasting. She is mentioned by him (Ep. V.) as a witness to the virginal purity of Indicia. A constant correspondence was kept up with her brother. .She is his "domina soror vitae atque oculis praeferenda." He wrote tliree of liis most important letters to her : Ep. xx. describes his conflict with Justina and her son the younger Valentiiiiaii ; xxii. announces the discovery of the bodies of the martyrs (iervasius and Prolasius ; xli. reports a sermon in which he hadreproved Tlieodosiu*. In iiis discourse on the death of his brother Satyrus, .Ambrose speaks of the w;irin family ;i(fection which, bound the three together, iuid of the sister's grief {de Excfuu Salvn, ff 33, 7.,). (j.LL.I..) MaroelllnUS (1), bp. of Komr after Caiui from June 30, 29O, to Oct. 25 (.'). 304, elected after a vacancy of about two months; called .Marcellianus by Jerome, Nicephoru*. and 111 the Chronogr. Synlomon (H53). The alKivc dates .ore those of the Libenan Catalogue (354) and appear correct. In other records hi* chronology is very uncertain, partly, it wmild 688 MARCELLINUS seem, owing to a confusion between him and his successor Marcellus. He is omitted alto- gether in the Liberian Depositio Episcoporum and Depositio Martyrum (see Lipsius, Chronol. der rom. Bisch. p. 242). The main question about him is his conduct with regard to the persecution under Diocletian. The Liberian Catalogue says only that it occurred in his time — " quo tempore fuit persecutio." Eusebius (//. E. vii. 32) intimates that he was in some way implicated in it — bv Kai avrbv KaT€l\-q<pev 6 daoyfj-os. The Felician Cata- logue (530) says : " In which time was a great persecution : within 30 days 16,000 persons of both sexes were crowned with mar- tyrdom through divers provinces ; in the course of it Marcellinus himself was led to sacrifice, that he might offer incense, which thing he also did ; and having after a few days been brought to penitence, he was by the same Diocletian, for the faith of Christ, to- gether with Claudius Quirinus and Antoninus, beheaded and crowned with martyrdom. The holy bodies lay for 26 days in the street by order of Diocletian ; when the presbyter Marcellus collected by night the bodies of the saints, and buried them on the Salarian Way in the cemetery of Priscillaiu a cell (cubiculum) which is to be seen to the present day, because the penitent [popej himself had so ordered while he was being dragged to execution, in a crypt near the body of St. Crescentio, vii. Kal. Mali." Most probably the statements of his having offered incense and of the place of his burial are true, but his martyrdom is at least doubtful. The charge of having yielded to the edict of Diocletian, which requured all Christians to offer incense to the gods, appears from Augustine to have been alleged after- wards as a known fact by the African Dona- tists. True, Augustine treats it as probably a calumny, and says it " is by no means proved by any documentary evidence " [de Unico Baptism, c. Petilian. c. 16, § 27). Further, Theodoret (H. E. i. 2) speaks apparently with praise of the conduct of Marcellinus in the persecution: rbv iv rip diu}ynu) diawp^xj/avTa. On these grounds Bower, in his history of the popes, warmly maintains his innocence. But it is difficult to account for the introduction of the story into the pontifical annals them- selves and its perpetuation as a tradition of the Roman church, unless there had been foundation for it. Even Augustine, however anxious to rebut the charge, can only plead the absence of evidence ; he does not deny the tradition, or even the possibility of its truth. The expression of Theodoret is too vague to count as evidence. In the story of the mar- tyrdom there is nothing in itself improbable, and it is quite possible that Marcellinus re- covered courage and atoned for his temporary weakness. But there is such a significant ab- sence of early evidence of the martyrdom as to leave itnot onlyunprovedbutimprobable. His name does not appear in the Liberian Depositio Martyrum, nor in Jerome's list, and, apart from the legendary complexion of the Felician narrative (including the statement of 16,000 having suffered in 30 days), the addition of the glory of martyrdom to popes in the later ponti- fical annals is too frequent to weigh against the silence of earlier accounts. Further, the MARCELLINUS, PLAVlUS omission of his name also from the Depositio Episcoporum may be due to his unfaithfulness, if that had not really been atoned for by martyrdom. His burial in the cemetery of Priscilla instead of that of Callistus, where his predecessors since Zephyrinus (236) had been interred, may be accepted without hesitation, the Felician Catalogue being apparently trustworthy as to the burial-places of popes, and the place where he lay being spoken of as well known in the writer's day. A reason for the change of place, independent of the alleged wish of the penitent pope himself, is given by De Rossi (Rom. Sotteran. ii. p. 105), viz. that the Christian cemeteries had been seized during the persecution, so that it had become necessary to construct a new one. It appears {ib. i. p. 203; ii. p. 105) that the Christians did not recover their sacred places till Maxentius restored them to pope Milti- ades ; and this accounts for the fact, that of the two popes between Marcellinus and Milti- ades, the first, Marcellus, was also buried in the cemetery of Priscilla, but the second, Eusebius, as well as Miltiades himself, again in that of Callistus (Catal. Felic.) ; though not in the old papal crypt, a new one having presumably been constructed by Miltiades. In recensions of the pontifical annals later than the Felician the cemetery of Priscilla is said to have been acquired from a matron of that name by Marcellus, the successor of Mar- cellinus ; but in the Felician account Mar- cellinus himself appears as having already secured a place of burial there. The cemetery itself was, according to De Rossi, one of the oldest in Rome, with extensive workings in it at a deep level, which he supposes to have been made during the persecution, when the old burial-place of the faithful on the Appian Way was no longer available. The Salarian Way, where the cemetery of Priscilla was, lies far from the Appian, being on the opposite side of the city, towards the N. [j.b — y.] Marcellinus (7), Flavius, a tribune and afterwards a notary (Bocking, Not. Dig. Occ. p. 408), brother to Apringius, afterwards pro- consul of Africa, where Marcellinus appears to have usually resided. He was a Christian of high character, taking much interest in theo- logical matters. In 410 he was appointed by Honorius to preside over a commission of inquiry into the disputes between the Catho- lics and Donatists, an office for which he was singularly well qualified, and which on the whole he discharged (in 411) with great moder- ation, good temper, and impartiality, though not without giving offence to the Donatists, who accused him of bribery (Aug. Ep. 141 ; Cod. Theod. xvi. 11, 5). With Augustine an intimate friendship subsisted which the be- haviour of Marcellinus at the conference no doubt tended to strengthen ; several letters were exchanged between them, and Augustine addressed to him his three books de Pecca- torum Meritis et Remissione, his book deSpiritu et Littera, and the first two books of his great work de Civitate Dei, which he says that he undertook at his suggestion (Aug. Retract, ii. 37 ; de Civ. Dei. i. praef. ii. i). Excepting letters about the conference (Epp. 128, 129), the correspondence appears to have been carried on chiefly during 412. It arose mainly MARCELLUS out of the anxiety of Marctllmus for his friend Volusiaiius. who. uotwith>tamling the ctforts of his mother to induce huii to become a C hris- tian, was swayed in a contrary direction by the worlilly society in which he lived, lii 413 occurred the revolt of lleraclian, sup- pressed by Marinus, count of Africa, who, bribed by the ilonatists, as Orosius insinuates, arrested and imprisoned M.ucellinus and Apringius. Several Afnc.in bishops joined in a letter of intercession on behaJf ot the pri- soners, whose prayer Caeciliaiius aJlected to support, and he even paid an express visit to Augustine, giving him the strongest hope that they would be released, with solemn assevera- tions of absence of iiostility on his own part. But on the following day, Sept. 15 or lO, they were both put to death. .Augustine mentions their edifying behaviour in prison. See Dr. Spairow Simpson's ^". Aug. and A/r. Ch. L>U'Js;u)is (lylu), pp. lOi-lJO. ["W.l'.J Marcellus (3), bp. of Rome probably from .May J4, 307, to Jan. 15, 309, the see having been vacant after the death of Marcellinu!>, 2 years, o months, and stj days (l.ip^ius, Chrotwlugu der rom. bucho/.). This pope appears as a martyr in the Roman .Martyrology, and in the later recensions of the Ltber Fonli/icalis, a story being told that lie was beaten, and afterwards condemned to tend the imperial horses as a slave. No trace ot this legend, or indeed of his being a martyr at all, appears m the earlier recensions of the I'ontitical, including the I-"elician. Hut a light is thrown on the circumstances which probably led to his title of "Confessor" by the monumental inscriptions to him and his successor liusebius, placed on their tombs by pope Uamasub. Thatto.Marcellus(l'agi, Cr//«c. in Baron, ad ami. 309 ; in Actis S. Junuar. ; Ue Rossi, Rom. Sotter. vi. p. 204) reads : " Veridicus rector lapsis quia criinina Acre Pracdixil, miscris full omnibus hoslisaiiiariis. nine furor, hinc odium sequitur, discordia liles, Sedilio, caedes ; solvuntur focdcra pacis. Crimen ob alterius, Christum qui in pace negavit, rinibus expulsus patriae est feritalc tyranni. Haec brcvitcr Uamasus voluit compcrta reicrrc Marcelli ul populus meritum cognoscerc posset." It would appear from these lines, together with those on Eusebius [Hlsebils (1)], that when persecution ceased at Rome conflicts arose in the Christian community as to the terms of re- adinission of the lapst to communion ; that Marcellus after his election had required a period of penance before absolution ; that this stern discipline evoked violent opposition, the subjects of it being doubtless numerous and influential ; that the church had been split into parties in conse<juence, and riots, anarchy, and even bloodshed, had ensued ; that " the tyrant " Maxentius had interposed in the interests of peace and banished the pope as the author of the discord. He was not really so, the inscription implies, but " an- other," for whose "crime" he suffered, t.e. the leader and instigator of the opposition, who had " denied Christ in time of peace " by condoning apostasy and subverting discipline after persecution had ceased. But Marcellus was made the victim, and thus was a "con- fessor " (or, in the wider sense of the word, a "martyr"), if not strictly for the faith, at MARCELLUS .1 ii 080 11. any rate for c.iiK>iiir.i honour of ihrist. Ihe probably the Hrraclluv scriptionon Kusrbiu .1 : lapsi to mourn !> banished in the 1 ant " as well as 11 pulsi fcritate lyi.nmi liusebius. Is not said in ; tion to have died in rxi tainly buried at Rome, Ii^ , , ,., the cemetery of I'risallu on the .S^ldtian Way (Catal. I- flu.), he may have been allowed to return to his sec. (j.n ^ . MatmUus (4), bp. of Ancyra, l.« h. . have been present at the synod hcM t '315; but nothing can be provctl li I scriptions doubtful in themselves, .st I asius, writing in ab {llnl. aU .W.<n. j him an old man then ; s<> Ih.ij l:i- li.ive been no bar to his I I He was Certainly pres< 1 • I council, where he obt.ii; t pope Julius tells the 1 ;. ;. 1215), lor having contemlid e.irinsii> ii.t ilir Catholic faith ag.nnst the \ri.iiis. I ..trf, j in refuting the heterodox writings ol Aslnius, I he was accused of f-dling into doctiines coin- Itining the errors of S.ibellins .md I'aul wl Saniosata, but his att.ichment t<> St. .Mhaii- asius and the orthodox cause may have sub- jected his book to unlair crilicisin. .\nyliow the Kusebians, piqued at his abs« ncc (liii; tl;r synod of Tyre aiul afterwards the |. ■ at Jerusalem, A. n. 335, in honour ol tl.. tion of the church of the Holy S. , called upon him to render accounl . . .... opinions advanced in it, and to nraiil tlmii, and, according to Socrates, extorted a pro- mise that he would burn the otiending book. For not having at once dom- this, tie was deposed in the synod held, by cuinmaiid ol the emperor, at Constantinople by the ehicls of that party, in l-eb. 330, when hiisebius of Nicomedia presided, and husebius of Caesarea was charged by the assrtii('!» <l bishops with the task of refuting th< \ Marcellus. Basil the seini-.\riaii pointed to the see vacated by hiin 'S. ■ Con(lenined at Constantinople, *' • took himself to Rome, app.n loss of time. H must liave 1 • first act of Julius, after his 1 !• 337), to receive .Marcellus iiit .Marcellus could have scarcely !• : the liusebi.m deputies, Mac.i;. deacons, arrived (a. r.. 339). hopi; Julius tojoin them in unseating ' who had returned from < \il. synodically restored. 1 coming to Rome about synod of more than 50 : Rome by pope Julius in .S"'. , i ■ Marcellus was at Rome then. huMtig tx-rn admitted by Juliu-* to communion on a pie- vious visit; and Julius followr.l li. ...-.in.t suggested by .Marcellus at his ; and adopted in his case, vu. t presbyter* to the l-.ustLians w:. ol bringing them to Rome to tvi.:. opponent already there. Neither Ju.i his bishops ventured to rcttoce Marc. St. Athanasius to their rc»p«cl»ve »ec». I It . 690 MARCELLUS merely gave their collective voice for ad- mitting them to communion, and declared their innocence. It was now that Marcellus testified to Julias and the assembled bishops that his attempt to return to Ancyra, a.d. 338- 339, had only provoked such flagrant scenes as had happened more recently at Alexandria when St. Athanasius was expelled {Apol. c. Arian. § 33, cf. Hil. Frag. iii. 9). " Marcellus," Athanasius says, in his history to the monks (§ 6), " went to Rome, made his apology, and then at their request gave them his faith in writing, of which also the Sardican council approved." The Sardicans grounded their verdict in his favour on the book which Eusebius had maligned, but which they pro- nounced consistent with orthodoxy. " For he had not, as they affirmed, attributed to the Word of God a beginning from Mar)', nor any end to His kingdom ; but had stated His kingdom to be without beginning or end" (Apol. c. Arian. §47). Hence they declared him faultless and free from taint. St. Hilary, who also says nothing of his profession, bears them out in their decision on the book ; add- ing that Marcellus was never again tried or condemned in any subsequent synod (Frag. ii. 21-23). Against such testimony — living, competent, and explicit — as this, it is plainly not for moderns to contend, the book being no longer extant to speak for itself ; and there- fore we must — in spite of all Cave may urge to the contrary (Hist. Lit. i. 202), and after him Cardinal Newman (Library of the Fathers, xix. 503) and the learned writer of art. Eusebius in this work — conclude with Mont- faucon (Z)?a/r. c. iii.), that, strongly as the ex- tracts from it may read in Eusebius, whose party bias betrays itself in every line, yet "read by the light of what precedes and follows," as say the Sardican fathers, they may all be in- terpreted in a sense not conflicting with ortho- doxy. St. Hilary, moreover, speaks with un- wonted weight, as he proclaims the fact loudly that Marcellus subsequently by some rash utterances and his evident sympathy with his former disciple, Photinus, the ejected from Sir- mium, came at last to be suspected of heretical leanings by all ; and notably that he was, though privately, put out of communion by St. Athanasius, on which Marcellus abstained from church himself (Frag. ii. 23). Possibly such a rash utterance was in the mind of St. Hilary when he said to Constantius: "Hinc Marcellus Verbum Dei cum legit, nescit," and then adds: "Hinc Photinus hominem Jesum Chris- tum cum loquitur, ignorat," classing them both in the same category. In the work of St. Epi- phanius against heresies the Photinians rank first (71), and the Marcellians follow (72) ; yet even there the inference is, that the latter had been led astray by the former. St. Epipha- nius does not mention the work of Eusebius against Marcellus, but gives extracts from one against him by Acacius, the successor of Euse- bius at Caesarea, but not, as he says, because he thinks it any more conclusive than the Sardican fathers thought the work of Eusebius. But he criticizes the profession made by Mar- cellus in writing to pope J ulius on the principle "Qui s'excuse s'accuse." This profession, what both Marcellus himself and St. Athan- asius call his " iyypatpov wicrTLy," which, he MARCELLUS says expressly, he gave to pope Julius before leaving Rome, and which St. Epiphanius gives at full length. St. Athanasius says it was ex- hibited to the Roman and Sardican councils as well ; but we have no other proof of this. It is but one of three different professions exhibited at different times on behalf of Marcellus — all characterizedby the same suspicious surround- ings, as will be shewn in due course. The two first are given by St. Epiphanius (Haer. Ixxii. ) ; the third was exhumed by Montfaucon. Dr. Heurtley (de Fide et Symbolo, p. 24) took this creed of Epiphanius as the earliest specimen of a Western creed. It was as certainly the I baptismal creed of the West as it was not that of the local church of Rome (ib. pp. 89-133). For had it been the creed of the church of Rome, would not St. Athanasius have characterized it as such ; would not Julius have recognized and applauded the adoption of his own for- mula ? No doubt Marcellus picked it up in the Danubian provinces, or at Aquileia, in his way to Rome. It is identical with the creed commented upon by St. Augustine, which follows it in Heurtley (op. cit.), saving in the expression tov yevin]dfVTa (k Uvet!ifiaTOi ayiov. etc., which is suspiciously peculiar, and may well have excited the misgivings of St. Epiphanius. Now this creed Marcellus never ventures to call the creed of his own church, yet must have meant that Julius should think it so, as he designates it "what he had been taught by his spiritual fathers, had learnt from holy Scripture, and preached in church," and he begs Julius to enclose copies of it to those bishops with whom he was correspond- ing, that any to whom he was unknown might be disabused of wrong notions formed of him from hostile statements. By way of preface, he recites, to condemn them, the principal errors held by his enemies ; and affirms several points on which his own faith had been questioned. Whether by his own contrivance or otherwise, this profession was never made public, nor appealed to by him again. It satis- fied Julius, and Julius may have communicated it to his correspondents among the Western bishops and to St. Athanasius on his arrival in Rome : but it cannot be proved to have been formally brought before the 50 bishops after- wards assembled there, and there is no proof that it was so much as named at Sardica. In dealing with Easterns, anyhow, the creed in which he professes his faith was that of Nicaea. This profession is extant as well as the other, and was being employed by his disciples in their own justification when it was placed in the hands of St. Epiphanius. It is headed " Inscription of the faith of Marcellus." Yet it can hardly be thought accidental that his own assent is not explicitly given by sub- scription either to this or the third formula, produced on his behalf. Montfaucon. pre- occupied with his own discovery, seeks to connect it with this second profession, with which it has nothing whatever to do. Evi- dently Marcellus aimed at being an Eastern to the Easterns, and a Western to the Westerns. Finally, neither of these professions would seem to have sufficed for him in extreme old age, but he must construct a third, intended this time for St. Athanasius himself. The date fixed for it by Montfaucon is 372, not MARCELLUS earlier, to ^;ivf tiiiu' for some letters that passed on the siibjeet ot >[.\rcellus in 371, be- tween St. Atliauasiiis aiul St. Uasil, elected to the see of Caesarea tlie year before ; not later, because St. .\thanasius dietl in ^7^, and Mar- cellus himself in 374. Hut if Montfaucon had dated it 373, he would have ^ot rid of the very difficulty which perple.xed him most, viz. the absence of the name of St. Athanasius amongst its countersisners (Diatr. c. vi. 4). Far from having been received by St. .Athanasius and his colleagues, the signatures affixed t<i this " aureum opusculum," as Montfaucon in his enthusiasm calls it, are such as go far towards impeaching its genuineness, or else depriving it of the least weight. Surely the signatures to it should have been twt of those to whom it was delivered, but from whom it emanated ! The document purports to be the work of a gathering of the churcli of Ancyra under their father Marcellus ; and it may well have been dictated by a man of his advanced years, re- capitulating and repudiating all the various errors amid which his chequered life had been passed. As no other name is given but his own and that of his deacon Eugenius who was charged with its delivery, we may well dc>ubt whether any third person had a hand in it. The reference in it to the commendatory letters given to its bearer by the bishops of Greece and Macedonia seems consistent with its having been addressed, and ex]icditcd through their good offices, to St. Athanasius (Diatr. ib. § 2). Basil (Epp. 59, 125, 239, 265, ed. Ben.) is just asdisgusted at Marcellus having been received into communion in the West under Julius, as at Eustathius having been similarly received under Liberius {Epp. 226, 244, 263). He looked upon both as trim- mers, as indeed their acts prove them ; and heterodox at heart, in spite of their repeated disclaimers, and undeserving of any trust. There was one point of which Marcellus never lost sight and traded upon through life, with whatsoever errors he was charged. " Se communione Julii et Athanasii, Romanac et Alexandrinae urbis pontificum, esse muni- tum " — as St. Jerome puts it (de Vir. lllttsl. c. 86). Some may, possibly, onsider that he duped them both ; and the second more, by a good deal, than the first. All that remains to be said of Marcellus is, that although restored at Sardica, and included in the general letter of recall issued subsequently by the emperor Constantius and preserved by St. Athanasius {Apol. c. Arian. § 54), he never seems to have regained his see. Basilius certainly was in possession of it at the second council of Sirmium a.d. 351, when he refuted I'ht)tinus ; and either he, or Athanasius his successor, with whom St. Basil corresponded in 369 (Ep. 25), was in possession a.d. 363, and joined in the petition recorded by Socrates (iii. 25) to the emperor Jovian. St. Athan- asius, according to Cardinal Newman, upheld him " to c. 360," but attacked his tenets pointedly, though without naming him, in his fourth oration against the Arians. The short essay demonstrating this is of the highest interest — Introd. to Disc. iv. pp. 503 sf'l vol. xix., also Vols. viii. and xiii. (p. 52, note 1.), of Lib. of the Fathers. Cf. Miintfaucon, Diatr. de causa Marcelli, vol. ii. collect. Nov. Pat. MARCIANUS 691 I'raef. 4 I seq. ; Newiii.iu's .1 runs ; KrttbcrK'» I'ref. in Migne, I'air.tik. xviii. ij<>q; NVrizpr'» Ixestit. Vfr. Chionol. ; and l.arfixiur's />»»$. Jt Phot. Uacret. [AtiianasH's ; I'lSKiiiin or Caksaki.a.] [K.s.rF.) Marola. In 1S3 a eonspirary aKainst the emperor t'onunodus was dctrctrd and put down, in which the emperor's sister I.ucillaand I his cousin Ouailratus had b<-.-n prime inovrrs. I On tiic execution of Ouailratus and th.- «..n- I fiscation of his property, his conrubiiie M.irria became the concubine of t'onunodus and ob- tained the highest favour with him. She wa« ; granted all the honours due to an acknow- ledged empress, save that of having the I sacred fire borne before her. The cmper.r"* coins displayed her figure in the garb of an .Amazon, ami he hinjself took the title Ania- zonius, aiul gave it t<i a month of the vrar. I She was all-powerful with him, and used her I influence on behalf of the I'hristi.uis. <>b- I taining f'lr them many benefits. This (act, I stated by Dion Cassius (or possibly by his epitomizer .\iphilinus), has led to the sus- i picion that she was a Christian hcrsrlf, a 1 susjiicion not disproved by her position as ] concubine ; for the Christian code then dealt ] tenderly with the case of a female slave unable to refuse her person to her master, and, l)rovided she shewed the fidelity of a wife, did not condemn her (Const. A post. viii. 32). We now know from Ilippolytus that the eunuch who brought Marcia uji, and who retained a high place in lur confidence, was a Christian ]>resl)vter. This sufluiently ac coimts (or hiT Christian symiiathii'S ; and the epithet <f>i\60eos, which Ilippolytus applies to her, would have been dilTerent if, besides being friendly to the Christians, she had been a Christian herself. Marcia. whose intimacy with her fellow- servant Eclectus had given (Kcasion for re- mark, ultimately became his wife. She ap- pears to have had resolution and spirit corre- sponding to her favourite .Amazonian dress. ; She was put to death in 19 ^ by Didius j Julianus, to avenge the death of Commodus, which she had plaimed and carried out to I save her own life. For the original authori- I ties, see Eci.kctis. [g.s.] Marclanl. (ICuchites.I MarclanilS (3). Nov. 2 (.Menol. Grate. Strict. and Mart. Rom.), a celebrated solitary in the I desert of Chal( is in Syria (TIickI. Rel. Hist. c. 3) ; a native of Cyrrhus and t)f roikI family. In the desert he built himself within a narrow I enclosure a cell in which he could neither [ stand upright nor lie at full length. In curv I of time he adniittetl to his sorielv. but in I separate dwellings. Iwii disciples- -llusrbius. his successor in the cell, and .\Kai>etus. At I some distance he establishe<l an ab<M|p. uiuler the care of Eusebius. for those who disirrd to ' pursue a monastic life under r<-gulat»tins framed by him. Agapetus retire«l and brrantc bi). of Apamea. Towards the end of his life Marcian allow.d himself to be visited by all who i>leased, w..men excepte.l, but only after the festival of liaster. About 3«i '>«? «'»» visited by Flavian, the new bp. of Anti'K h. m company with four of the most eminent bishops of Svria— Acacius of Herrhora. I-use- bius of Chalcis, Isidore of Cyrrhus, and Thc<>- 692 MARCIANUS (lotus of Hierapulis — besides s<inic religious laymen of high rank. They came to listen to his wisdom, but he persisted in humble silence, and only observed that such as he could not expect to profit men while the word and works of God were so continually appealing to men in vain. Living in the Arian reign of Valens, Marcian's great influence was steadily exerted on the side of orthodoxy and he was an un- compromising opponent of all the prevailing heresies. He zealously upheld the Nicaean rule of Easter and broke off communion with the venerable solitary Abraham in the same desert until he gave up the old Syrian custom and conformed to the new one. Tille- mont (viii. 483, xiv. 222) places his death c. 385 or 387. The Roman Martyrology com- memorates him on Nov. 2. His disciple Agapetus founded two monasteries, one called after himself at Nicerta in the diocese of Apamea, and another called after Marcian's disciple Simeon. From them sprang many, all observing the rules of Marcian. His dis- ciple Basil erected one at Seleucobelus. Tillem. viii. 478, X. 533, xi. 304, xii. 20, xiv. 222, xv. 340, 349 ; Dupin, i. 455, ed. 1722 ; Ceill. x. 52 ; Baron. A. E. ann. 382, Ixviii. [c.h.] Marcianus (41, Jan. 10, presbyter and oeconomus of the great church of Constanti- nople. The authorities for his Life are Theo- dorus Lector (H. E. i. 13, 23, in Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi.), the Basilian Menology, Jan. 10, a Vita from Simeon Metaphrastes (Boll. Acta SS. 10 Jan. i. 609) ; and notices in the Bol- landist Lives f)f St. Auxentius (14 Feb. ii. 77o), St. Isidore the martyr of Chios (15 Mai. iii. 445), and St. Gregory Nazianzen (9 Mai. ii. 4or c, note n). Tillemont (xvi. 161) devotes an article to him. He was originally a layman of the Cathari or Novatianists (Theod. L. i. 13), and was then intimate with Auxentius, who was a Catholic (FjY. Auxent.ii.s.). Hewas appointed oeconomus by the patriarch Gen- nadius, therefore after 458 ; and made it a rule that the clergy of Constantinople should retain for their own churches the offerings made in them and no longer pay them over to the great church (Theod. L. i. 13). His erection of the remarkable [OavixacrTdv) church of the Anastasia or Holy Resurrection and of the church of St. Irene is mentioned in the Basilian Menology and by Codinus {Aedif. Cp. p. 88, ed. Bekker), the latter adding that he also built a hospital for the sick. The church of Irene (transformed from an idol temple) was on the shore {Vit. § 14) at " the passage " (Codin.). The Anastasia was (Co- din.) a refoundation of the humble oratory in which St. Gregory ministered, and Marcian bought the site (then occupied by dealers in materials for mosaic work) because there had been found St. Gregory's commentaries (viro/j.i'>i,uara), wherein he had, 50 years before, predicted the restoration of the building in greater size and beauty. The adornment of Marcian's church was subsequently com- pleted by Basil the Macedonian, who added the golden ceiling. How Marcian saved his new church in the conflagration of Sept. 2 by his prayers and tears, while mounted on the roof with the Holy Gospels in his hands, is related by Theodore Lector (i. 23), the Vita, the Basilian Menology, Theophanes (A. C. 454), MARCIANUS, FLAVIUS and Cedreuus (p. 348, ed. Bekker, p. 610), The year as fixed by Clinton [F. K. i. 666) was 465. Codinus's mention of 50 years makes the rebuilding of the Anastasia c. 425, as the Bollandist Lives of St. Gregory {u.s.) and St. Isidore {u.s.) say, long therefore before Mar- cian became oeconomus. He is stated to have placed the relics of St. Isidore in the church of St. Irene (ib.). An account of the two churches, very full as to the Anastasia, is given in Du Cange (Cpolis. Chr. lib. iv. pp. 98, 102, ed. 1729). Tillemont dates Marcian's death 471, and has minor notices of him at ii. 231, iii. 354, v. 98, ix. 416, xvi. 59, 70. [c.h.] Marcianus (8), Flavius, emperor of the East 450-457. For his civil history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. On his accession he found the world dis- tracted by the Eutychian controversy. Theo- dosius had taken the part of Eutyches and upheld the decision of the " Latrocinium " of Ephesus. His death caused a complete revo- lution in the church in the East. Pulcheria had always been on the side of pope Leo and orthodoxy and naturally chose for her hus- band one who shared her views. Marcian, in his first letter to Leo (S. Leouis, Ep. Ixxiii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. liv. 900), speaks of the assembling of a council under Leo's influence. For the correspondence between Marcian, Pulcheria, and Leo relating to the proposed council see Leo I. The disturbed state of the ecclesiastical atmosphere was probably the motive of Marcian's law of July 12, 451, against brawling in churches and holding meetings in private houses or in the streets (Codex, lib. i. tit. xii. 5). The same year Eutyches was banished, though not so far from Constantinople as Leo {Ep. Ixxxiv.) wished, and orders were issued by the em- peror convening a council. Originally in- tended to meet at Nicaea on Sept. i, pressure of public business prevented the emperor, then in Thrace, from going so far from Con- stantinople, so the bishops assembled at Nicaea were directed to repair to Chalcedon (Mansi, vi. 552, 558). For a detailed account of the proceedings of the council see Dios- coRUS and Eutyches. Marcian and Pul- cheria were present only at the sixth session on Oct. 25, when the emperor made short speeches in Greek and Latin to the assembled bishops, who received him and the empress enthusiastically as a new Constantine and a new Helena. [Eut\ches.] After the council separated Marcian pro- ceeded to enforce its decrees by a series of edicts. The first two, dated Feb. 7 and Mar. 13, 452, confirmed the decisions of the council and prohibited public arguments on theo- logical questions that had been settled by them once for all, as thereby the divine mysteries were exposed to the profane gaze of Jews and pagans (Mansi, vii. 475-480). A third, of July 6, repealed the constitution pro- mulgated by Theodosius at the instigation of the Eutychians against Flavian and his ad- herents Eusebius and Theodoret {ib. 497-500). A fourth, dated July 28 {ib. 501-506), imposed heavy penalties and disabilities on the Euty- chians. Another law, dated Aug. i, 455, re- enacted the same provisions with trifling vari- ations and subjected the Eutychians to all MARCION penalties imposed upon the Apollinarists bv former emperors {ib. 517-5^0). The einporor wrote to the monks of Alexandria bv Joannes the Docurio (16. 481). oxhnrtini; thrrn to abandon their errors and to submit to the de- creesofChalcedon. The troubles at Alexandria, however, were too great to be appeased bv words. The arrival of Proterius. the bishop appointed in place of Dioscorus. led to violent riots (Evagr. 220, 293). Palestine was likewise in a disturbed state. Some of the monks of the defeated side, who had attended the council, on their return, headed by Theodosius, a violent monk who had been their leader in the council, stirred up an insurrection of the whole btnlv of desert monks (16. 293). Juvenalis, bp. of' Jerusalem, had, after his return, to fly for his life. Seve- rianus. bp. of Scythopolis, was killed bv an assassin sent in pursuit of Juven.alis ; Jeru- salem was seized by the infuriated monks ; houses were burnt, murders were perpetrated, the prisons broken open and criminals released, and finally Theodosius was elected bishop. Marcian, hearing of the outrages, wrote to the archimandrites, monks, and inhabitants of Jerusalem, rebuked them sharplv, ordered the punishment of the Ruiltv, and placed a garrison in Jerusalem (Mansi,'vii. 487-493). Marcian also took measures to suppress the last remnants of paganism. Bv a law of Nov. 12, 45 1 {Codex, lib. i. tit. xi. 7)', he forbade, under pain of death, the reopening of the closed temples, and the offering sacrifices, libations, or incense in them, or even adorning them with flowers, and at the end of his law of Aug. I, 455, directed the strict enforcement of the laws against paganism. In Apr. 454 he passed a law granting to nuns, deaconesses, and widows the power of making testamentary dispositions in favour of the church or clergy and repealing all previous contrary enactments. In .^pr. 456 he passed another (ift. tit. iii. 25, and tit. iv. 13), bv which proceedings against the oeconomus or other clerics of the churches in Constantinople were to be taken at the plaintiff's desire either before the archbishop or the prefect of the city, and no oaths tendered to clerics, who were for- bidden to swear by the laws of the church and an ancient canon. Dying Jan. 457 (Theod. Lect. 565), aged 65, after a reign of 6A years, he was buried in the church of the .Apostles at Constantinople (Ced- renus, 607. in Pair. Gk. cxxi. 659). [p-d.] Marclon, a noted and permanently in- fluential heretic of the 2nd cent. Life. — Justin Martyr {.Apol. cc. 26, 58) men- tions Simon and .Menander as having been instigated by demons U> introduce heresv into the church, and goes on to speak of Marcion as still living, evidently regarding him as the most formidable heretic of the day.* He states that he was a native of Pontus who had made many disciples out of every nafi >n. and refers for a more detailed refutation to a separate treatise of his own, one sentence of which has been preserved by Irenaeus (iv. 6). This work seems to have been extant in the time of Photius [Cod. 154). Irenaeus also states that Marcion came from Pontus. He • ThouRh the form "iiantiiioHTrvpho 3s) kugire*)* followers of Marcus, we think Marcion is intended. MARCION flt«3 adds th.il thence he tun., i.. Koinr, wtutr he became an adhrreni, .in<l aftrrw.udx the successor, o( Cerdo, .» Svrun tr.v hrr who, though he made luiblic r..n(r*M ^n and was reconril.Hl, privatrlv continue,! trachinx heretical doctrine, was belravrd bv v>mr oi his hearers, and again wparatnl. Irrnanu places the coming o( Crrdo to Ronir in the episcopate of Hyginus, which la%lrtl four years, ending, according to I.i(>5iu<(, no, 140, or 141. Irenaeu'; places the activity o| .Marcion at Rome under AnicetU't {" invaluit sub .\nicet.r*). whos<' episcopate of u vrar^ began in 134. He sa\-s (iii. \) that M.ir. i .n meeting Polycan^ -it K'une (pr .bahlv i\| or 155) claimed recognition, on whirh Polvrarp answered, " I recognize thee as the fir^ti. n. <if Satan." Irenaeus contemplated mi separate treatise against Marri ,n. I no direct evidence of his having c^ini this design, but as its pr .p >srd metli ,d u stated to have been the c uifntati <n of Marri. n by means of his own g >spel, and as ihi* i> precisely the meth'xi f.ill .wed by T<rt . who is elsewhere largely indebted to Ir the work of Irenaeus mav have b.' :. written and known to Terlullian. It h.is been stated under Hippolvti's how the con- tents of the lost Svntaznui of Hippolytus arc inferred. It appears to have named Sinope as Marcion's native city (Eniph. 42, Philast. 4.s), of which his father was bishop ; and to have stated that he was obliged to leave home be- cause he seduced a virgin and was excom- municated bv his father (Epiph.. F'seudo- Tert. 17). Epiphanius tells, apparently on the same authority, that Marrion. his fre- quent entreaties f >r absolution having f.iiled, went to R..me, where he arrive.l after the death of Hvginus, that he begged n-st >rati >n from the presbvters there, but they declaretl themselves unable to act contrary to the decision of his venerated father. The men- tion of presbvters as then the ruling power in the church of Rome, and their professed in- ability to reverse the decision of a provinrial bishop, indicate a date earlier than that of Epiphanius; but Epiphanius further states that .Marcion's quarrel with the presbvters was not only because they did not restore hint to church communion. t)Ut also because they did not make him bishop. This has been cn*^ ally understood to mean bp. of Rome. ..' ! sibly Epiphanius intended thi«, but ' not say so. His words are u-t oi« n- T'r)¥ wpotipiaf r«. »a2 rrir tic fiiitf t <r('ot. It is absurd that an exc< 1 cated foreigner should dream of bri; bishop of a church from which he w.i> .. ,^.1^ in vain for absolution. ICpiphaniuN must h.»vr misunderstood some expression he found in his authority, or Marcion nm^t t;.\. Kmi already a bishop (possibly on- \ suffragans), been deposed, an<l ; Rome both restor.ition to r .| recognition <>f his episcopal dignitv < 'j t itu\ alone directly countenances the latter view, speaking of Slarcion (iv. 5. p. 74) •'»"' " ""^ episcopo factus apostat.i." Hut ther< : indirect confirmation in the fact « learn from .\dainantius (i. 15 : xvi. z<-\ mat/.) that Marcion was afterAvards i.. .,;- nized as bisbup by his own follower* uid wa» 694 MARCION the head of a succession of Marcionite bishops continuing down to the writer's own day. The Marcionites appear to have had no differ- ence with the orthodox as to the forms of church organization. Tertullian's words are well-known, " faciunt et favos vespae, faciunt et ecclesias Marcionitae " {adv. Marcion. iv. 5). We may conclude that episcopacy was the settled constitution of the church before the time of the Marcionite schism, else Marcion would not have adopted it in his new sect, and it seems more likely that Marcion had been consecrated to the office before the schism than that he obtained consecration afterwards, or by his own authority took the office to himself and appointed others to it, a thing unexampled in the church, of which we should surely have heard if Marcion had done it. Many critics have believed that the statement as to the cause of Marcion's ex- communication arose from the misunder- standing of a common figurative expression, and that it meant that Marcion by heresy had corrupted the pure virgin church. We are inclined to adopt this view, not on account of the confessed austerity of Marcion's subse- quent life and doctrines, which are not in- consistent with his having fallen into sins of the flesh in his youth, but because the story goes on to tell of Scripture difficulties pro- pounded by Marcion to the Roman presbyters and of his rejection of their solutions. If the question had been whether pardon were to be given for an offence against morality, neither party would have been likely to enter into theological controversy, whereas such dis- cussion would naturally arise if the cause of excommunication had been heresy. The story proceeds to say that he asked the Roman presbyters to explain the texts, " A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit," and " No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment," texts from which he himself deduced that works in which evil is to be found could not proceed from the good God, and that the Christian dispensation could have nothing in common with the Jewish. Re- jecting the explanation offered him by the presbyters, he broke off the interview with a threat to make a schism in their church. The beginning of Marcionism was so early that the church writers of the end of the 2nd cent., who are our best authorities, do not them- selves seem able to tell with certainty the story of its commencement. But we know that the heresy of Marcion spread itself widely over many countries. Epiphanius names as infected by it in his time, Rome and Italy, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Syria, Cj'prus, and even Persia. Its diffusion in the latter half of the 2nd cent, is proved by its antagonists in numerous countries : Dionysius in Corinth writing to Nicomedia, Philip in Crete, Theo- philus in Antioch, besides Modestus (Eus. iv. 25), Justin, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Rhodo, and Tertullian. Barde- sanes ^vrote in Syriac against the heresy {ib. iv. 30), as did Ephrem Syrus later. Now, Marcion would seem to have travelled much and probably used his journeys to pro- pagate his doctrines. Ephrem Syrus speaks of him as wandering like Cain, but possibly only refers to his leaving his country for Rome MARCION (Hymn 56, Assemani, Bibl. Or. i.'iig). Ter- tullian constantly describes him as " nau- clerus " ; Rhodo {ap. Eus. v. 13) calls him vavTTfs, according to a reading which we believe to be right, though the word is wanting in some MSS. His travels seem more likely to have preceded than to have followed his settling in Rome under Anicetus. Unless, therefore, the story of the interview with the Roman presbyters is to be rejected altogether, we think it must be taken date and all. The interview must be placed immediately after the death of Hyginus and we must suppose Marcion then to have left Rome on his travels and only to have settled there permanently some years later, first as a member of Cerdo's school and afterwards as his successor. The authorities as to the chronology of his life are very conflicting. The statement on which we can most rely is that he taught in Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus. We have no good warrant to extend his activity later, for we can give no credit to Tertullian when he names Eleutherus (de Praesc. 30) in connexion with the excommunication of Marcion. If Marcion did not survive Anicetus he may have been born c. 100. The Chron- icle of Edessa names 138 for the beginning of Marcionism, and with this agrees the first year of Antoninus given by the Fihrist (Fliigel's Mani, p. 85). This date is not improbable, if I we suppose an Oriental preaching of the heresy to have preceded its establishment at Rome ; .\.D. 150 is a not unlikely date for Justin j Martyr's Apology, and 12 years' growth is not too much for Marcionism to attain the for- I midable dimensions that work indicates. If Justin Martyr's work is dated earlier, the date of Marcionism will be similarly affected. ! The time of Marcion's death is unknown, but he probably did not survive Anicetus. The only works he is known to have left are his recensions of the Gospel and Pauline Epistles; his Antitheses, in which by com- paring different passages he tried to shew that j the O.T. contradicted the New, and also it- I self ; and Tertullian refers to a letter of his, I then extant, as proving that he had originally J belonged to the Catholic church [adv. Marc. i. i; iv. 4; de Cam. Christ, ii.). We learn from Rhodo (Eus. v. 13) that after his death his followers broke up into sects, among the leaders of which he names Apelles, who only acknowledged one first principle ; Potitus and Basilicus, who counted two ; and Syneros, who counted three (Ref. vii. 31). Other Marcionite teachers mentioned are Prepo, an .\ss\Tian, by Hippolytus, Lucanus by Ter- tullian ; Pitho and Blastus (the latter prob- ably erroneously) by Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 25). Epiphanius says {de Mens, et Pond. 17) that Theodotion, the translator of O.T., had been a Marcionite before his apostasy to Judaism, and Jerome {de Vir. Illiist. 56) states that Ambrosius was one before his con- version by Origen. These sectaries were formidable to the church, both from their numbers and the strictness of their life. They were very severe ascetics, refusing flesh meat, wine, and the married life. Unlike some Gnostics who taught that it was no sin to escape persecution by disguising their faith, the Marcionites vied with the orthodox k MARCION in producing niart>Ts. luisoliius tills (iv. 15) that the same letter of the church of Snivriia from which he drew his account of the inart\T- dom of Polycarp. told also of the niiirtvrdoin of a Marcionite preshyter, Metrodorus.' who, like Polycarp, sutTered at Snjyrna bv fire, and in the same persecution. When, later, the Montanists appealed in proof of their ortho- doxy to the number of their martvrs, thev were reminded that this could be cquallv pleaded for the Marcionites (Kus. v. 16). Other Marcionite martyrs mentioned bv Euse- bius are a woman who suffered under Valerian at Caesarea in Palestine (iii. 12), and a Marcionite bp. Asclepius, who in the Diocle- tian persecution was burned alive at Caesarea on the same pvre as the orthodox Apselamus {Mart. Pal. c. 10). The strictness of the Marcionite discipline is proved by the un- friendly testimony of Tertullian, who tries bv their practice to convict of falsity the Mar- cionite theory, that a good God could not be the object of fear : " If so, why do you not take your fill of the enjoyments of this life ? Why do you not frequent the circus, the arena, and the theatre ? Whv do you not boil over with every kind of lust ? When the censer is handed you, and you are asked to offer a few grains of incense, why not deny your faith ? ' God forbid ! ' you cry— ' God forbid ! ' " At the end of the Diocletian persecution the Marcionites had a short interval of freedom of worship. An inscription has been found over the doorway of a house in a Syrian village (Le Bas and W'addington, luscriptioits. No. 2558, vol. iii. p. 3S3) bearing a Syrian date corre- sponding to the year commencing Oct. i, 318. This is more ancient than any dated inscrip- tion belonging to a Catholic church. With the complete triumph of Christianity, Marcionite freedom of worship was lost. Constantine (Eus. de Vit. Const, iii. 64) absolutely forbade their meeting for worship in public or private buildings. Their churches were to be given to the Catholics ; any private houses used for schismatical worship to be confiscated. But the dying out of Marcionism was probably less the result of imperial legislation than of the absorption of the older heresy by the new wave of Oriental dualism which in Manicheism passed over the church. The Theodosian Code (xvi. tit. v. 65) contains a solitary nien- tion of Marcionites. They were not extinct in the fifth cent., for Theodoret, writing to pope Leo lEp. 113, p. 1190), boasts that he had himself converted more than a thousand Marcionites. In Ep. 145 the number of con- verts rises to ten thousand ; in Ep. 81 they are said to be the inhabitants of eight villages. In his Church History (v.) Theodoret tells of an unsuccessful effort made by Chrvsostom for their conversion. Probably this survival <>f Marcionism was but a local peculiarity. But as late as 692 the council in Trullo thought it worth while to make provision for the recon- ciliation of Marcionites, and there is other evidence of lingering remains so late as the loth cent. (Fliigcl's .Mani, pp. 160, 167). Doctrine. — There is a striking difference of character between the teaching of Marcion and of others commonly classed with him as Gnostics. The systems of the latter often MARCION flOft which ■f ihf contain so m.ii.v r!.u..uts .|rrivr.| fr,„„ heathenism, or dr.ixvn Jrom the fancy of the speculators, that we feel as if wr h.vl vAr. riv any common ground with thrm: l.ui uiri, vt ,r. cion Christianity i« plainly th. and the char.icter of hin sysi. ,; with his being the »on of a t ' i and brought up as a Christian. H • been pen>lexed by the question of t! of evil, and is dispose*! to arrcpi thr ., much prevalent in the K.ist then, tli.it ,\ii 1, inextricably mixetl up with matter, therefore could not be the rrcation Supreme. He tries to fit in this snhifj :•• his Christian creed and with the S<ii but naturally only by a mutilation of |, he force an agreement. Indeed, he soi;.. ;..... , has even to alter the text, e./;. " I am n<>t mme to destroy the law. but to fulfil." im,, •' j am not come to fulfil the law, but ti» di-strov." Still, the arbitrary criticism of Marcion ha* more points of contact with incKlem thought than the baseless assumptions of other Gnostics. A modern divine would turn awav from the dreams of Valentinianism in silent contempt ; but he could not refuse to discuss the question raised by Marri.in. whether thrre is such opposition between different parts of what lie regards as the word ..f (;.k1. that all cannot come from the same author. The fundamental point of difference between Marcion and the church was conreming the unity of the first principle. M.arcion plainlv asserted the existence of two Grxls. a goinl one and a just one. What he meant to convev by these words Bcausobre well illustrates bv a passage of Bardesanes. preserved bv HuM-bius (Praep. Evan. vi. 10). He savs that animals are of three kinds : some, like serpents .ind scorpions, will hurt those who have given them no provocation ; some, like sheep, will not attempt to return evil for evil ; others will hurt those only that hurt them. These thr'*- may be called c\-il, good, and just respernvrlv. .Marcion then thought the intli( lion ..f punish- ment inconsistent with jierfert g.M.dn.ss, and would only concede the title of just to thr God of O.T., who had distinctly threntrned to punish the wicked. The (;o<l. he said, whose law was " An eye for an eye. and a tooth for a tooth," was a just (xxl. but not the same as that good God whose command was. " If any smite thee on the •>ne che<-k, turn to him the other also." The conimand. " 1 h"U shalt love him that loveth thee and hate thinr enemy " was that of a just Cio<l ; " I. ■> •> enemv " was the law of the ro.kI (;. ,' thcr, the {;od of O.T. had said r.f 1 " I create evil " ; but since from a k' evil fruit c^innot spring, it f .llows tli.u He who create<l evil caiuiot Hims«lf be R'-kI. He ould not be the Su| r. f r H. «.,s ..f limited intelligence, n t .1 Adam when he hid hiiii^' " Where are thou ? ". ai. down to s<-c before H' Sodom had done accor cion's theory was that f the work of the just 1 . . whose abodf he pla< i-s m ihe- 1 t heaven and whom apparent I Icdged as the creator of a ti,: >l universe, neither concerned Uuutcli uith 696 MARCION mankind nor was known by them, until, taking compassion on the misery to which they had been brought by disobedience to their Creator who was casting them into his hell. He interfered for their redemption. The Marcionite denial of the unity of the first principle was variously modified. Some counted three first principles instead of two : a good Being who rules over the Christians, a just one over the Jews, a wicked one over the heathen. Others, since the world was sup- posed to be made out of previously existent matter, held that matter was a fourth self- originated principle. Marcion himself only counted two dpxal, but used the word in the sense of ruling powers, for it does not appear that he regarded matter as the creation either of his good or his just God, and therefore it should rightly have been reckoned as an independent principle. Tertullian, indeed, argues that Marcion, to be consistent, should count as many as nine gods. In all these systems the good Being was acknowledged to be superior to the others, so it was not a violent change to assume that from this prin- ciple the others were derived ; and Apelles and his school drew near the orthodox and taught that there was but one self-originated principle. The ascription of creation and redemption to different beings enabled the church writers to convict the Marcionite deitv of unwarrantable interference with what did not belong to him. This interference was the more startling from its suddenness, for Mar- cion's rejection of O.T. obliged him to deny that there had been any intimation of the coming redemption, or any sign that it had been contemplated beforehand. His God then suddenly wakes up to trouble himself about this earth ; stoops down from his third heaven into a world about which, for thou- sands of years, he had given himself no con- cern ; there kidnaps the sons and servants of another, and teaches them to hate and despise their father and their king, on whose gifts they must still depend for sustenance, and who furnishes the very ground on which this new God's worshippers are to kneel, the heaven to which they are to stretch out their hands, the water in which they are baptized, the very eucharistic food for which a God must be thanked to whom it had never belonged. Marcion's rejection of O.T. prophecy did not involve a denial that the prophets had foretold the coming of a Christ ; but the Christ of the prophets could not be our Christ. The former was to come for the deliverance of the Jewish people ; the latter for that of the whole human race. The former was to be a warrior — Christ was a man of peace ; Christ suffered on the cross — the law pronounced accursed him that hangeth on a tree ; the Christ of the prophets is to rule the nations with a rod of iron, kings are to set themselves against Him, He is to have the heathen for His inheritance and to set up a kingdom that shall not be destroyed. Jesus did none of these things, therefore the Christ of the prophets is still to come. Tertullian successfullv shews that if Jesus was not the Christ of the prophets, He must have wished to personate Him, coming as He did at the time and in the place which j the prophets had foretold, and fulfilling so MARCION many of the indications they had given. What Marcion supposed his own Christ to be has been disputed. Some have supposed that he did not distinguish him from his good God, for Marcion's Gospel was said to have commenced: " In the 15th year of Tiberius God came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught on the sabbath days " (Tert. adv. Marc. iv. 7) ; but we believe the true reading here is " eum," not " deum." and that Marcion held his Christ to be a saving Spirit (i. 19), but did not con- found him with the Supreme. Marcion's Gospel told nothing of the birth of Christ, and Marcion's " came down " has a very different meaning from what it has in the original passage (Luke vi. 31), in Marcion's use I meaning " came down from heaven." In I fact, the story of Christ's birth would repre- sent Him as a born subject of the Demiurge, deriving from his bounty the very body in j which He came ; so it was preferred to tell j the improbable tale of a divine teacher un- heard-of before making a sudden appearance I in the synagogue. That Christ had a real 1 earthly body Marcion of course could not j admit. See Docetism for an account of Mar- cion's doctrine on this subject, and that of his disciple .\pelles, who on this point as on others j approached more nearly to the orthodox. It I was an obvious argument against the Docetic theory that if our Lord's body were not real we could have no faith that His miracles were real, nor in the reality of His sufferings and death, which Marcion was willing to regard as an exhibition of redeeming love ; nor in the reality of His resurrection. Marcion, like the orthodox, taught that the death of our Lord was followed by a " descent into hell " ; but Irenaeus tells us that he taught that there Cain, the people of Sodom, and others con- demned in O.T. as wicked, received Christ's preaching and were taken up by Him into His kingdom ; but that Abel, Enoch, Noah, .\brahara, the prophets, and other righteous men imagined that the Demiurge was tempt- ing them as on other occasions, and so, being afraid to join themselves to Christ and accept deliverance from Him, were left in the under- world. Christ's salvation, according to Mar- cion, affected the soul only, and did not affect the body, of which he held there would be no resurrection. Indeed, none of those who regarded matter as essentially evil could believe that evil would be made eternal by a material resurrection. Tertullian points out that sin originates with the soul, not the body, and pronounces it unfair that the sinful soul should be redeemed and the less guilty body punished. On unredeemed souls no punish- ment would be inflicted by Marcion's good God — he would merely abandon them to the vengeance of the Demiurge ; but Tertullian shewed that if direct punishment were incon- sistent with perfect goodness, such abandon- ment must be equally so. The Marcionite system as described by Esnig has more of a mvthic than of a rational- istic character, and if we accept this as the original form of Marcionism, Marcion owed more to the older Gnostics than we should otherwise have supposed. Marcion is said by Esnig to have taught that there were three heavens : in the highest dwelt the good God, i MARCION in the second the liod of the I aw, m the lowest His angels; beneath lay llyle, or matter, having an independent existence of its own. Bv the help of Hvle. which plaved the part of a female principle, the (iod of tiie I. aw made this world, after which he retired to his heaven ; and each ruled in his own doniaiti, he in heaven and Hvle on e.irth. .Vfterwartls the God of the Law, beholding how goodly this earth was. desired to make man to inhabit it, .ind for this purpose requested the co-opera- tion of Hvle. She supplie<l the dust from which man's bodv was made, and he breathed in his spirit, and made him live. He named him .^dam. gave him a wife, and placed him in Paradise. There they lived, honouring and obeying their Maker, in joy and childlike innocence, for as yet they had no children. Then the Lord of Creation, seeing that .Adam was worthy to serve Him. devised how he might withdraw him from Hyle and unite him to himself. He took him aside, and said. " Adam. I am God. and beside me there is no other ; if thou worshippest any other God thou , shalt die the death." When .Adam heard of death he was afraid, and gradually withdrew himself from Hyle. When Hyle came after her wont to serve him. Adam did not listen to her. but withdrew himself. Then Hvle, recognizing that the Lord of Creation had supplanted her. said, "Seeing that he hates me and keeps not bis compact with me, I will make a number of gods and fill the world with them, so that they who seek the true God i shall not be able to find him." Thus she filled the world with idolatry ; men ceased to adore the Lord of Creation, for Hyle had drawn them all to herself. Then was the Creator full of wxath ; and as men died he cast them into hell, both Adam, on account of the tree, and the rest. There they remained 29 centuries. At length the good God looked down from the highest heaven and beheld what misery men suffered from Hyle and the Creator. He took compassion on those plagued and tortured in the fire of hell, and he sent his son to deliver them. " Go down," he said, " take on thee the form of a servant, and make thyself like the sons of the law. Heal their wounds, give sight to their blind, bring their dead to life, perform without reward the greatest miracles of healing ; then will the God of the Law be jealous, and will instigate his servants to crucify thee. Then go down to hell, which will open her mouth to receive thee, supposing thee to be one of the dead. Then liberate the captives whom thou shalt find there, and bring them up to me." This was done. Hell was deceived and admitted Jesus, who emptied it of all the spirits therein and carried them up to his Father. When the God of the Law saw this he was enraged, rent his clothes, tore the curtain of his palace, darkened his sun, and veiled his world in darkness. After that, Jesus came down a second time, but now in the glorv of his divinity, to plead with the God of the Law. When the Creator saw J esus thus appear, he was obliged to own that he had been wrong in thinking that there was no other god but himself. Then Jesus said, " I have a controversy with thee, btit I will take no other judge between us than thine own MARCION ft97 law. Is It iiui wriltrii ii. 'I V 1." ■• ■• .. 1 -.„ killeth anothrr shall liii i whoso sheddrlh innorn • own blood shed ? 1 rt n shed thv blood, (or I w.i!x HiH.K.jil .. hast shed mv blood." Thru hr f.. what benefits he had lK-s|owrd Creator's children, aiul in return h.ul Itth crucified ; and the Creator could makr n.i defence, seeing hiniM-H rondrninrd bv ht- '-'Wn law, and he sai<l : " I w.i>ign«r.iiit ; I (" thee but a man, and did not know tl a God ; take the revengr which is tl Then Jesus left him .iiid brtfxik liih. ■ >; m Paul, and reveale<l to him the wav in which we should go. All who believe in ( hrist will give themselves to this goo<l and righlrou* man. Men must withdraw themwlv« Irocn the dominion of Hyle; but all do not know how this is to be done. Though this mythical story differs much in complexion from other ancient accounts of Marcionite doctrine, we cannot absoliilrlv reject it ; for there is nothing in it inconsistrnt with Marcion's known doctrines or such as a Gnostic of his age might have taught. It is. indeed, such a system a> he might have learned from the Syriac Gnostic ( «rdo. Hut Marcion must have given the nn thic element little prominence, or it would not have so dis- appeared from the other accounts. Discipline and Worship. — In rites Marcion followed the church model. Thus (Tcrt. a</r. Marc. i. 14) he had baptism with water, anointing with oil, a mixture of milk and honey was given to the newly baptized, and sacramental bread represented the Saviour's Body. Wine was absent from his Lucharist, for his principles entirely forbade wine or flesh meat. [Encratites.) Fish, however, he permitted. He commanded his di^ciplfs to fast on Saturday, to mark his hostilitv to the God of the Jews, who had made that His day of rest. .Marriage h«' condemned. .A married man was received as a cate< hunien, but not admitted to baptism until he had agn-etl to separate from his wife (16. i. 2q and iv. 10). This probably explains the statement of Epiphanius that the Marcioniti-s celebrat«l the mysteries in the presence of uiibapti/rd persons. The sect could not liave fl<>urishe<l if it discouraged married persons fp-ni j'inin;! it ; and if it atlmitted them onlv as 1 .* ' mens, that class would naturallv b- larger privileges than in the Catholic • Nor need we disbelieve th-- ' ■'• Epiphanius th.it a s<< . nd ■ r ■ was pcrniiltrd. If .1 iminbi r who had put aw.tv Ms wid- t> '. not incredible that on repmt.nut a m. lul baptism was nerrssary bef-rc rr«iMratii>n to full privileges of iii< nb' i-! i; Ak'-iin. sinrr the baptism of ■ pennitted in at: times happen Ih • ! bv death befiirr I ibie that in su'h ■ baptism may h.i sostoni tells in ,, .r,..., ., ;.. ,.,,..,,. ... Corinthians about Ixing li^ptunl f<>r the dead. Epiphanius stales that Marcion |>^r- • They lu«mird ihHr nmclirr t>y an ot>t>«^<I If tlul. vl. (Mrc HicTun. in /of.l. 698 MARCION mitted females to baptize. The Marcionite baptism was not recognized by the church. Theodoret tells that he baptized those whom he converted. (See also Basil. Can. 47, Ep. iqg.) He tells also that he had met an aged Marcionite who, in his hostility to the Creator, refused to use his works, a principle which could not possibly be carried out consistently. Canon of Scripture. — Marcion's rejection of the O.T. involved the rejection of great part of the New, which bears witness to the Old. He only retained the Gospel of St. Luke (and that in a mutilated form), and ten Epp. of St. Paul, omitting the pastoral epistles. In defence of his rejection of other apostolic writings, he appealed to the statements of St. Paul in Galatians, that some of the older apostles had not walked uprightly after the truth of the gospel, and that certain false apostles had perverted the gospel of Christ. Marcion's Gospel, though substantially iden- tical, as far as it went, with our St. Luke's, did not bear that Evangelist's name. That it was. however, an abridgment of St. Luke was asserted by all the Fathers from Irenaeus and not doubted until modern times. Then it was noticed that in some cases where Marcion is accused by Epiphanius or Tertullian of having corrupted the text, his readings are witnessed by other ancient authorities. We have the means of restoring Marcion's Gospel with sufficient exactness. TertuUian goes through it in minute detail ; Epiphanius also has made a series of minute notes on Marcion's corrup- tions of the text ; some notices are also found in the Dialogue of Adamantius. Combining these independent sources, we obtain results on which we can place great confidence. It clearly appears that Marcion's Gospel and our St. Luke's in the main followed the same order and were even in verbal agreement, except that the latter contains much not found in the former. So that the affinity of the two forms is certain, and the only choice is whether we shall regard the one as a mutilation or the other as an interpolated form. The theory that the shorter form was the original was for some time defended by Ritschl and Baur, who, however, were obliged to yield to the argu- ments of Hilgenfeld and Volkmar. In Volk- mar's Das Evangelium Marcions the differ- ences between the two forms of the Gospel are examined in minute detail, especially with reference to their doctrinal bearings ; and it is found that the only theory which will j explain the facts is that Marcion's is a mutil- ated form. His form exhibits a hostility to Judaism, the Mosaic law, and the work of the Creator, of which there is not a trace in | genuine Pauline Christianity. Dr. Sanday (Gospel in the Second Cent., p. 204) has made a careful linguistic comparison of the portion of our St. Luke which Marcion acknowledges with that which he omits, the result being a decisive proof of common authorship ; the part omitted Ijy Marcion abounding in all the pecu- liarities which distinguish the style of the third evangelist. The theory, therefore, that Marcion's form is the original may be said to \ be now completely exploded. Dr. Sanday [ notes further that the text of St. Luke used | by Marcion has some readings recognized by i some other ancient authorities, but which no I MARCUS critic now accepts. The inference is that when Marcion used St. Luke's Gospel it had been so long in existence, and had been copied so often, that different types of text had had time to establish themselves. It has been argued that Marcion could not have known our Fourth Gospel, else he would have pre- ferred this, as being more strongly anti- Jewish. But the Fourth Gospel is not anti- Jewish in Marcion's sense, and he would have had even more trouble in mutilating it to make it serve his purpose. At the very outset Christ's relation to the Jewish people is de- scribed in the words, " He came unto His own " ; the Jewish temple is called His Father's house ; salvation is said to be of the Jews ; contrary to Marcion's teaching, Christ is perpetually identified with the Christ pre- dicted in O.T. ; the Scriptures are " they which testify of Me," " Moses wrote of Me," " Had ye believed Moses ye would have be- lieved Me." Great importance is attached to the testimony of John the Baptist, who, according to Marcion, like the older prophets, did not know the true Christ ; and the miracle of turning water into wine would alone have condemned the Gospel in Marcion's eyes. In short, the Fourth Gospel is strongly anti- Marcionite. See esp. Zahn's Gesch. des N.T. Kanons. i. 587-718 and ii. 409-529. Marcion's Apostolicon consisted of ten epistles, in the order: Gal., I. and II. Cor., Rom. (wanting the last twochapters), I. and II. Thess., Eph. (called by Marcion the Ep. to the Lao- diceans), Col., Philippians, Philemon. Con- cerning the order of the last two, Tertullian and Epiphanius differ. The Acts and the pastoral epistles are rejected. The Apostoli- con was known to Jerome, who notes two or three of its readings. The most careful attempt to restore it is by Hilgenfeld {Zeit- schrift f. histor. Theol. 1855). It becomes apparent that Marcion struck out from the Epistles which he acknowledged some passages which conflicted with his theory and also made some few additions. The arbitrary character of such criticism would destroy all claim to originality for Marcion's text of the Gospel, even if that claim had not otherwise been sufficiently refuted. [g.s.] Marcus (6), bp. of Rome, probably from Jan. 18 to Oct. 7, 336, having been ordained 18 days after the death of his predecessor Sylvester. The above dates, from the Liberian Catalogue and Depositio Episcoporum, are confirmed by St. Jerome (Chron.), who gives him a reign of 8 months, and are consistent with historical events. He is said [Catal. Felic. and Anastasius) to have ordained that the bishops of Ostia should consecrate the bishops of Rome and bear the pallium, and to have been buried in the cemetery of Balbina on the Via Ardeatina, " in basilica quam coe- miterium constituit." Baronius notices this as the earliest mention of the pallium. The cemetery of Balbina, called also that of St. Mark from this pope's interment there and variously spoken of in old itineraries as on the Ardeatine and Appian Ways, has been identified as lying between the two by De Rossi, who supposes the " basilica " to have been a chapel, or cella memoriae, built by Marcus at the entrance of an existing cemetery 4 MARCUS and iiiteiuliHi as a placo ..( burial. Interment near the surface of the ground seems about this time to have begun to supersede the use of subterranean catacombs. [j.n — v.] Marcus (14). surnamed f^i-wr/a, mentioned by Nicephorus CalHstus as o iro\vOpv\\riTof d<T«c7p-7;5, said to have lived in the reign of Theodosius II. and ta have been a disciple of St. Chrysostom (Niceph. H. E. xiv. ^o). Nicephorus speaks later of the works of a MdpAos a.<TKT)Trii. apparently the same man. Of these he had seen a collection of 8 and another of 2,2, dealing with the ascetic life (H. E. xiv. 54). Photius {Bibl. Cod. 200) gives an account of S works of Marcus the monk, all of which are extant with one doubt- ful exception. His works, pub. in Pair. C,k. Ixv. 905, preceded by two disquisitions on the author by Gallandius and Fe^isler, are : (i) wtpl vd/jLov TTveipLaTiKov. a collection of short aphorisms, inculcating especially the duties of humility and constant prayer. (2) Tfpt Tilv oioiJ-ivuv ii fpywv SiKaioi'<r0ai shews that as slaves of God we have no wages to expect. All is of grace, which is given Tt\(ia in baptism, and afterwards in measure proportioned to our obedience. (3) Tfpi titravoiai shews repentance to be necessary for all. (4) dirOKpKTlJ TTpds TOl'S dTTOpofl'TOS Tfpi TOV Oelov ^airTl<7fw.T0i, an important treatise on the doctrine of baptisni, states distinctly that by the grace of baptism originiil sin is put away and the baptized are in exactly the condition Adam was before the fall. (5) and (9) Trpos Ni\-6\aoj' and irepl vr}ffTfias are ascetic treatises. (7) dfTLSoXr] wpbi axo\a(TTiK6v defends monastic life against a man of the world. (8) <rvixtiov\ia vooj irpdi ttju eaiToC tf^'XV" shews that the root of evil is in ourselves. (10) fit rbv Me\x'«5e'v, against heretics who argued from the language of Hebrews that Melchizedek was the Son of (iod. (6) K«pa\aLa vijirTiKd, generally included among the works of Marcus, but not mentioned by Photius, From external and internal evidence it would seem to be wrongly ascribed to Marcu>. [m.f.a.) Marcus (17), a Gnostic of the school of Valentiuus, who taught in the middle of the 2nd cent. His doctrines are almost exclu- sively known to us through a long section (i 13-21, pp. 35-98) in which Irenacus gives an account of his teaching and his school. Both Hippolytus (Ref. vi. 30-5.'i, PP- 200-220) and Epii>hanius (Haer. 34) have copied their account from Irenaeus ; and there seems no good reason to think that either had any direct knowledge of the writings of Marcus. But Clement of .Alexandria clearly knew and used them. .Although Jerome describes .Marcus as a Basilidian (£/>. 75 ad Theod. i. 449), what Irenaeus reports clearly shews him as a f<jIlower of Valentinus. Thus' his system tells of 30 Aeons, divided into an Ogdoad. a iJecad. and a Uodecad ; of the fall and recovery of Sophia ; of the future union of the spirits of the chosen seed with angels as their heavenly bride- grooms. What .Marcus added to the teaching of his predecessors is perhaps the most worth- less of all that passed under the name of MARCUS «<)'• " kn<.wlidK< ' III ihr .Mui nni. it mnrlv contains magical formulae, which Ihr di>rii.|r* were to get by heart and put trii»t in .ui.l puerile speculations, such .n ^•• .- among the later Pvth.iKMrr.ins. , in numbers and nanus. M . Scripture and in Nature rrp. , of the occurrence of his mv\ii(.il uun.Urs four, six, eight, ten. twelve, thirty. If \n great mysteries were contained in names, it naturally followed that to know the \\g,h\ name of each celestial power was a m.itt<r <<( vital importance ; and such knowlrdgr the heretical teachers promised to Iwstow. Ihry had formulae and sacraments of rr<lrmption. They taught that the baptism of the vjsiblr Jesus was but for the forgivrnrss of vi: • • • that the redemption of Mmi Who in i! r tisra descended was for perfection ; t was merely psychical, the other -■■,\::: Of the latter are interpreted Ihr words in which our Lord spoke of another baptism (Luke xii. 50 ; Matt. xx. 22). Some contrrred this redemption by baptism with special in- vocations : others added or substituted v.iri- ous anointings ; others held that these appli- cations could not procure sinritual redemp- tion — only by knowledge could such redemp- tion be effected. This knowledge included the possession of formulae, bv the use of which the initiated would after death become in- comprehensible and invisible to principalities and powers, and leaving their bodies in this lower creation and their souls with the Oemi- urge, ascend in their spirits to the Pleroma. Probably the Egyptian religion contributed this clement to (inosticism. Some of these .Marcosian formulae were in Hebrew, of which Irenaeus has preserved specimens much cor- rupted by copyists. Marcus, as Irenaeus tells us, used other juggling tricks by which he gained the reputation of magical skill. A knowledge of astrology was among his accom- plishments, and apparently some clumical knowledge, with which he astonished and impressed his disciples. The eucharistic cup of mingled wine and water was seen under his invocation to change to a purple red ; and his disciples were told that this was because the great Charis had dropped some of lirr blood into the cup. Sometimes he would hand the cup to women, and bid them in his presence pronounce theeuch.aristic words; and then he woubl pour from their ronscrratrd cup into a much larger one held t>\ hmisclf, and the liquor, miraculously increased at his prayer, would be seen to rise up and fill the larger vessel. He taught his feni ilf disnplf-s to prophesy. ( asting lots at !' he would command her <>n w; 1 boldly to utt<r the words w gested to her mind, ir: ' ■ ■ accepted by the hear" 1 ances. He abused thi ?|uircd over silly women 1 -y roni them, ana, it is said. » v<ii t.> Kam (roin them more shameful compliance*. He u accused of having used pliiltrr* and love charms, and at least one, if not more, of hi* female disciples on returning to the church confessed that l>odv .u well as mind had Ix-rn defiled by him- ^»olnc of h»» follower* cer- tainly claimed to have been elevated, by thrir 700 MARI knowledge and the redemption they had ex- perienced, above ordinary rules of morality. If we are sometimes tempted to be indulgent to Gnostic theories as the harmless dreams of well-meaning thinkers perplexed by problems too hard for them, the history of Marcus shews how these speculations became a degrading superstition. Everything elevating and en- nobling in Christ's teaching disappeared ; the teachers boasted of a sham science, having no tendency to make those who believed it wiser or better ; the disciples trusted in magical rites and charms not more respectable than those of the heathen ; and their morality became of quite heathen laxity. Marcus appears to have been an elder con- temporary of Irenaeus, who speaks of him as though still living and teaching. Irenaeus more than once tells of the resistance to Mar- cus of a venerated elder, from whom he quotes some iambic verses, written in reprobation of that heretic. Though we learn from Irenaeus that the Rhone district was much infested by followers of Marcus, it does not appear that Marcus was there himself, and the impression left is that Irenaeus knew the followers of Marcus by personal intercourse, Marcus only by his writings. We are told also of Marcus having seduced the wife of one of the deacons in Asia {didKovov nva ruiv 4v rrj 'Acr/^), and the most natural conclusion is that Asia Minor was the scene where Marcus made him- self notorious as a teacher, probably before Irenaeus had left that district ; that it was a leading bishop there who resisted Marcus; and j that the heretic's doctrines passed into Gaul ' by means of the extensive intercourse well known to have then prevailed between the two countries. The use of Hebrew or Syriac names in the Marcosian school may lead us to ascribe to Marcus an Oriental origin. [g.s.] Mari. [Nestorian Church.] Marinus (4), a military martyr in the reign of Gallienus, at Caesarea in Palestine, under a judge named Achaeus, a.d. 262. He was distinguished by his birth, riches, and services. When Marinus was about to be made a cen- turion, another aspirant declared him to be a Christian and unable therefore to sacrifice to the emperors. The judge granted him three hours to choose between death and com- pliance. As Marinus came out of the prae- torium, Theotecnus the bishop led him into the church. Placing him by the altar, he raised his cloak, and pointing to the sword by his j side, and presenting him with the book of the \ gospels, told him to choose which he wished. ' Without hesitation he extended his hand and took the book. " Hold fast then — hold fast to God," said Theotecnus, " and strengthened by Him mayest thou obtain what thou hast chosen : go in peace." He was immediately executed, and buried by a Christian senator named Astyrius. The narrative of Eusebius was probably that of an eye-witness, perhaps the bishop. It is a moot question whether this mart^nrdom resulted from persecution or from military law. Dr. F. Gorres, in an art. in Jahrb. Prot. Theologie, 1877, p. 620, on " Die Toleranzedicte des Kaisers Gallienus," suggests that Marinus could not legally have suffered under Gallienus, who had already issued his edict of toleration, but that it must MARIS have taken place by command of Macrianus, who had revolted from Gallienus and taken possession of Egypt, Palestine, and the East, and was, as we learn from Eus. vii. 10, 13, 23 (cf. Trebell. PolUo, ed. H. Peter. Scripit. Hist. Aug. t. ii. Gallieni duo. cc. i.-iii. xxx. Tyranni, cc. xui. xiv.) the moral author of the Valerian persecution. When possessed of imperial authority, Macrianus vented his hate on the Christians whom Gallienus favoured. Eus. vii. 15, 16 ; Neander, H. E. ed. Bohn, i. 194 ; Ceill. ii. 394 ; Tillem. iv. 21 ; Pagi, Crit. i. 276, nr. X. xi.). [g.t.s.] Maris (2) [Mares, Magnus, Marius), bp. of Chalcedon, a prominent Arian (Le Ouien, Or. Chr. i. 599), said to have been a disciple of the martyr Lucian of Antioch (Philost. H. E. ii. 14 ; Tillem. v. 770, vi. 253, 646). He wrote in support of Arian opinions before the council of Nicaea (Athan. de Syn. § 17 ; Tillem. vi. 646). At the council he joined with Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Ursa- rius, and Valens against Athanasius (Socr. i. 8, 27), and was one of five who were unwilling to subscribe on account of the term ofioovaiov (i. 8). Maris at length yielded (Soz. i. 21 ; Nicet. Chon. Thesaur. v. 8 ; cf. Vales, note 71, ad Soz. i. 21). He was one of 17 who held out against the council and supported Arius, according to Gelasius (Mansi, ii. 818 ; cf. 878 b). His name occurs among the sub- scribers (ib. ii. 696). Philostorgius states (in Nicet. Chon. Thes. v. 8) that Maris, Eusebius, Theognis, expressed to the emperor their repentance for having signed, stating that they had complied only through fear of him, and that the emperor indignantly banished them to Gaul. Maris assisted at the council of Tyre in 335, and was one of the commission to Mareotis (Athan. ^/>. c. Ar. §§ 13, 72 ; Theod. H. E. i. 28 ; Mansi, ii. 1125 d, 1130 b, 1143 d ; Tillem. viii. 35, 42, 49). In 335 he was one of the deputies sent to Constantinople against Athanasius (Socr. i. 35; Tillem. vi. 290). He frequently wrote to pope JuUus against Athanasius (Hilar. Frag. ii. § 2, in Pair. Lat. X. 632, here written Marius ; Theod. H. E. ii. 6 al. 8 ; Tillem. vii. 270). In 341 he attend- ed the council of Antioch and is named in the Ep. of Julius (Ap. c. Ar. § 20; Tillem. vi. 312). In 342 he was of the party who secured the appointment of Macedonius to the see of Constantinople (Socr. ii. 12 ; Tillem. vi. 323, 493). The same year he was one of four bishops deputed by Constantius to Constans (Socr. ii. 18 ; Athan. de Syn. § 25 ; Tillem. vi. 326 ; Hefele, Cone. ii. 80, 83). Sozomen (iii. 10) omits Maris here. That he was pre- sent at the council of Sardica (343-344) appears certain, although his name is not among the signatures (Tillem. viii. 95, 686, 688 ; Hefele, ii. 92, n. 3). At the council of Philippopolis his name is again absent, and among the sub- scriptions occur Thelaphius as bp. of Chalcedon (Mansi, ii. 138), probabfy by a clerical error. In 359 he defended the doctrine of the Ano- moeans against Basil (Philostorg. iv. 12 ; Tillem. vi. 483) and was at the council of Ariminum (Socr. ii. 41 ; Soz. iv. 24), and in 360 at the council of Constantinople {ib. ; Hefele, ii. 271 ; Tillem. vi. 487). In 362 Maris, then advanced in age and blind, at an interview with Julian, severely rebuked his i MARIUS MERCATOR apostasy, wlnrcui^'U llic iiai'vior i.iuiitiiigly observed, " Thy vialilcan C.ii>d will not heal thy sight." " I thank t'.od," retorted Maris, " for depriving nie of the power of beholding thy face" (Socr. iii. 12; Soz. v. 4; Tiileni. vii. 332). He was living in the rei^n of Jovian (Philostorg. N-iii. 4 ; Tilleni. viii. 764^ and must be the Magnus of Chalcedon at the council of Antioch in 363 (St>cr. iii. 25 ; Mansi, iii- 37ii 372. 511)- III an anonymous IJfe of Isaacius abbat of Constantinople (iii. 12 in Boll. Acta SS. Mai. vii. 254 d), Maris is said to have been present at the council of Constan- tinople in 381, a statement which may safely be rejected. [cn-] Marius (l) Mercator, a writer, of whom, until the last quarter of the 17th cent., nothing was known except indirectly through the writings of St. Augustine, who in his work de Octo Quaestionibus DulcHii, mentions him as his son, i.e. his friend or pupil, and who addressed to him a letter, containing a long passage identical with one in that work (Ep. 193, de Oct. Quaest. Dulc. qu. 3). Probably a native of Africa, in Rome in 417 or 418, and thought by Baluze to have outlived the council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451. When Julian of Eclana was lecturim; at Rome in 418 in favour of Pelagianisni, Mercator replied to him, and sent his reply to St. Augus- tine, to whom not long afterwards Mercator forwarded a second treatise. Whether these two works exist or not is doubtful, but a treatise called Hypognoslicon, or Hypermes- ticon, in six books, included in vol. x. of St. Augustine's works (ed. Migne, p. 161 1), has been thought to be the one in question. Five of the books treat of Pelagianism, and the sixth of Predestination. The letter of Augus- tine, forwarded by Albinus, a.d. 418, ex- presses admiration of the learning of Marius and discusses points submitted for con- sideration. The works of Marius Mercator, being chiefly translations, some of them from his own writings in Greek, appear in Migne in the following order, together with nmcli matter more or less relevant to the principal subject. Part I. I. Commonitorium super nomine Coelestii. — A memorial against the doctrines of Coelestius and Julian, disciples of Pelagius, written in Greek, and presented by Mercator to the emperor Theodosius II. and to the church of Constantinople, a.d. 429. translated by himself into Latin. It contains a history of Pelagianism and an account of its doctrines, and an appeal to Julian to abandon them. 2. A treatise, to whidi the Commonitoiium is a preface, against Julian, entitled Subnotaliones in verba Juliani, written after the death of Augustine, a.d. 430. 3. Translations of various works relating to Pelagianism, in- cluding the creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia, with a preface and a refutation of the creed by Mercator. Part II. Concerning the Ncstor- ian heresy, including extracts from Theodore of Mopsuestia, with preface and refutations by Mercator. Extracts from Theodoret bp. of Cyrus, against Cyril, and from his letters, with remarks by Mercator. Marius Mercator appears to have been a layman, but an able theologian. His learning, zeal, and ability entitle him to a respectable ,MARTINIANUS 701 l>laie anmnn <i 1 l^•si.l^^l^.ll wrilrfs. MiKnr, I'atr. Lut. .xivui.; Ceillirr, viu. j6. [ii.w.i-.l Marius (2), St., 3rd bp. »( I.ansannc, whither he is s.iiil to have transferred the see from Avenches, between ChilmrgisiluA and Mag- , nerius (llams. p. 283), or .\rricus {(.all. ( hrtit. I XV. 329). He is better known as .Mariut Avinticensis, the chr'iniclrr. He wa« boru at Autun. of parents of high rank. At about the age of 43 he was madf hishon (a.d. 575). I He constructed a church at ratcrniacuni (Payeme) on his own property, and mailo I various donations to it. In <)K5 he was pre- sent at the 2nd council of M.icon (Mansi, ix. ] 958). and after an episcopate lasting ao years j and 8 months died on the last day of 596, in , his 64th year. .\t the council 0/ Macon, in ; 585, he signed himself " episcopus ecclcsiae Aventicae." The authors of the Gallta I Christiana publish a metrical epitaph ot un- [ known date, which represents him as fabri- cating with his own hands the sacred vessels for his church and ploughing his own glebe. His Chronicon is a work of some historical j importance. Thotigh extremely brief it ! furnishes information with referrncc to Bur- gundy and Switzerland during the periiKi em- braced by it wlii( li is fouml nowhere else, and serves to correct the bias of Gregory of Tours against the Arians of Burgundy. It takes up the chronicle of Prosper of Aquitaine in 455 and carries it to 581, continuing his method of marking the years by consulates, and com- mencing the indictions with 523. An anony- ' mous author has carried it to 623. For an ; account and criticism of it see Hist. Lilt. iii. 401 ; Cave, i. 538 ; Ceillier, xi. 309. 400 ; Wattcnbach, DeulscMands GeschichtsquelUn, i. 47; Richter, Annaleti, p. 37 and rels. there given. It is in Bouquet, Kecueil, ii. i2-iy, and Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 791-802. [s.a.u.] t Martinianus (l), l.gendary martyr with Processus at Rome. .According to the Acts of Li.vus, these were the two soldiers into whose charge Peter had been given. They were converted by him in prison, and for their baptism, Peter, by making the sign of the cross, caused a fountain, still shewn in the Mamertinc prison, miraculously t'> spring from the rock. After their baptism the tw.. sol- diers give Peter as much liberty as he desires, and when news comes that the prefect .Agrippa is about to put him to death, earnestly urge him to withdraw. Peter at first complies, but I returns to custody in conse<iuence of the well- known vision Domine quo ladis. .\ccording j to a notice in Praedestinatus (Hafr. Su), which ' has the air of being more historical than most of the stories of that author, their cult was already in vogue in the reign of the pretender Maximus, i.e. before the end of the 4th cent. According to this storv, Mi.ntanisis got temporary possession <>/ their relics and claimed them as belonging to their s<-ct. Lipsius conjectures that their cult began in the episcopate of Damasus. when great exer- tions were made to revive the menuTy of the saints of the Roman church. T" this jH-ri<>d mav be referred the Acts of I'r.cessus and Martinianus (Bolland. A A. SS. July i. 303)- They are clearly later than Constantine, con- taining mention of offices which did not exist till his time. They arc evidently based on the 10^ MARTIMUS Acts of Linus, but the story receives consider- able ornament. Their commemoration is fixed for July 2 in the Sacramentary of Gre- gory the Great (vol. ii. 114), who also mentions a church dedicated to them, and tells of a miraculous appearance of them [Hom.inEvang. ii. 32, vol. i. 1586). On the whole subject, see Lipsius (Petnis-Sage, pp. 137 seq.). [g.s.] Martinus (1), St., bp. of Tours in the latter portion of 4th cent. Of all the prelates of that age he made the deepest impression upon the imagination of France and of a considerable part of Western Christendom. Authorities. — The authorities practically resolve themselves into one, Sulpicius Severus, who mentions Martin in his Sacra Historia (lib. ii. cc. xlv. seq.), in connexion with the important case of Priscillian. [Priscillianus.] Of three dialogues composed by Sulpicius, two treat de Virtutibus B. Martini. An epistle, addressed to a presbyter named Eusebius (some say addressed to Desiderius), is com- posed contra Aemulos Virtutum B. Martini; and two more, written respectively to a deacon named Aurelius and to the author's mother- in-law Bassula, narrate the circumstances of Martin's death. Finally, we have a bio- graphy, de Beati Martini Vita Liber. In Horn's ed. of Sulpicius (Amsterdam, 1665), an 8vo of some 570 pages, including notes, at least a sixth part is occupied with St. Martin. St. Gregory of Toiurs devotes 3 books out of his 7 on miracles to those wrought by the relics of St. Martin, andreferencestoMartininhisC/z!(rc/» History again shew the large space in the mind of France occupied by our saint. We possess two versified biographies of St. Martin. Neither the later, in 4 books, by Venantius Fortunatus, merely adapted from the writings of Sulpicius, nor the earlier, more elegant poem, in 6 books, by Paulinus, has any claim to be considered an independent authority. Sozomen (H. E. iii. 16) has a brief account of Martin. Life. — He was born at Sabaria in that part of Pannouia which is now Lower Hungary. He apparently lived at least 80 years (316-396).* A.D. 316-336. — His father, a soldier in the Roman army, rose to be a military tribune. Martin's infancy was passed at Pavia in Italy, where his father was for some time stationed, and there he received his education, apparent- ly a pagan one. But even in boyhood his real bent was made manifest, and at the age of ten he fled to a church and got himself enrolled as a catechumen against the wish of his parents. His father succeeded in checking for a season the boy's desire for a monastic career. An imperial edict ordered the enrolment of the sons of veterans, and Martin, who had become a wanderer among churches and monasteries, was, through his father's action, compelled to serve. Though living with much austerity, he won the affection of his fellows during his three years' service. During this period, between Martin's 15th and i8th year, we must place a well-known incident, which is thor- oughly characteristic. At Amiens, in a winter • Although some of the dates are well established, considerable uncertamty prevails respecting others. Thus though his length of life seems unquestioned, its limiting dates are not quite settled. It is difficult to reconcile some of the statements of Severus with the chronology set forth by Gregory of Tours. MARTiNtfS of unusual severity, he met at the city gate a poor man naked and shivering. His com- rades did not heed the sufferer's petitions, and Martin's purse was empty. But Martin with his sword divided his cloak and gave one half to the beggar. That night Martin, in a dream, saw Christ Himself clad in that half cloak. He regarded his dream as a call to baptism, which he straightway received. At the re- quest of his military tribime, he stayed in the army two years after baptism.* A.D. 336-360. — The next important event in his career was his first visit to St. Hilary of Poictiers. Martin was his guest for a con- siderable time, and Hilary was anxious to ordain him deacon. Martin refused on the plea of unworthiness, but accepted the more lowly office of exorcist. Soon after he con- ceived it his duty to visit his parents and con- vert them from paganism. In crossing the Alps Martin fell in with a band of robbers, and was brought with hands bound before the chief, who asked who he was. He answered, " A Christian." To the further query whether he feared, he promptly replied that he never felt more secure, but that he grieved for the condition of his captors. The robber is said to have been converted. Martin's mother, with many more in lUyricum, became a convert to Christianity ; his father remained a heathen. Arianism was particularly pre- valent there, and Martin stood forth as an almost solitary confessor for the faith. He was publicly scourged and compelled to de- part. Gaul being in a state of confusion in consequence of the exile of Hilary, Martin went to Italy, and for a short time found a safe retreat at Milan. But the bp. Auxentius, a leader among the Arians, severely persecuted him, and at length drove him away. He re- tired to the island of Gallinaria (now Galinara) off the coast of the Riviera. A.D. 360-371. — Hilary being permitted to retiurn home, Martin kept his promise and returned to Gaul, an attempt to meet Hilary at Rome having failed. Having settled near Poictiers, Martin founded, some five miles oS at Locociagum (Luguge), what is considered the earUest monastic institution in Gaul. Hilary gave him the site. If, as seems to be implied by Sulpicius, Martin returned to Gaul immediately after Hilary, his monastic life commenced a.d. 360. After 11 years in his monastery, his reputation led to his election to the see of Tours. It required what is called a pious fraud to entice him from his monastery ; a leading citizen of Tours, having pretended that his wife was ill, begged Martin to come and visit her. A crowd of the people of Tours and from neighbouring cities had been gathered together, and the all but unanimous desire was for the election of Martin. The few opponents objected that his personal appearance was mean, his garments sordid, his hair unkempt. One of the objec- torswas a bishop named Defensor. At service that day the reader, whose turn it was to , ofliciate, failed, through pressure of the i crowd, to arrive in time. A bystander took up a psalter and read the verse which in A.V. stands thus : " Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings hast Thou ordained strength I * The chronology is here painfully confused. I MARTINUS because of Thine enemies, that Thou niightesl still the enemy and the avenger." Hut in the version then employed in liaul, the concluding words were : " ut destruas inimicum et defeiis- orum." It is characteristic of the age that at this point a loud shout was raised by Martin's friends and his enemies were CMufounded, the reader's choice of the verse being regarded as a divine inspiration. Opposition thenceforth ceased, and Martin was duly consecrated. A-D. 37i-39t^. — To a great extent thenew bp. of Tours continued to be the monk. He built a monastery two miles from the city, where 80 scholars, some of them noble, pursued a severe discipline. The art of transcribing was cultivated by the younger brethren. In time several cities obtained bishops from this institution. Unlike Hilary, whose contro- versies with Arians and semi-Arians formed his chief polemical work, bp. Martin was especially called upon to fight paganism. The country people in Gaul were still largely heathen. Martin, as portrayed by Sulpi- cius, simply lives in an atmosphere of marvels. During the first years of his episcopate the record is especially abundant, though his biographer declares he is restricting himself to a few specimens. Martin must be regarded as the great evan- gelizer of the rural districts of Gaul, especially in the considerable and not very defined diocese of Tours. J lis work and influence are facts which no historian of France can omit. Twice he came across the path of emperors — namely, Valentinian I. and Maxi- raus. \'alentinian, the ruler of the West (364-375), for a time (in 368) fi.xed his seat of empire at Treves. Martin repaired thither, for some unspecified reason. .Moved by his Arian wife Justina, the great opponent of St. .Ambrose, the emperor reifused an audience. Martin within a week made his way into the palace. The emperor, indignant at the intru- sion, declined to rise, until his chair caught fire and compelled him to move forward. Convinced of the divine aid, Valentinian granted all Martin's requests and took him into favour. Martin accepted the royal hos- pitality but declined all personal presents. Somewhat different were the relations of Martin with the emperor Ma.ximus, who, after the flight of Valentinian II., fixed his capital also at Treves. Martin declined from Maxi- mus such invitations as he had accepted from Valentinian, declaring it impossil)le ti> banquet with one " who had dethrcjned one emperor and slain another." The excuses of Maximus, however, induced Martin to appear at the imperial board. The seat assigned to him was among the very highest. In the middle of the feast the proper functionary offered, according | to custom, a goblet to the sovereign. Maxi- mus ordered that it should first be given to Martin, expecting to himself receive it from the bishop. But .Martin handed the goblet to his chaplain, holding it wrong to allow the emperor higher honour than a presbyter. The bishop's conduct was admired, though no other prelate had acted thus even at the repast of secular dignitaries of inferior rank. The intercourse of Martin with .Maximus involved the bishop in the difficulties which troubled the church in connexion with the MARTINUS 708 Priscilliiuiist error, l he 1« .iding <ip|>unriit ol I'riscillian was the Spanish bp. Ithaclu^. Triscillian. though condrinned by a local council, was supported by Munr bish■>l<^. who consecrated him to the vacant srr ii| Avila. The members of the comicil thereupon had recourse to the civil power ; while the frirn«U of I'riscilli.ui sought the aid ..f Dam.i- ' • of Konie. Failing li> obtain it, the\ ' themselves to .Milan, where the great A was bishop. Hut St. .Ambrose shew.i no more favour than naiiiasus. In ^H^ Itbaciu^ went to Treves to seek an interview with Maxi- mus, and obtained the suininoning of a council at Bordeaux. This all recognized as within the fair limits of imperi;il authority. Hut I'ris- cillian. on his arrival at Bordeaux, instead ol difending his cause by argument, appealed to the emperor. The Ithacians had idrrady com- mitted themselves to tin- permission of a am- siderableamountof stateinterference. I'riscil- lian now came to Treves and ltliaciii>. foHowrd. Martin objected to a case of heresy bring left to a secular tribunal, begged Ithacius not to press the charges again-t Itiscillian before such a court, and besought Maximus not to alU»w any other iiunishment of the accused beyond ex- communication. Finding that he must leave Treves and return home, Martin obtained a promise from the emperor that there should be no bloodshed. The trial of i'riscillian, which had been delayed until Martin's departure, was now eagerly pressed on, at the instance of two bishops, .\(agnus and Kufus. The emperor seems to have been sincerely coiivincnl tli.it the heretical teaching of the I'riscillianivt> in- volved gross immoralities ; and, accordingly, in 3H5 I'riscillian was executed with several of his adherents, while others were exiled. This was the first instance of the capital punishment of a heretic. St. Martin and St. Ambrose protested, and refused communion with the bishops responsible for this sentence. Martin paid a visit to Treves later to plead that some of Gratian's officers might be spared. He found there a number of bishops gathered for the consecration of a new bishop, Felix, to the vacant see of Treves. These prelates had, with one exception, communicated with the adherents of Ithacius, and had endeavoured unsuccessfully to prevent .Martin's entrance into the city. The information that those lor whose lives he came to |)lead were doomed, and that a sort of raid ag.-iinst Friscillianism was contemplated, induced Martin to change his mind, especially as he feared that the charge of sympathy with heresy might plausibly l>e imputed to himself and to others ol ascetic life who had taken the same line. Martin evidently considered himself in a situation which involved a cruel and perplexing question of casuistrv. Felix was hiinsell a giKKl man and well fitted for the vacant see. Still. Mar- tin would not have coiniiiunicatrd, but lor the impending danger to the lives ol innocent iiirn and to the cause t.l religion. On his journey homeward, which he commenced on the day after his communion, he sat down in the vast solitude of a forest, near the village ol Ande- thanna, and again debated with himsrii whether he had acted aright or not. It seemed to him that an angri appeand and told him that his compunction was right, but 104 MARTINUS that he had had no choice. Henceforth he must be more careful. Martin believed that his power of working miracles and of relieving the oppressed was diminished ever after this unfortunate event. To escape such risks in the future, he never, for the remaining i6 years of his life, attended any synod or gather- ing of bishops. Sulpicius believes that in due time he regained his supernatural powers. The remainder of his career was spent in the conversion of his diocese, amidst constant prayer and toil. His death was calm, pious, and edifying. It probably occurred in 397, on Nov. II, a date well known throughout the N. of England as the term-day of Martinmas. His funeral is said to have been attended by 2,000 monks. He is specially named among confessors in the Mass of pope Gregory, with Linus, Cletus, Hilary, Augustine, and 13 more. One of the oldest churches in England is that of St. Martin at Canterbury ; and the earliest apostle of Scotland, St. Ninian, having heard of Martin's death while labouring in Galloway, dedicated to him the first stone church of the country, Candida Casa. A cheap popular Life of St. Martin of Tours by J. C. Cazenove is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Bug. Readers. [j.g.c] Martinus (2), bp. of Dumium in Gallicia, and afterwards metropolitan bp. of Braga, died c. 580 ; a person of importance, about whom our information is scanty. Our chief sources are: (i) Isidore, (a) his Life in de Vir. III. c. 35, (b) a reference in Hist. Suevorum, Esp. Sagr. vi. 505 ; (2) Gregory of Tours — (a) de Mirac. Scti. Martini Tur. i. II ; {bj Hist. Franc, v. 38 ; (3) some Acts of councils of Braga; (4) a letter and poem addressed to him by Venantius For- tunatus (Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxxviii.). Life. — According to Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus, Martin was a native of Pannonia {" Pannonia Quiritis," Venan- tius). He had travelled to the Holy Land, and had in the East acquired such a knowledge of letters that he was held second to no scholar of his day. Thence (ex Orientis parti- bus) he came to Galicia, arriving " ad portum Galliciae " (? Portucale) on the same day as the relics of St. iMartin of Tours, for which Arianus or Theodoric I., king of the Suevi, had shortly before petitioned the guardians of the saint's shrine. In 561, about eleven years after his arrival in the country, he attended the first council of Braga, presided over by Lucretius, metropolitan bp. of Braga. The Acts of the council, which are in an unusual and highly artificial shape, were probably compiled by Martin, the person of the greatest literary pretensions then in Gallicia. This council evidently marks an era of revival and reformation in Galicia, probably under the auspices of the orthodox and ener- getic Martin. The only mention of Arianism in it throughout occurs in a letter of pope Vigilius which was read. Probably this indirect handling, and the penalties decreed generally against intercourse with heretics, were all that the bishops felt themselves strong enough to venture against a creed which had been shortly before the religious confession of the Suevian nation, and had no doubt still many friends in high places. Eleven years MARTIKUS later another council was held at Braga, and Martin now occupied the metropolitan see as successor to Lucretius, the bishops addressing him in unusually submissive terms. Eleven bishops were present from the two synods of Lugo and Braga, which here appear as two distinct metropolitan dioceses for the first and only time in authentic history. We may probably place the correspondence of Martin with Venantius Fortunatus between 572 and 580. In 580 Martin died, greatly mourned by the people of Gallicia. His memory is celebrated on Mar. 30. Works. — [i) Formula Vitae Honestae, as he himself calls it in the preface, otherwise de Differentiis Quaiuor Virtutum (so Isid. ^c), or de Quatuor Virtutibus Cardinalibus — a little tract extremely popular in the middle ages, and frequently printed during the 15th and 1 6th cents. The best ed. is by Hasse in Sen. Op. iii. 468, where he describes the Formula as more frequently read and quoted in the middle ages than any of the genuine works of Seneca, to whom it was ascribed in early editions. There is an ed. by A. Weidner (Magdeburg, 1871). Cf. Fabricius, Bibl. Med. Ae. Inf. Lat. iii., Bibl. Latina, ed. 1773, ii. 119. (2) De Moribus, a tract consisting of maxims from various sources. (Haase, xx.) (3) De Correctione Rusticorum. — In this interesting tract Martin discusses the origin of idolatry and denounces the heathen cus- toms still remaining in (ialicia. His theory is that the fallen angels or demons assumed the names and shapes of notoriously wicked men and women who had already existed, such as Jove, Venus, Mars ; that the nymphs. Lamias, and Neptune are demons with power to harm all who are not fortified with the sign of tlie cross, and who shew their faithlessness by calling the days of the week after the heathen gods. The observance of calends, the propitiation of mice and moths by presents of bread and cloth, auguries, the observance of the New Year on Jan. i instead of on the March equinox, when in the beginning God "divided the light from the darkness" by an equal division, the burning of wax tapers at stones, trees, streams, and crossways, the adornment of tables, the pouring of corn over the log on the hearth, the placing of wine and bread in the wells, the invocation of Minerva by the women at their spinning, the worship of Venus, the incantation of medicinal herbs, divination by birds and by sneezing, are all denounced as pagan superstitions, offensive to God and dangerous to him who practises them. The sign of the cross is to be the remedy against auguries and all other dia- bolical signs. The holy incantation, viz. the Creed, is the Christian's defence against dia- bolical incantations and songs. (4) De Trina Mersione, a letter to a bp. Boniface on threefold immersion in baptism. (5-9) Pyo Repellenda jactantia, de Stiperbia, Exhortatio Humilitatis, de Ira, de Pascha, 5 small tracts, first pub. by Tamayo de Salazar in vol. ii. of his Martyrol. Hisp. and rightly con- sidered genuine (Gams, ii. (i) 473)- (10) De Paupertate, a short tract, con- sisting of excerpts from Seneca, sometimes attributed to Martin, but not mentioned by MARTYRIUS Florez or by Nicolas Antonio {Bihl. I'al. Bayer's ed. Haaso, I.e. xx. 45S). Martin's I runstattofis. — Besides his adapta- tioas of Latin Stoical literature, Martin pro- duced or superintended many translations from the Greek. The chief are (a) the Cafyttula Martini, a collection of S4 canons, which had great vogue and induence in the middle ages. These "capitula sive canones orientalium anti- quorum patrum synodis a venerabili Martino episcopo, vel ab omni Bracarcnsi synodo ex- cerpti, " were incorporated in the earliest form of the Spanish CoJex Canonitm. With it they passed into the pseudo-lsidorian collection, and so obtained widespread induence. The sources of the collection cannot be all ascer- tained, they are not exclusively from Greek sources. They are, jwith some corrections, in Brun's Canonei Apostolorum, (Berlin, 1839), ii. 43. (b) Interrogationes et Reponsiones Pluri- mae, set. Aegyptiorum Patr., trans, from an unknown Greek source by a deacon Paschasius in the monastery of Dumium, with a preface by Martin, at whose command the work had been undertaken (Rosweyd, I'itae Patrum, lib. vii. p. 505, and Prolegomenon, xiv. ; Florez, Esp. Sagr. xv. 433). Was Martin a Benedictine? — The great Benedictine writers unhesitatingly answer in the at&rmative. (So Mabillon, Annates 0. S. B. and Bibliothcque generate de I'Ordre de Saint Benoit, ii. 203.) But it is on the whole most probable that Martin adopted one of the various older rules still current in the con- temporary monasteries of S. Gaul, with some of which we know him to have had relations. About 100 years later his illustrious successor in the sees of Dumium and Braga, St. Fructu- osus, drew up a monastic rule for his monas- tery of Compludo, which was mainly an abbreviation of the Benedictine rule, but con- tained also provisions not found in that rule. This is the only piece of historical evidence connecting the Benedictine rule with \'isi- gothic Catholicism. (.Migne, Pat. Lat. Ixxxvii. 1096 ; Vepes, Chron. del Ord. de S. Benito, i. j for the ultra- Benedictine view. On the general subject of monasticism in Gothic Spain of. Dahn, Konige der Germanen, vi.) Martin's Personality. — That Martin played . an important and commanding part in his generation all that remains of him suggests. His life appears to have been greatly induenced by the parallel so often drawn by his con- 1 temporaries between him and the greater Martin of Tours. We may also regard him to , some extent as a piece in a political game. If Martin the missionary, ex Orientts parti- bus, effected the Suevian conversion, his ' career is one element in a scheme of European politics which can be traced through the greater part of 6th cent., and in which the destruction of the Suevian kingdom by Leovigild 5 years after Martin's death, and the West Gothic con- ; version to Catholicism under Keccarcd, are important incidents. (Gams, Kirchengesch. von Spamen, ii. (i) 471-) [m.a.w.] ' Martyrlus (3), bp. of Jerusalem, 478-486, a Cappadocian by birth, who had embraced a solitary life in the Nitrian desert. The violent proceedings of Timothy Aelurus drove him and other orthodox monks from Egypt, and he took refuge, a.d. 457, together with hisfellow- Masoma 705 solitary Elias, also subsequently bp. of Jeru- salem, in the hou>e o( St. Euthymiu\ whu received them with great favour (CyriH. Scythop. \'it. S. liulhym. cc. 94, 95). After a time Martyrius retired to a cave 2 nule» W. lit the laura, which became the site of a considerable monastery (ift.). Martyrius and Elias were present at the death and burial ol St. Euthyinius, a.u. 473, alter which Anas- tasius bp. of Jerusalem ordained Iheni ures- byters, attaching them to the church ol the Resurrection (16. cc. 105, 110. 112). Ana»- tasius dying a.d. 478, Martyrius succeeded him as bp. ol Jerusalem (1/). 113). His church was then rent asunder by the liutychlau .\poschistae, of whom Gcrontius was the head. He succeeded in bringing back these schismatic monks to the unity of the church (16. 123, 124). Cyrillus Scythopolitanus tells us that he died in the 8th year ol his patri.irchate, a.d. 486 (\'it. S. Sab. c. 19; Eutych. t. 11. p. 103). Le (juien. Or. Christ, iii. 171 ; Tillem. M/m. eccl. xvi. ii2 seq. [e.v.] Ilasona (.Maaona, Mausona, Mansi, ix. 1000; X. 478), bp.of .Meridafromc. 571 toe. 606. Except for the de I'tta et Mtraculis Patrum Emeritensium, a series ol Lives attributed to Paulus Diaconus, a supposed writer ol the 7th cent, (printed by Florez, Esp. Sagr. xiii., by Aguirre, Coll. Max. Cone. Htsp. ii. 639, and elsewhere), our information concerning Alasona is extremely scanty. Joannes Biclarensis says under a.d. 573, the 5th year of Leovigild, " Masona Emcritcnsis Ecclesiae Episcopus in nostro dogmate clarus habetur " ; and at the third council of Toledo, the famous conversion council ol 589, Masona presided, his signature " Ecclesiae Catholtcae Eraeritensis Metropolitanus Episcopus I'ro- vinciaeLusitaniae" being at the headol all the episcopalsignatures, andimmediatelyloUowing that of Keccared. Between these two dates 16 years of great importance to the Gothic state had elapsed, comprising the rebellion of Hcr- menigild and the submission of Keccared to Catholicism. From the notice by Joannes Biclarensis 9 years earlier, it is evident that at the outbreak of the rebellion Masona was one of the most prominent Catholic bishops in S. Spain, and therefore would have consider • able induence upon the position assumed by Merida in the ontest. In 589 the great aim o| the Catholic party was achieved, and the Visi- gothic stale became, at least olhtially. Catholic. Eight vears later a gathering ol bishops at Toledo! under the presidency ol Masona, passed two canons, one insisting upon the celibacy of bishops, priests, and deacons, the other reserving the endowments of a church (or the benefit ol its priests and other clerks, as agauist possible exactions Irom the bishop. This assemblv was perhaps a chance gather- ing ol a number ot bish..ps in the capital, who took the opi>ortunity to I.Tiiiulatc rules oii two important diiciplinary p.'iuts. II it was a duly summoned national eountil, the Acts were purposely or accidentally omitted Iroiu the original redaction ol the Spanish Cod*x Canonum made within the hrst 40 years of 7th cent. Our last notice ol Masona incurs in a letter, dated Feb. 2«, 606, to him Irom Isidore in answer to an mquiry on a matter ol discipUne. In 610 his succes- 46 706 MATERNUS, JULIUS FIRMICUS sor, Innocentius, signed 'the Decretum Gun- demari. The above Vita remains to be considered. If it be a genuine piece of yth-cent. biography, it gives full and valuable information on his life and also on the general condition of the Spanish church in the 6th and 7th cents. But the Latin of the first three chaps, seems to make it impossible to refer them to 7th cent. The legendary and marv^eUous char- acter of the remainder, and the desire apparent throughout to exalt the ecclesiastical import- ance of Merida, is, on the other hand, no argiunent against genuineness, as contem- porary parallels might easily be quoted. The facts it gives regarding Masona are briefly : his Gothic extraction, his education in the church of St. Eulalia, his persecution at the hands of Leovigild, who sent two Arian bishops, Sunna and Nepopis, at different , times, to undermine Masona's influence and oust him from his church, his intercourse with Leovigild at Toledo, where his resistance to the king's demand led to his exile, and his final restoration to his see after Leo\dgild's various supernatural warnings. After Rec- cared had succeeded and pubUcly embraced ; Catholicism, a struggle took place in Merida between Masona and Sunna. Sunna joined with two Gothic Comes, Segga and Witteric, in a plot for murdering Masona which was miraculously frustrated, and Witteric, after- wards the Gothic king of that name, confessed all to Masona, who was not only protected by miracles, but by the strong arm of the Catholic Claudius Dux of Lusitania (known to us from other sources, as are Sunna and Segga, cf. Isid. Hist. Goth. ap. Esp. Sagr. v. 492 ; Joann. Bid. op. cit. 385, 386 ; and ep. Greg. Magn. ; Aguirre Catalani, Coll. Max. Cone. Hist. ii.). Reccared decided that Sunna should either recant his .Ajianism or go into exile. He chose the latter, retired into Mauritania and there came to a miserable end. Masona Uved to an honoured old age, procuring in his last hours the miraculous punishment of his archdeacon Eleutherius, who had abused the powers en- trusted to him by the failing bishop. It is not improbable that the Vita repre- sents the 7th-cent. tradition. Isidore ex- pressly mentions the exile of bishops among Leovigild's measures of persecution {Hist. Goth. I.e. p. 491), and it is most likely that Masona was exiled c. 583, after the fall of Merida, and restored, not diuring the lifetime of Leovigild, as his enthusiastic biographer declares, but upon the accession of Reccared, who sought to reverse his father's policy. Dahn, Konige der Germanen, v. 141 ; R. de Castro, Biblioteea Espaiioles, ii. p. 348 ; Nicolas Antonio, Bihl. Vet. Bayer's ed. i. p. 373 ; note by Morales to the Memoriale Sanctorum of St. Eulogias apud Hist. Ulust. iv. 282. [m.a.w.] Maternus(3), Julius Firmicus.an acute critic of pagan rites and doctrines and a vigorous apologist for the Christian faith, known from his treatise de Error e Profanarum Religionum, composed between 343 and 350, very valuable for its details of the secret rites of paganism. It describes every leading form of idolatry then current and gives us information not found elsewhere. It discusses the idolatry of the Persians, Egyptians, AssjTians, the Greek MAXENTIUS, JOANNES mysteries, the ceremonies and formulae used in the Mithraic worship. Some of the details on this last are very curious, some liturgical fragments being inserted. In opposition to the heathen orgies he presents the pure mys- teries of Christianity in his preface, now almost completely lost, and from c. xxiv. to the end. He concludes with earnestly exhorting the emperors to suppress paganism by force ; thus giving one of the earhest specimens of Chris- tian intolerance. The work illustrates the small amount of philological and etymological science possessed by the ancients. Maternus, arguing against the Egyptians that Sarapis was originally the patriarch Joseph, derives the name Sarapis from Zapas air6, because Joseph was the descendant of Sarah. The work is valuable for BibUcal criticism, as in it are found quotations from the versions used in N. Africa in St. C>T)rian's time. There are probably embodied in it some fragments of the ancient Greek wTiter Evemerus, whose work upon paganism, now lost, was largely used by all the Christian apologists. In Migne's Patr. Lat. t. xii. is reprinted an ed. of Maternus, pub. by Munter at Copenhagen in 1826, with an introductory dissertation dis- cussing the whole subject. A contemporary pagan Julius Firmicus Maternus, usually styled Junior, \\Tote a work (between 330 and 360) on judicial astrology, mentioned by Sidon. Apoll. in Ep. ad Pont. Leant. Upon this see the'above dissertation. There is some reason to suppose that he was converted to Christianity and was identical with the subject of our art. See C. H. Moore. Jul. Firm. Mat. der Heide und der Christ. (Mnnich, 1897). [g.t.s.] Maurus (2), St., founder and abbat of the i Benedictine monastery of Glanfeuil or St. Maur-sur-Loire. He is better known, as Her- zog says, to tradition than to history, but the primary authority is Gregorius Mag. (Dial. ii. cc. 3 seq.). His Life, written by Faustus Cas- ' sinensis, and re-\vTitten with alterations by Odo or Eudes, at one time abbat of Glanfeuil, is given by Mabillon [.Acta SS. 0. S. B. saec. i. ! 274 seq.) and the BoUand. {Acta SS. Jan. i. 1 1039 seq.). [Faustus (31)]. St. Maurus, better i known in France as St. Maur, was when 12 ' years old entrusted by his father Equitius, an Italian nobleman, to the charge of St. Bene- dict at Subiaco (or at Monte Cassino) and trained in monastic rule. By St. Benedict he was sent into Gaul e. 543, and established his monastery on the Loire by favour of King , Theodebert. He introduced the Benedictine rule, and was the chief means of its acceptance in France, but the details of his work are not given. He died a.d. 584. His monastery, secularized in i6th cent., was in the middle ages one of great influence, and the " Congre- gation of St. Maur " has done much from the 17th cent, to elevate the tone of the mon- astic orders. The genuineness of his life in all its stages has been disputed. Ceillier, Sacr. Aut. xi. 157, 170, 610; Herzog, Real-Encycl. ix. 201 ; Cave, Lit. Hist. i. 574 ; Mosheim, Hist. Ch. Ch. cent. xvii. § 2, pt. i. c. i. [j-G-] Maxentius (4), Joannes, presbyter and archimandrite. His monastery {Sugg. Diosc. in Labbe, iv. 1520) appears to have been situated within the jmrisdiction of Paternus, i bp. of Tomi (Kostendje), the capital of Scythia MAXENTIUS, JOANNES Minor (Dobrvidscha), who subscribed tlio sjiiodical letter of the council held at Con- stantinople, A.D. 520, as " Provinciac Scythiac Metropolitanus " (Labbe, iv. 1525). About 517 a controversy arose at Constantinople, in which the credit of the council of Chaicedon (A.D. 431) was considered to be seriously in- volved (Hormisd. epp. 15, 16 in Mansi, viii. 418 and Labbe, iv. 1454, 1435). An active part was taken by certain Scythian nKMiks, with Maxentius as their leader, who earnestly contended for tlie position " unus tie Trinitate in carne crucitixus est " as essential to the exclusion of the heresy of Nostorius on the one hand and of Eutyches on the other (Sugggslio Dioscuri, Labbe, iv. 1513, May 13, 519 ; Desprez, Proleg. Fulgent. Rusp. in Mifjne, Ixv. 109). The dispute was at its height in 519, when Gennanus bp. of Capua, bp. Joannes, Blandus a presbyter, Felix and Dioscorus deacons, arrived at Constantinople from Hormisdas bp. of Rome, to negotiate a recon- ciliation of the two churches (Baronius, s.a. Ixxxvii.). At the same time the writings of Faustus the semi- Pelagian bp. of Kiez were also the subject of fierce debate at Constanti- nople, the Scythian monks contending that they were heretical. Among the chief an- tagonists of the monks were a deacon n.amed Victor, Paternus bp. of Tomi, and other Scythian bishops (Sugg. Germ. Joann. Fel. Diosc. et Bland, in Labbe, iv. 1514). Both parties had influential supporters in the im- perial court, the monks being vigorously upheld by Vitalian, then apparently in great favour with the emperor Justin, who held the oti&ce of magister militum (Evagr. H. E. iv. 3 ; Suggest. Diosc. u.s.), and their opponents no less so at first by Justinian, who already held high office under his uncle (\'ict. Tunun. s.a. 518; Justinian, ad Hormisd. Labbe, iv. 1516). Soon after the arrival of the Roman legates at Constantinople the Scythian monks appealed for their help, and Maxentius, in their name, drew up " de Christo Professio," explanatory of their faith, wiiich they sent with the appeal (Migne, Pair. Gk. Ixxxvi. 73, 79). They protest that it is from no dis- respect to the council of Chaicedon, but in its defence, that they contend for tlieir position on the subject of the Trinity, and declare that they anathematize all who either oppose that council or hold its decisions to be imperfect. They also denounce the teaching of Pelagius and Coelestius, and the followers of Theodore of Mopsuestia, as " contradictory to that of the apostle." They further pray the papal legates to hear their accusations against Victor and Paternus (May 30, 319, Labbe, iv. 1309 ; Suggest. Legal, u.s. 1514, June 29, 519; Hormisd. Suggest. Diosc. et al. .May 30, 319; Labbe, iv. 13 19 ; Suggest. German, et al. June 29, 319; tb. 1514 ; Hormisd. Fp. 67, ad Justinian. ; tb. 1518). The legates, at the urgent request of the emperor Justin and Vitalian, consented to hear the case, but with- out pronouncing a decision. Failing to ob- tain satisfaction at Constantinople, the monks determined to send four of their number, Achilles, John, Leont^us, Mauritius, to lay the whole case before Hormisdas at Komc (Jus- tinian, Ep. ad Hormisd. Labbe, iv. 1516). The four departed for the West early in May 519, MAXENTIUS. JOANNES 707 I and Justinian and the Koman li>;atcs duly notily their departure to Horini&das, and pray j him to reject their appeal. j Hormisd. IS delaying to hear the (our envoy*, I others wi re sent to join them, Maxrntnu I apparently being one. .Meanwhile Justinian I changed his opinion n( the monks and brcinir I their advocate (Justini.iii. aJ Hormiid. ; H<>r- j misd. /•./>. ()(i, ad Justinian. Sept. 2, 510, u.i. 1518). Ihe controversy s«'eins to have in- volved a considerable number of the clergy of the East, especially those of Jerusalrni. .Vn- tioch, and Syria Secuiida (Ju>tin. ad HurmnJ. U.S. 1520, Jan. 19, 520 ; Dcprec. et Suppltc. al> Hieros. et al. u.s. 1542). An active mrrc- spondence followed between Constantinnplr and Rome, during which Possessor, an .Afrir.in bp. exiled by the Arians, wrote to Hormisdas, requesting his opinion as to the orthodoxy of the writings of Faustus and urging that Vitalian and Justinian were equally anxious I to hear from Hormisdas on the subject (Pos- j sess. Ep. Afr. Kelat. Labbe, iv. 1530, received at Rome July 18, 520). Shortly after the I dispatch of this letter Vitalian was put to death (Procop. Hist. .\rc. 6, Op. ed. Bonn, iii. j 46 ; Vict. Tunun. s.a. 523). The deputation at Rome, finding the Roman legates at Constantinople too strong for them, and therefore having little hope of success with Hormisdas, resolved to appeal to the African bishops then in exile in Sardinia, some of whom, as Fulgentius of Ruspe, enjoyed a high reputation for ability as well as ortho- doxy. In drawing up the appeal they again appear to have employed Maxentius. It was divided into eight chapters. In the fourth they elaborately defend the position they had maintained at Constantinople. .\t the close of the fifth they solemnly protest their accept- ance of the councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, ' Ephesus, and Chalceduii, the letters of Leo I anathematizing the writings of Theodore of I Mopsuestia and Nestorius his disciple, and all I writings opposed to the Twelve Chapters of the blessed Cyril against Nestorius ; anathe- matizing in addition, Eutyches and Dioscorus (Petr. Uiac. de Incarnai. et Gratia, Migne. Patrol. Ixv. 442-451)- This appeal was responded to by Fulgentius, bp. of Rusi)e, in his well-known de Incarnatione et dralia Domini nostri Jesu Christi, in which the exiled bishops express their hearty approval of the confession of faith which the appeal con- tained (Fulgent. Ep. 17. Op. u.s. 45I-493)- The monks, after being detained at Rome 14 months, had now returned to the East. Be- fore they left thevdrew up a further protesta- tion of their faith, which they caused to be affixed to the statues of the emperors (Hor- misd. Ep. 70, ad Possess.; Labbe, iv. 1331). This, probably, was the '"contra Nestor- ; ianos capitula " of the collected work* of .Maxentius. The title, however, hardly corre- sponds to the contents, which consist of 12 anathemas, the 9th being directed against the Eutvchians, and the remaining three against I'vlagius and I oelestius and their fol- lowers (Migne. I'atr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 86). Maxentius ami his friends, having returned to ConstantinopU-. sent a copy of the writings , of Faustus of Riez to Fulgentius and thr other i exiles in Sardinia, requesting hiin and lii> 708 MAXENTIUS. JOANNES brethren to send their opinion of these {ib. Ixv. 145). Meanwhile Fulgentius wrote his de Veri- tate Praedestinationis, addressed to Joannes presbyter and Venerius deacon, two of the Scythian monks (ib. 603-671), speaking of the monks in the highest terms. On Aug. 13, 520, Hormisdas replied to the letter received from Possessor on July 18, speaking of the monks with unmeasured reproach. They are scatterers of "poison under the pretence of religion," and he writes nowso that, shouldtheyreturntoCon- stantinople, they might not deceive those who didnotknowof theirconductatRome. He does not, however, commit himself to any opinion as to the position " unum de Trinitate," but refers to it in very general terms, saying, "The reverend wisdom of the Fathers has defined what is Catholic doctrine . . . what need, there- fore, to raise any further controversy, when the Christian faith is limited by canonical books, synodical decrees, and the constitu- tions of the Fathers within fixed and im- movable limits ? " Nor is he much more explicit as to the writings of Faustus. He says that he does not receive him nor any one not approved by the authority of the Fathers, but adds, that if he agrees with " right faith and sound teaching" he is to be admitted; if not, he is to be rejected, and concludes with telling Possessor that " although what the Roman, that is the Catholic, church follows and maintains on the subject of free-will and the grace of God may be gathered from various books of the blessed Augustine, and especially from those addressed to Hilary and to Prosper ; nevertheless, there are certain special documents preserved in the ecclesi- astical archives, which, if Possessor has not, and wishes to see, he will send him " (Hor- misd. Ep. 70, ad Possess. ; Labbe, iv. 1530- 1532). This letter was widely circulated as an encyclic, and when it came into the hands of Maxentius he at once replied to it in his ad Ep. HormisdaeResponsio,Migne, Ixxvii.g^-iiz. The reply is in every way a remarkable docu- ment. The archimandrite refuses to believe the letter can have been written by Hormisdas, but argues that whether it was so or not, its author was " unquestionably a heretic," as he considers that to " maintain that Christ, the Son of God, is one of the Trinity is to contend about words." He also takes the writer to task for having virtually decided that, al- though the writings of Faustus were not authoritative, they were still to be read. We hear nothing more of Maxentius and the Scythian monks until after Hormisdas died in Aug. 523. The encyclic of Hormisdas had now reached the exiled bishops in Sardinia, though there is no reason to believe that they had also seen the Responsio of Maxentius, and they had had ample leisure for consideration of the second appeal addressed to them from Constantinople. They accordingly met in council and sent the monks a reply in the form of a synodical letter. They acknowledge the receipt of the letter of Maxentius and his brethren, and say they rejoice that they " hold a right opinion on the grace of God, by whose light the free will of the human mind is illuminated, and by whose aid it is con- trolled," and express sorrow that any should question the Catholic faith on the point (c. 2). MAXIMIANUS The position for which John Maxentius and his brethren contended was afterwards for- mally approved by a council at Rome in 532 (Labbe, iv. 1761) and elaborately defended in 534 by John II. bp. of Rome, who argued that it had always been held by Catholics in the very form used by the Scythian monks, quoting Proclus patriarch of Constantinople and others {Ep. 3 in Labbe, iv. 1751 ; Jaffe, Reg. Pont. 73 ; Pagi, Crit. s.a. 533). The council of Constantinople of 553 anathema- tized all who questioned it (collat. viii. anath. 10, Labbe, v. 575)- Yet Baronius (s.a. 519 cii.) is unsparing in his condemnation of the monks as impugners of the Catholic faith. They have found an able defender in Cardinal Noris (Hist. Pelagiana, ii. 18, in Op. i. 474-596 ; esp. c. 20, pp. 498-504 ; Hist. Controv. de Univ. ex Trinit. passe, cc. 4-8; 0/?.iii. 800-854), and Pagi (Crit. s.a. 519, vi.) accepts his vin- dication as conclusive. [t.w.d.] Maximianus (i) I., M. Aurelius Valerius (HerculiUS), emperor of Rome a.d. 286-305 with Diocletian, 306-308 with Maxentius or Constantine ; compelled to strangle himself Feb. 310, being probably 60 years old (Tillem. " Diocletian," vol. iv. p. 7, Hist, des Emp.). A Pannonian soldier of humble birth but great military ability and unresting activity, he was created Caesar in 285 by Diocletian, and Augustus in 286. (For the chief events in his history see Diocletian, Constantine, and Maxentius in D. of G. a^id R. Biogr.) The Diocletian persecution began in a.d. 303, and Maximian joined in it. He is said in the de Mortibus Persecutorum to have been the worthy brother of Diocletian, and Eusebius speaks of his death in the same retributive tone as of the other emperors except Constan- tius and Constantine (H. E. viii. 13). The military talents and activity of Maxi- mianus were of the greatest value to the Western empire and in Africa, and while under Diocletian's influence or direction he seconded him honestly and well. He was a barbarian soldier without honour, principle, or educa- tion ; crime was familiar to him, though he seems not to have practised cruelty for its own sake. He is accused of the usual sensual excesses, though not to the same extent as Maxentius. [r.st.j.t.] Maximianus (2), the man from whom a special sect among the Donatists derived its name ; that schism within a schism, which rent it asunder and helped to bring about its ultimate overthrow. He is said to have been related to Donatus the Great, and was a deacon at Carthage when, at the death of Parmenian, Primian was appointed bp. of the Donatists there a.d. 391. Primian found fault with four of his deacons, especially Maximian, whom he appears to have disliked most. He tried to persuade the " Seniors " of Carthage to condemn them all, but they refused, and Primian then proceeded to ex- communicate Maximian, who was ill and unable to appear. The Seniors summoned Primian to meet them to explain this arbitrari- ness, but he refused. They then wrote to the bishops of the district, entreating them to meet and inquire into the case. Forty-three met at Carthage ; and their proceedings, not- withstanding the violence of the supporters of MAXIMIANUS Priniian, who was hinisolf absent. rcsiiU«"<l in his condemnation. In Tunc or July 30:1, at a second meeting of Donatist bishops at Cabarsussnm, a town of Byzacono, Primian was more formally condemned, his deposition pronounced, and a resolution apparently passed that Maximian should be appointed in his place. He was arrordinRlv ordained at Carthage bv 12 bishops. But Primian was not crushed by this, for at a council of 310 bishops at Bagai. .\\->t. 24, 304. at which he himself presided, the supporters of Maximian. of whom none were ]iresent, were coudemueti in most opprobrious language. Notwith- standing the defection of the Maximianists, who appear to have rebaptized th<ise who joined them, the validity of their baptism was not denied bv the other Donatists. a point which .\ugustinc frequently uses against them. Unremitting persecution induced manv Maxi- mianists to return at length to the Donatist community, but of Maximian himself we hear little or nothing subsequently ; other names are most prominent in the party's history. Aug. c. Cresc. iii. 16. 59, iv. 3, 4, 6-9. 55, 57; En. Ps. (Vulg.) xxxvi. 10, 20. 23, 29 ; Ps. cxxiv. 5 ; Epp. 43. 26. 76 ; 44. 71 ; 53. 3 ; 141. 6 ; 185. 17; deGest. Einer. 9; c. Farm. i. 0; Tillem. Mem. vi. 65-72 ; Morcelli. .Afr. Chr. vol. ii. pp. 310-326; Ribbeck, Auf^. und Don. pp. 206-236. [H.W.P.] Maximianus (5). archbp. of Constantinople, A.D. 431. The action of the council of Ephe- sus had thrown the churches of Constantinople into direst confusion. A large proportion of the citizens held strongly to Nestorius ; the clerg>', with one voice, agreed in the anathema; and when the deposition became a fact no longer to be disputed, the excitement was continued about the election of a successor. After four months, agreement was arrived at in the election of Maximian. He had led a monastic life and had entered presbyteral orders ; his action in building, at his own expense, tombs for the remains of holy men had obtained for him a reputation of sanctitv. In principles he followed the former arch- bishops, Chrysostom, Atticus, and Sisinnius. Pope Celestine wrote to him in highly com- plimentary terms on his elevation. The appointment was made by the imanimous vote of rlergy, emperor, and people. The letter of Maximian announcing to the pope his succession is lost, but that to S. C>Til remains, with its high eulogium on Cyril's constancy in defending the cause of Jesus Christ. It was the custom for occupants of the principal sees on election to send a synodical letter to the most considerable bishops of the Christian world, asking for the assurance of their com- munion. Maximian sent his synf>dical to the Easterns as to the others. Communion was refused by Helladius of Tarsus ; and, we may conclude, by Eutherius of Tyana, Himcrius of Nicomedia, and Dorotheus of Martianopolis, as Maximian deposed th^m. John of .Antioch approved the refusal of the bp. of Tarsus, and praised him for having declined to insert the name of Maximian in the diptychs of his church. Maximian's earnest appeal for re- union continued. Pope Sixtus wrote to him several times, urging him to extend his charity to all whom he could possibly regain. Maxi- MAXIMINUS I. 709 , mian spared no effort, and althouKh hr w.n in I closest hannony with St. C\Til, hr prp-i4r<l him , strongly In give up hin .in.ithpman, whirh seemed an insurmotmtablr ohstarlr to rmnion. He even wrote to the omprror'n nrrretarv Aristolaus the tribune, who wa< greatly interested in the question of peare. almost c<Mnplainiiig that he did not prrM Cvril enough on the point, and to hi* arrhdramn Epii>hanius. Harmony being restf.rr<l, John of .Vntioch and the other Kaitmi bishopii wrote Maximian a letter of roniniiinion indicating their consent to liis elrctiou .md to the deposition of Nestorius. Cvril wrote t<» ^ him. attributing the blessed result to the force I of his prayers. A letter to Maximian from I Aristolaus. which Maximian caused to be read I in his church to his people, was pronoijnred spurious bv Dorotheus of Martianopolis, evidently because it took the side of Maximian so decidedly. Maximian held the see of Con- stantinoplo from Oct. 2S. 431. to Apr. 12. 434. Of all his letters, onlv that to St. Cvril i* ex- tant. Mansi. v. 2S7, 2So. 266. 26<>. 271. 273. 2S6. 351 ; Baluz. Sov. Coll. Cnnc. sfil seq. rd. j 1681 : Socr. vii. 35. 40 ; I.iberat. Diac. Bret: 19 : Ceill. viii. ^04. fw.M.s.^ Maximinus (21 I., Roman emperor, a.d. 23S-238. C. lulius Verus Maximinus is ron- spicuo\is as the first barbarian who wore the imperial purple, and as one of the emperors 1 whose names are connected with the ten per- ! secutions recorded by ecclesiastiral histi^ians. Born in Thrace of a Ciothic father and an .Man j mother, eight feet high and of gigantic 1 strength, he attracted the notice of Septinjius ' Severus, and rose into favour with .\lex.ander ] Severus. When that emperor fell into dis- favour with his troops. Maximinus seized his opportimitv and organized a conspiracy which ended in the murder of .Mexander and his mother at Mavence in 23'i. The praetorian guards elected him emperor, and their choice was confirmed bv the senate. The hostility <>i Maximinus to his Christian subjects was probablv because of the favour they had enjoyed from the eclectic or syncretic sympathies rif Alexander Severus. They would aiipear to him. as to other emperors, a secret, and therefore a dangerous, society, the natural focus of conspiracies and plots. The persecution was limited in its range, and probably was effectual chieflv in renioving the restraints which the leanings of Alexander had I imposed on the antagonism of the population* I and governors of the provinces. ] Pontianus, bp. of Rome, was banishe<l with I the presbyter Hippolytus to Sardinia, and died I there in 23s, and. according to Baroniiu (Ann. 137. 1 38), his successor .Anteros ntrt a like fate in 238. Origen thoucht it rxpe<lient 1 to seek safety with his friend Firmiliatnis. bp. i of the Cappadf>cian Caesarea. That province was under the goycrfiment of Srrmianu*, whom Firmilianus desi ribes (a/». Cvpriaii, Kp. 75) as " acerbus et dims pervciitor." Fre- quent earthquakes had rouvd the panic-stricken population to rage against the Christians at the cause of all disasters (Orig. in Matt. xxiv. 9). This was all the more keenly frit after thr comparatively long tranquillity which they i had enjoyed under Alrxandrr Reyrnis and his predecessors. From his retirement Origen 710 MAXIMINUS II. addressed two treatises On Martyrdom and On Prayer to his disciple Ambrosius, a deacon of the church of Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 28), and Protoctetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, both of whom were taken as prisoners to Germany (Orig. Exhort, ad Mart. 41). The tyranny of Maximin brought about the j revolt in Mauritania, which for three months raised the two Gordians to the throne of the Caesars. At Aquileia his troops, suffering from famine and disease, became disaffected. 1 A party of praetorian guards rose, and he, , with his son and the chief ministers of his tyranny, were slain in his tent. -Their heads were cut off and exhibited on the battlements I to the gaze of the citizens. [e.h.p.] Maximinus (3) II. (Jovius), emperor, a.d. 305-3 Galerius Valerius Maximinus, ori- ginally called Daza, played a somewhat pro- minent part in the complications following on the abdication of Diocletian and Maxi- MiANUs I. Those emperors were succeeded as Augusti by Galerius and Constantius, ] who appointed as Caesars Daza, under the name of Maximinus, and Severus. On the i death of Constantius (a.d. 306) Galerius as- | signed the provinces beyond the Alps to Constantine, but conferred the vacant title of Augustus on Severus, leaving that of Caesar to Constantine and Maximin. Severus was j put to death a.d. 307, and Galerius made Constantine and Licinius Augusti, assigning I Illyricum to the latter. Maximin, who was in charge of Syria and Egypt, jealous of this ' promotion of others to a higher position than ^ his own, assumed, under the convenient plea that his troops compelled him, the title of Augustus, and added to it the epithet Jovius, which had been borne before by Diocletian (Eus. H. E. viii. 13 ; ix. 9). On the death of Galerius in 311, Maximin received the pro- vinces of Asia Minor in addition to Syria and Egypt, and Licinius those of Eastern Europe. The decisive victory of Constantine at Milvian Bridge in 312, and' the betrothal of Constan- ', tine's sister to Licinius, alarmed Maximin, who determined on immediate hostilities. At > Heraclea he was encountered by the army of Licinius, and utterly routed. In 24 hours he reached Nicomedia, 160 miles from the scene ' of his defeat, and made his way to Tarsus, where after a few days' despair he poisoned himself. As a final insult to his memory all inscriptions to his honour were destroyed, his statues disfigured and thrown from their pedestals (ix. 11 ). His character is pre-eminent for brutal licentiousness and ferocious cruelty. Theprovincesof Asia, S>Tia, andEgypt groaned for six years under him, and of all the persecu- tors in that last great struggle between the old and new religions none were so infamous for their cruelties. Though he joined for a time, on the advice of the dying Galerius, with Con- stantine and Licinius in a decree of toleration in 311, he renewed the persecution with greater vigour within a few months (viii. 17). The sufferings of the Christians in Alexandria drew the hermit Anthony from his desert seclusion to exhortthemto steadfastness. Of the mart>Tsof Palestine, to whom Eusebius dedicates a whole book of his history, most suffered by his orders and many in his presence. Heralds were sent through Caesarea ordering all men to sacrifice MAXIMINUS to the gods, and on his refusal, Appian, a youth of twenty, was tortured and slain. Ulpian and his brother Aedesius were slain at Tyre, Agapius was thrown into the amphi- theatre at Caesarea to fight with a bear and so lacerated that he died the next day. Theo- dosia, a virgin of Tyre, was drowned, Silvanus tortured, and the confessors of Phaeno in Palestine sent to the mines (Eus. de Mart. Palest, c. 4). Silvanus, the aged bp. of Emesa, was thrown into a den of wild beasts. Peter, bp. of Alexandria, with many other bishops, was beheaded {ib. H. E. ix. 6). The church of Antioch supplied yet more illustrious mart\TS. On the application of an embassy from that city, headed by Theotecnos, which he himself had prompted, he forbade the Christians to hold their wonted meetings in its catacombs (ix. 2). Hesychius and Lucian, the latter a presbyter, famous for learning and saintliness, were summoned to the emperor's presence at Nicomedia, half starved to death, and then tempted with a luxurious banquet as the price of their apostasy, and on their refusal to deny their faith were thrown into prison and put to death (ix. 6). Decrees, which Eusebius (ix. 7) copied from a pillar in Tyre, were issued, ascribing the famines, earthquakes, and pestil- ences to the wrath of the gods at the spread of the creed which was denoimced as atheistic, and decreeing, at the alleged request of the Syrians themselves, perpetual banishment against all who adhered to their denial of the state religion. Even the Armenians, though outside the emperor's dominions, and old allies of Rome, were threatened with war, because they were Christians (ix. 8), and this at a time when thousands were dying of starvation from a prolonged famine followed by pestilence. From Nicomedia and the neigh- bouring cities the Christians were banished by an imperial edict, issued here as elsewhere, as at the request of the citizens themselves (ix. 9). Not till after his defeat by Licinius did the tyrant, in the rage of his despair, turn against the priests, prophets, and soothsayers who had urged him on, and, as a last resource, within less than a year after his edicts of ex- termination, issue a decree of toleration and order the restitution of property taken from the Christians and brought into the imperial treasury (ix. 10). [e.h.p.] Maximinus (4), St., 5th archbp. of Treves (c. 332-349), known to us from the part he plaved in the history of Athanasius. In Feb. 336 the latter was banished by the emperor Constantine to Treves, then the seat of government of his eldest son Constantine II. Maximin received him with honour, became his zealous partisan and friend, and was thenceforth numbered among the champions of orthodoxy in the West (Hieron. Chron. an. 346, Migne, Patr. Lat. xxvii. 682 ; Athan. Ep. ad Episc. Aegypt. § 8; Apologia ad Imp. Const. § 3, ed. Benedict, i. 278, 297 ; Hilarius, Hist. Frag. ii. ed. Maff. ii. 634, in Patr. Lat. x. 644). For the probable influence of Athan- asius's sojourn on the struggle between Arianism and orthodoxy and the growth of monasticism in the West, see Rettberg, Kir- chengeschichte, i. 187, 188. Athanasius left Treves in June 338, and in 340 Maximin was called upon to entertain and assist Paul, the MAXIMINUS banished bp. of Constantinople. His efforts resulted in Paul's restoration in 341. In 342 a deputation of four Arian bishops arrived at Treves, hoping to win Constans to their views. They brought a creed of compromise, but Maximin was inflexibly hostile. refu>ed them communion, and was mainly instrumental in securing the rejection of their proposals (Hilar. Hist. Fra^. iii. ed. Maff. ii. 662. 663, in Patr. Lat. X. 674, 675). In 343 Maximin was present at the council of Milan (Hist. liil. de la France, i. B. III). Whether he was also at the great ! council of Sardica, 343 or 344, is not quite certain, but he assented to its decisions (.\than. Apol. contr. Arianos, § so. ed. Bene- I diet. i. 168 ; Hilar. 16. ii. 647, in Patr. Lat. \ 659). His prominent part in the conflict ; with .\rianism is shewn by the special excom- munication pronounced against him at the heretical council of Philippopolis {Hist. Frag. \ iii. 27). i Maximin's cult was established from very ] early times. The legends that collected round his name are embodied in two biographies, one , by an anonymous monk of St. .Maximin in 8th 1 cent. (Boll. Acta 55. Mai. vii. 21-25). the other I by a Lupus, who, in the opinion of Ceillicr (xii. 511) and others, was Lupus, bp. of Ch.llons. I It is in Migne, Patr. Lat. cxix. 665-680. 1 According to their story, Maximin was a native I of Poitou, brother of Maxentius, bp. of 1 Poictiers. Drawn to Treves by the favour of St. Agricius, he was ordained by him and succeeded him in the see. .Against the Arian heresy, then in the ascendant, he boldly con- tended and suSered much persecution. He summoned a council at Cologne, which con- demned Euphratas, the bp. of that city, who denied the divinity of Christ. (This council is now admitted to be fictitious ; see Baron. Ann. 346, vii. sqq. ; Rettberg, Kirchen- geschichte Deutschlands, i. 131). He died in Aquitaine after an episcopate of 17 years, and was buried there. For the early history of his famous monastery see Gall. Christ, xiii. 523 sqq. ; Rettberg, ti.s. i. 474- [s.a.b.1 Maximinus (6), Arian bp. of Hippo Regius, who came with the Gothic soldiers into Africa A.D. 427, 428, and held a discussion with St. Augustine on the Trinity. .Augustine, later, replied in 2 books, which, with that which con- tains the discussion, exhibit the .irguments for and against the Arian doctrine. The line of argument taken by .\ugustine resembles so strongly that expressed in our .\thanasian creed that if this were lost it might almost be supplied from this treatise. August. CoU. cum Max. and Contra .Max. i. ii. Opf>. vol. viii. pp. 719-810, ed. Migne; Vtt. Poss. 17; Ceillicr, vol. ix. 359-3fii- [H.W.P.] Maxlmus (2) Magnus, Christian emperor in the West, a.d. 3Sv38«- .Authorities. — Besides the regular histo- rians, of whom Zosimus (iv. 35-46) gives most original matter, St. Ambrose has spe( ial notices, Epp. 24 (narrative of his embassies), 20, § 23, and 40, § 23 ; Symmachus, Ep. ii. 31 : Sulpicius Sevcnis, almr)St contemporary, Chron. ii. 49-51. Vita S. Martini. 20, Dtalngus, ii. 6, iii. 11. The best modern books arc De Broglie, L'Eglise et V Empire au IV me siicle (Paris, 1866), vol. \n. and H. Rirhter. West- romische Reich (Berlin, 1865), pp. 568 ff., of. T. MAXIMDS. MAGNUS 711 Hodgkin, Ilalv and her ImaJrr^ (Ox\. 18R0), vol. 1. pp. 147-155. History. — Magnus Mnximttn w.is a Spant.ird bv birth (Z^s. iv. 35) .ind a d»«p«'ndant of th«« familv of Theo<J(.siu<i, with whom he vrvM in Britain. In ^8^ he was pri>rlaiin<"<l em- peror bv the soldiers in Britain, whrrr h** held some command, apparenllv not a vorv high one. He landed in Gaul at the motith o( the Rhine, .and was met by the armv o( Gr.atian somewhere near Paris. The troops ramf over to him, and Maximus suddenly found himself in possession of the western provinres. Gr.i- tian was killed at Lyons, Aug. 25, and, a< was generallv reported, bv the orders o( Maximus himself. The Western empire was thus in great d.anger, since Valentinian II. was a mere weak boy, and The-vlnsius wa* occupied in the East. It shews the po<iition of St. Ambrose that he was chosen bv the empress-mother, Tustina, to treat for pearc at this crisis (S. .Xmbr. Ep. 24, §§ 3, 5, 7). Prar« was made. Maximus being arknowle<lge<l as .Augustus and sovereign of the Ga>ils, side by side with Valentinian and Themlosius. This state of things lasted for some years, during which Maximus, who had been ba^tirecl just before his usurpation, busied himself much with church affairs, being desirous to obtain a reputation for the strictest orthodoxv. Western wTiters, Sulpicius Sevenis and Or'>- sius, thoiigh treating Maximus as a usurper, give him, on the whole, a good character. Sulpicius making exception on the score of his persecution of the Priscillianists and his love of money fSulp. Dial. ii. 6 ; Oros. vii. 34). Thus Maximus was in general an able and popular ruler, at least in his own dominions, giving his subjects what they most wanted, some feeling of security and peace. But wo must join in the censure passed <ipon his treatment of the Priscillianists by pope Siricius (s\Tiod of Ttirin, a.d. 401, can. 6, Hefele, Councils, § m). St. Ambrose, and St. Martin of Tours. Ambrose, indeed, was a political opponent, but Maxinnis murted Siricius. and was verv obseq\ii.ius to Martin. The Priscillianist heretics, who held a mixture of Gnostic. Manichean. and Sab'-llian opinions, had been condemned bv a synod at Sar.agossa in 380. Their opponents, Ithacius bp. of Ossonuba, and Idarius bp. of F.merita. found in Maximiis a ready instrument of persecution. The Prisrillianists were ordered to appear before a svnod at Bordeaux in ■^84. where one of their chiefs, bp. Instantius. was condemned^ as unworthv of the episcopal ofTice. Pris- cillian denied the competencv of the s\'no<|, and appealed to the emperor. St. Martin be- sought him to abstain from blo.Klsh«-<l, and to remit the case to ecclesiastical ju>lgrs. Itha- cius, their most vehement arruser. <lid not hesitate to charge M.irtin hitns.-lf with Pris- cillianism, but. for a time, better influences prevailed, and Maximus promi'ied that no lives should be taken. After Martin's de- parturc, however, other bishops prnuailed Maximus to remit the case to a secular judge. Rvodius, and finally the emperor condemne<l Priscilli.in and his companions, including a rich widow F.uchrocia, to be beheaded. In- stantius and some others were exile<l. A second s^-nofj, held at Tre^ves in 38 5. approved 712 MAXmUS, MAGNUS by a majority the conduct of Ithacius, and urged Maximus to further measures of con- fiscation. St. Martin returned to intercede for some of his friends, and with this purpose communicated with the faction of Ithacius, who were then consecrating a bishop. There can be no doubt that Maximus wished to be regarded as a champion of catholicity, and to use this merit as a political instrument. As early as 385 he seems to have written to pope Siricius, professing his ardent love of the Catholic faith, offering to refer the case of a priest Agricius, whom the pope complained of as wrongly ordained, to ecclesiastical judges anywhere within his dominions. (This letter is only given at length by Baronius, s.a. 387, §§ 65, 66 ; cf. Tillemont, Les Priscillianisies, art. 10. The part about Agricius is given by Hanel, s.a. 385, from other MSS., thus con- firming the genuineness of the letter.) At the beginning of 387 the struggle about the basilicas gave him a pretext for interfering on the Catholic side with the court of Milan, a proceeding which he may have thought would gain him the sympathy of his old opponent St. Ambrose. He wrote a threatening letter to Valentinian II., which we still possess, bidding him desist from the persecution of the church (Soz. vii. 13 ; Theod. v. 14. This letter is given only by Baronius, s.a. 387, §§ 33-36. cf. Tillem. Saint Ambroise, art. 48. its genuineness seems not absolutely certain). Justina, in this emergency, again used the political skill and intrepidity of St. Ambrose, whose loyalty was unshaken and whose disin- terestedness was universally recognized. Am- brose went on a second embassy to Maximus, of which he has left us a lively record in his 24th epistle. He set out after that memor- able Easter which witnessed the baptism of St. Augustine, and found the emperor at Treves. His high spirit and sincerity seem to have disappointed Maximus, who found fault with him for acting against his interest, accused count Bauto of turning barbarians upon his territory, and refused to restore the still un- buried remains of Gratian ; thus clearly shewing that he meant war. Ambrose's refusal to communicate with the Ithacians was the final offence, and the emperor suddenly commanded him to depart (cf. Ei>. 24, § 3, for his judgment on this partv). On his return to Milan Ambrose warned Valentinian to pre- pare for war, but his wise counsels were dis- regarded. A second ambassador Domninus was sent, and was entirelv deceived bv the soft words of Maximus, who persuaded him that Valentinian had no better friend than himself, and cajoled him into taking back into Italy a part of his army, under pretence of serving against the barbarians who were in- vading Pannonia. Having thus cleverly got his soldiers across the Alps, he followed rapidly in person, and entered Italy as an invader (Zos. iv. 42). Justina and her son and daughters fled to Theodosius at Thessalonica. Maximus was thus left in possession of Italy. The details of the campaign that followed belong to secular history. Theodosius de- feated the troops of Maximus at Siscia and Petovio, and seized the emperor himself at Aquileia, where he was put to death, after some form of trial (Zos. iv. 46 ; Pacatus, 43, MAXIMUS, PETRONIUS I 44), on July 25 or August 28, 388, after a reign of rather more than five years. His son Victor, whom he had named Augustus, was put to death shortly after. Andragathius, his able general, who was accused of the murder of Gratian, threw himself into the Adriatic. It is not said what became of Marcellinus, who had been defeated at Petovio. Legend. — The connexion of Maximus with Britain is obscure, but it has given rise to a. I considerable aftergrowth of legend. He is j called " Rutuoinus latro " by Ausonius, per- ! haps merelv because he started from Rich- borough to invade Gaul. Welsh tradition has incorporated him into its genealogies of saints and royal heroes, under the name of Macsen Wledig, or Guledig, a title considered to be equivalent to imperator. (See H. Rowland's Mona Anttqua Restaurata, pp. 166 ff., ed. 2, Lond. 1766, and cf. Skene's Four Ancient Books of Wales, vol. i. pp. 45, 48, vol. ii. 405. He is usually called Macsen. which rather suggests a confusion with Maxentius, but Skene quotes his Welsh name also as Maxim, i. p. 48.) The " dream of Maxen Wledig " in the Mcbbinogion (ed. Guest, vol. iii. pp. 263- 294, Lond. 1849) represents him as already emperor of Rome, and brought to Britain by a dream of a royal maiden Helen Luyddawc or Luyddog, daughter of Eudav ( = Octavius ?) of Caer Segont, or Carnarvon, and then re- turning after seven years with his brother-in- law K-\man to reconquer his old dominions. Another mythical account describes Kynan as raising an army of sixty thousand men, who afterwards settled in Armorica. The desolation of Britain thus left the country exposed to the attacks of the Picts and Saxons (cf. Mabinogion, I.e. pp. 29 ff. ; R. Rees, Essay on Welsh Saints, pp. 104, los, Lond. 1836 ; Nennius, Hist. Brit. 5 23). A further development of the legend represents St. Ursula and her company of virgins as sent out as wives for these emigrated hosts. The term Sam Helen applied to Roman roads in N. AVales is explained as referring to the wife of Maximus. It is difficult to say what historical facts may be at the bottom of this. That the with- drawal of Roman troops by Maximus exposed Britain to invasion is an obvious fact, and is alreadv asserted by Gildas (Historia. cc. 10, 11). The colonization of Armorica bv some of his auxiliaries is also possible enough. On the other hand, the name of Helen may merely be borrowed from the mother of Constantine, and Sam Helen may be explained as Sarn-y- lleng, " the legion's causeway," just as the story of the cutting out the tongues of the women of Armorica by Kynan's soldiers ap- pears to be only an 'et>-mological myth to explain the name Llydaw applied to that countrv. For further refs.. see R. Williams, Biogr. Diet, of Eminent Welshmen (Llandovery, i8'i2), art. "Maxen Wledig." [j-w.l Maximus (3), Petronius, emperor of the West, A.D. 455 ; a descendant of the Maxirnus who usurped the empire in the time of Gratian (Procopius, Bell. Vand. i. 4)- He was of one of the noblest and wealthiest families of Rome, was three times prefect of Rome and twice consul. To avenge the insult his wife had received from Valentinian III. (see Procopius, M.S.), he caused him to be assassinated on MAXTMUS 713 'inindttrd to th« ciuvr at prcs«»nr»» woiiM jjivi MAXIMUS Mar. 16 or 17, 455. Maxinms thrn !;oizocl the vacant thronp, and compelled Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian, to niarrv him a few days after her husband's death, his own wife havinp died shortlv before. He also cave her dauRhter Eiidocia t<> his son Palladius. whom he created Caesar (Idatiiis, Chronicnn in Patr. Lat. li. SS.j). The outraped Eudoxia summoned Genseric king of the Vandals to avenge and deliver her. Genseric sailed with a mighty armament for Rome. Maximus endeavoured to flv, but the people .md s. >ldierv. headed by Valentinian's offirers, rose against him, stoned him, tore him limb from limb .and flung his mangled bodv into the river, prob- [ ablv on June 12, 4,SS (Chronicon Tms/jiumw- | small band of .Athanasius's supporters. <Avin»t um) ; thus he reigned rather under 3 months, j that it did not become those who bore thr The chronology is discussed at length bvTille- tokens of their sufTerings for the faith to ron- mont in a note (Emp. vi. 628). [f.d.I sort with its adversaries. .Sozomen. who here. Maximus (9), bp. of .Alexandria, 14th I as elsewhere, is not consistent, record* th«« " successor of St. Mark," had been a presbvter I same incident {H. E. ii. 2S^. We know little under bp. Dionvsius. During the Decian I of the part taken bv Maximus in the Arian persecution, after Dionvsius had been carried troubles between the council f<f Tvre. A.n. away bv some Christians of Mareotis into ^^s, and that of Sardica. But if he had re- Libya, Maximus with three other prosbvters ; fused complicitv when the solemn recognition " kept themselves concealed in .Alexandria, i of Arius was made bv the 200 bishops as- secretly carrving on the oversight of the | sembled for the dedication of Constantine's among those least Athanaslus, whose air of impartialitv to its drlibrr.iljom; whom, also for their close vicinltv. it would not h,nv«» been decent to exclude fDe nroglir. I'F.tUtt et VF.mpirf. ii. -126). The part he took is variouslv represented, .\ccr.rdine to Sor. rates (//. F. ii. R) .md So/omen (//. K. iii. 6). he assented U^ the deposition of Athanaslus. Rufinus, howrver (//. F. i. 17). recrds the dramatic incident that the agefl c<infrss..r Pa)ihnutiiis of the Thebaid. whosr mutil-Ued form had attracted so much attontion at N'icaea. when he saw Maximus vacill.itinc. to.ik him bv the hand and led him over to the brethren " (Dionys. to Domitius and Didymus ap. Euseb. vii. 11). It is surprising that their ministrations were undetected by the in- quisitorial severity of the local government, which found victims among the virgins of the church (see Eus. \n. 41). Seven years later, when Valerian's persecution began, we find Maximus attending his bishop (who calls him his " fellow-presbyter ") to the tribunal of the prefect .Aemilianus, as involved with him, and three deacons and a Roman lav Christian, in the charge of contumacious rejection of the gods who had " preserved the emperor's sovereignty," and whose worship was in accordance with " natural " law. He was banished with Dionvsius to Cephro in the Libyan frontier, sharing in the rough recep- tion the heathen inhabitants gave to the church at the council of Jerusalem, it could hardlv fail to have been recorded. The silence of all historians throws doubt on Rufinus's statement that Maximus remained alwavs faithful to the cause of .\thanasius. He, however, refused to attend the council of the Dedication assembled bv the Eusebians at .Antioch, A.D. ^4T. at which the sentence of the council of T\Te against .Athanasiiis. to which he had been an assenting partv, was confirmed. On this occasion he had been put on his guard in time ; and, consci.)us of his weakness, discreetlv kept awav, fearing lest he might, as at Tvre. be carried awav {ai'vap- TTtt^efs) against his will and led to acquiesce in measures of which he would afterw.irds repent (Sorr. H. F. ii. 8 ; Soz. //. F. iii. 6). .At Sardica he was once more on the orthinlox bishop and assisting him in the preaching I side and his name stands first of the Pales- which ere long won over " not a few " of them ! tinian bishops who signed the svnodical letters to " the word then sown among them for the first time." After a while the party were removed to Colluthion. much nearer to Alex- andria {ib. vii. 11). When Dionvsius. "worn out with years." died earlv in 265 (in Mav. according to Le fluicn, Oriens Christ, ii. ^o.S ; Neale says Feb.. Hist. Alex. i. ^q, 83), Maximus was appropriately elected to succeed him. Maximus died on Sun. .Apr. o, 282 (I-e Ouien. ii. 396) and was succeeded bv Theonas. fw.B.] (Athan. ApnloR. I. ad Const, p. 768)- A little later he warmlv welcomed .Athanasius when passing through Jerusalem to resume his seat at Alexandria, summoning an as- semblage of bishops to do honour to him, bv the whole of whom, with two .>r three excep- tions, Athauasius was solemnlv rereive«i into communion. Conirrattdat<'rv letti-rs on the recoverv of their chief pastor were written to the Egyptian bishops, and Maximus w.is the Maximus (10), bp. of Jerusalem, the 40th 1 first to affix his signature (Soer. //. /•'. ii. 24 : in succession from the apostles, succeeded | Soz. //. F. 21, 22; Athan. .It^tl. f. ad Macarius on his death, A.D. 336. He had been j Tofts/. p. 77^, ; Hist. Arian. ad SolU. < 2^ ; a confessor in one of the persecutions (Theod. I Labbe. Cnncil. ii. 02, 62s, <'>7oK Jerome states H. E. ii. 26) — according t<i Philostorgius that Maximus died in possession of his bishop- (H. E. iii. 12) that of Maximiau— in which he | ric. A.n. ^so or ^m. and that Cyril was np- had lost one eve and had the sinews of one pointer! to the vacant se«-. fr.v.1 arm and one thigh severed whil'- still ser\ing Maximus (11). the Cvnic : the Intrusive bp. as a presbyter at Jerusalem. He appears to have had no strength of character, being honest but timid, his simplicitv making him the tool of the stronger and more designing. His career is consequently inconsistent. He attended the council of Tyre, A.f>. ^is, being of Constantinople, a.d. ^^o. A native of Alexandria of low parentage, he boastr<l that his familv had prfxlucerl martvrs. He was instnicted in the rudiments of the ChrislLin faith and receivefl baptisnt. but sought to combine the Christian profession with Cvnic admitted to a seat, together with MarccUus of , philosophy. Gregory N'azianzen describe* Ancyra, Asclepas of Gaza, and others, as ' him as having had no regular occupathn, but 714 MAXIMDS loitering about in the streets, like a shameless dog, foul and greedy (kvwv, kw'ktkos, dfjL(p6d(iiv virrip^Ttjs). More than once he earned a flogging for his misdeeds and was finally banished to the Oasis. We hear of him next at Corinth, with a high reputation for religion, leading about a band of females — " the swan of the flock " — under colour of devotion (Carm. cxlviii. p. 450). Soon after Gregory Nazianzen had begun to reside there, Maximus shifted to Constantinople. Gregory devotes a considerable number of the biting iambics of his poem, de Vita Sua, to this man, who, how- ever, before long completely gained his ear and heart. Maximus professed the most unbounded admiration for Gregory's dis- courses, praising them in private and in public. His zeal against heretics was most fierce and his denunciations of them uncompromising. The simple-hearted Gregory was completely duped by Maximus, even delivering a panegy- rical oration, in the man's own presence in full church, before the celebration of the Eucharist, inviting him to stand by his side and receive the crown of victory. Meanwhile, Maximus was secretly maturing a plot for ousting his unsuspicious patron from his throne. He imposed upon Peter of Alex- andria, who lent himself to Maximus's pro- jects. Maximus found a ready tool in a pres- byter of Constantinople envious of Gregory's talents and popularity {de Vit. p. 13). Others were gained by bribes. Seven unscrupulous sailors were dispatched from Alexandria to mix with the people and watch for a favour- able opportunity for carrying out the plot. When all was ripe they were followed by a bevy of bishops, with secret instructions from the patriarch to consecrate Maximus. The conspirators chose a night when Gregory was confined by illness, biu-st into the cathedral, and commenced the consecration. They had set the Cynic on the archiepiscopal throne and had just begun shearing away his long curls when the day dawned. The news quickly spread and everybody rushed to the church. The magistrates appeared with their officers ; Maximus and his consecrators were driven from the cathedral, and in the tenement of a flute-player the tonsure was completed. Maximus repaired to Thessa- lonica to lay his cause before Theodosius. He met with a cold reception from the emperor, who committed the matter to Ascholius, the much respected bp. of that city, charging him to refer it to pope Damasus. ' We have two letters from Damasus asking for special care that a Catholic bishop maybe ordained (Migne, Patr. Lat. xiii. pp. 366-369 ; Epp. 5, 5, 6). Maximus returned to Alexandria, and de- manded that Peter should assist him in re- establishing himself at Constantinople. Peter appealed to the prefect, by whom Maximus was driven out of Egypt. As the death of Peter and the accession of Timotheus are placed Feb. 14, 380. these events must have occurred in 379. When the second oecumeni- cal council met at Constantinople in 381, Maximus's claim to the see of Constantinople was unanimously rejected, the last of its original four canons decreeing " that he neither was nor is a bishop, nor are they who have been ordained by him in any MAXIMUS rank of the clergy " (Labbe, Concil. ii. 947, 954, 959)- Maximus appealed from the Eastern to the Western church. In the autumn of 381 a synod held either at Aquileia or at Milan under Ambrose's presidency considered Maxi- mus's claims. Having only his own repre- sentations to guide them, and there being no question that Gregory's translation was un- canonical, while the election of Nectarius was open to grave censure as that of an unbaptized layman, Maximus also exhibiting letters from Peter the late venerable patriarch, to confirm his asserted communion with the church of Alexandria, it is not surprising that the Italian bishops pronounced decidedly in favour of Maximus and refused to recognize either Gregory or Nectarius. A letter of Ambrose and his brother-prelates to Theo- dosius (Ep. xiii. c. i. § 3) remonstrates against the acts of Nectarius as no rightful bishop, since the chair of Constantinople belonged to Maximus, whose restoration they demanded, as well as that a general council of Easterns and Westerns, to settle the disputed episcopate and that of Antioch, should be held at Rome. In 382 a provincial synod held at Rome, having received more accurate information, finally rejected Maximus's claims (Hefele, Hist, of Councils, i. pp. 359, 378, 381, Eng. trans.). Jerome tells us that Maximus sought to strengthen his cause by writing against the Arians, and presented the work to Gratian at Milan. He appears also to have written against Gregory, the latter replying in a set of caustic iambics (Carm. clxviii. p. 250) express- ing astonishment at one so ignorant venturing on a literary composition. Theod. H. E. v. 8 ; cf. Soz. H. E. vii. 9 ; Greg. Naz. Orat. xxii. xxviii. ; Carm. i de Vita sua ; Carm. cxlviii. ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. ix. 444-456, 501-503. [e.v.] Maximus (15), patriarch of Antioch. After the deposition of Domnus II., patriarch of Antioch, by the " Latrocinium " of Ephesus, A.D. 449, Dioscorus persuaded the weak Theo- dosius to fill the vacancy with one of the clergy of Constantinople. Maximus was selected and ordained, in violation of all canonical orders, by Anatolius bp. of Con- stantinople, without the official sanction of the clergy or people of Antioch. Maximus, though owing his elevation to an heretical synod, gained a reputation for orthodoxy in the conduct of his diocese and province. He dispatched " epistolae tractoriae " through the churches subject to him as metropolitan, requiring the signatures of the bishops to Leo's famous " tome " and to another document condemning both Nestorius and Eutyches (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Paschas. 88 [68], June 451). Having thus discreetly assured his position, he was summoned to the council of Chalcedon in Oct. 451, and took his seat without question, and when the illegal acts of the " Latrocinium" were quashed, including the deposition of the other prelates, a special exception was made of the substitution of Maximus for Domnus on the express ground that Leo had opened communion with him and recognized his epis- copate (Labbe, iv. 682). His most important controversy at Chalcedon was with Juvenal of Jerusalem regarding the limits of their respec- tive patriarchates. It was long and bitter; at MAXIMUS last a compromise was accepted by the council, that Antioch should retain the two Phoenicias and Arabiaand that the three Palest ines should form the p'^'riarchate of Jerusalem (ib. 614- 618). Maximus was amonR those bv whom the Confession of Faith was drawn up lib. S30-.S62). and stands second, between Anatolius of Con- stantinople and Juvenal of Jerusalem, in the signatories to the decree according metropoli- tical rank to Constantinople (16. 708). The next notice of Maximus is in a corre- spondence with Leo the Great, to wh<im he had appealed in defence of the prerogatives of his see. Leo promised to help him against either Jerusalem or Constantinople, exhorting him to assert his privileges as bp. of the third see in Christendom {i.e. only inferior to Alexandria and Rome). Maximus's zeal for the orthodox faith receives wann commendation from Leo, who exliorts him as " consors apostolirae sedis " to rfiaintain the doctrine founded by St. Peter " speciali magisterio " in the cities of Antioch and Rome, against the erroneous teaching both of Nestorius and Eutyches, and to watch over the churches of the East generally and send him frequent tidings. The letter, dated June 11, 453. closes with a desire that Maximus will restrain unordained persons, whether monks or simple laics, from public preaching and teaching (Leo Magn. j Ep. 109 [92]). Two years later, a.d. 455, the episcopate of Maximus came to a disastrous close by his deposition. The nature of his I offence is nowhere specified. We do not know ' how much longer he lived or what became of ' him. Tillem. Metn. eccl. t. xv. passim ; Le i Quien, Orieiis Christiaitus. t. ii. p. 725. \f..v.] Maximus (16), bp. of Turin, writer, reckoned as Maximus IL, the third bishop, by Capjiel- letti (Le Chiese d'Ual. xiv. 12, 14, 76), who [ puts a Maximus L in 390 as the first bishop Ughelli {Ital. Sac. iv. 1022) counts them as one (cf. Boll. Acta SS. 25 Jun. v. 48). He was present at the council of Milan in 451 and signed the letter to pope Leo fLeo, Ep. qy ; Labbe, iv. 583). He was also at the council of Rome in 465, where his name appears next after pope Hilary's, apparently on account of his seniority (Labbe, v. 86). Gennadius of Massilia (d.'496) gives a sketch of his works, most of which are still extant, but strangely says that he died in the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, i.e. before 423. This has led some to think that there were two bishops of this name, but the early date given by Geimadius seems irreconcilable with the manv allusions to Nestorian doctrines in the homilies on the Nativity, and the general opinion is that he is wrong (Gennad. de Scrip. Eccl. c. xl. in Patr. Lat. Iviii. 1081). The works of Maximus arc in vol. Ivii. of Migne's Patrologia Latina. Thev consist of 1x7 homilies. 116 sermons. 3 tractates on baptism, 2 (of very doubtful authority) entitled respectively contra Paga- nos and contra Judaeos, and a collection of expositions de Capilulis Evangeliorum (also doubtful). Many of the sermons and homilies were formerly ascribed to St. .Ambrn<;«>, St. Augustine, St. Leo, etc. Several are on the great church festivals. Points of interest in the homilies and ser- mons are : the notice of fixed lections («./?. Horn. 36 and 37) ; abstinence from flesh meat MAXIMDS 715 in Lent (Horn. 44) ; no fastiiiK 'T kncrlinic at prayer between Easter and Prntecoiit (Mom. 61). In Hum. 6j, on the other h.in<l, he mentions that the vigil of Prntpro*t wat ob- served as a fast. This custom Iherrlore proh- ablv ori«inated in his titnr. St. Lrn. men- tioning the fast of Pentecost, in. !!<<•« it r|r.ir that he means the fast iinineili ((■ ' ' " the festival. In Mom. Si Maxn: on the creed, which is exactly tli Roman creed given by Ktifinus. temporary events alluded to mav be 11.. li.nl the synod of Milan in 380, at which Jovini.in was condemned (Horn. 0). Seven homilies (86-92) refer to the terror of the city at an impending barbaric invasion, ajiparenlly .^ttila's inroad, 4.'i2. Another homily (94) refers to the destruction of the church oif Milan on the same occasion. He several times refers to superstitions in his diocciw. their observance of the Calends of Jan. (16). their timiults during an eclipse (100), the idolatry still lurking among the lower order* (Serm. loi, 102). There are homilies on the feast of the Nativitv of St. John the Baptist. on St. LawTence, St. Cvprian. St. Agnes, and St. Eusebius of Vercelli. and several on the festival of SS. Peter and Paul which are worth particular attention. In some of these he uses very decided language on the supre- macy of St. Peter, e.g., speaking of him as the keystone of the church (Hom. ^4), the i " magister navis " (Serm. 114); and as en- ' trusted with " totius Ecclesiae gubernacula " ; (Hom. 70). But in other places he speaks of i St. Peter as supreme in discipline. St. Paul in doctrine, and remarks " inter ipsos quis cui praeponatur incertum est " (73). Nowhere does he allude to the church of Rome as in- I heriting exclusively the supremacy of St. : Peter. Gennadius mentions a work of Maxi- \ mus de Spiritali Baptismi Gratia, and three treatises on this subject, formerly ascribed tn St. Augustine, are published by Migne with \ the works of Maximus, on the strength of : three ancient MSS., one of which the church of Turin possesses. Nothing in their stvle is against Migne's conclusion. The first treatise dwells on the significance of the anointing of the ears before baptism ; the second gives an interrogatory creed identical with the one mentioned above in the homilies, and alludes to the custom of baptizing on the third day after the profession of faith ; the third speak* of the anointing of the he.ad after baptism, by which is conferred the full regal and sacerdotal dignity spoken of by St. Peter, and of the custom of washing the feet at the same time, after the example of Christ. See F. Savio's Gli Antichi Veseovi d'ttaUa (Turin. t8<,<)). p. iMv fu.r.A.) Maximus (24), an ecclesiastical writer. placed bv Eusebius (//. /•:. v. 27) in the relRti of Severus and episcopate of Victor, i.e. in the Last decade of 2nd cent. Ilusebius s.ivs the subject of his work was tlw .rum ,.( .mI ' and whether matter had been cr- ' where ( /'ra<-/>. Ev.\\\. 22)eiititl' ing Matter" (wtpl r/jt P\»)t). .u ' long extract, from which it appeals tu have I been in dialogue form. Routh. whose AV- I liquiae Sacrae (ii. 87) U by far the best cd. of the remains of Maximus. pointed out that the 716 MAXIMUS OP EPHESUS same fragment is in the dialogue on free will ascribed to Methodius, and that other things are common to the work on free will and the dialogue of Origen against the Marcionites, so that both authors probably drew from Maxi- mus. That the work is rightly ascribed to Maximusthe testimony of Eusebius is decisive; and St. Jerome savs' in his Catalogue, that Methodius wrote on free will, while Photius has preserved large extracts from what he knew as the work of Methodius on free will, which clearly prove that it incorporated much of Maximus. The style, moreover, of the opening of the dialogue on free will resembles Metho- dius, and diifers from that of the part concern- ing matter. We leave, then, to Methodius the rhetorical introduction to his dialogue, but the context appears clearly to shew that the part which belongs to Maximus begins earlier than the portion quoted by Eusebius and printed by Routh. It must include the state- ment of the views of the speaker, who main- tains matter to have existed from eternity, destitute of qualities, and also the announce- ment of the presence of the third speaker, who afterwards takes up the controversy, on the hypothesis that matter had been from the first possessed of qualities. In Methodius, the defender of the eternity of matter is appar- ently represented as a Valentinian, for his speeches are marked Val. ; and so also in Adamantius. In Maximus he seems to be no heretic, but a sincere inquirer after truth. He propounds the difficulty concerning the origin of evil ; if evil was at any time created, then something came out of nothing, since evil did not exist before ; and God Who created it must take pleasure in evil, which we cannot admit. He then offers the solution that, co-eternally with God, there existed matter, destitute of form or qualities, and borne about in a disorderly manner ; that God took pity on it, separated the best parts from the worst, reduced the former to order, and left the latter behind as being of no use to Him for His work, and that from these lees of matter evil sprang. The most successful part of the orthodox speaker's reply is where he shews that this hypothesis does not relieve God of the charge of being the author of evil. Galland conjectures that the author of the dialogue is the Maximus who was 26th bp. of Jerusalem, and whom Eusebius, in his Chronicle, places about the reign of Commodus. It does not absolutely disprove this, that Euse- bius, though he twice speaks of the writings of Maximus, does not mention that he was a bishop ; probably Eusebius found in the book he used no mention of the author's dignity, and knew no more than we do whether he was the bp. of Jerusalem. But there seems increasing reason to think that Eusebius erroneouslyattri- buted to Maximus the work of Methodius : see Zahn in Zeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. ix. 224-229, and J. A. Robinson, The Phtlocalia of Origen (Camb. 1893), pp. xl.-xlix. [g.s.] Maximus (25) of Ephesus. A " master of theurgic science," commonly reckoned among the neo- Platonic philosophers, the in- terest of whose life consists merely in the fact that he supplied an essential link in the transit of the emperor Julian from Chris- tianity to paganism. The account given by MAXIMUS OP EPHESUS Eunapius, in his Life of Maximus, shews exactly how this was. Julian, while still under tutelage and in early youth, with the natural self-will of a vigorous mind, had rebelled in secret against his Christian instruc- tors and betaken himself to Greek philosophy as a liberal and congenial study. This bent was not disallowed by the emperor Constan- tius, who thought it safe when compared with political ambitions. But philosophy at that era indicated much more than quiet intel- lectual research. It was a name of power, to which all whose sentiments flowed with a strong current towards the traditionary heathenism had recourse for self-justification ; and it was natural that Julian, once he had attached himself to this study, should in- stinctively seek for more practical advantages from it than the mere increase of theoretical wisdom. Maximus, though flashy and meagre as a philosopher, was better supplied with an ostentatious show of practical power than any of his philosophic rivals. The amiable rhe- torician Libanius, the aged sage Aedesius, could please Julian, but evidently were lacking in the force which could move the world. But when Aedesius, compelled by increasing in- firmity, resigned Julian to the tuition of his two followers, Chrysanthius and Eusebius, Julian began to be struck with the terms in which these two spoke of their old fellow- pupil Maximus. Chrysanthius, indeed, alone seemed to admire him ; Eusebius affected to depreciate him ; but this feigned depreciation was calculated to excite the interest of Julian. For what Eusebius spoke of in this slighting manner was a certain miraculous power pos- sessed by Maximus, of which he gave one or two casual instances. Julian had never seen miracles like those with which Maximus was credited ; so he bade Eusebius stick to his learning and hurried off to Maximus. That skilful adept, after a solemn preparation of his imperial pupil, in which he was aided by Chrysanthius, described to Julian the revered religious authority of the hierophant of Eleusis, whose sacred rites were among the most famous in Greece, and urged him to go thither. He went, and was imbued with a teaching which combined a mysterious exalta- tion of the power of the Greek deities with hints of his own personal aggrandizement. By such acts as these, and by his initiation into the Eleusinian mysteries, he passed over to paganism, though his having done so was still unknown to the world. When, Constantius being dead, he became sole master of the Roman empire, he did not forget his instruc- tors. He sent for Chrysanthius and Maximus ; they consulted the sacrificial omens ; the signs were unfavourable, and dissuaded them from accepting the invitation. Chrysanthius trembled, and refused to go ; the more am- bitious Maximus declared it unworthy of a wise man to yield to the first adverse sign, and went. He was received by Julian with ex- traordinary honours, but by his haughtiness and effeminate demeanour earned the censure even of the heathen, among whom was the partial panegyrist Eunapius. After the death of Julian he was severely and even cruelly treated by Valentinian and Valens, and though released for a time, was beheaded by order of MELANIA V'alens in 371, on a chiirgc of liaving conspired against him. His personal appearance is de- scribed by Eunapius as impressive. The (onr e.xtant letters of Julian to him (Nos. 15, ih, 38, 39) consist of such indiscriminate panegyric that they tell little of his real character or views. For other authorities see I). 0/ G. atiJ R. Biogr. [j. K.M.J Melania (l), a Roman lady of Spanish ex- traction, daughter of Marcellinus, who had been consul ; born c. 350. Her husband died when she was only 22 years old, leaving her with three children, of whom two died im- mediately after their father. Full of ascetic enthusiasm, she rejoiced to be now more free to serve Christ, left her son to the charge of the urban praetor, and, though winter was beginning, sailed for the East (Hieron. Kp. xxxi.x. 4 ; Chron. Anu. 377, vol. viii. ed. Vail.), c. 372. She seems to have been acquainted with Jerome and his friends, who at that time formed an ascetic society at Aquileia. Her slave Hylas accompanied Jerome to Syria (Hieron. Ep. iii. 3), and Kuhnus, from whom Jerome had then recently separated (i/>.), was with her in 374 in Egypt, and possibly in Palestine (16. iv. 2). During their stay in Egypt the persecution of the orthodox by V'alens arose. Kufinus was imprisoned. Melania, who had only been in Egypt six months, went with a large body of exiled bishops, clergy, and anchorets to a place near Diocaesarea in Palestine, where she supported them at her own expense. Apparently she was joined by Rulinus after a time, and they went together to Jerusalem. There she es- tablished herself at the Mount of Olives, where, says Jerome {Chro)t. a.d. 377, properly 375), she was such a wonderful example of virtues, and especially of humility, that she received the name of Thecla. She formed a com- munity of 50 virgins and was the means of reconciling to the church a large body of heretics called Jlc«i7xaro;udxoi. Her house was open to all. Amongst those who visited her was Evagkius, whom she persuaded to embrace the monastic life (a.d. 386). She knew John bp. of Jerusalem intimately, and no doubt shared with Kufinus in the friend- ship of Jerome and Paula when they settled at Bethlehem in 386, and afterwards in his con- tention with them. In 397 she returned with Kufinus to Italy, to confirm her granddaughter Melania the younger {q.v.) in the practice of asceticism. She was received by Paulinus at Nola with great honour, and brought him a piece of the true cross set in gold, sent by John bp. of Jerusalem. She took up her aboile at Kome, where she no doubt assisted Kuhnus through the controversy as to his translation of Origen's works. She lived probably with her son Publicola and his wife Albina and their two children, the younger Publicola, and the younger Melania, with her husband Pinianus. Palladius, when he came to Kome to plead the cause of Chrysost(jm, stayed with them. She desired to induce her granddaughter .Melania and Pinianus to take vows of separation, and was much displeased that, though willing to vow continency, they would not separate from each other's society, in her vehement enthusiasm she spoke of her conflicts with those who resisted her asceticism as " figbtiog MELANIA 717 ag.iinst wild beasts." In 40.^. h.ily Jn-hif threatened with the mvaj^ou of AUhc, am! her s..n Publicola having dii-d. she ditrmuncU to leave Konie. Kuhnus, li.«ving quitted Aquileia. .n the death i.J Ins lather, wmi with her ami her dauKhterui-law Albma, the younger Publi. ..l.i, M. Iani.> and Pinianus. She liad been to Africa in 41K) with a Irttrr fr..ni Paulinus to Augustine (Aug. /•/.. xiv.), uiul it was now deterinine<l that she shuuUl go to Sicily and thence to Africa, in b-.th whl< h countries she had estates. In Sinly Kuhnu» died. She passed on t.> Africa with the .-thrr* ; and, after vainly attempting t<. induce Me- lania and I'inianus to enibr.ue the niunastic state, went on to her loriner h.ibitation on the Mount of Olives, and 40 days alter died, aged 00. Palladius, // 14/. Laus. c. 118; Paulinus, t-pr- 29, 31. 45. 94- (w.H.r.J Melania (2), daughter <.f Publicola son of Melania (1) ; born at Koine c. 383. She married Pinianus when exceedingly young, yielding to the wish of her father, though she was already imbued with the ascetic teachings of her grandiiioilur, then living at Jerusalem. The y<'Uiig hu^b,lnd and wile were induced hy Melania the elder in 397 to take a vow ul continence, but refused to sepiirate. Ihey accompanied the grandmother In.ni Koine (a.d. 40S) to Sicily and Africa ; but, when she returned to Jerusalem, they reniamed at Sa- gaste, attaching themselves to the bp. Alypius and enjoying the friendship of Augustine. On the death of the elder .Melania the still considerable remains of her estates became the property of her granddaughter. She gave away those in Gaul and Italy, but kept those in Sicily, Spain, and Africa ; and this led to the attempt of the people of Hippo to induce Pinianus to become a priest of their chun h. In the scene in which a promise was exacted from them to remain at Hippo, Melania shewed great courage. When through the rapacity of the rebel count Heraclian she was denuded of her property and thus set free from the promise to remain at Hippo, she accompanied her husband to Egypt, and, alter staying among the monastic establishments ol the Thebaid and visiting Cyril at Alexandria, eventually went to Palestine, and, together with her mother Albina, settled at liethlehem in 414. There they attached themselves to Jerome, and to the younger Paula, who iheu presided over the convent. I heir ascetic convictions had so developed that they now accepted that separation which the elder .Melania had vainly urged in her lifetime. Pinianus became the head of a niona&tcry and Melania entered a convent. Uy the settle- ment of Melania at Uethlehem the frud was extinguished which had separated the fol- lowers of Kufinus Iri'iii thos«- ol Jeronir ; and although in his letter to Ctesiplion (txxiii. 3, cd. Vail., date 415) Jeronir still has a bitter expression about the eldrr Melania, in his last letter to Augustine (txliii. 2, ed. Vail.) In 419, .-Mbina, Pinianus, and Melania are jouied with Paula in their reverential greetings. Their I intercourse with Augustine coiiltiiued, and In answer to their (juestions on the Pelagian con- troversy he wrote his treatise On Grace and Original Sin, a.d. 418. Melania apparently lived on for many years. Photius ^y% thai 718 MELETIUS she came to Constantinople in 437 and obtained his conversion and baptism at the hands of Proclus. Palladius, Hist. Laus. 119, 121 ; Augustine, Epp. 125, 126, and de Grat. Christt, ii. and xxxii., Surius, p. 380, Dec. 31 ; Photius, Cod. 53, p. 44. [VV.H.F.] Meletius (2) {Melitius), bp. of Lycopolis, consecrated not long before the beginning of the Arian controversy. The see of Lycopolis stood next in rank to that of Alexandria, of which Peter, afterwards martyr, was then bis- hop (a.d. 300-311). Meletius took advantage of Peter's flight from persecution (Soz. H. E. i. 24) to intrude into his and other dioceses, ordain priests, and assume the character of primate of Egypt. A protest against his con- duct by four incarcerated Egyptian bishops, Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodore, and Phileas, urged that his act was uncalled-for and carried out without consulting them or Peter, in- volving a breach of the rule which forbade one bishop to intrude into the diocese of another. Meletius ignored the protest. The bishops were martyred, and Meletius went to Alex- andria. He was received by the two elders, Isidore and the afterwards famous Arius ; probably at their instigation he excom- municated two visitors appointed by Peter, and replaced them by others. The archbp. of Alexandria then wrote forbidding his flock to have fellowship with Meletius until these acts had been investigated. A synod of Egyptian bishops under" Peter deposed Mele- tius (a.d. 306) for his irregular acts and in- subordination. Athanasius and Socrates afftnn indeed that the degradation of Meletius was specially due to his having " denied the faith during persecution and sacrificed " ; but in this they probably express only the popular belief which could not otherwise explain why orthodox bishops were im- prisoned and martyred, while Meletius passed through the length and breadth of the land unhindered. The council of Nicaea in its comments upon, and condemnation of, Me- letius, takes no note of impiety ; and the statement of Epiphanius— Meletius " was orthodox in his belief, and never dissented from the creed of the church in a single point. He was the author of a schism, but not of alterations of belief " — is probably true of the bishop, if not of his followers. Meletius retorted upon his deposers by separating him- self and his followers. Peter preached against the Meletians, and rejected their baptism (So.-^. i. XV.) ; Meletius retaliated by abusing Peter and his immediate successors Achillas and Alexander. At length the whole ques- tion was considered by the council of Nicaea. The 2nd, 4th, and 6th canons refer directly or indirectly to the Egyptian schism ; and in a synodical epistle addressed by the bishops assembled there " to the holy and great church of the Alexandrians and to the beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and Pen- tapolis," the " contumacy of Meletius and of those who had been ordained by him " is dealt with (Socr. i. 9 ; Theod. i. 9). The line adopted was one of " clemency " ; although Meletius is described as " strictly speaking wholly undeserving of favour." He was per- mitted to remain in his own city and retain a nominal dignity, but was not to ordain or MELETIUS nominate for ordination. The coimcil decreed that those who had received appointments from him should be confirmed by a more legitimate ordination and then admitted to communion and retain their rank and min- istry, but were to be counted inferior to those previously ordained and established by Alex- ander ; nor were they to do anything without the concurrence of the bishops of the Catholic and apostolical church under Alexander. Meletius himself was to be an exception ; " To him," said the bishops, " we by no means grant the same licence, on account of his former disorderly conduct. If the least authority were accorded to him, he would abuse it by again exciting confusion." It is doubtful whether Meletius was at the council ; but he did not resist its decrees. At Alexander's request he handed in a list of his clerical adherents, including 29 bishops, and in Alexandria itself 4 priests and 3 deacons. Meletius retired to Lycopolis, and during Alexander's lifetime remained quiet ; but the appointment of Athanasius to the see of Alexandria was the signal for union of every faction opposed to him, and in the events which followed Meletius took a personal part. The uncompromising sternness of Athanasius was contrasted with the " clemency " of the council and of Alexander ; Arian and Mele- tian, schismatic and heretic banded together against the one man they dreaded, and so pitiless and powerful was their hate that it wrung from him the comment on the pardon accorded to Meletius by the council of Nicaea " Would to God he had never been received ! " Before his death, the date of which is not known, Meletius nominated, contrary to the decree of the Nicene council, his friend John as his successor (Soz. ii. 21), a rank accorded to him and recognized by that council of Tyre (a.d. 335) in which the Eusebians and others deposed Athanasius {ib. ii. 25). " In process of time," says Sozomen (ii. 21), " the Meletians were generally called Arians in Egypt." Originally differences in doctrine parted them ; but their alliance for attack or defence grad- ually led the Meletians to adopt Arian doc- trines [Arius] and side with Arian church politics. The Meletians died out after the 5th cent. ; the monks described by Theodoret (i. 9) being among the latest and most eccentric of the sect. "They neglected sound doctrine, and observed certain vain points of discipline, upholding the same infatuated views as the Jews and Samaritans." Consult Walch, Ketzerhistorie ; Neander, Bright, and the usual church historians. [j.m.f.] Meletius (3), bp. of Antioch, previously of Sebaste in Armenia (Soz. H. E. iv. 28 ; Theod. H. £. ii. 31), or according to Socrates (H. E. ii. 44), of Beroea in Syria. He came to Antioch (a.d. 361) when the see had been vacated through the disorderly translation of Eudoxius to Constantinople (a.d. 360) and the city was still a focus for theological rancour and dispute. The Eusta- thians, now under the venerated priest Paul- inus, represented the orthodox party with whom Athanasius was in communion ; the Eudoxians were Arian or semi-Axian. Meletius owed his appointment to the joint application to Constantius of both parties, and MELETIUS each counted on his support. His arrival was greeted by an immense concourse. It was reported that he maintained the doctrines of the council of Nicaea. He was entreated to give a brief synopsis of his doctrine ; and his declaration " the Son is of the same sub- stance as the Father," at once and unequi- vocally proclaimed him an upholder of the essential doctrine of Nicaea. The appl.uise of the Catholics was met by the cries of the infuriated Arians. The .\ri.ui archdeacon sprang forward and stopped the bisliop's mouth with his hand. .Meletius instantly extended three fingers towanls the people, closed them, and then allowing only one to remain extended, expressed by signs what he was prevented from uttering. When the arch- deacon freed his moutii to seize his hand, Mcle- tius exclaimed, "Three Persons are conceived in the mind, but we speak as if addressing One" (Theod. and Soz.). Eudoxius, .\cacius, and their partisans were furious ; they reviled the bishop and charged him with Sabellianism ; met in council and deposed him ; and iiulucecl ! the emperor, " more changeable than .Aeolus," to banish him to his native country and to appoint Euzoius, the friend of Arius, in his place. The Catholics repudiated Euzoius, but did not all support Meletius. The Eustathian section could not conscientiously unite with one who, however orthodox in faith, had received consecration from Arian bishops ; neither would they communicate with his followers who had' received Arian baptism. Schism followed. The Meletians withdrew to the Church of the Apostles in the old part of the city ; the followers of Paulinus met in a small church within the city, this being allowed by Euzoius out of respect lor Paulinus. The death of Constantius (N'ov. 361) and the decrees of toleration promulgated by Julian permitted the banished bishops to return. An effort was at once made, especially by .Athan- asius and Eusebius bp. of VerceUi, to estab- lish unity in order to resist the pagan emperor ; and this was one of the principal objects of a council held at Alexandria in 362 (Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, i. 727), where it was ordered that Paulinus and his followers should unite with Meletius, and that the church, thus united, should in the spirit of fullest toleration receive all who accepted the Nicene creed and rejected the errors of Arianism, Sabellianism, Macedonianism, etc. Eusebius of Vercelli and Asterius of Petra were commissioned to pro- ceed to Antioch, taking with them the synodal letter {Tomtis ad Antiochenos), which was prob- ably the work of Athanasius. The prospects of peace had, however, been fatally imperilled before the commissioners reached the city. Lucifer, bp. of Calaris, had gone direct to Antioch instead of to the council of Alexandria. He appears to have repeatedly exhorted both Meletians and Eustathians to unity; but his sympathies were strongly with the latter; and, when the former opposed him, he took the injudicious step of consecrating Paulinus as bishop. " This was not right," rheod<jret justly protests fiii. 5). When Eusebius reached Antioch, he found that " the evil h.ad, by such unwise measures, been made incurable." The long connexion of Athanasius with the Eustathians made him unwilling to disown MELITO 716 Paulinus, who accrptwl the svn.Kj.il letter ; and attempts at union were suspended. During the short reign ot Julian Mcletim remained at his post. Juvians death (a.d. 364) and the eilict of Valrns ro-expclUnK the blsho^ls recalled by Jnli.in onre more drove Meletius into exile. Two devoird Antio- chians, l"lavian and Di.Klorus. ralliwl the per- secuted who refused to cotnmunii ate with the Arian Euzoius and assemblc<l them in caverns by the river side and in the open country. Paulinus, " on account of his eminent nirtv " (Socr. iv. 2), was left unmolestetl. OurinB the i.t years which followed, bitterness and alienation were rife amongst the followers <>( Meletius and Paulinus. Basil {hf: 89) recom- mended Meletius to write to Athanasius, who, however, would not sever the old ties between himself and the Eustathians. The death of Athanasius (a.d. 373) diii not improve matters. His successor Peter, with Damasus of Kmne, spoke in 377 of Eusebius and .Meletius as .\rians (Basil, Ep. 266). The Western bishops and Paulinus susjiected Meletius and the Easterns of Arianism ; the Easterns imputed Sabellianism to the Westerns. Gratian, becoming sovereign of the whole empire in 378, at once proclaimed toleration to all sects, with a few exceptions (StK.r. v. 2), amongst which must have been the Arians <>! Antioch (Theod. v. 2). Sapor, a military chief, went there to dispossess the p.irtisans of Euzoius and to give the Arian churches to the orthodox party. He pacified the Meletians by handing the churches over to them, and the animosity of the two parties was for the tinu" allayed by the six principal presbyters binding themselves by oath to use no efiort to s<'cure consecration for themselves when either Paulinus or Meletius should die, but to permit the survivor to retain the see undisturbed. In 379 a council at .\ntioch under Meletiusac- cepted the synodal lettcrof Damasus (a.d. 37.'<), which, known as " the Tome of the Westerns." was sent in the first instance to Paulinus ; and two years later (381) Meletius — though disowned by Rome and Alexandria — was appointed to preside at the council of Con- stantinople. He was greeted by the empert>r Theodosius with the warmest alfection (16. v. 6, 7). During the session of the council, Meletius died. His remains finally rested by those of Babylas the .Martyr at .■\nti.Kh. The schism ought now to have cnde«l. Paulinus was still ahve, and should have been recognized as sole bishop. The Meletian party, however, irritatetl by his treatment of their leader, secured the appointment «>( Flavian ; and a fresh ciivision arose, " grounded simply on a preference of bishops " (Socr. V. 269). The history of the Meletians now merges int<> that of the Flavianists. The schism was practically ended in Flavian's life- time, 85 vears after the ordinatii>n of Paulinus bv Lucifer. (j-n-i'.] MelitO, bp. of Sardis, held in the middle of the 2nd cA-nl. a foremost place among thr bishoj>s of .\sia as regards personal influrncr and literary activity. Shortly before the end of that cent, his name is mentioned bv Poly- crates of Ephesus in hLs letter to Victor of Rome (i:us. //. /i. v. 24) as one of the lumin- aries of the Asiatic church by whose authority ?20 melito its Quartodeciman practice had been com- mended. The next extant mention of him some 20 years later is in the Little Labyrinth (Eus. V. 28). He is there appealed to as one ot the writers, older than Victor of Rome, who had spoken of our Lord as being God as well as man. A reference to him in a lost work of TertuUian, known to us through a citation by Jerome in the art. s.v. in his Catalogue (c. 24), shews his high reputation in Tertullian's time. Our fullest information is from the notices in Eusebius {H. E. iv. 13, 26), who gives a list of Melito's works with which he was acquainted, together with 3 extracts. His Apology presented to the emperor Marcus Aurelius may have been his latest work. It is placed under a.d. 170 in Jerome's transla- tion of the Chronicle of Eusebius, but the date may be more safely inferred from a passage preserved by Eusebius. Melito, addressing Marcus Aurelius, and speaking of Augustus, says, " Of whom you have become the much- wished-for successor, and shall be so with your son if you keep that philosophy which took its beginning with Augustus," etc. That he here says " with your son," not " with your brother," is evidence that the date is later than the death of Lucius Verus, in 169. Commodus was associated in the empire with his father in 176. The passage quoted does not shew whether this association had already taken place or was only anticipated. In 177 per- secutions of Christians were raging \iolently all over the empire. Melito's memorial seems to have been written at the very first begin- ning of that persecution. The Christians seem to be suttering more in their property than in their persons, and MeUto is able to express a doubt whether the emperor had sanctioned the cruelties, and a belief that, when he had examined the case, he would interfere in their favour. Melito declares that Nero and Domitian were the only emperors who had sanctioned persecutions of Christians, and probably from this passage TertuUian derived his argument that only bad emperors had persecuted the Christians. On the other side, as forbidding interference, Mehto quotes the letter of Hadrian to Fundanus, and letters of Antoninus, at a tune when Aurelius himself was associated in the government, to the people of Larissa, of Thessalonica, and of Athens. One extract from the Apology pre- served in the Paschal Chronicle (p. 483, Din- dorf) gave rise to some discussion in the early Socinian controversy. " We are not wor- shippers of senseless stones, but adore one only God, Who is before all and over all, and [over] His Christ truly God the Word before all ages." The second "over" given in Rader's ed. of the Chronicle does not appear in the latest ed. (Dindorf's). An Apology is extant in a Syriac trans, in one of the Nitrian MSS. in the Brit. Mus., which bears the heading, " The oration of MeUto the Philosopher held before Antoninus Caesar, and he spoke to Caesar that he might know God, and he shewed him the way of truth, and began to speak as follows." Prob- ably the Syriac translator, finding in his Greek original that the Apology was " ad- dressed " to the emperor, made a blunder in supposing it delivered viva voce. It was Melito printed in Syriac, with English trans, by Cureton (Spicileg. Syr.) and by Pitra, with a Latin trans, by Kenan (Spicil. Solesm. vol. ii.) which has been revised in Otto's Apologists, vol. ix. Although this Syriac Apology appears complete, it contains none of the passages cited by Eusebius, and its character seems entirely different from that of the work known to Eusebius. The latter was mainly intended to induce the emperor to stop the persecution by shewing that the Christians did not deserve the treatment inflicted. The Syriac Apology is a calm argument against the absurdities ot polytheism and idolatry, such as might have been written with the hope of making a convert of the emperor, but does not exhibit any of the mental tension of one suffering under unjust persecution. The Syriac Apology is, therefore, probably not the same as that from which Eusebius made extracts. Did, then, Melito write two apologies ? The Paschal Chronicle records an Apology of Melito under both a.d. 164 and 169, but this is clearly only a double mention of one Apology, probably caused by the double mention in Eus. iv. 13, 26. The ascription of the Syriac Apology to Melito is probably an error, though the document is perhaps not much later. There are slight, but we think decisive, traces of the use of Justin Martyr's Apology : it must therefore be later than that. It is addressed to an emperor Antoninus, who might have been Pius, Aurelius, Caracalla, or Elagabalus. Probably one of the latter two is intended. The writer's point of view seems to be Syrian. In enumerating heathen idolatries he omits (as we should not expect from Melito writing in Asia Minor) Cybele and the Ephesian Diana ; while he speaks in much detail of Syrian objects of worship, and seems to be personally acquainted with the city of Mabug, the Syrian Hierapolis. The admonition, "If they wish to dress you in a female garment, remember that you are a man," suggests Elagabalus rather than any of the other emperors mentioned. One other passage sup- ports a presumption of Syrian authorship. The writer speaks of the world as destined to suffer from three deluges — one of wind, one of water, one of fire ; the first two already past, the third still to come. The deluge of wind is that by which the tower of Babel was supposed to have been destroyed (see the Sibylline verses quoted by Theophilus, ad Autol. ii. 31, and also Abydenus, quoted by Eus. Praep. Evan. ix. 14). " Flood of wind " occurs in the work called The Cave of Treasures (Cureton, Spicil. Syr. p. 94), and in the Etliiopic book of Adam (Ewald's Jahrbilcher der Bibl. Wiss. 1853). It has been contended that the reference to the deluge of fire shews acquaintance with II. Peter; but it seems to us that this can by no means be positively asserted. On N.T. allusions in this Apology see Westcott (A''. T. Canon, p. 219). A- gainst placing it so late as Elagabalus it may be urged that its conclusion, if interpreted naturally, speaks of the emperor as having children ; and though the apologist might be merely expressing a wish on behalf of the emperor's unborn successors, it is simpler to refer the work to the time of Caracalla, who MELITO spent some time in Syria. There seem also traces that Tertulliaii, who was acquainted with the Eusebian Apology of Melito, also used this one. Such perhaps may be the identification of Serapis with Joseph and the remark that the old heathen gods were prac- tically less honoured than the emperors, since their temples had to pay taxes. Of other works of .Melito the Trtfti rof- rdcrxo is first in the list of Eusebius. The date is limited by the opening sentence whicli Eusebius quotes : "In the proconsulate over Asia of Servilius Paulus, at the time that Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there took place much dispute at Laodicea about the Faschal celebration (fxirfadi'TOi vard Kaipdv in those days, and these things were written." Kuftn- us here reads " Sergius Paulus," and this appears from other authorities to have been the real name of the proconsul in question, probably within the limits 164-166. The appeal of I'olycrates to the authority of Melito makes it clear tliat the latter, in his work on Easter celebration, took the yuarto- deciman side. Eusebius says that the work of Melito drew forth another, no doubt on the opposite side, from Clement of .\lexandria. It has been conjectured that Melito was the Ionian whom Clement (Eus. H. E. v. 11) enumerates as among his teachers. It should be noticed that the extant fragments of Melito refute the notion that Quartodecimanism was inconsistent with the reception of the Fourth Gospel. Melito speaks of our Lord's three years' ministry after His baptism, which he could not have learned from the Synoptists. He accounts for the fact that a ram, not a lamb, was substituted as a sacrifice for Isaac, by the remark that our Lord, when He suffered, was not young like Isaac, but of mature years. Possibly here may be an indication that Melito held the same theory concerning our Lord's age as Irenaeus and other Asiatics, derived no doubt from John viii. 57. The whole passage shews that Melito believed strongly in the atoning efficacy of Christ's death, and l<joked on Him as the sacrificial lamb. The word he uses is d/w6s, as in the Gospel, not apviof, as in the Apocalypse. The next work of Melito from which Euse- bius has given an extract is called Selec- tions, addressed to a friend named Onesimus, who had asked Melito to make selections from the law and the prophets of passages concern- ing our Saviour, and concerning all our faith, and also to give him accurate information as to the number and order of the O.T. books. Melito relates that he had gone up to the East to the place where the things were preached and done, and had accurately learned the books of the O.T. He enumerates the five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Kuth, four of Kings, two of Chronicles, Psalms of Uavid, Proverbs of Solomon, also called Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the twelve Minor Prophets in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. The last, no doubt, includes Nehe- miah and possibly Esther, which is otherwise omitted. This list gives the Hebrew canon adopted by the Church of England ; but gives a difierent order of the books from that of Josephus, and does not attempt to make MELITO 721 the number ol books 2i. The ezprcstiont " the Old Hooks," •• the IJouks u( the O.T.," »hcw clearly that the church ol Mclito's lime had a .\etv ieslamcnt canon. Eusebms enumerates other works of Melito as being known to him. The titles rn.ible us , imperfectly to guess at their contents, and i sometimes the titles thcmvlves are unccrt^ii. (4) t4 T</ji jro,Vr<iot koI rpoipijT<M>, very likely two separate works "on Christian Couvcrsa- tion " and "on tiie Prophets" oupled ti»- gether by Eusebius, because containixl iu the same volume in the Caesareau Library, (j) irefM iKKXrjaias. It has been conjectureil that the breaking out of .Monlanism may have made it necessary to insist im the authority of the church. (0) iripi «ri'/xa»^. Possibly the (Juartodeciinan controversy led to discussion about the Lord's Uay. This word nipiani), used in Kev. i. 10, is touiul also in Igiiatius's Ep. to tlie Magnesians, c. 9, and in the letter of Uionysius of Corinth to Sotcr (Eus. iv. 33). (7) irtpi <pO<Jtu% dvOfxiiirov. («) wtpl w\m*ui. This book on the formation of man, and (7) on the nature of man, if that be the reading, are conjectured to have been directed against Gnostic theories. {9) Xipi ixanorjt riartutt aiaOi/rripiuv. What was the subject of a treatise on the obedience of faith of the senses has perpli'xed ancient as well as modcnx readers of this Ust. Jerome thinks that a rtpi may have dropped out of the text, and that j there were two treatises, one on the Obedience of Faith, one on the Senses. (10) wtfH f i/x^i I Kai aionaroi Kai vo6s, probably on Human j Nature. (11) irtpi XoirrpoO. (12) wtpi dXi/- Cetas, perhaps an apologetic work in commcu- , dation of Christianity. (13) wtpi (cWo-cwt koI yeufirewi Xpiffrov. Ancient writers with one consent apply to our Lord the Kc^oi iKnai j ixi dpx^" oSiix aiiTou of Prov. viii. 22. For a ! full discussion of this verse see Athan. Or. Cont. Ar. li. 44. (14) T</)i rrpo<priTtiai. A I work with the same title written, or intended I to be written, by Clement of Alexandria, was directed against the Montanists (Strom, iv. 13, I p. 605), and this may also have been the design of this work of Melito, if the .Montanist con- troversv had broken out before his death. (15) TTtpi </)iXot«Waj. (16) 17 K\ui. What was the nature of this work we have no inform- ation. A Latin work entitled Melttonis Clavu Sanclae Scripturae mentioned by Labbc in 1653 as preserved in llie library of the Cler- mont College is a medieval Latin composition. (17) (i«) rd irtpi Tov 5taii6\ov *ai rr/i dTO*aXi>- \f>iwf ludyi>ov. The form of expression would indicate that both subjects were discussed in a single treatise. (19) irtpi «V<rw>idroi' Otou. It would be natural to translate this. On God I Incarnate, and we have other evitlence that Melito wrote on the Incarnation. When he speaks of the two natures which our Lord combined, there is no trace of anthrojxiinor- phisiii in the attributes which ho ascribes to the Divine nature. On the other hand Origcu, commenting on (.<n. i. 26 (vol. vui. 49. Loinui.) and argumg against the .\uthro|xjuiorphite«, says " of whom is .Melito, who has left a certam ' treatise, wtpi rov ircJfJMTOf dfat rdr tft6*" ! Probably Origeii made a mistake, and that the 40 722 MELLITUS subject of Melito's treatise was the Incarna- tion. But it is not impossible that a writer as orthodox as Melito may have held the opinions which Origen imputes to him. The list given shews Melito's great activity | as a writer, and the wide range of his writings. Of spurious writings ascribed to Melito, we need only mention a commentary on the Apocalj'pse, the ascription to Melito appar- ently having been made by the fraud or ignorance of some transcriber, and not intend- ed in the work itself, which is a compilation from various writers, some as late as the 13th cent. Through two works, de Passione S. Joannis and de Transitu b. Mariae, with which Melito's name was connected, it became widely known in the West, though with various dis- guises of form, such as Mileto, Miletus, and Mellitus, the last being the most common. The remains of Melito are given by Routh (Rel. Sac. i. 113-153), and more fully by Otto {Corp. Apol. Chr. ix. 375-478I. See also Piper (Stud, und Krit. 1838, p. 54), Westcott [N. T. Canon, p. 218), Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1876). Cf. esp. Harnack, Die Uberlieferung der Apologeten (Text, und Untersuch. I. 240), and Gesch. der Alt. Chr. lib. i. 246 ff. [g.s.] Mellitus, the first bp. of London and third j archbp. of Canterbury. He was not one of the ' original missionaries who accompanied Augus- tine to Britain, but was sent by St. Gregory in 601 to strengthen the hands of the newly consecrated archbishop and to convey to him the pall. Mellitus, accompanied by Lauren- tius, whom Augustine had sent to Rome, and by Justus, Paulinus, and Rufinianus, left Rome c. July 22, 601. They carried letters of commendation to the bps. of Vienne, Aries, Lyons, Gap, Toulon, Marseilles, Chalons on the Saone, Metz, Paris, Rouen, and Angers ; to Theodoric, Theodebert, and Clothair, kings of the Franks, and also to queen Brunichild. These names probably indicate the route of the missionaries, and there is no evidence to support Ussher's conjecture that they visited Columbanus at Luxeuil on the way. To Augustine Mellitus brought also the answers which Gregory sent to the questions laid before him by Laurentius, and a supply of church furniture, " all things which were needed for worship and the ministry of the church, sacred vessels, altar-cloths, church ornaments, priestly and clerical robes, relics of saints and mart>T:s, and several books " (Bede, H. E. i. 29). Some account of the remains of St. Gregory's benefaction, pre- served at Canterbury in the 15th cent., is given by Elmham (ed. Hardwick, pp. 96 seq.). Augustine, having received from the pope authority to consecrate bishops for the newly converted nation, chose Mellitus for the see of London. That city, properly the capital of the East Saxons, was then under Ethelbert, king of Kent, who had prevailed on the dependent kings of the East Saxons to receive Christianity, and who now founded the church of St. Paul as the cathedral of the new bishop- ric. No distinct date is given by Bede for the consecration of Mellitus, but it must have occurred some time between the winter of 601 and the early summer of 604, the most prob- able date for the death of Augustine. Mellitus continued undisturbed in his see MENANDER during the reign of Ethelbert. He joined in the letter addressed by Laurentius to the Irish bishops (Bede, H. E. ii. 4), and in 609 went to Rome to treat with pope Boniface IV. on matters necessary for the welfare of the English church. The precise object of this journey is not mentioned by the historian, who, however, tells us that MelUtus was pre- sent at a council on Feb. 27, 610, subscribed to the decrees, and subsequently carried them to the English church. The purpose of this coun- cil was to secure the peace of the monastic order and two versions of a decree are extant (Labbe, Cone. V. 619; Mansi, C071C. x. 504; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 64, 65). Bede adds that Mellitus also brought letters from the pope to Ethelbert, Laurentius, and the whole clergv and people of the English (W. Malmesb. G. P. lio. i.; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 65). The monks of St. Augus- tine's also shewed a bull of Boniface IV., dated Feb. 27, 611, addressed to Ethelbert, mention- ing the request presented by Mellitus, and confirming the privileges of St. Augustine's (Elmham, ii.s. pp. 129-131 ; Thorn, ap. Twys- den, c. 1766 ; Haddan and Stubbs, iii. 67-69). On the death of Ethelbert the newly-founded church was in danger of dissolution.' MeUitus and Justus fled to Gaul, and Laurentius was only saved by a miracle from the disgrace of following them. Bede tells very circumstan- tially the story of MeUitus's flight. The sons of the Christian king Sebert had continued to be pagans. Seeing the bishop celebrate the holy communion and give the Eucharist to the people, they presumptuously asked, " Why do you not give us the white bread which you used to give to Saba our father and still give to the people ? " The bishop replied that if they would be baptized they should have the bread. They refused the sacrament of initia- tion, but still demanded the bread. On MeUitus's persistence in refusing it, they banished him. He fled to Kent and after- wards to Gaul, whence he was recalled by Laurentius after the conversion of Eadbald. He probably remained at Canterbury until the death of Laurentius in 619, when he succeeded to the vacant see, which he held till 624. That his activity was impaired by gout is nearly all that is preserved about him. Bede mentions that he consecrated a church to the Blessed Virgin within the precincts of St. Augustine's monastery, and that, a great fire at Canterbury occurring in a place termed the " martjTrdom of the four crowned mart>TS," he was carried there and at his prayer a wind drove the flames southwards and saved the city (H. E. ii. 16, 17)., ^ [s.] Menander, a Samaritan false teacher in the early part of the 2nd cent. Our knowledge of him is probably all derived, either directly or indirectly, from Justin Martyr. What he tells directly (Apol. i. 26, 56) is, that Menander was a native of the Samaritan town Cappar- atea, and a disciple of Simon, and. Like him, had been instigated by the demons to deceive many by his magic arts ; that he had had success of this kind at Antioch, where he had taught, and had persuaded his followers that they should not die ; and that, when Justin wrote, some of them survived, holding this persuasion. Justin wrote a special treatise against heresies, and from this, in all prob- MENNAS ability, was derived the somewhat fuller account sivcn by Ironaeus (i. 2}, p. 100). Acc.)rding to this, Monandor did not, like Simon, declare himself to be the chief power, but taught that that power was unknown to all. He gave the same account as Simon of the creation of the world — viz. that " it had been made by angels " who liad taken their origin from the Ennoea of the supreme power. He put himself forward as having been sent by the invisible powers to mankind as a Saviour, enabling men, bv the magical power which he taught them, to get the better of these creative angels. He taught that through baptism in his own name liis disciples received a resurrection, and should thence- forward abide in immortal youth. Irenaeus evidently understood this language literally, and the history of heretical sects shews that it is not incredible that such promises mav have been made ; but the continuance of a belief which the experience of tlie past must have disproved indicates that a spiritual interpretation must have been found. Cyril of Jerusalem (C. I. iS) treats the denial of a literal resurrection of the body as a specially Samaritan heresy. Irenaeus (iii. 4, p. 179), having spoken of Valentinus and Marcion, says that the other Gnostics, as had been shewn, took their be- ginnings from Menandcr, the disciple of Simon ; and there is every probability that it was from the "Samaritan" Justin that Irenaeus learned his pedigree of Gnosticism, viz. that it originated with the Samaritan Simon, and was continued by his disciple Menander, who taught at Antioch, and that there Saturuinus (and, apparently, Basilides) learned from him. The name Menandrianists occurs in the list of Hegesippus (Eus. H. E. iv. 22). Tertullian evidently knows only what he has learned from Irenaeus {de Anim. 23, 50 ; de Res. Cam. 5). The same may be said of all later writers, and it is scarcely worth while to men- tion the imaginary condemnation of these heretics by Lucius of Rome, invented by " Praedestinatus." [c.s.] Hennas, patriarch of Constantinople, 536- 552. On the deposition of .\ntiiimus, Mennas, superior of the great convent of St. Samson at Constantinople, was elected to tlie see. Pojie Agapetus was then at C(jnstantinople, having presided at the council there wliich dealt witli the case of .^nthimus, and himself consecrated Mennas. Mennas accepted the councilof Chal- cedon ; he was a Catholic, well known for his knowledge and integrity. On May 2, 536, he presided at a council assembled by Justinian at Constantinople at the request of 11 bishops of the East and of Palestine, and of 33 other ecclesiastics, to finish the case of Anthimus, and to decide those of Severus of Antit>ch, Peter of Apamea, and the Eutychian monk Zoara. The request had been made to pope Agapetus, who had died on .Vpr. 22, before the council could be held. The result of the coun- cil was that, Anthimus having been si night for in vain, he was forbidden to resume his episco- pate of Trapezus and deposed from his rank ; the others were anathematized. .Mennas ob- tained from Justinian the passing of a law, ; dated Aug. 6, 536, confirming the Acts of this 1 MERLINUS 723 : council. He also sent them to I'ctcr of jcruu- lem, who held a council to receive them. On Sept. 13, s\o. p.pe ViKJlius wrote to Mrnna« and to the emperor Justinian, by the h.iiulit of Dominicus the paliui.iii. I In mdcav.iurctl to carry on the influence which AK.tpetu« had over the affairs of the church o( ConstAiitiiii.plc. He confirmed the anatliemas pronouncetl by Mennas against Sev.rus ..( .\iitioch, Ivtrr of .\pamea, .■\nthiinus. .uid other schism.»tics offering comnumicm again t.i all who should come to a better mind. Menn.is dic<l on Aug. 5, 552, just before the si-comi great council of Const-intinojilc. called the fifth ' general. It was in the midst of the anKry discussions about the " Three Chapter*.'' Mennas had signed the declaration of faith \ addressed to pope Vigilius by Thc(Klorc of Corsaria and others to satisfy his protests and to preserve the peace of the church. In the controversies which gave rise to the Lateran council in 649. a Monothelite writing was brought forward by Sergius patriarch of Constantinople as a genuine work of Mennas, supposed to be addresseil to pope Vigilius. But in the third council of Constantinople, I Nov. 10, 680, this document was prove<l to be I the composition of the monk George, who I confessed himself its author. I Mansi, viii. 869, 870, 960, ix. 157, etc., x. 863, 971, 1003, xi. 226, etc. ; l.iberatus, Brev. xxi. in Pair. Lat. Ixviii. 1039 (see also the dis- . sertations at the end of that volume) ; Vigil. Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. Ixix. 21, 25 ; Agapet. t Pap. Ep. in Patr. Lat. xlviii. ; Evagr. iv. 36 in Pair. Gk. Ixxxvi. pt. 2, 416, etc. ; Ceillier, xi. 121, 104. 9(^8, xii. 922, 947, 953- [W.M.S.] Merlinus. The prophecies of Merlin, which j had great influence in the middle ages, re- presented the enduring hate of the Welsh for j the English conquerors, and were probably the comp<isition of Merddin, son of Slorvryn, whose patron, (iwenddolew, a prince in Strath- ' Clyde, and an ui)holder of the ancient faith, i perished a.d. 577 at the battle of .\rderydd, j fighting against Khydderch Hael, who had I been converted by St. Columba to C hristianity. When the northern Kymry were driven into j Wales, Cornwall, and Urittany, they re- localized the story of Merlin in their new I abodes. Merddin is now rejiTrsented as a Christian, and said to be buried in Hardsey, the island of the Welsh saints; but much of •his career is p.issed in Cornwall, whicli was I long under tin- s.iiiie dynasty as South Wales, even after tiie English got posst-ssioii of the 'coast at Bristol, and broke the connexion by ; land between the two distrii ts. .Vs the mas* of tradition grew into the shape in which wc find it in Nennius, and later on in (icoflrcy. Merlin becomes a wholly mythical character, the prophet of his rac«-. It i* not till Geoflrcy of M<Miinouth that we find the boy rallrti Mer- lin and m.ide theconfulant of Ulherpcndragon and of Arthur, and able to bring the stones of Stonehi.nge from Ireland. .N'eiiiiius does not mention Merlin among the early bards, and tlie poems attributed to him were really com- p(jsed in tlie 1 2th cent., when there was a great outburst of Welsh poetry (Stepliens, Ltteraturt of the Kymry, § 4). Among these poem* there is a dialogue between .Merddin and hi* sister Gwcnddydd ("The Dawn"), which contains 724 MESROfi£S prophecies as to a series of Welsh rulers. The story of Merlin made an impression abroad as well asin England. Layamon alludes to several of his prophecies and they soon gained popular fame. A Vita Merlini in Latin hexameters, also attributed, though wrongly, to Geoffrey of Monmouth, was printed by the Roxburghe Club, 1830 ; the later English forms of the story by the Early English Text Society. The one fact embodied in the legend is the long- continued enmity of the Kymry to the Enghsh invaders ; but even this almost disappeared when the story became part of the great romance of Arthur. [c.w.b.] Mesrobes, one of the most celebrated pa- triarchs and historians of Armenia, born in 354 at the town of Hasecasus, now Mush (Tozer's Turkish Armenia, p. 286) and edu- cated under Nerses Magnus, the fourth patriarch of Armenia from St. Gregory the Illuminator, to whom also Mesrobes acted as secretary, an office which he likewise filled in the court of king Varaztad till dethroned by the Romans a.d. 386 (Langlois, Fragm. Hist. Grace, t. v. pt. ii. pp. 297-300). He then took holy orders and sought a solitary life. He be- came coadjutor to the patriarch Sahag in 390, when he devoted himself to the extirpation of the remains of idolatry still existing in Ar- menia. Under him a great revival of Arme- nian literature took place. From the intro- duction of Christianity Syriac had become the dominant language, a knowledge of it being deemed a necessary qualification for holy orders (cf. Agathang. Hist. Tiribat. ; Zenob. Hist. Daron. in Langlois, I.e. pp. 179, 335, Disc. Prelim, p. xiv. ; Goriun, Hist, de S. Mesrop; Vartan, Hist. d'Armhiie, p. 51, Venice, 1862). Mesrobes devoted himself to revive the ancient Armenian culture, some fragments of which can yet be traced in Moses Chorenensis. He was an accomplished Greek, Persian, and Syriac scholar, but wished to revive a national literature. His first step was to restore, if not to invent, an alphabet for the Armenian tongue instead of depending on the Syriac character. He induced the patriarch Sahag, alias Isaac, to convoke a national council at the city of Vagharschabad to consider the question, at which the king Vram-Schapouh assisted. Learning that a Syrian bishop, one Daniel, possessed an ancient Armenian alphabet, Mesrobes sent a priest named Abel to him, who brought it back. It is supposed to have consisted of 22 or 27 letters. With this as a basis and with the help of various persons who pos- sessed some traditionary knowledge of ancient Armenian, as Plato chief librarian at Edessa and two learned rhetoricians, Epiphanius and Rufinus, he composed the alphabet which the Armenians adopted in 406, the seven vowels having been made known, it was said, by direct revelation from heaven (cf. Langl. I.e. Disc, prelim, p. xv. ; Moses Choren. Hist. Armin. lib. iii. cc. 52, 53, and forminutedetails of the whole question, Karekin, Hist, de la litt. Armen. pp. 8 seq. Venice, 1865; Jour. Asiat. 1867, t. I, p. 200). Mesrobes attracted great niunbers to his schools and sent the ablest pupils to study at Edessa, Athens, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and even Rome, whence they brought back the most METHODttJS authentic copies of the Scriptures, the Fathers, Acts of the councils, and the profane writers. These young scholars endeavoured to adapt the Armenian tongue to the rules of Greek grammar, translating intoArmenian the gram- mar of Dionysius the Thracian, an ed. of which with a French trans, was pub. at Paris in 1830. This Hellenizing movement among them in cent. 5 was analogous to similar ones in cents. 6, 7, 8, among the Persians and Monophysites, and in cent. 9 among the Arabs, movements to which we owe the preservation of some of the most precious monuments of antiquity, as Tatian's long-lost Diatessaron, pub. at Venice out of the Armenian in 1875, cf. Qtly. Rev. Apr. 1881, art. on the "Speaker's Commentary on N.T." (cf. Renan, Hist, des lang. semit. p. 297). Among the disciples of Mesrobes were all the leading writers of Armenia, including Leontius presb. and mart., Moses Taronensis, Kioud of Arabeza, afterwards patriarch, Mam- prus lector, Jonathan, Khatchig, Joseph of Baghin, Eznig, Knith bp. of Terchan, Jere- miah, Johannes of Egegheats, Moses Chorenen- sis, Lazarus of Barb, Gorium biographer of Mesrobes, EUsaeus (Langl. I.e. ; Neumann's pref. to Hist, of Vartan in Public, of Orient. Trans. Fund, London, 1830). The Armenian church through their labours possessed a ver- nacular edition of the Bible in 410. Mesrobes also invented an alphabet for Georgia similar to the Armenian but containing 28 letters. Both alphabets had the letters arranged after the Greek order. The Armenians attribute to him the settlement of their liturgy. Sahag died Sept. 9, 440, and was succeeded as bishop by Mesrobes, until he died on Feb. 19, 441. The Life of Mesrobes by Goriun, pub. by the Mekhitarite Fathers at Venice in 1833, was trans, into German and pub. by Dr. B. Welte (Tiibingen, 1841). See Moses Choren. Hist. Armen. lib. iii. cc. xlvii. lii.-liv. Ivii. Iviii. Ix. Ixi. Ixvi. Ixvii. for copious details of his life, and an art. by Petermann s.r. in Herzog's Real Encyklop. [g.t.s.] Methodius (called also Et(bulius), com- memorated June 20 (Basil, Menol.) and Sept. 18 {Mart. Rom.), a Lycian bp. highly distin- guished as a writer, bp. first of Olympus, after- wards of Patara, early in 4th cent. Jerome {Cat. 83), Socrates (vi. 13), and Maximus {in Sckol. Dionys. Areop. 7) state that he was bp. of Olympus. Leontius of Byzantium calls him bp. of Patara, and he is thus known to all later Greek authorities. Jerome's unsupported statement that he was translated to Tyre was probably due to a transcriber's error for Patara in the authority which Jerome followed. Jerome states that " he was crowned with mart>T:dom at the end of the last [i.e. Dio- cletian's] persecution ; or as some affirm under Decius and Valerian, at Chalcis in Greece." The earlier date is inconsistent, with the facts that Methodius wrote against Porphyry and that Eusebius speaks of him as a contemporary {ap. Hieron. Apol. adv. Rufin. I. vol. ii.). The mart>Tdom of a Lycian or Phoenician bp. at a place so remote as Euboea must also be pronounced incredible. The places were not then even under the same ruler, Greece being under Licinius and the I Eastern provinces under Maximin. Accord- I ingly Sophronius, the Greek translator of St. METHODIUS Jerome, substitutes for Chalcis " in (.irccce." "in the East," wtu'ucr s.>ine nuKleru critics have concluded that Methodius sufTered at Chalcis in S>Tia. But no weight can (airlv be attached to this correction of Sophronius ; and it is more probable that a MethiKlius whose name tradition had preser\ed as a martyr at Chalcis under Oecius was wrongly identitied with the better -known l.vcian Mshop. The evidence that the latter was a inartvr at all is weak, and the silence of Kuse- bius is a difficulty ; but Thcodoret calls him bishop and martyr, as do the late Creek writers, while the Menaea make the mode of death decapitation. Methodius wrote much, and his works were widely read and his^hly valued. Jerome several times refers to him : Epiphanius calls him d»7jo \6yios Kai ^(podiii irepi rij^ (i\rj$(iat ayu}¥i(Tiixfvo$ ; Gregory Nyssen or .\nastasius Sinaita (for the authorship is disputed), 6 jroXi^s iv ffo't>i<f. ; Andrew of Caesarea, 6 ^l^as ; Eustathius of Antioch, 6 rrjt dyiat Siiot fLyrifi-qs, and he is quoted by Thcodoret, besides many later writers. Photius has preserved copious extracts {Codd. 234-237) ; other shorter ex- tracts are to be found in Catenae, and others are given in the Xitrian MSS. (see Wright, Cal. .\[SS. Syr. in Brit. Mus.). The works of which we ha%e knowledge are : (i) The only one extant entire is the Sy»»- posium, or Banquet of the Ten Virgins. It reveals Methodius as an ardent admirer of Plato, from whom he probably derived his preference for dialogue form. In the present case he has not only imitated him in several passages, but has taken from him the whole idea of his work. As in Plato's Symposium the praises of Love arc celebrated, so here are proclaimed the glories of Virginity. The imitation of the form of Plato's work is even kept up in not presenting the dialogue directly, but as reported by one present at it. Eubu- lius, or Eubuliufn, receives from a virgin Gregorion an account of a banquet in the gardens of Arete, not under Plato's plane-tree, but under an agnus-castus. in which ten virgin guests, at their hostess's command, pronounce ten successive discourses in praise of chastity. At the end of the banquet the victor Thecla leads off a hymn, to which the rest standing round as a chorus respond. But Methodius has caught very little of Platcj's stvle or spirit. He has little dramatic power, and there is often little to distinguish one speaker from another. Of his general soundness on (jur Lord's Divin- ity there can be no doubt ; and we have not found anything in the writings ascribed to him which an orthodox man might not have writ- ten, especially before the Arian disputes had made caution of language necessary. Else- where {Cod. 162) Photius mentions Methodius with Athanasius and other great names as one from whose writings Andrew had produced extracts garbled and falsified S'j as to teach heresy. (2) In the Catalogue of Jerome he gives the first place to the writings of .Methi>dius against Porphyry. He elsewhere refers to them (in Comm. in Dan. Pref. c. 13. vol. v. pp. 618, 730 ; Apol. ad Pammach. vol. i. ; Ep. 70 ad Mag- num, i. 42s), stating in Ep. 70 that they ran to 10,000 lines. Philostorgius (viii. 14) rates METHODIUS 72» the replv of Ap..!liii.irius t.. Porphvrv 4» !« superior to ritlirr th.it In Kuvbiun or by MethodiiK. .\11 thrrr rrplir* h.»vr i^rUhrd. (3) On the Kf\urrfclt'>n. This w.irk h«« been lost, but l.ir«e rxtr.irt* h.ivr Ih^h pre- serve<l bv Kpiph.iniu<«. Harr. f.4, .uid by Photius. Cod. 234. *r* .ilv. joh.in. I)4masc de ImaR. Oral. z. The text 4s Kivrn bv Com- bcfis and reprintci by Mignr sui.prr%w-% (he heretical portions o| the EpiphaniAii rxtrart*. This work also is in the form ..f .» PUtonic dialogue, and is in refut.ili<<n of Origen. The Origenist speakers denv the m.iteri.iljiy „( thr resurrecti<m b'xlv. and urge th.it it is rn'Uigh if we believe that the s.une form shall riw again, beautified and Rlorified. In hpavm our bodies will be spiritu.il ; and *•> St. Paul teaches: " It is sown a natur.tl h kIv ; it is raised a spiritu.il b >dv " ; " FIrsh .in-1 blo.«| shall not inherit the kingdom of (,.hI." Man had been originallv in Paradise, that is, in the third he<iven (II. Cor. xii.). having thrr(> none but a spiritual body ; having sinned he wa» cast down to earth, where dxl made him " coats of skins," that is to sav, (or .1 punish- ment clad him in our present gn^ss material bodies, which clog and fetter the soul and out of which spring our temptati^ins to sin ; for without the body the soul cannot sin. When we rise therefore to dwell where sin cannot be, we shall be like the angels, liberated from the flesh which has burdened us here. In reply, Meth'xlius acutely points out the in- consistence of teaching that the soul cannot I sin without the body, and at the s.ime time that the body had been impose*! on the soul j as a punishment for sins previously rom- I mitted ; and in truth the body is an instru- ment for good as well as for evil. Paradise and the third heaven are not identifie<l (II. Cor. xii.) ; two distinct revelations are spoken of. It is said that we shall hereafter be as the angels, that is, like them, not subject to change or decay ; but not that wc shall be angels or without earthlv b'xlies. (lod doe* not make mistakes ; if He had meant us to be angels He would have made us so at first. His creatures are diverse : besides angels, there are thrones, principalities, and powers. By death He docs not design to turn us into something different in kind from what He at first meant us to be ; but only as an artificer, when a w.)rk of his is polluted with stains which cannot otherwise be ren»ove<l, melt* it down, and makes it anew ; so by death wc shall be remade free from the pollution of tin. Similarly the world will n>>t be destroyed, but made into a new and purer earth, fit for the risen saints. (4) De Pylhonissa. — Jerome tells us that thl» work, now lost, was directe«l .iKJin^t Origen. We may presume, therefore, that it* s<-..j>* was. the same as that bearing the same title bv Eustathius of Anti<Mh, vi/. t"> refute the opinion held by Origrn after Justin Martyr that the soul of Samuel was under the power of Satan, and was evoked bv the magical art of the witch of Endor. Meth-nlius's view, however, could not have been the *aine at that of Kustathiu*, for a passage at the clov" of Photius's extract* fnuii the treatl»r on the Resurrection implies a belief that the appear- ance of Samuel was real. 726 MILTIADES (5) Xeno. — Socrates (vi. 13), expressing his indignation against the reviling of Origen by worthless writers who sought to get into notice by defaming their betters, names Methodius as the earliest of Origen's assail- ants ; adding that he had afterwards by wa}' of retractation expressed admiration of him in a dialogue entitled Xeno. We believe the dialogue referred to by Socrates to be iden- j tical with (6). There is nothing in Metho- ! dius's confutations of Origen inconsistent j with his haxdng felt warm admiration for the man ; and he has certainly followed him in his allegorical method of iiiterpretation. (6) Uepl tQv yevrjTil'v. — This work " on I things created " is only known by extracts 1 preserved by Photius {Cod. 235). It is a | refutation of Origenist doctrine as to the eternity of the world, the principal arguments 1 with which Methodius deals being that we cannot piously believe that there ever was a time when there was no Creator, no Almighty Ruler, and that there cannot be a Creator without things created by Him, a Ruler with- out things ruled over, a wavTOKparup without Kparoifxiva. Further, that it is inconsistent with the unchangeableness of God to suppose that, after having passed ages without making anything. He suddenly took to creating. The orthodox speaker deals with his opponent by the Socratic method of question and answer. Photius's extracts begin with a discussion of the text, " Cast not your pearls before swine " ; and we have near the commencement the I phrase, /xapyapiras rod ^evdvos. It is hard to get good sense by translating " pearls of the guest-chamber " ; and with the knowledge we have that one of Methodius's dialogues was called Xeno, we are disposed to think that Xeno was one of the speakers in this dialogue, j and that we are to translate " Xeno's pearls," j i.e. pearls which Xeno presumably had men- 1 tioned, or else that the words tov zlevQvos \ have got transposed and ought to be prefixed i to the extract, the whole being taken from a speech by this interlocutor. Photius savs that Methodius calls Origen a centaur, and interpreters have puzzled as to what he could have meant. In the extracts preserved the orthodox speaker addresses his Origenist inter- locutor as 0) KfVrai'pf without the slightest air of uttering a sarcasm, so that we should be disposed to think that the name of the Origen- ist speaker in this dialogue was Centaurus. (7) On Free Will.— [Maxjmvs (24)]. For the works of Methodius see Migne, vol. xviii. ; Eng. trans, in Schaff's Ante-Nicene^ Fathers; Jahn ; S. Methodii opera, and S. Method. Platonizans, Halis. Sax. 1865. [g.s.] Miltiades (1), an active Christian writer of the 2nd cent. Eusebius tells us (H. E. v. 17) that, besides leaving other records of his dili- gent stud}' of the divine oracles, he composed a treatise " against the Greeks," another "against the Jews," and an "Apology" addressed to the rulers of this world on behalf of the school of philosophy to which he be- longed. It is a natural inference from the plural " rulers " that there were, when Mil- tiades wrote, two emperors, probably Aurehus and Verus. The Apology may be supposed to have been a learned plea for toleration of Christianity, the purity of whose doctrines may MILTIADES have been favourably contrasted with the teaching of heathen philosophy. It is not extant, but seems to have had at the time a high repute. The ^vTiter of the " Little Laby- rinth " (Eus. V. 28) names Miltiades in com- pany with Justin, Tatian, and Clement among the writers in defence of the truth or against contemporary heretics who, before Victor's episcopate, had distinctly asserted the divinity of Christ. TertulUan (adi'. Valentin. 5) names him with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus as a writer against heresy, giving him the appellation, e\adently intended in an honour- able sense, " Sophista Ecclesiarum." St. Jerome twice mentions him (Catal. 39 ; Ep. ad Magnum, vol. i. p. 427), but gives no clear indication that he knew more of him than he had learned from Eusebius. Great obscurity hangs over his relation to Montanism, owing to a strange confusion, either on the part of Eusebius or of his copyists, between the names Miltiades and Alcibiades. In H. E. v. 2 Eusebius tells a story about one of the Lyons confessors named Alcibiades, and, going on to speak about Montanism, mentions an Alcibiades as among its leaders. After the death of Montanus, his sect seems to have been known in Phrygia by the name of its leader for the time being ; and in an anti-Montanist document preserved by Eusebius, v. 16, the sect is called the party of Miltiades. This is the reading of all the MSS. ; yet having regard to the earher passage, editors are disposed here to substitute Alci- biades for Miltiades. If we are not permitted to think that there might have been Mon- tanists of both names, it would seem more natural to make the opposite correction. In c. 16 there was nothing to lead copyists astray ; in c. 2 Eusebius, having named an Alcibiades just before, might easily by a slip of the pen have repeated the same name. This view is strengthened by the fact that at the close of the Muratorian fragment, a name transcribed as " Mitiades " occurs as that of one the ecclesiastical use of whose ^\Titings was totally rejected by the church. This would be explained by the supposition that a Miltiades had written records of Montanist prophes\-ings or some other document, which that sect had regarded as inspired and ad- mitted to church use. But the case is com- phcated further in c. 17 of Eusebius. He begins by saying that the anti-Montanist docu- ment mentioned Miltiades as having written against Montanus ; and then, having given extracts from the document, goes on to give the account we have already used of the other works of Miltiades. But the extract, accord- ing to the reading of all the MSS., names not Miltiades but Alcibiades as the author of an anti-Montanist treatise, "that a prophet ought not to speak in ecstasy." Here editors are compelled to correct the Alcibiades of the ex- tract into Miltiades to make Eusebius con- sistent ; vet this leaves it unexplained why transcribers should go so strangely wrong. Cf. Otto, Corpus Apol. ix. 364. [G.S.] Miltiades (2) (Mekhiades), bp. of Rome after Eusebius, from July 2, 310, to Jan. 10 or II, 314, the see having been vacant for 10 months and 14 days. The long vacancy is accounted for by the circumstances of his MILTIADES predecessor's death in exile and the divided I state of the Roman churcii at the tiiu.-. ' The pontificate of Miltiades was marked by the accession, and S'>-calleil conversion, o( Con- stantine the fireat, and the definite termina- tion of Dicx-letian's persecution. T<i Miltiades , the possessions of the Christians at Rome, including the cemeteries, were at length re- stored by Maxentius : " Melchiades was re- corded to have sent deacons with letters from the emperor Maxentius and from thi> pref»H-t of the Praetorium to the prefect of the city, that they might recover possession of what had been taken away in the time of persecu- tion, and which the aforesaid emperor had ordered to be restored" (Augustine. Brevic. CoUal. cum Douat. ; die iii. c. ^.j). Constan- tine, after the defeat and death of Maxentius (Oct. 28, 312), promulgated at Milan in 313 with Licinius the full edict of t<ileration known as " the Edict of Milan," which Licin- ius proclaimed in June 313 at Nicomedia in the East. All these important events were during the episcopate of Miltiades, who would be a personal witness of Constantinc's entry into Rome after the battle of the Milvian bridge, with the labarum bonie ali>ft. and the monogram of Christ marked upon the shields of his soldiers. But the pope's name does not become prominent until the complica- tions which soon arose in connexion with the African Donatists. Constantine, according to Optatus, was greatly annoyed at being called upon to settle disputes among the clergy, but he complied with the request, nominating three Gallic bishops whom he commanded to go speedily to Rome to adjudge the matter in conjunction with Miltiades. He wrote a letter preserved by Eusebius, addressed to Miltiades and an unknown Marcus. There is no evidence, in this or other acts of Constan- tine, that he regarded the bp. of Rome as the sole or necessary judge of ecclesiastical causes on appeal. He was, indeed, careful to refer spiritual cases to the spirituality, and he naturally and properlv referred the chief cognizance of a case arising in \V. .\frica to the Roman see, though not to the pope singly, but to him assisted bv assessors whom he named himself. The three bishops of Gaul are named in the letter as colleagues of Md- tiades and Marcus, and it appears from Opta- tus that 15 Italian bishops were added to the conclave, summoned, we may suppose, by Miltiades himself, so that he might hear the case canonicallv in synod with the assistance of the Gallic assesstirs. The decisions of the conclave were dulv transmitted to Constan- tine, whom they fully satisfied {F.p. Con- stant, ad vicar. Africae ; ejusd. ad Episc. Syrac.—Labhp, i. p. i445 ; Kus. H. E. x. 5). Moved, however, by the continued complamts of Donatus and his party, he summonetl the general svnod of Aries (a.'d. 314) with a view to a final settlement. In these further proceed- ings the bp. of Rome does not appe.ar to have been consulted by the emperor, or regardetl as possessing anv position of supremacy. Constantine, professing great reverence for the episcopate in general, and recgnumg the right of the rlcrgv to settle ras/«; ptirelv ecclesiastical, himself set in motion and regulated ecclesiastical proceedings, delegated MINUCIUS PBLIX. MARCUS 737 their .idininislr.iti 11 !> mi< h r. . |^%| ctir^ %% ho chose, and cert v '• > - • ' - deference to the ! find anv protest of his dav .uMiiix; The f.»ct I' met in the I empress F.ui ■ J12) as provinj; til.- tr.i liti. a itu.- t!,.il t .a- stantinc had nt.ide ovrr that paUrr to ih« pope as a residcnrr. Hut it i> not known wUh my certaintv when the p..i>r» rame into \^rt- manent possessi.m ..( the I.itrr.tn. Milti.ides was, in the time ,,» St. AuRiiMjn«. accus«'d bv .VfriiMn Done ■ • ' - one of the prrsbvtrrs of with him given up tic oflerjHl incense umler t , ; Diocletian. Augustine triui<. it><> wh.>l« ch.irge .as unsupported bv dfwumentary eviilencc, and pnb.dily a raiumnv ; and we find no mention of anv »uch charge axain«t Miltiades during his life, when the partv o( Donatus was likely to have m-i'l" i vtr ng point of it h.ad it been know Further, in the onfercrue witli t held A.D. 411 by order of the • onus the charge was alleged, but .n , i . i it broke down (.Vugustine. u.?.). Miltiades w.is burie<l, as his predecessor* since Pontianus till the cominen. . mmt ..( persecution hail been, in the r- • Callistus on the .\ppian Way. 1 had deposited the remain^ "f : predecessi>r Etisebius (/'< ! -.^cr .]. Vet neither of these tw. iiiig to [ early recensions of the 1 m the old papal cr>-pt of that rr-M.i.i.. imt each ' in a separate cuhiculum apart fr. an it. Do j Rossi supposes the approarhi* t.. the ..Id I cry-pt to have been block' ■ ' •' ( hn*- tians to save it from pi I tho i state in which the pass.i. '. have been found confirms tin , , i He has identified positively the cubuulum o| Eusebius, but that of .Milti.vles onlv con- jecturallv (sec Northote and Br.>wnlow. ; Rom. Sotter. p. nf^. .Milti.ides was the last ! pope buried in this cemetery. [ib — v.J MInUCiUS Felix, HarOOI, one of the earliest j and most pleasing of the Latin Chri*ti4n I apologists. His pers.mal hist..rv r.\n ..nlv be g.athered from his own I..M.k. The r.irlinkt writer to mention •i-- ' .1.1 ...ti,., (iMtitut. V. I), wh " non ignobilis 1:. Lactantius mav !>. ' inferencx" fr.>m the mir kIu. ti-u t the h > -k its«-lf, where Minucius tell* h..w he hud takm .advantage of thee. )urt h.'li<lav\ t !• «•■ K ;:<- for Ostia, "ad vindimram fm > curam rrhaxaverant." St. I times mentions Minucius 'f-'f" /' vol. i. p. 221 ; Et> 7" ' ■ : p. 427 ; dt I'ir. llUsl. ■ and describe hi"> -•* Rom.inif. ri • ' drew this ■'■ he (iu.>tes. the date . i : frrome assiiju-. hiiu lik liu lut 1 i! men; but there Is n.. cvtdrnre that ! really knew more than we know our^ .- 728 MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS Still more may the same be said of Eucherius, who speaks of Minucius (Ep. ad Valer. in Pair. Lat. 1. 719). The gens Minucia was widely spread at Rome, and an inscription (Gruter, p. 918) shows among its famihes one with the cognomen Felix. The only extant work of Minucius is a dialogue entitled " Octavius," modelled on the philosophical works of Cicero, whose writings, particularly de Natura Deorum and de Divinatione, Minucius has carefully studied. Minucius recalls a conversation of his lately deceased friend Octavius which resulted in the conversion to Christianity of their common friend Caecilius. He tells how Octavius had come to Rome, and gives a charming descrip- tion of the morning walk on the beach taken by the three friends after they had gone from Rome to Ostia, until at last they sat down for rest and serious discussion on large stones placed for protection of the baths. At the beginning of the walk the heathen Caecilius, as they were passing an image of Serapis, had saluted it, as was customary, by kissing hands, whereupon Octavius charged Minucius with culpable negligence in having allowed his friend to continue in such degrading super- stition. Caecilius challenges Octavius to a formal dispute. The little treatise then divides itself into two parts, containing first a lively attack by Caecilius on the Christian doctrines and practices, then a reply, about twice as long, by Octavius, refuting and re- torting the heathen arguments. Each point of the attack is dealt with in order. Caecilius confesses himself vanquished, gladly ranging himself on the conquering side. The following is an abstract of the argu- ments used by Caecilius on the heathen side. He censures the presumption of the Christians, who, though unlettered men, venture to pro- nounce positively on questions about which the greatest philosophers have doubted ; he denies that there is any good ground for be- lieving in the existence of a God, since the j chance concourse of atoms will sufficiently account for the origin of the world, while the prosperity of the wicked and the misfortunes of the good shew that the world is governed j by no Providence. Then shifting his ground, 1 he urges the duty of worshipping the gods whom their ancestors had worshipped, and the ! folly of rejecting what universal experience I and the consent of all nations had found to be salutary. Each nation had its pecuUar god : | the Romans, the most religious of all, wor- shipped gods of all nations, and so had attained the highest prosperity. The power of their deities had been exhibited in many oracles and prodigies ; only one or two philosophers had ventured to deny their agency, and one of these, Protagoras, had in consequence been banished by the Athenians. Was it not then deplorable that the gods should be assailed by men of the dregs of the people, who, collect- ing credulous women and silly men, banded them in a fearful conspiracy, cemented by secret and detestable rites ? Tales are re- peated, for some of which the authority of Fronto is cited, of the initiation of Christian neophytes by partaking of the blood of a j slaughtered infant, and other customary ! charges. If these things were not true, at : MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS least the obscurity in which they shrouded their rites shewed that they were such as they had cause to be ashamed of. These members of an illegal society dreaded to bring their doctrines into the light of day ; they had no altars, no temples, no images, and were not even in their manner of worship like the Jews, j the only people besides themselves who wor- shipped that wretched lonely God Who had not been able to save His own people from captivity ; yet wished to meddle with every- thing and pry into every thought and every action. Nor was this the only absurdity of Christian doctrine. They threatened destruc- tion to the world, which always had lasted and was bound together by fixed laws, and said that one day it would be burnt up. Yet for themselves, who were not eternal like the world, but were seen to be born and die, they dared to hope for immortality, and expect that their dust and ashes would live again. In the prospect of this imaginary life they gave up all enjoyment of their real present life, trusting in a God Whose impotence was ex- hibited in their daily sufferings from which He was unable to save His worshippers. In fine, if the Christians had any modesty, let them give up philosophy, of which their want of education had made them incapable ; or if they must philosophize, let them follow that greatest of philosophers, Socrates, whose maxim was, " What is above us we have nothing to do with," otherwise the result will be either the destruction of all religion or the adoption of anile superstition. Octavius replies that a hearing shall not be refused to the arguments of Christians because of their low worldly condition. Reason is the common property of all men. It is the rich who, intent on their wealth, are too often un- able to lift their eyes to things divine. Some of those afterwards recognized as the greatest philosophers were at first despised as poor and plebeian. He then establishes, by the ordinary arguments from the order of the universe, the existence and providence and unity of God, confirming his conclusions by the authority of various philosophers, whose opinions respecting the Deity he extracts from Cicero's treatise. In proof how natural is the belief in God's unity, he appeals to the common use of the singular Deus, both in common speech and in the writings of the poets. He shews that the gods whom the heathen worshipped were but deified men, and exposes the absurdity of the fables com- monly told of them, the folly of image-wor- ship, and the cruelty and licentiousness of the rites by which the gods were honoured. He shews that it is false that the Romans owed their prosperity to their religion, since it was by a multitude of irreligious acts that their empire grew, and because their original native gods, to whom, if to any, must be ascribed the origin of their greatness, had been deposed from their position by the adoption of gods of the conquered peoples. He traces the source of all idolatry to the operation of the demons who, having lost their first estate, desired to draw others into the same ruin as themselves, who inspired oracles, wrought fictitious cures and other pretended miracles to deceive men, and were also the inventors and instigators of MINUCIUS FELIX. MARCUS the caluiuiiics again>i Cliii>u.iiiiiv. All lhi>. was attested by their >'\vii coiifessimi when exorcised by Christians. Turning to the charges made against the Cliristians. Octavius not only denies and rof\ites them, but retorts them on the heathen, who had been the more ready to believe that others had been Kuiltv of them because they hatl done the like thenj- selves. If the Christians liad not temples, or images, or altars, it was becavjsc they would not degrade the majesty of the infinite' tiod by limiting Him to a nairow place. Man him- self was God's best image, a holv life the best sacrifice that could be offeretl Him. tiod is invisible, but so is the wind whose effects we , witness ; so is our own soul ; the sun itself, the source of all light, we cannot look at. As for the Christian doctrines which Caecilius had represented as absurd and im redible, different . heathen philosophers had taught a future destruction of the world by fire or otherwise ; some of them had taught a transmigration of souls, a doctrine quite as dillicult as that of the resurrection of the body and less natural. The doctrine of a future life is recommended i by countless analogies of nature ; and though i men whose lives are bad dislike to believe in ; future retribution, and prefer to think that I death ends all, yet the current popular belief in P\Tiphlegethon and Styx, a belief derived from information given by demons and from the Jewish prophets, shews how deep-seated is the conviction that the time will come when it ' shall not be well with the wicked. Nor is it to be thought that (iod deals ill with His i worshippers because He docs not give them a ; larger share of prosperity in this life : the Christians do not covet earthly riches ; they look on trials as their discipline, persecutions as their warfare, in which they are not deserted [ by their God, but combat under His eye. The ; Romans honour with their praises such sufierers as Mucius Scaevola and Regulus, | yet the heroism of these men has been re- peatedly surpassed by that of Christian women and children. Lastly, we need not be dis- | turbed by the failure of sceptical philosophers i to arrive at any certain knowledge of truth. These men's lives gave the lie to their pro- fessions of wisdom ; we, whose excellence is in ^ life and not merely in word, may boast that we have succeeded in finding what they | sought in vain, and have only cause for grati- ' tude that a revelation was reserved for our hands which was denied to them. It will be seen how meagre Minucius is in i his exposition of Christian doctrine, thus | differing from all the other apologists. The doctrines of the unity of God, the resurrection of the body, and future retribution make up ' nearly the whole of the system of Christian doctrine which he sets forth. The doctrine of the Logos, so prominent in the ap^ilogies of Justin, .Athenagoras, andTertullian, is absent ; our Lord's name is not mentioned, and though from the manner in which Octavius repels the charge that the Christians worshipped a man who had been punished for his crimes, it may reasonably be inferred that he believed our Lord to be more than man, yet this is not plainly stated. Minucius clearly shews that the topics he omits are excluded, not from disbelief in, or ignorance of, them, but from a MINUCIUS FELIX. MARCUS 720 designed luiillati.ii ..( th-- ..bj.ds ..f hi* work, because at the end, when (..ic<iliu<i ban de- clared himself satisfied on the main qurstion* of the existence of (;<hI and of I'rovtdrnrr and of the general truth of the C hristian r<-liK'ion. he asks for .uiother lonvi-rH.Hi ai, ri.-t br< .m**' of remaining do\ibts. but br< .iu<ir he dr<tirr> to be taught other thniKs siill n<-<-r%v»rv to perfect instruction. It r.mnot \»- .u i i<lrm th.it Minticius does not imitate the iiilire utuf-vrvr with which J ustin speaks of (. hristian dortrinr% and Christian rites. The work o( Minuriu% was doubtless intended maiidy to influrnrc intelligent heathen ; and wr must infer lh.il in the West at least the feelin« prevailr<l wUni Minucius wrote which inadi- C hristiau'i Ir.ir (<■ cast their pearls before swim-. Our striking difference between Mintu ins ami | ustin ii thr former's comi)lete omission ,if the arKUinent from prophecy, yet the inspiration of ihn Jewish |>rophets is incident.illv recignifrd (c. ^f,). Minucius never mentions the writings of either (). or N. T., and has scarcely aiiv coincidence of language with them. There is (c. 29) an echo of Jer. xvii. 5. and perhaps (c. 3.0 of I. Cor. XV. 36, 42. His date is generally agreed to have l»rrii before 230, somewhere .ibout which time C\iirian published his df Idnlnnim \'auttaU, in which large use is made of Minucius. A nearer limit depends on settling the relation uf Minucius to Tertullian. His dialogue and the apology of Tertullian have in c.ominon so many argmnents, sometimes in nearlv the same words, that one of the two undoiibte<llv used the work of the other, but as to which was the follower critics have held opposite opinions. The difficulty is mainly cause<l by the excellent use both writers have made of their materials, whcncesocver obtained, and the thoroughness with which they have incor- porated them. We have already shewn the perfect workmanship of the dialogue of Minu- cius. Tertullian's.4/>o/o<,'y is ecjually excellent, though its plan is entirelv dilTerent. It is an advocate's speech, written for i>resentation to heathen magistrates to convince them that Christians did not deserve persecution. It is more loosely constructed, anil evidently more hastily written, than that of .Minucius. but bears a strong stamp of originality. .Manv points briefly touched on in Minucius arc expanded in Tertullian, so that either .Minucius has abridged Tertullian or Tertullian has u»rd and developed the suggestions of Minucius. This has furnished the best argument (or the priority of Tertullian. Tertullian. it has l>orn said, is one of the most origin.il of writers, Minucius quite the reverv. Wc have already mentioned his obligati.)ns to Cicep> ; hi» work is also larKely indebtetl to S«-nr«:a. besides containing traces of Juvenal ami other writers. Is it not, thi-n. most natural t-. b-ii. v. Hi -i ■» he has drawn his arguments (< r ' Cicero, he has taken his defencr from Tertullian? In the r.i; i there are considerable diflenu la ui to arrangement and form of expression. If Tertullian were the original, Minucius would have a change of arraugcment (orre<| nn him by the plan of his work, while the changes in form of expression either improve the I^linity 01 make the sentence more poiiittnl ; whereas 730 MIRO if Minucius were the original, Tertullian's changes can hardly have any other object than to disguise his obligation. Notwithstanding, a very careful comparison of the common matter led Ebert {K. Sachs. Ges. der Wissen- schaften ; philol.-histor. Classe, Bd. v.) to consider Minucius the original, and Ebert's ability in arguing the case obtained for a time general acceptance of his opinion. But re- cently new evidence has been obtained. The dialogue would seem to describe Minucius as a native of Cirta and fellow- townsman of Pronto, of whom he speaks as " Cirtensis noster," while Octavius refers to him as " Pronto tuus." Now at Cirta (Constantine in Algeria) the French have found six inscriptions con- taining the name of Caecilius Natalis (Momm- sen, Lat. Insc. viii. 6996 and 7094-7098). This Caecilius was chief magistrate of Cirta in 210, and on the completion of five years of office raised at his own expense a triumphal arch in honour of Caracalla, brazen statues in honour of " Indulgentia domini nostri," exhibited " ludos scenicos " for seven days, and in other ways exhibited munificence. See an art. by Dessau {Hermes, 1880, p. 471). We see no good reason for refusing to identify this Caecilius Natalis with the Caecilius of the dialogue. He is not likely to have been a Christian when discharging the functions just j described ; the conversation related by Minu- i cius would therefore have occurred somewhat I later than 215; and the composition itself; might be a score of years later. We thus fall back on the opinion held by the best critics before the publication of Ebert's memoir, that the work of Minucius was written in the peace- ful davs of Alexander Severus, say a.d. 234. A useful ed. is in Gersdorf's Bibl. Pat. Ecc. (Leipz. 1847), one with varioriun notes in vol. iii. of Migne's Patr. Lat., an excellent one by Holden(Camb. 1853), and oneby Halm (Vienna, 1867) founded on a new collation of the MS., which may therefore be regarded as the best authority for the text, but contains only critical notes. See also Waltzing, Bibliogm- phie raisonnee de Min. Pel. in Musenn Beige (1902), vi. pp. 216 ff.; alsoG. Bossier in La fin du Paganisme, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1898), i. 261. There is an English trans, in the Lib of Ante- Nic. Fathers. [g.s.] Miro [Mirio, Minis), king of the Suevi in Spain, 570-583. Authorities. — Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, v. 42, vi. 43 ; Joannes Bid. ap. Esp. Sagr. v. 377, 380, 383 ; Isid. Hist. Suev. ib. 506 ; Acts of the second council of Braga ; Tejada y Ramiro, Colecc. de Lan. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 620 ; Formula Honestae Vitae, by Martin of Braga ; Pref. £5^. Sagr. XV. 383. Miro represents a period in the history of the Suevian kingdom of Gallicia, when, having renounced the Arianism imposed upon them in the 5th cent, by their then existing relations to the Visigoths, the Suevi entered into alliance with the Franks on the one hand and probably the Eastern empire on the other, with the view of checking the power of the Arian West- Gothic king Leovigild, which at the begin- ning of Miro's reign threatened the absorption of the Suevian state in the kingdom of Toledo, a result actually achieved two years after Miro's death. The known facts of his reign, MODESTUS which although few in number are often contradictorily given by the authorities, are as follows. In 572 the second council of Braga, a kind of supplementary council to the more important gathering of 561 [Martinus (2)] was held, and the king is specially men- tioned as contributing to its assembly. In the same year Miro conducted an expedition against the Ruccones in Cantabria, one of the restless Basque tribes, with whom Suevi and Goths alike were perpetually at war. Pour years later Miro's great West-Gothic contem- porary Leovigild appeared on the borders of Gallicia. Miro sued for peace, and obtained it for a short time. In 580 the Catholic re- bellion of Hermenigild against his father Leovigild broke out, and the rebellious son became the centre of Prankish, Suevian, and Byzantine policy in the peninsula. In 580 we hear of envoys sent by Miro to Guntchramn of Burgundy, Leovigild's worst enemy, and intercepted and detained on the way by Leo- vigild's ally, Chilperic of Soissons. In 583 Miro set out from Gallicia at the head of an army destined to raise the siege of Seville, then closely invested by Leovigild. He was met on the way by Leovigild, and, according to Gregory of Tours, who is evidently best in- formed on the matter, withdrew homewards, and died shortly after from the effects of the bad air and water of S. Spain. The two Spanish sources, Joannes Biclarensis and Isidore, say that he died before Seville, and describe him as assisting Leovigild in the siege of the town. On the reconciliation of these conflicting accounts, cf. Dahn, Konige der Germanen, vi. 571 ; and Gorres, Kritische Untersuch. iiber den Auf stand und das M ar- ty rium der Westgoth. Konigssohnes Hermeni- gild, in Zeitschrift fiir Hist. Theol. 1873, I. Miro's relations to Martin of Braga, the Catholic leader and organizer of Gallicia during his reign and that of his father, seem to have been intimate and friendly. Martin's prin- cipal work, Formula Vitae Honestae, is dedi- cated to him, and the Exhorfatio Humilitatis, printed among Martin's works, is also prob- ably addressed to him [Esp. Sagr. xv. Appen- dix). [M.A.W.] Modestus (3), prefect of the Praetorium, persecutor of the Catholics under the emperor Valens (Socr. iv. 16 ; Soz. vi. 18 ; Theod. H. E. iv. 18 ; Tillem. vi. 510, 555, 562, 574). who commissioned him to offer Basil the choice between deposition and communion with the Arians. A severe sickness having supervened, which he regarded as a judgment for his insolent behaviour, he entreated Basil to visit his sick-bed, humbly asked pardon, and commended himself to his prayers. Attri- buting his recovery to St. Basil's intercessions, he regarded him with the greatest reverence (Greg. Naz. pp. 352, 353). From this time Basil's influence with Modestus was so great that persons came from a great distance to request letters from him to the prefect. Six of these remain (Basil. Epp. 104 [279], no [277], III [276], 279 [274], 280 [275], 281 [278]), in which Basil claims immunity from taxes for all ministers of the church, begs for a lessening of the taxes for the impoverished inhabitants of the Taurus range, commends to him a friend summoned to the capital by legal MONNICA charges, etc. Bdsil .ulilresscs Modcstus with the respect due to his high official position, and expresses much gratitude for las readiness to listen to his requests. (e.v.) Monnlca, St. The name of this most celcbr.xtid of Christian mothers is spelt thus (not Miotica) in the<ildest MSS. of the writings of St. .\ugustine. Her birthplace, nowhere explii itly nainc<l. may be assumed to be Tagaste, the home of her husband. Patricius. Her family was, probably, like his in point of social gr.ide, curialis (Possidii Vita Aug. c. 2) — i.e. contri- buted a member or members to the senate of the colonia. Her parents' names are not known. They were consistent Christians ; their home was (Conf. ix. 8) " domus fidelis, bonum membrum Ecclcsiac." Monnica was bom 331 or 332. Her e.irly domestic training was pure and severe, uniler the strong hand of an aged and trusted Christian nurse, who had once carried the child's father in her arms. By her Monnica and her sisters (no brothers are menti<ined) were tausht to ab- stain entirely from drinking even water between meal-tiincs, with the aim of guarding them beforehand against habits of intemper- ance when, after marriage, thev should become " dominae apothecarum et cellariorum " (16.). Yet Monnica, when scarcely past her early childhood, was on the verge of a confirmed love of wine, as she confessed long after to her son (ib.). She was married, at what age we know not, to Patricius of Tagaste, " vir curialis " ; a man passionate ("ferox'), immoral, and not formally a member of the church ; perhaps what would now be called an " adherent." • With him Monnica lived patiently and faithfully, till at the age of 40 she was left a widow, tenderly attached to his memory, and longing to be laid at death in his grave (ib. ix. 1 1). He was rough and eager, but not ungenerous ; and she was permitted to win him to the Saviour before his end. A curious picture of the manners of that time and region appears (ib. ix. 0) when Monnica, surrounded by her married female friends, and seeing on some of them, " quarum viri mansuetiores erant [Patricio]," the marks of blows, inflicted even on their faces, coun- selled them to adopt, for protection, her own method of calm and unwavering submission. The mother of Patricius was an inmate of the home, and her also Monnii a completely won to respect and affection, in spite of the slanders of the female slaves, by a union of filial obe- dience with vigour as a mistress. She bore children more than f)nce, for Augustine not only mentions a brother ex- pressly (ib. ix. II, etc.) but was the uncle of many nephews and nieces {Vita Benedictina Aug. c. i.). Augustine was born when Mon- nica was 23 years old, and when, as we gather from bis language about her whole influence, she was already a Christian in the noblest sense, strong in the power of spiritual holiness, and ardently prayerful for the salvation of her child, and therefore for his personal acceptance of the faith. It is a sign of the popular Chris- tian opinion and usage at the time that she did not bring him as an infant to baptism but merely to the initiation of a catechumen (Conf. • Conf. vi. 16 states that both Augustine's p*r- entes procured his initiation am an infant catechunim. MONNICA 1 1. II ; vi. 10). the mk-11 1 til salting with -ult. [ baptism require<l ■ I change of will.* I: 'illness, he iniplorrd t • I hastened to pnxurr it ; recovery .\g..\v\ rr-. IvrsI t j .Monnir.i : \ securing tl and in sti during her :■.,■, m.kintain hnn in 1 unbelief caus<'d h vated by his cynii 1 decline<l his presem <• b- her table, " aversans et d [filii]" (ib. iii. 11) ; l)ni ^ altered her di-cision. Sh«- s.iw ("juvenum splendidum. hilar. dentem sibi") approach hrr .i% woinlen l>eam (" regul.i " spiritual ruin ; and he I for where she was, there t .\<igustine suggested th.»l i...> ......i his mother's unbelief; but snr 731 • I.I •u. , , 1 ^ but nil IV hl/s. ! Irr f'' i 1: \\l rejouted that the words were not is, there thou shalt be." This wis :!•. .> before his conversion. .Mxiul ;' she received the well-known €■ a bishop, wearied ("substoma. ' with her entreaties that he would r- 1- w w itli her son: "do, prvthec ; the sou of thi>«r tears cann'>t perish " (16. 12). She sorely bewailed .\uguslii. ' migrate to Italy, and would U't : [ and when he escaped her, aff^ ' friend good-bve on board ship .mo j.. her to spenil the night in a ch.kpel tl. to Cyprian, she would not give him up. 1 ! herself with grief (ib. v. 8), shr to ,W . I followed him, and on a sloni;' I soled the terrified sailors, assni I she had seen a vision which pi (t*. vi. i). .\ugustine arrived h<A n i. i at I Milan, and was already under the influence "f j Ambrose, but not yet won to the orth-Kiox faith ("non manichaeus, se<l nequo catholic u* christianus") ; but she cahnly assure«l him ."f I her certainty that she should st-c him .i b»-- ] liever before she died (tb.). ! The ministrations of Anibrose shr .»i with great and reverent delight ("di ilium virum sicut augelum I)ei"i .>ii 1 , . striking proof of her feeling in once to his judgment on a P' 1 have touched her nearly. Shr ( to bring oblatifms «{ vegetabl< n. I :■ i !. .ml wine to the shrines of the .\trir.in ni.irtvr». and began th, lik.- j-r^'-'i - n Mil.:: Hut Ambrose 1 1 because it • partly (as:. rcsemble<l in- i j owns that prob.ii obeyed none but '• him. I' «'-\. r st Am! • of ( : hrr t • \Vc do not Ignore Ihr ■!. dent; tee /.*. Wall ou Inf.i III. But we think Ihr r«H', Ptrutui interfctcd to drier Au^iuiinc » UifjLUm. m1.-.| ■I. It 732 MONNICA most devout and diligent worshipper; liberal in alms ; daily attending the Eucharist ("nullum diem praetermittebat oblationem ad altare [Domini]"), and was twice daily in the church, not to gossip there ("non ad vanas fabulas et aniles loquacitates") but to hear the word and pray (ib. v. q). During the struggle of Ambrose with the Arian empress-mother Justina (385) Monnica was the most devout among the host of worshippers who gathered for vigils and prayers in the church {ib. ix. 7). The hymns of Ambrose she greatly loved, and treasured in her memory ; the dialogue de Beatd Vita closes with some noble words from Monnica, intro- duced by a quotation from the hymn " Fove precantes, Trinitas." The final crisis of her son's conversion was instantly reported to her by Augustine and Alypius, to her extreme delight {tb. viii. 12), though it involved not only his baptism but his acceptance of a life of celibacy. Between his conversion and baptism she retired with him to Cassiciacum, the carapagna of his friend Vere- cundus. The dialogues de Ordine and de Beatd Vita give a charming picture of this retirement, spent in holy intercourse and in lofty thought lighted up with eternal truth. Monnica appears asan interlocutorinboth dialogues, conspicuous for strength of native sense, and occasionally speaking with a vigour and spirit evidently reported from the life ; a woman who might have shone at any period for intellectual gifts. " We fairly forgot her sex, and thought that some great man was in our circle " {de B. V. § 10). At the close of the dialogue she speaks of the bliss of the Eternal Vision : "This beyond dispute is the blessed life, the perfect ; at which we must look to be enabled to arrive, hastening on in solid faith, joyful hope, and burning love " [ib. ad fin.). In the dialogue de Ordine Augustine speaks of his mother's " ingenium, atque in res divinas inflammatus animus" (ii. § i). She was now near the end. Her son, an orthodox believer, was about to return with her to Africa. They were lodging at Ostia, and making the last preparations for the voyage {Conf. ix. 10). Augustine records a conversation with his mother as they sat at a window looking on the viridarium of the house — a delightful colloquy (" colloquebamur soli valde dulciter"), rising from theme to theme of subtle but holy thought to the height of the beatific vision. 'The "colloquy" was surely no mere monologue on Augustine's part, if he has drawn his mother truly in his two dialogues. It closed with a solemn utterance from her : " she had done with the wish to live ; her son was a believer, and fully conse- crated ; what did she there ? " {ib.). Five days later she was taken ill ("decubuit febribus"), and at once recognized the end. Her long- cherished wish to lie in the grave of Patricius was gone. " Nothing," she said, " is far from God. There is no fear lest He, at the last day, should not know whence to raise me up." " So on the ninth day of her illness, in the 56th year of her age, and in the 33rd of my own, that devout and saintly soul was released from the body." She died in the presence of Augus- tine, of another son, of her grandson Adeo- datus, so soon to follow her, and of many others ("omnes nos") {ib. 11, 13). MONNICA Augustine's grief was great. The burial was tearless ("cum ecce corpus elatum est, imus redimus sine lacrymis "), but another time of anguish followed, and a vain effort for relief at the bath. Then sleep came and a calmer waking, and now Augustine, like his blessed mother, found help in an Ambrosian hymn, " Deus creator omnium," and at last could weep calmly. He records his prayers for the departed soul, and begs those of the reader. Monnica's character was equally strong, lively, and tender by nature and refined by grace to extraordinary elevation. Augustine lavishes his unique eloquence upon her heaven- ly tone of life and influence and the intensity of her longings for the salvation of the souls she loved. He calls her his mother both in the flesh and in the Lord. His whole being was due, under God, to Monnica. Christians who knew her " dearly loved her Lord in her, for they felt His presence in her heart " {ib. 10). She was an eager student of the Scriptures {de Ord. i. § 32). In Brieger's Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, vol. i. p. 228, is printed (from Riese's Anthologia l.atina, fasc. ii. p. 127) an epitaph on Monnica, bearing the name of Bassus, ex-consul ; probably Anicius Bassus, consul A. D. 408, and therefore a contemporary of Augustine's. The lines are : In tuinulo Monicae. {sic.) Hie posuit cineres genetrix castissima prolis Augustine tui altera lux meriti, Qui servans pacis caelestia jura sacerdos Commissos populos moribus instituis. Gloria vos major gestorum laude coronat Virtutum mater felicior subolis. In the last couplet Monnica and her son are, apparently, addressed together. The penta- meter apostrophizes Monnica as " Mother of Virtues," and Augustine as her yet " happier offspring " ; happier, it may be, as a celibate saint. This epitaph is an interesting proof of the religious reverence accorded from the first to Monnica. Brieger's Zeitschrift also men- tions the translation of the bones of Monnica from Ostia to Rome, in 1430, in the reign of Martin V., and at the expense of Mapheus Veghius. The relics were deposited in a chapel dedicated on the occasion to Augustine, and on the sarcophagus were inscribed the following lines, a curious and instructive advance upon the older epitaph in their ascription of mediatorial powers to Monnica : Hie Augustini sanctam venerare parentem, Votaque fer tumulo, quo jacet ilia, sacro. Quae quondam gnato, toti nunc Monica mundo Succurrit precibus, praestat opemque suis.* This translation is dated, in the Roman Martyrology, April g. Monnica appears as a saint in the Roman calendar, Sancta Monica vidua, Apr. 4, and not infrequently as a figure in medieval art. Scheffer's picture, painted 1845, "St. Augustin et sa mere," gives a noble modern realization of Monnica. Together 'neatli the Italian heaven They sit, the mother and her son, He late from her by errors riven. Now both in Jesus one : The dear consenting hands are knit, And either face, as there they sit, Is lifted as to something seen Beyond the blue serene. * V. 1. sibi, as the epitaph appears in Papebroch, .4cla Sanctorum Mali, t. i. p. 491. I MONOIMIJS Such, we bdievo, is the nnliiiary iutrrpr<l.Ui>in of the picture ; as if it represcuied tlio colliujuy at Ostia. But an ititerestiiig passage in >lrs. Jameson's Sacred and Legendary Art, p. 314, seems to shew tliat Sclu-tler hail in view some moment before Aufjustine's conversion ; per- haps that recordeil Conf. vi. i, when Monnir^ assures Auiiustine that she shouhl yet sec him a bclievor. [h.c.c.m.] Monoimiis (a form, possibly representing the Jewish name Menaham), an Arabian tinostic of 2nd cent. His name hail been only pre- served by a brief notice in Tlieodoret (Haer. Fab. i. iS) until the recovery of the lost work of Hippolytus against heresies shewed that from this work Theodoret derived his knowledge. Hippolytus gives a short abstract of the doctrine of Monoimus and an extract from a letter of his to one Theophrastus. The system described might at tirst seem one of j mere pantheism ; but a closer examination 1 shews Christian elements in it, so that it is \ rightly classed as a heresy, and not as a form of heathenism. There is an express quotation from Colossians and a probable reference to the | prologue of St. John's Gospel. The starting- ' point of the speculation is the ascription in N.T. of the work of creation tn tiie Son of Man, whence it was inferred that the first principle was properly called Man. It follows that it is a mistake to look for God in creation ; we must seek Him in ourselves, and can best find him by the study of the involuntary operations of our own soul. The relation between the "Man" and "Son of Man" exists from beyond time. The latter is derived from the former, but, it would seem, by an immediate and eternal necessity of His nature, just as from fire is necessarily derived the light which renders it visible. Thus, concerning the first principle, the Scriptures speak both of a " being " and a " becoming " {f)v Kal i'livfTo), the first word properly apply- ing to the " Man," the second to the " Son of Man." The speculations of Monoimus, as reported to us, relate only to the creation ; we are told of none as to redemption. His use of the phrases " -Man " and " Son of Man " reminds us of the system of the Naassenes (Hippol. Ref. § 7 ", see also our art. Gnosticism), and a closer examination shews that Monoimus is really to be referred to that sect, although Hippolytus has classed them separately ; for .Monoimus describes iiis first principle as bisexual, and applies to it the titles " Father, Mother, the two immortal names," words taken out ui a Naassene hymn. But there is a common source of this language in the ' Xir6<pa<Ti% ntyaXr] of Simon, this passage also being clearly the original of the description given by Monoimus of the contradictory attributes of his first principle. Further traces of the obligations of Monoimus to Simon are found in the reference to the six powers instrumental in creation, which answer to Simon's six " roots," while a similar indebt- edness to Simon on the part of the Naassene writer in Hippolytus is found on comparing the anatomical speculations connected with the name Eden (v. 9 ; vi. 14). It is inorcd<mbtful whether there is any relation of obligation between Monoimus and the Clementine Hom- ilies ; both contrast " the Son of Man " with MONOPHYStTlSM 78S thi>se " born of w.iii.n •• !//.'»«. li. ir)- M.-no. iinus has mystiTiis in connrxion with the number 14, shcwinK th.a hr att.i( hcd lmp«)rt- ance to P.isch.il rrlobration. [ti»J Monophysltism. llx- p.issionate protnt raised in ligypt against thr hrrmy ol Nit»- TORius, siippoititl as it was bviourl influence, was carried so f.tr th.it it ltd to a »tri>nK reaction. The Nestorian her«i»y wa» con- denmed because it tendi-il to srpar.ttr Christ into two beings, one (iinl ami the other man, and to regard the inhabitation «•( the latter by the former as ditlrrmg in degree only from the inhabitation bv the Deity of the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Dispenw- tion. The cruel persecution of Nestorius him- self (who, though he undoubtedly went t-Kj far in some of his statements, was willing to qualify many of them), the harsh treatment of the learned and holy Theodoret, and the forcible suppri'ssion of the teaching; of the S\Tian school, produced great indignation, and when the emperor Theodosius II. died, and was succeeded in 450 by Marcian, the reaction against .Monophysilism broke out all the more fiercely in consequence of the vio- lence and long duration of these measures of repression. Cyril had died in 444. and had been succeeded by Dioscorus, a in-in of equallv violent passions and uncharitable spirit, but of far less self-control and diplo- matic skill. Cyril had himself been guilty of confounding the divine and human natures of Christ as completely as Nestorius had beeo guilty of dividing them, and as long as he and Theodosius 11. survived, what was after- wards condemned as .Monophysite heresy was in the ascendant. Extremes very frequently meet, and it was not unfairly contended that Cyril, when he insisted on the oersonal supremacy of the Logos over the Manhoi>d, had practically divided the IVrs-.n of Christ as much as Nestorius had, when he taught that the human nature was no more than a mere adjunct to the Godhead (Domer, On th* Person of Christ, I. div. ii. pp. 67-71. where, however, there seems some " confusion of sulv stance " in the wav in which the author treats the question whether the l.odhead could itself suffer pain, augmentation, or diminution through association with the nianh<xKl). History of the Controversy. —When Theodo- sius and Cyril, with the aid of Kabbulas, en- i deavoured altogether to supi-ress the S>Tian school in the East, considerable resistance was offered. As early as 435 <-yril '>•»'* •'<"«"" *" i resume his attacks on the reputation of i Diixlorus and Theodore. Even the patriarch Proclus (Nksto«iis| endeavourc<l to moderate the violence of Cyril's meth<Kls. John ol I Antii>ch informed the latter that the S>Tian I bishojjs would rather be burned than con- ; demn their great teacher The<Klorc. The emperor was prevailed upon to forbid further proceedings, and Cyril himself f itii'l it necessary to yield. Hut he 1 irritation by writing a treativ of Christ's Person, to which I bound to reply, so that th^'UK" mi"-""* measures were abandonetl, the controversy continued. Uioscorus, Cyril's »ucr<-Mor, was 1 not inclined to let it drop. He intrigued at ' Constantinople, and encouraged two luunks t34 MONOPHYSITISM named Eutyches and Barsumas to insist on something which approached very near to the absorption of the Manhood by the Godhead of Christ. Theodoret came forward once more (447) with his Eranistes (contributor to a club repast), a work in which he contended that the Logos was drpeTTTos (unchangeable), davyxi!'Tos {i.e. His two natures were incapable of being confounded), and diradi'js {i.e. the Godhead was incapable of suffering). Dioscorus next wrote to the patriarch of Antioch accusing Theodoret of Nestorianism ; and when Theodoret de- fended himself with temper and moderation, pointing out that he had condemned those who had denounced the term deordKos and divided the Person of Christ, and appealing to the authority of Alexander, Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory, Dioscorus encouraged his monks to anathematize Theodoret openly in the church (448). By imperial decree Theodoret was ordered to keep in his own diocese, and not to cause synods to be sum- moned at Antioch or elsewhere. Just then a synod was held at Constantinople (448), under the patriarch Flavian (who had lately succeeded Proclus, and who is sometimes confounded with Flavian of Antioch, who died c. 408), for the dispatch of general busi- ness, and Eusebius, bp. of Dorylaeum in Phrygia, brought a complaint against the abbot Eutyches as a disturber of the public peace. Flavian bade him visit Eutyches ; for Eutyches, like Dalmatius, had gained great credit for piety by never leaving his cell. Eusebius declined to do this, and Eutyches, when summoned, refused to come forth. When he found that he was about to be condemned for contumacy, he came forth, but brought a large assembly of monks, notables, and even soldiers in his train. By this means he secured a safe return to his monastery, but his adversaries continued to attack him, and to charge him with calling Christ's Body God's Body, and with asserting that It was not 6,uoovaiov with other bodies. When questioned, he denied that our Lord possessed two natures after His Incarnation. He was therefore deposed and excommuni- cated. The party of Eutyches had recourse to court intrigue, and the empress Eudocia con- trived to deprive her sister-in-law Pulcheria, who favoured Flavian, of all her influence with the emperor. Eutyches next demanded a new trial, but though the emperor granted his re- quest, Flavian refused to revise the sentence. Eutyches then, relying on the support of Dios- corus andtheemperor, and alsoof Leo of Rome, whose predecessor had condemned Nestorius, appealed to an oecumenical council. But he triedtosecurehis safetybydeclaring his willing- ness toconfessthetwo natures in the one Christ, if Dioscorus and Leo of Rome should require it. Flavian wished the matter to remain as it had been settled at Constantinople, but he was overruled, and a synod called together at Ephesus in 449. Of this synod Dioscorus, not Flavian, was appointed president, and Flavian was present rather as an accused person than as a judge. The violence displayed at it by Dioscorus and his party caused it to be universally rejected by the Catholic church. It obtained the name of the Synod of Brigands, or Robber MONOPHYSlfisM Synod (Latrocinium), which it has ever since retained. By trickery and tumult the bishops were forced to declare that there was but one nature in Christ, and the patriarch Flavian was so roughly handled at the council that he died shortly after of the injuries he had received. Flavian and Eusebius of Dorylaeum were deposed. Domnus of Antioch yielded to the clamour, in spite of the warnings of Theodoret, but he also was afterwards deposed. Theodoret was exiled to the monastery in which he had been brought up. For fuller de- tails of this synod see Dioscorus ; Eutyches. Within a few months, however, the situation underwent a great change. Theodosius died (450), and was succeeded by Marcian. The new emperor had previously espoused Pul- cheria, who had contrived to regain her influence over the deceased emperor before his death, and who had already honoured the remains of the martyred patriarch Flavian with a public funeral. The bishops who had disgraced themselves by their craven sub- mission to the decrees of the " Robber Synod" — "chameleons," as Theodoret calls them — now further disgraced themselves by as sudden a recantation. Leo, who had sent four representatives to Ephesus, had by this time learned from them the true history of the proceedings there. One of them, Hilary the deacon, had made a formal protest against these proceedings. Hilary had also taken with him from Ephesus the appeal of Flavian for a rehearing of the case in Italy. Leo now determined, if possible, to decide the question himself. As in the Arian, so in the Nestorian and Monophysite con- troversies, the West displayed a marked capacity for seizing on the salient points of the question at issue, which the Easterns often failed to grasp in consequence of their taste for metaphysical subtleties. Leo himself was a man " of strong character, undaimted courage, and clear, practical understanding," though " more skilled in liturgical than in theological questions " (Dorner). He was also by no means averse from making these con- troversies a means for increasing the prestige of his see. Socrates {H. E. vii. 7, 12) has re- marked on the use which the patriarchs of Rome and Alexandria alike were making at this period of all opportunities of adding to their secular importance. Accordingly Leo held several synods at Rome in which the decrees of the " Robber Synod " were re- jected. And even before the assembling of that synod he had written his celebrated letter to Flavian which, though suppressed at Ephesus, was afterwards read at Chalcedon, and accepted as an accurate statement of the doctrine handed down from the first in the church. He now made use of Flavian's appeal to him to procure the assembling of a council at Rome. But the emperor was too politic to permit this, and sent out letters for a council to be held at Nicaea. Such serious riots, however, broke out there that the emperor ultimately resolved to assemble it at Chalcedon, on the opposite side of the Bosphorus to Constantinople, where he could more easily prevent disturbances. There 630 bishops assembled. Leo now pretended that it was not only contrary to ecclesiastical I MONOPHYSITISM custom, but derogatory to liis diguitv, for him to be present at the couiicil. He further claimed to exercise the presidency tlirou^'h his tive delegates, but his claim was not ail- mitted, and Anatolius, the new patriarch of Constantinople, was associated with the absent Leo in the office of president. The delegates of Leo protested against Dioscorus being allowed to sit with his brother-pa- triarchs, considering the very serious imjiu- tatioMs under which he lay, and they stated tlKit unlesstluirtiemandswereacceded to.they would withdraw from the council. It should be remarked in passing that the presence and action of Leo's delegates dispose of the ob- jections some theologians ami historians have made against the oecumenical character of the synod. Eusebius of Dorvlaeuni now demanded that his petition against Dioscorus should be read. It was couched in the following striking terms (so Evagr. H. E. ii. 4) : " I have been wronged by Dioscorus ; the faith has been wronged ; the bishop Flavian has been murdered, and, together with myself, unjustly deposed by him. Give directions that my petition is to be read." It was read accord- ingly. Eusebius is further declared by Evagrius (ii. 2) to have accused Dioscorus to the emperor of having personally inflicted the injuries of which Flavian died. Dioscorus was convicted of having suppressed Leo's letter to Flavian at the " Robber Synod " ; he was deposed ; the bishops deposed by him — Theodoret and Ibas among them — were reinstated ; and Leo's letter to Flavian accepted by the council amid loud shouts of " Peter has spoken by Leo ; Cyril and Leo teach alike." Dioscoius was depr>j,ed, but permission was given to the EgNi^tian bishops to defer their subscription to the Acts of the synod until their new patriarch had been con- secrated. Eutychcs also was condemned. The proceedings of the council were decidedly tumultuous. One day Theodoret was howled down by the Eg\-ptian bishops ; the day after Dioscorus met with a similar reception from the S>Tian bishops. Some of the laity who were present as representatives of the em- peror openly remarked on the unseemliness of such conduct on the part of bishops. The treatment of the venerable Theodoret was especially unseemly. The reason for which he was howled down was his refusal to anathe- matize Nestorius until he had an opportunity of explaining his position, though this was the position eventually accepted by the Catholic church at large — namely, the rejection at once of the doctrine of two hypostases, and of the doctrine of only one nature, in Christ. It was only in consequence of the emperor's interven- tion that the recejUion of Theodoret by the council was secured. The resolution first proposed to the synotl was not adopted, it being considered too favourable to the party of Dioscorus. The Roman delegates threatened to leave the council unless Leo's letter were accepted as an authoritative statement of doctrme. If this were not done, they intimated that the question should be settled at Rome. As many points of importance connected with the relations between the churches of the East and of the West remained unsettled, MONOPHYSITISM 73/1 especially the .|ii...H..n ..| th.- i/.i/iij ■•« Ihr patriarch of C..n!H.uilin.iplr, ».>iiic o| ihc Eastern prelates feared the prolmiKation of these disputes whirli «. ul.l ..vi,ii t, .,, the retirement of I.eo\ .rrc- fore, though not wit: ;.r.>- tcsts, Leo's letter . ; the request of the cinpci i, .iml a ilrlimiiun of doctrine in accordance with that letter was drawn up. The syii-Kl first rccogniird the ; creed put forth at Nicaea (^ij), and nc«l the enlarged form of it adopted at Con- stantinoi)le (381). Whether -tuch n crcrti wat I actually promulgated at C.nstantini.plr hat been ilisputed nf l.ite. But iu\i. h ><\ the cvi- ' dence existing in 451 h.is ilisapprarrd, and j it seems hardly safe to coiuhulr fruiii the silence of contemporary writers that the 6jo I bishops at Ch.ilcedoii had been misinformed ^ on so vital a jioint. The syiUHl went on to condemn the vain babblings (Afi-o^Wai) of those who denied to the Virgin the title of ; t>(0T6K0i, as well as those who, on the other I hand, affirmed a confusion and mixture I (<ri>7x ''<'«•' "f"' ApaiTO' I in Christ, under the fool- ' ish impre^j^jon that there could be one nature , (consisting) of the Flesh and the Deity in tliiii, and who, in consequence of (this) confusion, resorted to the amazing suggestion that the divine nature of the Unly-begotteii was ! capable of suffering. After having formally I accepted Leo's treatise as in conformitv with [ this statement, the decree went on to declare that Jesus Christ was " Perfect in (iodhead and Perfect in Manhood, truly (iod and truly Man ; that He was possessed of a reasonable or rather rational (Xoyi^^j) soul and b«Kly, of the same substance (otioovaiOf) with the Father according to His tlodhead, and of the I same substance with us as regards His Man- hood " ; and that He is " to be recognircd as existing in two natures, without confusion, j without change, indivisibly, and inseparably (iat'^Xi'TW^, dr/Vrrwj, tt5i(u^ruit, ix^piarun), \ the distinction of the natures being in no way \ removed by their union, but rather the ■speciality (l6i6TT]i) of each nature being preserved, coalescing (avyTptxoi'C-ri\) in one i Person (-rpuauirov) and one hypostasis, not I divided nor separated into two IVrvms, but i being one and the same Son, and Only- I begotten, (mkI the Word, the Lord Jesus I Christ." There can be no doubt that the I decision thus promulgated was a sound <>nr, I and that, as Leo did not fail to remark I pertinently m<>re than once, the dorlrines condemned at the two councils of Kphesus and Chalced.m p..inted out two r.«k» en I which the d.x trine of Christ might be shij>- ' wrecked. " The Catholic church." he goes on to say, "could not tearh the Humanity of Christ apart from His true Divinity, nor His Divinity without His true Humanitv" ' (l.elter to Flavian, r. 5). Yet he ttid not (e«l compelled, as Domer ob»<T\es. t'> rxplato " the internal relations <>f the tw-. nature*." That was, and has remained, a mystery which the human intellect has been unable to un- ravel. All he had to do was to lay down the particular propositions which, when enunci- ated bv too daring thro|f)gians, were in plain conflict with the cxprc»« teaching ol tjod'» ?36 MONOPHYSITISM Word, and must therefore tend to mislead mankind on points essential to their salvation. The general reception of the via media laid down by the council, emphasised as it was at two subsequent councils held at Constanti- nople [see below and Nestorius], leaves no doubt that it represents the mind of Christen- dom upon the point. This conclusion is further accentuated by the fact that, though some Nes- torian and Monophysite communities continue to exist, even they are no longer unwilling to hold communion with those who receive the doctrines promulgated by the council on the questions at issue. The resistance against the decrees of the council of Chalcedon has nevertheless been even more formidable than against those of Ephesus, and the communities still in existence which are separated from the church at large on the question of the decrees of Chalcedon are more numerous, less scat- tered, and more thoroughly organized than those called into existence by the decrees of Ephesus. Yet this can hardly be attributed to the more harmless character of Monophy- sitism, because as a fact the opinions advo- cated by Dioscorus and Eutyches were pushed to far greater extremes and far less carefully qualified than those expressed by theologians so competent as Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret of Cyrus. The sur- vival, in forms so fully organized, of Mono- physitism seems rather due to the break-up of the Roman empire, and the progressive decline of its political power, as well as to the spread of Mohammedanism in N. Africa and Armenia. In both cases the attempt at translation of Greek ideas into the Syrian and Egyptian vernacular had been an additional reason for the long continuance of the controversy. A violent controversy at once sprung up, and a schism was organized, followed by violent disturbances. But it is notable that Dioscorus disappears from history after his deposition. His adversaries did not subject him to the same severities as those under which Nestorius perished. He had reason to be thankful that the fair-minded and gentle- hearted Theodoret was the leader of his opponents, and not the hard, intolerant, and relentless Cyril. Marcian contrived to restore order. But on his death fresh tumults arose. A rival patriarch, Timotheus Aelurus, was nominated, and Proterius, who had succeeded Dioscorus, was slain. The new emperor, Leo, deposed Timotheus. But the schism continued. The emperor Zeno next (482) issued his famous Henoticon, in which, while Nestorius and Eutyches were anathematized, twelve chapters (or selections) from the works of Cyril were ac- cepted. But Zeno' s manner of life evoked no en- thusiasm, and Philoxenus — favourably known to us as the patron of the Philoxenian-Syriac version of the Scriptures — "Peter the clothier," and Severus, organized a formidable Monophy- site party in Syria, Egypt, and Constantinople respectively. Justinian, emperor from 527- 565, did his utmost to support the decrees of Chalcedon, while his consort, the famous, or, as some historians prefer to put it, the in- famous, Theodora, did her best to thwart her husband, at the instance of some ecclesias- tical intriguers who had contrived to worm MONOPHYSITISM themselves into her confidence. For the con- troversy of the "Three Chapters" see Nestor- ius. ItsresultwastoencourageMonophysitism, and that form of Christian belief rooteditself in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and ultimately in Abyssinia. The Coptic (the word Coptic is etymologically the same as Egyptian) church hasremained asa separate bodyin Egyptto the present day. The Maronites in Armenia form another community which owes its existence to the Monophysite controversy. The Mono- phj'sites called their orthodox opponents Melchites, on the ground that they had accepted their opinions from the civil govern- ment and its head, the emperor ; while the or- thodox bestowed on their opponents the name of Jacobites, from J acob of Edessa, an enthu- siastic disseminator of Monophysite views. It is unnecessary to follow out in full detail the history of the Monophysite schism. It only remains to mention that a reaction dating from the condemnation of the " Three Chapters " issued in Monotheletism, or the assertion of only one will in Christ. This controversy led to the summoning of a sixth oecumenical council at Constantinople in 680, in which Monotheletism was condemned, after having been anathematized at Rome, under Martin I., in 649. Communion be- tween the East and the West had been broken off for some time on this point, and pope Honorius, like his predecessors Liberius and Vigilius, fell into suspicion of heresy in the course of the controversy. But the decision of the above-mentioned council restored the interrupted communion, and more friendly relations between the East and the West continued to subsist for above 300 years. The Coptic church, persecuted first by its orthodox sister, and afterwards by the Mo- hammedans, has obstinately maintained a precarious and downtrodden existence from the 6th cent, to the present moment. It has practically ceased to be heterodox, and in 1843 proposals for union with the Orthodox church would have been carried into effect, but that when the Moslem Government heard of them, the Coptic patriarch was invited to take coffee with a prominent Government official, and went home to die of poison. Since the British occupation in 1882 the Coptic churchhas begun toemergefrom itslong period of depression. The lay Copts have become educated and even wealthy. Though but a seventh of the population, they own one-fifth of the property' of their country. One of their number becameprime minister — the first Coptic prime minister for a very long period — but was unfortunately murdered in an outburst of poli- tical and religious fanaticism early in 1910. Though the Coptic clergy are still ignorant and fanatical, and the aged patriarch refuses to take any steps towards their better education, the laity have extorted a permission from • him for the appointment of a certain number of laity authorized to give instruction to their co-religionists on the truths of the Christian religion. The educated laity are decidedly friendly towards the Anglican church. Two missions to the Copts have been sent of late years from England, one in 1843 and the other in the last decade of the 19th cent. Neither of them were successful, and the MONOPHYSITlSlI Copts will probably be all.w.l f..r the future to carry out the mucliiicoiled reforms in their system iu their own way. Tlie Maron- ites of the Lebanon have remaine<l apart from the Orthodox church of the Kast up to the present time, but the French political in- fluence in the Lebanon since i860 has caused a considerable number of them to join the church of Rome. The church of Abvssinia. though its Liturgy shows some beautiful traces of the purer ages of Christianity, has fallen into many superstitions and corruptions. Yet that church has had sufVicient vitality to claim representation among the numero\is churches and denominations which now gather at the cradle of Christi.mitv. and not the least imposing religious editice to be seen at Jeru- salem is the Abyssinian church. Central Effect' 0/ tie CotUroversies nhmt the Personal Christ. — It may not be out of place, in conclusion, to endeavour to arrive at some esti- mate of the influence of these prolonged and bitter controversies upon the history of the Christian church. On the surface that influenrc appears unfavourable. Not only was the church of Christ broken up into antagonistic sections which mutually hated e.ich other, but a divided Christendom fell an easy victim to the M 'lianimedan invader. Wistirn theology, when deprived of the b.ilaiice afforded by the more purely intellectual characteristics predominant in the Hast, crystallized into a R unan mould. Not even the revival of letters cured this evil, and we find that even post- Reformation theology has not altogether escaped from the long domina- tion of purely Western forms of thought. But to st(ip short here would be one-sided and superficial. The effect of these prolonged controversies has undoubtedly been to clear up the confusion which long existed in the Christian mind about the relations of the three Persons (or distinctions) in the Trinity, and of the two natures in the one Christ. The two conflicting tendencies at work in the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies were (i) the disposition to divide the Redeemer into two separate beings, united to one another for God's purpose of salvation, and (2) the disposition either (a) to make the Redeemer a Being compounded out of two other beings, God and Man, being Himself neither one nor the other, or (ft) to regard the Humanity of Christ as swallowed up by His Divinity. Of these two forms of Monophysite doctrine the former is ultimately unthinkable. An Infinite i Being and a finite one cannot possibly coalesce into a third being, which is neither i the one nor the other. The second view, though in itself by no means inconri-ivable. has been felt to contra<li< t the di finite stale- ; ments of Scripture on the n.itun- '.( the union between God the Word and the .Man Christ Jesus, and is therefore inadmissible. The controversy, pursued with great virulmce for about a century and a half, ended by the definite establishment of a mean between ' the two extremes, namely, that Christ con- sisted of two separate natures, the Godhead and the Manhood, conjoined into one Person- ality or Individuality, i.e. one ultimate soun e of thought and action. Not that there was only one mind, or one will, in the Personality MONOPHYSmSM 737 b'lt th.it iho ■ ^Mlhln d bv I M i.f. La.h Hut »o|lir br tlx>krn underlvinR thrsr tw . n ii action of the lower will « certain limit*, .ind ulllin the fiat of thr Diviiir .1: it was pmnittfsl to Oir x.. . . of a communictttn tJi,imitiutn attributes), this involved no , amalgamation of thr two ii.itur. tion of the one by (or into) ihr . remains separate and omplrte attributes of the one nature tn. of as transferre<l to the other, bv rpj«<in o| the insrparable conjunction of Imth in thr One Person {vw63Taoii or vp^tvrnry Thnx if. as is sometiiiu-s thr c.\%r, G.~t 1 f as suffering or dving, it i* n <t t that the (..nlhcid, a* su. h, 1 suffering or of death. Thr rxpr permissible in conseipiriire <if t! conjunction of Christ's <i<Klhi > ho k1 in one I'ersonality. Thr ^ must be borne in mind when Virgin is spoken of as (»»or<J»oi. be brought forth into this w is brought forth. Vet th the Man Christ Jesus a tix- nu^M-d (i<Hl cannot rid as man Divine W'ird and insrpar.ibly one. .\nother point must not be lost sii:(-.t « In the Nestorian and Mon"physit< the word Hypostasis is applie<l i Mind and Will which separates t indic.ited from any other exi^. .■ .t when, as in the .Arian controversy, the wor<i Hypostasis is applied to the s<>-caile«l I'ervjii* in the Go«lhead, it is not used to indicate separate sources of thought and action, but is employed to denotr certain eternal dis- tinctions declared in Holy Scripture to exist within the Godhead Itself, where there can be only one Mind and Will. We confess that the Father's sole prerogative is to originate, the Son's to reveal, the Spirit's to guidr, direct, inspire. But all these pnrog.iiivi-* co-exist harmoniously in Him, Who is above all, and through all, and in us all. Ihe dr- cisions of the four great iKCumenical councils are thus a standing witness to the f.ict that the church, from the beginning till now, has taught consistently that Jesus t hrist was (i) dXrilluif (truly), (2) 7-<\/wt (coiupU-tfly), (3) aSiaip^Tut (iiidivisibly). and (4) dai-yxi-^nn (without confusion (of nature]) the Word, or Son of the Hternal (iod. Who in the last tinir*. " for us men and for our salvation," took up m Him our ficsh, and manifested HimsrU to the world ■' in the form of a b >nd-»lavr," and that His two naturrs remainrd *f-i .xr itr and uncoinbined . And so, I. 1 I'-rlect G<k1 and IVrfrct Man. H. dy l" reconcile (^h1 and Man, • the empire of sin in the lati.i. .■ .i m the end prtsrnt us, rrconnUti and »ayed. At perfect and unbl.imabic before the tiod and Falhrr of us all. liibliografhy. — Our authoritie* arc nearly the same as those givrn undrr Nrsiomi %. We have no longer the help of S-«ralr«. bm Mvagrius is vivid, ami gcnrrally accurate. though oftrll very rredul'.U*. He acrrpi* implicitly the decisions of Kphr»u« and Chalcedon, and of the latter hr gives j de- tailed an<l careful summarv. 1 lie letter* of The.Hlorel. and the rolle<ti..n '.( the letter* .jf other men of mark in his day, f.uud tit 47 738 MONOTHELITISM many editions of his works [Nestorius] are full of information on the Monophysite con- troversy. In later times Monophysitism does not seem to have attracted the attention of writers to the same extent as Nestorianism has done. There is no work on the former corresponding to those of Assemani and Badger on the latter. Neander, Dorner, Canon Bright, and, more recently, Mr. Bethune Baker are as useful here as on Nestorianism. Canon Bright has also translated and edited Leo's Sermons on the Incarnation. Gieseler is strangely brief on the controversy in the 5th cent., but has more information on its later developments. Mr. Wigram's Intro, to the Hist, of the Assyrian Church (S.P.C.K. 1910) has some chapters on the later developments of Monophysitism in the East. [j-J-L-] Monothelitism. [Monophvsitism.1 Montanus (1), a native of Ardabau, a village in Phrygia, who, in the latter half of the 2nd cent., originated a widespread schism, of which traces remained for centuries. I. Rise of Montanism. — The name Mont- anus was not uncommon in the district. It is found in a Phrygian inscription (Le Bas, 755) and in three others from neighbouring pro- vinces (Boeckh — 3662 Cyzicus, 4071 Ancyra, 4187 Amasia). Montanus had been originally a heathen, and according to Didymus (de Trin. iii. 41) an idol priest. The epithets " abscissus " and " semivir " applied to him by Jerome (Ep. ad Marcellam, vol. i. 186) suggest that Jerome may have thought him a priest of Cybele. That after his conversion he became a priest or bishop there is no evidence. He taught that God's supernatural revelations did not end with the apostles, but that even more wonderful manifestations of the divine energy might be expected under the dis- pensation of the Paraclete. It is asserted that Montanus claimed himself to be the Paraclete; but we believe this to have merely arisen out of the fact that he claimed to be an inspired organ by whom the Paraclete spoke, and that conse- quently words of his were uttered and accepted as those of that Divine Being. We are told that Montanus claimed to be a prophet and spoke in a kind of possession or ecstasy. He held that the relation between a prophet and the Divine Being Who inspired him was the same as between a musical instrument and he who played upon it ; consequently the inspired words of a prophet were not to be regarded as those of the human speaker. In a fragment of his prophecy preserved by Epiphanius he says, " I have come, not an angel or am- bassador, but God the Father." See also Didymus (u.s.). It is clear that Montanus here did not speak in his own name, but uttered words which he supposed God to have put into his mouth ; and if he spoke similarly in the name of the Paraclete it does not follow that he claimed to be the Paraclete. His prophesyings were soon outdone by two female disciples, Prisca or Priscilla and Maxi- milla, who fell into strange ecstasies, delivering in them what Montanus and his followers regarded as divine prophecies. They had been married, left their husbands, were given by Montanus the rank of virgins in the church, and were widely reverenced as prophetesses. But very different was the sober judgment formed MONTANUS of them by some of the neighbouring bishops. Phrygia was a country in which heathen devo- tion exhibited itself in the most fanatical form, and it seemed to calm observers that the frenzied utterances of the Montanistic prophetesses were far less like any previous manifestation of the prophetic gift among Christians than they were to those heathen orgiasms which the church had been wont to ascribe to the operation of demons. The church party looked on the Montanists as wilfully despising our Lord's warning to be- ware of false prophets, and as being in con- sequence deluded by Satan, in whose power they placed themselves by accepting as divine teachers women possessed by evil spirits. The Montanists looked on the church leaders as men who did despite to the Spirit of God by offering the indignity of exorcism to those whom He had chosen as His organs for com- municating with the church. It does not appear that any offence was taken at the substance of the Montanistic prophesyings. On the contrary, it was owned that they had a certain plausibility ; when with their con- gratulations and promises to those who accepted them they mixed a due proportion of rebukes and warnings, this was ascribed to the deeper art of Satan. What condemned the prophesyings in the minds of the church authorities was the frenzied ecstasy in which they were delivered. The question as to the different character- istics of real and pretended prophecy was the main subject of discussion in the first stage of the Montanist controversy. It may have been treated of by Melito in his work on prophecy ; it was certainly the subject of that of Mil- tiades irepl tov firj de'iv TrpocprjTrjv iv iKcrdciei \a\eu' ; it was touched on in an early anony- mous writing against Montanism [Abercius], of which large fragments are preserved by Eusebius (v. 16, 17). Some more of this polemic is almost certainly preserved by Epiphanius, who often incorporates the labours of previous writers and whose section on Montanism contains a discussion which is clearly not Epiphanius's own, but a survival from the first stage of the controversy. We learn that the Montanists brought as Scripture examples of ecstasy the text " the Lord sent a deep sleep iiKaraaiv) upon Adam," that David said in his haste (ev iKdrdaei.) " all men are hars," and that the same word is used of the vision which warned Peter to accept the invitation of Cornelius. The ortho- dox opponent points out that Peter's " not so " shews that in his ecstasy he did not lose his individual judgment and will. Other similar instances are quoted from O.T. The same argument was probably pursued by Clement of Alexandria, who promised to write on prophecy against the Montanists {Strom, iv. 13, p. 605). He notes it as a characteristic of false prophets ^f iKcrraaeL irpoecprfTevov ws hv 'AwocrTaTOV Siolkovoi (i. 17, p. 369). Tertullian no doubt defended the Montanist position in his lost work in six books on ecstasy. Notwithstanding the condemnation of Mon- tanism and the excommunication of Montan- ists by neighbouring bishops, it continued to spread and make converts. Visitors came from far to witness the wonderful phenomena ; MONTANUS and the condemne.l pr^phots h<»i>ed to reverse the first imfavourablo vcnlii t bv the sentence of a larger tribunal. But all the leading bishops of Asia MiiDr drclarol at;ainst it. M length an att.-niPt was nj.id.- t.. inrtti.Mue or overrule the judgment nf .Asiatic C'hristi.kns by the opini.>n of their brethren bevond the sea. We cannot be sure how long Montanus had been teaching, or how long the excesses of his prophetesses had continuisl ; but in 177 Western attention was first c^illetl to these disputes, the interference being solicitetl of the martyrs of Lyons, then suffering imprisonment and expecting death f >r the tcstiinonv of Christ. They were informi^l of the disputes by their brethren in .\sia Minor, the n.itive country no doubt of many of the t'.allic Chris- tians. Husebius in his Chronicle assigns 172 for the beginning of the prophesying of Mon- tanus. .\ few years more seems iiec«-ssarv for the growth of the new sect in ,\sia before it forced itself on the attention of foreign Christians, and the Epiphani.in date 157 appears more probable, and agrees the vague date of Didvmus, " more than 100 years after the .\scension." Possibly 157 m.iy be the date of the conversion of Montanus, 172 that of his formal condemnation by the .\siatic church authi>rities. Were the Ciallic churches consulted by the orthodox, by the Montanists, or bv both ? and what answer did the Gallic Christians give ? Eusebius only tells us that their judgment was pious and most orthodox, an<l that they subjoined letters which those who afterwards suffered martyrdom wr^ile while yet in prison to the brethren in .\sia and Phrygia and also to Eleutherus, bp. of Rome, pleading (or negotiating, Tpfaiiiuoi'Ta) for the peace of the churches. If, as has been suggested, the last expression meant entreat- ing the removal of the excommunication from the Montanists, Eusebius, wh<j begins his account of Montanism by describing it as a device of Satan, would not have praised such advice as pious and orthixlox. We think that the .\fonlanists had appealed to Rome; that the church partv solicited the good offices of their countrymen settled in Gaul, who wrote to Eleutherus representing the disturbance to the peac^ of the churches (a phrase probably preserved by liusebius from the letter itself) which would ensue if the Roman church approved what the church on the spot condemned. We have no reason to think of Rome as then enjoying such suprem- acy that its reversal of an Asiatic excommuni- cation would be quietly acquiesced in. Yet the .\siatic bishijps might well be .inxious how their decisi(jn would commend itself to the judgment of a stranger at a distance. To such a one there would be nothing incredible in special manifestations of (iod's Spirit display- ing themselves in Phrygia, while the sugges- tion that the new prophesying was inspircnl by Satan might be repelled by its admitted orthodoxy, since all it professed to reveal tended to the glory of Christ and to the in- crease of Christian devotion. To avert, thf-n, the possible calamity of a breach between the Eastern and Western church<-s. the (iallic churches, it would appear, n .t oidy wrote, hut sent Irenaeus to Rome at the end of 177 ur the MONTANUS 739 bexinninK of lyH. ThU hv....th«j, fhrvc* us from the necrs.r ' • .. w^j- fitia to have bmi t lullv accounts for the 1 The Ami>.. .' tian world 1 CAse was si bishops. ( I . .\polin.irius ^ui • bishops who ha«l 1 1 the Montanist pi Sotasof .\nchialus, ..u t!i.- «. t Black Se.i, was dead when .Ap-M but .\elius I'ubliuH fiilius, tip bouring colony of Orbejiuv >:: testimtmv that SoUn had tri- demon out of Prisrilla but ha'l 1 by the hypocrites. We Irarn writer that /oticus of Coinana .1 1 .\patnea similarlv attempted l<> milla, and were not perniitt<,l : other of .\polinarius's an' to his signature by apix-i: then commonly given t i imprisonment or tortun-s ('r ( hi it lUr result was that the Roman church approved the sentence of the Asiatic bishops, as we know independently from Trrtullian. II. Sfonlantsm tn the Fa\l. fftonJ \l4igf. — Fur the history of .Montanism in thr I- j*.e jftrr its definite separation from t' •■ ' ' ' ' - ' authorities are fragment bins of two writers, t! already mentioned and A, The date of both thes<> writiiiijs isc.ii . later than the rise of Montanism. A] places himself 40 years after its fir t l- In the time of the .\nonymous ti of the schism had vanished ii Montanus was dead, as wa-. i early leader in the movement. \'^u-' ii ii 1 :•- bably managed its finances, for he i\ saul to have been towards it a kind of /rirporot. The .Anonymous states that at the time he wrote I •[ full years had elapseil and a 14th liad begun since the death of NIaximilla. I'riscilU must have died previously, t'"- \i.>.' 11. b.-li.ved herself to be the last i r church and that after her the . ; Themiso seems to have b< . tanus, the head of the .Montanist.. He »a» at anv rate their leading man at I'rputa ; and this was the headijuarters of the s. < t Tdrre probably Montanus had taukii >• prophetesses I'riscilla and >Ja\ there I'riscilla had seen 10 .1 vi in the form of a .^ ' wt ispired hei I her that IVpu/a t there the N- - ' heaven. I bouring VI t holy place. There Zotuu* and J ulJ • viu.ilU and Themiso was then : tl>..se who prevented Ihr inl- Montaii'i h' to presid' » why it is » founder. I ll'- ^■•t.lII•-^ r.llir.i t,.i. .,.r« WPtviiartkoi, spiritual, and tlir adhrirnlt ••( the church ^i'X««o<, carnal. thu» fuUowUnf the usage o( »omc <.»no»tir ■ ■• !:; ' • 14 740 MONTANUS itself the Catholics seem to have called the new prophesying after its leader for the time being. Elsewhere it was called after its place of origin, the Phrygian heresy. In the West the name became by a solecism the Cataphrygian heresy. Apparently after Themiso Miltiades pre- sided over the sect ; the Anonymous calls it the heresy nlv Kara 'MtXTiddrjv. One other Montanist of this period was Alexander, who was honoured by his party as a martyr, but had, according to Apollonius, been only punished by the proconsul, Aemilius Frontinus, for his crimes, as the public records would testify. We cannot, unfortunately, fix the date of that proconsulship. Taking the Eusebian date, 172, for the rise of Montanism, Apollonius, who wrote 40 years later, must have written c. 210. The Epi- phanian date, 157, would make him 15 years earlier. The Anonymous gives us a clue to his date in the statement that whereas Maximilla had foretold wars and tumults, there had been more than 13 years since her death with no general nor partial war, and the Christians had enjoyed continual peace. This, then, must have been written either before the wars of the reign of Severus had begun or after they had finished. The latest admissible date on the former hypothesis gives us 192, and for the death of Maximilla 179. It is hardly likely that in so short a time all the original leaders of the movement would have died. Before the end of the 2nd cent. Mon- tanist teachers had made their way as far as Antioch ; for Serapion, the bishop there, wrote against them, copying the letter of Apolinarius. It is through Serapion that Eusebius seems to have known this letter. Early in the 3rd cent, the church had made converts enough from Montanists born in the sect for the question to arise. On what terms were converts to be received who had had no other than Montanist baptism ? Matter and form were perfectly regular ; for in all essen- MONTANUS evidence whatever that any Roman bp. before Eleutherus had heard of Montanism, and the history of the interference of the Gallic con- fessors in 177 shews that it was then a new thing in the West. The case submitted to Eleutherus no doubt informed him by letter of the events in Phrygia ; but apparently no Montanist teachers visited the West at this time, and after the judgment of Eleutherus the whole transaction seems to have been for- gotten at Rome. It was in a subsequent episcopate that the iirst Montanist teacher, probably Proclus, appeared at Rome. There was no reason to regard him with suspicion. He could easily satisfy the bishop of his perfect orthodoxy in doctrine ; and there was no ground for disbelieving what he might tell of supernatural manifestations in his own country. He was therefore either received into communion, or was about to be so and to obtain authority to report to his churches in Asia that their commendatory letters were recognized at Rome, when the arrival of an- other Asiatic, Praxeas, changed the scene. Praxeas could shew the Roman bp. that the Montanist pretensions to prophecy had been condemned by his predecessors, and probably the letter of Eleutherus was still accessible in the Roman archives. The justice of this previous condemnation Pra.xeas could confirm from his own knowledge of the Montanist churches and their prophesyings ; and his testimony had the more weight because, having suffered imprisonment for the faith, he enjoyed the dignity of a martyr. The Mon- tanist teacher was accordingly put out of communion at Rome. This story, which has all the marks of probability, is told by Ter- tuUian (adv. Prax.), who probably had per- sonal knowledge of the facts. The bishop could only be Zephyrinus, for we cannot go later ; and as predecessors in the plural num- ber are spoken of, these must have been Eleutherus and Victor. The conclusion which we have reached, that Montanism made no tial points of doctrine these sectaries agreed i appearance in the West before the episcopate with the church. But it was decided, at a council held at Iconium, to recognize no baptism given outside the church. This we learn from the letter to Cyprian by Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, when the later controversy arose about heretical baptism. This council, and one which made a similar decision at another Phrygian town, Synnada, are mentioned also by Dionysius of Alexandria (Eus. vii. 7). Firmilian speaks as if he had been present at the Iconium council, which may be dated c. 230. So entirely had the Catholics ceased to regard the Montanists as Christian brethren that, as stated by the Anonymous, when per- secution by the common enemy threw con- fessors from both bodies together, the ortho- dox persevered till their final martyrdom in refusing to hold intercourse with their Mon of Zephyrinus, is of great importance in the chronology of this controversy. The formal rejection of Montanism by the Roman church was followed by a public dis- putation between the Montanist teacher Pro- clus, and Caius, a leading Roman presbyter. Eusebius, who read the record of it, says it took place under Zephyrinus. The Montanist preachers, whatever their failures, had one distinguished success in the acquisition of Tertullian. Apparently the condemnation of the Roman bishop was not in his mind decisive against the Montanist claims, and he engaged in an advocacy of them which resulted in his separation from the church. His writings are the great storehouse of information as to the peculiarities of Montanist teaching. The Italian Montanists were soon divided by schism arising out of the violent Patripassian tanist fellow-sufferers ; dreading to hold any ' controversy at Rome at the beginning of the friendship with the lying spirit who animated | 3rd cent. Among the Montanists, Aeschines them. Epiphanius states that in his time the sect had many adherents in Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia, and a con- siderable number in Constantinople. III. Montanism in the West. — If we set aside the worthless Praedestiuatus, there is no was the head of the Patripassian party, and i in this it would appear from an extract in Didymus that he followed Montanus himself ; Proclus and his followers adhered to the orthodox doctrine on this subject. IV. Montanism and the Canon. — The most MONTANUS fundamental iiuu>vati.)n i>f .M.>ntanist tcarhing was the theory of an authorized developmriit of Christian doctrine, as opposed to tlie oldtr theory that Christian dortrii\e was preached in its completeness by the apostles and that the church had merelv to preserve faithfiiUv the tradition of their teaehinj;. The Montaiiists did not reject the apostolic revelations nor abandon any dixrtrines the church had learned from its older teachers. The revelatimis of the new prophecy were to supplement, not to displace, Scripture. They believed that while the fundamental truths of faith remained un- shaken, points both of discipline and doctrine might receive c.tirrection. " .\ process of development was exhibited in (lod's revela- tions. It had its rudimentarv principle in the religion of nature, its infancy in the law and the prophets, its youth in the gospel, its full maturity only in the dispensation of the Paraclete. Through His enlightenment the dark places of Scripture are made clear, parables made plain, those passages of which heretics had taken advantage cleared of all ambiguity " (Tert. de Virg. Vel. i. ; de Res. Cam. 63). Accordingly TertuUian appeals to the new revelations on questit>us of discipline, e.g. second marriages, and also on questions of doctrine, as in his work against Praxeas and his treatise on the Resurrection of the Flesh. Some have thought it a thing to be regretted that the church by her condemnation of Mon- tanism should have suppressed the freedom of individual prophesying. But each new prophetic revelation, if acknowledged as divine, would put as great a restraint on future individual speculation as words of Scripture or decree of pope or council. If Montanism had triumphed. Christian doctrine would have been developed, not under the superintendence of the church teachers most esteemed for wisdom, but usually of wild and excitable women. Thus TertuUian himself derives his doctrine as to the materiality and the form of the soul from a revelation made to an ecstatica of his congregation (de .Anima, 9). To the -Montanists it seemed that if (iod's Spirit made known anything as true, that truth could not be too extensively published. It is evident from quotations in Epiphanius and TertuUian that the prophecies of Maxi- milla and Montanus were committed to writing. To those who believed in their divine inspiration, these would practically form additional Scriptures. Hippolytus tells that the Montanists " have an infinity of books of these prophets whose words they neither examine by reason, nor give heed to those who can, but are carried away by their undis- criminating faith in them, thinking that they learn through their means something more than from the law, the prophets, and the gospels." Didymus is shocked at a propheti- cal boi)k emanatinij from a female, whom the apostle did not permit to teach. It wi>uld be a mistake to suppose that the Montanistic dis- putes lf<l to the formation of a N.T. canon. On the contrary, it is plain that when these disputes arose Christians had so far closed their N.T. canon that they were shr>cked that any modern writing should be made equal to the inspired books of the apostolic age. The Montanist disputes led to the publication of MONTANUS 711 lists rerot;iii/ril bv p.irticiilar rhurrhr^, iitlil we consiiler that it was in opp..Mi|,.n to (h« multitudr of Montanist pr>phr(ir Ixh.Ws (hat Caius in his disputation k^vp a list rrroKni/ml bv his church. The rontr^ivrriv alv) undo Christians more strupiiloiis alx>iil pavini: to other books honiuim like thoso ^\\v\\ (■> the books of Scripture, and we l>rl|pvr thai it W4S for this reason that the Shepherd <•< Hrniut ceased to have a y\,\rc in church fraditiK. But still we think it plain from the history that the conception of a closed N.T. canon was found by .Montanism and not then created. V. ^tontanUt Doctrines and PratlUes. — The church objected, as against Mont.iiiisin, to any addition being made to the teaching of Scrip- ture. What, then, was the nature of tho additions actually made by the .Montanists? (i) Sac Fasi.i. — Thr prophetesses had ordained that in addition to th«- ordinary Paschal fast of the church two wj-eks of what was called Xerophagy should be obvrve*!. In these the Montanists abstained, not only from flesh, wine, and the us<' i>f the bath, but from all succulent footl, e.g. juicy fruit, except on Saturday and Sunday. The weekly stations also, or half fasts, which in the chiirch ended at three p.m., were by .Montanists usually continued till evening. The church party resisted the claim that these two new weeks of abstinence were divinely obligatory. The real (jueslion was. Had the prophetess God's command for instituting them ? This particular revelation only came into promin- ence because at recurring intervals it put a marked diflerence between Montanists and Catholics, similar to that which the Paschal fast put between Christians and heathen. (2) Second Marriages. — On this subject again the difference between the .Montanists and the church really reduces its<-lf to the question whether the Paraclete spoke by .Montanus. Second marriages had before .Montanus been rei;arded with disfavour in the church. TertuUian deprecates them with almost as much energy in his pre-Montanist work ati Uxnrem as afterwards in his Mon- tanist de Monogamia. But however un- favourably such marriages were reganled, their validity and lawfulness were not denied. St. Paul had seemed to decl.ire that such marriages were not forbidden (Kom. vii. 3; I. Cor. vii. 30). and thedirecti-nin thcpa»ti>ral epistles that a bishop should be husband of one wife seemed to leave others free. (3) Church Disctf'ltne.—T\\<r treatise of Ter- tullian {de Pudictlia) shews a cntroyer^y of Montanists with the church concerning the power of church ofhcers to ijive al>solulii>n. The occasion was the publicati-n. by one whom TertuUian sarcastically calls " Pontifex Maximus" and " Episcopus Epi«-oix)riim.' of an edict of pardon to pervms guilty <»f adul- tery and fi>rnicati'>n on due prrfonnanre of penance. Doubtless a bp. of Rome is in- tende<l, and as Hipp.lvtus tells {ix. IJ) «>f Callistus being the first to intr-nluce »nch laxity in granting absolution, it seems plain that Callistus was referred to. Tertulll.in holds that lor such sin abs'ilution ought never to be given. Not that the sinner was to despair of obtaining God's pardon by repent- 742 MONTANUS ance ; but it was for God alone to pardon ; man might not. We refer to our art. Tertullian for other doctrines which, though advocated bv Ter- tullian in his Montanist days, we do not feel ourselves entitled to set down as Montanistic, in the absence of evidence that Tertullian had learned them from Montanus, or that thev were held by Eastern Montanists. The bulk of what Tertullian taught as a Montanist he probably would equally have taught if Mon- tanus had never lived ; but owing to the place which Montanism ascribed to visions and revelations as means of obtaining a know- ledge of the truth, his belief in his opinions was converted into assurance when they were echoed by prophetesses who in their visions gave utterance to opinions imbibed from their master in their waking hours. VI. Later History of Montanism. — We gather from Tertullian's language {adv. Prax.) that it was some time before his persistent ad- vocacy of Montanism drew excommimication on himself. To this interval we refer the Acts of Perpetua and Felicitas, in the editor of which we may perhaps recognize Tertullian himself. Both martyrs and mart\Tologist had clearly been under Montanist influences : great importance is attached to visions and revelations, and the editor justifies the com- position of new Acts, intended for church reading, on the grounds that the " last davs " in which he lived had witnessed, as had been prophesied, new visions, new prophecies, new exhibitions of the mighty working of God's Spirit, as great as or greater than in any pre- ceding age. Yet the martyrs are evidently in full communion with the church. The schism which soon afterwards took place appears to have been of little importance either in numbers or duration. We hear nothing of Montanists in the writings of Cyprian, whose veneration for Tertullian would scarcely have been so great if his church were still suffering from a schism which Ter- tullian originated. In the next cent. Optatus (i. 9) speaks of Montanism as an extinct heresv, which it were slaying the slain to refute. Yet there were some who called themselves after Tertullian in the 4th cent. Augustine (Haer. 86) at Carthage heard that a well-known church which formerlv belonged to the Ter- tullianists had been surrendered to the Catho- lics when the last of them returned to the church. He had evidently heard no tradition as to their tenets, and set himself to search in Tertullian's writings for heresies which they presumably may have held. Elsewhere in the West Montanism entirely disappears. In the East, we have already mentioned the councils of Iconium and of Synnada. There is a mention of Montanism in the Acts of Achatius (Ruinart, p. 152). Though these Acts lack external attestation, internal evid- ence strongly favours their authenticity. Their scene is uncertain ; the time is the Decian persecution a.d. 250. The magistrate, urging Achatius to sacrifice, presses him with the example of the Cataphrygians, " homines antiquae religionis," who had already con- formed. Sozomen (ii. 32) ascribes the ex- tinction of the Montanists, as well as of other heretical sects, to the edict of Constantino MONTANUS depriving them of their places of worship and forbidding their religious meetings. Till then, being confounded by heathen rulers with other Christians, they could meet for worship, and, even when few in number, keep together ; but Constantine's edict killed all the weaker sects, and among them the Montanists, every- where except in Phrygia and neighbouring districts, where they were still numerous in Sozomen's time. He says (vii. 18) that, unlike Scythia, where one bishop ruled over the whole province, among these Phrygian heretics every village had its bishop. At last the orthodox zeal of Justinian took measures to crush out the remains of the sect in Phrygia, and the Mon- tanists in despair gathered with wives and children into their places of worship, set them on fire, and there perished (Procop. Hist. Arc. 11). In connexion with this may be taken what is told of John of Ephesus in the same reign of Justinian (Assemani, Bibl. Or. ii. 88), that A.D. 550 he had the bones dug up and burned of Montanus and of his prophetesses Carata, Prisca, and Maximilla. What is disguised under the name Carata we cannot tell. It is hardly likely that Montanism sur- vived the persecution of Justinian. Besides Cataphrygians they were often called from their headquarters, Pepuzans, which Epipha- nius counts as a distinct heresy. The best j monograph on Montanism is by Bonwetsch (Erlangen, 1881). See also Zahn, Forschanger I zur Gesch. des N.T. Kanons, etc. (1893). v. 3 ff., on the chronologv of Montanism. [g.s.] Montanus (3), bp. of Toledo, c. 523-^- 53i- Authorities. — (i) His Life by Ildefonsus (de Vir. III. c. 3). {2) Two letters printed by Loaysa (Cone. Hisp. p. 88), Aguirre (Coll. Max. Cone. Hisp. ii. 159), and Florez (Esp. Sagr. V. 409, 415). (3) The Acts of the second council of Toledo (Tejada y Ramiro, Coll. de Can. de la Igl. Esp. ii. 701). His Life. — The facts related by Ildefonsus are meagre. We are told that Montanus was the successor of Celsus in the " prima sedes " of the province of Carthaginensis ; that he defended and maintained his office ; that he wrote two letters on points of church disci- : pline, one to the inhabitants of Palencia, the other to a certain Turibius, a "religious"; and that he rebutted a scandalous accusation I by the help of a miracle wrought in his favour. These Acts of the second council of Toledo I are curious and important, and have been ! suspected of at least containing interpolations, I if not of being altogether supposititious, but j there seems no sufficient reason for doubting ! their genuineness. The council opened on May 17 in the 5th year of Amalaric (a-d. 527) according to the reckoning generally adopted since Florez's day, 531 according to the older reckoning. The bishops began by expressing their intention of adding to the Codex Canonum certain provisions not already contained in j the ancient canons on the one hand, and of reviving such prescriptions as had fallen into disuse on the other. The material of these canons is common to most of the various Spanish councils of the first half of 6th cent. It is the concluding passage of the Acts which makes the council of special interest in Spanish ecclesiastical history. "According to the decrees of ancient canons, we declare that, MOSES Cod willinp. thr council shall be hrld in fnttirr ' apud ■ our brother, the bi-ihop Montanus. so that it will be the dutv of our brother and co-bishop Montanus. who ts in thf mftrof>ohs. to forward to our co-principals, bishops of thr Lord, letters convening the svnod when the proper time shall arrive." An expression of thanks " to the glorious king .\malaric." with regard to whom the bishops pray that " throughout the unnumbered years of his reign he may continue to afford us the licence of carrying through all that pertains to the cultus fidei." concludes the .\cts. In the words in italics is contained the first mention of Toledo as the ecclesiastical metropolis of Carthaginensis, the first indication of that commanding position to which the see was to attain under its 7th-cent. bishops. The passage also indicates the relations of Mon- tanus with king .\malaric. Relying upon his support, upon the physical advantages of Toledo, and upon an ecclesiastical tradition capable of various interpretations. Montanus sought permanentlv to exalt the power and position of his see. But the time was not yet come, and the question still remained an open one in .sSq when Leovigild fixed the seat of the consolidated (iothic power at Toledo, and practically settled the long-vexed question. Cartagena was in the hands of Byzantium, whereas the bp. of Toledo was the bishop of the urbs regia. It took some time to accom- plish, but the Dfcretum Gundftnari as a first step, and the Primacy Canon of the 12th council of Toledo as a second, were the in- evitable ecclesiastical complements of physical and political facts. Hefelc, Cone. Gesch. ii. 700 ; Esp. Sagr. v. 131, c. iii. [m.a.w.] Moses (3) (.Uovso). Roman presbyter (? of Jewish origin), a leading member of an in- fluential group of confessors in the time of Cyprian, about the commencement of the Novatianist schism. The others were Maxi- mus, NiC'»tratus. Rufinus, I'rbanus, Sidonius, Macarius, and Celcrinus. They wrote early in the persecution, urging the claims of dis- cipline on the Carthaginian confessors {Ep. 27) (cf. Tillem. t.iii. Notes s. .Moyse. t. iv., S. Cyp. a. XV., Lipsius, Chr. d. rom. Bisch. p. 200), and Moyses signed the second letter of the Roman clerus (viz. Ep. 30), drawn up by Novatian according to Cyprian (Ep. 55, iv. ), and he wrote with the other confessors Ep. 31 to Cyprian (Ep. 32). When they had been a year in prison (Ep. 37), or more accurately II months and days (Liberian Catalogue, Mommsen, Chronogr. v. Jahrc 354, p. 635), i.e. c. Jan. i, 251, Moyses died and was ac- counted a confessor and martyr (E.p. 55). Shortly before his death he refused to com- municate with .\ovatian and the five presbyters who sided with him (diro<rxtffa<Tii') because he saw the tendency of his stern dogma (Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, Eus. vi. 43, KaTiJwr). Movses' severance was not because Nova- tian had already left the Catholics, which he did not do till June 4, after the election of Cornelius ; and Novatus, who induced it, di<i not leave Carthage for Rome until April or May (Rettberg, p. 109). Moyses' great authority remained a strong point in Corne- lius's favour, when the rest of the confessors (Ep. 51) after their release threw their in- MURATORIAN FRAGMKNT 74^ tlueMrr ..n thr sidr of N.>\ ,• • nJlnn the slrirtrr disciplinr ag " Thr headship <>f thr p.irtv W\ '■' vm-»' death to Maximi ^ (S). ;i w ii.| Moses (6). of Khorrn ^^f.,^e^ Kh.>rrnfnll^) - -called bv hi» counlrvmrn the Father o( Mistorv- the port, graminarian. ami mmi crlrbratrd writrr of Armrnu, W4^ thr nrphrw and disciple of St. Mrsri>b. thr fiMindrr nt .\rmrnian iitrraturr. (Mr^Monrsl H«Tn »t Khorrn or Khorni. a town <>f thr provinrr of Parou, he was onr of a band <>f %rht>Ur» M>nt bv Mesrob tostiidv at I"dr\sa. I OnstJntinople, Alexandria. Athrns. and Romr. Thrrr he accumulated vrrv widr historical knoMlrdgn (cf. Wis/, .irtnen. iii. fti. fij). Rrlurninx to .\rmenia. he assistrdSt. Mrsr>>b in trAn%lallnK the Bible into his native l.mKuagr. a work which was accomplished brtwrm 407 and 413. This fixes his birth in thr r.irlv part of crnt. v. ; though some place it in thr latlrr part of crnt. iv. Brvond his litrrarv activitv we do not know much about his lifr. Ur stircr^drd Kznig as bp. of Pakrevant, whrrr he dis- played great spiritual activitv. According to the medieval Armenian chronicler. Samuel of Ani. he died in 4RR, aged 120. The followinR works atlribnt«-d t>> him arr rxtant : (\)Htsl.of .4rmenia, (2) Treattseon Rhetoric. (3) Trenlneon Geography, (^)r.etler on. Assumptinnnf n. f. .»f., (S) Homilv on Chrtsfs 1 ransfisutalion, (6) Oration on Hrip-^inta, an .Armenian Vttfin Martyr, (7) Hvmns used i« .Armenian Church Worship. He wrote also 2 work* now lost. viz. Commentaries on the .Armenimn Grammarians, of which fragments arc found in John lirzengatzi, an Armenian writrr of cent, xiii., and Explanations of .Armenian Church Offices, of which we have t.idv v>inp fragments in Thomas .\rdzrouni (crnt. vii.). The Hist, of .Armenia is |>erhaps the work of a Liter writer, but it is in some respects one of the most important historical w<irksi>f anti- quity. It embodies alnm^t our onlv remains of pre-Christian .-Vrmenian literature and pre- serves many songs and traditions retained at that time in popular memory. F>>r special studies of it see Diilaurirr in Journ. .Asial. Jan. 1852. It is also very valuable l>rcaus«« it preserves extensive remains of Assyrian. Ch.ildean, Svrian, and C.rrrk writrrs. Slosrs had studied long at Kdessa, where thr library was very rich in ancient Assyrian chroniclers. This work also throws much light «>n the history of the Roman empire in crnt*. iv- and v., and its struggles against thr rrnrwrd Prr- sian empire and the eflorts of Zoroastn.inism. It has been translated into Italian by thr Mcchitarite Fathers (Vrnicr. 1M41); into French bv V. I.anglois in Hulortens mn<itnM de V.Arm^nie (Paris, iH«.7). Srr alsi. .M. ( ar- riere, M„i\e de Khoren. etc. (Pan- • •> - > 1. 1 .\ouveUe^\"Urce<.de.\t<'t>edeKh i\ Id., I.a. Ugende d'.Ahcur. dam I'h: Kh. ; als4> F. ( . Ciivlxarr in / schr. (i'>'>i ). X 4'*'» s'-'I (■..I--! Mtirktortan Prarnifnt, a very ancimt list <.f the b'M'ks ..f ."SI. nrst pub. in 1740 by Murat'.ri {.Ant. I tat. .Med. .Aev. ill. «>i) and fi>und in a 7th <>r Hth rent. MS. in thr Ainbr-v- sian Library at Milan. rh« MS. had r..n»e from the Irish monastery of Bohbio, and th« fragment seems to have htvn a copy of « loose 744 MURATORIAN FRAGMENT leaf or two of a lost volume. It is defective in the beginning, and breaks off in the middle of a sentence, and the mutilation must have taken place in the archetype of oiir present copy. This copy was made bv an illiterate and careless scribe, and is full of blunders ; but is of the greatest value as the earliest -known list of N.T. books recognized by the church. A reference to the episcopate of Pius at Rome (" nuperrime temporibus nostris ") is usually taken to prove that the document carmot be later than c. i8o, some 20 years after Pius's death (see infra). This precludes Muratori's own conjecture as to authorship, viz. that it was by Caius the presbyter, c. 196; and Bunsen's conjecture that Hegesippus wrote it has nothing to recommend it. It is generallv agreed that it was written in Rome. Though in Latin, it bears marks of translation from the Greek, though Hesse (Das. Mur. Frag., Giessen, 1873) and others maintain the originalitv of the Latin. The first line of the fragment evidentlv con- cludes its notice of St. Mark's Gosper, for it proceeds to speak of St. Luke's as in the 3rd place, St. John's in the 4th. A notice of St. Matthew's and St. Mark's must have come before, but we have no means of knowing whether the O.T. books preceded that notice. The document appears to have dealt with the choice of topics in the Gospels and the point where each began (cf. Iren. iii. 11). It is stated that St. Luke (and apparentlv St. Mark also) had not seen our Lord in the flesh. For its story as to the composition of St. John's Gospel see Leucius. The document goes on to say that by one and the same sovereign Spirit the same fundamental doctrines are fully taught in all concerning our Lord's birth, life, passion, resurrection, and future coming. At the date of this document, therefore, belief was fully established in the pre-eminence of the four Gospels, and in their divine inspiration. Next comes the Acts, St. Luke being credited with purposing to record only what fell under his own notice, thus omitting the martvrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul's journev to Spain. Thirteen epistles of St. Paul are then mentioned, (a) epistles to churches, in the order- I. and II. Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Gal., I. and II. Thess., Rom. It IS observed that St. Paul addressed (like St. John) only seven churches bv name,* shewing that he addressed the universal church, (b) Epistles to individuals : Phile- mon, Titus, and two to Timothv, written from personal affection, but hallowed by the Cath- olic church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline. Next follow words which we quote from VVestcott's trans. : " Moreover there is in circulation an epistle to the Laodi- ceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, bearing on [al. * I.e. "nomination," whidi might suggest the acknowledgment as St. Paul's of Hebreu-s as not addressed to a church by name. But no mention of that epistle follows, as we should in that case expect. Pi'^i* .."'''''.?'' °^ P=^"^'s Epp. to Seven Churches L c 7 • " ,^ '• "• ^^- '^^''^- '"^''- /«'^- a°tl Optatus, ae Schism Don. 11. 3) and the language of Augustine (de Ctv. Dei.^^n. iv. 4), Victorinus of Padua (in Apoc. I) and Pseudo-Chrvs. (Op. imperl. in Matt. 1. 6, pp. VI. XVII. Bened. ed.) suggest the acquaintance of those writers with our document. MURATORIAN FRAGMENT ' favouring '] the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic church, for gall ought not to be mingled with honey. The epistle of Jude, however, and two epistles bearing the name of John, are received in the Catholic [church] (or, are reckoned among the Catholic [epistles]). And the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour [is acknow- ledged]. We receive, moreover, the Apoca- lypses of St. John and St. Peter only, which latter some of our body will not have read in the church." Marcion entitled his version of Eph. " to the Laodiceans," and there is a well-known pseud o- Pauline epistle with the same title. It has been generally conjectured that by the epistle " to the Alexandrians," Hebrews is meant ; but it is nowhere else so described, has no Marcionite tendency, and is not " under the name of Paul." The frag- ment may refer to some current writing which has not survived, or the Ep. of Barnabas might possibly be intended. Though only two Epp. of John are mentioned, the opening I sentence of I. John had been quoted in the paragraph treating of the Gospel, and our writer may have read that epistle as a kind of appendix to the Gospel, and be here speak- ing of the other two. The mention of Wisdom in a list of N.T. books is perplexing. Perhaps we should read " ut " for " et " ; and the Proverbs of Solomon and not the apocryphal book of Wisdom may be intended. There may be an inaccurate reference to Prov. xxv. i (LXX). The fragment next says that the Shepherd was written " very lately, in our own time " in the city of Rome, his brother- bishop Pius then occupying the chair of the Roman church ; that, therefore, it ought to be read, but not in the public reading of the church. The text of the last sentence of the document is very corrupt, but evidently names writings which are rejected altogether, including those of Arsinous, Valentinus, and Militiades, mention being also made of the Cataphrygians of Asia. Westcott has shewn that no argument can be built upon the omissions (Ep. of James, both Epp. of Peter, and Hebrews) of our fragment, since it shews so many blunders of transcription, and some breaks in the sense. Certainly I. Peter held, at the earliest date claimed for the fragment, such a position in the Roman church that entire silence in re- spect to it seems incredible. Of disquisitions on our fragment we may name Credner, A^. T. Kanon, Volkmar's ed. 141 seq. 341 seq. ; Routh, Rell. Sac. i. 394 ; Tregelles, Canon Murat- orianus ; Hesse, op. cit. ; Westcott, N. T. Canon, 208 seq. 514 seq. ; qndesp. Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons, ii. i (1890), pp. 1-143; also Lietzman's Das Mur Frag. (Bonn, 1908), be- sides coimtless arts, in journals, e.g. Hamack, in Text und Unters. (1900); Overbeck, Zur Geschichte des Kanons (1880); Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrijt (1881), p. 129. Hilgenfeld (Kanon, p. 44), and Botticher (De Lagarde) in Bunsen's Hippolytus i. 2nd ed. Christianity and Mankind, attempted its re-translation into Greek; an ed., with notes and facsimile by S. P. Tregelles. is pub. by the Clar. Press. The present wxiter expressed in 1874 (Hermathena i.) an opinion which he now holds with more confidence that MUSONIUS the fraginpiit was written in tho cpiscdpatp o( Zephyriiius. The words " teinporibus iiostris" must not be too severely pressetl. We have no evidence that the writer was as careful and accurate as Kusebius, who vet speaks (iii. 28, cf. V. 27) of a jv-riod 50 or 60 vears before he was writing as his own time. There are also indications from the historv of the varying position held by the Shff^turJ that the publication of our fragment mav have been between Tertullian's two tracts </<• OriUione and lie Pudicitia (see D. C. B. 4-vol. ed. s.r.) ; and if it be true that Montanism only became active in the Roman church in the episcopate of Zephyrinus, the date of the Muratorian document is settled, for it is clearly anti-Montanist. If we regard it as written in the episcopate of Zeph\Tinus, Muratori's conjecture that Cains wrote it becomes possible ; and we know from Kuse- bius that the disputation of Caius with PriKlus. written at that peri >d. contained, in opposition to Montanist revolati ms, a list of the books reverenced by the Cathi>lic church. [c.s] Musonius (1), bp. of Ne<x;aesarea, on whose death in a-d. 368 Basil wrote a long letter of consolatim to his widowed church (Ep. 28 [62]), lauding him greatly and designating him no unworthy successor of Circgory Thau- maturgus. He describes him as a ria;id supporter of old customs and the ancient faith, endeavouring to conf<irm his church in all things to the primitive model. His watchful care had preserved his church from the storms of heresy ravaging all neighbouring churches. In so great reverence was he held that, tho\igh by no means the oldest of the bishops, the presidencv in council was always his. He must have attained the episcopate comparatively yoimg, for, though he ruled the church of Xeocaesarea many years, he was not vecy aged when he died. Though Musonius had been prejudiced against Basil, and re- garded his election to the episcopate with no friendly eyes, so that, though they were united in faith and in opposition to heresy, they were unable to co-operate for the peace of the church, Basil mentions him in a second letter to the Neocaesareans as the " blessed Muso- nius," the follower of the traditions of Gregory Thaumaturgus, " whose teaching was still sounding in their ears" (Ep. 210 [64]). [e.v.] Narcissus (t), bp. of Jerusalem. Clinton (Fasti Romuni) accepts the date a.d. 190 for the commencement of his episcopate. He was the 15th of the Gentile bishops of Jeru- salem, reckoning from Marcus, a.d. 136, and the 30th in succession from the apostles (I£us. H. E. V. 12). .Vccording to the Synoduon, Narcissus presided over a council of 14 bishops of Palestine held at Jerusalem a.i>. 198, on the Paschal controversy, and took part in that at Caesarea on the same subject under the pre- sidency of Theophiius, bp. of the city (I. abbe, Concil. i. 600). Eusebjus sijeaks of the synodical letter of these bishops as still extant in his time (Eus. H. E. v. 23)- Narcissus was conspicuous in the church of his day (.Nealc, Patriarch, oj Antioch. p. 34 ; Eus. //. E. v. 12). NEBRIDIUS 746 Eusebius records .1 mir.>rle Ir4ilili<>nallv .iscribrd to him, whrrrl>v wjtcr wa» r«»uvrtlr<l into oil one EA<trr Evr. when the oil rr<|uirrd for the grr.tt illumination hail (.iilrd {\.\is. //. E. vi. .)). The s.u>ctitv of hi> li(r r4i%fd against liim a b.md of s|.tndrrrr%. N4rri»»us stung bv their cilumiiv, alxliralrd his l>i\ho|>. ric, and retin-d to the rmtotrsi poit <>( Ihn desert, where for srveral vrar^ he lived Ihtt ascetic life he had long covrtr<l, no «nr kn<iw> ing the place of his concraUnrnl. Having In^en sought for in vain, the nriKh- bouring bishops declared the srr vacant. Mid orilained l>ius as his successor, who wa> succeeded by tiermaiiicus, and he by Gordlu*. During the episcopate of (tordnis, Norcistus reappeared. Shortly aftrr his dis.tpj>r4rAncr the faKity of thech.u"ges .igainst him, liusrbiut tells us. had been pr'>ved b\ thrrursrsiinprrca- ted by the f.ilse accusers h.iMiig Ixf-n frarfully made gixxl. This, having evmlu.illy rrachrd N.ircissus's ears, probably led to his return. He at once resumed tlie oversight of his see at the earnest request of all (ift. 0. 10). In the 2nd year of Caracalla, a.d. 212 (Eu*. Chromi- con), .Mexander, a Cappadocian bishop, a confessor in the persecution of Sevcru*. visit- ing the holy city in fulfilment of a vow. wa» selected by the aged Narcissus as his coadjutor and eventual successor. Eiisebius preserve* a fragment of a letter written by .Mexander to the people of .\ntinous, in which he s|>eaks of Narcissus as being then in his 116th yr.ir, and as having virtually retired from hi» episcopal office (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). Epipha- nius states that he lived ten ye.\rs after .Mexander became his coadjutor, to the reign of .Mexander Severus, a.d. 222 (Ei)iph. Haer. Ixvi. 20). This, however, is very improbable. Tiliem. Mt'm. feci. iii. 177 f- (k.v.) NebrldiuS (4). an intimate friend of Si. .Augustine, and i>robably of about the same age, described by him as very gm)d and of a very cautious disposition. While .\ugustine was at Carthage under the influence of .Mani- chean doctrine, it was partly through Nebri- dius and Vindicianus that he was induced to give up his belief in astrology, or, as it was then callid, m.ithemalics. Nebridius had .ilready abandoned .Manicheism and delivered lectures against it, a.d. 379 (Aug. Conf. iv. 3 ; vii. 2, 6). When .\ugustine removed from Rome to Milan as a lecturer in rhrttiric, a.d. 384, Nebridius, out of love for him, drtermincd to leave his home and mother, and take up hit abode with Augustine and .My|>ius there, " for no other reason," says .-VuKUstine. " than that he might live with me in mo»t ardent pursuit of truth and wisdom " (^^. vi. 7, 10). Hy and by Nebridius imdert'M)k to assist Vrrc cundus in his grojiimar lr< turr> .«t lus rarne»t request and that of .Au^jusliiK-. This duty he performed with great c.irr ami discrrtion (ib. I viii. 6). Soon after Nebridius a|iT.irs io have ! taken up the notion of the I><K^rtar. that our I Lord t<K)k human nature not in rralitv but I only in outward appearance, an error which, after a period of unknown Iriigth, he re- t canted. So«in after the conversion of Aurus- tine he died, a true Catholic, having induced ' his houvhold to join him in the change. '• He IS now," says Augustine with conhdrncr, " in the bosom of Abraham " [ib. ix. j, 4)- 746 NECTARIUS Though a much-loved friend, Nebridius was a troublesome correspondent, most persever- ing in his inquiries, which were sometimes very difficult to answer, and not satisfied with brief replies or always ready to make allowance for his friend's occupations (Aug. Ep. 98, 8). Of the 12 letters which remain of their corre- spondence, two only are addressed by Nebri- dius to Augustine. Those of Augustine are very long, chiefly on metaphysical subjects of extreme subtlety. [h.w.p.] Nectarius (4), archbp. of Constantinople A.D. 381-397 or 398, successor to St. Gregory of Nazianzus. When Gregory resigned, Nec- tarius was praetor of Constantinople. He was of noble family, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, an elderly man, widely known for his admirable character, still only a catechumen. Pre- paring for a journey to Tarsus, he called on the bp. of Tarsus, Diodorus, who was attending the council, to ask if he could take letters for him. The appearance and manners of his visitor struck Diodorus so forcibly that he at once determined that he should be advanced as a candidate ; and, alleging some other business, took the praetor to call on the bp. of Antioch, who, though laughing at the idea of such a competitor, asked Nectarius to put off his journey a short time. When the emperor Theodosius desired the bishops at the council to suggest candidates, reserving to himself the right of choosing one of them, the bp. of Antioch put at the bottom of his list, in compliment to the bp. of Tarsus, the name of the praetor. The emperor, reading the lists, declared his choice to be Nectarius. The Fathers were amazed. Who and what was this Nectarius ? He was not even baptized. Astonishment at the emperor's unexpected choice was great. Even the bp. of Tarsus seems not to have known this disqualification. The startling information did not move Theo- dosius. The people of Constantinople were delighted at the news. The whole council agreed. Nectarius was baptized. The dress of a neophyte was changed for the robes of the bishop of the imperial city. The praetor, a few days previously a catechumen, became at once president of the second general council. He ruled the church upwards of 16 years, and made an admirable prelate. His name heads the 150 signatures to the canons of the second general council. The 3rd canon de- clares that " the bp. of Constantinople shall hold the first rank after the bp. of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome." The bishops of the West were not disposed to accept the election, and asked for a common synod of East andWest to settle the succession. Accordingly the emperor Theodosius, soon after the close of the second general council, summoned the bishops of his empire to a fresh synod — not, however, as the Latins wished, at Alexandria, but at Constantinople. There were assembled here, early in the summer of 382, very nearly the same bishops who had been at the second general council. On arriving they received a letter from the synod of Milan, inviting them to a great general council at Rome. They replied that they must remain where they were, because they had not made preparations for so long a journey, and were only authorized by their NECTARIUS colleagues to act at Constantinople. They sent three of their number— Syriacus, Euse- bius, and Priscian — with a synodal letter to pope E)amasus, archbp. Ambrose, and the other bishops assembled in council at Rome. The Roman synod to which this letter was addressed was the 5th under Damasus. No certain account remains of its proceedings, nor of how its members treated the question of Nectarius. Theodosius, however, sent com- missaries to Rome in support of the statements of his synod, as we learn from the letters of pope Boniface. In his 15th letter (to the bishops of Illyria) he shews that the church in Rome had finally agreed to recognize both Nectarius and Flavian. St. Ambrose, in his 63rd letter, adduces the election of Nectarius as an approval of his own by the East. Six graceful letters from Nectarius remain in the correspondence of his illustrious pre- decessor Gregory. In the first he expresses his hearty good wishes for his episcopate. The last is of great importance, urging him not to be too liberal in tolerating the Apollinarians. In 383 a third synod at Constantinople was held. In spite of the decrees of bishops and emperor, the -Brians and Pneumatomachians continued to spread their doctrines. Theo- dosius summoned all parties to the imperial city for a great discussion in June, hoping to reconcile all differences. Before the pro- ceedings, he sent for the archbishop and told him of his intention that all questions should be fully debated. Nectarius returned home, full of profound anxiety, and consulted the Novatianist bp. Agelius, who agreed with him in doctrine and was held in high personal esteem. Agelius felt himself unsuited for so grave a controversy ; but he had a reader, Sisinnius, a brilliant philosopher and theo- logian, to whom he proposed to entrust the argument with the Arians. Sisinnius sug- gested that they should produce the testi- monies of the old Fathers of the church on the doctrine of the Son, and first ask the heads of the several parties whether they accepted these authorities or desired to anathematize them. The archbishop and the emperor gladly agreed to this scheme. When the bishops met, the emperor asked : Did they respect the teachers who lived before the Arian division ? They said, Yes. He then asked : Did they acknow- ledge them sound and trustworthy witnesses of the true Cliristian doctrine ? The divisions this question produced shewed that the sectaries were bent on disputation. The emperor ordered each party to draw up a written confession of its doctrine. When this was done, the bishops were summoned to the imperial palace, Nectarius and Agelius for the orthodox, Demophilus (formerly bp. of Con- stantinople) for the Arians, Eleusius of Cyzicus for the Pneumatomachians, and Eunomius for the Anomoeans. The emperor received them with kindness and retired into a room alone with their written confessions. After praying God for enlightenment, he rejected and de- stroyed all except that of the orthodox, be- cause the others introduced a division into the Holy Trinity. The sectaries thereupon sorrowfully returned home. The emperor now forbade all sectaries, except the Nova- tianists, to hold divine service anywhere, to NEMESIUS publish their (li>ctrinos or to onl.iin rlrro'. tinder threat of severe civil pen.iltirs. In 385 died Pulcheri.*, the emperor'* daughter, and his wife riarill.i. The .irch- bishop asked (".repory of NA-ssa to preach the funeral sermons on b<ith Kcasiofis. Titwards the clos* of his episcopate Nec- tarius abolished the office of prcsbvter peni- tentiary, whose duty appears to have l>ern to receive confessions before communion. His example was followed by nearly all other bishops. The presbyter penitentiary was added to the ecclesiastical roll al>out the time of the Novatianist schism, when that party declined to conununicate with those who had lapsed in the Decian persecution, (ir.idu.tllv there were fewer lapsed to reconcile, and his duties became more closely connected with preparation for communion. .\ disgraceful occurrence induced Nectarius to leave the participation in holy communion entirely to mdividual consciences and abolish the office. Nectarius died in 397 or 398, and was suc- ceeded by St. John Chrvsostom. (Theod. H. E. V. viii. etc. ; S«Kr. H. E. v. viii. etc.; Soz. H. E. vii. viii. etc. ; The<iph. Chronogr. so. etc.; Nectarii .\rch. CP. Enarralio in Pair. Gk. xxxix. p. 1821 ; Mansi, Concil. t. iii. p. 521. 509, 633. 643, 694, etc. ; Hefele, Hist. Christ. Couttcils, tr. Oxenham (Edinb. iS;6). vol. ii. rr- 344. 347. 37S. 380. 382, etc. fw.M.s.] NemeslUS (4), bp. of Emesa in the latter half of 4th rent., of whom nothing is certainlv known but that he wrote a rather remarkable treatise, irfpi <pv<rtwt ait^pilirov. de Xatura Hominis, of which cc. ii. and iii. wrongly appear as a separate work, entitled ir(fH \ti'X^i. de Ariirrui, among the writings of Cng- ory Nyssen. I.e Ouien [Or. Chnst. ii. 83<)) places Nemesius fifth among the bishops of Emesa, between Paul 1., who attended the council of Seleucia, a.d. 359, and C>Tiacus, the friend of Chrysostom. The date of his wTiting is tolcrablv certain from his mentioning the doctrines of Apollinaris and Eunomius and the Origenists, but n'>t those of Nestorius. lEutvches. or Pelagitis. He could hardly have avoided mentioning Pel.igius if his teaching had been known to him. in the part of his treatise relating to free will. That he was bp. of Emesa is stated in the title of his treatise in the various MS. copies, and bv .Maxiinus (ii. 153, ed. Combefis) and Anastasius Sinaita {Quaest. xviii. and xxiv.) in quoting his work. He is also quoted, though without his name, bv Joannes Damascenus, Elias Cretensis. Meletius, Joannes Grammaticus, and others. The treatise is an interesting work which will well reward perusal, and has received much praise from able judges of style and matter. Nemesius establishes the immortality of the soul against the philoviphers, vindic^ites frer will. oppf)ses fatalism, defends i'oA'i pp.vi.l- ence, and proves bv opi-us examples thr wisdom and go,.dness of the Heitv. He givc^ indications that he was n>>t ign-Tant <.f the circulation of the blo^Kl and the funrtf.ns <.f the bile (cc. xxiv. xxviii. pp. 242. a*^'. "1 Matthaci). The best ed. is by C. F. Matthaei (Halae, 1802). reprinted by Migne in Pair. dk. The treatise has been translated into mo^t modem European language*, into Italian bv Pizzimenti(nodatc). English. (;. Wilkes (1636 NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR 747 and if>s'i, •••■f ■ ■ 't, i»ioi, anil li ri%. 18441. t >. " "'•^ ifint QurllfH I !>• . ■ • 1 Nero (I). ClkOdilU CmUT. nnprr I KK-I. 13. S4. I" !""•• •>. '•"' 1 "■•' ' '" I ">n- *' tb* interest of Nrr"S hlr ■• i.-.i. ^ 1 , ' r ; - itloo of the t hristun*. I ■ »•• Menv.ile. cc. lii.-U ^»«n t'hristiaiiitv W4« uni » in have spre.id rapidiv ..t K -.ur \ .1 >,l.l It re<-eive<l a great im|»<-tu» Iron* the prearhlni of St. Paul during the tw.i vear^ «U«-r hl» arrival, probably earlv in 6|. Hut b«-|..rr l«n« a ternl'lr st>rm w.»* to bur*t on thr inUnt church. On the nurht ol lulv ih 64 a htr broke out in the v.>l! • ' -■ •'- '•■'»Mne and the .Aventine. ! *»% crowded with humi ! <ull of inflammable rout.;. , ■* "' the citv Iwcame a va .( lUin. . I 1 ux <U%-» the fire raged till it reache«t the fw.t of the Esquiline. where it was stopped bv pullinc down a number of houses. Sn.n altrr a second fire br'>ke out in the gardens of Tutel- linus near the Pinrian. and rase^l for thre* davs in the N. parts ol the nlv. Though the \<^si of life was less in the »«-ond hre. the destruction of temples and public buildino was more s<-riou<. Bv thr ••■ •■'• - •' '-«• ol the 14 re;:ions wrr<- uttrrl < ur esrape<l entirely, in the r<v ''Ut few hous<-s wrre left stamlf .. <"' at .Antium when the fire broke .ut, ami .lid not return to K<.me till it h.vl almost rearhwi th« vast e<lifice he had ronstrurtetl to connrrt hi« palace on the Palatine with the ganleiis o| .Maecenas on the Ks.piiline. The horrible suspi. ion that Ner" himself wm the author .f tlu- fire g..ine«l strength. ThI* is asserted as a positive f.»< t bv Suet..niu» (c. 38), Pi on (Ixii. i6). and Plinv the Elder (xvii. I), the last Iwing a routem|>orarv. hut Tacitus alludes to it ..nlv as a prevalent rumour. \Vh<-ther w.ll foundr«l ..r n-.t. and whether, supposing it tr-i- •' --for"* motive was to rlr.irawav t' streets of the old town in on a new and rr;;ul.ir plan "a* a freak "f m.i.lnrss. nre«l n^ i •Tr. At anv rate N.ro f.un.l it ■ ^^'p fr-.m himsrll thr r.ute of the ; ' «ne blame upon the Christians. The onlv auth.>r living near the lime ol the persecution who give* an .irro.,nf f»» it 1% Tacitu.i. .Alter describing t' " ' ^rl%- tianitv he proceeds "I "^ those who con f.-^'1 thri tion a vast in ' ' ■ much on the < if the hiifiijii I II ( %n r ■" "■' '■ 1 ■ 'llgl .>it to *;.iiii A t up Jn-. k- !. 1 tfie r.irn It'll II"! >lrs .ir«l • •I ■ rt% 4n4 Ur% ell thr at they were, yet they were pitird. •« ibey 748 NERO, CLAUDIUS CAESAR seemed to be put to death, not for the benefit of the state but to gratify the cruelty of an individual" {Ann. xv. 44). This narrative has been the subject of very various interpre- tations. Lightfoot {Phil. 24-27) considers that the Christians were at this time suffici- ently numerous and conspicuous to attract the fury of the populace. The ambiguity of Tacitus leaves it doubtful whether those first arrested "confessed Christianity" or "con- fessed they were guilty of the burning." Schiller (Geschichte des rom. Kaiserreichs unter Nero, 435) argues that " fateri " in Tacitus is always used of the confession of a crime. According to his view, as many of the shops near the circus where the fire originated were occupied by Jews, suspicion would fall upon them, which would be strengthened by the fact that the Transtiberine, the Ghetto of that time, was one of the few quarters that had escaped the fire. At that time Jews and Christians lived in the same part of the town and in the same manner. Weiszacker {Jahr- biicher fiir Deutsche Theologie, xxi. 269, etc.) considers, with much probability, that Nero and his advisers having selected the Christians as the victims of the popular indignation, those first seized were conspicuous members and were charged as incendiaries, and from thera the names of others were ascertained and these treated in the same way. Thus a vast number were arrested, so many that all could not have been guilty of arson. Why Nero selected the Christians must remain un- certain. The Jews, who at first sight would seem more likely scapegoats, as being more conspicuous and probably more unpopular, were strong enough to make Nero hesitate to attack them. A Jewish persecution in Rome might excite a dangerous revolt in Judea. The Christians, however, were conspicuous and numerous enough to furnish a plentiful supply of victims, but too few and weak to be formidable. From the allusions of St. Cle- ment (Ep. to Cor. c. 6), a little more informa- tion canbe obtained. Like Tacitus, he speaks of the vast multitude, and mentions that women underwent terrible and unholy tortures. The persecution was probably confined to Rome. There is little evidence of it extending to the rest of the empire. The Acts of the saints mentioned by Tillemont {Mem. eccl. ii. 73-89) are all more or less fabulous, and even if authentic there seems little or no ground for placing them in the reign of Nero. The accounts in Acts of the journeys of St. Paul shew how easily an outbreak of popular fury might be excited by Jews or heathens, who, either on religious or private grounds, were hostile to the new doctrine, and how easily in such an outbreak a conspicuous Christian might be murdered without any state edict against Christianity, or without the public authorities interfering at all, and it is not unreasonable to suppose that, when Nero set the example of persecution, many provincial magistrates would take a harsher view than previously of the case of any Chris- tian brought before them. The question of the connexion between Nero and Antichrist was brought into pro- minence by M. Renan. The significance of the Neronian persecution lies in the fact that NERVA it was the first. Hitherto the attitude of state officials to Christianity had on the whole been favourable ; at worst they treated it with contemptuous indifference. All this was now suddenly changed. The head of the state had made a ferocious attack on the in- fant church. Henceforth the two powers were in more or less violent antagonism till the struggle of 250 years was closed by the conversion of Constantine. Whatever the date of the Apocalypse, it can hardly be doubted that the Neronian persecution with all its horrors was vividly present to the mind of the author. To have perished obscurely by his own hand seemedboth to pagans and Christians too commonplace an end for a monster who for 14 years had filled such a place in the eyes and the minds of men. Few had witnessed his death, so that the notion easily arose that he was still alive, had taken refuge with the Parthians, and would reappear. Tacitus men- tions_ {Hist. i. 2; ii. 8, 9) the appearance of two false Neros, and Suetonius (c. 56) alludes to another. In the days of his prosperity diviners had predictedhis fall andthathewould gain a new dominion in the East and Jerusalem and at last regain the empire {ib. c. 40). According to the theory of M. Reuss {Hist, de la theol. chreiienne, i. 429-452), adopted by Renan, the Apocalypse was written during the reign of Galba, i.e. at the end of 68 or beginning of 69, when men's minds were agitated, especially in Asia Minor, by the appearance of a false Nero in the island of Cythnus (Tac. Hist. ii. 8). M. Reuss inter- prets the first six heads of the first beast as the emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, Nero, and Galba, of whom the first five were dead, while the sixth, Galba, was then reigning. As he was 73 years old his reign must soon terminate ; a seventh was to follow and reign for a short time, after which one of the emperors supposed to be dead was to reappear as Antichrist. The first four emperors had not been hostile to the Chris- tians, and none of them, except Caius, had died a violent death. Nero therefore alone answers the description. Finally M. Reuss interprets the number of the beast as the numerical value of the letters of the words Nt'pwj' Katcrap when written in Hebrew, and explains the existence of the ancient variant reading 616 by supposing it due to a Latin reader who had found the solution, but pro- nounced the name Nero and not Neron. Whether this theory be well founded or not, the opinion that Nero would return as Anti- christ certainly continued for centmries. Commodianus, who probably wrote c. 250, alludes to it (xli. in Migne, Patr. Lat. v. 231), and even in the 5th cent. St. Augustine {de Civ. Dei, XX. 19, in ib. xli. 686) mentions that some then believed he would rise again and re- appear as Antichrist, and that others thought he had never died, but would appear at the ap- pointed timeand recover his kingdom. Another view was that Nero would be the precinrsor of Antichrist (Lact. Mortes 2, Sulp. Sev. Dial. ii. 14 in Patr. Lat. vii. 197 ; xx. 211.) [f.d.J Nerva, Roman emperor, a.d. 96-98. M. Cocceius Nerva was the third in succession of a family conspicuous for legal and administra- tive power in the first century of the empire. NESTORIAN CHURCH On the assassination nf ndinitiaii l>y Strphun- us, the freodiiiaii and ag«-nt «•( |)t>nulil(a, ho was elected as emperor by the soldiers, the people, and the senate, and reversed the policy of his predecessor. The connexion »>/ Stc- phanus with Doniitilla. if she and Flavins Clemens were indeed Christians, may indicate that the movement that placed Nerva on the throne was in part, at least, designed to further a more tolerant system of government than that of Domitian. Such, at anv rate, was its effect. St. John was recalled from his e.xile in Patmos (lius. //. h. iii. 20). The crowd of delatores, who had preferred accusa- tions of treason, atheism, and Judaism, which fell most heavily on the Christians, were banished, and those who had been sent to prison or exile on these charges were recalled and set at liberty. Other measures of the emperor, though not distinctly Christian, tended in the same direction. [f.h.p.J Nestorian Church. This is the name given in modern times to those whom sth-cent. writers railed simi'ly " Easterns " ; by which they meant the church that existed to the east of them, outside the boundary of the Roman empire, in the kingdom that was at lirst Par- thian, and later Sassanid Persian. The body is also called " east Syrian " (the term Syrian implying use of the Syriac language rather than residence in " Syria "), and sometimes also " Chaldean " or " Assyrian." Foundation of the Church. — During the course of the ist cent. Christianity spread from Antioch, not only to the west but alsi> east- wards, and in particular it extended to lidessa, then the capital of the little " buffer state " of Osrhoene, situated between the Koman and Parthian empires. The political independ- ence of the state ended in 216, but it had lasted long enough to give a definite character to the local church, which was marked off by its Syriacvernacular and Oriental waysof thought from the Greek Christianity to the west of it. Missionaries went out from lidessa to the east again, and founded two daughter-churches, one in Armenia and one in what was then Parthia, the latter of which is the subject of this article. The first two " apostles " and founders of this church were .^dai (=Thaddeus) and Mari. Tradition identified the former with either the disciple of Christ — a statement hard to recon- cile with the recorded fact that he was still able to travel in the year 100 — or with one of " the Seventy." He is known to have preached in .Assyria and Adiabene before the close of the ist cent., and to have consecrated his disciple Paqida as first bishop of the latter province, in a.d. 104 {Htst. of Mshtkha-zca) ; while the statement of the •' doctrine of .Adai " that the apostle died in peace at lidessa has the ring of truth in it. The later history of the church in that place is outside our subject. Of Mari, his companion, little is known certainly (his life is a mere piece of hagio- graphy), but he appears to have penetrated into the southern provinces of the Parthian kingdom, to have |>rearhed without much success at the capital, Seleu< ia-Ctesiphon, and to have died in peace at I)or-Koni. There seems no reason to doubt the historic charartcr of both these teachers; and later tradition NESTORIAN CHURCH 740 addr.l that St. lll..Ml.l^ the .\p. \ilr. pMkin| through this I ..(iiiirv ..n hi* »av to ludu, wm cv-foundcr o| the rhiirrh with thrm. Tht Chutih unJff ih* At\M%di and Smi- santds. - I'ndcr Parthun rulr. whi<h was tolerant, and whrrr the »iatr rrliKi.n *»a« an outworn and rrlictir paganism, tlir nrw fatih spread rapidlv and rasilv. Thrrr wat no persecution by the K"VTnnirnt. ih><ttKh con- verts from one sprrial religion. /..riatlruniMn, had sometimes l.> fair it. from the powrrfui hierarchy of that faith, the Magiant. Thu* the church had more than 30 buho|>«, and thi-se were distributed over the whi>lr country when, in 2i.s, the 2nd Persian rri>larrd the Parthian kingdom, and the Arvand dvnatly gave way t<i the Sassanid. Thi* rrvolulion was to Its authors a revival of the oUi kinK- dom destroyrd by .Mrxandrr. and the iVrtian nation rose again with a national rrligton. that of Zoroaster. It ma<le no rt|..rt to <lr»lroy the Christianity that it found existing, but, like Islam later, tolerated it as the religion of a subject race, and so put it into the p<>«ilii<n that it still IX rupies in thosr lands, thoufch the dominant religion has changed. ( hri»ttans became a ntfUt (a subject rare organurd in a church), recognized by the governmrnt. but despised bv it. For thmi to prosrlyti/r from the state faith was a crime, punishable with death, though they were alloweci to convert pagans. .Apostasv from Christianity to the established faith meant worldlv prosperity, but there was no perserution. though there wasoften oppression, by the governmrnt, until the adoption of Christianity by the Kmnan emperor (the standing enemy of thr shah- in-shah) made every Christian politnally suspect. Thus Persia continued tobrarrluge for many Christians from Kotnan territory during the "general" persecutions of the 3rd cent., and the church grew. b<'th by con- versions and by the advent of " captivities," largely Christian in faith, brought bv con- querors like Sapor 1. from Koman territory. Episcopate of Papa. — Though it extended rapidly elsewhere, the chunh made little progress in the capital, and there was no bishop there, and only a few Christians, till late in the 3rd cent. In 270 .Akha »r.\buh', bp. <>( .Arbela, joined with others in roiisri ralinn Papa to that see. and this man brrainr its hrsi bishop since the days of Man. In later days legend supplied the names of earlier holders of what had then become a patrian hal throne, and indeed made Akha d'Abuh' himself one of the series, and told how in a.d. 170 he was recognized by the four " western patriarchs" as the fifth of thr band. Papa, as bp. of the capital. si>on claimed to be the chief bishop of the chunh. it« calho- licos ; the claim was favoured bv the circum- stances of the tunc, as in ' - ■'■" ■'! the " greater thrones " were obt tion over the Irsser Srrs wlthi of attraction, and the patri.u uned were so<»n to be rr<ogiu/rd at Sujujl. The conditions of melel life also tend to pro«lu«e some one head, through whom the «ovrinnirnl can dral with the ]>ei<plr. Papa, howrvrr. so claimed the honour as to pri*lmr irritation, and a couiiril mrl in m i<> judxe his rtaini. It was very adverse to Papa, who rrfuw-d in 750 NESTORIAN CHURCH anger to bow to its decision. " But is it not written, ' He that is chief among you ...'?" said one bishop, Miles of Susa. " You fool, I know that," cried the catholicos. " Then be judged by the Gospel," retorted Miles, placing his own copy in the midst. Papa, in fury, struck the book with his fist, exclaiming, " Then speak. Gospel ! — speak!" and, smitten with apoplexy or paralysis, fell helpless as he did so. After such a sacrilege and such a portent his condemnation naturally followed, and his archdeacon Shimun bar Saba'i was consecrated in his room. Papa, on recovery, appealed for support to " the Westerns," i.e. not to Antioch or Rome (the " Nestorian " church never deemed her- self subject to either of them), but to the nearest important sees to the west of him, Nisibis and Edessa. These supported him on the whole, but their advice did not, apparent- ly, go beyond recommending a general recon- ciliation and submission to the see of Seleucia- Ctesiphon, on the ground that it would be for the good of the whole church that it should have a catholicos. This recommendation was carried out, all parties being a little ashamed of themselves. Papa was recognized as catholicos, with Shimun as colleague, cum jure successionis, and the right of the throne concerned to the primacy has never since been disputed. Papa survived these events for 12 years, and so was ruling during the council of Nicaea, though neither he nor any bishop of his jurisdiction (which did not then include Nisibis) was present at that gathering. Arian- ism passed by this church absolutely, and the fact is both a testimony to its isolation and a merciful dispensation. Church history might have been very different had that heresy found a national point d'appui. Persecution of Sapor II. — Shimun succeeded Papa, and in his days the church had to face the terrible " forty years' persecution " of Sapor II. The acceptance of Christianity by the Roman empire meant terrible suffering for the church outside it, in that any outbreak of the secular rivalry of the two empires meant thereafter persecution for the church in one of them. This was inevitable, and the same dilemma exists to-day. Given a state pro- fessing a certain variety of militant religion (Zoroastrianism or Islam), how can loyalty to it be compatible with profession of the religion of its rivals ? Constantine, like some Czars, liked playing the general protector of Chris- tians ; and Christians looked to him as naturally as, in the same land, they have since looked to Russia. Thus, when Sapor made war on Constantius in 338, persecution commenced almost as a matter of course. Shimun the catholicos was one of the first victims, 100 priests and clerics suffering with him ; and the struggle thus inaugurated continued until the death of Sapor in 378, in which time 16,000 martyrs, whose names are recorded, died for their faith. This greatest of persecutions was not, of course, uniformly severe at all times in all provinces, and both it and others after it were rather the releasing of the " race-hatred " of Zoroastrianism against Christianity than the ordered process of law against a religio illicita. Thus, it resembled both in outline and detail NESTORIAN CHURCH the "Armenian massacres" of a later age. Clergy, of course, and celibates of both sexes, who were numerous, were specially marked, and so were the Christian inhabitants of the five provinces about Nisibis, when their sur- render by the emperor Jovian in 363 handed them over to a notorious persecutor. Practically, though not absolutely, the trial ended with the death of Sapor; but the exhausted church could do little to reorganize herself until a formal firman of toleration had been obtained. The influence of Theodosius II. secured this in 410 from the then shah- in-shah, Yezdegerd I. Council of Isaac. — The church was then formally put into the position that it had, previously to the persecution, occupied prac- tically : it was made a melet in the Persian state, under its catholicos, Isaac ; it was allowed to hold a council, under his presidency and that of the Roman ambassador, Marutha ; and it now for the first time accepted the Nicene Creed. Canons were also passed for the proper organization of the body, and some of these are based on Nicene rules. The church shewed its independence, however, by dealing very freely with the canons even of that council. Seemingly, the council of Constantinople was accepted also at this time, but it was not thought to deserve special mention. A period of rapid growth followed the enfranchisement and organization of the church that had proved its power to endure, and 26 new sees were added in 15 years to the 40 existing in 410, these including Merv, Herat, Seistan, and other centres in central Asia. Internal troubles arose, however, caused by the quarrels of Christians, and by their habit of " using pagan patronage " — i.e. applying to non-Christians of influence — in order to escape censure, to gain promotion, etc. The habit was, of course, destructive of all discipline. A council held in 420 to deal with this, under the catholicos Yahb-Alaha, and another Roman ambassador, Acacius of Amida, could only suggest the acceptance of the rules of several Western councils— Gangra, Antioch, Caesarea — without considering whether rules adapted for the West would for that reason suit the East. Persecution soon recommenced, Magian jealousy being stirred by Christian progress, and raged for four years (420-424, mainly under Bahram V.) with terrible sever- ity. As usual, a Perso- Roman war coincided with the persecution, and the end of the one marked the end of the other also. With the return of peace another council was allowed, the catholicos Dad-Ishu presiding. This man had suffered much, both in the persecution and from the accusations of Christian enemies, and was most anxious to resign his office. There was, however, a strong feeling among Christians that their church must be markedly independent of " Western " Christianity {i.e. that of the Roman empire), as too much con- nexion spelt persecution. Thus they insisted that the catholicos should remain, and styled him also " patriarch," and specially forbade any appeal from him to " Western " bishops. The fact that Acacius of Amida, though actually the guest of the king at the time, was not at the council is another indication oi NESTORIAN CHURCH their feelings. Tliis ili-tlarati.>ii of indcncnd- i ence is the first sisiii of the appro.uhinj; schisin, I though the reinaiiider of the eatholicate of Dad-Ishu was peaceful, and the N(>stiirian ' controversy, at the time of its arising, was no more heard i>f in the East than the Arian controversy before it had been. The Work of Bar-sopna. — .Another persecu- tion fell on this niuch-trieil church in 44S. but otherwise we know little of its history till ^So. when the Christolo^jical controversv reached it for the first time. In the Roman empire at that period Chalcedon was past, and the Monophysite reaction that fi)llowed that council was at its height; the " Henoticon of Zeno " was the official confession, accepted by all the patri- archs of the empire with the exception of the Roman. The church in Persia, however, was emphatically " Dyophysite," and thus there was a theological force at work that hardened the independence already found necessary into actual separation. The protagonist of the movement was Bar- soma of Nisibis. a very typical son of his nation ; a quarrelsome and unscrupulous man, who yet had a real love b<.>th for his church and for learning. He was a favourite with the shah-in-shah, Piroz, who employed him as warden of the marches on the Romo- Persian frontier, and he was practically patriarch of the church. The real patriarch, Babowai, had just been put to death for supposedly treasonable correspondence with Rome, and Bar-soma had rather gone out of his way to secure that this prelate (his personal enemy) should not escape the consequences of his own imprudence. Bar-soma easily persuaded Piroz that it would be better that " his rayats " should have no connexion with the subjects of the Roman emperor, and under his influence a council was held at Bait Lapat. a " Dyophysite " (or perhaps Nestorian) con- fession published, and separation brought about. By another canon of this council marriage was expressly allowed to all ranks of the hierarchy. Some say that the church was simply dragooned into heresy, but the mass of Chris- tians seem to have at least acquiesced in the work of Bar-soma, and it must be remembered that they separated from a church that was Monophysite at the time. There was, more- over, a better side to the work of Bar-soma. He was a lover of learning, and when the imperial order brought the theological school at Edessa to an end (this had hitherto been the sole means of educatii>n open to sons of the " church of the East "), he took a statesman's advantage of the opportunity by founding at Nisibis a college that was a nursery of bishops to his church for 1,000 years. Bar-soma's power ended with the death of Piroz (484), and .\cacius became patriarch. His reign saw the breach with the "Westerns" healed more or less, as the council of Bait Lapat was repudiated (though the canon on episcopal marriage was allowed to stand) and another confession of faith was drawn up. This was not Nestorian. but was indefinite, designedly, and Acacius was received as orthodox during a visit to Constantinople, on condition of his anathematizing Bar-soma. NESTORIAN CHURCH 751 .\s thry were alr>adv at .iprn frud .>ii a niin<>r matter, the patini.h readilv .i^rrrd t.. Ihi*. but the memorv <>! the »rhmn W4» oj rvll omen for the future. Mar Aba.— K prri.Kl of confusion (4<)<>-'\4o) fiillowed. The whoir rounlrv o| lVr>ia wat disturbed bv the comniunisin prrjrhrd by .Ma/dak. to whu h even thr kuxti. K.ba.l, wat converted for a while. Tlir »iranKe move- ment was st.unpe<| out wi bl.»Kl. hut it Irft indirect effects on the churc h. and Bar-V'ma also bequeathed thenj a bad tradin..n of quarrelsomeness. This cidminaird \u an oprn schism in the patriarchate. lastiiiK for i) years, with open disorder in the whole < hurrh. a state of things that only tenninatrd with thr accession of .Mar .Aba to the palriarrhalr in 540. Meantime. M..nopl,vsite supremacy in thr Roman empire had ended with the acrrsMon of the emjieror Justin in siH. and fnrndlv relations between the church there and that in Persia had been resumed: the advanlaK« had to be paid for by the latter, in that it implied a renewal of persecution. Mar .\ba. the greatest man ni the series ol patriarchs of the East, reformed the abuses in the church, going round fr^'in diocese to diocese with a " peramljulatorv svnotl." which judged every case on the spot with pleiiary authority— a precedent so excellent that it is surprising that it has never been followed. ' He was able to establish rules for the election ! of the patriarch which still hold gofni in theory. i and founded schools and colleges (in i>artirular. i one at Selcucia). in addition to the one at ' Nisibis. His table of prohibited degrees in matrimony — a most necessary thing for Christians in a Zoroastrian land — is still the law of his church. I In his days the monastic life, which had wilted under Bar-soma and during the period I of disorder, was revived, and was provided with a body of rules by Abraham of Kashkar, a pupil of .Aba. while the friendship i>f the church in Persia with that in the empire led also (though dates are here rather uncertain) to the detinite acceptance, by this " Nes- torian " chur( h, of the ci>uncil of I halccdon. which stands among the "Western synods" received by these " i'asterns." This accept- ance was certainly previous to 544. Mar Aba's great work for his church was done in the teeth of great difficulties. He was a convert from Zoroastrianism, and as such was legally liable to be t>iit to death, and therefore lived in daily peril from the .Magiaiis. ! The shah-in-shah. CliosTix-s I., would never allow his execution, but feared also to prolett him efhciently. and for 7 of the »> year* ol his tenure of office he was in pris>>n. ruling his flock thence. Though he was relrasc<l at last, and passed his last days in hon<>ur al curl, there is no doubt that his suflenngs hastened his death. PoiilwH of the Church in the bth Cemt.—la the following half-century (i^o-6*K)) there was no special incident. A series of patriarchs i>l the three sttx^k eastern type* 1 court favourllr, respectable ni>neiitity, and strict astriir) ruled the church, and the services wrrr arranged much in their prrsmt t-iriii. In particular the " Rogation ..I the Niiuvitrs," 752 NESTORIAN CHURCH still annually observed, was either instituted or remodelled by the patriarch Ezekiel, during an outbreak of plague. The anomalous relation of the church in Persia with other parts of the Catholic church cannot be fitted into any defined theory. Several Christological confessions were issued by these so-called "Nestorians" which are certainly not unorthodox, and individual patriarchs were readily received to communion when they happened to visit Constantinople {e.g. Ishu-yahb, 585). Nevertheless, there was a growing estrangement, and a conviction on either side that the other was somehow wrong, which was strengthened as the church in Persia slowly realized that the man whom they called " the interpreter" par excellence, Theodore of Mopsuestia, had been condemned at Constantinople. In Persia the church was a stationary melet, though beyond the frontier it was a missionary force among Arabs, Turks, and Chinese. It was numerous enough to make the king anxious not to offend it, the mer- cantile and agricultural classes being largely of the faith. On the other hand, the feudal seigneurs were very seldom of it, and soldiers practically never. In " the professions " doctors were generally Christian, and indeed are largely so to this day, while each faith had its own law and lawyers. The clergy were usually married, but there was a growing feeling in favour of celibate bishops, though the law passed by Bar-soma was never repealed. Monophysite Controversy. — The bulk of Persian Christians were Dyophysite in creed, but there was a Monophysite minority, organized under bishops (or a bishop) of their own, and including many monks. This body was recruited by the enormous " captivities " brought from Syria in 540 and 570. In 612 they were strong enough to make a daring and nearly successful attempt to capture the church hierarchy. The patriarchate was then vacant (Chosroes had been so annoyed by the substitution of another Gregory for the Gre- gory whom he had nominated to that office, that he had refused to allow any election when that man died in 608), and when petition was made for the granting of a patriarch, the Monophysites, whose interest at court was powerful, petitioned for the nomination of a man of their own. They had formidable supporters, for Shirin, the king's Christian wife, and Gabriel, his doctor, were both of that confession. A deputation of Dyophysites came to court to endeavour to secure a patriarch of their own colour, and a most unedifying wrangle over the theological point followed, Chosroes sitting as umpire. Of course, neither side converted the other, but the occasion was important, for from it dates the employment of the Christological formula now used by this church, viz. " two Natures, two ' Qnumi,' and one Person in Christ," the repudiation of the term " Mother of God " as applied to the B.V.M., and the acceptance of the nickname " Nestorian " now given them by the Mono- physites. Ultimately the Dyophysites saved themselves from the imposition of a Mono- physite patriarch, at the cost of remaining NESTORlUS without a leader till the death of Chosroes, and the Monophysites organized a hierarchy of their own. During the long wars between Chosroes and Heraclius, and the anarchy that followed in Persia, the " Nestorian " church has naturally no recorded history, yet at their conclusion it was once more to have formal relations with the patriarchate and church of Constantinople. Drift into Separation. — In the year 628 its patriarch, Ishu-yahb II., was sent as ambas- sador to Constantinople, and he was there asked to explain its faith, and was admitted as orthodox. He was, however, attacked on his return home, on suspicion of having made unlawful concessions, and not all the efforts of men like Khenana and Sahdona could shake the general conviction on each side that " those others " were somehow wrong. The two men named laboured to shew the essential identity, under a verbal difference, of the doctrines of the two churches, but the only visible result was the excommunication of both peacemakers. Then the flood of Moslem conquest drifted the two churches apart, and the bulk of organized Monophysitism between them hid each from the other. The separation of "Nestorians" from " orthodox " was a gradual process, com- menced before 424, and hardly complete before 640. In that period, however, it was completed, and the " church of the East " commenced her marvellous medieval career in avowed schism from her sister of Con- stantinople. Whether her doctrine, then or at any time, was what the word " Nestorian " means to us, and what is the theological status of a church which accepts Nicaea, Constanti- nople, and Chalcedon, but rejects Ephesus, are separate and difficult questions. [Mono- physitism ; Nestorius (3).] Authorities for the History of the Church. — History of Mshikha-zca. (ed. Mingana) ; Acta Sanct. Syr. (ed. Bedjan, 6 vols.) ; Hist, de Jabalaha et de trots patriarches nestoriens (Bedjan) ; Synodicon Orientate (ed. Chabot) ; Bar - hebraeus, Chron. Eccles. pt. ii. ; John of Ephesus, Eccl. Hist. pt. iii. (Cureton) ; Amr and Sliba, Liber Turris ; the Guidi Chronicle (ed. Noldeke) ; Zachariah of Mity- lene (ed. Brooks) ; Socr., Soz., Theod., Evagr., Eccles. Histories ; Book of Governors (Thomas of Marga, ed. Budge) ; Babai, de Unione (MS. only) ; Ishu-yahb III., Letters (ed. Duval) ; Tabari, Gesch. der Sassaniden (ed. Noldeke) ; Assemani, Bibl. Orient, iii. Books and Pamphlets. — Labourt, Chris- tianisme dans la Perse ; Chabot, Ecole de Nisibe ; De S. Isaaci vita ; Duval, Histoire d'Edesse ; Goussen, Martyrius-Sahdona ; Hoft- mann, Aussuge aus Syrische Martyrer ; Bethune Baker, Nestorius and his Teaching ; Wigram, Doctrinal Position of Assyrian Church ; Introd. to Hist, of Assyrian Church ; Rawlinson, SevenihOriental Empire; Christian- sen, L'Evipire des Sassanides. [w.a.w.] Nestorius (l), St. (Nestor), the first known bp. of Side in Pamphylia Prima (Le Quien, i. 997), a martyr in the Decian persecution, a.d. 250. He was arrested by the local Irenarch, required to sacrifice, and on refusing dis- patched in charge of two lictors to the court NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM of the iir.-Ni,l,-nt Pnlli... uli,. t.itiir.-.l .in. I then crucitied liiiii. Tho iinrtvrS .iii>wfr to the presiiienfs queries stitlirientlv iiulirate his theological position. I'ollio said to him. " Are you willing to take part with us or with Christ?" To which Nestor replied. "Cum Christo meo et eram, et sum. et ero " ; to which the president replied that as he was devoted to Jesus Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he should be crucified like his God. The .\cts say his martyrdmn was on the 5th day of the week at the third hour. I.c Blant {Actes dfs Martyrs, p. 46) points out the accuracy of the details. [(,.j.s.) Nestorlus (3) .md Nestorlanlsm. One of the most f.ir-roarhing r.nitr.'V.rsies in the history of the church is ronnerted with the name of Nestorius, who became patriarch of Constantinople in a.d. 4^8, in succession to Sisinnius. So protracted has it been that even to the present day Nestorian churches, as they are called, exist in .\ssyria and India, and their members are not in communion with those of the other Christian churches in the East. The history of the form of thought which produced such far-reaching results must be interesting to every student of theology. Xestorius himself was brought up in the cloister, and had, as Neander remarks, im- I bibed the tendencies to narrowness, partban- ship, impatience, and ignorance of mankind which are not unfrequently found among those who have been educated apart from their fellows. He was brought from .\ntifjch, we are told — a fact of which the significance will presently be seen. He appears to have been eloquent and sincere, and his austerity of life had won for him the admiration of man. Socrates, a specially well-informed contemporary, and a layman of judgment and fairness, speaks with some severity of his tirst steps after he became patriarch (H. E. j vii. 29). He is described as addressing the 1 emperor (Theodosius II.) immediately after his appointment, " before all the people," 1 with the words, "Give me, O prince, a country ' purged of heretics, and I will give you heaven as a recompense, .\ssist me in destroying ] heretics, and I will assist you in vanquishing the Persians." Such language was more ; enthusiastic than wise. It was no doubt pleasing to the multitude, but (Socr. I.e.) it made a very bad impression on thoughtful hearers. " Before he had tasted of the waters of the city," the historian proceeds, using a proverbial phrase, he had flung himself head- long into acts of violence and persecution. On the fifth day after his consecration, he resolved to destroy the oratory in which the Arians were wont to celebrate their worship, and thereby he not only drove them to desperation, but, as Socrates adds, he alienated thinking men of his own communion. He next attacked the yuartf>decimans and the Novatianists with equal violence, although neither sect was involved in heresy by its schism from the church, and the Novatianists had steadily sup- p(jrted the church in its controversy with the .Brians. He then turned his attention to the Macedonians. [Macedonius.] For his treat- ment of this sect there is more excuse. The bp. of Germa, on the Hellespont, had treated them with such severity that, driven t'» NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 76S ■ l.sp.T .II..II. Ihrv In. I srnt tW. U■..4.^U1« lo tnurdrr luni. For Ihi* raOi art Ihrv wcf* deprivrtJ of their churrhr* in CoM»t4ntin.ip|e and the nrighlxiurhiMNl. It wat At Irjti un- wise to convert the nirmlKT^ «i l.>ur " drnoin- ination*," .i« wr shouM now call them, into bitter antagonist*, and it wa» not very Utig before an ocr.inion «ro*c (i>r thrni In ciUpUjr their hi>stilitv. The drvclopmrnt of throlojrv in S\T<a had for some time taken aditfrf • ' ■ • from that whi< h it had t.ikrn in : the tendency had been to l.iv st: mr, and therefore mvsterion*. hi ity. But in Svria a school h.id .11 : 1 >u>- dorus of Tarsus anti the <. I |.ir<> of MopstiiMitia were the Ira.li 1 ted itself to the rriti< al inter]>rrt.ni. ip t s. mturr, and favoured the applir.ition of logiral mvc»- tigation to the facts ati<! d rtrinr^ <>t Chii»- tianitv. These two i ^,re rrrtjtJn some (lav to come 1 .md when reinforced by the 1 . v («lt by succ<'ssivc patriarchs ••; m. * .n.iu.i at the elevation in ySt of Lonstanlinopir, a» New Rome, to the second place among the pa- triarchates, over the head of a church which could boast of St. Mark as it* founder, there was plenty of material for a conflagration. Already premonitions of the appnachinit conflict between Alexandria and Constanti- nople had appeared in the successful inlriRUes of TuEOPiiiLrs, patriarch of Alexandria, against the renowned Jons Ciihvsi>stoii, patriarch of Constantinople. The viol.mc of Nestorius and his supporters s<t tin- ti> the material already provided ; the iiiiniedi.iie occasion being the sermon of a presbyter named Anastasius, whom Nestorii;* had brought with him from Antioch. an<l in whom he reposed much confidence. Anastasius b said to have used the words (S<>cr. //. K. vii. ^2), " Let no man call Marv (^rorikot, for Mary was human, and it is impossible thai (>od could be bom from a hutiiaii l>eing." This utterance naturally caus<-d aniaxrmrnt and distress, for the wortl OtorUoi had been applied to the Virgin by authoritie« as hif(b as Origen. .Athanasius, and lvusrbiu» of Caesarea, and it was in-istrd on with »<>me vehemence by (iregory ol .N'aziaiuus. It U also found in the letter of .Alexander of Alexandria to Ai... .. .1. r . ,. <..,,... ,,.,„.,,. |e. [Ahms.J N. • • K*. and delivered he maintained tl.' ^'th ability and eiuTKV, aiiJ with »..ii»< htal. Mc was promptly charge<l with having nivolvrd hinis4-l( in the heresies of I'huiinii* or Paul of Sanu>sata. .S<K-rat.-s denies that thl» wa» the case. But he remark* on the unrr4»t>a- able antipathy of Nestoriun t.. < w- rdt" which orthodox churchmen were v. nird. This antipathy may p.irth -^i- plained by a dislike on th. "u* ti> the teii.l.M • ' I the Virgin whi< li • H- But it w.is m; •: "I ThcKlore of M . -'ich had lai<l undur slt.s^ .,11 tli.- huiuaiiUv "I Christ, and had not shrunk Irom rrprr^nlint the inhabitation of the.ManChrt*t Je»«»by the i)ivine Logri« asdiffering rather in drgrrr than 4tt 754 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM in kind from that by which God was pleased to dwell in the prophets and other holy men of old. If, they contended, there were any union of natures in Christ, it was not a personal union, but an ^cwtrij axeriKT) (an union of things diverse in a close relation). Such teaching had a dangerous tendency to hu- manitarianism, and to the division of Christ into two hypostases [Arius, Followers of], as well as implying the existence in Him of two separate and possibly antagonistic sources of will and action. The ferment caused by these injudicious utterances spread far and wide, and soon reached Alexandria. Cyril, the patriarch, who had succeeded his uncle Theophilus, was by no means disinclined to lower the credit of a rival whose elevation he at once envied and despised. We must not suppose, how- ever, that Cyril had no convictions of his own on the point, for, as Dorner very properly reminds us, he had already published his opinions on it. Not content, however, with assailing with rare theological ability the opinions of Nestorius, he condescended to less worthy expedients. Not only did he exaggerate and misrepresent the language of his antagonist, but he tried to involve him in charges of ApoUinarianism [Apollinaris] and Pelagianism [Pelagius]. Theodore, from whom Nestorius had imbibed his theology, was in the most direct antagonism to Apollinaris, whose teaching, while insisting strongly on the Godhead of Christ, involved the denial of His Perfect Manhood. And the divines of all schools of thought in the East, in the opinion of the disciples of Augustine, were more or less tinged with Pelagianism. As Nestorius had shewn some kindness to Pelagians who had fled to him from the West, the accusation of Pelagianism suited Cyril's purpose. Before entering into the history of the controversy, we must pause for a moment and endeavour to understand the questions in- volved, and the different aspects from which they were approached by the disputants. The Syrian school, as we have seen, approached these questions from the human side, and favoured inductive methods. The starting- point of Theodore was man, in the sphere of the visible and tangible. The starting-point of Cyril was God, in the sphere of the mys- terious and unknown. The development (for of such a development Scripture un- questionably speaks) of the Manhood of Christ when inhabited by the Godhead seems to have been the prominent idea on the part of the S>Tian school. It inquired whether the indwelling of the Godhead in Jesus Christ was one of Nature or simply of energy, and it undoubtedly leaned too much toward the assertion of a dual personality in Christ. The watchword (as Neander calls it) of the Alexandrians, on the other hand, was the in- effable and (to human reason) inconceivable nature of the inhabitation of the Man Christ Jesus by the Divine Logos. We must not forget that the Syrians, though not of course unacquainted with Greek, habitually thought in Syriac, and used a Syrian version of the Scriptures, which had been in existence in their churches in one form or another ever since the NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM and cent. The use of the term e€OT6Ko<s had been approved by Theodore himself, under certain limitations, which makes the passionate protest of Nestorius against it the more unfor- tunate. Nestorius, unfortunately for himself, was not a clear thinker or reasoner, and was therefore no match for his antagonist Cyril. Great confusion, it should be remarked in passing, has been caused by the inaccurate translation of deoroKos into modern languages by the words Mother of God. Whether the soul of an infant is derived from its parents is an old and still debated question. But the term "mother" unquestionably involves in many minds the idea of transmission of essence, whereas the title OeardKOi, as Theodoret does not fail to point out in his reply to Cyril's anathemas, simply means that she to whom it was applied was the medium through which a Divine Being was introduced into this world in human form. The controversy raised the question whether the term ffvvd(f>fia {connexion or conjunction) or ^vwcii (union) were the better fitted to denote the nature of the relation between the Godhead and the Manhood in Christ. The Syrians inclined to the former, the Alexandrians to the latter. Some confusion of thought continued to exist about the use of the terms Trpdawwov and v-rrdtXTaaii to signify what we in English express by the one inadequate word "person." These two Greek words [Arius, Followers of] were, from the council of Constantinople onward, usually understood to signify respectively the appearance, as regarded by one outside it, and the inward distinction, or, as Gregory of Nazianzus puts it, "speciality" {i5i6Tr]s), which distmguishes one individual of a genus or species from another. But when the word I'TrdffTaais is applied to the conditions of Being in God, the caution of our own Hooker is very necessary {Eccl. Pol. V. Ivi. 2), that the Divine Nature is itself unique. It seems pretty plain that even so clear a thinker as Cyril, in his defence of his anathemas as well as elsewhere, does not distinguish 1 sufficiently between the use of the word inrdcJTaci.'i at Nicaea, and the signification I which had come to be attached to it in the first council of Constantinople. Nor should it be forgotten that though many modern divines are wont to represent Theo- dore of Mopsuestia as a dangerous heretic, he was rather, like Origen at an earlier period, a pioneer of theological inquiry [Arius], and J that, like Origen, he lived and died in the I communion of the chm-ch, though some of I the propositions laid down by him were afterwards shewn to be erroneous. It may not be amiss to sum up these remarks on the t question at issue in the words of Canon Bright, [ who certainly cannot be charged with undue tenderness for Nestorius, on the title deordKos. I " It challenged objection; it was open to j misconstruction ; it needed some theological I insight to do it justice ; it made the percep- ! tion of the true issue difficult ; it stimulated : that ' cultus ' which has now, in the Roman j church, attained proportions so portentous." History of the Controversy. — There was I considerable ferment in Constantinople in NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM coiist'i]iu-nrt.- i>f the utt.T.ui.c-; ,.f N.Ht.'rius and his foUowfrs, fveii bofort- tho iiitrrvoiition of Cyril. One Proclus, who had boon ap- pointed bp. of Cyzicus but had not been accepted by the church there, was n^siiiing in Constantinople, and raised a storm by inveighing not a little indecently, in the verv presence of the patriarch, against the doctrines promulgated by him. Ih-oclus was probably giving expression to real convictions, but w.is clearlv not in a position which justified him in undertaking the task. Nestorius replied, and .Utacked the extravagant laudation of the Virgin by Proclus, describing it as dero- gatory to the honour of her Son. But, as was usual with him, he deprecated all noisy applause on the part of his hearers — therein displaying better taste than most of his con- temporaries — and went on to declare that he did not object to the term tfforinot, provided Mary were not made into a goddess. The dispute grew warm. Placards were affixed to the walls of the churches in Constantinople, and sermons preached against the patriarch. The opportunity thus given was not one which Cyril was likely to neglect. Timugh a man of ability and a theologian far above the average, he was ambitious, violent, and un- scrupulous. Socrates does not conceal his sense of Cyril's unfairness toward Nestorius, strongly as he animadverts on the lack of judgment and self-contn)l displayed by the latter. Cyril wrote to the monks of Con- stantinople commenting severely on the action of Nestorius, and insisting strongly that the union of the (iodhcad and Manhood in Jesus Christ was a real union, and not a mere conjuncti<Mi. When he learned that his letter was resented, he wrote one to Nes- torius himself. He complained that the unfortunate language of Nestorius had reached Celestine of Rome, and was thus throwing the whole church into confusion. The affected moderation of his language did not deceive Nestorius, who defended himself with spirit and moderation, and maintained th.it xP'<'''i^''o*os would be a more suitable .ipp.llation for the Virgin than 6(OT6-oi. Approached by an .\lexandrian presbyter named Lampon, who came to Constantinople in the interests of peace, Nestorius professed himself much touched by Lampon's tone, and wrote to Cyril in a more friendly spirit. But it was too late. Cyril had already taken action against Nestorius, and when the latter suggested a council at Constantinople, took measures to undermine still further the in- fluence of his antagonist. He wrote two treatises on the controversy, one addressed to the emperor and empress (Eudocia), and the other to Pulcheria and the other sisters of the emperor. 1 hen he wrote to Celestine of Rome an unfair account of what had occurn-d. He contended that Nestorius had rei«resented the Logos as two separate beings, knit closely together. Nestorius complained that Cyril garbled his quotations. He was. however, pronounced a heretic by two synods held at Rome and Alexandria (430). Whether Cyril acted as craftily as Neander supposes, or whether Nestorius maintained too lofty a tone in his lettertt) Celestine, and thusoflcnded one who was anxious to secure bis supremacy NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 7U over the church o| (inl. iuiinI I ■ Irfi uii- decitletl. Crrtani it l« that th- I action of Olrilinr in mpittr toriu* should at unci- rradmit t u the presbvtrr* whom he had rrp. II. .1 d n, u^ and that hr hitn«rll nhoiihl *ii;n a wtitiro recant.tti'>n within 1} dav». wa^* -ivK- un- prfce<lented in the hi»tory if" .Another patriarch, John of \ appears on the scene. Cvril ha 1 to inlimi<l.tte him by r-- v— ' whole West wa» united Nestorius, and John « mediator. Cyril next 1- against the teaching of Ncsi iiu». lit i.t 4 these he seenjs to unite the flesh of Chritl with the Logos, atcorJtng lo //is rer%on t»a0 i'wijTaffir), and in the 3rd he apprars lo speak of the union of the two hy|>o«t4srs in Him. Nestorius replied by 11 rountrr- anathemas. It is unforttmate f..r our lull comprehension of the position that thrsr arc only to be found in a Latin translation by Marius Mercator, a layman Ir-an N. Africa, who was at Constantinople while the con- troversy was going on. But, as usual In theological controversy, each ot the dispu- tants replies rather to the inlcrrncrs he himself draws from the propositions of his antagonist than to the proposition* Ihcnt- 1 selvi-s. The famous The-xioret. bp. of C>tus. now (430) came forward, at the request •>! I John of Antioch, in defence .f N'.^t ritis. He laid his finger on the weak - anathein.is— his union of two Christ ; and condemned them .1 Christianity." Cyril seems also i i ... .1- tended that nothing could be unkii'wn to the humanitv of Christ which was known lo Him as (iod. The doctrine, too. of the fp^n (fu'diK^ (natural union) maintained by Cvril seemed perilously near to MonophvsitiMn. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that Nestorius publicly stated that he had no objection to the word fioriKOi provided it 1 was properly explained. The "im-r i -il I last resolved to call a council. 1 j chosen as the place of meeti I because f»f the eX( itement pre\ . stantinople). and the meeting wi'- Ux'A t r Whitsuntide 431- The assemblv was con- fined to the bishops of the ni r.- inij- f! mt sees (metropolitans, as tip and the emperor sent Cyril, condemning his 1: ings. Nestorius came at i,.- but fearing the viwU-ncc o| i requi-sted a guard lri>ln the <i request was granted. Cyril an. I were also present. But sonic 40 .S\iijn bishoj)s were detained by fl.KHls. famine, and the riots consequent on the l.iii<t (\tll. seizing the opportunity, and ^ Meninon. bp. ..f Kphr*U«, opn.. which con«.iste«l of »<.nie 200 1 and pr.xercb'd to coiidrinn Nestorius in the abiwiue o( tt,. tingent. 1 his sentence ••• <l. , affixed to the public buil!;- bv the hrralds. M<•an•.^ trived to remove Ir-m the unfavourable irnpn . action had produced. Ne*lo(tu* dc«.luicd. 756 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM though thrice summoned, to attend the synod in the absence of his Syrian supporters, and sent a complaint to the emperor of the illegality and unfairness of Cyril's proceedings, which was supported by ten bishops and the imperial commissioner. (Socrates, however, says that Nestorius attended one meeting, and left it after having expressed himself in somewhat unfortunate language.) Cyril pretended that the Syrian bishops had pur- posely stayed away. But this is neither probable in itself nor consistent with the subsequent conduct of the patriarch John. When John and the Syrian bishops arrived, they, though only between 30 and 40 in number, held a counter-synod, which was ridiculed by Cyril and his party for its great inferiority in numbers. John, however, per- sisted, alleging that the rest of the bishops were simply creatures of Cyril and Memnon. John's party then excommunicated Cyril and Memnon, posted up their sentence and trans- mitted their report to the emperor. A letter had meanwhile arrived from Celestine in condemnation of Nestorius. This letter was read by Cyril to the bishops of his party, but Nestorius replied that it had only been ob- tained by gross perversions of his language. Cyril now resorted to other means of attaining his purpose. He endeavoured to gain over the emperor, a task which was only too easy. He contrived to bring the ladies of the court, including Pulcheria, over to his side. To attain this end, there is evidence extant — though Canon Bright has failed to notice it — (in a letter from Epiphanius, Cyril's arch- deacon and sjmcellus, to the patriarch Maxi- mian, see below), that he made a lavish use of money and presents of other kinds. He also stirred up the monks at Constantinople to tumult through an agent of his, one Dalma- tius, who had immured himself in his cell for 48 years, and was in high repute for his ascetic practices. Dalmatius now repre- sented himself as drawn from his retirement by a voice from heaven, in order to rescue the church from the peril of heresy. A torch- light procession to the emperor was organ- ized. The excitement in Constantinople was general. The emperor was terrified at the furious riots which broke out, in which many persons were injured. So the influence of the court was now openly exerted in favour of Cyril, and the Oriental bishops began to waver. Nestorius himself lost heart. Even at the council he had gone so far as to say, " Let Mary be called deorbKos, and let all this tumult cease." He had throughout been less illiberal than his antagonists, and he was probably terrified at their violent and un- scrupulous proceedings. He may also have discovered, when it was too late, that he had rushed into controversy without having been sufficiently sure of his ground. Therefore, although a deputation of 8 bishops from each side were sent to Constantinople, the result was a foregone conclusion. A compromise was arrived at. Cyril and Memnon were reinstated in their sees. John of Antioch signed a condemnation of Nestorius, while Cyril consented in 432 to sign an Antiochene formulary which had been submitted by Theodoret to the Syrian bishops at Ephesus NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM j and was afterwards transmitted to the em- peror. It is worth noting that this for- mulary contains the ivwai^ (pvaiK-r) (see above), but guards it by a definite assertion of both the divinity and humanity of Christ. i The sentence on Nestorius was carried out. He was deposed, and Maximian became patriarch in his stead, but soon died, and was succeeded by Proclus, the old antagonist of Nestorius. The controversy continued to rage. Rabbulas, bp. of Edessa, went so far ! as to attack Theodore of Mopsuestia, and i raised a storm of opposition in the East by so doing. Cyril, writing to Acacius of Meli- tene (not to' be confounded with the aged I Acacius of Beroea), declared that though it j was possible theoretically (ev iwoLais) to I conceive of the two natures in Christ as j distinct, yet after their union in His Person they became but one nature. This doctrine, essentially Monophysite as it was, he did not j scruple to attribute to his Syrian opponents in order to magnify the concessions he made to them (Neander, iv. p. 176). Meanwhile I Theodoret still held out, though he offered ■ to condemn those who denied the divinity of Christ, or divided Him into two Sons. And I he implored John of Antioch and count {comes) Irenaeus, a friend of the emperor, 1 to accept the word deordKos. But he main- tained that to condemn Nestorius would be unjust. Yet even he had become weary of the I controversy, and was at last prevailed upon to exert himself in favour of a reconciliation. j He had great difficulty in bringing over the j Oriental bishops. So he went so far as to I beseech Nestorius to yield for the sake of '. peace. It has been felt that the extent to ', which he carried his submission has left a j stain on his otherwise high character. In his I Commentary on the Psalms (written c. 433) I he calls Nestorius di^acri^-ns, and a worshipper of a foreign and new God, and classes his ! followers with Jews, Arians, and Eunomians ; but he earnestly begged that the venerable age I of Nestorius might be exempt from violence or cruelty, and besought the patriarch John ' to use his influence to prevent this ; and [Monophysitism] he retrieved by his later conduct his reputation for courage and im- partiality. John, however, was not to be softened. He had thrown his influence on the side of the ; court, and he was determined to persevere j in his policy. Nestorius was banished to a [ convent just outside the gates of Antioch, and I Meletius of Mopsuestia, Alexander of Hiera- polis, and Helladius of Tarsus, strong sup- porters of the school of Theodore, were in- [ volved in the fate of Nestorius. In 435 it was ; thought that Nestorius was nearer the patri- ! arch of Antioch than was convenient, so his exile to Petra in Arabia was decreed, though he I was actually taken to Egypt instead. An assault was made on his place of residence by a j horde of Libyan barbarians, who carried him I off. When released, he made his way to the ' Thebaid, and gave himself up to the prefect, ; begging for kindness and protection. This modest request was not granted. He was i dragged about from place to place, with every sign of contempt and hatred. The historian ! Evagrius, who loses no opportunity of loading NESTORIUS »nd NESTORIANISM his mriniry by U\c use ..j ..ppr 'liri >iu Un- gua»;r .uul rrpr«ri»t» his (ate a» a jutlxmrnt o( (;.xl .in.il.«K''US to that which brtr\ Ariut, civr* us d skrtih i>( A s«v..iul 41J1I in. .si jMlhrtir lettrr .nidr<-ss«Hl by NmI'Tiu* to thr prefect and kn.wii as his " TraRniv." In thi* hr implores the protection o( the Roman Uw». and enlarges on the reproach which wouUI (all on the Roman name i( he re«eived better treatment from barbarians than when seeking; the protection of the Roman (joventment. He gives a moving picture of the hardships to which, though " afflicted bv disease and age." he had been subjecteii. But all was in vain. He obtained no mercy, and onlv death released him from his sufferings. Though his enemi»~i might remove him from thi>. world, they could not soeasilvdestr.>v his influence. The extent of his error had t>een much exaggerated. His opponents went ulti- mately to greater extremes than he had ever done, though it must be confessed that his Utterances were often ill-consiilere<l, as when he denied without qualihcation that the Son could be said to have suffered. I-'or the hi*- tory of the immediate r>>sults of their victory see MoNOPHVSiTisM. Cyril, in his Kp. to Acacius of Melitene, had, before his death in 444. committed himself to the doctrine that the two natures f^iVrnt) of Christ ht>- came one after the union had been effected. This doctrine, in the days of his successor, brought about a strong reaction in favour of the Syrian interpretation of the word OtordKot. Meanwhile the parly of Nestorius was very rigorouslv treated by the emperor. In 435 laws were enacted ordaining that the N'es- torians should be called Simonjans (their own name for themselves was Chaldeans) ; that the writings of Nestorius should be burnt ; that all bishops who defended his opinions should be deposed ; punishments were decreed against any one who should copy, keep, or even read his writings or those of his supporters ; and all meetings of N<^.torians for public wor- ship were rigorously ppjscribed. The after-history of N'estorianism is ex- tremely interesting, but cannot be treated in detail here. The rigorous measures above mentioned were fiercelv resisted in Svria and Babylonia, and when Kabbulas sought to pr<H hibit the reading of the works of Di.Klorus and Theodore, the Nestorian teachers cro»se<l the border into Persia. Barsiimas, bp. of Nisibis from 435 to 489, did inuchtospread N'estorian- ism in the far East, and his work received an additional impulse from the policy of the emperor Zeno. who persecuted Nestorian* and Monophysites alike. fMoNopuvsiTisii.l Thence Ne^torianism spread to Chaldea. India, and even China. It has even lieeii stated that there was a time «' 1 ■ ■•' ■ ciples of Nestorius outnumberei! • of all the other communion* iri • church. Of the pp-grens of N< • China there can be no d<iubt, for ih. Jciuu* found a monument there, recording the fact. Their statement has \trcn dispnt.! Lit it is hardly likely that thev w..ul<l h . to have made a disc.v.ry wt 1 florify what thev regarded as a •; he Nestorian doctrines, however, in ti,- -^i treme form they assumed when interpreted by NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM 7a7 thrir Uirr r»i. .iiniu, .h : lh« %eoi« of etrrtllly. Ill- *m- medanum u!n"nt--lv 1 nr0 floUtlslUllg N ih« lltlllts ..( If.r \r*b C4ll|<lls. J» ;rh*. shew^.l " . . 1 .. a (ru Hot!-.. has Iv Chrisllaii'. .1 .M. lliiiia* .11 coast, remain to reprewnt the dominant In tlir f.,t T .^t T' harassed anl :'ir. cent, bv pi It «kl of the I,v, • r^.- Angli. . 1 Assvi i . verv tecti ! ,,, Rom. •nd bv a.! ■irth • >n til- The r. UV.ll I tlir i,ri N'r«. torian duirches still exist \Ttk empire in the reigti f I 'O nilisl be briefly n Theodora favoure.1 peror inclined t" • The tWi> parlies. a(t< r ■ i ::;■ i for S'>ine years, agreed t rhrir mutual hostility, ami I " rl» against the remn.int of t S»4 Justinian issue<l an In rhal were called the THtff ' ' s ol extracts from the wnti -(••re. Theodoret, and Ibas. This ^•. ; 1..-1 a pr'>- longed controvernv. which in M7 broiuhl Vigilius, bp. of Rome, to t •nstanlinople. Justinian ordered him to take an " 4th Cfl- demning the Three Chapters. He c msrnled to do this, but afterwirds rrir \rt>-\ his '..n. sent. In 5SI the r ' • ' ■ and the emper-r hi ' the former, who ' detained in < ' take sanctu .: as the fifth moiled at C Chapters were u uil- iisur-!. \ to submit to the decision on tl that Til'- ■! r.- I.i.! .li' .1 in 'm with t ' The.-; colUi. ; to pr. COUII but died s lh« last .lii • '^ .ft o| members >'i ; : H lh« oru-mal c..,.' t ( In the iJlh yc*r ol ibc rrtcn oi tb« autifMu* 758 NESTORIUS and NESTORIANISM Maurice, t.e. in 594. He is painstaking and accurate, and a devout believer in the deci- sions both of Ephesus and Chalcedon. But his language is often violent, and he is credu- lous as regards the miraculous. Cyril and Theodoret, who were actively engaged in the controversy^ have left abundant details of what took place ; their own letters are especially valuable, and with the writings of Theodoret are pub. a collection of im- portant letters from most of the principal persons concerned in it. JSIarius Mercator, who was at Constantinople when the conflict was at its height, has left an account of it in Latin. Of later authorities Mansi, Hardouin, and Hefele have handed down the proceedings of the council of Ephesus, and commented upon them. Assemani's learned work, pub. in the i8th cent., is a mine of information on Nestorianism. Neander and Dorner [Arius, Followers of] give full accounts of the struggle. Gieseler passes over the events more briefly. Mr. Percy Badger published a useful work on Nestorians and their ritual in 1852. Loot's Nestoriana (Halle, 1905) should also be consulted. Canon Bright's Age of the Fathers gives a most valuable account of the controversy, though he is somewhat inclined to favour Cyril. Mr. Bethune-Baker's recent work on the early heresies contains much useful information, imparted with great clear- ness and impartiality. [Since these words were wxitten, the Editor has called the attention of the writer to a work by Mr. Bethune-Baker, entitled Nestorius and his Teaching, pub. in 1908. It is strange that the discovery which it has made public has not elicited the enthusiasm which greeted the previous disco\'eries of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and the Apology of Aristides. It is nothing less than a resurrection of Nes- torius from the dead to plead his cause before a fairer tribunal than that which pronounced upon him when living. A treatise has lately come to light called the Bazaar (or more properly Emporium or Store, i.e. a collection of merchandize) of Heracleides. This treatise appears to have been written in Greek, and translated into Syriac. It is this S>Tian translation which has recently been recovered. The work is evidently that of the patriarch Nestorius himself, and its somewhat strange title is explained by the fact that all copies of the works of Nestorius were ordered to be seized and destroyed. The treatise has a peculiar interest for us, because it shews, as Mr. Bethune-Baker puts it, and as has been suggested in the above article, that " Nes- torius was not a Nestorian." Thus the doctrinal decision reached at Ephesus is vin- dicated, while its personal application to the patriarch himself is shewn to be unfair. In his preface Mr. Bethune-Baker expresses the same respect for the decisions of the four great oecumenical councils which has been expressed by the writer in his summary of their general doctrinal bearing at the end of the art. Monophvsitism — namely, that ihey were " more likely to give us a true theory of the relation between God and man than are the reflexions of any individual thinker or school of theologians." They do this because they " express the communis sensus fide NICETIUS licun," and " their decisions need to be con- firmed by subsequent acceptance by the church as a whole. "1 [j-J-L.] Nicarete (Xu-ap^rTj), a lady of one of the noblest and richest families of Nicomedia, who devoted herself to perpetual virginity in con- nexion with the church of Constantinople. She was warmly attached to Chrysostom and was punished for her devotion to his cause by the confiscation of most of her property in the troubles that followed his expulsion. She was then advanced in life and had a large household dependent on her, but man- aged her lessened resources with such economy that she had enough for their wants and her own, and also to give largely to the poor. Skilled in the compounding of medicines, she often succeeded in curing where physicians failed. Her humiUty and self-distrust would never allow her to become a deaconess, and she decUned the office of lady superior of the consecrated virgins when Chrysostom earnestly pressed it on her. She retired from Con- stantinople to avoid the persecution in 404 (Soz. H. E. viii. 23). [e.v.] Nicetas (3) {Niceta, Nicaeas, Niceas, Nicias), bp. of Romaciana (Remesiana) in Dacia. Our knowledge of him is derived from the epistles and poems (Nos. 17 and 24) of Paulinus of Nola, whom he visited, a.d. 398 and 402. He was probably a native of Dacia. He evangelized theScythae, Getae, Daci, Bessi, and Riphaei.but settled specially among the Daci, reducing the wild manners of the barbarians to meekness and honesty. He was noted for eloquence and learning, honoured by the Romans when he visited them, and specially beloved by Paul- inus at Nola, but we cannot define the extent of his see or the dates of his episcopate. Boll. Acta SS. Jan. i. 365, and Jun. iv. 243 ; Tillem. H. E. x. 263 seq. ; Fleury, H. E. xxi. c. 31; Ceill. Atit. Sacr. V. 458; viii. 84. For the latest view of the subject of this art. see Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, his Life and Works (Camb. Univ. Press). [g.t.s.] NioetiUS (3) (Nicet, Nicesse), St., 25th archbp. of Treves, c. 527-566. In his day the bishop was already beginning to pass into the baron, and Nicetius was a territorial lord (Freeman, Augusta Treverorum, Histor. Essays, 3rd ser. p. in). Our principal know- ledge of him is from Gregory of Tours, who received his information from St. Aredius, an abbat of Limoges, Nicetius's disciple (Vitae Patrum, c. xvii.). At Treves his position was a difficult one. The Franks around him were little else than barbarians, rioting in licence, and scarcely more than nominal converts to Christianity. Their respect Nicetius won by personal asceticism, an inflexible temper and fearless demeanour in the face of the strong, activity in good works, and uncompromising orthodoxy (ib.). He used excommunication freely against princes and nobles in cases of oppression or flagrant immorality (cf. Rettberg, Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands, i. 462-464). His orthodoxy is illustrated by two extant letters : one from him to Clodosinda, the wife of Alboin the Lombard, urging her to turn her husband to Catholicism ; the other to the emperor Justinian, whose lapse in his latter days into a form of Eutychianism, Nicetius declares, is lamented by all Italy, NICOLAITANES Africa. Spain, aikI t,.,ul {I'jtr. IM. Ixviii. 375-380 ; Honthcim, lA. 47-5«). Ni€<>iiu* vt himself to rcstorr ihr churchm whirh hail suffered in the st.inns <>f the previ.ui* Kenera- tions and partly rebuilt the mrtr.>p»>litan churrh of Treves (Ven.mt. F.-rt. Sttsc. iil. 11. Pair. Lai. Ixxxviii. m). Mis alter.»tioni» and additions are drsrribod by Wilinow-^Wv. 1>*t Dom lift Tritr, pp. ^7 sqq'.. and Freenum. lA. p. in- For his own defence he built a rastir on a l..ftv hill overlooking the M..<iel. The walls, with 30 towers. stretrhe<l d.>wn to the river banks, .ind the bishop's hall, with marble columns, occupieil the hishest point (Venant. Fort. iii. ij, Pair. Lot. •/». 135). It is thr first recordetl buildinR of a class which later was greatly multiplied, but its site is unknown (Freem.in, p. 112). For his architectural undertakings he summonetl workmen fron> Italy (Kufus. Ep. Hontheim. lA. p. 17). He died f. 56^, and was burie<l in the chtir<h of St. Maximin, where his tomb still is. ICven in (iregorv's time it was famous for its miracles (de Gli->r. Canf. 04 ; J'«^* Patr- xvii. ; Call. Christ, xiii. ^f^z). Nirctius also wr^-te two treatises called tie I'tRiliis Sfn-orum l)e% and de Psalmodiae Bono, slii^ht works of a didactic character, to be found in the Pair. luU. Ixviii. 365-376, and, with the letters, discussed at some length by Ceillier, xi. 20^206. [s.a.b.] NioolaiUneS. The mention of this name in ; the .\p...-alv|ise (see .Murravs lllus. B. D. s.v.) has caused It to appear in almost all lists of heresies ; but there is no trustworthy evidence of the continuance of a sect so called after the death of St. John. Irenaeus in writing his great work used a treatise against heresies bv Justin .Martyr; and that Justin's list began with Simon Magus and made no mention of Nidlaitanes maybe conjectured from the order in which Irenaeus discusses the hercsips, viz. Simon, Mmander, Saturninus. R.isilides, Carpocrates, Cerinthus, the Kbi >nites, the Nicolaitanes. So late a place is inconsistent withchronolopicalorder.andthemostplausible explanation is that Irenaeus followed the order of an older list, and added the Nicolaitanes to it. About them he has nothing to say (I. xxvi. 3) but what he found in the Apn- calypse ; for the words " qui indiscrete vivunt," whirh alone have the appoaranc*- of an addition, seem only an inferenrr from Rev. ii. 13, 14, and 20-22. In a later book (III. X. 6) Irenaeus incidentally mentions them as a branch of the (.nostirs and vmis to ascribe to them the whole body of Ophit'- doctrine. Hippolvtis probably derived his view of them from Irenaeus. In his earlier treatise, as we gather from comparing the lists of Epiphanius, Philaster, and Pvudo-Ter- tullian, he brings them into an earlier, though still too late a plarp in his list, his order bring Simon Menander, Saturninus, Basilides. Nico- laitanes ; and he ascril>es to them the trnets of a fully dcvelMpe<i Ophite system Thrrr is no sufficirnt evidmce that thr "■ ' called thems<-lvcs Nicdaitanes. In t work of Hippolytus, Nicolaus the <'. made the founder of the (.no»tics; ! notice is short, and go** htHe beyond what is told in Irenaeus, bk. i. It is ne«llc*« to notice the statements of later writers. Stephen Gobar (cf. Phot. Bibl. ajl) mv* NILUS that M1..M ivtM I I-. .. > V- thr rrt Igf, .■ an.l 1:. none •( t! . NIeoUus 1 lime .•( I M the most ; Went. Hi hist'.riral rlrinr legends ami mi; l>een prrsrnt M • he waxr<l »o it, inflirtnl a Ih.x Staillrv {h.aslfrn srnts Nicol.ius ax in all tradili onal \ i> tutr. To/er in his ootrs t > Fmlav s / I. i. p 121. ol»vrves thai taken the plair o| I'osridoii In tianitv. Thus, in the island trmple of Posridon has l»reii the church oj St. Nicolaus. In churches are deshcate<l to hiin was formerly connn. ir»l in S 1 dral, Kton, an<l rlsrwhrfr wi-. ceremonial of rh-H-sing a b prcsidr^l till the following 1: over his fellow. rhoristrrs, arra\. copal attire (cf. Attn}. 0/ < aih. 1 '■ Salisbury, a.D. 172\. PP 7J-NO, w! ritual of the feast is givm). Wr < m : fame back to the Mh cent.. %* built a church in his hon.iur at ' (Pr.Kop. de Aedtf. i. «>). Hi* r- lateil in the middle at'^ " ' whence he is often st\\' His .Acts are givrn at !• Sand., and his legends i.. . in Jameson's Satred Art, I. 11 figure of St. Nicolaus is a lea ' celebrated Blenheim Kapharl n (iailery. ; Nlllis (8), a famous ascetic of Sinai. | boni in (.alalia, as he sp»-iks f "x- martyr of .\n< vra as I 1 became pr<l<-< t at ( "i and h.id two rluldrrn. « 3()o to rrtire to Sinai «iiii ■ 1- His epistles .«re vrrv < uri'iis. <!• ■ by demons, .uid reiilving t > \ d.K^trmal. .1. . n 1,.. .r v ■■. 1 (.amas. t! hltn the • rhangliig 1m Nilus boldly I ► ' wh<n banished li The St rv f Ms Tlw an<l Nibi and t:.'- men. int' sarrifne^ ' 75» pellM thetn to »rrri •. retunie<J to Sinai, an.l v;lvc» by « ycl »cvcfcr j im 760 NINIAN 430. His writings throw much light on mon- asticism and Christian society generally at the end of 4th cent. Epp. 61 and 62, lib. iv., most interestingly illustrate the church life at that period. Olympiodorus, an eparch, desired to erect a church and to decorate it with images of saints in the sanctuary, to- gether with hunting scenes, birds, and animals in mosaic, and numerous crosses in the nave and on the floor — a scheme of decoration which we find carried out some time later in the churches of Central Syria, depicted in De Vogue's Civil and Ecclesiastical Architec- ture of Syria. Nilus condemns the mosaics as mere trifling and unworthy a manly Chris- tian soul. He rejects numerous crosses in the nave, but orders the erection of one cross at the east end of the sanctuary, " Inasmuch as by the cross man was delivered from spiritual slavery, and hope has been shed on the nations." Good pictures from O. and N. T. meet with his approval. They serve as books for the unlearned ; teach them Scrip- ture history, and remind them of God's mercies. The church was to have numerous chapels. Each chapel may have a cross erected therein. Ep. 62 proves that his pro- hibition of mosaics only extended to hunting scenes and probably did not include the images of saints. It was written to e.xalt the fame of his favourite martyr, Plato of Ancyra, and conclusively proves that the invocation of saints was then practised in the East [cf. FiDENTius (2)]. Nilus did not approve of the extraordinary forms which monasticism was assuming. Epp. 114 and 115, lib. ii. are addressed to one Nicander, a Stylite, who must have set the fashion which St. Simeon followed. Nilus tells him his lofty position is due simply to pride, and shall find a fulfil- ment of the words " He that exalts himself shall be abased." In the second epistle he charges him with light and amorous conver- sation with women. Monastic discipline seems to have been then very relaxed, as the charges are repeated in his letters and works. We often find in them the peculiar practices of the monks or of the early church explained with mystical references. Cf. Fessler-Jung- mann. Inst. Patrol. (r8q6), ii. 2. p. 108. [g.t.s.] Ninian, British missionary bishop. The general facts of his life and work present com- paratively few points for dispute, there being but one tradition, and that not materially departed from. The primary authority is Bede {H. E. iii. 4), who, however, only incidentally alludes to St. Ninian in connexion with St. Columba, yet touches therein the chief points embodied in the later Life^his converting the southern Picts a long time before St. Columba's day, his being " de natione Brittonum," but in- structed in the Christian faith and mysteries at Rome ; his friendship with St. Martin of Tours, in whose honour he dedicated his epis- copal see and church at Candida Casa in the province of the Bernicii, and his building the church there of stone " insolito Brittonibus more " {M. H. B. 176). This is repeated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle a.d. 565 (ih. 303). Ailred's Vita S. Niniani seems little more than an expansion of these details, but whether he, in the 12th cent., had authentic evidence of an NOETUS j earlier date to assist him we do not know, I except that he specially refers to Bede's in- 1 formation and also to a "liber de vita et miraculis ejus, barbario [barbarice] scriptus," [ of the value of which we are ignorant. The : chief Life is Vita Niniani Pictorum Australium apostoli, auctore Ailredo Reivallensi, first printed by Pinkerton (Vit. Ant. SS. 1 seq. ed. ; 1789) and reprinted with trans, and notes, by : Bp. ¥orhes(Historians of Scotland,\'o\.v. 19,7^). i (See also Hardy, Descript. Cat. i. 44 seq. 853 ; j Bp. Forbes, Lives of SS. Kent, and Nin. : Introd. ; Grub, Eccl. Hist. Scot. i. c. 2 et al. ; ! Skene, Celt. Scot. ii. 3, 444 ; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 14, 35 ; Pinkerton, Enquiry, ii. 263 seq. ; Pryce, Anc. Brit. Ch. 104 seq.) i Ailred's Life' is of the usual unhistoric \ character, fuller of moralizings than of facts, and having only one fixed point to suggest a date. St. Ninian was of royal birth and be- longed to the valley of the Sohvay ; his father was probably a regulus in the Cumbrian king- dom, and, being a Christian, had his son baptized. The youth soon manifested a i desire to visit Rome, and appears to have reached it in the time of pope Damasus (a.d. \ 366-384), perhaps in 370. After devoting several years there to the Scriptures and holy learning, he was raised to the episcopate, a.d. 394, by the pope himself, probably Siricius ; (A.D. 385-399) and sent as bp. to the W. I of Britain, where the Gospel was unknown, corrupted, or misrepresented by the teachers. I Calling on St. Martin at Tours and receiving i from him masons to build churches according to the Roman method, he returned to his native shores and built his church at Witerna, now Whithern in Wigtonsbire, but whether \ near the site of the later abbey or on the island near the shore is uncertain. While building the church the news reached him of St. Martin's death (a.d. 397), in whose honour he dedicated it ; this at the latest must have been in the spring of 398. We have no other landmark for ascertaining his dates. The chief field of his missionary labours was in the central district of the E. of Scotland among those barbarians who had defied the Roman power in the days of Agricola and who were i separated from the Roman province of Valen- i tia by the rampart of Antoninus ; but the veneration attached to his name is shown by his dedications being found over all Scotland. (See Bp. Forbes, Kals. 424.) His monastic school, known variously as .Magnum Monasterium, Monasterium Rosna- tense. Alba, and Candida Casa, was famous through Cumbria and Ireland, and was one of the chief seats of early Christian learning to which Welsh and Irish saints resorted, till both school and see were destroyed by the I irruptions of the Britons and Saxons. The j see was revived for a time in the 8th cent., I under Saxon influence from York (Haddan and I Stubbs, Counc. ii. pt. i. 7, 8. 56 seq. ; Stubbs, Reg. Sac. .4ng. 184 et al.), to be again restored ■ in the 12th cent, by King David I. of Scot- land. The date usually assigned for his death, I though on no definite data, is Sept. 16, 432, and { Bede (H. E. iii. c. 4) says he was buried in his i church at Candida Casa, which in the middle j ages becamemuch frequented by pilgrims, [j -c] I Noetus, a native of Smyrna according to NOMUS Hippolytus ; of Ephesus according to Kpiph- anius (Hatr. 57), probablv bv a mistake, as his narrative is in other respects whollv (leri\ rd from Hippolytus. From Asia Min«r also Praxeas, some years before, had imported into Rome the views which Noetus tauRht. Hip- polytus traces the origin of the Patnpassian heresy at Rome to N(v-tus. who in his opinion derived it from the philosophv of Heraclitns (Refutaiton. lib. ix. cc. 3-5. cf. x. 13). N,M-ttis came to Rome, where he converted Kpiijonus and Cleomenes. He was summoned before the council of Roman presbvters. and inter- rogated about his doctrines.' He denied at first that he had taught that " Christ was the Father, and that the Father was »>orn .uid suffered and died," but his adherents mcreas- ing in number, he acknowledged before the same council, when summoned a second time, that he had taught the views attributed to him. " The blessed presbyters called him again before them and examined him. But he stood out against them, saving, ' What evil am I doing in glorifving one (.od ? ' And the presbyters replied to him, " We too know in truth one (iod, we know Christ, we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge the living and the dead, and these things which we have learned we allege." Then after examining him they expelled him from the churcJu And he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that he established a school." Cf. Roulh's Reliq. Sac. t. iv. 243-24R. As to his date, Hip- polytus tells us "he lived not long ago," Lipsius and Salmon think this very treatise was used by Tertullian in his tract against Praxeas [Hippolvtis Romanis], while Hil- genfeld and Harnack date Tertullian's work between a.d. 206 and 210. This would throw the treatise of Hippolytus back to c. 205. From its language and tone, we conclude that Noetus was then dead, a view which Epiphan- ius (Haeu 57, c. i) expressly confirms, saying that he and his brother both difd soon after their excommunication and were biiried with- out Christian rites. The period of his teaching at Rome must then have been some few years previous to 205. But Hippolytus in his Re- futation of Heresies gives us a farther note of time, telling us in ix. 2 that it was when Zephyrinus was managing the affairs of the church that the school of Noetus was firmly established at Rome and that Zephyrinus con- nived at its establishment thrf>ugh bril>es. We cannot, however, fix the date of his excom- munication and death more closely than c. 200. Hippolytus (x. 23) tells us that some Mon- tanists adopted the views of Noetus. He seems to have written some works, fromwhicli Hippolytus often quotes. (g.t.s.] Nomas, a leading personage at Constanti- nople in the l.Jtter years of Theodosius II., with whom he was all-powerful — ra t^ olKOi'fjL^vijf (V x^P"^" 'X"^" »/><i'>MaTtt (I^bbe, Concil. iv. 407). Nonius filled in succession all the highest offices in the state. In 443 he was " magister officiorum " (Cod. Theod. Nov. p. 14, i) ; consul in 443 ; patrician in 449, the year of the infamous " I.atrocinium." He was the confidential friend of Chrysapbitu the NONNUS 7(11 ■ Mirnt <Mth ' Miy. ' into eunuch and »hari>d with hit- " - of the rmprror and tlir then* I>i..»r..ru!» oj Alrxjn chun doriruir^ he Mil I u. favour at court. I \ ■_ TheiHlosiu* wa» in.: in 44S contiiung Ih' The inlrrestuig vrlr^ , I irttriv t ti,p ,,rtn- opal men of the empire, m whi. h Thr.>ilorH, while observing the nian-l.jf^ t'T" '"^ted against its .irbilrarv rV -^int several addrevseti to Nonm jO, of The<Hlo<ius and the a. lan and Pulcheria, Nonniv >. . ,,^. He took, however, .1 I ;,,^h state official at It . ,|,,„ (I^ibbe, iv. 77. 47S, . ■ . ,,i. tion against him was j i- •.tjitr.l 1,> a nrphrw of C>Til, Athanasius by name, a prr«bvlrr of Alexandria, arrusing him of viojpn.p and rx- tortion which had rwliicrd AthanaMiw and hi* relatives to »)eggary and rjuwHl his lirolhcr to die of distress (16. 407-410) 'r vl Nonna dl. mother of Cr ' -rn • a lady of g..<Kl birth, th. n^n parents. I'liillatius and (.■ ; ; u,, in the prai tire of il.. 1 , „( which she was so ad' ^yir. Her son desrrilx-s in gl. s' l...|inr»» n| her life and the be.iii' 'voJallhrr actions to the highest it.uulanl, of Chrittun excellence. To her example, aided hv her prayers, he as«ril>es the ronvenki..n of hu father from the strange metllev of paganiMn and Christiaiiilv which formed the trnrt* of the Hypsislarian sect, to which bv birth he bel.uiged ((.reg. Naz. Or. 11, 10; (arm. 1. j). We know of twoother children of the inarrtaRr, a sister named (;<jrgonia. probablv older than t.regory, and a brother nanml ( ae^ariut. Nonna's death probably (<-curre«l on Aug. 5 (on which day she is commemorated Ix.th bv the (Ireek and Latin churches) in 374 (Oral, ig, p. 31S , Carttt. I, p. 9), Tillcm. Mitn. tul. t. i«. pp. 300-311, 317. 3i«, i2i. 38s. 397- [«v.] Nonnus (2) of Panopolis. The name is very common, being properly an Eg\-ptian title equivalent to Saint. Consequentlv confu«ion has arisen between this writer an<l olhrr» ..( the same name. He has been identihe,!. with Si>me i>robability, with a Nonnus wh.v (wm it mentioned by Synesius (Ep. ad .inaHiU. 4J, ad Pyl. 102) ; and. with very litllr probabilitv! with the deacon Nonnus, »rcrrtarv at the Council of Chalcedon, a.o. 4M ; wiih Nonnut, the bp. of Hdessa, electe<l at the »yn'>d t.j Ephesus, A.i>. 449; and with Nt.nnu» the ronunentator on (irejcory Naxianxen (pidt Beiitley, I'halarts. ad in.). Life. — He was a native of TanopoUt in Eg\'l)t ; cf. I-:iid-.xia, %.v. Agathia*. iv. p. |j« ; and an epigram in .-In/A. rifitA-ft t p «|o H« is cla*se<i by Agathiat am -rmi. and this. supporte<l bv a ' hi* poems with other late eji « il probable that he wrote at Hir •■u.i , tur 4lh and l>egliiiiing of the jth cent*, a.o. iievond this nitliiiig I* kni<wn li>r certain. Hit Ihnmy- llOfd shews freqitetith ■ i- ' >>i.-.i>- < ■••' no- my (cf. vi. 60 ; XXV . ■ Ul interest in liervtn jmA Athens (xlvii.K Hut \'nal acquaintance with thcM luwu* u uM-crtain. 762 NONNUS In iv. 250 the discoveries of Cadmus are traced to Egypt, but otherwise there is no reference to his native country. The whole tone of the Dionysiaca, with its delight in the drunken immoralities of Dionysus, makes it hard to believe the poem written by a Christian. Probably it was written early in life, and Nonnus converted to Christianity after it, and the paraphrase of St. John written after his conversion, possiblv, as has been suggested, as a contrast to the Dionysiaca, portraying the life and apotheosis of one more worthy than Dionvsus of the name of God. Possibly too, as has also been suggested, Nonnus may have been one of the Greek philosophers who accepted Christianity when the heathen temples were destroyed by decree of Theo- dosius (Socr. H. E. v. 16). Works.— Oi his literary position it is possible to speak with more certainty. He was the centre, if not the founder, of the literary Egyptian school, which gave to Greek epic poetry a new though short-lived brilliancy, and to which belonged Quintus of Smyrna, John of Gaza, Coluthus, Tryphiodorus, and "Musaeus. This school revived the historical and mvthological epic, treating it in a pecuhar style of which Nonnus is the best representa- tive. While frequently proclaiming himself an imitator of Homer, and shewing traces of the influence of Callimachus and later writers, he yet created new metrical rules, which gave an entirelv new effect to the general rhythm of the poem— that of an easy but rather monotonous flow, always pleasant, but never rising or falling with the tone of the narrative. The style is very florid, marked bv a luxuriance of epithets and original com- pounds (often of very arbitrary formation), elaborate periphrasis, and metaphors often piled together in hopeless confusion ; and manv unusual forms are invented. The Dionysiaca attributed to Nonnus by Agathias (u.s.) is a history of the birth, con- quests and apotheosis of bionysus, spun out at great length. The poem has been regarded "as an allegory of the march of civilization across the ancient world " ; but it would be simpler, and we hope truer, to describe it as " the gradual estabhshment of the cultivation of the vine and the power of the Wine-god." The chief modern editions of the Dionysiaca are Graefe (1819-1826) ; Passow (1834) ; Le Comte de Marcellus, with interesting intro- duction, French trans, and notes, in Didot's Bibl. Graeca (1836); Kochly with apparatus criticus (1857), cf. Ouwarow (1817) ; Kohler, Ueber die Dion, des Nonnus (1853). The Paraphrase (MeraSoXTJ) of St. John's Gospel, attributed to Nonnus by Eudocia (Viol. 3 1 1 ), is a fairlv faithful paraphrase of the whole of the Gospel. The text of the Gospel that lies behind the paraphrase has been reproduced by R. Jannsen (Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. viii. 4, 1903). The text is faithfully treated. The omissions, except when he has MSS. authority {e.g. v. i, 4, vii. 53 sqq.), are rare (v. i, 29, iv. 27, 41, 42, vi. 41, 53, viii. 38, xviii. 16, 18). The additions are chiefly those of poetical expansion. Homeric epi- thets form a strange medley with the Pales- tinian surroundings, and in many cases the illustrations are drawn out into insipid de- NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM tails (cf. iv. 26, vii. 21, xviii. 3, xx. 7). At ; other times we have interpretations sug- gested, in most of which he agrees with the Alexandrine tradition as represented by Cyril and Origen cf. i. 16, 24, 42 (Peter's name) ; i vi. 71 (the motive of Judas) ; vii. 19 (the j reference to the sixth commandment) ; viii. 40 (the hospitality of Abraham) ; xii. 6, 10 ; xviii. 15 (1x^1^,36X01; wapa t^x^V^) ; xix. 7. In some he seems obviously wrong, e.g. ii. 12 {dvudeKapidtxos) ; ii. 20, X. 12 (the reference to Solomon) ; vii. 28 (v\pQt') ; xi. 44, aoi'Sipiou I explained as a Syrian word ; while in ii. 4, i ri HOI. yyvcLi. rji ^-ai avrrj looks like an attempt to avoid a slight to her who is constantly called 960x6x0?. He shews, too, a looseness in using theological terms (cf. i. 3, ixvdo% ; i, 50, xi. 27, \670s) which, with the luxuriance of periphrasis, forms a striking contrast to the simplicity and accuracy of St. John. The chief modern editions are Passow (1834) ; Le Comte de Marcellus, with French trans, and notes (i860) ; A. Scheindler (1881), with text of the Gospel and criticus apparatus ; Migne, vol. xliii. (with the notes of Heinsius and of Le Comte de Marcellus) ; Mansi, Bibl. Patr. vi. (ed. 1618), ix. (ed. 1677). See also a series of arts, in Wiener Studien for 1880-1881 and Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1891, where the authorship is attributed to Apollinaris. [w.l.] Novatianus and Novatianism {Xovatianus, Cyprian, Ep. xliv. ; Xoot'dros, Eus. H. E. vi. 43 ; Naudros, Socr. H. E. iv. 28. Lardner {Credibility, c. 47, note) seeks to prove that Eusebius and the Greeks in general were cor- rect in calling the Roman presbyter Novatus, not Novatianus. He attributes the origin of the latter name to Cyprian, who called the Roman presbyter Novatianus, as being a follower of his own rebellious priest, Novatus of Carthage. Novatian, the founder of Nova- tianism, is said by Philostorgius to have been a Phrygian by birth, a notion which may have originated in the popularity of his system in Phrygia and its neighbourhood (Light- foot's Colossians, p. 98). He was, before his conversion, a philosopher, but of what sect we cannot certainly determine, though from a comparison of the language of Cy-prian in Ep. Iv. § 13, ad Antonian., with the Novatianist system itself, we should be inclined to say the Stoic. The circumstances of his conversion and baptism are stated by pope Cornelius in his letter to Fabius of Antioch (Eus. I.e.), but we must accept his statements with much caution. His narration is evidently coloured by his feelings. The facts of the case appear to be these. He was converted after he had come to manhood, and received clinical bap- tism, but was never confirmed, which furnishes j Cornelius with one of his principal accusations. He was, nevertheless, admitted to the clerical I order. His talents, especially his eloquence, to which even Cyprian witnesses {Ep. Ix. 3), rapidly brought him to the front, and he be- I came the most influential presbyter of the i Roman church. In this character, the see ; being vacant, he wrote Ep. xxx. to the Carthaginan church, touching the treatment of the lapsed, while the anonymous author of the treatise against Novatian, written a.d. i 255 and included by Erasmus among Cyprian's NOVATIANUS and HOVATIANISM works, describes him as " havinR been a precious vessel, an house of the Lord, who, as long as he was in the church, bowailetl the faults of other men as his own, bore the burdens of his brethren as the apostle directs, and by Ills exh<irtations strenKthened such as were weak in the faith." This testimony sufficiently disposes i^f the accusation of Cornelius that Novatian denied the faith in time of persecu- lion, declarinp himself "an admirer of a dif- t<rent philosophy." In 250 he approved of a moderate policy towards the lapsed, but l.itrr ill the year chanKetl his mind and t^xik such ■ xtreme views that the martyr Moses, who : I bably sulTered on the last dav of 2So, ci<n- 1 inned them. In Mar. 251 Cornelius was 1 iisecrated bp. (Lipsius, Clirou. d. rom. lU^ch. p. 205). This roused the stricter party to action (Gyp. Ep. xlvi.). Novati's, the Car- thaginian agitator, having meanwhile arrivetl at Rome, joined them and urged them to, set up an opposition bishop. He made a 1 >iu-ney into distant parts of Italy, and, hriught back 3 bishops who consecrated ' Novatian. .\fter his consecration Novatian dispatched the usual epistles ann<iuncinR it t(» the bishops of the chief sees, to Cyprian, Pionysius of Alexandria, Fabius of .Antioch. Cyprian rejected his communion at once. Pionysius wrote exhorting him to retire from his schismatical positic->n (Eus. H. E. vi. 45). Fabius, however, so inclined to his side that Pionysius addressed him a letter on the sub- ' ject ; and two bishops, F'irmilianus of Cappa- docia and Theoctistus of Palestine, wrote to I^ionysius requesting his presence at the council of Antioch. to restrain tendencies in that direction (ib. 44, 46). In the latter part "f 25 1 Novatian was formally excommunic^ated ' ly a synod of 60 bishops at Rome. He then bfgan to organize a distinct church, rebaptiz- ing all who came over (Cyp. Ep. Ixxiii. 2) and dispatching letters and emissaries to the most distant parts of the East and West (Socr. H. E. iv. 28). [Cyprian ; Novati-s.] His subsequent career is unknown, save that Socrates informs us that he suffered martyr- dom under Valerian iib.). He was a copious writer, as we learn from Jerome {de I'tr. III. ■ . Ixx.), who gives as his works, " de Pascha, lie Sabbato, de Circumcisinne, de Sacerdote, de Oratione, de Instanlia, de Altalo, de Cibis Judaicis, et de Trinitate," only the last two being now extant. (.\n ed. of de Trtn. by W. V. Faussct was pub. in iqoo in the Camh. Patr. Texts.) His wr.rk on Jewish meats was written at some place of retreat from perse- cution. The Jewish controversy seems to have been then very hf)t at Rome, and Nova- tian wrote to refute their contention about distinction of meats. Jcp-me describes his work on the Trinitv as an epitome of Tcrtul- lian's, and as attributed bv some to Cyprian (Mieron. Apol. cont. Rufin. lib. ii. Opp. I. iv. p. 415). It proves Novatian to have been a diligent student, as its arguments are identical with those of Justin Martvr in his Dialnf-. cum Trypk. c. cxxvii. ; Tertull. adv. Prax. cc. xiv.- XXV.; Clem. Alex. Strom, ii. 16. v. 11, 12. He deals first with the absolute nerfecti..n of the Father, His invisibility, etc.. then discusses the anthropomorphic expressions of the Scnp- tures, la>-ing down that " such things were NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 7ft3 said alxiut <.-.d indrr<l. but thrv Atr nn| |o b« imputed to «,,h1 but to the j>r..p|r. It It not CukI Who is hmile<l, but the prrrrptlon o| thn peopir." In c. VII. hr dr. Urr» that rvrn the terms Spirit. I.iKht. I.ovr, arc only In «n imperfect dearer appllcablr to (,.k1. In rr. ix.-xxviii. he disru^v^ the true doctrine of the Incarnation. ex|>l.iiiiinK. like ( Irnienl «nd others, the theophanir-^ >>( O.T. a* ni4ni(r«t4- tions of Christ, and rrfuliiiK the dortniir of the Sabellians, or Artemonilr*. arcordliiK !•• Nean- der (//. E. ii. 2<)N), which h.id juot then \trr-n developt^l. He ends bv rxplaininc the d.<- trine of the Ho|v Spirit, whrrrin hr u IhouKhi by some to have f.illrn into error. Hr wa* quoted bv the Macedonians of the next rent, as supporting their view (cl. Fabric. Htbl, Gratt. xii. s(>s and references noted there ; Bulls Def. 0/ Suene ( refd, ii. 476. OxI. 1852 ; Judg. of ( ath. Ck. pp. 0, H7. aoi. OxI. 1R55). Lardner (Credtb. c. 47. t. III. p. 342) shews that Novatian did not accept Htbrtw* as Scripture, since he never quotes anv texts out of it. though there were vvrral which favoure<l his caus<\ n^'tablv Hrb. vi. 4-8. His followers, however, in thr next rent. di<l use them. Some have even thought Novatian to be the author of the Kefulalvn of alt Hettuts (Bunsen. Christ, and Manktnd. i. 4Hn). A trans, of his works is in the vol. of Clark's .Ante-Stcene Lib. which contains pt. ii. o( St. Cyprian's writings (Edinb. 1869). Jack- son's ed. is the best. Sovatiatxism. — The members of this sect called themselves Ka.$apoi (Eus. //. E. vi. 41)- Thev were called by others Novatiani (Pacian. Ep.\. § I). Novatianism was the first great schism in the church on a pure question of discipline. In Montanism questions of discipline were involved as si'le issues, but did not constitute its esseiiti.il difference. All sects previous to Novatianism had erred on the di«ctrine of the Trinity. The Novatianists alone were ortho- dox thereupon. The church therefore bap- tized even Montanists. but admitt<*d Nova- tianists by imposition of hands (Cone. I.aodio. can. vii. viii. ; Hefele. Counetls, ed. Clark, t. ii. 303. 332; Cone. CP. can. vii. in Hefele. /.(. ; Pitra, Jur. Eccles. Grate. Hut. i. 430. V»). The principles which Novatian formulated into a svstem, and to which he gave a name, existed and flourished long b«-fTe him. The origin of the N'ovatianist sdiism must be sought in the struggle which. riKiti.iting with the Shepherd of Hennas (B.iur. < hurck HnL trans. Menzies, iH7f,, t. ii. p. ^<> note; cl. Ritschl. Ettlstehuni! der Allkath. Ktrche. jnd e<l. p. ^20). had Iwen raging at Koine (of 70 years, at first with the M ontaiiut* and the followers of Tertullian, an«l then I>etween Hippolvtus and CalliNtu Iwrv 11- f the distinctive principles i be found adv<>cate<l bv -^ "ir. I.e. p. 270. note). It. the lap»e<l, and in fact an ^;u^t^ t m .to Mns. TerHillian njrctrd second in.^rrl4Kf-». a« also did the strict ilisfipline of the 2nd rml. (Ambr. de I'tJuu. c. Ii. ; l.uni|>er. Httt. SS. PP. iii. 0^: d* S. Alhenat.; Aug. Ep. ad i Julian, de I'tduU). Hlp|>oIvtii« heUI. in a ' great degree, the same »iem view*. This ! identity in principle betwe«n Montanism and 764 NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM Novatianism has been noted by many, both ancients and moderns, e.g. Epiph. Haer. 59 ; Hieron. 0pp. Migne, Patr. Lat. t. i. 188, Ep. ad Marcellam, 457, Ep. ad Oceanum ; t. vii. 697 cont. Jovinian. lib. ii. ; Gieseler, H. E. t. i. pp. 213-215, 284, ed. Clark ; Neander, Anti-Gnostic, t. ii. p. 362 ; Bunsen, Christ, and Mankind, t. i. 395, 428; Pressense, Life and Pract. of Early Ch. lib. i. cc. 6, 7 ; Baur, I.e. pp. 124-126. With Donatism Novatianism is also allied, for the treatment of the lapsed underlay that schism too. Other points of similarity between the three may be noted. They all sprang up, or found their most enthusiastic supporters, in Africa. Each arose simultaneously with great persecutions. The two earliest, at least, proved their essen- tial oneness, uniting their ranks in Phrygia in the 4th cent. Novatianism may be regarded as a conservative protest on behalf of the ancient discipline against the prevalent liberalism of the Roman church (Baur, I.e. p. 271). The sterner treatment of the lapsed naturally found favour with the more enthu- siastic party, who usually give the tone to any religious society. Thus Eleutherus, bp. of Rome, in the latter part of 2nd cent, was inclined to take the Puritan view (Eus. H. E. lib. v. c. 3). Ozanam {Hist, of Civilization in 5th Cent. t. ii. p. 214, Eng. trans.) has noted an interesting proof of the prevalence of this view in Rome. Archaeologists have often been puzzled by the symbol of a Good Shep- herd carrying a kid, not a lamb, on his shoul- ders, found in the cemetery of St. Callistus. Ozanam explains it as a reference by the excavators of the cemetery to the prevalent Montanist doctrine, which denied the possibi- lity of a goat being brought back in this life. Novatianism thus fell upon ground prepared for it, and found in every quarter a body of ready adherents. But Novatian was the first to make the treatment of the lapsed the ex- press ground of schism. In fact, many con- tinued to hold the same view within the church during the next 150 years (cf. Hefele, Councils, t. i. p. 134, Clark's ed. ; Innocent I. Ep. iii. ad Exiiperium, in Mansi, iii. 1039). This fact accounts for the rapid spread of the sect. In Africa they estabUshed themselves in many cities within the course of the two years subsequent to Novatian's consecration in the spring of 251. [Cyprian.] In S. Gaul Marcian, bp. of Aries, joined them (Cyp. Ep. Ixviii. ; Greg. Turon. Hist. Francor. lib. i. in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixxi. 175). In the East they made great progress. Between a.d. 260 and the coimcil of Nice we hear scarcely anything about them. The controversies about Sabel- lianism and Paul of Samosata, together with the rising tide of Arianism, occupied the church during the concluding years of the 3rd cent., while the peace it enjoyed prevented the question of the lapsed becoming a practical one. During this period, however, Novatian- ist doctrine became harder and sterner. Obliged to vindicate their position, they drew the reins tighter than Novatian had done. With him idolatry was the one crying sin which excluded from communion. During the long peace there was no temptation to this sin, therefore his followers were obliged to | add all other deadly sins to the list (Socr. | NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM H. E. vii. 25 ; Ambr. dePoenit. lib. i. cc. 2, 3 ; Ceill. V. 466, 467). At the council of Nice we find them established far and wide, with a regular succession of bishops at the principal cities of the empire and of the highest reputa- tion for piety. The monk Eutychian, one of their number, was a celebrated miracle- worker, reverenced by Constantine himself, who also endeavoiured to lead one of their bishops, AcESius, to unite with the Catholics (Socr. H. E. i. 10, 13). During the 4th cent, we can trace their history much more clearly in the East than in the West, for Socrates gives such copious details as to lead some (Nicephorus, Baronius, and P. Labbaeus) to suspect that he was a member of the sect. In the East their fortunes were very varying. Under Constantine they were tolerated and even favoured (Cod. Theod. ed. Haenel, lib. xvi. tit. V. p. 1522). Under Constantius they were violently persecuted, together with the rest of the Homoousian party, by the patriarch Macedonius. Socrates (ii. 38) mentions seve- ral martyrs for the Catholic faith whom they then furnished, especially one Alexander, a Paphlagonian, to whose memory they built a church at Constantinople existing in his own day. Several of their churches, too, were destroyed at Constantinople and Cyzicus, but were restored by Julian upon his accession, and Agelius their bishop was banished. " But Maced<mius consummated his wickedness in the following manner. Hearing there was a great number of the Novatian sect in the province of Paphlagonia, and especially at Mantinium, and perceiving that such a numerous body could not be driven from their homes by ecclesiastics alone, he caused, by the emperor's permission, four companies of soldiers to be sent into Paphlagonia that, through dread of the military, they might receive the Arian opinion. But those who inhabited Mantinium, animated to despera- tion by zeal for their religion, armed them- selves with long reaping-hooks, hatchets, and whatever weapons came to hand, and went forth to meet the troops, on which, a conflict ensuing, many indeed of the Paphlagonians were slain, but nearly all the soldiers were destroyed." This persecution well-nigh brought about a union between the Catholics and the Novatianists, as the former frequented the churches of the latter party during the Arian supremacy. The Novatianists, how- ever, as in Constantine's time, obstinately refused to unite with those whose church- theory was different from their own, though their faith was alike. Under Valens, seven years later, a.d. 366, they suffered another persecution and Agelius was again exiled. Under Theodosius their bp. at Constanti- nople, Agelius, appeared in conjunction with the orthodox patriarch Nectarius as joint defenders of the Homoousian doctrine at the synod of 383, on which account the emperor conferred on their churches equal privileges with those of the establishment (Socr. H. E. V. 10, 20). John Chrysostom's severe zeal for church discipline led him to persecute them. When visiting Ephesus to consecrate a bishop A.D. 401, he deprived them of their churches, an act to which many attributed John's subsequent misfortunes. An expression NOVATIANUS ind NOVATIANISM utteri-tl by Chrvs. -it.-ni in r<(rrtii< »• t.> t!irir peculiar views about siu alter ba|>tuut. '' Approach [the altar] though \mu luav have repented a thous.ind times," Utl t.> a literarv controversy between hint aiul the learnetl anti witty Sisinnius, Novatianist bp. •>( Constanti- nople (vi. 21, 22). About \74 a m hisni »c- curred in their ranks onceniinjc the tr\ie time of Easter. Hitherto the Novatianitts bad strictly obs«»r\'cd the Catholic rule. A few obscure FhryKi.ui bishops, however, con- vened a synod at Pazuni or Pazaconta, and agreed to celebrate the same day as that on which the Jews keep the Feast of I'nleavened Bread. This canon was passe<l in the absence of Agelius of Constantinople, Maxiniusof Nice, and the bislu>ps of Niconiwlia and Cotyaeuni, their leading men (iv. 28). Jewish influence was also at work, as Soromen (vii. iS) tells us that a number of priests, con vert etl by the Novatianists at Pazum during the reijjn of Valens, still retainetl their Jewish ideas about Easter. To this sect was given the name Protopaschitae {Cod. Theod. u.s. p. 1581, where severe penalties are deimuncetl against them as worshippers of a different Christ because observing Easter otherwise than the orthodox). This question, when raised by a presbyter of Jewish birth nanutl SAnnATirs, some 20 years later, caused a further schism among the Novatianists at Constantinople, under the episcopate of Marcian, a.d. 391; whence the name Sabbatiani. 1 hese finally coalesced with the Montanists, though we can trace their distinct existence till the middle of the 5th cent. (Socr. H. E. v. 21 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 16 ; Cod. Theod. u.s. pp. 1566, 1570, 1581.) Many particulars of the customs of the Eastern Novatianists and as to their reflex influence on the church as regards auricular confession are in Socr. H. E. V. 19, 22, who in c. 19 ascribes the original establishment of the office of peniten- tiary presbyter and secret confession to the Novatianist schism. [Nectarius (4).1 The succession of Novatianist patriarchs of Con- Stantinf>plc during the 4th cent, was Acesius, Agelius, Marcianus, Sisinnius (Socr. H. E. v. 21, vi. 22 ; S'lz. H. E. vii. 14). During the 5th cent, the Novatianists continued to flourish notwithstanding occ.isional troubles. In Constantin<jple their bishops during the first half of the cent, were Sismnius. d. 412, Chrysanthus, d. 419, Paul, d. 41H, and .Man ian. They lived on amicable terms with the orth'>- dox patri-irch Atlitus, who, remembering their fidelity under the Arian pers<Tutii)n, protected them from their enemies. Paul enjoyed the reputation of a miracle-worker, and died in the otlour of universal 8an< tity. all sects and parties uniting in singmg ps.«lm» at bis funeral (S<kt. H. /:. vii. 4'')- I" Al.x- andria, however, they were perseriitr<l by Cyril, their bp. Th»Mpemptus and their churches plundered ; but they continni-<l to exist in large numbers in that city till the 7th cent., when Eulogius, Catholic patriarch of Alexandria, wrote a treatise against them (Phot. Cod. 182, 208; Ceill. xi. 5N9)- J-vni in Scythia their churches existnl, as we find Marcus, a bp. fr^m that country, prevnt at tbe death of Paul, Novatianist bi>. of Con- stantinople, July 21, 438- In Asia Minor thry NOVATIANUS and NOVATIANISM 766 wrrr .,^ XM.lrh ,1,,; .,-..■ ! .. I'.r i .■♦. !> , |n i'.«rt» ol II, i: 1 vroni |.>r long to h., 1 br those who lo . h*- niii« IrlU \t% ' -. (»f 1 1 J vr.«r> ill U ■ lumper, //n; h«ti rslal.li-i ■ » . it.u« (111 II w« lind at I u .<n a toiiii' ' iiina to her huslMiul I'aul, .!..i. :, I llir h<>|y church of the NovalunUI«. while rvrti |o. wards the end o| ttir jr.. ..tit.^r . rtnv.rv St. liasil, though hesil.it: .r to those of Cyprian t lUti, conchules in its lav 'ind that it was for the a.l\ i.ii . ! thi> populace that it shoiiM Iw 1 h f. clxxxviii. ad .Amf<ktL>th. , iih't liasil Ihf Gieat. \y. ii<)). All.: 1 the 5th cent, we find lew notice* ..) ji., u l,ut>iry. Their protest alx'Ut the U|>vhI Ikn amr <>b*<>- lete and their adherents (ell away to th« church or to wets hke the M'>ntanUlt. A ' formal notice of their existence in the K*»l ; occurs in the 95th canon o| the I rullan (*Julni- ! sext) council A.D. 69J. In the Wr»t we h*ve ' no such particular details of their historv u I in the East. Yet there is clear evidence o| th<'ir widespread and |ong-c4.niinued influence. .Mreatly we have note<l their extension into S. (.aui and .\frica in their very earliest da>-«. In .Mexandria also we have note<l lit last , historical inanil«-station. Hetween Ihe ml<ldle of ^rd cent., when it arose, and the close i>l tbe , 5th, we find relocated iiidic.itioii> o| its exist- ence and power. Constantine's decree [Cod. I Theod. XV'l. v. 2, with t.otho(re«l's comment), giving them a certain restricted lit>erlv, wa» directed to Bassus, probablv vicarius ..f llalv. ': Towards the cli>v of the 4th cent, we find a regular succession of Nov.iii-u>l*l bishop« existing^-doubtless from N ■ •■ • 'ciie — at Rome, and held in su l>t piety that the emperor Th' I his life to the celebratetl oral, i ' the ' prayer of the Novatianist ; *.D. ' 388. Early in the Mh r- !•<•»•« Celestine jhtsccuIwI them, "" "I their churches, and com|>ell..l louii ul.i their bishop to hold his meetings in private, an act which Socrates considers another pr."«f >>< the overweening and unchristian invleiice o| the Roman »ee («. E. vii. n). Inthe(.«le several severe etiicts were dir« t«l alMiut the same time ak'.ilnst the Nov.i'; ■ •• ^ ! ktoJ. n\. Haeiiel. lib. xvi. III. v. L 1 «>). In S. <..iul. N. Ilalv. and^ -m« tohav- •■^. "., , • . *nd centr . '' "^ ligion '»»» mavl, , ' •' time Iw 1 -tc li> Ma features, *.K Ihe i these . ■■uiitn- s, ii. . tow.ir . The 1 Ambt agaiiiM II.' proves t lie s. one and a i assertion of u. . ., .. - - 766 NOVATUS Ambrose evidently wrote in answer to some work lately produced by them {de Poenit. lib. ii. c. X.). The Separatist tendency begotten of Novatianism in this district and continued through Priscillianism, Adoptionism, and Claudius of Turin (Neander, H. E. t. vi. 119- 130, ed. Bohn ; of. esp. note on p. 119) may be a point of contact between the Novatianists of primitive times and the Waldenses and Albigenses of the middle ages. Their wide spread in Africa in Augustine's time is attested by him, cont. Gmtdent. in 0pp. ed. Bened. (Paris), ix. 642, 794. The principal extant controversial works against the sect beside those of Cyprian are the epistles of St. Pacian of Barcelona, the de Poeniteniia of St. Ambrose, and the Quaes- iiones in Nov. Testam. No. cii. wrongly attri- buted to St. Augustine and found in the Parisian Ben. ed. t. iii. pars. ii. 2942-2958, assigned by the editor to Hilary the deacon who lived under pope Damasus. The work of Pacian contains many interesting historical notices of the sect. From it we find they refused to the Catholics the name of a church, calling them Apostaticum, Capitolinum, or Synedrium, and, on their own behalf, rejected the name Novatianists and styled themselves simply Christians {Ep. ii. § 3). The following were some of the texts rehed on by them, to the consideration of which the writers on the Catholic side applied themselves : I. Sam. ii. 25 ; Matt. x. 33, xii. 31, xiii. 47-49 ; I. Cor. vi. 18 ; II. Tim. ii. 20 ; Heb. vi. 4-7 ; I. John V. 15. Novatianism in the tests which it used, its efforts after a perfectly pure communion, its crotchety interpreta- tions of Scripture, and many other features, presents a striking parallel to many modern sects. In addition to authorities already quoted, see Ceillier, ii. 427, et passim ; Walch, Ketzerhist. ii. 185 ; Natal. Alex. ed. Mansi, saec. iii.c. iii.art. iv. ; Tillem. A/ew. ; Bingham, 0pp. t. vi. 248, 570, viii. 233 (ed. Lond. 1840); Gieseler, H. E. i. 284 (ed. Clark) ; Neander, H. E. (ed. Bohn), i. 330-345- For an account of recent literature on the subject see Barden- hewer's Patrology, p. 220. [g.t.s.] Novatus (1), presbyter of Carthage, seems to have been an original opponent of Cyprian's election, but is first mentioned by him in Ep. xiv. § 5, with three other presbyters — Donatus, Fortunatus, and Gordius — as having written about some question to Cyprian then in retire- ment. This was, doubtless, touching the re- quest of the confessors, to have peace granted to certain of the lapsed which, in Ep. 1., Cyprian refuses until he has consulted the presbyters and faithful laity. Cyprian re- proves certain presbyters, evidently Novatus and his companions, who, " considering neither the fear of God nor the honour of the bishop," had already granted peace to the lapsed. In Ep. xliii., writing to the church of Carthage, he compares Novatus and his associates to the five chief commissioners entrusted with the conduct of the persecution, and, as it seems, intimates that they threat- ened to raise a riot upon his appearance from his place of retirement. In Ep. Iii. 3 Cyprian, writing to Cornelius, gives a very bad char- acter of Novatus. Cyprian's feelings may have here coloured his judgment, as such a OLYMPIAS bishop as he was could scarcely have tolerated such a bad man in the presbyterate. Cyprian describes Novatus as having made his follower Felicissimus a deacon, and then " at Rome committing greater and more grievous crimes. He who at Carthage made a deacon against the church, there made a bishop," i.e. that he brought about the ordination of both the deacon and bishop. Ep. xliii. 2 proves that Cyprian's wrath was, however, specially stirred by some anti-episcopal innovations of Novatus and his party. After the consecration of Novatian, Novatus was sent by him to organize his party in Africa (Cy-p. Ep. 1.). After this he disappears from sight. Cf. Dr. Pusey's note upon him, appended to Cyprian, Ep. Iii. in Oxf. Lib. of Fathers. Milman, Lat. Christ. t. i. pp. 60-62 (ed. Lond. 1867). [g.t.s.] Oceanus, a Roman of noble birth, connected with Fabiola and the Julian family ; a friend of Jerome, Augustine, and Pammachius. He probably became known to J erome during his stay in Rome in 383-385. He first appears as making a public protest against Carterius, a Spanish bp. who, having married before his baptism and lost his wife, had, as a Christian, married a second wife. Jerome points out that there is no law condemning such marri- ages and urges silence ; c. 397. Either in 397 or 396 Oceanus, with Fabiola, visited Jerome at Bethlehem, whence they were driven by fear of Hunnish invasion. While there, he apparently met Rufinus, who, according to Jerome's insinuation (adv. Ruf. iii. 4), had an Origenistic document placed in Oceanus's room in Fabiola's house, hoping to identify him with that tendency. Rufinus having gone to Rome (397) and having published shortly afterwards his edition of Origen's Ilfpi 'Apxi^". Oceanus and Pammachius watched his actions with critical eyes, and, on the appear- ance of the work, wrote to Jerome (Hieron. Ep. 83) asking him to deny the insinuation of Rufinus that he was only completing a work begun by Jerome, and to furnish them with a true translation of Origen's work. Oceanus, no doubt, took part in the subsequent pro- ceedings which led to the condemnation of Origenism at Rome. On the death of Fabiola, c- 399, Jerome wrote to Oceanus her Epita- phium (Ep. 77), accompanied by his exposi- tion, which had been intended for her, of the 42 resting-places of the Israelites in the desert. In 411 Oceanus, who had maintained his correspondence with Jerome, and possessed his books against Rufinus and other of his works, interested himself specially in the Pelagian controversy on the origin of souls. Jerome writes to Marcellinus and Anapsy- chius (Ep. 126) who had consulted him on this, referring them to Oceanus as one thoroughly " learned in the law of the Lord " and capable of instructing them. Augustine writes to Oceanus in 416 on the same subject, and on the reproof of St. Peter by St. Paul at Antioch. [w.h.f.] Olympias (2), the younger, widow, a cele- brated deaconess of the church of Constan- OLYMPIAS tinople. th- in.>st i-mintiit ..f the h.uul ..( h.>lv iiul hii-h-borii wnincn wlimn IhrvsostKin i^.ithert'd rouiul him. Hi-r (ainily w.is ■>( high link, but pa«.m. Ih-r birth is jilaiod bv 1 illeiiumt c. ^o«. Sh«' w.is left .it an rarly .it;e th<> orphan hi'ir«'ss «>( an iiniuonsc (ortuiir. Happily (or her, hi-r uncU- ami unaniiaii. Pro- 1 piiH, was a man oi hii;h rharartor, an in- liiiiatf friend and corr«pondint <>f (iri^ory Na^ianzen. She was equally fortunate in lu-r iustriK tress, Theinlosia, the sister of St. An>- pliilochius of Iconiuni, whom (iregory desired tlie young girl to set before her constantly as ; a pattern. During (iregory's residence at lonstautinople, 370-^^1, he became much iltached to the bright anil beautiful maiden, then probably about 12 years old, calling her his own Olympias," and delighted to be illed " father" by her (lireg. Naz. Ep. 57 ; t .mn. 57, pp. 132, 134). Olympias had many ' -lutors. The one selected by her guardian, I'rocopius, was Nebridius, a young man of liigh rank and excellent character, whom she married in 384. There can be little doubt that her married life was not a happy one ( Pallad. Dial. p. 164). In less than two years she was left a widow without children. She regarded this early bereavement as a declara- tion of the divine will that she was unsuited t.) the married life, and ought not again to be married. Theodosius desired her to wed HIpidiiis, a young Spanish kinsman of his. But Olympias steadily refusing to listen to his suit, Tiieodosius commissiitned the prefect of the city to take the whole of her property into [Hiblic custody until she attained her 30th year. The imperial orders were carried out with so much harshness that she was even [ forbidden to go to church for her devotions, "r to enjoy the congenial society of the lead- ing ecclesiastics. Theodosius soon restored I.J her the management of her estates (16.), .iiid thenceforward she devoted herself and lur wealth entirely to the servii e of religion, practising the greatest austerities. Her whole time and strength were given to minis- t.ring to the wants of the poor and sick, and t I the hospitable entertainment of bishops and iher ecclesiastics visiting the imperial city, ho never left her roof without large pecuniary .f\, Sometimes in the form i.f a farm or an late, tMwards their religi'ius works. Among ii.ese Palladius enumerates .\mphilochiiis, optimus. the two brothers of Basil, (;regor> N vssen (who dedicated to her the Commentary on a portion of the Song of Solomon, which he had written at her request, Creg. Nys. im (ant. t. i. p. 468), Peter, Epiphanius of Cyjirus, and the three who subsequently be- i.ime the unwearied persecutors of Lhrysostom and even of Olympias herself, .■\cacius, Atticus, md Severianus. Her house was the common home of the clergy, and of the monks and virgins who swarmed from all i)arts of the Christian world to Constantinople. She was ttie victim of much imposition and her charity was grievously abused. Indeid, her liberality was so unrestricted and inconsiderate that Chrysf>stom interposed his authority to limit it, saving that her wealth was a trust from (jod which she was bound to use in the most prudent manner for the relief o( the poor and destitute, not in making presents lu the OLYMPIAS 767 opulent and c.ivrtou* is .• // h viU. 9|. Olvinpias (ollowrtl t hfVv.%|o|,,-» 4«lvkc. which brouKhl upon hrr thr ill-will «■( ihoM who had enjovrti hrr l.ut'.h ►•mrr titv When still under i- i4« was appointrtt bv N. tlir church of tonstantii Ul prelate consulte<l hri . t%. Hi which he was a n by her adviT (Pall.id. p : ;). She ret.iinetl this p-m., ! .m and became his c.hiei > .■uii«< ll-i ui.<l .«• live agent in all works of pirty and rh4ril\. ni>t only in Constantinopip, but in distant prix vinces of the church. On the arriv.il of the Nitrian monks known as the Tall Mrothers in Constantinople in *oi. Olympias received them ht>spilalilv (Pallad. p. 153), careless of the indignant remon- strances of Theophilus (16. p. I^^). t>n I hry- sostom's final expulsion from ( onstanlinoplp, June 20, 404. Olympias was thr chief of thr band I'f courageous women who assemblrtl in the baptisterv <>f the church to take a last farewell of their dernly lovpil bi«hi>i> and friend, and to receive his parting lM'iip«lirtU>n and commands (ib. 8i). qo). Suspicion of having caused the hre in the cathntral whkb immediately followed the departure of t hrv- st>stom from its walls fell on Ot>-inpu» and the other ladies. Olvmpias was broiixht before the prefect Oi>tatus. who bluntly de- manded why she had vt the chun h on fire. He proposed that on condition of ht-r entrriiiK into communion with .Arsacius, .is sonn- oihrr ladies h.id done, the investigation should l»e dropped and she freed from further ann«'y- ance. Olyinpias's proud spirit indignantly rejected the base compromise. A false charKc had been publicly brought against her. of which her whole manner of life, which the prefect could n.>t be ignorant of, was a sufti- cient refutation. The trouble brought on Olympias a severe ami almost fatal illnr«s. Ori recovering her health, in the spring of 405. she left Constantinople So/oiiieii M-eiii* lu speak of a voluntary retirement to t yzn us. But the language of ( hrysostoiii (/•/>. |6, p. 603 C) leads us to believe that Oir wa« never allowed to remain long in one sjh.I, her persecutors hoping that thus hrr spirit nughl be broken and she indu< ed to yirld. Thl» hope being frustrated. (Hvmpi's was ..nrr again summoned before Optatus. who. on hcf renewed refusal to. oiiimuriK ate w nh Arsariu*. imposed a heavy tine of .mh. pounds ol Koki (Soz. //. /•;. viii. 24 ; Pallad p --Nl Tl'«» *•»» readily paid, and the news of Olvnipw»*% heroic disregard of all worldiv l.-ss*-* and sufferings for truths sake gave intrnw joy to Chrys<»stom in his banishment. Ilr wrote congratulating her on her \i. torv. callinit upon her to glorify <. -1 ^^^ ' »' -i •" .1 ''d »'«•» to acquire such gr. • ■^"•• i:p. 16. p. 604 A). V ''y definitely of thr re.i "W onlv trustworthy ini "■ * "'y* ».H,t., Ill's 17 letters I which are long religiou* tra. ti. I ,. of which rrlirveil the teilliini o( l,l^ . iil- ..1..I lliailr him almost forget his mismr*. Wr gather Itoin them that Olympias was subjrrt to Irrqurtil and severe attacks "i Mcknr»i. and that tbc 768 OPTATUS persecution of the party of Arsacius and Atticus was violent and unsparing. The compulsory dispersion of the society of young females of which she was head, and who, like her, had refused to hold communion with the intruding bishops, was a great sorrow to her i^b. 4, p. 577 A). But the dates of these letters are uncertain. The style in which she is addressed in this correspondence is " at once respectful, affectionate, and paternal" (Stephens, S. Chrysostom, p. 383), "but it ex- hibits a highly-wrought comphmentary" tone, full of " bold and lavish praise " of her many signal virtues which is " too widely remote from the mind and taste of our own times to be fairly estimated by us." Chrysostom wrote for her consolation a special treatise on the theme that " No one is really injured except by himself" (t. iii. pp. 530-553); as well as one "to those who were offended by adversities" {ib. pp. 555-612). To both of these he refers in his 4th letter to her {Ep. 4, p. 576 c). The date of her death cannot be determined. She was living when Palladius pub. his Dialogue in 408, but not when the Lausiac History was pub. in 420. [e.v.J Optatus (6), bp. of Milevis, or Mileum (Milah), in Numidia, 25 m. N.W. of Cirta (Shaw, Trav. p. 63), a vigorous opponent of the Donatists. He himself says that he wrote about 60 years, or rather more, after the per- secution under Diocletian. St. Jerome speaks of him as having written during the reigns of Valentinian and Valens, a.d. 365-378. But in bk. ii. of his treatise Siricius is mentioned as bp. of Rome, " qui est noster socius." As Siricius did not succeed Damasus until 384, he may have outlived the period mentioned by St. Jerome and himself inserted these words later. The date of his death, however, is un- known. St. Augustine mentions him once in the same sentence as St. Ambrose, and else- where as a church-writer of high authority, even among Donatists. (Opt. c. Don. i. 13, ii. 3; Hieron. Vir. Illustr. c. no, vol. ii. p. 706 ; Aug. c. Don. ep. (de Unit. Eccl.) 19, 50 ; c. Farm. i. 3, 5 ; Brevic. Coll. 20, 38 ; Doctr. Christ, ii. 40, 61 ; Baronius, Ann. vol. iv. p. 243 ; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. ii. 275 ; Dupin, Optatus Praef. i.) His treatise against the Donatists is in the form of a letter to Parmenian, Donatist bp. of Carthage, in six books, with a seventh of doubtful authenticity. Bk. i. opens with a eulogy of peace, which he complains that the Donatists set at nought by reviling the Catholics. He adds some compliments to Parmenian, as the only one of his party with whom he can communicate freely, and regrets being compelled to do so by letter because they refuse to meet for confer- ence. Five points put forward by Parmenian call for discussion, to which Optatus adds a sixth, (i) In accusing Catholics of " tradi- tion," particulars ought to be specified of time and place. (2) The true church ought to be defined. (3) Which side was really respon- sible for calling in the aid of the soldiers. (4) What Parmenian means by " sinners " whose " oil and sacrifice " God rejects. (5) The question of baptism. (6) The riotous and rash acts of the Donatists. Optatus finds fault with Parmenian for his inconsiderate language OPTATUS about our Lord's baptism, to the effect that His flesh required to be " drowned in the flood" of Jordan to remove its impurity. If the baptism of Christ's body were intended to suffice for the baptism of each single person, there might be some truth in this, but we are baptized, in virtue not of the flesh of Christ, but of His name, and moreover we cannot believe that even His flesh contracted sin, for it was more pure than Jordan itself. The purpose of Optatus is to shew that it was not the church which cast off the Donatists, but they who separated from the church, follow- ing the example of Korah and his company. When they disclaim the right of princes to interfere in the affairs of the church they con- tradict their forefathers, who, in the matter of Caecilian, petitioned Constantine to grant them judges from Gaul instead of from Africa. In bk. ii. Optatus discusses what the church , the dove and bride of Christ, is (Cant. vi. 9). Its holiness consists in the sacraments and is not to be measured by the pride of men. It is universal, not limited, as Parmenian would have it, to a corner of Africa, for if so where would be the promises of Pss. ii. 8, Ixxii. 8 ? And the merits of the Saviour would be re- stricted, Pss. cxiii. 3, xcvi. 7. The church has five gifts: (i) The chair of Peter. (2) The angel inseparably attached to that chair, apparently the power of conferring spiritual gifts, which resides in the centre of episcopal unity. Parmenian must be aware that the episcopal chair was conferred from the be- ginning on Peter, the chief of the apostles, that ujiity might be preserved among the rest and no one apostle set up a rival. This chair, with whose exclusive claim for respect the little Donatist community can in no way compete, carries with it necessarily the " angel" ("ducit adse angelum"), unless the Donatists have this gift enclosed for their own use in a narrow space, and excluding the seven angels of St. John (Rev. i.), with whom they have no com- munion ; or if they possess one of these, let them send him to other churches : otherwise their case falls to the ground. (3) The holy spirit of adoption, which Donatists claim ex- clusively for themselves, applying to Catholics unjustly the words of our Lord about pro- selytism (Matt, xxiii. 15). (4) The fountain (probably faith) of which heretics cannot par- take, and (5) its seal, " annulus " (probably baptism) (Cant. iv. 12). A want of clearness in the language of Optatus renders his mean- ing here somewhat doubtful. The Donatists add a sixth gift, the " umbilicus " of Cant, vii. 2, which they regard as the altar ; but this, being an essential part of the body, can- not be a separate gift. These gifts belong to the church in Africa, from which the Donatists have cut themselves off, as also from the priesthood, which they seek by rebaptism to annul, though they do not rebaptize their own returned seceders. But these gifts belong to the bride, not the bride to them. They re- gard them as the generating power of the church instead of the essentials (viscera), viz. the sacraments, which derive their virtue from the Trinity. Parmenian truly com- pares the church to a garden, but it is God Who plants the trees therein, some of which Donatists seek to exclude. In offering the OPTATUS sacrifice to G^xi in tho llu. harist. th«>v profess to ofler for the one church, but bv their rc- baptism tlu-y really make two' churches. Thanking Pannenian for his lanRuaRe about the church, which, however, he claims as applicable to the Catholic church alone, he challenges him to point out anv act of perse- cution on its part. Constantine t<>.»k pains to restore peace and suppress itlolatrv, but another emperor, who ileclared himself an apostate, when he restored idolatry allowetl the Donatists to return, a pernnssion for the acceptance of which they ought to blush. It was about this time that the outrages broke out in .Africa [Feli.x (186) ; Urbanis], of which when Priniosus complained, the Dona- tist council at Theneste took no notice. They compelled women under vows to disregard them and perform a period of penance, and deposed fmm his office Donatus bp. of Tysedis. Yet they speak of holiness as if Christ gave it without conditions, and take every oppor- tunity of casting reproach on church ordin- ' ances, fulfiling the words of Ezek. xiii. 20. In bk. iii., after going over some of the former ground, laying the blame of the schism on the Donatists. Optatus applies to them several passages of Scripture, esp. Pss. Ixxxvii., ; cxlvii.; Isa. ii. 3, xxii. i, q. ! In bk. iv., disclaiming all unfriendly feeling ' and appealing to the common possessions of both parties, Optatus charges them with in- 1 fraction of unity by appointment of bishops, proselytism, forbidding social intercourse, and perversely applying to Catholics Scripture passages directed against obstinate heretics, as I. Cor. V. II, II. John 10. In bk. V. Optatus returns to the oft-re- peated subject of rebaptism. The repetition of baptism, he says, is an insult to the Trinity, worse than the doctrines of Praxeas and the Patripassians. Three elements are requisite : (i) the Trinity, (2) the minister, (3) the faith- ful receiver ; but of these the Donatists exalt the second above the other two. They use as a quotation words not found in Scripture, " How can a man give what he has not re- ceived ? " (see I. Cor. iv. 7) ; but in baptism God alone is the giver of grace. As it is not the dyer who changes the colour of his wool, so neither does the minister of himself change the operation of baptism. Of two candidates for baptism, if one refused to renounce while the other consented, there can be no doubt which of them received baptism effectually. By rebapti^ing. Donatists rob Christians of their marriage-garment, which suits all ages and conditi)ns of life. The rebaptized will rise no doubt at the last day. but will rise naked, and the voice of the Master will be heard, " Friend, I once knew thee, and gave thee a marriage-garment. Who has despoiled thee of it ? Into what trap, amongst what thieves hast thou fallen ? " In bk. vi. he repeats s>)me previous charges, and adds others, how they destroyed altars, the " seats of Christ's Bf>dy and BI.mkI," at which they themselves must have offered. They have broken up chalices and sold them to women and even to pagans, yet they quote Hagg. ii. 14 ; but even impurity of men diK-s not profane the vessels of service (see Num. xvi. 37, 38). ORIGENBS Ilk. VII.. wh ler..me. but v^ i)r av ribetl t answers a fi. SI. tuU 4II<1 >t If thev are the iluMt.u .1 Ua.ht..|*, a% (l|>- latus says, they ought to in- let x\„nr, and no attempt made to " reron. il. ' tli.m. but, says Optatus, though thru • rvr<! to be exctude«l. there Is 11 tjipy should be so, for the church ; i/rU persons. Christ allows t» 1 1,1 grow in Mis mid. and no |.i , |„ do what the apostles coiij,! ,,41^ them. Thev might be- ■ unl- cate with Peter be. > : ,,ri|, yet he retained the t> ,m' The work of Opt , , lunt historically than d>« Ininilv. As 4 ihr^y logical treatise it is often lo-^ and rambling, with frequent repetition ; but it ex|><>Mn with clearness and force the inconsistency of the Donatists, and of .ill who. like them, fix their attention exclusively on the ethical snip tif religion, estimated by an arbilrarv staiulard of opinion, to the .lisregard ..( .,i|„r . onditiont of the greatest importam e in the lonstilu- tion of a church. Mow pervers« Iv and incon- sistently the Donatists applied this principle in the matter of nbaptism Optatus again and again demonstr.ites. That there was a doctrine of rebaptism in the African church, to which Cyprian had lent the weight of his authority, there can be no doubt: but with him it was directed against heretics, on the principle that the followers of Marcion. Praxeas, and the like, were in fart not truly Christians and thus their ba{>tisin was value- less. But Optatus is never wearv of urging that though by their own act Donatists had incurred the charge of schism, the chun h did not regard them as heretics, and that ihcy ought not to treat as heretical their brethren. Dupin's ed. {1702, fol.) is the groundwork of all subsequent editions. It has been re- printed in vol. xi. of .Migne's I'aU. I.al., but the map is smaller and less clear than in Dupin's folio, and all documents previous to 363 are in vol. viii. of the Pair. I.at. .An acci .un t < >f Opiatiu and his writings will be found in CeilluT, vol. v. The latest ed. is by /iwsa (I^<J3). in Corftu^i Scr. Ecd. ImI. xxvi. (V'unn.i). See Sparrow Simpson's St. Auf^. aiut Afr. Ch. />iiMiun> (l-»Io), pp. 42 f!. [H.w.r-I Origenes. Sources. — The main authority for the details of Origeu's life IS l.usebiu% (//. /:. vi.), who collected UJ>ward» of 100 letters of Origen (16. jO). I hrse. toKelher with official documents (i6. 23. 33) and In- fonnation from those acquainted with Origen (tb. 2, 33), formed the basis oi his narrative. His account of the most critKal pen<««l of Origeii's life, his retireinent fr rn Atrt itidrla, was given in bk. 11. of his ( !i he compoS4-d with the help o( I .•}). This unhappily has u<.{ b. . Origen's own wntiiigs K'^' ■ " •■ " ■•. lalU of his life. Hut the loss ..I Ills leltrrs I* Ir- reparable. 1 hey wotdd have given a fuller picture of the man. even if they gave lilllo additional information un the outward clr> cumstances of hi* life. Of iiKxlern auth<.ritlrt, ten TlUetn"nl, Mimotrti; Lardner, Cr«^i6i/i/) ; tnllur, 770 ORIGENES Auteurs sacres ; Lumper, Hist. Patrum Theol. Criiica ; Walch, Gesch. d. Ketz. ; Du Pin, Nouvelle bibliothique des auteurs ecclis. His life and doctrine have been discussed, with special reference to his historical position in the development of Christian thought, by Guericke, de Schula Alex. Catech. (1825); Neander, Kirch. Gesch.; Thomasius, Origenes (1837) ; Redepenning, Origenes (1841-1846) ; Moehler, Patrol. (1840); Huber, Philos d. Ktr- chenvdter {iSsg); Schaff, Church Hist. {1867) ; De Pressense, Hist, des trois premiers siecles (1858 - 1877); Boehringer, Kirchengesch. in Biogr. Klemens u. Origenes (1869, 2'" Aufl.). Life. — Origen was probably born at Alex- andria (Eus. H. E. vi. i), but whether of Egyptian, Greek, or mixed descent is not known. The loose phrase of Porphyry, that he " was a Greek and reared in Greek studies " {ib. 19), is in itself of little value, but the name of his father (Leonides) points in the same direction. His mother's name has not been preserved. May she have been of Jewish descent ? He is said to have learnt Hebrew so well that in singing the psalms " he vied with his mother" (Hieron. Ep. 39 [22], § i). Origen's full name was Origenes Adamantius. Origenes was the name of one contemporary philosopher of distinction, and occurs else- where. Adamantius has commonly been regarded as an epithet describing Origen's unconquerable endurance, or for the invin- cible force of his arguments. But the langu- age of Eusebius [H. E. vi. 14) and of Jerome (de Vir. III. 54, "Origenes qui et Adamantius") shews that it was a second name, and not a mere adjunct. His father, Leonides, suffered martyrdom in the persecution of the loth year of Severus (202), and Origen had not then completed his 17th year (Eus. H. E. vi. 2). He must have been born therefore a.d. 185- 186, a date consistent with the statement (ib. vii. i) that he died in his 69th year, in the reign of Gallus (a.d. 251-254). In Origen we have the first record of a Christian boyhood, and he was " great from the cradle." His education was superintended by his father, who especially directed him to the study of Scripture. The child's eager inquiries into the deeper meaning of the words he committed to memory caused perplexity to his father, who, while openly checking his son's pre- mature curiosity, silently thanked God for the promise he gave for the future. Origen be- came the pupil of Pantaenus (after his return from India) and Clement, in whose school he met Alexander, afterwards bp. of Jerusalem (ib. vi. 14), with whom he then laid the foun- dation of that life-long friendship which supported him in his sorest trials. When Leonides was thrown into prison, Origen wished to share his fate, but was hindered by his mother. He addressed a letter to his father — his first recorded writing, still extant in the time of Eusebius — in which he prayed him to allow no thought for his family to shake his resolution. This shews the position of influence which Origen already enjoyed in his family. Leonides was put to death and his property confiscated. Upon this the young Origen seems to have fulfilled the promise his words implied. Partly by the assistance of a pious and wealthy lady, and ORIGENES partly by teaching, he supported himself and (as may be concluded) his mother and brothers. Already he collected a library. At first he gave lessons in literature ; but as the Christian school was without a teacher, all having been scattered by the persecution, he was induced to give instruction in the faith. Thus in his i8th year he was, at first informally, the head of the Christian school in Alexandria in a season of exceptional danger. He was so successful that Demetrius, bp. of Alexandria, soon definitely committed to him the office. The charge decided the tenor of his life. Origen henceforth devoted himself exclusively to the office of a Christian teacher, and to ensure his independence sold his collection of classical writers for an annuity of four oboli (sixpence) a day, on which he lived for many years, refusing the voluntary contributions his friends offered him (ib. 3). His position is a remarkable illustration of the freedom of the early church. He was a layman and yet recognized as a leading teacher. His work was not confined to any district. Numbers of men and women flocked to his lectures, attracted partly by his stern simplicity of life, which was a guarantee of his sincerity. For he resolved to fulfil without reserve the pre- cepts of the Gospel. For many years he went barefoot, wore only a single robe (Matt. x. 10), and slept upon the ground. His food and sleep were rigorously limited (ib.). Nor did his unmeasured zeal stop here. In the same spirit of sacrifice he applied to himself literally the words of Matt. xix. 12, though wishing to conceal the act from most of his friends. Origen's own comment on the words of the Gospel which he had misunderstood is a most touching confession of his error (in Matt. t. XV. I ff.). But for the time the purpose of the act was accepted as its excuse. For 12 or 13 years he was engaged in these happy and successful labours ; and it was probably during this period that he formed and partly executed his plan of a comparative view of the LXX with other Greek versions of O.T. and with the original Hebrew text, though the work was slowly elaborated as fresh materials came to his hands (Eus. H. E. vi. 16). A short visit to Rome in the time of Zephyrinus, to see " the most ancient church of the Romans" (ib. 14), and an authoritative call to Arabia (ib. 19) alone seem to have interrupted his labours. Perse- cution tested the fruit of his teaching. He had the joy of seeing martyrs trained in his school ; and his own escapes from the violence of the people were held to be due to the special protection of Providence (ib. 4, f. 3). During the same period he devoted himself with re- newed vigour to the study of non-Christian thought, and attended the lectures of Am- monius Saccas (cf. Porph>Ty, ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 19 ; Theod. Grace. Affect. Cur. vi. p. 96). Heretics and Gentiles attended his lectures, and he felt bound to endeavour to understand their opinions thoroughly that he might the better correct them (cf. c. Cels. vi. 24). This excited ill-will, but he was able to defend himself, as he did in a letter written at a later time (Ep. ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 19), by the example of his predecessors and the support of his friends. His work grew beyond his ORIGENES strength, and Hti.i. lis jouud liini in the catechetical school. Hor.ul.js h.ul bj-on one of his first converts and scholars, and the brother of a martvr (Kus. H. F. vi. ^). Me was a fellow-student with Orij:rn mulor " his teacher of philosophy " (Annnonius Sarras) ; and when he afterwards became bp. of Alex- andria he did not lav aside the tlrrss or the reading of a philosopher [ih. lo). At length, c. 21s. a tum\ilt of unusual violence (16. iq ; Clinton. Fasti Komatit, i. 224 f.) forced Origcn to withdraw from Kgvpt to Caesarea in Palestine. Mere his reputa- tion brought him into a prominence which occasioned his later troubles. His fillow- pupil Alexander bp. of Jerusalem, and Theoc- tistus (Theotecnus ; Photius. Coii. 118) bp. of Caesarea, bogged him to expoinul the Scriptures in the public services of the church, though he had not been ordained. Deme- trius of .■Mexandria expressed strong dis- approbation of a proceeding he described as unprecedinted. .-Mexaiider and Theoctistus produced precedents. Demetrius replied bv recalling Origen to .Alexandria, and hastened his return by special envo\"s, deacons of the church (Eus. H. E. vi. iq). Origens stay in Palestine was of some length, ana it was prob- ably during this time he made his famous visit to Mamaea, the mother of the emperor Alexander (tb. 21), herself a native of Syria. Some time after his return to .-Mexandria (c. 219). Origen began his written expositions of Scripture, largely through the influence of Ambrose, whom he had rescued not long before from the heresy of Valentinus, or as Jerome says of Marcion (Hieron. de \'ir. III. 56). Ambrose provided him with more than seven shorthand writers (raxtOpa^o*) to take down his comments and other scribes to make fair copies (Eus. H. E. vi. 23). These literary occupations threw Origen's work in the catechetical school yet more upon Heraclas. At the same time the first parts of Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of St. John marked him out more decisively than before as a teacher in the church even more than in the school. But the exhibition of this new power was accompanied by other signs of a bold originality which might well startle those unfamiliar with the questionings of philo- sophy. The books On First Principles, which seem to have been written spontaneously, made an epoch in Christian speculation, as the Comm. on St. John did in Christian interpreta- tion. Under such circumstances it is not surprising that Demetrius yielded, in the words of Eusebius, to the infirmity of human nature {ib. 8) and wished to check the boldness and influence of the layman. It became clear that Origen must seek elsewhere than in Alexandria free scope for his Scriptural studies. After he had laboured there for more than 25 years, the occasion came in an invitation to visit Achaia for the purpose, as it seems, of combating some false opinions which h.id arisen there (Hieron. de I'tr. III. 54). The exact date is uncertain, but probably between 226 and 230. On the way Origen visited Caesarea, and sought counsel from his oldest friends as to his future course. No record remains of their deliberations, but Origen was ordained presbyter " by the bishops there " ORIOENES 771 (Kus. //. F. vi. .Ml. I l,.-.H ti>tii«o(Cae*4rr4and Alexander of )rru<tjlrni |Mirr..n. tit I'lr. ///. 54; Phot. <'o.l. lift). t)riKrn Ihrn vUiled Kphesus (AT-. / r.i.-m np Huf < r ■/ . DrUnie. i. p. <>). an«l .t Alhrnft. During t hi* si I met lit* teachers of 1 ' , h. //«rr. Ixiv. I). At 1. ....>M. ,,>,:,. . M.i lr|r,l hU mission, he returne<l to .Mexandru. where he could not have been uiiprrp.irrti for the reception which awaite<l hini tr.iii Denteiriu*- Demetrius had probably shewn clear un- willingness In admit him to the priesthood. .At any rate, the fact that Origen rerrivrd orders from Palestinian biOiop* without hi« consent might be construed as a direct chal- lenge of his authoritv. Origen at onrr per- ceivetl that he must retire before the ritinx storm. The preface to bk. vi. i>f the Comm, on St. John shews how deeplv he felt the severance i«f oKI ties and the ho^tilitv >>f former colleagues. In 231 lie left .Mexandria never to retiim ; and his influence to the last it shewn by the fact that he " left the charge «»l the catechetical school" to hi* coadjutor Heraclas (Eus. H. E. vi. 26). It is difficult to trace the different stages in the condemna- tion which followed. Photius {Cod. ii«). following the .4pologv of Pamphilus and Eusebius, gives the most intelligible and con- sistent account. .According to him Demetrlu*. completely alienated from Origen bv hi« ortlinatioii, collected a synod of " bishops and a few presbyters," which decided that tJngen should not be allowed to stav or te.ich at Alexandria. Demetrius afterwards excni- municated Origen. Jer«ime describes with greatir severity the spirit of Demetrius'* proceedings, anil adds that " he wrote on the subject to the whole world" {de \ir. III. 54) and obtained a judgment against Origen from Rome {Ep. 33 \2<)], § 4)- So far the faclt are tolerably clear, but in the abs<iice ol trustworthy evidence it is impossible to tell on what points the condemnation really turned. Demetrius unquestionablv laid great stress on formal irregularities (Eus. //. E. vi. 8), and the sentence against him may have been based on these. Origen's opinions were probably displeasing to manv, and no attempt was made to revers*' the judgment after the death of Deiiulrius, which followed very shortly, and perhaps within three year*, when Heraclas, the pupil and colleague of Origen, succee<led to the ej>isi-opate. Nor again w*» anything done by Dionvsius. the *ucce*vjr ol Heraclas. another devoted scholar >t Origen. who still continued his intcrcurse with hU former master 't*- 4''* NVh..tevrr the grounds .if On ' " •'<>«• menffthel -'«►« absolute disr- """• Arabia, Ph.«i t' 33). and OrigcM .!■ >i **iHUr (Hier..n. Apt'l. adi He loou afterwards settled .it > i' h l»ec*me for more than 20 veai-., ui' t ■ Ins »lrath, the centre of hit labours. It ha.l indeed not « few of the advantages of Alexandria, as a great seaport, the civil capital, and the ecclesiastical metr .p.-lis ..f its dlstrirt. Here Origen found imgrudgmg tvmpathy and help lor hl» manifold labours. Alrxandet 772 ORIGENES of Jerusalem and Theoctistus of Caesarea remained devoted to him ; and Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia was no less zealous in seeking his instruction (Eus. H. E. vi. 27 ; Hieron. de Vir. III. 54). Ambrose was with him to stimulate his literary efforts. He formed afresh something of a catechetical school, with a continual succession of distin- guished students. He was unwearied in the public exposition of Scripture, which he explained popularly to mixed congregations in the church, to Christians and to catechu- mens (Horn, in Ezech. vi. 5), as a rule on Wednesdays and Fridays (Socr. H. E. v. 22), but often daily, and even oftener than once a day. His subjects were sometimes taken from the lessons {Horn, in Num. xv. i ; in I. Sam. ii. § i), sometimes specially prescribed by an authoritative request {Horn, in Ezech. xiii. 1). His aim was the edification of the people generally (Horn, in Lev. vii. i ; in Jud. viii. 3) ; and not unfrequently he was constrained to speak, as he wrote, with some reserve, on the deeper mysteries of the faith [Horn, in Num. iv. 3 ; in Lev. xiii. 3 ; in Ezech. i. 3 ; in Rom. vii. 13, p. 147 L. ; viii. 11, p. 272; of. Hom. in Jos. xxiii. 4 s.f. ; in Gen. xii. i, 4). These labours were interrupted by the per- secution of Maximin (235-237). Ambrose and Protectetus, a presbyter of Caesarea, were among the victims. Origen addressed to them in prison his Exhortation to Martyrdom. He himself escaped (Eus. H. E. vi. 28). Dur- ing part of the time of persecution he was apparently with Firmilian in Cappadocia, and is said to' have there enjoyed the hospitality of a Christian lady Juliana, who had some books of Symmachus, the translator of O.T. (cf. Hieron. I.e.; Pallad. Hist. Laus. 147). In 238, or perhaps 237, Origen was again at Caesarea, and Gregory (Thaumaturgus) delivered the Farewell Address, which is the most vivid picture left of the method and influence of the great Christian master. The scholar recounts, with touching devotion, the course along which he had been guided by the man to whom he felt he owed his spiritual life. He had come to Syria to study Roman law in the school of Berytus, but on his way met with Origen, and at once felt he had found in him the wisdom he wasseeking. The day of that meeting was to him, in his own words, the dawn of a new being : his soul clave to the master whom he recognized and he surren- dered himself gladly to his guidance. As Origen spoke, he kindled within the young advocate's breast a love for the Holy Word, and for himself the Word's herald. " This love," Gregory adds, " induced me to give up country and friends, the aims which I had proposed to myself, the study of law of which I was proud. ' I had but one passion, philo- sophy, and the godlike man who directed me in the pursuit of it " (c. 6). Origen' s first care, Gregory says, was to make the character of a pupil his special study. In this he followed the example of Clement (Clem. Strom, i. i, 8, p. 320 P.). He ascer tained, with delicate and patient attention, the capacities, faults, and tendencies of those he had to teach. Rank growths of opinion were cleared away ; weaknesses were laid open ; every effort was used to develop [ ORIGENES endurance, firmness, patience, thoroughness. " In true Socratic fashion he sometimes over- threw us by argument," Gregory writes, " if he saw us restive and starting out of the course. . . . The processwasat first disagreeable to us and painful ; but so he purified us . . . and . . . prepared us for the reception of the words of truth ... by probing us and questioning us, and offering problems for our solution" (c. 7). Thus Origen taught his scholars to regard language as designed, not to furnish material for display, but to express truth with exact accuracy ; and logic as powerful, not to secure a plausible success, but to test beliefs with the strictest rigour. Origen then led his pupils to the " lofty and divine and most lovely " study of external nature. He made geometry the sure and im- movable foundation of his teaching, and rose step by step to the heights of heaven and the most sublime mysteries of the universe (c. 8). Gregory's language implies that Origen was himself a student of physics ; as, in some degree, the true theologian must be. The lessons of others, he writes, or his own observation, enabled him to explain the con- nexion, the differences, the changes of the objects of sense. Such investigations served to shew man in his true relation to the world. A rational feeling for the vast grandeur of the external order, " the sacred economy of the universe," as Gregory calls it, was substituted for the ignorant and senseless wonder with which it is commonly regarded. But physics were naturally treated by Origen as a preparation and not as an end. Moral science came next ; and here he laid the greatest stress upon the method of experi- ment. His aim was not merely to analyse and to define and to classify feelings and motives, though he did this, but to form a character. For him ethics were a life, and not only a theory. The four cardinal virtues of Plato, practical wisdom, self-control, righteousness, courage, seemed to him to require for their maturing diligent introspection and culture. Herein he gave a commentary upon his teaching. His discipline lay even more in action than in precept. His own conduct was, in his scholar's minds, a more influential per- suasive than his arguments. So, Gregory continues, Origen was the first teacher who really led me to the pursuit of Greek philosophy, by bringing speculation into a vital union with practice. In him I saw the inspiring example of one at once wise and holy. The noble phrase of older masters gained a distinct meaning for the Christian disciple. In failure and weakness he was able to see that the end of all was " to be- come like to God with a pure mind, and to draw near to Him and to abide in Him" (c. 12). Guarded and guided by this conviction, Origen encouraged his scholars in theology to look for help in all the works of human genius. They were to examine the writings of philosophers and poets of every nation, the atheists alone excepted, with faithful candour and wise catholicity. For them there was to be no sect, no party. In their arduous work they had ever at hand, in their master, a friend who knew their difficulties. If they were bewildered in the tangled mazes of con- ORIGENES flicting opinions, he w.is rr.iJy t.i Ir.xd Ihcm with a firm hand ; if in dan^rr <>( Urma swal- lowed up in the quicksands o( shiftniR error. he was near to hft thrm up to thr sure resting- place he had himself found (o. 14). The hierarchy of sciences was not com- pleted till thct>logy with her own proper gifts crowned the succession followed hitherto, logic, physic, ethics. Origen found in the Holy Scriptures and the teaching of the Spirit the ifinal and absolute spring of Divine Truth. In this region (.iregory felt his master's pow« r to be supreme. Origen's sovereign command of the mysteries of '• the oracles of ikxl " gave him perfect boldness in dealing with all other writings. " Therefore," Gregory adds. " there was no subject forbidden to us. nothing hidden or inaccessible. We were allowed to beconie acquainted with everv d.Ktrine, barbarian or Greek, on things spiritual or civil, divine and human ; traversing with all freedom, and investigating the whole circuit of knowledge, and satisfying ourselves with the full enjoy- ment of ail the pleasures of the soul " (c. is). Such was, Gregory tells us, Origens meth<Hl. He describes what he knew and what his hearers knew. There is no p.^rallel to the picture in ancient times. With every allow- ance for the partiality of a pupil, the view it offers of a system of Christian training actually realized exhibits a type we cannot hope to surpass. The ideals of Christian education and of Christian philosophy were fashioned together. Under that comprehensive and loving discipline Gregory, already trained in heathen schools, first learnt, step by step, according to his own testimony, what the pursuit of philosophy truly was, and came to know the solemn duty of forming opinions not as the amusement of a moment, but as solid foundations of life-long work. From Caesarea Origen visited different parts of Palestine: Jerusalem. Jericho, the valley of the Jordan (t. vi. in Joh. § 24) ; Sidon, where he made some stay {Horn, in Josh. xvi. § 2), partly at least to investigate " the fo<itsteps of Jesus, and of His disciples, and of the prophets" (in Joh I.e.). He als<i went again to Athens and continued there some time, being engaged on his Commentaries (Eus. H. E. vi. 32). In the first of two visits to Arabia he went to confer with Beryllus of Bostra, who had advanced false views on the Incarnation (16. 33) ; in the second to meet some errors on the doctrine of the resurrection {ib. 37). In both cases he was specially in- vited and persu.ided those whom he contro- verted to abandon their opinions. His energy now rose to its full power. Till he was 60 (a.d. 246) he had forbidden his unwritten discourses to be taken down. Ex- perience at length enabled him to withdraw the prohibition, and m<«t '>f his homilies arc due to reports made afterwards. The Hooks against Celsus and the Commenlants oh St. Matthew, belonging to the same peri'>d. shew, in different directions, the maturity of his vigour. Thus his varied activity continued till the persecution of Decius in 250. The preceding reign of Philip had fas-oured the growth of Christianity ; and there is no sufficient reason to question the fact of Ori- gen's correspondence with the emperor and ORIGENES '73 ■.''• ^ rf. im- •t ' t.u thn .tef br t)lt« (h« .nd 1 I out (..r ..' : %Urrr»»or, ! ..• Ir,,, ,ll.-.l 1.. I sell ;.u:; ( T>Tc — but hio enemies i'' 1 , II stake, and a report . times that his sull< death (Phot. (■>./ II sharp trial his form' : bp. of .Mexaiidria. .1 I m.utvrdom (Kus. Hi., old aflei tiofi still alive, in *; ati on. Orik'en drs< ribe<l 1 ; consolations in letters whi^ ! ; . . har- acterizes " as full of help to th-M- mIi.. nrrA encouragement" (16. 30). The death o| IVcius (251. Clinton. F.K. i. 370). after 4 vrign , of two vear*. set Origen free. Hut hit hrallh was broken bv his hardships. He die<l at T>Te in 2^3. " having romplete«l wventv veart save one " (Kus. //. h. vii. 1 ; Hirr<>n. Ft*. 65 ad Pammach). He was buried there (Wiiltam of Tvre, c. ii.So, Hut. xili. I ■ " ha^^- ITvrtw) et Origenis orpus ■•< iult.it • ■• ■' ' ■ fide etiam hinlie liret inspi< ere nib was honoured as lonj; .is th- ' Of the later fortunes of !. . it it I enough to say here that his iai« ,ilt< r death ' was like his fate during life ; he conlinur<l to witness not in vain to ni>ble truths. Hit influence was sufficiently proved by the rx-r- sistcnt bitterness of his antagonists, and there are few sadder pages in rhun h historv than the record of the Origenistic ontrover^ien. But in spite of err'>rs easy to condemn, hi» char- acteristic thoughts survived in the work* of Hilarv and .\mbrose and Jerome, and in hi» own homilies, to stir later students in the West. His homilies had a verv wide nrrula- tion in the middle ages in a Latin translation ; and it would be interesting to trace their effect upon medieval commentators down to Hra»- mus. who wrote to Colet in 1504 : " <ViKeni» operum bonam partem evolvi ; quo praeceptore mihi videor non-nulluin fensse operae pre- tium ; aporit enim fontrs quosdani et ratione* indirat artis theologicae." Wkitinos. — Kpiphanius »4y» (Harr. Iiiv. 63) that in popular reoortsn" !•-** than ft.noo works were ascribed to i-- ■ ^ -r m« denies this {hf>. Ixxxii. 7 wn the number to a third iaJ< 'I. c. 13). His Works will be 11. t: 'W- ingorder ; KxegetK al. DoKiiijli. j1. Aj-l-iJrllC, Practical. Letters. Phil «r .ilia. A. Hxr.(.»;TUAL Wmm-. > I , 1, '..mm* states that Origen iv ' >« all the b.M.ks of S.ri "««* though hi* fde Stat- ' tT little value. inde|M-nd. i,l ..u 1 • \ •• t rM,|rnr« goes far to conhrin tl. His exegeiK al writinrs nf ■■! lhf-» Wtnd* : detached .V<>//. (It 'he narrower sense. riK^' trt- prelanJt genutK tf-^*^ '■*' audiences Co, ■ ■^•' and clab.ratr '«•« in the wider s' ••• Ettch. I'fol. , ;...., .. -hn. Fra4f. 1*1 iVhm. 774 ORIGENES i. The Pentateuch. Genesis. — Origen, according to Eusebius, wrote twelve books of Commentaries (To/j-oi) on Genesis, besides Homilies. Of these writings there remain : Greek: (i) On Gen. i. 2 ; Fragm. of Tom. iii. on Gen. i. 14 ; i. 16 f. (2) Fragm. of Tom. iii. (Eus. H. E. iii. i) ; notes from Catenae; Fragm. of Horn. ii. (3) Additional notes. Latin : Seventeen Homilies, of which the last is imperfect, translated by Rutinus. One of the fragments of the Commentary on Genesis contains a remarkable discussion of the theory of fate in connexion with Gen. i. 16 ; and in the scattered notes there are some characteristic remarks on the interpretation of the record of Creation. For Origen all Creation was " one act at once," presented to us in parts, in order to give the due con- ception of order (cf. Ps. cxlviii. 5). The Honiilies deal mainly with the moral appli- cation of main subjects in the book. They contain little continuous exposition, but many striking thoughts. Among the passages of chief interest are the view of the Divine image and the Divine likeness as expressing man's endowment and man's end (i. §§ 12, 13), the symbolism of the ark (ii. §§ 4 ff.), the nature of the Divine voice (iii. § 2), the lesson of the opened wells (xiii.§ 4), the poverty of the Divine priesthood (xvi. § 5). Exodus and Leviticus. — Of the Books, Homilies, and Notes he wrote on these books, no detailed account remains. (Cf. in Rom. ix. § I, p. 283 L. ; Ruf. Apol. ii. 20 ; Hieron. ^P- 33-) The following remain : Exodus. — Greek : (i) On Ex. x. 27 (several fragments). (2) Notes from Catenae. Two short frag- ments of Hom. viii. (3) Additional notes. Latin : 13 Homilies, trans, by Rufinus. The main fragment of the Commentary on Exodus [Philoc. 27 [26]) deals with inter- pretation of the " hardening of Pharaoh's heart" (Ex. x. 27), which Origen (to use modern language) finds in the action of moral laws, while Pharaoh resisted the divine teach- ing. The Homilies, like those on Genesis, were translated by Rufinus from the reports of Origen's sermons, which he supplemented with interpretative additions. Throughout Origen dwells upon the spiritual interpretation of the record. " Not one iota or one tittle is," in his opinion, "without mysteries" (Hom. i. 4). The literal history has a mystical and a moral meaning (e.g. Hom. i. 4 f., ii. i, iii. 3, iv. 8, vii. 3, X. 4, xiii. 5). Some of the applica- tions he makes are of great beauty, e.g. in regard to the popular complaints against religious life and the troubles which follow religious awakening (Ex. v. 4 ff., Hom. iii. 3) ; the difficulties of the heavenward pilgrimage (Ex. xiv. 2, Hom. v. 3) ; the believer as the tabernacle of God (Hom. ix. 4) ; turning to the Lord (Ex. xxxiv. 34, coll. II. Cor. iii. 16, Hom. xii. 2) ; the manifold offerings of different be- lievers (Ex. XXXV. 5, Hom. xiii. 3). Leviticus. — Greek: (i) Fragm. ol Hom. 2 (3). (2) Notes from Catenae. (3) Additional notes. (4) A fragment (cf. Hom. in Lev. viii. 6), Mai, Class. And. t. x. p. 600. Latin: 16 Homilies (trans, by Rufinus). In the interpretation of Leviticus Origen naturally dwells on the obvious moral and spiritual antitypes of the Mosaic ordinances. ORIGENES Not infrequently the use he makes of them is' impressive and ingenious, e.g. his view of man's soul and body as the deposit which he owes to God (Lev. vi. 4, Horn. iv. 3) ; of the office of the Christian priest foreshadowed in that of the Jewish priest (Lev. vii. 28 ff., Hom. v. 12) ; of the priesthood of believers (Lev. viii. 7 ff., Hom. vi. 5 ; cf. Hom. ix. 9) ; of the Saviour's sorrow (Lev. x. 9, coll. Matt. xxvi. 9, Hom. vii. 2), of purification by fire (Lev. xvi. 12, Hom. ix. 7). Throughout Christ appears as the one Sacrifice for the world, and the one Priest (Hom. i. 2, iv. 8, v. 3, ix. 2, xii.), though elsewhere He is said to join with Him- self apostles and martyrs (Horn, in Num. x. 2). Numbers. — No mention is made of "Books" on Numbers. Of Notes and Homilies (cf. Hom. in Jer. xii. § 3) the following remain : Greek : (1) Notes from Catenae. Small Frag- ment of Hom. xiii. (2) Additional notes. Latin : 28 Homilies, trans, by Rufinus, which follow the whole course of the narrative. One main idea is prominent throughout. The struggles of the Israelites on the way to Canaan are the image of the struggles of the Christian. The entrance on the Promised Land foreshadows the entrance on the heaven- ly realm (Hom. vii. 5). The future world will even, in Origen's judgment, offer differences of race and position corresponding to those of the tribes of Israel and the nations among whom they moved (ib. i. 3, ii. i, xi. 5, xxviii. 4). The interpretation of the record of the stations (ib. xxvii.) is a very good ex- ample of the way he finds a meaning in the minutest details of the history. Of wider interest are his remarks on man's spiritual conflict (j6. vii. 6), the wounds of s\n(ib. viii. i), advance in wisdom (ib. xvii. 4), the festivals of heaven (ib. xxiii. 11), self-dedication (ib. xxiv. 2), and the stains of battle (ib. xxv. 6). Deuteronomy. — Cassiodorus (de Instit. 1) mentions four Homilies of Origen on Deut. ("in quibus est minuta nimis et subtilis ex- positio"), and doubtless it was these (oratiun- culae) Rufinus proposed to translate if his health had been restored. The scanty re- mains are: (i) Notes from Catenae. (2) Additional notes. One interesting note at least among (i) appears to be a fragment of a homily (in Deut. viii. 7). It is probable (Hieron. Ep. 84, 7) that con- siderable fragments of Origen's comments on the Pentateuch are contained in Ambrose's treatise on the Hexaemeron, but the treatise has not yet been critically examined. J osHUA-I I. Kings. — Origen appears to have treated these historical books in homilies only, or perhaps in detached notes also. There remain of the several books: Joshua. — Greek : (i) Fragm. of Hom. xx. (2) Notes from Catenae. (3) Additional notes. Latin: 26 Homilies, trans, by Rufinus. The homilies on Joshua, belonging to the latest period of Origen's life, perhaps offer the most attractive specimen of his popular in- terpretation. The parallel between the leader of the old church and the Leader of the new is drawn with great ingenuity and care. The spiritual interpretation of the conquest of Canaan, as an image of the Christian life, never flags. Fact after fact is made contributorv to the fulness of the idea ; and the reader is ORIOENES forc«»«l to j(kn.>wlrtlKr that ihp f.<rtun«-* ol Israel can at least sj>r.»k t<> us with an intrl ligible voire. Kuhnus hiinseU mav have frit the peculiar charm of the book, for he v1p< tr.l it for translation in answer to 4 general rr- <jucst of Chroniatius to render soniethniR from Greek literature for the e<hfiration of thr church. The homilies rover the whole narra- tive up to the settling of the land (r. xxii.). AmonK passages of special interest are those on the help we Rain from the old fathers (l^. iii. 1) ; the broad parallel between the Chris- tian life and the historv of the HkhIiis {th. iv. i) ; the Christian realizing ( hrist's victory (1*. vii. 2) ; growing wisdom (l^. xii. a). Judges. — Grrek : (1) Notes from Catenae. (2) Additional notes. Lalin : q Homthes, trans, by Kufinus. RiTH. — Grftk : A note on i. 4. The Homilies on Judges are of much !e«ks interest than those on Joshua. A passage on martNTdom — the baptism of blond — is worthv of notice {Horn. vii. 2). In Horn. ix. i Ongrn seems to refer to the persecuti<Mi of Maximin, which was but latelv ended. I. and II. SAMtEi.. I. and II. Kings (I. -IV. Kings). Greek: (i) Horn, on I.Sam, xxviii. (2) Notes from Catenae and Fragments. (3) Additional notes. Latin : Honulv on 1. Sam. i. 2 {de Helchana el Fenenna), delivered at Jerusalem (§ i : nolite illud in nobis requirere quod in papa .Mexandro habetis). The trans- lator is not known. The remains of Origen's writings on the later historical books are very slight. The homily on the wit<h of Kndor provoked violent attacks. In this C)rigen maintained, in accordance with mm h earlv Christian and Jewish opini'^n. that the soul of Samuel was truly called up from Hades. Among others Eustathius of .Antioch assailed Origen in unmeasured terms. The Hagiographa. Job. — Origen com- posed manv homilies on Job (Eustath. Antioch, de Engaslr. 391), which were rendered freely into Latin by Hilary of Poictiers (Hier. d£ Vir. III. 100; Ep. adv. Vigil. 61, 2). The scattered Notes which remain are not suffi- cient to enable us to estimate their value. There remain : Greek : {1) Notes fn-m Catenae. (2) Additional notes. La/iw ; Fragment quoted fr>m a homily of Hilary by August. Lib. ii. c. Jul. § 27, and assumed to be trans- lated from Origen. The Psalms engaged Origen's attention before he left Alexandria. At that time he had written commentaries on Pss. i-xxv. (Eus. H. E. vi. 24). He completed the Ixn.k afterwards. Jerome expressly states that he " left an explanation of all the Psalms in manv volumes" [Ep. cxii. §20) ; and his extant b'H.ks contain numerous references to his commen- taries on psalms (cf. Hier. Ep. xxxiv. ) 1). Besides these detailed commentarie*, he illustrated the Psalter by sh-.rt Notes (" a handbook " ; "enchiridion ille vw^abat." Auct. ap. Hier. Tnm. vii. .ipp.), and by Homilir^. The Homilies which are preiwrvrd in Kufi- nus's Latin trans, belong to the Utrst periKl of Origen's life. f. ni-2^7{Hom. i in /'i.xxxvi. § 2 ; Horn. I in /'s. xxxvii. §1). Thev give 4 continuous practical interpretation of the j psalms (r. ml.), an-l ar«- a very go.Kl example of this stvle of exposition. One passage on the ORIOENBS 775 ll '11.111. ^, >• sensr of ( li : K'-'m. IV. I : dirtaremiis ' , . i.. , . . Therr remain *,tt*k the T<iMoi and Homih*t nientsandno|i>«fr.>m( air notrs. l.mlim • n Homi.. . kkvt. xxxvii. xxxviii. (iran%. I pRnvrRRs. — There rnt (1) Fragment*. (2) Nolr» Ir-'m l almac. IMtm: Fragment*. FccirsiAsTr'-. V tr'. • n lit i -. i'- f I.AMrSTAIi taries on ti which five t of Fiis^bius 'h , .."»...•• .If probaMv ilrri\ • (ANTKIJS — |>i the W.'fk on Cailtlrlrs with rW 1 . I i% <'lheT l)o«)ks Origen." hr • v oo« else, in this he siii ' ■/. IM Horn. %n Cant). I ' 11 Fragments of his r.nh « tk by l*rocopiii». Latin: Two // •■ by Jerome). I*rol.>gue and f Canticles, trans, bv Kufinus. The Prophets. Isaiah.— OrigenintrrpteiiKl Isaiah in each of the three f..rni» whirh he u*e<l , in Books (r<4/io«). in N"t' ' " ■ ' Thirty books of his ( ..,, when Huvbius wrote hiv / c. XXX. 6 (Eus. //. / ^ ' had peri5he<l in th- ■ of the work as ab' ■; terpretation of nan There remain : Latin . 1 » It 1. " Books." Nine HomtUei. I were a<ldressed to 4 pojMilar eluding catechumens, but thev of the latest discourse* antl f' order. Subjects : Thf r.ill ■■*. ■ The virgin's son . ' ' vision of (;o<l ; I ' The prophet and ! of characteristic n. ^ .. . ^ describ«-s the " grcditri ».Hk» " "I Clt«lU'» disciples. JrKKMiAH. — Ca*»io<lofu» enumerate* 4) homilies of Origrn on |rreinuh "in Attic style " {de Instit lUv l.itt S \). Thrv were written in a |»erio<l of tr^n r i"'*' "" ' '^"^"^ fore probablv aftrr thr ' tion of .Maximin, t. i4S rrinain : ttrrfk ■ ' » > Jeroinr's \' I ' ., . .. ^ xxxix. (2' •'*«■• I**'- Two Homi:^ Tl„ II . Jill .i.t'f [.ret,, lani: of tl.. want .1 !iia u -il (-• - l>erh»|>» inofr III hi« Ir^ than el%ewhere, fof the !• it practically unintrlhcil u » • •mM of the traitf- rri»i» in » placed. ThrfP arr, hoWrvrf. I' pa»t4ge« of the Hollilllr* i| • . ■ .« 776 ORIGENES beauty, e.g. on the fruitful discipline of God (Horn. iii. 2), the ever-new birth of Christ (ib. ix. 4), the marks of sin [ib. xvi. 10). Cf. Horn, in Josh. xiii. § 3. EzEKiEL. — There remain: Greek: (i) Fragments. (2) Notes from Catenae. Latin: 14 Homilies. The Homilies only cover a small portion of the book, and do not offer many features of interest. The passages on the responsibility of teachers [Horn. v. 5, vii. 3) are perhaps the most striking. Daniel. — Origen commented upon the histories of Susanna and of Bel (Dan. Apocr. xiii. xiv.) in bk. x. of his Miscellanies (^Crpw- /jLareTs), and Jerome has preserved a brief abstract of his notes as an appendix to his commentary on Daniel (Delarue, i. 49 f. ; Lommatzsch, xvii. 70 ff.). The Minor Prophets. — Origen wrote ex- tensive commentaries on the twelve minor prophets, of which 25 books remained in the time of Eusebius {H. E. vi. 36). The fragment on Hosea xii., preserved in the Philocalia, c, viii., is all that now remains. [Two books on Hos. (one on Ephraim) ; 2 on Joel; 6 on Amos ; i on Jon. ; 2 on Mic. ; 2 on Nah. ; 3 on Hab. ; 2 on Zeph. ; i on Hagg. ; 2 on Zech. (principio) ; 2 on Mai. — h.c.]. Writings on the New Testament. — Euse- bius states that Origen wrote 25 Books (rSnoi) on St. Matthew {H^E. vi. 36). The commen- taries seem to have been written c. 245-246. [25 Books ; 25 Homilies. — h.c] Bk. x. gives a continuous exposition of Matt. xiii. 36-xiv. 15. The most interesting passages are where Origen discusses char- acteristically the types of spiritual sickness (c. 24) and the doubtful question as to " the brethren of the Lord" (c. 17). On internal grounds he favours the belief in the perpetual virginity of the mother of the Lord. In the account of Herod's banquet he has preserved definitely the fact that " the daughter of Herodias " bore the same name as her mother (c. 22), in accordance with the true reading in Mark vi. 22 (t^j dvyarpb^ avrou ' HpySidSoy) ; but he strangely supposes that the power of life and death was taken away from Herod ! because he executed the Baptist (c. 21). | Bk. xi. (c. xiv. 15-xv. 32) contains several] pieces of considerable interest on the discip- line of temptation (c. 6), Corban (c. 9), the conception of things unclean (c. 12), the j healing spirit in the Church (c. 18), and per- haps, above all, that on the Eucharist (c. 14), which is of primary importance for under- standing Origen's view. The most important passages in bk. xii., which gives the commentary on c. xvi. i- xvii. 9, are those treating of the confession and blessing of St. Peter (cc. 10 ff.) and the Transfiguration (cc. 37 ff.). He regards St. Peter as the type of the true believer. All believers, as they are Christians, are Peters also (c. II : Trapwpv,aoi werpas irdires ol /jnfirirai XpiffToO . . . XpLcrrou /xi\r) 6vTes irapdivv- /J.OL ixpr]iu.dT(.(Tav XpicrTtafoi. T^rpar 5e ndrpoi). His ignorance of the Hebrew idiom leads him, like other early commentators, to refer the " binding and loosing " to sins (c. 14). Bk. xiii. (c. xvii. lo-xviii. 18) opens with an argument against transmigration, and con- ORIGENES tains an interesting discussion of the influence of planets upon men (c. 6). Other character- istic passages deal with the circumstances under which the Lord healed the sick (c. 3), the rule for avoiding offences (c. 24), and esp. the doctrine of guardian angels (cc. 26 f.). Bk. xiv. (c. xviii. 19-xix. 11) contains a characteristic examination of the senses in which the " two or three" in Matt, xviii. 20 may be understood (cc. i ff.) and a discussion of points regarding marriage (cc. 16 ff. ; 23 ff.). Bk. XV. (xix. 12-XX. 16) has several pieces of more than usual interest : the investigation of the meaning of Matt. xix. 12 f. with (as it appears) clear reference to his own early error (c. 2) ; a fine passage on the goodness of God even in His chastisements (c. 11) ; and some remarkable interpretations of the five send- ings of labourers to the vineyard (Matt. xx. I ff.), in one of which he likens St. Paul to one who had wrought as an apostle in one hour more perhaps than all those before him (c. 35). Bk. xvi. (xx. 17-xxi. 22) gives some striking pictures of the darker side of Christian society, the growing pride of the hierarchy, the faults of church officers, the separation between clergy and laity (cc. 8, 22, 25). In discussing the heahng of IJartimaeus Origen holds that a choice must be made between supposing that the three evangelists have related three in- cidents, if the literal record is to be main- tained, or that they relate one and the same spiritual fact in different words (c. 12). Bk. xvii. (xxi. 23-xxii. 33) contains inter- pretations of the parables of the two sons (c. 4), the vineyard (6 ff.), and the marriage feast (15 ff.), which are good examples of Origen's method ; and his explanations of the questions of the Herodians (cc. 26 ff.) and the Sadducees (c. 33) are of interest. The old Latin translation continues the commentary to Matt, xxvii. 63. Passages in it of chief interest are : the application of the woes (Matt, xxiii. i ff.), §§ 9-25 ; the legend of the death of Zachariah the father of the Baptist, § 25 ; the danger of false opinions, § 33 ; the gathering of the saints, § 51 ; the limitation of the knowledge of the Son (Matt. xxiv. 36), § 55 ; the administration of the re- venues of the church, § 61 ; the duty of using all that is lent to us, § 66 ; the eternal fire, im- material, § 72 ; the supposition of three anoint- ings of the Lord's feet, § 77 ; the passover of the Jews and of the Lord, § 79 ; on the Body and Blood of Christ, § 85 ; the lesson of the Agony, § 91 ; tradition of the different appear- ance of the Lord to men of different powers of vision, § 100 ; the reading Jesus Barabbas to be rejected, § 121 ; tradition as to the grave of Adam on Calvary, § 126 ; on the darkness at the crucifixion, § 134. St. Mark. — A Latin commentary attri- buted to Victor of Antioch, pub. at Ingold- stadt in 1580, is said to contain quotations from Origen on cc. i. xiv. (Ceillier, p. 635). These, if the reference is correct, may have been taken from other parts of his writings. [15 Books ; 39 Homilies. — h.c] St. Luke. — There remain : Greek : (1) Fragments. (2) Notes from a Venice MS. (xxviii.). (3) Additional notes, Mai, Class. Auct. t. X. pp. 47^ ft. (4) Additional notes from Cod. Coislin. xxiii. Latin : 39 Homilies. ORIOBNBS Origen wrote Unit Bi>.>ks on St. 1 tikr (Hirr-«n Prol. aJ Horn.) iroiu \\\\k\\ •' were probably taken. Th St. l,uke. an e.irlv work > ! ih.ir.iiteri&tii- thoujchts. li.. m -iiillwik passages are those ileahMK with ihr inir t anom- <al (tospels {Horn. it. spiritual luaiiidstatioiis (•6. 3). the nobility and triumph ol (aith (if>. 7), spiritual growth (16. 11), shepherds o( churches and nations (ih. 12), spiritual and visible co-rulers of diurches (16. 13). infant baptism (16. 14), second luarriaKe* (16. iri, baptism by tire {tb. 24). man as the object ol a spiritual conflict (ib. 35). Besides these homilies Origeu wrote other homilies upon the Ciospol which are now lost, but referred to in .^fatt. t. xiii. 29, xvi. 9 ; in Joh. t. xxxii. .:. St. John. — {32 Biv>ks ; some Notes. — ii.c.] The remains of the Commentary on St. John are in many respects the most important of Origen's cxegetical writings. There are left : T6mch i. ii. (iv. v. small fragments), vi. x. xiii. xix. (nearly entire), xx. xxviii. xxxii. These remains extend over the following portions of the Gospel: T. i. (John i. la). ii. (i. ib-7a). vi. (i. 19-29), X. (ii. 12-25). xiii. (iv. 13-44). xix. (part) (viii. 19-24). xx. (viii. 37-52). xxviii. (xi. 39-57). xxxii. (xiii. 2-33). A re- vised text with critical intro. by .\. H. Brooke has been pub. in 2 vols, bv the Camb. Univ. Press. The Commentary on St. John was under- taken at the request of Ambrose (ift Joh. t. •• §S 3. 6). and was " the first-fruits of his labours at .Alexandria " (ift. § 4). It marks an epoch in theological literature and thought. Perhaps the earlier work of Heracleos may have suggested the idea, but Origen implies that the Clospel. by its essential character, claimed his first efforts as an inten^reter. Bk. i. deals mainly with the fundamental conceptions of " the Gospel" (§§ 1-15). " the beginning" (§§ 16-22). and "the Logos" (SS 19-42)- The Gospels arc the first-fruits {drapxh (>i the Scripture, the Gospel t)f St. John is the first-fruits of the Gospels (§ 6). As the Law had a shadow of the future, sotoohas the Gospel: spiritual truths underlie historical truths (§ 9). The Gospel in the widest sens«- is *' for the whole world," not for our earth only. but lor the universal system of the heavens and earth (§ 15). The discussion of the title Logos marks a critical stage in the history of Christian thought. In what sense, it is asked, is the Saviour called the Logos? It had come to be a common opinion " that Christ was as it were only a ' word ' of God " (§ 23). To meet this view Origen refers to other titles. Light. Resurrection, Way, Truth, etc. (it 24- 41), and bv analogy comes to the conclusi<ai that as we are illuminated by Christ as the Light, and quickened by Him as the kesur- rcction. so we are made divinely rational by Him as the Logos, i.e. Keav-n (§ 42)- Me thus preserves the personality of the Lord under the title of I.og.-s. whirh expresses ..nr aspect of His being and n"t His bring iIm-H (as a word) ; but rer..gnizrs that ( hrisi m.iv also be called the L.gos (Word) of (,.^l a* giving expression to His will. In bk. li. he continues his discussion of the meaning of the Log.n*. distinguishing, in a remarkable passage () 2), <i«»d and Reason ORIOINBI t»k.n ..t.N ti:trlv rallr.l •• II. .11 without Htiii and I ! " the \ Perhaps It is II t blames those wh" hold that John i evangelist anl • Inbk. VI.. .,• the circumst.i b..dv. ■■ a\.i ■ reserves for » words >'( ttir I minutr other'. (§ 17)". of John ...1.1 I nr.M, .... , . X sence " in the mid*t nl th- His universal presem e as The mention of Bethany n hastily adopt the correrti (§ 24). which he justifies by as to names in the L.\.\. tion of the title of Christ GtKl" m 15 fl ) i" tuW of connexion with this he n^ the bl«K)d of martvrs to <.\. Bk. x. deals with the ! cleansing of the trm5.|»- results (ii. i: ' rrepaiiry bet soj.iurn at ( > soluti'ii cm s«-iise (i 2). t tribut«-s. th.i. •inworthy of : " the passovrr v/ ikt J (u i position of t hriHt a% the true Vti- .I.-.mMn,: f !!•■ t-n.; !■ Hk tion • VA^«i) fr I 1 l.r. I I 1 lii;. larkt that he w»s t^,r W .r.| • (» J6J. Mr th4l h» 1 VI I J). his . ol . h« Ih« •■ r M (he Mrh ■ \m* l-re- of 2J). . un to i..i. lUthubara" the trr<|iirnl erT«i*» His brief rx|M>«i> " as the Lamb ol interest . and to tlr.s t>M J- wer ol M. !irst dIV the ' lit •u«J 1,.,^ ! 4!i ex- |-4«*ovrr Itl II fl). l^ ^^.f»n !' hav« and I ta rb, .Ih. -.rnt r78 ORIGENES regard to Origen's own views and method are those on the relation of Christ's personal teaching to the Scriptures (§ 5), the five husbands as representing the senses (§ 9), the incorporeity of God (§ 25), the joy of the sower and reaper, and the continuity of work (§§ 46 f.), the unhonoured prophet (§ 54), spiritual dependence (§ 58), and the distinction between signs and wonders (§ 60). Of bk. xix., which is imperfect at the be- ginning and end, a considerable fragment remains (viii. 19-25). The remarks on the treasury (John viii. 20) as the scene of the Lord's discourses (§ 2), and on the power of faith (§ 6), are characteristic. Bk. XX. (viii. 37-53) has much that is of importance for Origen's opinions. It begins with an examination of some points in con- nexion with the pre-existence and character of souls ; and, in a striking passage (§ 29), Origen illustrates the inspiration of evil pas- sions. Other interesting passages treat of love as " the sun " in the life of Christians (§ 15) ; the ambiguities in the word " when " (§ 24) ; the need of help for spiritual sight (§ 26) ; and spiritual influences (§ 29). The most remarkable passage in bk. xxviii. (John xi. 39-57) is perhaps that on the power of self-sacrifice among the Gentiles illustrating the vicarious sufferings of Christ (§ 14). Other remarks worthy of special notice are on the lifting up of the eyes (John xi. 41) (§ 4), the lesson of the death of Lazarus (§ 6), the duty of prudence in time of persecution (§ 18), and the passover of the Jews and of the Lord (§ 20). Bk. xxxii. (John xiii. 2-33) treats of St. John's record of the Last Supper. Origen discusses the feet-washing at length, and says that it is not to be perpetuated literally (§§ 6 f.) ; he dwells on the growth of faith (§ 9), the difference of " soul " and" spirit " (§ 11), the character of Judas and moral deteriora- tion (§ 12), and the sop given to Judas (§ 16). Origen's Commentary is for us the beginning of a new type of literature. It has great faults of style, is diffusive, disproportioned, full of repetitions, obscure and heavy in form of expression, wholly deficient in historical insight, and continually passing into fantastic speculations. But it contains not a few " jewels five words long," abounds in noble thoughts and subtle criticisms, grapples with great difficulties, unfolds great ideas, and, above all, retains a firm hold on the human life of the Lord. Acts. — [17 Homilies. — h.c] Greek: (i) A single fragment from " the fourth homily on the Acts" is preserved in the Philocalia. (2) A few notes are given in Cramer's Catena, col. iii. 184, on Acts iv. 32, vii. 3, 53, xxi. 38. Romans. — [15 Books. — h.c] Greek : (i) Fragments from the first and ninth books contained in the Philocalia. (2) A number of important notes are contained in Cramer's Catena, t. iv. (1844), on the following passages: i. 1, 10; ii. 8, 16, 27; iii. 2, 4, 9, 13, 19, 21, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31 ; iv. 2. Latin: Ten books of Commentaries, translated and compressed from the fifteen books of Origen, by Rufinus, at the request of Heraclius. The Commentary on Romans gives a con- tinuous discussion of the text, often discur- sive, but still full of acute and noble concep- ORIOENES tions. Origen's treatment of Rom. viii. as represented by Rufinus, is, on the whole, dis- appointing. It might have been expected to call out his highest powers of imagination and hope. His silence, no less than his rash conjectures as to the persons named in Rom. xvi., is a singular proof of the complete absence of any authoritative tradition as to the persons of the early Roman church. For the passage (x. 43) which refers to Marcion's mutilation of the epistle by removing the doxology (xvi. 25-27) and (though this is dis- puted) the last two chapters, see the papers by bp. Lightfoot and Dr. Hort in Jour, of Philologv, 1869, ii. 264 fif. ; 1871, iii. 51 ff., 193 ff. I. -II. Corinthians. — [11 Homilies on II. Cor. — H.c] Greek: Jerome mentions {Ep. ad Pammach. xlix. § 3) that Origen commented on this epistle at length ; and Origen himself refers to what he had said on I. Cor. i. 2 [Horn. in Luc. xvii. s./.). A very important collection of notes on I. Cor. is given in Cramer's Catena, vol. V. 1844. Some of the notes contain passages of considerable interest, as those on the vicarious death of Gentile heroes (I. Cor. i. 18 ; cf. Horn, in Joh. t. xxviii. § 14), the sovereignty of believers (I. Cor. iii. 21), evan- gelic " counsels " (vii. 25), the public teaching of women (xiv. 34, with reference to Montan- ism). Origen gives the outline of a creed (i. 9, 20), and touches on baptism (i. 14) and holy communion (vii. 5). He describes the Jewish search for leaven (v. 7) ; and supposes that many books of O.T. were lost at the Captivity (ii. 9). Galatians. — [15 Books ; 7 Homilies. — H.c] Jerome, in the Prologue to his Com- mentary on Galatians, mentions that Origen wrote five Books on this epistle, as well as various Homilies and Notes (tractatus et ex- cerpta), and that he interpreted it with brief annotations {commaticn sermone) in his Stro- mateis, bk. x. (Proem, in Cotnm. ad Gal. ; Ep. ad August, cxi. §§ 4, 6). Three fragments of the Commentary are contained in the Latin translation of Pamphilus's Apology. Ephesians. — [3 Books. — h.c] Origen's Commentary on the Ephesians may still be practically recovered. Jerome, in the Pro- logue to his own Commentary, says that " his readers should know that Origen wrote three books on the epistle, which he had partly followed." The extent of his debt could only be estimated by conjecture, till the publica- tion of the Paris Catena (Cramer, 1842). This contains very large extracts from Origen's commentary, sometimes with his name and sometimes anonymous, and in nearly all cases Jerome has corresponding words or thoughts. A careful comparison of the Greek fragments with Jerome's Latin would make it possible to reconstruct a very large part of Origen's work. The corresponding notes on the des- cription of the Christian warfare (vi. 11 ff.) well illustrate Jerome's mode of dealing with his archetype. Origen's comments are almost continuous. A fragment on Eph. v. 28 f., not found in the Greek notes, is preserved in the Latin trans, of the Apology of Pamphilus. Philippians, Colossians, Titus, Phile- mon. — [1 Book on Philippians ; 2 on Colos- sians ; I on Titus ; i on Philemon ; i Homily ORIOBNBS 779 ORIGENBS on Titus.— H.c.) SliMit (r.iKinmts (r.nn hk. iii. on Col. and the t. omin. on Philrni<<ii, and more considor.ibic (raKiurnts (r<>m Book on Titus (Tit. iii. lo, ii), arc f.uiM.I in the trans, of raniphihis's Apology. No (Irrrk notes on these I^pp. have been preserved. I. Thessalonians. (3 Hooks ; j Honiihrs. — H.C] A considerable (raiment from the third book of the Commentary on I. Thess. is preserved in Jerome's trans. : Fp. ad Slmfn-. et .Alex. 9 (I. Thess. iv. i«i-i7). Hebrews.— (18 Homilies.— H.C] OriRen wrote Homilies and Conmientaries on Heb- rews. Two fragments of the Homilies are preserved by Eusebius (//.£'. vi. 2 s). in whirh „ „ _..^. ... ...... Origen gives his opinion on the composition ling the teaching of Origm nijiv »eeni lo tu of the epistle. Some inconsiderable frag- we must bear in mini \h.\\ \h\\ u hi» own ments from the " Books" are found in the account of it. \\r 1 (r«| that all trans, of Pamphilus's Apology. he brings forward 1 ith rrmvrd Catholic Epistles. — The quotations from teaching. Hr prol. j* frnal lh»i Origen. given in Cramer's Catena i>n the same authorities a-> n s' >%• -^ Thr tn-alise consists <•! (our IxH.ks. I>iKrr«- sions and reprtilions mtrrfrrr with the »vm- metrv of tlir |>lan. But to speak grnrfallv. bk. i. deals with <."kI and crrati".n freliKious riif statics); bks. ii. and iii. with <rrailon and providence, man and r»-deniption (rrliKioiu itn- dynamics) ; and bk. iv. with Hojv S riplure. in The first three books roni.ui) the rx|M^\it|f»n f a Christian philosophv, gathrrrd roiuul the three ideas of (nxl, thr worhl, -ind Ihr rallonjl the Irainetl rvr c.iild %rf it* h«nnnnU^ the in"»^l. Fresh wants madr Iir%h truth* vt»ihlr. He who found mu«h had nolhUiK over; b« who found littir ^.,.^ I, 1,, J, TheU»..k . »>-»tem of (I sophy of til. an ep.M-h in t ,.,... in the lontrnts oi • eleinnits o( thr d on the authority o| ; ;, _.;., . . objrct is, he sav*. to ^Xuv Ifw tlirv 1 «n 1» arranged as a whole, bv Ihr hrli> nthrr of thr statements of Scripture or o| thr nirth<KU o| exact reasoning. Howrvrr stranKe of tiarl- Catholic epistles, are apparently taken from other treatises, and not from commentaries on the books themselves: J as. i. 4. 13 ; I- Pet. i. 4 ((K TTji ip/jLvyflas (t'l rA Kara wp6ypuoir 9(ov) ; I. John ii. 14 (« rov ^afiarot qfffiarwv T. A'.). Apocalypse. — Origen purposed to com ment upon the .Apocalypse iComm. Ser. n Malt. § 49), but it is uncertain whether h carried out his design. B. Dogmatic Writings. — Origen's writings soul, and the last gives the basis of it. Even On the Resurrection were violently assailed by in the repetitions {as on " thr restoration n| Methodius, and considered by Jerome to things ") each sucrrssive treatment r<>rre- abound in errors (Ep. Ixxxiv. 7). Probably sponds with a new point of sight, they excited oppositi<m bv assailing the gross In bk. i. Origen sfts out thr final •■Irnienl* literalism of the popular' view of the future of all religi-.iis philosophy. <..kI. thr world, life. The extant fragments are consistnit ration.il cnaturcs. Allrr dwelling on the with the true faith and express it with a wise essential n.iture ..| (..«1 as in<orporra|. m- caution, affirming the permanence through visible, incoinprehensiblr. and on Ihr c harat- death of the whole man and not of the soul terislir relations of the Prrsons of thr Holv only. Thus Origen dwells rightly on St. Trinity to man, as the authors ■>( Iwing. and Paul's image of tlie seed {Fragm. 2), maintains reason, and holiness, he givrs a summary view a perfect correspondence between the present of the end of human life, for the element* of a and the future, and speaks very happily t>f the problem cannot be rrally undrrst<»<xl until we " ratio substantiae con^'^ralis " as that which have comprehended its scope. The endof life, is permanent. : then, according to Origen. is the pr<>Krr»«ivr "The book On First Principles is the nicjst assimilation of man to C.fKl by the voluntary complete and charactrristic expression of appropriation of His gift-. «.>-ntil<- phllo- Origen's opinions. It was written while at v)phers had prop.M^-d t Alexandria, when he was probably not much of assimilation to <i<Kl, b'; more than 30 years old and still a lavmaii, means. Bv Ihr unrrasing.i but there isno reason to think thathemodihrd, Son. and Holy Spirit tow.i in any important respects, the views he uii- ,•.»< h succ«-ssivr stage of ..in folds in it. It was not written for simple be able, he says, with dilli' believers but for scholars— for those who some fulurr timr, to |.«.k were familiar with the teaching of < Gnosticism and Platonism ; and with a view to questions which then first became urgent when men have risen to a wide view of nature and life. Non-Christian philosophers moved in a region of subtle abstractions, " ideas" : Origen felt .nd blessed life ; ancl when on< r wr h«vr l»rrn rnable<l to rra< h that, aftrr many »lrui:iclrs, we ought »o to conlinur in It that n'> wrarmr^* may take hold on u». Earh frrsh rnjovnirni of that bliss ought to drrprn our drsue for I ; while we are rvrr rr<eiving. with mofr that Christianity converted these abstr.ictions .,r,ip„t l-.ve and largrr grasp, ihr Father and into realities, persons, facts of a eomplele life ; and he strove to express what he felt in the modes of thought and languagr of his own age. He aimed at |)resenting the highest knowledge {yvCxrn) as an objrclivr systmi. But in doing this he had nc) intention «>f fashioning two Cliristianities, a ( hristianily . i-o for the learned ancl a Christianity for Ihr I h« simple. The faith was c)ne, one essentially ji.,.,.; ,,,.,,, ; .,;... :»*• and imalterably, but infinite in fullness, so that *pond», in hi> judgment, with the mc be h«» the Son and thr H-'ly Spirit 1. ^^■ But it willl..•^...I tl. .t l).i^• 1.1m n f pr'>- grrss, rflorl. . %%*• bllitV of drrl.! •i'>n of Ihr diviM'- ■ >.rd the 780 0RI6ENES made of the revelations and gifts of God. No beings were created immutable. Some by diligent obedience have been raised to the loftiest places in the celestial hierarchy ; others by perverse self-will and rebellion have sunk to the condition of demons. Others occupy an intermediate place, and are capable of being raised again to their first state, and so upward, if they avail themselves of the helps provided by the love of God. " Of these," he adds, " I think, as far as I can form an opinion, that this order of the human race was formed, which in the future age, or in the ages which succeed, when there shall be a new heaven and a new earth, shall be restored to that unity which the Lord promises in His intercessoryprayer. . . . Meanwhile, both in the ages which are seen and temporal, and in those which are not seen and eternal, all rational beings who have fallen are dealt with according to the order, the character, the measure of their deserts. Some in the first, others in the second, some, again, even in the last times, through greater and heavier suffer- ings, borne through many ages, reformed by sharper discipline, and restored . . . stage by stage . . . reach that which is invisible and eternal . . ." Only one kind of change is im- possible. There is no such transmigration of souls as Plato pictured, after the fashion of the Hindoos, in the legend of Er the Armenian. No rational being can sink into the nature of a brute (i. 8, 4 ; cf. c. Cels. iv. 83). The progress of this discussion is interrupted by one singular episode characteristic of the time. How, Origen asks, are we to regard the heavenly bodies — the sun and moon and stars ? Are they the temporary abodes of souls which shall hereafter be released from them ? .\re they finally to be brought into the great unity, when " God shall be all in all"? The questions, he admits, are bold; but he answers both in the affirmative, on what he held to be the authority of Scripture (i. 7 ; cf. c. Cels. V. 10 f.). In bk. ii. Origen pursues, at greater length, his view of the visible world, as a place of dis- cipline and preparation. He follows out as a movement what he had before regarded as a condition. The endless variety in the situa- tions of men, the inequality of their material and moral circumstances, their critical spiritual differences, all tend to shew, he argues, that the position of each has been determined in accordance with previous conduct. God, in His ineffable wisdom, has united all together with absolute justice, so that all these creatures most diverse in themselves, combine to work out His purpose, while " their very variety tends to the one end of perfection." All things were made for the sake of man and rational beings. Through man, therefore, this world, as God's work, becomes complete and perfect (cf. c. Cels. iv. 99). The individual is never isolated, though never irresponsible. At every moment he is acting and acted upon, adding something to the sum of the moral forces of the world, furnishing that out of which God is fulfilling His purpose. The difficulties of life, as Origen regards them, give scope for heroic effort and loving service. The fruits of a moral victory become more permanent as they are gained through harder ORIGENES toil. Obstacles and hindrances are incentives to e.xertion. Man's body is not a " prison," in the sense of a place of punishment only : it is a beneficent provision for discipline, fur- nishing such salutary restraints as are best fitted to further moral growth. This view of the dependence of the present on the past — to use the forms of human speech — seemed to Origen to remove a diffi- culty which weighed heavily upon thoughtful men then as now. Very many said then that the sufferings and disparities of life, the con- trasts of law and gospel, point to the action of rival spiritual powers, or to a Creator limited by something external to Himself (ii. 9, 5). Not so, was Origen's reply ; they simply re- veal that what we see is a fragment of a vast system in which we can only trace tendencies, consequences, signs, and rest upon the historic fact 9f the Incarnation. In this respect he ventured to regard the entire range of being as " one thought " answering to the absolutely perfect will of God, while " we that are but parts can see but part, now this, now that." This seems to be the true meaning of his famous assertion, that the power of God in creation was finite and not infinite. It would, that is, be inconsistent with our ideas of per- fect order, and therefore with our idea of the Divine Being, that the sum of first existences should not form one whole. " God made all things in number and measure." The omni- potence of God is defined (as we are forced to conceive) by the absolute perfections of His nature. "He cannot deny Himself" (ii. 9, I, iv. 35). It may be objected that our diffi- culties do not lie only in our present circum- stances ; the issues of the present, so far as we can see them, bring difficulties no less over- whelming ; even if we allow this world to be a fit place of discipline for fallen beings cap- able of recovery, it is only too evident that the discipline does not always work amend- ment. Origen admits the fact, and draws the conclusion that other systems of penal purification and moral advance follow. World grows out of world, so to speak, till the con- summation is reached. The nature, position, or constitution of the worlds to come he does not attempt to define. It is enough to believe that, from first to last, the will of Him Who is most righteous and most loving is fulfilled ; and that each loftier region gained is the entrance to some still more glorious abode above, so that all being becomes, as it were, in the highest sense a journey of the saints from mansion to mansion up to the very throne of God. To make this view clear Origen follows out, in imagination, the normal course of the progressive training, purifying, and illumina- tion of men in the future. He pictures them passing from sphere to sphere, and resting in each so as to receive such revelations of the providence of God as they can grasp ; lower phenomena are successively explained to them, and higher phenomena are indicated. As they look backward old mysteries are illuminated ; as they look forward unimagined mysteries stir their souls with divine desire. Every- where their Lord is with them, and they i advance from strength to strength through the ' perpetual supply of spiritual food. This food, 1 he says, is the contemplation and understand- ORIGENBS ing of God, acconliii^ to its proper luiMsurr in each case, and as suits a nature whirh is uiadr and created. And this measure— this due harmony and proportion between aim and power— it is riijht that every one should re- gard even now. who is beKinninK to see (iml. that is. to understand Mim in puritv of heart (ii. 11. 6f.). But Orijsen K'H-s on to shew that Scripture concentrates our attention upon the next scene, summed up in the words, resurrection. judKment. retribution. Nowhere is he more studiously anxious to keep to the teaching of the Wonl than in dealiuK with these cardinal ideas. For him the resurrection is not the reproduction of any particular organism, but the preservation of complete Identity of person, an identity maintained under new conditions, which he presents under the apostolic tigure of the growth of the plant from the seed : the seed is com- mitted to the earth, perishes, and yet the-vital power it contains gathers a new frame answer- ing to its proper nature. Judgment is no limited and local act. but the unimpeded execution of the absolute divine law by which the man is made to feel what he is and what he has become and to bear the inexorable conse- quences of the revelation. Punishment is no vengeance, but the just severity of a righteous King, by which the soul is placed at least on the way to puritication. Blessedness is no sensuous joy or indolent repose, but the open- ing vision of the divine glory, the growing insight into the mysteries of the fulfilment of the divine counsels. In bk. iii. Origen discusses the moral basis of his system. This lies in the recognition of free will as the inalienable endowment of rational beings. But this free will does not carry with it the power of independent action, but only the power of receiving the help which is extended to each according to his capacity and needs and therefore justly implying re- sponsibility for the consequences of action. Such free will offers a sufficient explanation, in Origen's judgment, for what we sec and gives a stable foundation for what we hope. It places sin definitely within the man him- self, not without him. It preserves the possibility of restoratif)n, while it enforces the penalty of failure. " ' G>>d said,' so he writes, ' let us make man in our image after our likeness.' Then the sacred writer adds, ' and God made man : in the image of Gf>d made He him.' This therefore that he says, ' in the image of God made He him,' while he is silent as to the likeness, has no other meaning than this, that man received the dignity of the image at his first creation : while the perfection of the likeness is kept in the consummation (of all things) ; that is, that he should himself gain it by the efforts of his own endeavour, since the possibility of perfection had been given him at the first . . ." (iii. 6, 1). Such a doctrine, he shews, gives a deep solemnity t'> the moral conflicts of life. Wc cannot, even to the last, plead that we are the victims of circumstances or of evil spirits. The decision in each case rests with ourselves, yet so that all we have and arc truly i» the gift of (iod. Each soul obtains from the object of its love the power to ful61 His will. " It draws and takes to itself." he say* in ORIOBNBS 7fll an.ithcr place. " thr Word of G.hI in Pri>|H4'> ti.in to it* cap4. itv and faith ,\iid when souls have drawn to lheni*elve« the W<fd t>| (•«hI, and have ). t lliin i i n. K itr tl.rit >rn»r« and their iiikI' . i\nt the sweetiirss .«i|h vigour and ,Mrr him" (lit I um I I (ar from tending to I'l I re- futation of it. It lav r..| freedom is .ibs im. .,,^\ tht< power of riglii iJic jM.wrr of li.Kl. l-\. .tolafrrr being, but n.i . . il done without depeiiilnii !• ui u ' ■ '-r in ilesj>ite of freedom, resp. i tiut under adverse crutstraint. I ir..m inoinent t'> moment rests wiih n> lui n t the end. That is determine<l from the firtt. Ihouih the conduct of rre.»tnr«-* r.ui «l'-liv. (hr-UKh untoUl ages, the en ' " •'in|t«. The gift of being. ■ i \rr. The rational cre.iti:! ^kc. of better and worse. : .: .; .*.<• to be. What mysteries In- U-liind , wlul i« the nature of the spiritual IxkIv in whi< h we thall be clothed ; whether all that is finite »hall b* gathered up in some unspeakable way into the absolute. — that Origen hold* i* t><>yond our minds to conceive. Bk. iv. deals with the dogmatic basl» o! Origen's system. For this to f..ll.,w the moral b.isis is unusual and yet intelligible. It movr» from the universal to the special ; from the most abstract to the most concrete; from the heights of speculation to the rule of authority. " In investigating such great »ul>- jects as these," Origen writes. " we arc not (ontent with common ide.is and the dear evidence of what we see. but we lake le»ti- monies to prove what we state, even lho»* which are drawn from the Scripture* which we believe to be divine" (iv. i). Therefore, in conclusion, he examines with a reverence, insight, humility, and grandeur of feelinK never surpassed, the questions of the inspira- I tion and interpretation of the Bible. The intellectual value of the work may l)e*t Ixr characterized by <>nc fact. A single »entenrc i from it was quoted by Butler as containing the germ of his Analogy. Before he left .\lexandria Origen wrote ten books r,f Mucellanus {Irpu-tiartit : cf. F.u*. //. £.vi. i8). In these he apparentlvdl»cu»»cd I various topics in the light of ancient philo»c>- 1 phy and Scripture (Hier«». hf- ad Sl»i;n. \xx. 4). The three fragment* which remain. in a Latin translati.in. give no tufficient idea of their content*. The first, from bk. vl.. touch<-s on the permissibility of drflrrtion I fr iin literal truth, fo||..wiiig .m a rnnafk of I'lato (Hieron. adv. Kuf. i. S ,h ,1 H.-m. ilx. in JcT. S 7. ""»"• "• ' ' T**" second, fr^'lll bk. X .rontan ■ the history of Susanna and \ \i\.) added bv Jerome t" (■' < The third, also from bk ^ MLki of (.al. V. II. whi. 1 'lual understanding "' ! <tivc» (\\irT><t\. ad loc .: li. in }(f \\ \\M .ifl). The l.ettfT III Jttltui Alutanutom Ikt Httloty of bu\anna (Dan. xiii.) contain* a frplv l<> , objcctiuii* which Juliu* urged a|tain»l lh« 782 0RI6ENES authenticity of the history of Susanna and offers a crucial and startling proof of Origen's deficiency in historical criticism. Africanus pointed out, from its plays upon words among other things, that the writing must have been Greek originally, and that it was not con- tained in the " Hebrew " Daniel. To these arguments Origen answers that he had in- deed been unable {<l>i-^V yap t] dXrjdeia) to find Hebrew equivalents to the paronomasias quoted, but that they may exist ; and that the Jews had probably omitted the history to save the honour of their elders. It must be allowed that right lies with the aged Africanus, who could address Origen as " a son," and whose judgment was in the spirit of his own noble saying : " May such a principle never prevail in the church of Christ that falsehood is framed for His praise and glory" (Fragm. ap. Routh, R. S. ii. 230). C. The Eight Books against Celsus. — The earlier apologists had been called upon to defend Christianity against the outbursts of popular prejudice, as a system compatible with civil and social order. Origen, in this work, entered a far wider field. It was his object to defend the faith against a compre- hensive attack, conducted by critical, histori- cal, and philosophical, as well as by political, arguments. He undertook the work very un- willingly, at the urgent request of Ambrose, but, once undertaken, he threw into it the whole energy of his genius. Celsus was a worthy opponent, and Origen allows him to state his case in his own words, and follows him step by step in the great controversy. At first Origen proposed to deal with the attack of Celsus in a general form ; but after i. 27 he quotes the objections of Celsus, in the order of their occurrence, and deals with them one by one, so that it is possible to recon- struct the work of Celsus, in great part, from Origen's quotations. It would be difficult to overrate the importance both of attack and defence in the history of religious opinion in the 2nd and 3rd cents. The form of objec- tions changes ; but every essential type of objection to Christianity finds its representa- tive in Celsus's statements, and Origen suggests in reply thoughts, often disguised in strange dresses, which may yet be fruitful. No outUne can convey a true idea of the fullness and variety of the contents of the treatise. Speak- ing broadly, the work falls into three parts — the controversy on the history of Christianity (bks. i. ii.), the controversy on the general character and idea of Christianity (bks. iii.-v.), the controversy on the relations of Christianity to philosophy, popular religion, and national life (bks. vi.-viii.). There are necessarily many repetitions, but in the main this appears to represent the course of the argument. The lines were laid down by Celsus : Origen simply followed him. After some introductory chapters (i. 1-27), dealing with a large number of miscellaneous objections to Christianity as illegal, secret, of barbarous origin, inspired by a demoniac power, an offshoot of Judaism, Origen meets Celsus's first serious attack, directed against the Christian interpretation of the gospel history. In this case Celsus places his argu- ments in the mouth of a Jew. The character, I ORIOENES as Origen points out, is not consistently main- tained, but the original conception is ingeni- ous. A Jew might reasonably be supposed to be the best critic of a system which sprang from his own people. The chief aim of the ob- jector is to shew that the miraculous narra- tives of the Gospels are untrustworthy, incon- clusive in themselves, and that the details of the Lord's life, so far as they canbe ascertained, furnish no adequate support to the Christian theory of His person. The criticism is wholly external and unsympathetic. Can we sup- pose, Celsus asks, that He Whowas God would be afraid and flee to Egypt (i. 66) ? could have had a body like other men (i. 69, ii. 36) ? would have lived a sordid, wandering life, with a few mean followers (i. 62) ? have borne insults without exacting vengeance (ii. 35) ? have been met with incredulity (ii. 75) ? have died upon the cross (ii. 68) ? have shewn Himself only to friends if He rose again (ii. 63) ? He repeats the Jewish story of the shameful birth of Christ, and of His educa- tion in Egypt, where Celsus supposes that He learned magical arts by which He imposed upon His countrymen. These illustrations suf- ficiently shew the fatal weakness of Celsus's position. He has no eye for the facts of the inner life. He makes no effort to apprehend the gospel offered in what Christ did and was, as a revelation of spiritual power ; and Origen rises immeasurably superior to him in his vin- dication of the majesty of Christ's humiliation and sufferings (i. 29 ff.). He shews that Christ did " dawn as a sun " upon the world (ii. 30), when judged by a moral and not by an ex- ternal standard (ii. 40) ; that He left His dis- ciples the abiding power of doing " greater works" than He Himself did in His earthly life (ii. 48) ; that the actual energy of Chris- tianity in regenerating men,"* was a proof that He Who was its spring was more than man (ii. 79). In bk. iii. and following books Celsus appears in his own person. He first attacks Christianity as being, hke Judaism, originally a revolutionary system, based upon an idle faith in legends no more credible than those of Greece (iii. 1-43) ; then he paints it in detail as a religion of threats and promises, appealing only to the ignorant and sinful, unworthy of wise men, and, in fact, not addressed to them, even excluding them (iii. 44-81). Here again Origen has an easy victory. He has no difficulty in shewing that no real parallel can be established between the Greek heroes (iii. 22), or, as Celsus sug- gested, Antinous (iii. 36 ff.) and Christ. On the other side he can reply with the power of a life-long experience, that while the message of the gospel is universal and divine in its universality, " education is a way to virtue," a help towards the knowledge of God (iii. 45, 49, 58, 74), contributory, but not essentially supreme. But he rightly insists on placing the issue as to its claims in the moral and not in the intellectual realm. Christians are the proof of their creed. They are visibly trans- formed in character : the ignorant are proved wise, sinners are made holy (iii. 51, 64, 78 ff.). Bks. iv. and v. are in many respects the most interesting of all. In these Origen meets * Seen, for example, in one like St. Paul, of whom Celsus took no notice (i. 63). ORIOENES i-'flsus's attack iii'.ii th.it which is the mitral uiea of Christiamly, aiul iiidoi-d ••» liibhcal revelation, the Cuiuiiij; of i.iKf. This iieccs- s.irily includes the discussion of the liihlical \ lew of man's relation to (iod and nature. i he contentions of Celsus are that there can be no sullicient cause and no adetinate end for "a coming of CM" (iv. i-j.S); that the account of C'.ikI's dealings with men in the O.T. is obviously incredible (iv. J9-50) ; that nature is fixed, even as to the amount of evil iv. 62); and that n»an is presumptuous in > laiming a superiority over what he calls irra- tional animals (iv. 54-9g). In especial he dwells on the irrationality of the belief of a ■ miing of lioii to judgment (v. 1-24) ; and maintains that there is a divine order in the distribution of the world among ditlerent nations, in which the Jews have no preroga- tive (v. 25-50). On all grounds therefore, he concludes, the claims of Christianity to be a universal religion, based on the coming t>f Ciod to earth, are absurd. In treating these 1 arguments Origen had a more arduous work than hitherto. The time had not then come ; — probably it has not come yet — when such ^ far-reaching objections could be completely met ; and Origen was greatly embarrassed by his want of that historic sense which is essen- tial to the apprehension of the order of the divine revelations. His treatment of the O.T. narratives is unsatisfactory ; and it is 1 remarkable that he does not apply his own j views on the unity of the whole plan of being, as grasped by man, in partial explanation at j least of the present mysteries of life. They underlie indeed all he says ; and much that ' he urges in detail is of great weight, as his remarks upon the conception of a divine coming (iv. 5 ff., 13 f.), the rational dignity of man (iv. 13, 23 fi., 30), the anthropopathic language of Scripture (iv. 71 flf.), and on the resurrection (v. 16 fi.). In the last three books Origen enters again upon surer ground. He examines Celsus's parallels to the teai hing of Scripture on the knowledge of (iod and the kingdom of heaven, drawn from Gentile sources (vi. 1-23) ; and after a digression on a mystical diagnosis of some heretical sect, which Celsus had brought ' forward as a specimen of Christian teaching (yi. 24-40), he passes to the true teaching on [ Satan and the Son of (...d and creation (vi. 41-65), and unfolds more in detail the doctrine of a spiritual revelation through Christ (vi. 66-81). This leads to a vindication of the O.T. prophecies of Christ (vii. 1-17), the com- patibility of the two dispensations (vii. 18-26), and the Christian idea of the future life (vii. 27-40). Celsus proposed to point Christians 1 to some better way, but Origen shews that he has failed : the purity of Christians puts to shame the lives of other men (vii. 41-61). The remainder of the treatise is occupied , with arguments as to the relations of Chris- tianity to popular worship and (ivil duties. Celsus urged that the " demons," the gcnls of polytheism, might justly claim some worship, as having been entrusted with certain ofhci-s in the world (vii. 62-viii. 32) ; that the cir- cumstances of life demand reasonable con- fonnity to the established wi.rship. whi< h includes what is true in the Christian faith ORIGENES 7as (viii. j\.68); ih..t .i\il olK-dirn.r It par** mount (vni. Og-rM. Uii|{rn irplir* in driall ; and Hpeilally he khrw% that llir w..r%hlp ..| tio* ii>Kl is the «>>*oln e ..1 trilr w>>l%lilp |\ll|. 12 I.) : that (. hristiaiiltv h.i* a 1 ontuirol •ritjiiily at belief. With will, h II.. straliKr .j liii.ii* .an b€ put into < ..lilpatlv.ii (viii. \ » II I . thjt I hrlv tiaiis d... Ill the n..l.|i-»l »«-ii»r. »up|-.tt the mil powers by thrir livm. bv thrir pfuyrr*. by their ..rganizatioii (viii. 7^). The stiirit of the ari{Uiiirnt» .>n Ix.th udi-% U ess«Mitially iiiodrm ; in the mode <>t Irratmnit much is rharactrristu of the a|{e in whlrb Ihr writers liveil. Tw.. ix.int* ..| vrrv ditlrrriil nature will especially »trikr the *iudrnl. First, the peculiar stress which OriKrn, tn coiiiiiioii with other earlv wiii-rs. l.\s ii|>.>u is.jlated passages of the pro) i ' > I', generally; s<><-ondly, the ui. , liel >vhi( h he, in cmunoii with 1 . . lu the claims of magic and .i<it.>ii> 1 >'. (>7. iv. <>2 f., vii. <>7, viii. sH|. Hut when c\rry deduction has been liiatle. II would not br e.isy to point to a discussion ..I the claim* o| Christianity more roinpreheii&ive or luorr rith ill pregnant thought. .\in..ng earlv ap>>|>.Ki<^ it has no rival. The constant prr«rncr of 4 real antagonist gives unflagging vigour to Ihr debate ; and the conscious power of Origrii lies in the aupeal which he could iiiakr to the Christian life as the one unanswerable pr<H>l of the Christian faith (. f. I'raf/. 2 ; i. 27. 67). There are many other passages of great interest and Worthy of stiidv apart from Ihr context. Such are Origeii's rmiaiks <>n the spirit of controversy (vii. 4«.) ; the iii..ral power of Christianity, its universality, and its fitness for man (ii. (>4, iii. 28, 40, 54, 02, iv. 26, vii. 17, 35. 42. yt) ; forrkiiowlrOgr (ii. ig ff.) ; tlie anthropoiiiorphisiii of Stri(>- ture (vi. l>0 ff.) ; the beaiitv of the ideal hop* of the Christian (iii. Hi) ; the ideal ..f worship (viii. 17 f., vii. 44) ; the divisions of Chriv tians (iii. 12 f., v. 61) ; spiritual fellowship (viii. 64) ; and future unity (viii. 72). D. Fkactical WokKs.— Origen* essay On Prayer was addressed to .Ambrose andTatiaiia (ipiXofiaO^ararfH Aat *;rv<riurraro( <'r tfto>J^f■U^^ dSiX^oi. c. 33), in answer to their iiitjuiries at to the efficat y, manner, subject, and circum- stances of prayer. No writing of Origrn it more free from his chara. lerisiu faults or more full of beautiful thoughts. Mr rxaiuilirt first the meaning and us*- of lix*! Ii i>. and the objections urged against the rtticacV of prayer, that dod foreknows ih.- lutuK and that all things take place . Hi* will (§ 5). Divine forckn-jw I Uv points out, take away mai. tv: the m.iral attitude of prav.i 1 ii. it -<^11 a sufficient blessing upon it (|t <> II ). Waver establishes an active rommunioii brlwrro Christ and the angrU in heaven itt 10 I I ; and the dutv of pravrr is riiforfrd bv lb« example of t hrist an.l the saints itl I \ t). I'rayer must be addressed t'> <.«*1 only, " our Father in heaven," and not to Chiul the S»«a as apart from the Father, but lo the Fallirr through Him (| i^)- Tht hihorlatton lo .UarlytJom.— la Ihr persecution of .Maxiiiiin {2^*,^2^7\ Anibfot* and The'rf^trtus. a pretbvtrr <•! Cartarra. wrrr thrown iuto priton. Origen addrc»»«d tbctu 784 ORIGENES in a book written from his heart : as a boy and as an old man he looked face to face on martyr- dom. Their sufferings, he tells them, are a proof of their maturity (c. i), and in some sense the price of future blessedness (2), for which man's earthly frame is unfitted (3 ff.)- The denial of Christ, on the other hand, is the most grievous wrong to God (6 ff.). Believers are indeed pledged to endurance, which will be repaid with unspeakable joys (12 ff.). Moreover, they are encouraged in their trials by the thought of the unseen spiritual wit- nesses by whom they are surrounded in the season of their outward sufferings (18 ff), and by the examples of those who have already triumphed (22 ff.). By martyrdom man can shew his gratitude to God (28 f.), and at the same time receive afresh the forgiveness of baptism, offering, as a true priest, the sacrifice of himself (30 ; cf. Horn. vii. in Jud. 2). So he conquers demons (32). The predictions of the Lord shew that he is not forgotten (34 ff.), but rather that through affliction is fulfilled for him some counsel of love (39 ff.), such as the union of the soul with God when freed from the distractions of life (47 ff.). Perhaps, too, the blood of martyrs may have gained others for the truth (50, rdxa. r TLfxlui a'i/xari tiov fxaprvpuiv ayopadrjcrot'Tai rives : cf. Horn, in Num. x. 2 ; c. Cels. viii. 44). E. Critical Writings. [Hexapla.] F. Letters. — Eusebius, as already stated, had made a collection of more than 100 of Origen's letters {H. F. vi. 36, 2). Of these two only remain entire, those to Julius Afri- canus (already noticed) and Gregorv of Neo- caesarea, and of the remainder the fragments and notices are most meagre. In one frag- ment (Delarue, i. p. 3, from Suidas, s.v.) he gives a lively picture of the incessant labour which the zeal of Ambrose imposed upon him. Another fragment of great interest, preserved by Eusebius, contains a defence of his study of heathen philosophy (H. E. vi. 19). An important passage of a letter to friends at Alexandria, complaining of the misrepresenta- tions of those who professed to recount con- troversies they had held with him, has been preserved in a Latin trans, by Jerome and Rufinus (Delarue, i. p. 5). Gregory was as yet undecided as to his pro- fession when the letter to him was written (c. 236-237 : cf. pp. loi f.). Origen expresses his earnest desire that his " son " will devote all his knowledge of general literature and the fruits of wide discipline to Christianity (c. i). He illustrates this use of secular learning by the " spoiling of the Egyptians " (c. 2) ; and concludes his appeal by a striking exhortation to Gregory to study Scripture. G. The Philocalia. — To this admirable collection of extracts from Origen's writings the preservation of many fragments of the Greek text is due. A revised text with critical intro. by Dr. J. A. Robinson is pub. by the Carab. Univ. Press. The collection was made, it appears, by Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil. TheformersentittoTheodosius, bp. of Tyana, c. 382, with a letter (Greg. Naz. Ep. cxv.) in which he says : " That you may have some memorial from us, and at the same time from the holy Basil, we have sent you a small Volume of the ' choice thoughts ' of Origen ORI6ENES (irvKTiov TTJs 'Qpiy^uovs ^iXoKaXias), contairl- ing extracts of passages serviceable for scholars (toIs <f>i\o\6yois). Be pleased to accept it, and to give us some proof of its usefulness with the aid of industry and the Spirit." The Philocalia is of great interest, not only from the intrinsic excellence of passages in it, but as shewing what Catholic saints held to be characteristic thoughts in Origen's teaching. The book consists of xxvii. chaps., treating of the following subjects : (i) The Inspiration of divine Scripture. How Scripture should be read and understood. (2) That divine Scripture is closed and sealed. (3) Why the Inspired Books [of O.T.] are 22. (4) The solecism and poor style of Scripture. (5) What is " much-speaking," and what are " many books " ; and that inspired Scripture is one Book. (6) That divine Scripture is one in- strument of God, perfect and fitted (for its work). (7) The special character (roO/SiwMaTot) of the persons of divine Scripture. (8) The duty of not endeavouring to correct the in- accurate {ao\oiKO€Ldri) phrases of Scripture and those not capable of being understood according to the letter, seeing that they con- tain deep propriety of thought for those who can understand. (9) What is the reason that divine Scripture often uses the same term in different significations, and (that) in the same place. (10) Passages in divine Scripture which seem to involve difficulties. (11) That we must seek the nourishment supplied by all inspired Scripture, and not turn from the passages {pvTd) troubled by heretics with ill- advised difficulties {dvacp-rj/uLois tTrairopriaeffiv), nor slight them, but make use of them also, being kept from the confusion which attaches to unbelief. (12) That he should not faint in the reading of divine Scripture who does not understand its dark riddles and parables. (13) When and to whom the lessons of philo- sophy are serviceable to the explanation of the sacred Scriptures, with Scripture testimony. (14) That it is most necessary for those who wish not to fail of the truth in understanding the divine Scriptures to know the logical prin- ciples or preparatory discipline {ij.a6riiJi.aTa iJTOi wpoTraideufjLaTa) which apply to their use. (15) A. reply to the Greek philosophers who dis- parage the poverty of the style of the divine Scriptures and maintain that the noble truths in Christianity have been better expressed among the Greeks. (16) Of those who malign Christianity on account of the heresies in the church. (17) A reply to those philosophers who say that it makes no difference if we call Him Who is God over all by the name Zeus, current among the Greeks, or by that used by Indians or Egyptians. (18) A reply to the Greek philosophers who profess universal knowledge, and blame the simple faith (tA dve^^TaffTov ttjs wlcrreus) of the mass of Christians, and charge them with preferring folly to wisdom in life ; and who say that no wise or educated man has become a disciple of Jesus. (19) That our faith in the Lord has nothing in common with the irrational, super- stitious faith of the Gentiles. . . . And in reply to those who say, How do we think that Jesus is God when He had a mortal body? (20) A reply to those who say that the whole world ORIGENES was mad.-, not f.<r man, but (.-r irrational creaturi'S . . . who live with low |.>il than men . . . and forfknv)w the Juturo. Whrrnn is an argument against iransnuKration and on augury. (21) Ot free will, with an explana- tion of the savings of Scripture whirh seem to deny it. (22) What is the dispersion of the rational or human souls indicated under » veil in the building of the Tower, and the con- fusion of tongues. (2.0 On Fate, and the re- conciliation of divine foreknowledge with human freedom ; and how the stars do not determine the affairs of men, but onlv indicate them. (24) Of matter, that it is not uncxeated (iyhfyiTOi) or the cause of evil. (25) That the separation to a special work (Rom. i. 1) from foreknowledge does not destroy free will. (26) .\s to things good and evil. (27) On the phrase, " He hardened Pharaoh's heart." View of Christian Life. — The picture of Christian life in Origen's writings is less com- plete and vivid than we might expect. It represents a society already sufficiently large, powerful, and wealthy to offer examples of popular vices. Origen contrasts the Chris- tians of his own with those of an earlier time, and pronounces them unworthv to bear the name of " faithful " {Horn, tn Jer. iv. 3 ; cf. in Malt. xvii. 24). Some Christians by birth were unduly proud of their descent (in Malt. XV. § 26). Others retained their devotion to pagan superstitions — astrology, auguries, ne- cromancy (in Josh. v. 6, vii. 4 ; cf. in .Malt. ziii. § 6) and secular amusements [Horn, in Lev. ix. 9, xi. i). There were many spiritual " Gibeonites," men who gave liberal offerings to the churches but not their lives {in Josh. x. I, 3). The attendance at church services was infrequent fin Josh. i. 7 ; Horn, in Gen. x. i, 3). The worshippers were inattentive {Horn, in Ex. xiii. 2) and impatient {Horn, tn Jud. vi. i). Commercial dishonesty (in .Mall. xv. 13) and hardness {Sel. in Job. p. 341 u) had to be re- proved. Such faults call out the preacher's denunciations in all ages. An evil more characteristic of his age is the growing am- bition of the clergy. High places in the hierarchy were sought by favour and by gifts {Horn, in .\um. xxii. 4 ; cf. in .Malt. xvi. 22 ; Comm. Ser. §§ 9, 10, 12). Prelates endeav- oured to nominate their kinsmen as their successors (ib. xxii. 4) ; and shrank from boldly rebuking vi^e lest they should lose the favour of the i>i-opl<- (in Josh. vii. 6), using the powers of discipline from passion rather than with judgment (in .\falt. Comm. Ser. § 14), »o that their conduct alreadv caused open scandal (Horn, in Sum. ii. 17)- they too often forgot humility at their ordination {Horn, in Eiech. ix. 2). Thev despised the counsel of men of lower rank, " not to speak of that of a layman or a t;entile " {Hom. in Ex. xi. 6). Origen in particular denounces the pride of the leading men in the Christian society, whirh already exceeded that of (ientilc tyrants, especially in the more important cities (in .Matt. xvi. «). Traces still remained in his time of the miraculous endowments of the apottolic church, which he had himself seen Ic. Celt. ii. 8, iii. 24 ; in Joh. t. xx. 2H. rx*"» '"* Xtf/iwoTtt ; cf. c. Cels. u 2). Hxorrism was habitually practised (Horn, in Jos. xxlv. i). Demons were expelled, many cures wrouf ht. ORIGENES TliA future event< r »«b the help ..r 11 *i. III. y\ Mil. \' of je«U»" »»a JlttO .IU*I demon*, even w J»ci» 1. lit. 1. ; n. v. 4)). 1 . u*t be taken in coniun ' 1 ta magir whirh he »lMir.i ■ --tn- porarie*. Hr appeal* un! th« cfhrary of inranlatlon* wit!. red name* (c I eU. i. aj. Iv. 11 " . • ' in MM. ( ..i»i»n. Ser. S no), and oiherwtte t.> secret rule» {c. C*U. I. n . H»m 4rc<>rdtn4 ,m Sum, xiii. 4 ; in Joi. XX fragm. x: '"■' T :t ). Origen »avs little of llir : ri»- tians to other b-nlirs in Ih- !er- |>enetration <1 • Hiiu n i*nt necessarily <x :...*t public cereii) • tcf. course. It .il wards art, win. h « is .|r\ {r,\ \ tl.r old religion (c. Celt. 111. 56; d* Or*t. 17 and hod not yet found anv place in - nr.r It n with Christian worship {c. Cth t( U remarkable that while On uia- cntly distinguished for his . ; the claims of reason 1 1^. I. ij)atiu 1 • .. um. -..hilo- sophy, as being the ripest Iriiit o| nian't natural power* (rf. Horn, in Oen. xiv. y ; in Ex. xi. 6) and not their corruption I Trnulhon). he still verv rarely refer* to the literature •>! secular wis<lom in hi* general writiiix* *> ancillary to revelation. He even in »oroe cases refers its origin to " the prinrr* of this world " {d* I'nne. in. 3, a) ; an«l. in an inter- esting outline of the course of (.entile educa- tion, remarks that it may onlv acrumuUle a wealth of sins {Horn. in. in i'%. xxxvi. 6). But his directions for dealing with unl^lievers are marked by the truest ciurtrsv iHom. *m Ex. iv. i)). In spite of his ..wii <..ur4gr«.u» enthusiasm, he cunsellcd pruilni. r in time* of persecution (in \fi'' ^ for such self-restraii.- III. a»ioiu .11% . For Origen notices the ; nt. actlVQ from the time of Tn i .1 of Au<uv tine, which referred wax 5, iammn , and pestilences" to the spread of thr fai Ih (•« .Mall. Comm. Ser. S V< . t %;. . .ill\ hr dwrlU upon the animosity : ^ uld rather sec a criminal ted bv the rvid'-nr.. ..( t6). Of thr . V- • . , to gener.il • My. It was m*. espe< l.iii . ; oit the ChincMT. What. ).. .!.«!) we say of the Brit..n» ■•! Ih« Ocean, Dacians, Sariiiatian . very many of whom haven, .t vrt hr^j .Ml r » »d?" (lb. S Vt)- H»t *"'"'• inhabltaiiit of Hrilatn and Mauritania held the IjuI // -• >n I m*. vi.). Christian* geiierall-. Mic ofhces, not from lark •>f I ■'»« that thrV r .,!M ,rrvr t»:. ticf throUK'l ■ M). Thr tb« Wholr I f»»l. Who, ..s tr..- ........ t>rr. »o that wiih.ut Mm. 4")- In the wide*t wnw- ' -m the Creation (in (an: .. , ,. , h • view, which makes the citui«.ii i.^^Aleu%iV9 00 786 0RI6ENES with the existence of divine fellowship, carries with it the corollary, that " without the church there is no salvation " (Horn, in Jos. iii. 6). Origen, as has been seen, shewed practically his respect for the see of Rome, but he recog- nized no absolute supremacy in St. Peter (in Matt. xii. ii). He held indeed that he had a certain pre-eminence (in J oh. t. xxxii. 5) and that the church was founded on him (Horn, in Ex. v. 4), but every disciple of Christ, he affirms, holds in a true sense the same position (Comm. in Matt. xii. 10). Origen lays great stress upon the importance of right belief (in Matt. t. xii. 23 ; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 33 ; de Orat. 29). As a yoimg man he refused every concession to a mis- believer in the house of his benefactress (Eus. H. E. vi. 2). In later years he laboured suc- cessfully to win back those who had fallen into error. But his sense of the infinite great- ness of the truth made him tolerant (c. Cels. v. 63). Varieties of belief arose from the very vastness of its object (ib. iii. 12) ; and his discussion of the question, Who is a heretic ? is full of interest (Fragm. in Ep. ad Tit.). Casual notices in Origen's writings give a fairly complete view of the current religious observances. He speaks generally of stated times of daily prayer, " not less than three " (de Orat. 12), of the days they kept — " the Lord's days (cf. Horn, in Ex. vii. 5 ; in Num. xxiii. 4), Fridays, Easter, Pentecost " (c. Cels. viii. 22 ; cf. Horn, in Is. vi. § 2) — and of the Lenten, Wednesday, and Friday fasts (Horn, in Lev. x. 2). Some still added Jewish rites to the celebration of Easter (Horn, in Jer. xii. 13) and other traces remained of Judaizing practices (ih. x. § 2). Jewish converts, Origen says without reserve, " have not left their national law " (c. Cels. ii. i, cf. § 3) ; though he lays down that Christ forbade His disciples to be circumcised (ib. i. 22 ; cf. v. 48). Chris- tians, however, still abstained from " things strangled " (ib. viii. 30) and from meat offered to idols (ib. 24). Outward forms had already made progress ; and the religion of some consisted in "bowing their head to priests, and in bringing offerings to adorn the altar of the church" (Horn, in Jos. x. 3). Baptism was administered to infants, " in accordance with apostolic tradition " (in Rom. V. § 9, p. 397 L. ; Horn, in Lev. viii. § 3 ; in Luc. xiv.), in the name of the Holy Trinity (in Rom. V. § 8, p. 383 L. ; cf. in Jo'h. t. vi. 17), with the solemn renunciations " of the devil and of his pomps, works, and pleasures " (Horn, in Num. xii. 4). The unction (confirmation) does not appear to have been separated from it (in Rom. V. § 8, p. 381 : " omnes baptizati in aquis istis visibiUbus et in chrismate visibili"). The gift of the Holy Spirit comes only from Christ, and Origen' held that it was given according to His righteous will : " Not all who are bathed in water are forthwith bathed in the Holy Spirit" (Hom. in Num. iii. i). Cf. also Sel. in Gen. ii. 15 ; Hom. in Luc. xxi. ; de Princ. i. 2 ; and for the two sacraments, Hom. in Num. vii. 2. Adult converts were divided into different classes and trained with great care (c. Cels. iii. 51). Of the Holy Communion Origen speaks not infrequently, but with some reserve (Hom. in Lev. X. 10 ; in Jos. iv. i). The passages ORIGENES which give his views most fully are in Joh. xxxii. § 16 ; in Matt. xi. § 14 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser. §§ 85 f. ; Hom. in Gen. xvii. 8 ; in Ex. xiii. § 3 ; in Lev. ix. 10 ; in Num. xvi. 9. Cf. c. Cels. viii. 33, 57 ; Hom. in Jud. vi. 2 ; Hom. ii. in Ps. xxxvii. 6 ; Sel. in Ps. p. 365 L. The ruling thought of his interpretation is sug- gested by John vi. : " corpus Dei Verbi aut sanguis quid aliud esse potest nisi verbum quod nutrit et verbum quod laetificat ? " (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 85); "bibere autem dicimur sanguinem Christi non solum sacra- mentorum ritu sed et cum sermones ejus re- cipimus in quibus vita consistit, sicut et ipse dicit. Verba quae locutus sum spiritus et vita est" (Hom. in Num. xvi. § 9 ; cf. xxiii. § 6). The passage which is often quoted to shew " a presence of Christ in the sacrament extra usum," indicates nothing more than the reverence which naturally belongs to the con- secrated elements ("consecratum munus," Hom. in Ex. xiii. 3). The kiss of peace was still given " at the time of the mysteries " (in Cant. i. p. 331 L.) " after prayers " (in Rom. X. § 33) ; and the love- feast ('Ayd-m]) was suffi- ciently notorious for Celsus to attack it (c. Cels.i. i) ; but the practice of " feet-washing," if it ever prevailed, was now obsolete (in Joh. xxxii. § 7 ; Hom. in Is. vi. § 3). His use of J as. v. 14, in Hom. in Lev. ii. 4, does not give any support, as has been af&rmed, to the practice of extreme unction. The treatise On Prayer gives a vivid picture of the mode and attitude of prayer. It was usual to turn to the east (de Orat. 31 ; Hom. in Num. v. § i). Standing and kneeling are both recognized (de Orat. I.e. ; Hom. in Num. xi. § 9 ; cf. in Sam. Hom. i. § 9). Forms of prayer were used (Hom. in Jer. xiv. § 14) and prayers made in the vernacular language of each country (c. Cels. viii. 31). Origen frequently refers to confession as made to men and not to God only (Hom. in Luc. xvii.; de Orat. 28; Hom. ii. in Ps. xxxvii. § 6) ; and reckons penitence completed by such confession to a " priest of the Lord " as one of the modes for forgiveness of sins (Hom. ii. in Lev. § 4). He speaks of public confession (^^onoXdynffLi) to God as efficacious (Hom. i. in Ps. xxxvi. § 5), a form of penitence to be adopted after wise advice (ib. xxxvii. § 6) ; and he supposes that the ef&cacy of " the power of the keys " depends upon the character of those who exercise it (in Matt. t. xii. § 14). Discipline was enforced lay exclu- sion from common prayer (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 89) ; and for more serious offences penitence was admitted once only (Hom. in Lev. XV. § 2). Cf. also what is said on " sin unto death" (ib. xi. 2). Those who had offended grievously after baptism were looked upon as incapable of holding office (c. Cels. iii. 51). The threefold ministry is treated as uni- versally recognized ; and Origen speaks of presbyters as priests, and deacons as Levites (Hom. in Jer. xii. 3I. The people were to be present at the ordination of priests (Horn, in Lev. vii. 3) and he recognizes emphatically the priesthood of all Christians who "have been anointed with the sacred chrism " (ib. ix. 9; cf. Hom. in Num. v. 3 ; in Jos. vii. 2 ; cf. Exh. ad Martyr. 30). Widows are spoken of as ORIGENES having a di-ftuitc place in the church orxanica- tion (Worn, in Is. vi. § 3; Horn, in Luc. «vii.) ; yet nt>t apparently combined in any order (in Rom. X. §§ 17. 20). As yet no absolute rule existeil as to the reli- bacy of the clergy. Ori»jen hinisrW was in- clined to support it bv his own judgment [Horn. in I.n'. vi. § 6). "No bishop, however, or presbyter or deacon or widow ould marry a second time" {Horn, in Luc. xvii.) : such Origen held to be in a second class, not " o( the church without spot " (I.e. ; but t(. note on I. Cor. vii. 8). It was a sign of the dilh- culties of the time that some " rulers of the church " allowed a woman to n»arry again while her husband (presumably a (ientile who had abandoned her) was still living (iw A/a//, t. xiv. § 23). Origoji's own example and feeling were strongly in favour of a strict and continent life (cf. c. Cels. vii. 48 ; Horn. in Gen. v. 4), while he condemns false as- ceticism (i« Matt. Comm. Set. § 10). He enforces the duly of systematic almsgiving (16. § 61) ; and niaintains that the law of offering the firstfruits to i;<k1, that is to the priests, is one of the .Mosaic precepts which IS of perpetual obligation {Horn, in Sum. xi. 1 ; cf. c. Cels. viii. 34). Usury is forbidden (Horn. iii. in Ps. xxxvi. § 11). The rule as to foixl laid down in Acts xv. 29 was still observed (in Rom. ii. § 13, p. 128 L ; c. Cels. viii. 30). The reverence of Christian burial is noticed {Horn, in Lev. iii. § 3 ; c. Cels. viii. 30). Military service Origen thinks uidawful for Christians (c. Cels. v. 33, viii. 73), though he seems to admit exceptit>ns (16. iv. 82). Origen a.s Critic and Interpreter.— Origen regarded the Bible as the source and rule of truth {Horn, in Jer. i. § 7). Christ is " the Truth," and they who are sure of this seek spiritual knowledge from His very words and teaching alone, given not only during His earthly presence, but through Moses and the prophets (de Princ. Praef. i). The necessary points of doctrine were, Origen held, ci)mi>rised by the apostles in a simple creed handed down by tradition (16. ii.), but the fuller exhibition of the mysteries of the gospel was to be sought from the Scriptures. He made no sharp division between O. and N. T. They must be treated as one body, and we must be care- ful not to mar the unity of the spirit which exists throughout (in J oh. x. 13 ; cf. de Prtnc. ii. 4). The divinity of the O.T. is indeed first seen through Christ (de Prtnc. iv. i, 6). (i) The Canon 0/ Scriplure.— In fixing the contents of the collection of sacred bo<iks Origen shews s<jme indecision. In regard to O.T. he found a serious difference between the Hebrew can-.n and the b<joks commonly found in the Alexandrine (jrcek Bible. In his Comm. on Ps. i. he gives a list of the canonical books {ai i^iidtfrikoi (ii(i\<H) ac- cording to the tradition of the Hebrew*, 32 in number (ap. Kus. H. E. vi. 2«;). In the enumeration the book of the Twelve (minor) Prophets is omitted by the error of Kusebius or of his transcriber, for it is necessary to make up the number; and the " Letter" (Uaruch VI.) is added to Jeremiah, because (apparmtlv) it occupied that position in Origen** cpy of the LXX., f<jr there is im evidence that it wa» ever included in the Hebrew Bible. The ORIOBNBS 7H7 liiMkt of the Statiabeti. wl 1 ' ' ' " , » bur« a Hebrew title, wrrr U'l Ii > fMV Jm). Hut while Origrn tl .i*ry place tolhrbooktof ihr H. !.. ~ . ^.. ,. ,.<■ rn- pre*»ly defend*, in hi* Irtirr |.. AtriiaDiu. Ib« u*e ••( the addition* (■•uod lit the AlrijiulriiM I.XX. (rf. p. tli). He wj* uii«llllii« to sacrifice anything *aii< ||.>nr<| by ru*l<>ni and teiiiling to etiihradon. Hi* own ptarltr* refle»-l» thi*<|..ul.lr vir« Mriir\,r. . f^r a* we know, put V (hal b.H.ksofO. 1 !.rm a* having ... .. uilv notes that tin it .luth lus ».is . n liiru^ro. He .juotes the Uifok of hnrxkU. ( V/i v. jj; de Prtnc. iv. j> ; Horn, in Sum. xivilt. 1), the Prayer of Jaeph (in J oh. il. jj. »f rn rfn}<iltTai), the Ai%umt>ttoH of Motet (Homt, in Jos. ii. i), and the ,-lii/niion ol lututh (tt>.' de Prtnc. iii. 2, 1 ; cf. in Matt. t. x. |H) ; anil it is probably to l>o.>k«of ihit rU*« that ht* interesting remarks on 'up<<ryphar' book* in Prol. in Cant. p. 321 I., refer. How far Origen wa» from any clear view of the history of O.T. may l>e inferred from the importance he assign* to the tradition of Ezra's restoration of their text from memory after the Babylonian captivity (Set. in Jer. xi. p. 5 L. ; Set. in Ps. td. p. 371). His testimony to the contents ' * ' more decided. He notices the : Were geiier.dly ai knowledgrd .1 un«]uestionable authoritv •'■ f ,.■■ (the Acts •], I. Peter. I. J ../.#, of St. Paul. To these he .. />«'. for he seems to have been with its absence from the Svri . lu*. //.£". vi. 2.S). Inaiii.thii ived only in the Latin trans. . t m. in Jer vii. 1), he enumerates .ill tli- !■ Ws ■( the received N.T., without addition <>t omi**i>>n. as the trumpets by which the wall* <'| the spiritual Jericho are to be overthrown (the Pour Gospels. I. and //. Peter. James. JuJe, the Epistles and Apocalypse ol St. John, the Acts by St. Luke, fourteen Et'iilles of St. Paul). This enumeration, though it cannot b« receivetl without revrve, iiiav repre»rnt hi* popular te<tching. In isolated notKc* he speaks of the disputed Ixx.k* a* received by st.me but not by all (Hebrews ; ap. Ku*. H. h. vi 25 ; Ep. ad Afrtc. | «* , Jame* ; in Jok. XIX. 6 ; //. Peter ; Hom. in Lev. iv. 4 ; JuJe ; in Matt. t. X. 17. xvu. jo) , and he apparently limited d.*trinal authority to the arkuow- ledged books (Comm. Ser. in .Matt S 2»). Origen quote* frequently and with lb* greatest respect the shepherd of Hrinia* (#-f. de Prtnc. 1. 3, 3, iv. 1 1 , in .Mail. I. ««v. i 21 ; in Rom. x. 31. p. 4J7 I- I t He quote* or refer* t.. the Ep. (I.) of < lememl. " a dl*(ipl« of the apostle* " (de Prtnc. U. 3. . in lok. t. vi. 36 ; Set. in Em. viil. j) ; " the < alkviu Ep. of Barnabas " (c. Celt. I. 6j ; de Prime m. a, 4 ; cf. Comm. in Rom. i. | iM). the Uoipti according to the Hebrews (in J oh. t. U. 6, • Not »pTt;i>lly lurotlufM^. but (n((ni'* amft to dccblvr U-. I. 11 r :-«iit<io he AMtfortl lu It Th* Ucit <.i .itiairt tbr tUogn u4 IIMlMC to nty t 11.. rarlau* (/•»!/« p tj»' i>*»« Otkcu »:■-.. _.caUfy 00 lk« *»/*»*»i »• • !•»•• dcdttclioa (>«>&> Um ward Uri^ t m ' ^ (M. I p. a*. lO- 788 ORIGENES edi' Trpo(TieTai rts ; Horn, in Jer. xv. 4 ; in Matt. t. XV. 14, Vet. int. Lat. ; cf. Hieron. de Vir. III. 2), the Gospels " according to the Egyptians," and " according to the XII. Apostles," " according to Thomas," and " after Matthias " (Horn, i in Luc, " Ecclesia quatuor habet evangelia, haeresis plurima, e quibus . . .," the Gospel according to Peter, the Book of James [in Matt. x. 17, rod i-m-yeypajxixevov Kara IJerpov evayyeXiov fj ttjs /3i'/3Xod 'IaKw/3oi'), Peter's Preaching [in J oh. xiii. 17 ; de Princ. Praef. 8, Petri doctrina), the Acts of Paul (in Joh. XX. 12 ; de Princ. i. 2, 3), the Cletnentines (Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 77 ; in Gen. iii. § 14, at irepioSoi), some form of the Acts of Pilate (in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 122), the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs (in Joh. xv. 6), the Teach- ing of the Apostles (?) (Horn, in Lev. xi. 2). Savings attributed to the Lord are given in Matt. t. xiii. § 2, xvi. § 28 (Sel. in Ps. p. 432 L and de Orat. §§ 2, 14, 16 ; cf. Matt, vi. 33), xvii. § 31 ; in Jos. iv. 3. A few traditions are preserved : in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 126 (.A.dam buried on Calvary) ; ib. § 25 (death of the father of John Baptist) ; c. Cels. i. 51 (the cave and manger at Bethlehem) ; ib. vi. 75 (the appearance of Christ) ; Horn, in Ezech. i. 4(thebaptism of Christin January). Anonymous quotations occur, Horn, in Luc. XXXV. ; Comm. Ser. in Matt. § 61 ; Horn, in Ezech. i. 5 ; in Rom. ix. § 2. (2) The Text. — Origen had very little of the critical spirit, in the modern acceptation of the phrase. This is especially seen in his treat- ment of Biblical texts. His importance for textual criticism is that of a witness and not of a judge. He gives invaluable evidence as to what he found, but his few endeavours to determine what is right, in a conflict of authorities, are for the most part unsuccessful both in method and result. Generally, how- ever, he makes no attempt to decide on the one right reading. He would accept all the conflicting readings as contributing to edifica- tion. Even his great labours on the Greek translations of O.T. were not directed rigor- ously to the definite end of determining the authentic text, but mainly to recording the extent and character of the variations. He then left his readers to use their own judgment. This want of a definite critical aim is more decisively shewn in his treatment of N.T. Few variations are more remarkable than those in Heb. ii. 9 : x'^P"'' ^^°^ ^^"^ X'^P'S 6eov. Origen was acquainted with both, and apparently wholly undesirous to choose be- tween them ; both gave a good sense and that was a sufficient reason for using both (in Joh. t. i. 40 : fire 5^ X'^P'S ^f^ • ■ ■ f'^* X'^P'''"' • • • ib. xxviii. 14 : the Latin of Comm. in Rom. iii. § 8, v. § 7, sine Deo, is of no authority for Origen's judgment). His importance as a witness to the true text of N.T. is, nevertheless, invaluable. Not- withstanding the late date and scantiness of the MSS. in which his Greek writings have been preserved, and the general untrust- worthiness of the Latin translations in points of textual detail, it would be possible to deter- mine a pure text of a great part of N.T. from his writings alone (cf. Griesbach, Symb. Crit. t. ii.). In some respects bis want of a critical ORIGENES spirit makes his testimony of greater value than if he had followed consistently an in- dependent judgment. He reproduces the characteristic readings which he found, and thus his testimony is carried back to an earlier date. At different times he used copies exhibiting different complexions of text ; so that his writings reflect the variations faith- fully. But great care is required in using the evidence which Origen's quotations furnish. He frequently quotes from memory ; combines texts ; and sometimes gives re- peatedly a reading which he can hardly have found in any MS. (e.g. I. John iii. 8,7e7^>'j'7jTai). Illustrations of this perplexing laxity occur in Hom. in Jer. i. 15 (Matt. iii. 12, xiii. 39) ; ib. iv. 2, V. I (.\cts xiii. 26, 46) ; ib. iv. 4 (Luke xviii. 12) ; ib. v. i (Tit. iii. 5 f.). (3) Interpretation. — Origen has been spoken of as the founder of a new form of literature in Biblical interpretation, and justly ; though others, conspicuously Heracleon, preceded him in expositions of Scripture more or less continuous. Origen constantly refers to previous interpretors, esp. to Heracleon. Origen's method of interpreting Scripture was a practical deduction from his view of the inspiration of Scripture. This he developed in the treatise On First Principles, bk. iv. He regarded every " jot and tittle " as having its proper work (Horn, in Jer. xxxix. fr. ep. Philoc. c. X.). All is precious ; not even the least particle is void of force (in Matt. t. xvi. 12). Cf. Ep. ad Greg. § 3 ; in Joh. t. i. § 4. Minute details of order and number veil and yet suggest great thoughts (e.g. Sel. in Pss. xi. 370, 377 l). It follows that in inter- pretation there is need of great exactness and care (in Gen. t. iii. p. 46 L. ; Philoc. xiv.) and scrupulous study of details (in Joh. xx. 29). Origen illustrates his principles by count- less subtle observations of great interest. j His skill in combining passages from different I parts of Scripture in illustration of some ! particular phrase or detail is specially notice- able. Each term calls up far-reaching associ- I ations ; and all Scripture is made to contribute j to the fullness of the thought to be expressed. Though Origen's critical knowledge of He- brew was slight, he evidently learnt much from Hebrew interpreters and not unfrequent- ly quotes Hebrew traditions and "Midrash." He gives also an interpretation of " Corban " I (in Matt. t. xi. 9) and of " Iscariot " (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 78) from Jewish sources. j To obviate the moral and historical diffi- culties of O.T. he systematized the theory of I a " spiritual sense,'' which was generally if j vaguely admitted by the church (de Princ. i, j Praef. 8). There is, he taught, generally, a 1 threefold meaning in the text of the Bible, literal (historical), moral, mystical, corre- sponding to the three elements in man's con- stitution, bodv, soul, and spirit (de Princ. iv. II ; Hom. in Lev. v. §§ i, 5). Thus Scripture has a different force for different ages and ■ different readers, according to their circum- stances and capacities (in Rom. ii. § 14, p. 150 L.). But all find in it what they need. This threefold sense is to be sought both i in O. and N. T. The literal interpretation ! brings out the simple precept or fact ; the i moral meets the individual want of each ORIGBNES believer ; the mvstii al lUmmuates (eaturra ID the whole work of Kedrniption {Horn, m Ltv. i. §§ 4 (.. ii. § 4 : <if Pnnt. iv. i j. n. jj). There is then inunilolil iustruKion |or jll »>r- lieveri in the precise »t4teinrnt, the ilehnition of prartiral duties, the reveUti'n .•! thr ilix uir plan, which the tcarher mutt endeavour t'> bring out in his ex.inun.ili<>n o( the text. Origen steadily krpt this ol>)ect in view. It is easy to point <nit serious errors in d'-lail in his interpretation <>( S<riplurr. On r' there is iv^ need to dwell. His in.un and the real source of his minor faults » lack of true historic feeling. For him , . phccy ceased to have any vital connexion Miiti the trials and struggles of a pe<<ple of (><k1 : and psalms {e.g. Ps. 1.) were no longer the voice of a believer's deepest personal experi- ence. In this Origen presents, though in a mixlified form, many of the ch.uarteristir defects of Rabbinic interpretation. He mav have been directly influencetl by the masters of Jewish exegesis. Just as thev rlaimefl f<>r Abraham the complete fultilment of the Law. and made the patriarchs perfect types of legal rightt'ousness. Origin relus<xl to see in the Pentateuch any signs of interior religious knowledge or attainment. He deeinetl the patriarchs and prophets as wise by Ciod's gifts as the ap.>stles(i« J oh. vi. 3) ; and the deepest mysteries of Christian revelation could be \ directly illustrated from their lives and words 1 (ib. ii. 28). though sometimes he seems to feel ' the difbculties uf this position {ih. xiii. 46 ; cf. c. CeU. vii. 4 ff.). While this grave defect is distinctly acknow- ledged, it must be remembered that Origen had a special work to do, and did it. In his time powerful schools of Christian speculation disparaged the O.T. or rejected it. Christian masters had not yet been able to vindicate it from the Jews and for themselves. This task Origen accomplished. From his day the O.T. has been a part of our Christian heritage, and he fixed rightiv the general spirit in which it is to be received. The O.T., be says, is always new to Christians who understand and expound it spiritually and in an evangelic sense, new not in time but in interpretation (Horn, iw Sum. ix. $ 4 ; cf. c. Cels. ii. 4). If in pressing this he was led to exaggeration, the error mav be pardoned in regard to the gr«'atness of thr servirr. His mcth'xl was tixed and onsistrnt. He systematized what was b.-f.ire trntalive and inconstant (cf. Kedcpcnning, de Pnnc. pp. 56 f.). He laid d>wn, once for all, broad out- lines of interpretation ; and mvstical mean- ings were not arbitrarily devisnl t ■ ni'-.t particular emergencies, the inti . views is a sufficient testim>>ny t' It is not too much to say that i interpretati'in of Scripture in th.- V'^.m «.,v inspired by Origen; and through tecondarv channels these inc<lieval commentt have passed into our own literature. He was indeed right in principle. " Hr lelt that there was vmrthing more than a mere form in the Hiblr ; he fi-lt that ' thr words of litxi ' must have an rtmial »ignih- cancc, for all that come* into relation with God is eternal : he felt that there i» a true de- velopment and a real (growth in the cleiaeoU vt ORIGENII 7ilt .t.^,„- • •"•'imit. (•11 No (rtl '«!; tith. »•• .ii%». t.. 11.. issue 1 of his . tr sent* tu*l appr.! fr.>in rrni .. of the f . 'pl? interr. l-<lge.l t . ... '. <W' ■.^,1 thr rhurrh. the \p..slle>. ■ :i*en endrav"'^ • 1 Script;- Hut In fairly « conteinp rarv itiuiKli! ' • ,i;,^ verv little technical tearlu t 4* to the sacramrnis ; if cp • 1 th« atonement, i. 1 lu« ti!i. jti-n : yet deals wii thought and III* which lie bel.: < i»- Origen foiiii.j luin- li : ' - with powerful sch.H.ls whuh, " hom the rhurrh, ni.iintained ai.- V .m man, thr world, and (••"I. . :.>e»l forms. There was thr lal U li .k.i .i.. Ml>l<h found expr«-ssion in M<>nt4iii\in , tl.r fjlw idealism, which spread wu rlv in thr nianv forms of (in>>stii isin. Hrre thr I rrjt-* wa» degradr<l int" a src..n<larv .lace ; Ihrre <;aH Himself w,is 1 ^t iri His w rk< »; !!■'• rrprr- sented mrn .1 ■ from their birth ; .u»- tinrn-.ns "f j|n< IwingK. I li- the»e truth% sin. The p iitued in pr'-vrn of crealim has 'r fifiitf tin power*. t»v order*, one » that I cauw «*wn g'>--<lii' I ol ha* aiir Uic . J). 790 ORIGENES creation answered to a definite thought, and therefore, Origen argues, was definite itself. God " could " not create or embrace in thought that which has no limit {ib. ii. fragm. Gr. 6 ; ii. 9, I ; iv. fragm. Gr. 4). The rational crea- tures He made were all originally equal, spiritual, free. But moral freedom, including personal self-determination, led to difference. Finite creatures, once made, either advanced, through imitation of God, or fell away, through neglect of Him (ib. ii. 9, 6). Evil, it follows, is negative — the loss of good which was attainable, the shadow which marks the absence or rather the exclusion of light. But as God made creatures for an end, so He provided that they should, through whatever discipline of sorrow, attain it. He made matter also, which might serve as a fitting expression for their character, and become, in the most manifold form, a medium for their training. So it was that, by various de- clensions, " spirit " (irveuna) lost its proper fire and was chilled into a " soul " (^I'x^). and "souls" were embodied in our earthly frames in this world of sense. Such an em- bodiment was a provision of divine wisdom which enabled them, in accord with the necessities of the fact, to move towards the accomplishment of their destiny [ib. i. 7, 4). Under this aspect man is a microcosm. (Horn, in Gen. i. 1 1 ; in Lev. v. 2 : intellige te et ahum mundum esse parvum et intra te esse solem, esse lunam, etiam Stellas.) He stands in the closest connexion with the seen and the unseen ; and is himself the witness of the correspondences which exist between visible and invisible orders (Horn, in Num. xi. 4, xvii. 4, xxiv. I, xxviii. 2 ; Horn. i. in Ps. xxxvii. i ; in Joh. t. xix. 5, xxiii. 4 ; de Princ. iv. fragm. Gr. p. 184 R.). He is made for the spiritual and cannot find rest elsewhere. As a necessary consequence of his deep view of man's divine kinsmanship, Origen labours to give distinctness to the unseen world. He appears already to live and move in it. He finds there the realities of which the phenomena of earth are shadows (cf. in Rom. x. § 39). External objects, peoples, cities, are to him veils and symbols of invisible things ; and not only is there the closest correspondence between the constitution of different orders of being, but also even now a continuation of unobserved intercourse between them (cf. de Princ. ii. 9, 3). Angels {ib. i. 8, iii. 2, passim) preside over the working of elemental forces, over plants and beasts {in Num. Horn. xiv. 2 ; in Jer. Horn. x. 6 ; c. Cels. viii. 31 ; <ie Princ. iii. 3, 3), and it is suggested that nature is affected by their moral condition {in Ezech. Horn. iv. 2). More particularly men were, in Origen's opinion, committed to the care of spiritual " rulers," and deeply influenced by changes in their feeling and character {in Joh. xiii. § 58 ; cf. de Princ. i. 8, i). Thus he recognized guardian angels of cities, provinces and nations (Horn, in Luc. xii. ; de Princ. iii. 3, 2), a belief which he supported habitually by the LXX version of Deut. xxxii. 8 {in Matt. t. xi. § 16; in Luc. Horn. xxxv. ; in Rom. viii. § 8 ; m Gen. Horn xvi. 2 ; in Ex. Horn. viii. 2 ; in Ezech. Horn. xiii. i f., etc.). Individual men also had their guardian angels {in Matt. t. xiii. 27 ; in Luc. Horn. xxxv. ; in Num. Horn. xi. 4, xx. 3 ; ORIGENES in Ezech. Horn. i. 7 ; in Jud. vi. 2 ; de Princ. iii. 2,4); and angels in the assemblies of Christians assisted the devotions of the faithful {de Oral. xxxi. p. 283 L. ; Hom. in Luc. xxiii.; c. Cels. viii. 64). But while Origen recognizes most fully the reality and power of angelic ministra- tion, he expressly condemns all angel-worship (c. Cels. V. 4, 11). On the other hand, there are spiritual hosts of evil corresponding to the angelic forces and in conflict with them {in Matt. t. xvii. 2 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 102 ; Hom. in Jos. xv. 5). He even speaks of a Trinity of evil {in Matt. xi. § 6, xii. § 20). An evil power strives with the good for the sway of individuals {in Rom. i. § 18) ; thus all life is made a struggle of unseen powers {e.g. notes on Ps. xxxvii. ; in Joh. XX. §§ 29, 32 ; Hom. xx. in Jos. Fragm.). One aspect of this belief had a constant and powerful influence on daily life. Origen, like most of his contemporaries, supposed that evil spiritual beings were the objects of heathen worship (c. Cels. vii. 5). There was, for him, a terrible reality in their agency. Within certain limits they could work so as to bind their servants to them. Origen believed also that the dead, too, in- fluenced the living. The actions of men on earth last, in their effects, after the actors have departed {in Rom. ii. 4, p. 80 L.). Dis- embodied (or unembodied) souls are not idle {in Matt. xv. 35). So the "soul" of Christ preached to " souls " (c. Cels. iii. 43) ; and the saints sympathize with man still struggling on earth with a sympathy larger than that of those who are clogged by conditions of mor- tality {de Oral. xi. ; in Matt. t. xxvii. 30 ; in Joh. t. xiii. 57 ; iii- in Cant. 7). Without extenuating the effects of man's sin, Origen maintained a lofty view of the nobility of his nature and destiny (c. Cels. iv. 25, 30) ; held that the world had been made by divine wisdom a fitting place for the puri- fication of a being such as man {de Princ. ii. i, I ; 2,2: 3, I ; c. Cels. vi. 44 ; cf. in Rom. viii. 10, p. 261) ; and that everything has been so ordered by Providence from the first as to contribute to this end {de Princ. ii. i, 2). Man can, if he will, read the lesson of his life : he has a spiritual faculty, by which he can form conclusions on spiritual things, even as he is made to form conclusions on impressions of sense. The body, so to speak, reflects the soul ; the " outer man " expresses the " inner man" {in Rom. ii. 13, p. 142 L.). There is imposed upon us the duty of service {in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 66), and the offices are many {in Joh. t. X. 23), room being made even for the meanest {Hom. in Num. xiv. 2, p. 162 L.). The visible creation thus bears, in all its parts, the impress of a divine purpose ; and the Incarnation was the crowning of the crea- tion, by which the purpose was made fully known, and provision made for its accomplish- ment {de Princ. iii. 5, 6). (2) The Incarnation. The Person of Christ. The Holy Trinity. The Work of Christ.— On no subject is Origen more full or suggestive {de Princ. i. 2 ; ii. 6 ; iv. 31). No one perhaps has done so much to vindicate and harmonize the fullest acknowledgment of the perfect humanity of the Lord and of His perfect divinity in one Person. His famous image of ORIOBNBS the " glowing iron " (i*. ii. 6. 6) madr *n epoch in ChristoloRv. Hf-re and ihrre hi» UngtMRr IS liable to misoonrrption. or rvm pr.'vr-l erroneous bv latrr invcsticali m«. but hr Ui<| down outlines o( the (aith. on the baMi .( Scriptiir<\ which remain uashakrn. Mr niaiii tainedthe true ami prrfert manho.xl.>J ChriM subject to the conditions of natural Rrowth. against all forms of I)(>rrt ism; and. on throthrr hand, the true and perfect divinit v of the '" t iml- Word " {titi» \6yo^), so united with " the man Christ Jesus" through the human soul as to be one person. aRainst all forms of Ebionisra and Patripassionism iih. li. 6. 3). His doclrme of the Incarnation of the Cod- Word rests in part upon his d<x-trine of the Godhead. " All." he held. " who are b<^m again unto salvation have need of the Father. Son. and Holy Spirit, and would not obtain salvation unless the Trinitv were entire" (ib. i. 3, s). Henf-e he speaks of baptism as " the beginning and fountain of divine gifts to him who offers himself to the divinity of the power of the invocations of the adorable Trinity" (tuv r^t wfxxTKvyrjrfi^ TptdSm iw\- if\rio(tM') {in Joh. vi. 17). But there is, in his judgment, a difference in the extent of the action of the Persons in the Ho|y Trinitv. The Father, " holding all things together, reaches (<p0avn) to each being, imparting being to each from that which is His own, fur He is absolutely (Csv yap farip). The Son is less than the Father (Adrrwr »apd r. r), reaching only to rational beings, for He is second to the Father ; and, further, the Holy Spirit is less {^toi>), and extends (8ii»rot'^Kror) to the saints only. So that in this respect (Kari. ToiTo) the power of the Father is greater in comparison with (rapd) the Son and the Holy Spirit ; and that of the Son more in comparison with the Holy Spirit ; and, again, the power of the Holy Spint more exceeding (4ta0(fpoi'<ra fiaWof) in comparison with all other holy beings." To rightly understand this passage it is necessary to observe that Origen is not speaking of the ess^-nce of the Persons of the Godhead, but of their mani- festation to creatures (< f. de Prtnc. i. 3, 7). Essentially the three Persons are of one (xkI- head, and eternal. The subordination which Origen teaches is not of essence but of person and office. His aim is to realize the Father as the one Fountain of Gfxlhead, while vindicat- ing true deity for the Son and the Holy Spirit. In this respect he worked out first the thought of " the eternal generation " M the S<in. which was accepted from him by the Catholic church as the truest human expression of one side of the mystery of the essential Trinity. The peculiar ci)iinfxif>ii which Origrn re- cognizes between the Son (the God Word) and rational beings establishes (sf> to speak) the fitness of the lii< ariiation. The S<in M<xx\ iii a certain affinitv with rational souls ; and th> human soul with which He was united in the Incarnation had alone remained aljs/jlutely pure, by the exercise of free choice, in its pre- existcnce (16. ii- 6. 5). Through this union all human nature was capable of being glorified, without violating its characteristic hmitati>>ns (of. c. Cels. iii. 41 f). The body of Christ wa. perfect no Ibss than His &*ju1 (i^. i. 32 f.). ORIOBNBS 7»l The work of t hn%i W4». (>ri(m emphalkAlIy in.iinlainrd. f>>r 4II men ami for lh« wboto •f man (rf. I*. III. 17.lv. it ). It w«t lh«r»r. f rn , , rrvrale.! that It cmld ho apPrrheoUMl the tevrfAl |>-.Wrr» anc] wanU r»l \l4UI. t. Ill \H, 41. IV. J4I. ivH. IV M. vt H* ,„ Jatt u ,,| 1 ■•■ ...or. in .1 ' ^ %mM>, " ail things to all men ' ,| ; %m Jok I. XIX. J. XX. JH . . • ,). Origen thu» inM\! ..i<i - work for the con*ii of the individual power of evil. H- upon the value <A i' as a vicarious ».i : illustrations of thr . of vicarious V ■ -.--n. sacrifice (f ' ■ ,h, case of man f ,,, J<^h. t. vi. ;>.. *v not attempt to explain <■ Christ was efhrannis. hr • it as a rans'iii ki\.i, 1 Satan, to wl Christ, in Hi by bearing tl so set man lr< r. " gi\ m^ Hi- s ul i ^v^'jj ^^ 4 ransom for him " {in Matt. I. xvi H , %n Kotm, ii. 13. p. 140 1.. ; I'omm. Str. in Mmtt. | i js). ,\t other times he regards it as a propitiation for the divine remission of sins (Horn, m ,V«m. xxiv. I ; IN l,rr. i. 3 ; cf. e. (fit. vii. 17). Origen held that the death of ( hrut was of avail f'.r heavenlv being*, if n-.t f.r the expiation of sin yet f^ir ad\anrement In blessedness {Horn, in l.fv. 1 \. 11. 3 ; •■» Komt. V. i./., p. 409 L. ; %h. i. 4 ; Horn, tm Lue. x.). Thus in a true sense angels themselves wera disciples of Christ (in Matt. t. xv -, .M times indee«l Origen speaks as il that the Word was actually li other orders of being in a mann- 1 ing to their nature, even as He » is r-v-.V-l as soul to the Souls in Hades [Stl. in /'i 111 s. xi. p. 420 I..). In this sense als" he ilutiVi that " He became all things t" .1" ! to angels (in }nh. t. 1. ^^) ; an<l shrink from allowing that His ; be ma<le available, perhaps in shape, in the spiritual world (i# I'ttiu, iv. /ra/j. Gr. a ; cf. iv. 2s U). The work of the Holv Spirit, arrordtn« lo Origen, is fulfilled in believer* His "ftitr 1% si'ecialiv to guide |o the fuller truth. whKh 1% the inspirali •11 f n fl- r life l^r ';^^ Htm revelation c 1 the deeper i Him. " Wl. things are Through Hi the Father . ^i dc /'fifu I I. Ul : . >•* J ^ < " '• ' (3) 7*# ( onii«m»M/inn of Hting Thne 'I...I .. !rfi-,ti. lln<•^ -f ^yrrr-.UUr. lr.lr« t - Ori 7!)2 ORIGENES life. Origen's opinions are further embar- rassed by the constant confusion which arises from the intermingling of ideas which belong to the close of the present order laiwv) and the close of all things. It is again impossible to see clearly how the inalienable freedom of rational beings, which originally led to the Fall, can be so disciplined as to bring them at last to perfect harmony. This, however, Origen holds ; and though he is unable to realize the form of future purification, through which souls left unpurified by earthly exist- ence will be cleansed hereafter, he clings to the belief that " the end must be like the be- ginning " {de Princ. i. 6, 2), a perfect unity in God. From this he excludes no rational creature. The evil spirits which fell have not lost that spirit by which they are akin to God, which in its essence is inaccessible to evil [in J oh. xxxii. II, dveiri^iKTOv tCjv yeipdvwv to wvevfjia Tou avOpdnrov), though it can be over- grown and overpowered (cf. de Princ. i. 8, 3). And, on the other hand, freedom remains even when perfect rest has been reached, and in this Origen appears to find the possibility of future declensions (ib. ii. 3, 3, frag. Gr. ii. 2). Whether matter, the medium through which rational freedom finds expression {ib. iv. 35), will at last cease to be, or be infinitely spiri- tualized, he leaves undetermined. The ques- tion is beyond man's powers {ib. i. 6, 4; ii. 2; ii. 3, 3 ; iii. 6, i), though man cannot but ponder upon it {ib. i. 6, i f. ; iii. 4, 5 s.f.). So he pre- sents, in imaginary outhnes, the picture of the soul's progress through various scenes of chastisement or illumination {ib.i. 6, 3; iii. 6, 6 ; iii. 5, 6 ff., and Redepenning's note), till he can rest in the thought of a restoration in which law and freedom, justice and love, are brought to a perfect harmony (cf. de Oral. § 27, p. 227 L.). This thought assists Origen in forming a theory of future punishments. All future punishments exactly answer to indi- vidual sinfulness {in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 16), and, like those on earth, are directed to the amendment of the sufferers (c. Cels. iv. 10 ; Horn, in Ezech. v. i). Lighter offences can be chastised on earth ; the heavier remain to be visited hereafter {Horn, in Lev. xiv. 4). In every case the uttermost farthing must be paid, though final deliverance is promised {in Rom. V. 2 f.). Origen looked forward to a , fiery ordeal, through which men should pass in the world to come. Every one alreadv baptized with water and Spirit would, he thought, if he needed cleansing, be baptized by the Lord Jesus in a river of fire, and so purified enter into paradise {Horn, in Luc. xxiv.). In this sense also he looked forward to a (spiritual) conflagration of the world, by which all beings in need of such discipline should be at once chastised and healed {c. Cels. v. 15 ; cf. iv. 13). ] On the other hand, since the future state is 1 the direct fruit of this, there are, so Origen I held, varieties of blessedness in heaven (j'n ! Rom. iv. 12), corresponding to the life of saints (ib. ix. 3, p. 303), and foreshadowed bv | the divisions of Israel {Horn, in Num. i. 3'; xxviii. 2 ; Hom. in Jos. xxv. 4). Speaking ! generally, the believer after death enters a state of fuller knowledge and loftier progress {de Princ. ii. 11, 6). The resurrection of the ORIGENES body completes the full transfiguration, with- out loss, of all that belongs to his true self ; and he begins a nobler development of body and soul — moral, intellectual, spiritual — by which he is brought nearer to the throne of God (cf. ib. i. 3, 8 ; in Matt. Comm. Ser. § 51 ; Hom. i. in Ps. xxxviii. § 8). The relationships of earth come to an end {in Matt. t. xvii. 33 : on this point Origen is not consistent). The visible ceases, and men enjoy the eternal, for which now they hope {in Rom. vii. 5). Thus human interest is removed from the present earth to its heavenly antit>'pe. It is probably due to this pecuHarity of his teaching that I Origen nowhere dwells on the doctrine of Christ's return, which occupies a large place j in most schemes of Christian belief. The coming of Christ in glory is treated as the I spiritual revelation of His true nature {de Princ. iv. 25), though Origen says that he by no means rejects " the second presence (iirt8rifjLla) of the Son of God more simply understood " {in Matt. t. xii. 30). Characteristics. — It cannot be surprising that Origen failed to give a consistent and harmonious embodiment to his speculations. His writings represent an aspiration rather than a system, principles of research and hope rather than determined formulas ; and his enthusiasm continually mars the proportion of his work. His theorizing needs the dis- cipline of active life, without which there can be no real appreciation of history or of the historical development of truth. Yet i even in regard to the practical apprehension of the divine education of the world it is only necessary to compare him on one side with Philo and on the other with Augustine, to feel how his grasp of the significance of the In- j carnation gave him a sovereign power to understand the meaning and destiny of life. While ready to fully acknowledge the claims of reason (cf. Hom. in Luc. i. p. 88 L.), Origen lays stress on the new data given by revelation to the solution of the problems of philosophy {de Princ. i. 5, 4). He points out repeatedly the insufficiency of reason, of the independent faculties of man, to attain that towards which it is turned. Reason enables man to recognize God when He makes Him- self known, to receive a revelation from Him in virtue of his affinity with the Divine Word, but it does not enable the creature to derive from within the longed-for knowledge. The capacity for knowing God belongs to man as man, and not to man as a philosopher. Origen therefore acknowledges the nobihty of Plato's saying that " it is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of the Universe, and impossible for one who has found Him to declare Him to all men." But he adds that Plato affirms too much and too little (c. Cels. vii. 43). As Christians " we declare that human nature is not in itself competent in any way to seek God and find Him purely without the help of Him Who is sought, of Him Who is found by those who confess after they have done all in their power that they have yet need of Him . . ." (cf. Clem. Al. Cohort. § 6). In the endeavour to fashion a Philosophy of Christianity Origen did not practically recog- nize the limits and imperfection of the human mind which he constantly points out. His ORIGENES gravest errors arc attcinits to solve the in- soluble. The question of the onsiu <>( the soul, e.g., is still beset by thedifhrultie»l)ri«rn sought to meet, but they are iKnore<l. So too with regard to his speculations on an endleM succession of worlds. Thou^cht must brrak down soon in the attempt t<» ro-ordinate the finite and the inliiiite. But with whatever errors in detail, Ori^jen laid down the true lines on which the Christian apologist must defend the faith at;ainst Polytheism. Judaism, Gnosticism, Materialism. These f'irms of opinion, without the church and within, were living powers of threatening proportions in his age, and he vindicated the Ciospel against them as the one absolute revelation, prepared through the discipline of Israel, historical in its form, spiritual in its destiny ; and the principles which he afhrmed and strove to illustrate have a present value. They are fitted to correct the .\fricanism which, since Augustine, has dominated \V»>stern theology ; and they anticipate many difticulties which have become prominent in later times. In the face of existing controversies, it is invigor- ating to feel that, when as yet no necessity forced upon him the consideration of the prol>- lems now most frequently discussed, a Chris- tian teacher, the master and friend of saints, taught the moral continuity and destination of all being, interpreted the sorr-iws and sad- nesses of the world as part of a vast scheme of purificatory chastisement, found in Holy Scri|>- ture not the letter only but a living voice eloquent with spiritual mysteries, made the love of truth, in all its amplitude and depth, the right and end of rational beings, and reckoned the fuller insight into the mysteries of nature one of the joys of a future state. Such thoughts bring Origen himself before us. Of the traits of his personal character little need be said. He bore unmerited suffer- ings without a murmur. He lived only to work. He combined in a signal degree sym- pathy with zeal. As a controversialist he sought to win his adversary, not simply to silence him (cf. Eus. H. E. vi. 33). He had the boldest confidence in the truth he held and the tenderest humility as to his own weakness («n Joh. t. xxxii. 18 ; in Matt. t. xvi. 13). When he ventures freely in the field of interpretations, he asks the support of the prayers of his hearers. His faith was catholic, and therefore he welcomed every kind of knowledge as tributary to its fullness. It was living, and therefore he knew that no age could seal any one expression of it as com- plete. This open-hearted trust kept un- chilled to the last the passionate devotion of his youth. He was therefore enabled to leave to the church the conviction, attested by a life of martyrdom, that all things arc its heritage because all things are Christ's. Editio.vs. — Through the labours of the great Benedictines of St. Maur the first two vols, of a complete edition of Oritjrn (Onccfin opera otnnta quae Graece lel iMtme lanlum extant el ejus nomine ctrcumferunlur) apj.earr*! at Paris in I733. under the editorship of Charles Uelarue, a pric-st of that »<«iety. Vol. iii. appeared at Pans in i74<». » '«"'* months after the death <>f the editor (Oct. 1739), who left, however, vol. iv. to the care of OROSIUS. PAULUS hl» lirphrw I \ to Usue It till Delarues rrii . edition IS \rl , inriits I are fr.i. text ■<> inaile.iu.if- 1 l.oininatsch. (. ni'Te to f>e rr. been, aiicl arr fragmmts. 1 whollv neglrrt latest r<l.l .. done 1 1. 1 reprint (Paris. I most .1 : Cramer phltmn: . pub. b\ ; works 1 of e.,rlv . \- •• •' ' K lit. .1 u:.^,:,, I, u. i l.ih. ,,f ihf I ,ithfr\. Orosius, ^ulus, was a native of T in Spam, as he himself »av» (Mu/. though an expressi'Hi in a letter of Av be thought to ronne< t him with Hr Avtti, Aug. Opp. Vol. VII. p vol. V. p. 4 35. A. D. 4 IS). ^^ ' Vandals were introdured ini Orosius, though his languag- torical, appears narrowly t" t violence {Hat. in. 20; v. 2 danger, more serious in I threatened to disturb the viz. the hen-sies of the Pri the book by Origen. w»p« «if 1 lated by St. Jerome and br salem by Avitus, presbyter ■ ; gal. at the same time as a b< was brought by another A\ ■ Both books condenmrd thr cillian, but contained Tr • That by NictMnnus at!: Origen's was widelv t elsewhere ; and Oro-; error, pri>cee<|e<l. n^t church of Spam but Africa, to consult St best to refute lli. s. 415. Augustifi' yean, but » \\ in intellect, rr.i ; useful in the w.i W ! ll < 1 partial reply t<> thii appr.. contra Pructlliant^t.ii ft <>• but little on tl- He relerre<l < Manirheiuii, .i: 1'.' •' • I.',' ed Uk'.:. he t.H.k the bith Cocle«(iu^ ;os t the .iiU0-.\t4*mt (w.) arranooa Vll. ]]), itu* may .liTl thp. lus :,d lIKtl 794 OROSIUS, PAULUS in Africa, a.d. 412 (Aug. Epp. 175, 176), and had abruptly departed from the country ; that Augustine had written against Pelagius and had sent a letter to the clergy in Sicily, treating of this and other heretical questions, which letter Orosius read at the request of the members. He also quoted the judgment of St. Jerome on the Pelagian question, ex- pressed in his letter to Ctesiphon and his Dialogue against the Pelagians (Hieron. vol. i. Ep. 133; vol. ii. p. 495)- On Sept. 13, the feast of the dedication of the church of the Holv Sepulchre, Orosius, on offering to assist bp. John at the altar, was attacked by him as a blasphemer, a charge which Orosius refuted, saying that as he spoke only in Latin, John, who onlv spoke Greek, could not have under- stood him. At the council of 14 bishops at Diospolis (Lydda), Dec. 415, Orosius was not present (Aug. de Gest. Pelag. c. 16), but re- turned to Africa early in 416, bearing the supposed relics of St. Stephen, discovered the previous December, which at the request of Avitus he was to convev to the church of Braga in Portugal (Tillem. vol. xiii. 262.) About this time, on the request of Augustine, Orosius undertook his history, chiefly in order to con- firm by historical facts the doctrine maintained bv St. Augustine in his great work de Civitate Dei, on the nth book of which he was then employed. These facts we gather from c. i., and from a passage in bk. v., where Orosius savs that he wrote his history chiefly if not entirely in Africa. It could not have been begun earlier than 416, and must have been finished in 417, for it concludes with an ac- count of the treat v made in 416 between Wallia, the Gothic king, and the emperor Honorius (Oros. Hist. v. 2, vii. 43 ; Clinton, F. R.). Orosius then proceeded towards Spain with the relics of St. Stephen. Being detained at Port Mahon in Minorca by ac- counts of the disturbed state of Spain through the Vandal occupation, he left his precious treasure there and returned to Africa, and nothing more is known of his history (Ep. Severi, Aug. 0pp. vol. vii. App. Baronius, 418. 4). The work of Orosius is a historical treatise rather than a formal history, which indeed it does not pretend to be, though as it includes a portion of the subject belonging to Scrip- ture and to Jewish affairs, its area covers wider space than any other ancient epitome. Besides the O. and N. T., he quotes Josephus, the church historians and writers, asTertullian, Hegesippus, and Eusebius, besides the classic writers Tacitus, Suetonius, Sallust, Caesar, Cicero, and he was no doubt largely indebted to Livy. For Greek and Oriental history he made use of the works of Justin, or rather Trogus Pompeius, and Quintus Curtius ; for Roman affairs, Eutropius, Florus, and Valerius Paterculus, together with others of inferior value, as Valerius Antias, Valerius Maximus, and Aiurelius Victor. Written under the ex- press sanction of St. Augustine, in a pleasing stvle and at convenient length, and recom- mended by church authorities as an orthodox Christian work, it became during the middle ages the standard text-book on the subject, and is quoted largely by Bede and other medieval writers. Orosius is for the last few years of his history a contemporary and PACHOMIUS so an original authority, and supplies some points on which existing writers are deficient {e.g. V. 18, p. 339, the death of Cato ; vi. 3, 376, the acquittal of Catiline), but his work is disfigured by many mistakes, both as to facts and numbers, and by a faulty system of chronology. The general popularity it enjoyed as the one Christian history led to its trans- lation into Anglo-Saxon by Alfred the Great, of which a portion was published by Elstob in 1690, and the whole, with an English ver- sion, in 1773, under the superintendence of D. Barrington and J. R. Foster. This was reprinted in 1853 in Bohn's Antiquarian Library, under Mr. B. Thorpe. The latest ed. of the Hist, and the Lib. Apol. is by Zange- meiiter in Corp. Scr. Eccl. Lat. v. (Vienna, 1882), and a smaller ed. by the same editor in the Biblioth. Teubner. (Leipz. 1889). [h.w.p.] Paohomlus (l), St., founder of the famous monasteries of Tabenna in Upper Egypt ; one of the first to collect solitary ascetics together under a rule. Beyond a brief mention in Sozomen, who praises his gentleness and suavity (H. E. iii. 14), the materials for his biography are of questionable authenticity. Athanasius, during his visit to Rome, made the name Pachomius familiar to the church there through Marcella and others, to whom he held up Pachomius and his Tabennensian monks as a bright example (Hieron. Ep. 127, ad Principium). Rosweyd gives a narrative of his life in Latin, being a translation by Dionysius Exiguus, in the 6th cent., of a bio- graphy said to be written by a contemporary monk of Tabenna ( Vit. Patr. in Pat. Lat. Ixxiii. 227). If we may trust this writer, Pacho- mius was born of wealthy pagan parents in Lower Egypt, before the council of Nicaea. He served in his youth under Constantine in the campaign against Maxentius, which placed Constantine alone on the throne. The kind- ness shewn by Christians to him and his com- rades in distress led him to become a Christian. He attached himself to a hermit, celebrated for his sanctity and austerities. He and Palaemon supported themselves by weaving the shaggy tunics (cilicia), the favourite dress of Egyptian monks. He became a monk, and many prodigies are related of his power over demons, and in resisting the craving for sleep and food {Vit. cc. 40, 44, 45, 47, 48, etc., ap. Rosw. V. P.). His reputation for holiness soon drew to him many who desired to embrace the monastic life, and without, apparently, collecting them into one monas- tery, he provided for their organization. The bishop of a neighbouring diocese sent for him to regulate the monks there. Pachomius seems also to have done some missionary work in his own neighbourhood. Athanasius, visiting Tabenna, was eagerly welcomed by Pachomius, who, in that zeal for orthodoxy which was a characteristic of monks generally, is said to have flung one of Origen's writings into the water, exclaiming that he would have cast it into the fire, but that it contained the name of God. He lived to a good old age (Niceph. H. E. ix. 14). The Bollandists {Acta PALLADIUS SS. 14 Mai. iii. 2S7) ijivo the Ada o( Pachomiu* by a nearly rontemporarv author, in a Latin trans, from the original tlrpck MSS.. with notes and c<iininentarv hv Tapebroch. Pa- chomiusdied {Acta, § 77), aged S7. alxnit the time Athanasius returned to his see under Constantius, i.e. a.d. 340, as romputr<l bv Papebroch. Miraeus (Schol. to Tiennad. Set. Eccl. c. 7) makes him fl-mrish in 340; Tri- themius in 390, under X'alentinian and Theo- dosius. SiRebert iChron. ann. 40s) puts his death in 405 at the age of no. I'ortus Veneris, now Porto Venere, a small town on the N.VV. coast of Italv, near Spezia, (l.iinis that his bixiy rests there. Cf. Amelmeau, EttuU historique sur S. Pack. (Cairo. 1887); also Griitzmacher. Pachomiits un.i i/a« AlUsU KloxterUbfn (Freiburp, i8q6). [i.o.s.) PalladiUSiT). bp. of Helenopolis, the trusted friend of Chrvsostom. whose misfi>rtunes he fully shared, was born c. 367. perhaps in Galatia. He embraced an ascetic life in his 20th year, c. 386. The ascetic career of I'.il- ladius can only be conjccturally traced from scattered notices in the Lausicu History (but see infra). He never remained long in one place, but sought the acquaintance of the leading solitaries and ascetics of his day to learn all that could br gathered of their manner of life and miraculous deeds. Tilleraont thinks his earliest place of sojourn was with the abbat Elpidius of Cappadocia in the cavernous re- cesses of the mountains near Jericho (Htst. Laus. c. io6), and that he, c. 387. visited Beth- lehem, where he received a very unfavourable impression of Jerome from the solitary Posidonius (ib. c. 78), and passing thence to Jerusalem formed the acquaintance of Mclania the elder and Rufinus, the latter of whom he highly commends (16. c. 5 ; c. 118). In 388 Palladius paid his first visit to Alexandria (t*. c. I). Having visited several monasteries near Alexandria, and the famous Didymus, he retired (c. 390) to the Nitrian desert, whence, after a year, he plunged still deeper into the district known as the Cells, t4 KtWia, where he mostly remained for 9 years (ib.). Here, for 3 years, he enjoyed the intercourse of Macarius the younger and subsequently of Evagrius of Poiitus. Palladius appears during this period to have traversed the whole of Upper Egvpt as far as Tabenna and Syene. and to have visited all its leading solitaries. lU-health led him to return to the purer air of Palestine, whence he soon passed to Bithynia, where he was called to the episcopate lib. c. 43). Palladius tells us neither when nor where he became bishop. If it is right to identify the author of the Laustac History with the adherent of Chrvs'^>stom, his see was Hrleno- K>lis, formerly called Orepanum, in Bithynia. e was consecrated by Chrysostom, and the Origenistic opinions he was charged with having imbibed from Evagrius became a handle of accusation against his conwrrator (Phot. Cod. 59. P- ^7)- This arcus.ition of Origenism is brought against Palladius by Epiphanius (Ep. ad Joann. ] erus. Hieron., Op. i. cf>l. 252, ed. Vallars.) and Jerome (/Vorwi. in Dial. adv. Pelagianos), though Tillemont argues that this was another Palladius. Palladius was at the synod at Constantinople, May 400, at which Antoninus of Ephcsus was PALLADIirS TM accused bv Fut/'bnu, and hr wa» nni> nf ihrM bishop* drpu(r<| by Chrvvntom \n v)*n AtU and make a prr»->n«l invrtil^alton into ib« ch.»rge» (P.ilL.I ni.if |.(. Ml ntl Whoo Chr\-v«t rr«<>|vr<l to g.l t" W4« no* of the h\ p H4). Palla.li... ..... ..,. , , - „, , t -.Mdrr from the persecution whic h .»!|rr 404 Irll up.^1 Ihr adherent* i>f I hrv«-nt>>iii. Thr ni^cuir jI<-« having decrer<l th.il thr hou*r ••( «iiv who harl>oure<l bishop, pnr»i, ..r Ijmimh who c ominiiiurated with 1 hrvA'-«loiii »h<>ul<l br confls<ate«l. P.ilUdlUs. with ni.«iiv \\^<-^ r , |ru astics. fled to Komr. arriviuK' <' lie >>f 40s, with a copy ..f thr 1 -e which had driven him from , le (16. pp. 26. 27). The refugee* vvrf. I ,; KjJ.Iv entertained bv one f^nu.inut jnd hi* wilr and bv some n >ble Lidies of Komr, » klndn<-u which Pall.ulius gratrfiiHv mrnli'>ns (Wwl. lutui. c. 121). and for wlnrh t hrv\o%|,ini wrote letters of thanks fr>in t U" iimi* He wj« honourably received l>v popr lnn'«rent, and his testimony gave the i>oi>r full know|e,l|{e o( the transaction (So*. H. A. viii. aM. On the departure of the Italian deputation vnt bv Honorius to his l>rothrr Arcadius. rrqurAtim; that the whole matter should l>e «nb)r< tr.J t.i a general council, P.ill.uhus ,ind thr i.ihrr refugees accompanied them iPalUd. /^I4^^ p. 31). On their arrival the whoir party were forbidden to l.in<l at t on\tanlinoplr. Pal- ladius and his companions were shut up in separate ch.imbers in the fortress of Athvre on the roast, and loade<l with the utmost con- tumely, in the hope i>f breaking their »pirU and compelling them to renounce communina with Chrvsostom, and recognize Atticus {ib. I p. 32). All threats and violence proving vain. \ the bishops were banishetl to distant and j opposite quarters of the empire ; Palladius to Syene. on the extreme Ixader of Fgvpt (1*. I pp. 194, 199). Tillemont considers that 00 the death of Theophilus in 412 Palladius wa* ! permitted to leave his j>lace of exile, but no| to return to his see. Hrtwren 412 and 420 Tillemont places his resi<lrnre of four years near Antino..pi.lis in the 1 hrbaid. of which district and Us numerous ascetirs the Hut. Laus. gives copious details ice. o6-ioo; rr. 137. 138), as well as of the three year* which the writer spent on the M'>uiit of Olivn with Innocent, the presbyter of the churrh there. During this time he mav also have visited Mesopotamia, Svria, and the other portions of the eastern world whirh he si>e«k» of having traversed. The peace of the rhurrh being re-established in 417. P«ll.vltM» wm perhaps restored to his see .t '■ ■ ' H so, he did not reni.iin thrrr : -rt informs us that he was tr.i' *i sec to Aspuna in dalatu I'l ^. vii. 36). He had, however. ' l». of Aspuna in 431, when llus« '>• council of I'lphrsus as bp. ••! (>e. lomctl. ill. 4^o). Ihr //iW..fia /.ii# 1.1,1 wa* composed c. 42". It is now. howrvrr. Krnef. .illv cmsidrrrd {vidf » fk'. tv l"rr.i r»:rr, and Butler, m.ih/) that tl.r N U not tol^ l<lrfitllir«l » r IS Ills conteiii|«.r.ifv. 1 '">• from one I.ausus or Laws n. < inn • ..j... -(.ain 796 PALLADIUS in the imperial household, at whose request it was written and to whom it is dedicated. The writer describes Lausus as a very excellent person, employing his power for the glory of God and the good of the church, and devoting his leisure to self-improvement and study. Though the writer is credulous, his work is an honest and, except as regards supposed miraculous acts, trustworthy account of the mode of life of the solitaries of that age, and a faithful picture of the tone of religious thought then prevalent. It preserves many historical and biographical details which later writers have borrowed ; Sozomen takes many anecdotes without acknowledgment. Socrates refers to Palladius as a leading authority on the lives of the solitaries, but is wrong in calling him a monk and stating that he lived soon after the death of Valens (H. E. iv. 23). The Historia Lausiaca was repeatedly printed in various Latin versions, from very early times, the first ed. appearing soon after the invention of printing. The latest and best authorities are E. Preuschen, Palladius and Rufmus (Giessen, 1897); C.Butler, The Laiisiac History of Palladius (vol. i. critical intro. Camb. 1898 ; vol. ii. Gk. text with intro. and notes, 1904) in Texts and Studies; see also C. H. Turner, The Lausiac Hist, of Pallad. in Jnl. of Theol. Stud. 1905, vi. p. 321. The question whether the Dialogue with Theodore the Deacon is correctly assigned to Palladius of Helenopolis has been much de- bated. It is essentially a literary composition, the characters and framework being alike fictitious. It was undoubtedly written by one who took an active part in the events he describes. No one corresponds so closely in all respects to the ideal presented by the nar- ration as Palladius of Helenopolis, nor is there any really weighty objection to his author- ship. For the closing days of Chrysostom's episcopate it is, with all its faults, simply priceless. Tillem. Mem. Eccl. t. xi. pp. 500-530, pp. 638-646 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 376 ; Du Pin, Auteurs eccl. t. iii. p. 296 ; Cotelerius, Eccl. Grace. Monum. t. iii. p. 563. [e.v.1 Palladius (11), July 6, the first bp. sent to Ireland and the immediate predecessor of St. Patrick. Facts known about him are few, though legends are numerous. His birthplace is placed by some in England, by others in Gaul or Italy ; some even make him a Greek 1 (see Ussher, Eccles. Britann. Antiq. i.vi. c. xvi. of Elrington's ed.). His ecclesiastical position ! has also been disputed. He seems to have been an influential man in the earlier part of the 5th cent., as Prosper of Aquitaine, a con- temporary, mentions him twice, affording the ' only real record of his life which we possess. Under 429 Prosper writes in his Chronicle : ! " By the instrumentality of the deacon Pal- ladius, pope Celestinus sends Germanus, bp. of Auxerre, in his own stead, to displace the heretics and direct the Britons to the Catholic faith." Prosper's words under 431 are, " Ad Scotos in Christum credentes ordinatur a Papa Celestino Palladius et primus Episcopus mit- | titur." This mission of Palladius is referred to in the Book of Armagh, where Tirechan (Analect. Boll. t. ii. p. 67), or more probably some writer towards a.d. 900, calls him Patri- cius as his second name. Rev. J . F. Shearman, PAMMACHIUS in his Loco Patriciana, p. 25 (Dubl. 1879), has discussed with vast resources of legendary lore the different localities in Wicklow and Kildare where Palladius is said to have preached and built churches, but his authorities have little historical value, being specially the Four Masters and Jocelyn. His work contains, however, much interesting matter for students of Irish ecclesiastical history and antiquities, its accuracy being guaranteed by his extensive knowledge of the localities. [g.t.s.] Pammaohius, a Roman senator of the Furian family (Hieron. Ep. Ixvi. 6, ed. Vail.), cousin to Marcella (ib. xlix. 4), and said by Palladius (Hist. Laus. c. 122) to have been related to Melania. He was a friend of Jerome, Paulinus, and afterwards Augustine. He was a fellow- student of Jerome at Rome {Ep. xlviii. i), but apparently not specially connected with church affairs in early life. During Jerome's stay in Rome in 382-385 they probably met, since in 385 Pammachius married Paulina, the daughter of Paula who went with Jerome to Palestine. Pammachius was learned, able, and eloquent {Ep. Ixxvii. i ; xlix. 3). After his marriage, he seems to have occupied himself much with scriptural studies and church life. The controversy relating to Jovinian interested him, and he is thought to have been one of those who prociured the condemnation of Jovinian from pope Siricius (Tillem. x. 568). But Jerome's books against Jovinian (pub. in 392) appeared to Pamma- chius to be too violent. He bought up the I copies and wrote to Jerome asking him to moderate his language. Jerome refused, but i thanked Pammachius for his interest, hailed him as a well-wisher and defender, and pro- I mised to keep him informed of his future writings {Epp. xlviii., xlix.). Thenceforth their intercourse was constant. Pammachius is said by Jerome (xlix. 4) to have been designated for the sacerdotium at this time by the whole city of Rome and the pontiff. But he was never ordained. His growing convictions and those of his wife, the fact that all his children died at birth and that his wife died in childbirth (a.d. 397, see Hieron. Ep. Ixvi., addressed to him 2 years later), led him to take monastic vows. He, however, still appeared among the senators in their pmrple in the dark dress of a monk {ib. Ixvi. 6). He showed his change of life by munificent gifts and a great entertainment to the poor (Paulinus, Ep. xiii 11 ; see also Pall. Hist. Laus. 122). With Fabiola he erected a hospital at Portus, which became world- famous (Hieron. Ep. Ixvi. 11). At the commencement of the Origenistic controversy, Jerome wrote (in 395) to Pam- machius his letter de Opt. Genere Interpretandi {Ep. Ivii. ed. Vail.). On Rufinus coming to Rome Pammachius, with Occanus and Mar- cella, watched his actions in Jerome's interest, and on his pubUcation of a translation of Origen's Uepi 'Apx'^" wrote to Jerome to request a full translation of the work {Epp. Ixxxiii., Ixxxiv.). These friends also procured the condemnation of Origenism by pope Anas- tasius in 401, and to them Jerome's apology against Rufiuus was addressed, and the book cont. Joannem Hierosol. During the Donatist schism in Africa Pammachius, who had PAMPHILUS property in that |>r.Aiii. <■. wroti* {<■• tlir propl.- of Nuiuidia, wlu-rc tlu- si liisiu liad Ixgun ' > hortiiiK tluiM to rotiirn to tho unity i>! : church. This lottor brought hun int.> i. tions with AuRUstinc, who wrote (in ^oi) t hini {t^p. Iviii.) ronKralul.ttiiiK hiiii on an action likely to help in healing tlir s> hisni, and desiring him to read the letter to his brother- senators, that they ini|;ht do likewise. Alter this we hear of I'atnn>a( hius only in connexion with the Bibh--workof Jerome, who dedicated to him his commentaries on the Minor Pro- phets(4o6)and Haniel uo;), and at his reijuest undertook the commentaries on Is. and Lzek. (prefaces to Comm. on .\m. Dan. Is. and Ezek.). Before the latter was finisheil, Pam- , machius had died in the siege of Rome by ! Alaric, a.d. 409. [w.ii.f.) i Pamphllus d), presbyter of Caesarea. the' intimate friend (Hieron. de Scripl. Eccl. 75) ! and literary guide of Eusebius the church historian, who ad<ipted his name as a surname, calling himself ¥.i<fidio% \\anipi\ov. Kusebius composed his friend's biography in three books. The work is entirely lost, and our only know- ledge of this chief among the Biblical scholars of his age is derived from a few scattered [ notices in the existing writings of Eusebius, 1 Jerome, and Photius. Pamphilus was a native | of Phoenicia, and, if we accept the doubtful j authority of Metaphrastes, born at Berytus, of a wealthy and honourable family. Having received his earlier education in his native I city, he passed to Alexandria, where he 1 devoted himself to theological studies under Pierius, the head of its catechetical school (Routh, Rcl. Sacr. iii. 430; Phot. Cod. 118). Pamphilus afterwards settled at Caesarea, of which church he became a presbyter, prob- 1 ably during the episcopate of Agapius. Here he commenced the work of his life, hunting for books illustrative of Holy Scripture from all parts of the world. The library thus formed was subsequently repaired, after its 1 injuries during the persecution of Diocletian, by Acacius and Euxoius, the successors of Eusebius in the see of Caesarea (Hieron. Ep. j xxxiv. vol. i. p. 155). Eusebius had cata- l logued it (//. £. vi. 32). It was especially 1 rich in codices of the Scriptures, many tran- scribed or corrected by Pamphilus's own hand. In this Eusebius was a zealous coadjutor I (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c. 81). Jerome speaks of Palestinian manuscripts of the LXX current in the Syrian church, which, having been carefully prepared by Origen, were pub- lished by the two friends (Hieron. Pratt. »»» Paralip. : adv. Rufin.u. 27. X-'\\- p.522). Among other priceless literary treasures now lost was a copy of the so-called Hebrew text of the Gospel of St. Matthew (Hieron. de Script. Eccl. c. 3) and the Tetrapla and Hexapla of Origeii in the original copy (Hieron. in '/•/. iii. y, t. vii. p. 734). In the catechetical »cho<.l of Alexandria Pamphilus had conceived a ii»<»t ardent admiration for Origen, with w! works he made it his special object to «i.: bis librarv, copving the greater part hin (Yi'KTon. de Script. Eccl. c. 7*,). Jeroinegli. in the possession of Origen's commentaru-* ou the Minor Prophets in 25 volumes in Pam- philus's autograph. Pamphilus proved bii affection for the memory and fame of Origen PANTACNUS fa? ■■-i to Cinnplrtrd l>rl< rr hl« dr4lh. Ihr tilth brtn( a«ldr*l bv l-.UM-bnu I'tv titit, i A x\h\. l'hotni% give% a brirl tV. of which wr have bk 1 .t« Latin vrr%ion ol Km .i^. iv. pp. V •• \^ .nti hail aril : .• pertv ol v<^ blUS d< V : 4U III nee«l. cittut lit lli< : '>>« mind, or the »oul. I !;>• tures he causeil to l- i.l« he distributed gratuil' 11 U. «!il. l.r ui. tally supplied the tniiporal waiit% "i \\\"W in dis- tress (Eus. de Marly. Palatil. r. 11 , Hirri«. adv. Kuftn. i. 9. t. li. p. 4»>.\)- In 307 Pamphllus was committed to prtv>€» bv I'rbanus, thr |>rr»^riitin(r govcmttr ol the city, and for tw cheered bv tli' self, Eusebius 1 "•• Ep. 84). Paiii II- fession of his \' '• le centre of a br.i l* shone out as tl in 309, when Firmihaiui!. had -u ■ •. • Irj L rt ,(iiu» as governor. The library he i.illectrd wa« destroyed when Caesarea wa» taken by the Arabs in the 7th cent. (« v.) PaneretitU dl, {St. Pancroi), mart\T at Rome on the Via Aurelia, a.d. J04 ; a Phry- gian bv birth, but baptized at Rome bv the pope himself. He ".uflerrtl when onlv 1 4 vrar« of age with his uncle Diouvmus. Hi» martyr- dom was verv celebrated in the rarlv axe*. His church still gives a title to a cardinal, and to a well-known parish church in London. Gregory of Tours {de Glor. Marll. i. ^(^) lelb us that his tomb outside the wall* <•! Rome was so sacred that the devil at once seurd those who swore falsely before it. (.rrnory the Great mentions the martyr in hi« fpp. (iv. i» and vi. 49), and in Homilv (xxvii.) 00 St. John (Ceill. lii. agiTilIrm M^m v jho ; /l.-l. S.S. B .11 M.U. II. 17 . H' ■ — ^"«- p. 407 : .Marl. K,>m. IV/., Is. PantMDtU, (hlrf of the I .1 <<l of AUxaiulria. in the !■•,., .ud cent, and perhaps lb- : il'f i»d- Of his previous life I «»lh ccf- tainty. We are n^t u." • : *"" »*• originally a Christian .1 Li «>• version. Our authoritir* '•r, that he was trained in the t.i v, and owed to this trainiiiK mU' ■' * as a teacher. OriKrii, in a i ""d by Eusebius (W f vi j<j' -«« example — thri . ■ ^o adduce — •<! a ' ** hMIIS/-H of his »• . . .tb '.)>• . Jv Jrf luc Jt i >r Jii jO 798 PANTAENUS probably without authority) that Pantaenus brought this to Alexandria. He also repre- sents that the people of India had heard his fame as a teacher and sent a deputation to solicit this mission. This is by no means incredible, considering the celebrity of Alex- andria as a seat of learning. But Jerome raises a difficulty when he names Demetrius as the bishop by whom he was sent. For Euse- bius places the accession of Demetrius to the patriarchate in the loth year of Commodus (//. E. V. 22 ; cf. Chron.), a.d. 189 ; while he represents Pantaenus as head of the Alex- andrian school in his ist year (//. E. v. 9, 10) and distinctly conveys that this appointment was after hisreturn from his Indian mission. There is a like conflict of authority con- cerning the relation of Pantaenus to Clement of Alexandria. Eusebius (v. 11) unhesitat- ingly assumes that Pantaenus is the unnamed master whom Clement in his Stromateis (i. p. 322, Potter) places above all the great men by whose teaching he was profited, " last met, but first in power," in whom he " found rest." To this authority we may add that of Pam- philus, who was principal author of their joint Apology for Origen; for Photius {Bibl. cxviii.) states on the authority of that work (now lost) that Clement " was the hearer of Pantae- nus and his successor in the school." This information Pamphilus no doubt had from his master Pierius, himself head of the same school, a follower of Origen and probably less than 50 years his junior. Maximus the Con- fessor (Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.) styles Pan- taenus " the master " [Kad-qyTjrriv) of Clement. But Philip of Side (c. 427) in his Hist. Chrts- liana, as we learn from a fragment first pub. by Dodwell, made " Clement the disciple of Athenagoras, and Pantaenus of Clement." We unhesitatingly prefer the witness of Euse- bius. Dodwell's attempts to discredit it are ineffectual. This contradiction, however, and the difficulty as to the chronology of Pantaenus, may be solved, or at least ac- counted for, if we suppose that Pantaenus was head of the school both before and after his sojourn in India, and Clement in his absence. Origen afterwards tlius quitted and resumed the same office. If Pantaenus was the senior, Clement was the more brilliant ; and at the close of the 2nd cent, it may well have seemed a question which was master and which disciple. This hypothesis agrees with the probable date of element's headship ; and likewise with the note in the Chronicon of Eusebius, under year of Pertinax, or 2nd of Severus (c. 193), where we read that Clement was then in Alexandria, " a most excellent teacher (5i5a.a KaXos) and shining light (6ie\aixir() of Christian phil- osophy," and Pantaenus " was distinguished as an expositor of the Word of God." Thus also Alexander, bp. of Jerusalem (ap. Eus. H. E. vi. 14), in a letter to Origen, couples the names of Pantaenus and Clement (placing, however, Pantaenus first), as " fathers," and speaks of both as recently deceased. This letter shows, further, that this Alexander and the illustrious Origen himself were almost certainly pupils of Pantaenus. We do not know the date of his death, but the Chronicon {vid. sup.) confirms Jerome in PANTAENUS prolonging his activity into the reign of Severus (193-211), and not improbably, as Jerome states, he lived into the following reign — a statement repeated in the (later) Roman Martyrology. Photius is thus wrong in be- lieving that Pantaenus was a hearer not only "of those who had seen the apostles" (which he may well have been), but also " of some of the apostles themselves." Aman alive after 193 and not the senior of Clement by more than a generation could not possibly have been bom so early as to have been a hearer even of St. John. Photius was probably misled by a too literal construction of Clement's statement [Strom. U.S.) — that his teachers " had received the true tradition of the blessed doctrine straight from the holy apostles Peter, James, John, and Paul." Eusebius tells us that Pantaenus " inter- preted the treasures of the divine dogmas " ; Jerome, that he left " many commentaries on the Scriptures." Both however indicate that the church owed more to his spoken utterances than to his writings. The two extant frag- ments (see Routh, Rel. Sac. i. p. 378) appear to be relics of his oral teaching. One bears the character of a verbal reply to a question ; it is preserved by Maximus the Confessor {Scholia in S. Greg. Naz.), who, in illustration of the teaching of Dionysius the Areopagite concerning the divine will, tells us that Pan- taenus when asked by certain philosophers, ■' in what manner Christians suppose God to know things that are ? " replied, " Neither by sense things sensible, nor by intellect things intelligible. For it is not possible that He Who is above the things that are, should apprehend the things that are according to the things that are. But we say that He knows the i things that are, as acts of His own will (lis tdia i d(\T)fji.aTa) ; and we give good reason for so ' saying ; for if by act of His will He hath made all things (which reason will not gainsay), and I if it is ever both pious and right to say that I God knows His own will, and He of His will 1 hath made each thing that hath come to be ; ! therefore God knows the things that are as } acts of His own will, inasmuch as He of His I will hath made the things that are." The j other, contained in the Eclogae e Propheticis appended to the works of Clement, is intro- duced by " Our Pantaenus used to say " (?\f7e), and lays down as a principle in inter- preting prophecy that it " for the most part utters its sayings indefinitely [as to timel, using the present sometimes for the future and sometimes for the past." Anastasius of Sinai (7th cent.), in his Contemplations on the Hexaemeron (quoted by Routh, i. p. 15), twice I cites Pantaenus as one authority for an inter- i pretation according to which Christ and his I church are foreshewn in the history of the creation of Paradise (I. p. 860 ; VII. cont. p. j 893 in Bibl. Max. PP. t. ix. ed. Lyons, 1677), j the true inference from these references i apparently being that Pantaenus led the way in that method of spiritual or mystical inter- pretation of O.T., usually associated with his more famous followers, Clement and Origen. Anastasius describes him as " priest of the church of the Alexandrians (r^j 'AXefaj-Spf'w;' ifpei's) " ; which is noteworthy in the ab- sence of all direct information concerning the PAPA time and place, or even the fact, of hi* ordina- , tion. That he was a |>riest may be interretl — j not indeed from his headship of a sch>M.|, (or ! Origen was a laynian. but — from the fact that he was sent by his bishop to evanReliie India. Besides authors quoted, see Baronius, Ann., s.a. 183; Cave. I'rimtltve Fathtts, p. i8s (1677); Hint. Lit. t.i. p. 51 (UkHS); Du I'in. AuUurseccUs. t. i. pt. i. p. 184; I.ardner, Crrdt- bility, c. xxi. ; l.e ^uien. Oriens Chr. t. ii. coll. 382, 301 ; Tillem. Mim. t. iii. p. 170. [j.c.w]. Papa. [N'fstokian CiiiKcii.) Paphnutlus (2), bp. in Upper Thcbias. who sufiFered mutiiatiim and banishment for the faith (Socr. H. £. i. 11 ; Theod. H. K. i. 7). At the council of Nicaea a.d. 325, he was much honoured as a confessor, specially bv Constantine(Socr. M.S.), and earnestly opposed the enforcement of the law of clerical celibacy, on the ground of both principle and expeiliencv, and prevailed (16.). He closely adhered to the : cause of St. Athanasius, and attended him at I the council of Tyre, a.d. 335. Rufinus (//. K. ' I. 17), followed by Sozomen"(//. Ii. ii. 25). tells a dramatic story of his there reproaching Maximus of Jerusalem for being in Arian com- pany and explaining to him the exact pi^ition of affairs. Fleury, H. E. xv. c. 26; Ceill. Aul. sacr. iii. 420, 450 ; Boll. Ada SS. Sept. 11, iii. 778. [J.O.] i Paphnutlus (5) (PafmUius, Pynuphius, sur- named Buhalus. and Cephala), an anchoret i and priest in the Scetic desert in Egypt, j Cassian's words (Co//, iv. c. i) regarding nisi promotion of abbat Daniel to the diaconate and priesthood have been held to prove that | a presbyter had the power of ordaining, but j Bingham (Ant. bk. ii. 3, 7) will not admit that Cassian is to be so understood. When j Cassian visited him in 395, he was 90 years ' old, but hale and active (Coll. iii. c. i). He seems to have fled twice from the Scetic into I Syria for greater s<^litude and perfection (Cass, de Coen. Inst. iv. cc 30, 31), and with j some others had in 373 already found nfuge at Diocaesarea in Palestine (1 illem. vi. 1 250, 251, ed. 1732). In the anthropomorphic j controversy between Th.-ophilus bp. of Alex- 1 andria and the monks of the Kgyptian desert, j Paphnutius took the side of the bishop and ' orthodoxy (Cass. Coll. x. c. 2) ; his attempt to convert the aged Serapion and his failurr, till Photinus came, is very curious (ib. 3). (j-i..) PaplaS (1), bp. of ' Hierapolis in Phrygia i (Eus. H. E. iii. 36) in the first half of 2nd cent. Lightfoot says (Colon, p. 48), " Papias, or (as , it is very frequently written in inscriptions) | Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis, not only in inscriptions (Boeckh, 3930, 3912 a, add.), but even on coins (Mionnet, iv. p. 301). This is explained by the fact that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh, 3912 a. Iloir/^t lit auiTTifn)." The date of Papias used to be regarded as determined by a notice in the Paschal Chronicle, which was thought to record his martyrdom at Pergamus undrr a.d. 163. But we have no ground for ass<-rt- ing that Papias lived so late as 163, and we shall see reason for at least placing his literary activity considerably earlier in the century. His name is famous as the writer of a treatise in five books called Expoitttom of PAPIAS 7M OratUsofthtl.ofJ (.\o-,.„» K ...... r .■^•^^^*ut). which title wr «hjll rlv. Th» object of the bo.,k tw^n to throw light on the 1. rt|^tallv bv the hell) of oral trailltl u^ w !.n !i I'jpU* had collrcteil fron> thofir who h4tl met mrtnltrr* of the jpo»to|ir .inlr. Tli4t !'..i i . . I.\r,| when It wa» still p.»k%l|ilr |o n. ii« has givrn gtrat iinporianir ; v. though oiijv soliir Vrrv (rw ' it work rrin.iiii. livrrv word 1 i« has brrii ri^idlv s< rutiiiixr<l, . v» reasonable whrre s<ilittlr is Wi t« have Ivrn built on the silmi < : .., . ut sundry matters whu h it is s>ii.|..-».«l lir ..ui(hl to have mentioned and .issoniol tliat hr did n.>t. We give at Iniglh thr lirsi jiid m<>«l important of the (ragiiiriiis, a t>ortion of the preface prevrvcd bv i:usrl.iu» (111. 39). from which we can infer thr ..|i)r<tof the work and the resources wlii( h Pjpi.is 1 lainietl to have available. " And I will not srruplr »\%,t to give for thee a place alon^ with my inter- pretations to whatsoever at aiiv time I Well learned from the elders .ind well store«i up in memory, guaranteeing its truth. For I did not, like the generality, take pleasure in thov who have much to say. l>ut in thov who teach the truth ; nor in those who relate their strange comniandmeiils, but in those who record such as were given from the lord to the Faith and come from the Truth itsrif. And if ever any one came who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire as to the dis- courses ol the elders, what was said bv An- drew, or what by Peter, or what bv Pliilii', or what bv Thomas or James, or what bv John or Matthew or anv other of the diM iples oj the Lord ; and the things which Arislioii and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, sav. F«>r I did not think that I could get so much proAt from the contents ni b.x'ks as from the utter- ances of a living and abiding voice." The singular "for thee" in the oprning Words implies that the work of Papias wai inscribed to some individual. The hrst sen- tence of the extract had evidently |o|h>Wrd oue in which the writer had spoken ..( the " inter- pretations " which appear to have t>een tlie main subject of his treatise, and f-.r joining his traditions with wliic h he conceives an ap<>io4(y ner.-^sarv. Thus we see that Papias IS not making a first attempt t.- write the lile ..| our Lord or a history of the aposiles, but assume* the previous existence of a written lr<orU. Papias enumerates the ultimate sources of bl« traditions in two 1 lasses : Andrew. Peter, aud others, of whom he speaks in the past truse ; Aristion and John the hider. of whom he speaks in the present. As the pa»%a|(p l« generally iiiulerst.HKl, Papias only claims a second hand knowledge of what these had rr. lated, but had Inqulretl from any who had conferred with elder*, what Andrew. Peter, etc., had said, and what |.ihn and AiUlioo Wfte saying ; the last i" 1 - .. i^.^ i :% .ne* then surviving. Hut ^le is a I haiige of pron t<i think that there is ai. 'at his meaning, however lU n; Hivcvl. »a4 that he learne«l, by inquuy li'in others, thtnr^ that Andrew, Peter, and others had said, aud aho stored up in hi* memory thU»o which 800 PAPIAS Aristioa and John said in his own hearing. 1 Eusebius certainly understands Papias to claim to have been a hearer of this John and Aristion. The word "elders" is ordinarily used of men of a former generation, and would | be most naturally understood here of men of j the first generation of Christians, if it were ] not that in the second clause the title seems to be refused to Aristion, who is nevertheless described as a disciple (by which we must understand a personal disciple) of our Lord ; and as those mentioned in the first group are all apostles, the word " elder," as Papias used it, may have included, besides antiquity, the idea of official dignity. As to whether the John mentioned with Aristion is different from John the apostle previously mentioned, see Johannes (444) Presbyter. The fragment quoted enables us to fix with- in certain limits the date of Papias. He is evidently separated by a whole generation from the apostolic age ; he describes himself as living when it was not exceptional to meet persons who had been hearers of the apostles, and (if we understand him rightly) he had met two who professed to have actually seen our Lord Himself. Eusebius tells that Philip the apostle (some suppose that he ought to have said Philip the deacon) came to reside at Hierapolis with his daughters ; and that Papias, on the authority of these daughters, tells a story of Philip raising a man from the dead. Eusebius certainly understood Papias to describe himself as contemporary with those daughters and as having heard the story from them. U these were they whom St. Luke describes as prophesying at Caesarea in 58, and if they were young women then, they might have been still alive at Hierapolis be- tween 100 and no. But as Papias speaks of his inquiries in the past tense, a considerable time had probably elapsed before he published the results. On' the whole, we shall not be far wrong in dating the work c. 130. Papias evidently lived after the rise of Gnosticism and was not unaffected by the controversies occasioned by it. Strong as- ceticism was a feature of some of the earliest Gnostic sects ; and their commandments, "Touch not, taste not, handle not," may well have been " the strange commandments " to which Papias refers. Lightfoot is probably right in thinking that the sarcasm in the phrase " those who have so very much to say " may have been aimed at the work on the Gospel by Basilides in 24 books, and some similar productions of the Gnostic schools of which the later book Pistis Sophia is a sample. Of the traditions recorded by Papias, what has given rise to most discussion and has been the foundation of most theories is what he relates about the Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, which he is the first to mention by name. Concerning Mark he says, " This also the elder [John] said : Mark having become the inter- preter of Peter wrote accurately everything that he remembered of the things that were either said or done by Christ ; but however not in order. For he neither heard the Lord nor had been a follower of His ; but after- wards, as I said, was a follower of Peter, who framed his teaching according to the needs [of his hearers], but not with the design of PAPIAS giving a connected account of the Lord's dis- courses [or oracles]. Thus Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For he took heed to one thing : not to omit any of the things he had heard, or to set down anything falsely therein." Concerning Matthew, all that re- mains of what Papias says is, " So then Matthew composed the oracles in Hebrew, and every one interpreted them as he could." For a long time no one doubted that Papias here spoke of our Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark ; and mainly on the authority of these passages was founded the general belief of the Fathers, that St. Matthew's Gospel had been originally written in Hebrew, and St. Mark's founded on the teaching of Peter. But some last-century critics contended that our present Gospels do not answer the descrip- tions given by Papias. There is a striking re- semblance between the two as we have them at present ; but Papias's description, it is said, would lead us to think of them as very different. St. Matthew's Gospel, according to Papias, was a Hebrew book, containing an account only of our Lord's discourses ; for so Schleiermacher translates to. \6yi.a, which we . have rendered " oracles." St. Mark, on the I other hand, wrote in Greek and recorded the acts as well as the words of Christ. Again, St. Mark's Gospel, which in its present state has an arrangement as orderly as St. Matthew's, was, according to Papias, not written in order. The conclusion which has been drawn is, that Papias's testimony relates not to our Gospels of SS. Matthew and Mark, but to their un- known originals ; and accordingly many con- stantly speak of " the original Matthew," the " Ur-Marcus," though there is no particle of evidence beyond what may be extracted from this passage of Papias that there ever was any Gospel by SS. Matthew or Mark different from those we have. Renan even undertakes to give an account of the process by which the two very distinct works known to Papias, St. Matthew's collection of discourses, and I St. Mark's collection of anecdotes, came into I their present similar forms. In the early times, ' every possessor of anything that purported to be a record of our Lord desired to have the story complete ; and would write into the margin of his book matter he met elsewhere, and so the book of St. Mark's anecdotes was enriched by a number of traits from St. Matthew's " discourses " and vtce versa. If this theory were true, we should expect to find in early times a multitude of gospels differing in their order and selection of facts. Why we should have now exactly four ver- 1 sion's of the story is hard to explain on this I hypothesis. We should expect that, by such I mutual assimilation, all would in the end I have been reduced to a single gospel. The j soUtary fact to which Renan appeals in sup- port of his theory in reality refutes it — the fact, i.e., that the'pericope of the adulteress (John vii. 53-viii. 11) is absent from some MSS. and differently placed in others. Such an instance is so unusual that critics have generally inferred that this pericope cannot be a genuine part of St. John's Gospel; but if Renan's theory were true, the phenomena present in a small degree in this case ought to PAPIAS be seea in a multitiulc of lascs. Thrrr oi!.-).> to be many i>arabl.-s aiul imra< irs ..| ^^ we should be uiucrtaiii whcilur thrv ^ comiuon to all the evanuchsU or •>.•■:. one, and what placr lit that our i occupy. Further, accordui^ to K> ;. thesis, St. Mark's desii;u was u». i hensive than St. Matthew's. St. .M.uth. « ..nu related our Lord's discoiu-scs; St. Mark, the " things said or done by Christ," i <• t> t'l discourses and anecdotes. St. M.it' would thusditiertrom St.. Matthew and St. .Matthews read like an ali . St. Mark's, lixactly the opposite »> i .,. We count it a mere blunder to tr.insiate Xiiyta "discourses" as if it were the s.ime as Xdyoit. InN.T.(.\rtsvii. 3S; Koni. lii. 2 ; Heb. V. 12; I. Pel. iv. 11) the word has its . i.»ssi< al meaning, " oracles," and is applied to the in- spired utterances of liod in O. I . Nor is there reason to think that when St. I'aul, e.g., savs that to the Jews were committed the orach-s of God, he confined this epithet to thos*- parts of O.T. which contained divine sayings and refused it to those narrative parts from which he so often drew lessons (Kom. iv. 3; I. Cor. x. I, xi. 8; Gal. iv. ii). Philo quotes as a \iyK>¥ the narrative in Gen. iv. is, " The Lord set a mark upon Cain," etc., and the words (Deut. X.), " The Lord God is his inheritance." Similarly the .\postolic Fathers. In Clement (LCor. 53) rd .\67ta roO 610O is used as equiva- lent to rat ifpds 7/>a^t. (See also c. 19, Folyc. ad Phil. 7.) .As Papias's younger con- temporary Justin Martyr tells us that the reading of the Gospels had in his time become part of Christian public worship, we may safely pronounce the silentsubstitutionof one Gospel for another a thing inconceivable; and we conclude that, as we learn from J ustin that the Gospels had been set on a level with the O.T. in the public reading of the church, so we know from Papias that the ordinary name tA Xir/ia for the O.T. books had in Chnstian use been extended to the Gospels which were called -a Ki'i>ia.ka \i>ta, the "oracles of our Lord." There is no reason to imagine the work of Papias limited U) an exposition of our Lord's discourses ; wc translate therefore its title Ki'ptaicwi' \oyiii>v tj»n^"», "Expositions of the Gospels." The manner in which Papias speaks of St. Mark's Gospel quite agrees with the inspired authority, which the title, as we understand it, implies. Three times in this short fragnimt he attests St. .Mark's perfect accuracy. " .Mark wrote down accurately everything that he re- membered. " " .Mark committed 110 error." " He made it his rule not to omit anything he bad heard or to set down any false statement therein." Yet, for some rcas<jn, Papias w.i* dissatished with St. Mark's arrangement thought it necessary to apologiic for it. account of the passage is s.iti^f n i f v ■. does not explain why, if I' St. .Mark so much, he was di order. Here the hypothec once, that P.ipias only p • ments unlike in kind, the discourses, the other of aii> ing St. .Mark's accuracy as "'• oi.. . ..i-.^ would certainly have accepted hu order unteM least kn <«• onier. but oi Lightf>H.t <|. S'lutl St. Luh cxt.int has be. with 1 work • ' Ml ihU 41 i^l irk .cbt M. lu ^tit ..II. give,. ; thatEu rcas.>n t de<:essors I.j uiuliAiiUi Hilgenteld hnds in 1 echoes of the prefa.r which induce him to l> that gospel. To us carry convirti -ti. bni ancc th.i! " In one ii he lal ,10- ■d L.o..k» ..« the L he preface of 1 to St. I ukr\ . an.jo. 'aplAt ■.■.,cm *X' t«; in anot:. Jud.isl> > recoiuile the story in lllthe.\cts. One ex t have been part of a words preserve*! by St as lightning fall from Hut if Papias knew language with respeit explained. St. t.ukr int<nti.'n t > write in ul 1 to •.:.al to (d't .Lake. ■ I UUtid heaven." St. I.uk.'> G -Si t...st M % pr.: :>atait I. hb 111* ■f , \ iir c< luUl. 1 itu*. *•' iM 61 802 PAPiAS true that Papias did not use our present Gospels, we believe that he was the first to harmonize them, and to proclaim the principle that no apparent disagreement between them affects their substantial truth. Remembering the solicitude Papias here displays to clear the Gospels from all suspicion of error, and the recognition of inspired authority implied in the title Xdyia, we cannot admit the inference which has been drawn from the last sentence of the fragment, that Papias attached little value to the Gospels as compared with the viva voce traditions he could himself attest ; and we endorse Lightfoot's explanation, that it was the Gnostic apocryphal writings which Papias found useless in his attempts to illustrate the Gospel narrative accepted by the church. As we have seen, the extant fragments of Papias do not mention the Gospels of SS. Luke or John by name. Eusebius says, however, that Papias uses testimonies from St. John's first epistle. There is therefore very strong presumption that Papias was acquainted with the Gospel, a presumption strengthened by the fact that the list of the apostles in the frag- ment of the preface contains names in the order in which they occur in St. J ohn's Gospel, placing Andrew before Peter, and includes some, such as Thomas and Philip, who outside that Gospel have littleprominence in theGospel record, and that it gives to our Lord the Johannine title, the Truth. Irenaeus (v. 36) has preserved a fragment containing an express recognition of St. J ohn's Gospel ; and though Irenaeus only gives it as a saying of the elders, Lightfoot (Contemp. Rev., u.s.) has given con- vincing reasons for thinking that Papias is his authority, a conclusion which Harnack accepts as highly probable. An argument prefixed to a Vatican (9th cent.) MS. of St. John's Gospel quotes a saying of Papias about that Gospel and speaks of Papias as having been John's amanuensis. On the latter statement, see Lightfoot, u.s. p. 854 ; but the evidence seems good enough to induce us to beUeve that the work of Papias contained some notices of St. John's Gospel which Eusebius has not thought it worth while to mention. Papias belonged to Asia Minor, where the Fourth Gospel according to all tradition was written, and where its authority was earliest recognized ; and he is described by Irenaeus as a companion of Polycarp, of whose use of St. John's Gospel we cannot doubt. Euse- bius does not mention that Papias used the Apocalypse ; but we learn that he did from other trustworthy authorities, and on the subject of Chiliasm Papias held views most distasteful to Eusebius. We learn from Irenaeus (v. 33) that Papias, in his fourth book, told, on the authority of " the Elder " [John], how our Lord had said that " the days will come when there shall be vines having 10,000 stems, and on each stem 10,000 branches, and on each branch 10,000 shoots, and on each shoot 10,000 clusters, and in each cluster 10,000 grapes, and each grape when pressed shall give 25 measures of wine. And when any of the saints shall take hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, I am a better cluster, take me, and bless the Lord through me." The story tells of similar predictions concerning other productions of the earth, and PAPIAS relates how the traitor Judas expressed his unbelief and was rebuked by our Lord. The ultimate original of this story of Papias was a Jewish apocryphal book made known by Ceriani, Monumenta Sac. et Profan., in 1866. See the Apocalypse of Baruch, c. 29, in Fritzsche, Libri Apoc. Vet. Test. p. 666. To this, and possibly other similar stories, Euse- bius no doubt refers when he says that Papias had related certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour and other things of a fabulous character. Amongst these Eusebius quotes the doctrine that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ would be exhibited for a thousand years in a sensible form on this earth ; and he considers that things spoken mystically by the apostles had wrongly been understood literally by Papias, who " was a man of very poor understanding as his writings shew." The common text of Eusebius else- where (iii. 26) calls him a very learned man, deeply versed in the Holy Scriptmres ; but the weight of evidence is against the genuineness of the clause containing this encomium, which probably expresses later church opinion. Eusebius tells nothing as to Papias's use of St. Paul's Epistles, and, though the silence of Eusebius alone would not go far, Papias may have found no occasion to mention them in a work on the gospel history. In looking for traditions of our Lord's life, Papias would naturally inquire after the testimony of those who had seen Him in the flesh. The very gratuitous inference from the assumed fact that Papias does not quote St. Paul, that he must have been Ebionite and anti- Pauline, is negatived by the fact that, as Eusebius testi- fies, he used St. Peter's Epistle, a work the teaching of which, as all critics allow, is com- pletely Pauline. If the silence of Eusebius as to the use by Papias of St. John's Gospel and St. Paul's Epistles affords any presumption, it is that Papias gave no indication that his opinion about the undisputed books differed from that which, in the time of Eusebius, was received as unquestioned truth. For Eusebius thought meanly of Papias and, if he had known him to have held wrong opinions about the Canon, would have been likely to have men- tioned it in disparagement of his authority in support of Chiliasm. Eusebius says that Papias tells a story of a woman accused before our Lord of many sins, a story also to be found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews. There is a reasonable prob- ability that this story may be that of the woman taken in adultery, now found in the common text of St. John's Gospel. Eusebius does not say that Papias took this story from the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and the presumption is that Papias gave it as known to him by oral tradition and not from a written source. If so, Papias need have had no direct knowledge of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Papias has a story about Justus Barsabas having taken a cup of poison without injury. If Papias's copy of St. Mark contained the disputed verses at the end, this story might appropriately have been told to illustrate the verse, " If they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them," a promise instances of the fulfilment of which are very rare, whether in history or legend. A story of the kind is told PAPYLUS of the apostle John, but is probal.lv l.itrr tb^n Papias, or we should have been likciv to hav« heard of it here. Georgius Hainartohis quotes Papias as saying, in his second b.K>k. that the ap.>stlr John had been killed bv the Jews. That there is some blunder is clear ; b<»t I tirtitfo t has made it very probable from ■ with a passage in Origen that a i of Papias is quoted, but with thr a line or two. Papias. in coniiii. ..i.,,», ,> Matt. XX. 22, may verv well h.ive s.iui, as diws Origen, that John h. id been cond.iunetl bv the Roman emperor to exile at Patmos and that James had been killtnl by the Jews. In JoAN.vES Presbyter we quote several authorities (including Irenaeus) who speak uf Papias as a disciple of John the Kvangelisl. He is called by Anastasius of Sinai 6 Tdrv and 6 ToXi'i, and passed in the church as an authority of the highest rank. Jerome (Ep. ad Lucinium, 71 Vallars.) contradicts a report that he had translated the writings of Papias and Polycari>, decl.iring that he had neither leisure nor ability for such a task. He d.>es not, in his writings, shew any signs that he knew more of the work of I'apias than he could have learned from Eusebius. The latest trace of the existence of the work of Papias is that an inventory, a.d. 1218, of the possessions of the cathedral of Nismes (Menard. Hist, civil, ecclls. et litUr. de la vtlle de Sismts) contains the entry " Item inveni inclaustro — librum Papie librum de verbis Domini." No trace of this MS. has been recovered. The fragments of Papias have been assembled in various collections, e.g. Grabe {SpiciUgium), Galland and Routh (Rel. Sac), but can best be read in Gebhardt and Harnark's A post. Fathers, pt. ii. ; a trans, is in the vi.l. of .ApoU. Fathers in Ante-Sicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). Dissertations on Papias are very numerous ; we may mention important articles in the Theol. Studten und Kritiken by Schleiemiacher, 1832, Zahn. 1S67, Steilz, 1868; an essay by Weiffenbaf h ((iicssen, 1876), a reply by Leini- bach (( iotha, i S78), and a rejoinder bv Weiffen- bach, Jahrbuch f. prot. Theol. 1877 ; Milgenfeld in his /ourna/. 1875, 1877, 1879; I,ightfo..t, Con- temp. Rev. 1867, 1875 ; Harnack, Chronologte. Others of the name of Papias are — a martyr with Victorinus (.\ssemani, Act. Mart. Or. et Ou. ii. 60) ; a martyr with Onesiinus at Kom«-. Feb. 16 ; a physician at Laixiic ea (I-abric. liibt. Gr. vii. 154) ; and a grammarian I'api.is in the nth cent., a note "f whose on the .Maries of the Gospel was published by (irabe atiiong the fragments of Papias of Hierapolis and ac- cepted as such until Lightfo<it established the true authorship. fc.s.) PapyiUS (/'apiriMS or Papyrius, as Kufinus, and Ado after him, write), April 13. In 1881 Aube brought some new facts to light respect- ing this luartvr from the (.reek .MSS. in the Bibliothique Salionale. Papylus is mentioned by Eusebius (//. E. iv. 15) at the ind of his account of Polycarp's martyrdom. Kumart (p. 27), in his preface to the Arts of l'..lv( ar|>, says that according to Hu';.'- ■ '' ■■ - '' - ■• ■' his companions Carpus and .\ . about the same time as P ■! mistake of the Bollandist Mli. out of the Latin version of l.u>tbni.s wind* PA9CBNTIUS It'll Ih.T Alt.. Uttrrlv W..rthlrA«. l! ftOS the lU ' hr •:■• • ■■ • , ■ .• .►... oi M. .\lU.■ll.l^ ..I ..| .S. vrr.l> .. t » 1 Parmenianut, su<. -ss.r \< n ii.itii< ih* (.rrat. wh.. l..ll,,wr,l M.»)..iimi» ..» |i..nj|it( bp. of larlhage. Optutu* ralU hini '!>«•»• griniLH," 1.0. probably not a native <>( Alrtra. Having adopted Donaliit <>pinloii«, be »uc- ceetled Donatusr. 3<lo. wa<» l>ant*hr<l a.d. Ji«, and rrtuniixl under the decree <■( Julian a.d. \bi (.-Vug. Retract ii ir; •'!- ' i^f^n ap. \\\cT'>i\.upp.\ ' '• iiie, if not earlier, .w extant, m hv. , .n,_ to whu h the t ly. About 372 Ti. : »rd ill Scripture, l. r .w and exclusive \ 1 to condemn thtiu, Imi wr, his party. Parincnian re) the d'Ktrine of Tichonius a% r the true church, that of tl • the corrupt one, the Calli African branch. A counnl bishops was conveni'<l at ■ sat for 75 davs and at 1 . " traditors," even if thry r^ should be admitted ti» »■... ■,. I'P- 93. 4 3)- The time ..f this cum il is not kn..wn. menian died aii<l c. 392 ; but li: into the hand- request of his I: . in three books, < and n.jte J2) (.■-• fs .1.11. n. XI F<.r a full acci.unt •k 'ng lUK ■«-| lih It* !l«t >.b • at III, A.i4t- Par. iii.ian ;lie I I2lt >f the treatise, with a li<t ■ f S.rt;'Tt!rr rju tittin*, see Kibbek, /) ■ «»- 366. (SecaK PaSMDtltU I of imperial pro; 'imj reniae, sever.- r .\riaii and a b. faith, verv troi and perhap* n »)f Carthage. H.K^king, Sol. / I He reque*tc*l M A ;,;>i.!iu>- him at Carthage on the «ul.)r< t 406. but refu»e.l t ill w -.vnt' divussion t<. 1 '41 Augiutinr was .*. Augustine Iber i. - rrsslmi t of reply. p •*• nent'» I *«« ....I,... . . ,in« •f iUu»- ; V word* I Ii. Af^p. Mim V.J an lie led .lu.Mitd iicrgjr Amg. r. 17; it l> \?4 391 ) t.. cnfrr wlib of rrllKKKi, A O. .-Tl n t.-i ' t the pp. iJJi IIOJ Ml*;!..- , I llir 804 PASGHASINUS xiii. 164, 165 and note 41 ; CeilL, vol. ix. pp. 185, 186, 194- [H.W.P.] Paschasinus (2), bp. of Lilybaeum in Sicily, c. 440, when that country was devastated by Vandal raids (LeonisMagni, Ep. iii. c.i. Migne's ed., note e). Leo the Great, sending him pecuniary assistance, consulted him about the Paschal cycle (a.d. 443). He replies in favour of the Alexandrian computation against the Roman, but in an abject strain of deference to his patron. He relates in confirmation of his view a miracle which used to occur in the baptistery of an outlying church on the property of his see on the true Paschal Eve every year, the water rising miraculously in the font [ib. c. 3). In 451 he received another letter from Leo desiring him to make inquiries as to the Paschal cycle [Ep. Ixxxviii. c. 4) and sending him the Tome to stir up his energies in the cause of orthodoxy. Immediately after he was sent as one of Leo's legates to the council of Chalcedon [Ep. Ixxxix.) and pre- sided on his behalf (Labbe, Cone. vol. iv. p. 580 E, etc. The phrase " synodo prae- sidens," however, does not occur in the Acta of the council, but only in the signatures of the prelates representing Rome.) [c.g.] PaschasiUS (3), deacon of Rome, called by Gregory the Great in his Dialogues, bk. iv. c. 40, "a man of great sanctity." He was a firm supporter of the antipope Laurentius to his death, and his adhesion was a great source of strength to the opponents of Symmachus (cf. Baronius, ann. 498). There is extant a work of his in two books, de Sancto Spiritu (Pair. Lat. Ixii. 9-40), which Gregory (u.s.) calls " libri rectissimi ac luculenti." The date of his death was c. 512. [g.w.d.] Pastor (1). This name is connected with traditions of the Roman church, which, though accepted as historical by Baronius and other writers, including Cardinal Wiseman (Fabiola, p. 189), must be rejected as mythical. These traditions relate to the origin of two of the oldest of the Roman tituli, those of St. Pudentiana and St. Praxedis, which still give titles to cardinals, and the former of which claims to be the most ancient church in the world. The story is that Peter when at Rome dwelt in the house of the senator Pudens in the vicus Patricius, and there held divine service, his altar being then the only one at Rome. Pudens is evidently intended as the same who is mentioned II. Tim. iv. 21. His mother's name is said to have been Priscilla, and it is plainly intended to identify her with the lady who gave to an ancient cemetery at Rome its name. The story relates that Pudens, on the death of his wife, converted his house into a church and put it under the charge of the priest Pastor, from whom it was known us " titulus Pastoris." This titulus is named in more than one document, but in all the name may have been derived from the story. Thus in the Acts of Nemesius, pope Stephen is said to have held a baptism there (Baronius, a.d. 257, n. 23). Our story relates that the baptistery had been placed there by pope Pius I., who often exercised the episcopal functions in this church. Here the two daughters of Pudens, Pudentiana and Praxe- dis, having given all their goods to the poor, dedicated themselves to the service of God. 1PATRICIUS This church, under the name of Ecclesia Pu- dentiana, is mentioned in an inscription of A.D. 384, and there are epitaphs of priests tituli Pudentis of a.d. 489 and 528 (de Rossi, Bull. 1867, n. 60 ; 1883, p. 107). The original authority for the story appears to be a letter purporting to be written by Pastor to Timothy (see Boll. AA. SS. May 19, iv. 299). He informs Timothy of the death of his brother Novatus, who, during his illness, had been visited by Praxedis, then the only surviving sisters. He obtains Timothy's consent to the application of the property of Novatus to religious uses according to the direction of Praxedis ; and baths possessed by Novatus in the vicus Lateritius are converted into a second titulus, now known as of St. Praxedis. This titulus is mentioned in an epitaph of a.d. 491 (de Rossi, Bull. 1882, p. 65) ; and priests of both tituli sign in the Roman council of 499. On this letter are founded false letters of pope Pius I. to Justus of Vienna, given in Baronius [Ann. 166, i.), a forgery later than the Iso- dorian Decretals. Those who maintain the genuineness of the letter of Pastor are met by the chronological difficulty of connecting Pudens with both St. Paul and Pius I. It has been argued that such longevity is not im- possible ; and it has been suggested that Praxedis and Pudentiana were not grand- daughters of Pudens. But the spuriousness of the whole storv has been abundantly shown by Tillemont (ii.'286, 615). [g.s.] Patricius (10) (St. Patrick), Mar. 17, the national apostle of Ireland, has been the sub- ject of much controversy. His existence has been doubted, his name ascribed to 7 different persons at least, and the origin and authority of his mission warmly disputed. I. The Documents. — The materials for St. Patrick's history which have a claim to be regarded as historical are, in the first place, the writings of the saint himself. We have two works ascribed to him, his Confession and his Epistle to Coroticus. Both seem genuine. We have a copy of the Confession more than 1,000 years old preserved in the Book of Armagh, one of the great treasures of the library of Trinity College, Dublin. This copy professes, in the colophon appended to it, to have been taken from the autograph of dt. Patrick. " Thus far the volume which St. Patrick wrote with his own hand." Dr. Todd, in his Life of St. Patrick (p. 347), sums up the case for the Confession of St. Patrick : " It is altogether such an account of himself as a missionary of that age, circumstanced as St. Patrick was, might be expected to compose. Its Latinity is rude and archaic, it quotes the ante-Hieronymian Vulgate ; and contains nothing inconsistent with the century in which it professes to have been written. If it be a forgery, it is not easy to imagine with what purpose it could have been forged." This strong testimony might have been made stronger and applies equally clearly to the Ep. to Coroticus. There are two lines of evidence which seem conclusive as to the early date. The one deals with the State Organization, the other with the Ecclesiastical Organization there alluded to and implied. They are both such as existed early in the 5th cent., and could scarcely be imagined afterwards. PATRICIUS To take th.' St.Uo Urt;.iiii£ati.<n t.rvt i„ the Ep. to Ciiroticus he dcscn! thus : " Ingenuus (ui »«cunduiii « u none patre iiascor." \Vc now k decuriuiis — who wcrr not maKistutrs lui town councillors rathrr. and nicn)l>rr« of thr local senates — wjtc found all ovrr thr Konian empire to its cxtrrnirst hounds l>v the rn<l o| the 4th cent. I>isrovories in Spain last rrn- tury showed that decurions wrrr estatili«hr<l by the Romans in evrrv little niininc villaRr, charged with the rare of the gain<-s, the water supply, sanitarv arrangements, education, and the liKal fortitirations ; while Huhner in the Corp. Insc. I.at. t. vii. num. .S4 and i8<), showed that decurions existed in Britain (rf. Mar- quardt and Mommsen, Handbuch der romis- ehtn Altftihumtr, t. iv. pp. 501-516 and Ff>hem. Epigraph, t. ii. p. 137 : t. iji. p. 103). This institution necessarily vanished amid the liar- barian invasions of the 5th cent. Now, St. Patrick's writings implv the existence o( decurions. Again, the Confession calls Eng- land Britanniae, using the plural, which is strictly accurate and in accordance with the technical usage of the Roman empire at the close of the 4th cent., which then dividtxl Britain into five provinces, Britannia prima and secunda. Maxima Caesariensis, Elavia Caesariensis and Valentia, which were col- lectively called Britanniae (cf. Hocking's NotUia Dig. t. ii. c. iii. pp. 12-14). Fiirther. the Ecclesiastical Organization implied is such as the years about a.d. 400 alone could supplv. St. Patrick tells us in the opening words of his Confession that his father was CalpiUTiius, a deacon, his grandfather Potitus, a priest. A careful review of the councils and canons will shew that in Britain and N. (iaul there existed no prohibition of clerical marriage in the last quarter of the 4th cent. Exuperius, bp. of Toulouse, wrote in 404 to pope Inno- cent I. asking bow to deal with married priests who had begotten children since their or- dination. Innocent's reply, dated Feb. 20, 405, shews, first, that the prohibition of mar- riage was only a late innovation, as he refers to the decree of pope Siricius, not jjuite 20 years before (Mansi, iii. 670; Hefcle, ii. ^h;, Clark's ed.) ; secondly, that Inn'xent per- mitted the clergy of Toulouse to live with their wives if they had contracted marriage in ignorance of papal legislation. The aspect of the political horizon, and the consequent action of the church as depicted in these writings, correspond with their alleged age. In the Ep. to Coroticus Patri< k says, " It is the custom of the Roman (iallir Christians to send holy men to the Franks and other nations with many thousand vilidi. to redeem baptized captiv«-5." The tenn Roman was then used to express a citizen of the Roman empire wherever he dwelt ; and the custom itself is one of the strongest evidences as to age. The writings of Zosimu^. S ilvi.m, and Sidonius .ApoUinaris prove t: of the Franks in (iaul about the n.: 5th cent. Salvian mentions the ■ captive taken at Cologne in hp. i. .s. . . ^ . ^ - the apostle of Austria, a little later in the century, devoted his life to the same work in another neighbourh'XKl, and lnlr<Kluccd the payment of tithes for this special object. 1 PATRICIUS 1 ..;.„ , of .Armagh. 1st, I'atriruii cony of the I latin ; )rd, t The N.T is r. copv whirh h . Celtic church. 1 h. Ur (.ilbert (.\al. .MS.'*, of lttUmJ\. SI. (h« 'A -.k ■ re ; In If*. I'nl Mr. •nrrrnlnx St. I'.itri.-k in thr- fir-.t ; .rt f tf.r ft \ .,| d«>l.l.ri*tUlll III (r\y\, llt.|.iliue. II. I.tff and //iWorv -The sl-rv ..| St. I'atrii k's life mav be .1. ii\ .1 ir m thr primary authoriti«-s, his ..wn \^ ' PatrirUn documents whji h rr • .- 7lh and Nth cents. He was .t Kll- patrirk, near Hunil Patrick, in the Cont, Sl. •-in Tabeniiae as the re- . a name which cannot CI. archbp. .Moran in /)i< I'p. 2f)i-32'^>) Me was trim when i». «, .r. .Ids which Roman e|. linus and Iris) 'rft shew were S" all of the 4th cent. II ■ \:'. : .1!:. . :;.. ..avr of .Milchii, the king of l> itaradla. thr ronirnrncc- ment of wh.»se reign he InUf M*\Ut\ a««litn to ^HK, so that the v rrv earli r-»t vear fof St. Patri< k's birth would !»«• \7J. I>4l4ra<ii4 wa« the m->^f p'werf'il hi ir.t fv . » \ K frrUnd. J, . ... ■ ■ » n. u* M»l. .rfP WhlK of the 1 airt til' Milchu's ^«ln- . ( Down mnd Connor. l>r 1 PP :" Mt'-T - Veirx r:>- <-i . .if"i ■ •.ed II* the I VC(> IMlU<^l^>iUl t-^ Utail 806 PATRICIUS in those days to make, though now a port diligently avoided by them. Wicklow head offers shelter along a coast singularly destitute of harbours of refuge. The Danes three cen- turies later learned its advantage, and founded a settlement there, whence the modern name of Wicklow. The nature of the harbour was attractive to navigators like Palladius and Patrick. Its strand and murrough, or com- mon, extending some miles N. from the Var- try, offered special opportunities for dragging up the small ships then used. St. Patrick was received in a very hostile manner by the pagans of Wicklow on landing. A shower of stones greeted them, and knocked out the front teeth of one of his companions, St. Mantan, whence the Irish name of Wicklow, Killmantan, or Church of Mantan (Joyce's Irish Names, p. 103 ; Colgan, A A. SS. p. 451 ; Reeves's Antiquities, p. 378). St. Patrick then sailed N., compelled with true missionary spirit to seek first of all that locality where he had spent seven years of his youth and had learned the language and customs of the Irish. We can still trace his stopping-places. Dublin only existed in those days as a small village beside a ford or bridge of hurdles over the Liflfey, serving as a crossing-place for the great S.E. road from Tara to Wicklow, a bridge, like those still found in the bogs of Ireland, composed of branches woven together, which serve to sustain very considerable weights. St. Patrick landed, according to Tirechan, at an island ofi the N. coast of co. Dublin, still called Inispatrick (in 7th cent. Insula Patricii), whence he sailed to the coast of CO. Down, where his frail bark was stopped by the formidable race off the mouth of Strangford Lough. He sailed up this lough, which extends for miles into the heart of CO. Down, and landed at the mouth of the Slaney, which flows into the upper waters of the Lough, within a few miles of the church of Saul, a spot successfully identified by Mr. J. W. Hanna in a paper on the "True Landing- place of St. Patrick in Ulster " (Downpatrick, 1858). There he made his first convert Dichu, the local chief, and founded his first church in a barn which Dichu gave him, whence the name Sabhall (Celtic for barn) or Saul, which has ever since continued to be a Christian place of worship (cf. Reeves, Antiq. pp. 40, 220). P'rom Dichu he soon directed his steps towards Central Antrim and king Milchu's residence, where he had spent the days of his captivity. His fame had reached Milchu, whose Druids warned him that his former servant would triumph over him. So Milchu set fire to all his household goods and perished in their midst just as St. Patrick appeared. St. Patrick now (a.d. 433), determining to strike a blow at the very centre of Celtic paganism, directed his course towards Tara. He sailed to the mouth of the Boyne, where, as the Book of Armagh tells us, he laid up his boats, as to this day it is impossible for the smallest boats to sail up the Boyne between Drogheda and Navan. Patrick proceeded along the N. bank of the river to the hill of Slane, the loftiest elevation in the country, dominating the vast plain of Meath. The ancient Liff in the Book of Armagh is here marked by touches of geographical exactness PATROCLUS which guarantee its truth. Being determined to celebrate Easter on the hill of Slane, he, according to the custom of the early Chris- tians, lit his Paschal fire on Easter Eve, a custom which we know from other sources was universal at that time (cf. Martene, de Antiq. Ritib. t. iii. lib. iv. c. 24, pp. 144, 145, and arts, on " Easter, Ceremonies of," and " Fire, Kindling of," in D. C. A.). This fire was at once seen on Tara, where the king of Ireland, Laoghaire, was holding a convention of the chiefs of Ireland. The ritual of the convention demanded that no fire should be lit in his dominions on this night till the king's fire was lit on Tara. St. Pat- rick's act directly challenged the edict of the king, who proceeded to Slane to punish the bold aggressor. The narrative of the conflict between St. Patrick and king Laoghaire and his priests is marked by a series of miracles and legends, terminating, however, with the defeat of paganism and the baptism of great numbers of the Irish, including Laoghaire himself, who yielded a nominal adhesion to the truth. (See Mr. Petrie's great work on the Hill of Tara, where the subject has been exhaustively discussed.) The Paschal controversy, about which Cum- mian wrote (a.d. 634), throws an interesting light upon the date of the introduction of Christianity into Ireland. The Irish have been accused of Quartodeciman practices as to Easter, which is quite a mistake. They sim- ply adhered to the old Roman cycle, which was superseded in 463 by the Victorian cycle. ["Easter," in D. C. A. vol. i. p. 594.] The in- vasions of the barbarians then cut off the Celtic church from a knowledge of the more modern improvements in the calendar, which they afterwards resisted with a horror natural to simple people. The English surplice riots of bp. Blomfield's time shew how a much shorter tradition may raise a popular commo- tion. This fixes the introduction of Christian- ity into Ireland in the first half of 5th cent. The alleged connexion of the Irish church with Egypt and the East, as shewn in art, literature, architecture, episcopal and mon- astic arrangements, would afford material for an interesting article on the peculiarities of the Irish church. (See Butler's Coptic Churches of Egypt, Oxf. 1885.) See Sir Samuel Fergusson's treatise on the Patrician Documents in the Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy (Dec. i885),andBenjamin Robert's Etude critique sur la vie de St. Patrice (Paris, 1883), where a diligent use has been made of modern authorities, and, pp. 3-7, a convenient summary given of the literature. A cheap popular Life by E. J. Newell is pub. by S.P.C.K. in their Fathers for Eng. Readers, who also pub. the Epp. and Hymns, including the poem of Secundinus in his praise, in Eng. ed. by T. Olden. Cf. csp. The Tripartite Life of Patrick, with other documents, etc., by Whitlev Stokes in Rolls Series, No. 89, 2 vols. (Lond.' 1887) ; also W. Bright, The Roman See in the Earlv Church, pp. 367-385 (Lond. 1896). " [G.T.S.] PatroclUS (2) {St. Parre), Jan. 21, a martyr supposed to have suffered under Aurelian, and commemoratt'd bv C.rcg. Turon. Glor. Mart. c. 64. His Acts are fully told by the Bollaud- PATROCLUS ists, AA. SS J.iii. ii. 341-349. A rurious story told by liregory [I.e.) slicwsliow hi» Ari» originated. Patroclus had a chapel in ('uul served by a s^tlitary |>riest. Thi- p.iMiIi. -• despised this chapel because it p Acts of his passion, and a irav.i; the priest t>ne day and showed li which proved to be the Acts of his ..«ii Mint The priest sat up all night copying th« in, and then returned the book to the travellt-r, who went his w.»v. The prii-st at onc<- ->•>••• •-" bishop the Acts. The prelate w.i> taxed him with forgery, and. ace. i Stern discipline of the (lallic chui him on the spot. An anny, howcvir, •.liutilv afterwards invaded Italy, and brought back an identical copy of the .•Vets, thus proving the good faith of the priest. The people thereupon built a splendid church in honour of Patroclus. [r..T.s.) Patroclus (3), bp. of Aries, between SS. Heros and Honuratus (a.d. 412-426). In 412 the people < <i .\rlcs drove out Heros and elected Patroclus. .1 i-reatiire of Constantius (l'n->sper Aquit. Chronicon. Migne, Patr. Lat. li. .s<)o). As bishop he is said to have sold ecrlesi.istical offices ( Prosper Tyro, Chronicon, in Bouquet i. 638) and hoarded up stores of ill-gotten wealth (cf. the funeral sermon of Hilary of .\rles upon St. Honoratus, c. vi. Patr. Lat. I. 1265). He seems, however, to have commended himself to pope Zosiraus, who conferred upon him tmprecedented privileges of jurisdiction, and his history illustrates the relations of the French dioceses. On the ground that Aries was the fountain-head of Gallic Christianity, the pope confirmed to the sec all parishes it had ever held, whether within the province or not, and gave Patroclus exclusive rights of ordination over the independent provinces of Vienne, Narbonensis Prima, and Narbonensis Secunda, and deposed Prf>culus, bp. of Mar- seilles, for infringing these privileges by ordaining in his own diocese. On the ground of Patroclus's personal merits, the pope, in a letter addressed to all the Gallic bishops, forbade any cleric of whatever rank to visit Rome without first obtaining hterae formatae, or letters of identification and recommenda- tion, from the bp. of Aries. See the pope's correspondence from Mar. 22. 417, to Feb. 5. 418, which is chiefly occupied with Aries, Epp. i. V. vi. vii. X. xi. .Migne, Patr. Lot. xx. 643, 663, 666, 668, 673, 674. These privileges were productive of great dissatisfacti -n in the neighbouring provinces and, in the matter of the jurisdiction, Zosiinu-'s rT'lrrs \v.t>- vir- tually rescinded by his su<irss.r, U'.ILlf.l. I'ls 1 . who,' in a letter written F.-b. 0. ^22, .is%.rt..! the right of Hilary, bp. of Narbonne, to con- secrate the bp. of Lcxldvc in his jirovince. as against Patroclus, who had usurped it {Ep. xu. Patr. Lat. xx. 772-774)- '" 4'^ Patr»)clu» was ordered bv The^Klosius to assemble for discussion the (;allic bishoi>s who ppifessrd the Pelagian and Celestian heresies, the emperor decreeing exile for such as should not recant within 20 days. PatP>clus was murdered in 426 by a barbarian offii er {Chron- icon. Pair. Lat. li.' 191-594)- (s.A.B.) Patrophllus (1) of Scvlhoiwlis, one of the original .\rian party, took a leading part In all their principal acts and was one of the mott PATROPHILUS relaotle«s <• he 1« .! Strap. 1 ■il.!. 1. bishop* wljo w , in support o( :■. KS6), anil 1 ( Tvre and I '.■A a 1 oral s\ ..iixsion to h'.... I . . (.Sot. H. E. i. M). \ the 17 episcopal 1 unitetl with them in li was indignantly rcjr.ird by nd. at- by Al. X .11. Irian He* ol .nd Mfh i uncil (The.Hl. H. F. i. :).' Hmbitlrrnt by defrai, j he became one of the mo*t r- !• i:[I<-v4 i-rrw cutors <if .\thanasius. In \ :( in 'the svn<Kl at Antiorh bv ■ iu« I was depo»e<l (it>. i. it). '. o| i Tvre (a.d. \\s) he wa^ onr rive in bringing ab<>ut the of .-Vthanasius (l.ablw, ti. 41'' •' t. Arian. cc. 7v 74. 77), and ;.■ -.' b« attended the abortive svnml nl the l>r<iir^ll<>n at Jerusalem (S.>cr. H. E. i. :?i ; S«.x. H. E. ii. 26; Theod. //. E. i. 31). IVo-mih; ihrnre : to Constantinople at the ei- I he denounced Athanasius j ened the imperial citv wn preventing the sailing of tli I corn-ships, and procure<l his banishment to Treves (Socr. //. E. i. 31 ; Th->'1 H F t ji ; Theophan. p. 26; Athan. I " ' m c, IK?). In 341 he t'Hik p.irt 1 • •»» i council of .\ntioch, in Eni : E. iii. s). He was one ol the • I rge. the violent heterodox intru • "I Alexandria in 353 (ifc. iv hb leader Acacius kept entir from Athanasius when Maximui> -1 Jiiuvalrm welcome<l hinj on his retuni fronj banishment in 346. and before long contrived !■> rAtabllsh C\TiI in Maximus's place is their own noralncr (Theophan. p. 34 : C.watkin, Studm of Anant'.m. r ir' Hr wit n^ of ihe few H.lSten, ■ .... ,1 „| Milan : '»lv in th<- art ,-- .1- il»C- t to ' M i bv - lit .l.u»- Vcxcrll- 1; ^^6. No. oj). ;/ F Iv R.io) itiut •ime .nd up th- ■*"• Wh^fi • '«• liu IjUvwcii li>--<r. // t .11.1 . the s » //. E. 808 PAULA iv. 23). He immediately retmrned home, where he was kept informed by Acacius of the ] course events were taking in the synod held | at Constantinople (Jan. 360), when Aetius and ' the Anomoeans were condemned, several leading semi-Arians deposed, the Ariminian creed imposed, and Eudoxius enthroned bp. of Constantinople (Socr. H. E. ii. 43)- He died very soon afterwards, for his grave was desecrated during the temporary pagan reaction under Julian in 361, when his remains were scattered and his skull mockingly used as a lamp (Theoph. p. 40 ; Niceph. x. 13 ; Chron. Pasch. (ed. Ducange, 1688), p. 295 ; Tillem. Mem. eccles. t. vi. vii. ; Le Quien, Or. Christ iii. 683). [e.v.] Paula (2), a noble and wealthy Roman lady, who accompanied Jerome to Palestine in 385, and lived the rest of her life at Bethlehem, dying in 404. The chief facts of her life were given in Jerome's Epitaphium of her ad- dressed to Eustochium (Hieron. Ep. 108, ed. Vail.). She was born in 347, and while quite young was married to the senator Toxotius, of the Julian family, which traced its descent from Aeneas. Through her mother Blaesilla she was connected with the Scipios and the Gracchi, through her father Rogatus with a Greek family, which traced its descent from Agamemnon. Her family was connected with the Aemilian gens, and her name taken from that of the illustrious Paulus. Jerome re- cords these ancestral glories in her epitaph, Scipio quam genuit, Pauli fudere parentes, Gracchorum soboles, Agamemnonis inclyta proles. She was possessed of great wealth, owning, amongst other properties, the town of Nico- polis or Actium. During her early married life, though always without reproach in her character, she lived in the usual luxury of Roman patricians. She gave birth to four daughters, Blaesilla, who married, but lost her husband and died early in 384 ; Paulina, wife of Pammachius ; Julia, called Eusto- chium, and Ruffina, who died early, probably in 386 ; and one son, called after his father Toxotius. After the birth of a son she appears to have adopted the practice of con- tinency (Hieron. Ep. cviii. 4), but to have still lived with her husband, whose death (probably in 380) she deeply lamented. In 382, during the synod held at Rome (following on the council of Constantinople), she enter- tained the bps. Epiphanius of Salamis and Paulinus of Antinch, and by them her ascetic tendencies, already considerable, were height- ened. Through them Jerome, who had come to Rome with them, became her friend. She imbibed through him her love for the study of Scripture, and, with her daughter Eusto- chium, attended his readings at the palace of Marcella. She gave v^ast sums to the poor, spending her own fortune and that of her children in charity. She assumed a coarse dress and a sordid appearance, and undertook all sorts of menial duties in the relief of dis- tress. But her mind was set upon the mon- astic life and upon the country of the Eastern hermits. After the death of Blaesilla she determined to quit Rome, and. earlv in 385, disregarding the tears of her son Toxotius, then a child, who was left to the wardship of PAULA the praetor, and the entreaties of Ruffina,then a girl of marriageable age, who begged her mother to wait till she was married, she sailed for the East. After visiting Epiphanius in Cyprus, she rejoined Jerome and his friends at Antioch. With him she braved the winter's journey through Lebanon to Palestine [HiERONYMUs] and Egypt, from whence returning the whole party settled in Bethlehem in the autumn of 386. Their life there is related under Hierony- Mus, and only personal details need here be given. Her letter to Marcella inviting her to come to Palestine (Hieron. Ep. 46) shows her enthusiastic delight in every sacred place and association in the Holy Land. Paula and Eustochium lived at first in a cottage till their convent and hospice (diversorium) were built. They then founded a monastery for men, and a convent of three degrees for women, who lived separately, though having the same dress, and met for the services. Paula's capacity of management, her patience and tact, are warmly praised by Jerome (Ep. cviii. c. 19). She is said by Palladius (Hist. Laus. 79) to have had the care of Jerome and to have found it a difficult task. Her scrip- tural studies, begun in Rome, were carried on earnestly at Bethlehem. She had (through her father's family) a good knowledge of Greek, and she learnt Hebrew to be able to repeat and sing the Psalms in the original (c. 26). She read constantly with Jerome, and they went through the whole Bible together (ib.). In his account of his writings in the catalogue (de Vir. III. 135) WTitten in 392, Jerome says, " Epistolarum ad Paulam et Eustochium, quia quotidie scribuntur, in- certus est numerus." She was remarkably teachable, and when doubts were suggested to her by Origenistic teachers, she was able at once, with Jerome's help, to put them aside. Her charities were so incessant that Jerome states that she left Eustochium with a great debt, which she could only trust the mercy of Christ would enable her to pay (c. 13). It is believed that Jerome, who had in vain counselled prudence and moderation (ib.), gave her pecuniary help in her later years. Her health was weak ; her body slight ; her morti- fications, against many ' of which Jerome remonstrated and which gave occasion to some scandals, and her frequent illnesses had worn her away ; and in her 57th year (404) she sank under a severe attack of illness. Jerome describe; with deep feeling the scene at her death, the personal attention of her daughter to all her wants, the concern of the whole Christian community. The bishops of the surrounding cities were present. John of Jerusalem, who only four years before had been at strife with the convents of Bethlehem, was there. Her funeral was a kind of triumph, the whole church being gathered together to carry her to her resting-place in the centre of the cave of the Nativity. She is reckoned as a saint by the Roman church, her day, that of her death, being Jan. 26. [w.h.f.] Paula (3), granddaughter of foregoing, daughter of Toxotius, and of Laeta the daughter of Albinus. a heathen and a priest. Laeta embraced Christianity and wrote to consult Jerome as to Paula's education, who PAULIMA replied in Fp. 107. wTittrn in 401. Mr dr^ire* that she should lead the A<;rrtir life and pre- pare to consecrate herself tn Christ in vir- ginity : and \^f:< that, if she could not rarrv out at Rome the system •>( instmction in scriptural knowledge which he prescril>«-«l. she miKht be sent to nrthlchmi. She was pri>»»- ably sent there while still a child, thonch not till after her grandmother- death. Several of leron>e'sc">mmentaries are dedicated to hrr with her aunt Kustochiuin, and she is men- tioned by both Jerome and AuRiistine in their correspondence in 416 (Hieron. Ff-f^. 1^4. 14 v both to AuRtistine). [w.H.r.) Paulina (I). dauehter of P.uila the friend of Jerome, and wife of I'AMMAriiits. She maTied about the time when her mother and her sister F.ustfvhium went with Jerome to Palestine in ^85. Her children died at birth and she herself pmbably died in childbirth in 307- Her merits are described in consolatory letters to Pammachius from Jerome (Fp. M. ed. Will.) and Paulinas (/•'/>. 11. Micne's /'n/r. Lilt. yol. i\z). [w.ii.p.l Paulinianus, younger brother of Jrrome. He was -til! young in :^Rs (" adolocens." Hicr'Mi. c. Rut. iii. 22) when he left Rome with his brother and their friend Vincentiiis. and he was under 30 when ordained in 304 (Hiernn. adv. Joan. Hirr. f 8). He shared his brother's journevs in Palestine and settled with him in Bethlehem, where he probably remained to the end of his life. He was modest, only desiring to help his brr>thcr in the monastery. But I^piphanius, coming to Jerusalem in 30t. and finding (or rather pro- moting) a schism between the monasteries of Bethlehem and bp. John of Jerusalem, took him to the monastery which he had founded at .\A. and there, against the pro- tests and even resistance of Paulinian, or- dained him priest. (See in Hieron. Fp. li. I, ed. Vail, the trans, of Kpiphanius's ex- planatory letter to John of Jerusalem.) Paulinian may perhaps have acted as pres- byter in the monasteries for a time, but he felt it prudent during the vehement controversy which sprang up between Jerome and bp. John of Jerus.ilem to go to Kpiphanius in Cyprus. Jerome declares (contra Jnannem {41) that his br.ither was in Cyprus. [w.ii.p.) Paulinos (3), bp. of T>Te and afterwards of Antioch, A.i>. ^2K-320 (Clinton. F. R.). He was apparently a native of .\ntioch. and. according to his friend and paneg>Tist Kusr- bius (Eus. in Marcfll. i. 4. P- 'o). ft""' «'"• office of bp. of Tvre with great splendour, and after the cessation of the pers/xution rebuilt with great magnificence the cathedral ela- borately described bv the historian in the inaugural oration delivered bv him at it* dedication (tft. //. F. x. 4)- Paulinu* was " claimed by the church of the Aiiti.K-hene^ as their own property." ilit oiinlo> ayafioC' fura- W(xriffiji>ai. and chosen their »>ish-rv Aerord- ing to F'hilrKt'irgius. he . : dignity for half a year bcfor- H. £. iii. 15)- Paulinus. Ii bius of Caesarea, was an A: Arius in his letter to Kuset one of his sympathizers I Eusebiiis of Caesarea !i i praise on his fcllow-partisau, ded»c*;c* lo hitu PAULIKOS I u- /^ / III MtFtflttUtlua! Ht speakt with foundedrh.»i. Ills, with the tenet tli4t ■■ a rrr.i(rd W Patillntii 4 >4 hi. Mt^iMtiirr lir ^-.ilIii!!. i- .ihk that he wouhl Mgn thr n( Photinus and Marrrllii*. I "nn- asius (Snlpiriii* Srvrniv //i-; s.i. » n jy. Migne. I'atr. I.at. x\. Mo). .\t thr roiinril ol Arlr-, ,r, :^ • Pvitin.f.N UU n-.v rjrrt^l^.-l Th» • ■ . ,.»h. rlhr n\t% demne<i bv 1 ■ xllr in Phrvgia. I 4nd heretics. Tli: '-it. in 3S4. not .vs'>. 4s J. I In 35« or ^^0. The r' (de tiie walls was one vr* (Wilmowskv. />er /> ■": -. /•■'. , ti; For his life see, further, the p4ssaii<-« frmn the works of Afh-invii-^ r .|le<-te.l. TMI. Attm 55. .Aug. vi. ' ' • • • . ,,,, 0^ CoHit. Amg. lib. i. : ^l^ Imp. 11 ; Frmgr. Migne. Pair. I •. I^^t. (s.A.li.) Paulinus (5. ...„,.. ,, a priest and a disciple of i:phraem >vru\. C.ennadlii. Id* Script. Feci. C. III. IM/'<l/r. lutl Ivill Io».j)|f|vr* a short aCCi>unt of him : . iWin.- f ! 1 i.'rral talent, knowledge ..f r at a preacher. .After he " separated from tli- •ifh against the f.iith." \«iu. ■ -m temperainiiit and eager for ■Jd Paulinus (6), bp. of the ! Catholic party at Anti<«-h '.• ;-- 1 man highly esteemed f r piety. He W4S one n( KustathinsV .>resbvt^rs vid sillMj-i^itnillv to the (U •' ' • ■ •' -- 1 •« the h. , < to hol.J < • •m they u UW of his ! .«r«l bv An :( 4 bishop ;■ in a small rliurih ■.sitliin <!.■ <h. the use of which had Iw-' the Arian bp. I'.v .t.-r tin 'it ' oih- nu«'s high rl cMt his way hotir prr Vr-yr k v ■rH , ojjUli became L'i 1 Ahti'-^li. fr<J Met- 4 ' J F"» 810 PAULINUS the history of this protracted schism see LuciFERUs of Calaris ; Eustathius (3) of Antioch ; Meletius (3) of Antioch ; Eusebius (93) of Vercelli ; Flaviaxus (4). The death of Paulinus may be dated 388. [e.v.] Paullnus (7), writer of the Life of St. Am- brose, a work which he says he undertook at the request of St. Augustine. He was well qualified for his task by his intimate acquaint- ance with St. Ambrose and attendance upon him in his last illness, and by information gathered from well-informed persons, espe- cially his sister Marcellina. He seems to call himself the bishop's secretary (notariiis) and he was certainly with him at his death (cc. 33, 35, 38, 42, 47). In his introduction he ex- presses his great anxiety to adhere strictly to the truth and to deliver what he has to say impartially, and this he appears to have done. After the death of St. Ambrose he went to Africa, where he was well received by the church, and distinguished himself by defend- ing the memory of his friend and patron against an attack upon him by Muranus, bp. of BoUita. It was perhaps this which led to his acquaintance with St. Augustine, and his becoming the biographer of St. Ambrose. He took a prominent part in the proceedings of the council of Carthage, a.d. 412, against Celestius. Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. pp. 57, 80; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p. 402 ; Ceillier, vol. vii. p. 533. viii. 549, ix- 453- [h.w.p.] Paulinus (8), St., bp. of Nola, one of a patrician family of whom some had been Christians (.\usonius, Ep. xxiv. 103 ; Paulin. Ep. xl. Prudentius, Symm. i. 558, 560 ; Baro- nius, 394, 78, 79). They had property in Aquitania, and probably resided there habi- tually (Ambros. Ep. Iviii. i). His father was praefectiix praetorio of Gaul, had large posses- sions in the province in which he lived, and was the founder of the town of Burgus (Bourg) on the Dordogne, and, as well as his wife, appears to have been a Christian. I. First Period(T,'sy2,9A)- — Besides Paulinus, his parents had an elder son and a daughter. He was probably born at Bordeaux, a.d. 353 or 354, and his tut or was .\usonius, who thought very highly of him as a pupil, regarded him with warm affection, and addressed to him many of his poetical epistles. The affection of Ausonius was fully returned by his pupil, who declares that he owed to him all the dis- tinction he had attained. Whatever merit his Latin compositions possess, he was by his own admission not strong in Greek, and in a letter to Rufinus, A.D. 408, regrets his inability to translate accurately an epistle of St. Clement (Ep. xlvi. 2). He entered early into public life, became a member of the senate, and filled the office of consul for part of the official year in the place of some one who had vacated it ; in what year is not known, his name not appearing in the Fasti, but before 379 when Ausonius held the office and says that his pupil attained the dignity earlier than himself {.\us. Ep. xx. 4, xxv. 60). Paulinus has been supposed also to have been prefect of New Epirus, a sup- position consistent with his own mention of frequent and laborious journeys by land and sea, but of which there is no direct evidence, though an edict of the joint emperors Valen- PAULINUS tinian, Valens, and Gratian undoubtedly exists, addressed to a prefect of that province of his name, a.d. 372. He certainly held a judicial office, for in one of his poems he expresses satisfaction at having condemned no one to death during his tenure of it. Lebrun conjectures that after his consulship he became consiilaris of Campania and resided at Nola (Carm. xxi. 396 ; Tillem. vol. xiv. p. 8). Possessed of easy fortune and enjoying the best society, he lived a life free from outward reproach, but one for which he after- wards found great fault with himself. His health was never good, and he suSered much from fatigue in his jomneys (Carm. x. 134; xiii. 2, 10 ; Ep. v. 4). In the course of them he fell in with Victricius bp. of Rouen and Martin bp. of Tours at Vienne in Gaul, and ascribed to the latter the restoration of his sight, the loss of which was threatened, appar- ently by cataract (Ep. xviii. 9; Sulpic. Sev. Vit. S. Mart. xix. 3, ed. Halm.). He also regarded St. Ambrose with great veneration, calling him "father" (Ep. iii. 4). But his chief object of veneration was Felix of Nola, to whom he devoted himself specially when he visited Nola at about 26 or 27 years of age, A.D. 379 (Carm. xiii. 7, 9; xxi. 350, 381). About this time, but not later than 389, he and his brother received baptism at Bordeaux, from Delphinus, the bishop there (Epp. iii. 4; XX. 6 ; XXXV. ; xxxvi. ). Not long after he began to think of retiring from the world, and in 389 or 390 went to Spain, residing chiefly at Barcelona. During this time he married a Spanish lady of good fortune and irreproach- able character, named Therasia, and a son was born to them, who died after a few days (Prudentius, Peristeph. v. 41, 44 ; Dexter, Chron. a.d. 296; Carm. v. 66; xxi. 400; xxxv. 599, 610). There seems good reason for placing the violent death of his brother about this time, when not only his brother's pro- perty was in danger of confiscation, but that of Paulinus himself and even his life (Carm. xxi. 414-427 ; Buse, vol. i. p. 157). It was per- haps partly due to these events that during his stay in Spain he was led to give up the senate and worldly business and refused to take any further interest in " profane " literatiu-e (Ep. iv. 2 ; xxii. 3 ; Carm. x. 304, 316). But he continued to write verses on sacred subjects to the end of his life. Determined to renounce the world, he parted with a large portion of his property and his wife's, spend- ing some of the money in redeeming captives, releasing debtors, and the like. In compliance with a sudden popular demand, he was or- dained priest, but without any especial cure of souls, by Lampius, bp. of Barcelona, on Christmas Day, 393 (Epp. i. 10 ; ii. 2 ; iii. 4). He appears to have been already well ac- quainted with some of the most eminent. African clergy, Alypius, Augustine, Aurelius, and others. In a'letter to St. Augustine he mentions his work against the Manicheans, i.e. probably his de Doctrina Christiana, to- gether with the single volume de Vera Religione. in which Manichean doctrine is discussed (.\ug. Ep. xxvii. 4). In the same letter Paulinus speaks of his own abandonment of the world, and requests Augustine to instruct and direct him. PAULINUS II. Stcond Perxod (.ig4-4i><))-~ In vn h«< determined to retire to Sola, where he had property, including a hotisr. On lu<t wuv hp saw St. Ambr«>se, probahlv at Flormrr. 411. 1 in a letter to Sulpicius, whom hr l»r»;s t.> him at Nola, he speaks of much jr.ilousv 1 shewn him at Rome l>v popv Sinmis others o( the clerRV. prohablv on .ircoimt 1 the unusual circumstances of his ordinatiou ; whereas at Nola. whore not loni{ aftrr his arrival he had a serious illnpss. ho was vi^itetl lay nearly all the bishops of C'ampani.i. oithor in person or bv deputy, bv clorsvimn and some lavnu-n. and received friendly hit. is from many .African bishops who sent • sengers to him. .\t Nola he entered wit wife at once upon the course of life h<- marked out, and which he pursued as far js possible until his death. A.n. 431. SS. .Am- brose, Augustine, ;uid Jerome regarded the self-sacrifice of him and his wife with high respect and admiration (.Ambros. Ep. Iviii. 1-3 ; Hieron. Epp. Iviii. <>: cxviii. s). .Augustine writes to him in terms of warm admiration and afTection (.Aug. Ep. xxvii.). and in a second letter ann<niiices his appointment as coad- jutor to Valerius, bp. of Hippo, and urges Paulinus to visit him in. Africa (.Aug. F.p. xxxi). St. Jerome exhorts him and Ther.isia to pcr-e- vere in their self-denial, and praises highly his panegyTic on the emperor Theodosius, a work which he himself mentions but which h.is perished (Hieron. Ep. Iviii. ; Paul. Ep. xxviii. 6; Gennadius, c. 48). In replv to .Augustine and to letters of the .African bishops, Paulinus writes to .Augustine's friend Roniaiiianus. congratulating the African church on the appointment of .Augustine and hoping that his " trumpet " may sound forcibly in tiie ears of Ronianianus's son Liamtiiis, to whom also he addressed a letter ending : Vive prccor, scd vive Deo. nam vivere mundo Mortte opus, vera est vivcrc vita Deo. When Paulinus settled at Nola, the burial- place of Felix, called in the .Vlartyrologv of Bede in Pincis or in Pineis, about a mile from the town, had l>ecome the site of four churches (basilicae), one built by pope Damasiis, and also a chapel. Prob.ibly none of these were of any great size. Paulinus added a fifth. The church whose dedication he mentions in Ep. 3; is described by him as having a triple apse {trichnrum, t.e. rpi^wpo"). (''•/'• txx'i- 17; Isid. On?. XV. 8, 7.) It was porliajw on the site of the one built by Damasus, and contained not onlv the tomb of Felix, but beneath the altar (altarta) remains of v.irious saints and martvrs, including SS. John Uai>t., Andrew. I.uke, Thomas, and others of less note, including St. Nararius, of whom v.me relics were sent to him bv Ambrose {Ep. xxxii. 17 ; farm, xxvii. 436, 430). hut above all the precious fragment of the tru.- rross. brought from Jerusalem bv Melania and presented by her to Paulinus a.p. 3';K. .md of whirh he sent a chip {astula) enrlosed in a tube of i-,.\>\ to Sulpicius, as a sjiccial offering' from TheraM.i and himself to Hassula. hi ' ' ' ''" in-law, to honour the rhur at Primuliariim {Ep. xx%\ walls, and rolunins .>f thi^ ->., and the vaulted roof, from wlucU lami>k »tit PAULIHUS .lud i f. ■. (lit : drinking i('at>- Paulmus aU to the erecti'-n ( .1 place endeare<| to h and !it whi'-h h" til •hr Wr,| aW •■tr »MI %t- \:\g lit -1 e.nl 'i. < nt Ha ■!-», servim: • viai bv thru ve might 1 ■ i'w. xxi. 3')oi. Mis III -I- the fullest sense, ami m"in.isterv {Ep- v. i<> In he ,„ 4 , '' s^ theins.lves ill ' lie. 'lit their li.iir r in- iiig. w.re i>.i ual rle.inllli' md fasliii,' r.»| until ..! able <li ' .el- Hid. wrapp. bhink.t K' u.- '..l ak I I. .1.1. usual w.<k the time V de. voted t X \ 4 XXti I. 3. 1.6; xx\%. i. 13 ; < '1"" ^^' He seldom, if ever ' pt t . vitil Rome tmre a vear !■ '\v»\ .1 !iS. •heif Peter an<l Paul, on | iniirt>T<l"m cbru 4l». lem") (A>r ivii. .• ■ tho xlv. I ; ( arm. xxi 1 The event ■•( jII • rhief interest I'T ! III- inunity at N-l.. « > ■ in Jan. 14 1 an. to- p'-*ed a p'.ell, III- .,f the r.ili.i tude« . . !•« . .ire<l ■ ■ i*^. (A.O. t. «o9«ll) — t N U l--f rr tl.r att- t-'l-ii-!: m Hit 812 PAULINUS mont and Buse seem to place it a year or two later. The diocese of Paulinus was a small one, and appears, at any rate formerly, to have been notorious for drunkenness and immor- ality {Ep. xlix. 14 ; Carm. xix. 164-218). Without adopting all the glowing panegyric applied by Uranius to his behaviour as bishop, we may well believe that he shewed himself in this, as in other matters, a faithful, devout, humble, and munificent follower of his Master; and when Campania was laid waste by Alaric, A.D. 410, Paulinus devoted all he had to the relief of the sufferers and captives. The bar- barian occupation did not last long, and from this time until his death, in 431, there are few events to record in the life of Paulinus. A letter from St. Augustine, probably in 417, seems to hint at a tendency on the part of Paulinus to adopt some, at least, of the erro- neous doctrines of Pelagius, with whom he had been on friendly terms (Aug. Ep. 186 i. i, and xii. 41). After the death of Zosimus, in Dec. 418, the appointment of his successor in the see of Rome becoming a matter of dispute, the emperor Honorius summoned a council of bishops at Ravenna, and afterwards at Spoletum, and invited Paulinus to attend, but he excused himself on the first occasion on the ground of ill-health and was probably pre- vented by the same cause from appearing on the second (Baronius, 419, 19, 20). After re- siding 36 years in retirement at Nola, a period devoted both by himself, and during her life- time by his wife, to unsparing self-denial, religious observances, and works of piety and charity without stint, he died June 22, a.d. 431, aged 77 or 78. An account of his last illness and death has been left bv Uranius in a letter addressed to Pacatus. '" Three days before his death he was visited by two bishops, Symmachus (of Capua) and Acyndinus, by whose conversation he was much refreshed. He desired the sacred mysteries to be ex- hibited before his bed, so that the sacrifice having been offered in their companv, he might commend his own soul to the Lord, and at the same time recall to their former peace those on whom, in the exercise of church dis- cipline, he had pronounced sentence of exclusion from communion. When this was over, he called for his brothers, by whom the by- standers thought that he rtieant the bishops who were present ; but he said that he called for Januarius bp. of Naples and Martin of Tours (both of them deceased), who, he said, had promised to be with him. He then raised his hands to heaven, and repeated Psalm cxx. [cxxi.], ' I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills,' etc. . . . Later in the day, as if the hour for vespers were come, he recited slowly, with outstretched hands, the words, ' I have pre- pared a lamp for my anointed,' Ps. cxxxi. 17 [cxxxii. 17]. At about the fourth hour of the night, while all were watching, the cell was shaken by an earthquake, which was felt no- where else, and during this he expired." He was buried in the church of St. Felix, in Pincis, and his funeral was attended even by Jews and pagans (Uran. de ob. S. Paul ap. Migne. Pair. Lat. vol. liii.). Writings. — He has left behind 51 letters and 36 poems, (a) P^-os^.— Of his letters, 13, some very long, are addressed to Sulpicius PAULINUS Severus, the first in 394, and the last in 403 ; 5 to Delphinus, bp. of Bordeaux, 6 to Aman- dus his successor, 4 to Augustine, 3 to Aper and Amanda, 2 to another Amandus and Sanctus, 2 to Rufinus, 2 to Victricius, 3 to persons unknown, and single letters to Alethius, Alypius, Desiderius, Eucherius and Gallus, Florentius, Jovius, Licentius, Maca- rius, Pammachius, Romanianus, Sebastianus, besides the account of the martyrdom of Genesius which is a sort of postscript to the letter to Eucherius and Gallus (Ep. 51). It does not appear that he ever saw Sulpicius after his visit to Spain, but the love of the two for each other never failed. His letters to Delphinus and Amandus exhibit his deep humility and cheerful humour, but are chiefly remarkable for the earnest request made to both, that they will offer their prayers on behalf of his deceased brother, of whom he speaks with great affection but with deep regret for his neglect in spiritual matters, hoping that by their prayers he may obtain some refreshment in the other world (Epp. XXXV. ; xxxvi.). Of those to St. Augustine the third is chiefly occupied with remarks on the grief of Melania for the loss of her only son Publicola, and a reply to Augustine on the condition of the soul in celestial glory, which he thinks will be one of highly exalted powers and beauty resembling the condition of our Lord after His resurrection. He asks Augus- tine's opinion on the subject (Ep. xiv.). In the 4th letter Paulinus asks for Augustine's opinion as a doctor of Israel on various Scrip- ture passages according to the Latin version, (i) Ps. XV. 3 [xvi. 4], "Sanctis . . . multiplicatae simt infirmitates eorum, postea accelerave- runt" : who aremeantby the "saints," andhow aretheirinfirmitiesmultiplied? (2) Ps. xvi.15, i6[xvii. 14]: what is meant by "deabsconditis tuis adimpletus est venter eorum," and "satur- ati sunt porcina," or, as he hears is read by some, "filiis." (3) Ps. Iviii. II [lix. 11], "neunquam obliviscantur legis tuae"(Vulg. "populitui"): he cannot understand how knowledge of the law can be sufficient without faith in Christ. (4) Ps. Ixvii. 23, 25 [Ixviii. 21, 23], "Deus conquassabit capita inimicorum suorum, ver- ticemcapilli," etc. : the last expression he thinks void of sense ; though he could understand " verticem capitis," who are the "dogs," v. 25, and what is the meaning of "ab ipso" ? Some questions follow on passages in St. Paul's Epistles, (i) Eph. iv. 11: what are the special functions of each order named by St. Paul ? what difference is there between " pastors " and "teachers"? (2) I. Tim. ii. i, 2: what difference between " prayers " and " sup- plications," etc. ? (3) Rom. xi. 28 : how can the people of Israel be at the same time friends and enemies — why enemies for the sake of Christians, friends for that of the fathers ? (4) Col. ii. 18, "nemo vos seducat in humilitate et religione angelorum." What angels does St. Paul mean ? — if bad angels, how can there be any "humilitas " or "religio" connected with them ? Paulinus thinks that heretics must be intended. (5) Col.ii. 18, 21. He asks Augus- tine to explain these two passages, which seem to contradict each other: what "shew of wis- dom" ("ratio sapientiae") can there be in"will worship" (" superstitio "), and how can " neg- PAULINOS lect of the body " (" non p.ircvndum corpori ") agree with 's.uisfviiisol the flesh" ("suturita* carnis"), which seems contrary to St. Paul's own practice as mentioned I. lor. ix. a; .' Mr also asks .Augustine to expljin whv our I was and was not recoj-nized \>\ tlie w..mr.i disciples on the l>.»y of Kt".urr«Tti..ii. h.u came to be known by the l.itler in the " t.i. .... ing of bread " ; what did He mean bv luddinK Mary not touch lliiu until after liis asniisiMii (John XX. 17) ? He suppt>M-> He meant that He was to be touched by faith lu-reaftcr, though not then by the hand. Again what did Simeon mean bv his words to the Virgin Mother (Luke li. i.\, 35)? What "sword" was to pierce her soul ? Was it tlu* word of CJod ? and how could this cans* the '• thoughts of many hearts " to be " revealeil " ? These questions he doubts not that .\ngustine will be able to explain to him (Ay>. 1.). The letter of Faulinus to Pammachius is a very long tme of condolence and exhortation on the li>ss nf his wife Paulina, dauxiht'T i>f Paula, and sister of Eusti^chiuin. Feeling deeply for him in his loss, he nevertheless doiibt-i wlKther he ought not to HTite more in thankfulness for the faith Pammachius has shewn in honouring her funeral, not with ostentatious pomp or gladiatorial shows, but with alms and good work?, first presenting the sacred oblation to God and the pure libation (" sacras hostias et casta libamina ") with commemoration of her whom he had lost, and then providing a meal for the poor of Rome in great numbers in the church of St. Peter, following in this the exam- ple 01 Scripture saints, Christ Himself, and the first Christians. Faith is a greater comfort than any words of his ; by its means we can walk in Paradise with the souls of the departed. Relying on the truth of Scripture we cannot doubt the resurrection, his only doubt is as to his own claim to admission into the heavenly kingdom. Yet the door, he knows, is open to all, and the departed wife of his friend is a pledge to himself of the future in Christ {hp. xiii. ; see Hieron. Ep. Ixvi.). The letters of Paulinus are generally clear and intelligible, C leasing as regards style, remarkable for umility of mind, an affectionate disposition, and a cheerful, playful humour, free trom all moroseness or ascetic bitterness. .Many of his remarks on Scripture and c)ther subjects >.how good sense and sound judgment, and, though free from any pretension to learning, provi- him an industri<jUb student and careful inquirer into the sacred writings in the Latin version. (6) Verse. — Paulinus wrote much in verse throughout his life, and sent many of his poems to his friends. Seventeen are more or less directly in praise of Felix, all of them dated Jan. 14, the day of his death, and con- sequently called Natalitia. though not by Paulinus himself. The ist (Carm. xii.) was written in Spain, but when fuUv intending to retire to .Sola, a.d. 394, the 2n<i shortly after his arrival there (16. xiii.). The 3rd descril)« the concourse from all parts to the tomb of Felix, and the power he manifested of casting out devils and curing diseases («6. xiv. ii-43)- The 15th and i6th relate the legend of Felix. The 17th is a Sapphic ode to .Nicetas, who wa» about to return to his sec after his visit to Nola. A.D. 398 {ib. ivii.). He came a second PAULINUS I time. A.t>. 401. and hi. I much vttixfartion n. I ihth pi»ein. 6th in I. ' in hr\.itnr!rrs tV,.- .led • y • r4- Fhi" (rimd imr he Old !(ie •iKit (u all rati AIS ■><% ..b. '■ II. \«» I til the rrlie* tl ..,,. ,,^ llloie n..ljl.l. ,^, ; honoured an ' „| I Felix; and li ,^1, I oniament in f j the cross was .1 I of l-Vlix, and 1 ! ti«)n of the - : piNin last in whom he call has been th.' Consists of a . the old myt advantages i.t whose dcK-trii. nient. antl re.l I descriU'd. aiiil I sider the bU-ssing if 1 tirual hi.- who accept the offer (16. xxxvi.). i .\s Bosc rem. irks. t!i, 1,^% . ,.f \ ' and prosody w • I in his day. ant neglect of tho : afford abundant .mm. ;u. truly that they shew mii' though inanv are grace (. especially his !■ n. r, i . , address to Nir^ • ' great plcasuri : I well, but his 1 rank as poetry. iJ.:ui*aui. 1. ,« a very favourable opinion .i>«> I lion au cttujuirme sn-tU. vo). - «rj. Uf his amiable and atfe< ti'>ii 4t< .||^^ s|(|..q, !lt)ve for his friends, profcund huinililv. mtire I abnegation of self. -■ irrn-st ;M'-tv. in ) drv 11,41 ' to the service • ■ ,^^ been given. II ^ .0 ; the Catholic ty. which he state, . ,,. , . .,, i.s. liut seems in one letter t'> tavour tnr Mrw» o| the semi-PelaK'nns (/•./>. xxix. 7). \lc brlirvcd devoutly in the [■ w.-t ml mtl'i. 1. . I .Ir- parted saints, i •. .(« i life from the i . U I may be said t ' h« carried, as the st ri. . m !.i, ly, to the utmost bound of i(.\inp<^rp, Hnu€ dt\ dcui m ' xii. p. r>'>, and l.ill/rattut iHmift'te , quii^nu iUde, \->\ 1. \>. j.^^». The ed. >>i Ills w .rk% pufi f>v Ih^ MiKiie, I'atr. Ijtt. •■ ' '-• •• • matter of nio»t of ■ however, in all inaf • arclessly. and its il axurate. An aiounl bv Cavr. Hi%l. l.iU I. I l:c(l. v.. I. Ul. . lllleli. Cclllier, v.. I. vul. I>i hit r%m*i, Lund. 1 - lot life, blaminK K' tl iM rii«- «bb« th« the«>l»Ky, though givin l'a>iiiiiiu tk given li^t . l>upui, HiU. . ^ 1 XIV. ; •Oii <\ and hH .1111 lull crr<ti| far 814 PAULINUS his piety. la the Revue des deux mondes for 1878, vol. xxviii., is au art. by M. Gaston Boissier on a Life of Paulinus by the abbe Lagrange, pub. in 1877. Dr. Adolf Buse, professor at the Seminary of Cologne, has written a book in two vols., Paidin und seine Zeit (Regensburg, 1856), which answers fully to its title, containing all or nearly all known about him, and written with great care, moderation, and critical judgment. He avoids most of the legends, and shews that the use of bells in churches, an invention credited to him by tradition, is not due to him, nor even to the town of Nola. The latest ed. of his works is by Hartel (Vienna, 1894, 2 vols.) in the Corpus' Scr. Eccl. Lat. xxix.-xxx. ; see also Hartel, PatristischeSiudien (Vienna, 1895), V. vi. [H.W.P.] Paulinus (12^, son of a prefect (probably a vicarius) of lUyricum ; born at Pella. His father soon afterwards went to Carthage as proconsul, and Paulinus was before long sent to Bordeaux to be brought up by his grand- father. In his 84th year (probably c. 460) he wrote a poem called " Eucharisticon Deo sub Ephemeridis meae textu," in which he returns thanks to God for his preservation and for many blessings throughout a long and rather eventful Ufe. The poem throws some light on the history of his time, particularly on the movement of the northern nations. It has been erroneously attributed to St. PauUnus of Nola. It is in De la Bigne, Bibl. Pair. (App. col. 281, Paris, i579), and was ed. by Daumius (Lips. 1686). Hist. Litt. de la France, ii. 363, where the events of his Ufe are traced in some detail, from the account given in the pof>m itself ; Alzog, Handb. der Patrol. ; Ebert, Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Ltt. ; Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 290; Teuffel, vol. ii. Cf. also J. Rocafort. /){> Paul Pell, vita et ceuv. (Bordeaux, 1890). [H.A.W.] Paulinus (13) of Perigueux [Petrocorius), a poet of the 2nd half of the 5th cent., to whom properly belong certain works some- times attributed to St. PauUnus of Nola, viz. Vita Martini in six books, a poem, " de Visita- tione Nepotuli Sui," and a short poem com- posed as a dedicatory inscription for the basilica of St. Martin at Tours. Nothing can be clearly made out concerning his life or parentage, save the inference, from the name Petrocorius, that he was probably a native of Perigueux. The poem on St. Martin was probably written c. 470, certainly during the episcopate of Perpetuus of Tours (who pre- sided at the council of Tours in 461), since it is dedicated to that bishop, and is partly based on a document drawn up by him. It is mainly a rather rough versification of the Life of St. Martin by Sulpicius Severus and of parts of the dialogues of the same writer ; the last book is especiaUy interesting, as repre- senting a formal account by the bp. of Tours of the miracles wrought at his predecessor's tomb. The short dedication poem for the new basilica was written later, at the request of Per- petuus. The poem "de Visitatione Nepotuli Sui" records a miraculous cure of the author's grandson, by the joint agency, as he appears to consider, of St. Martin and Perpetuus. His works are, under the name of St. Paul- inus of Nola, in Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixi. (Ebert, PAULINUS Gesch. der Chr. Lat. Lit. 385 ; Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 449 ; Teuffel, vol. ii. ; Greg. Turon. de Mir. B. Mart., and Ruinart's note in the Benedic- tine ed.) Cf. A. Huber, Die poetische Bear- bietung der Vita S. Mar. durch Paul von Perigueux {Pamplon. iqoi). [h.a.w.] Paulinus (20), the first Christian missionary from Rome to Northumbria, and the bishop who begins the recognized succession in the archiepiscopal see of York. He was sent from Rome by Gregory in 601, with MelUtus, Justus, and Rufinianus. They joined Augustine in Kent, and would take an active part in evangeUzing that kingdom. In 625 Edwin, king of Northumbria, wished to marry Ethelburga, daughter of Eadbald, king of Kent, who objected to a pagan son- in-law. A second embassy revealed Edwin's eagerness. He promised to allow the princess and her suite entire freedom in their religious worship, and even that he himself would adopt her faith, if his wise men should con- sider it right and just. Here was an oppor- tunity for evangelizing Northumbria, and Eadbald sent his daughter. PauUnus accom- panied the princess as her religious adviser, and, to add dignity and importance to his mission, Augustine consecrated him bishop before he set out, on July 21, 625. At first, however, PauUnus found the king quiescent though respectful, and that the people paid no attention ; while his own little party was in danger from the taint of heathen- ism. At the feast of Easter, 626, an attempt was made upon Edwin's life. That act probably accelerated the birth of Ethelburga's first child, a daughter, and Paulinus thanked God for the preservation of his master and mistress with such fervour that Edwin, touched at last, promised to become a Chris- tian if he could be avenged upon those who had sent forth the assassin, and, to shew he was in earnest, permitted Paulinus to baptize the new-born princess, with eleven courtiers who chose to accompany her to the font. Edwin obtained his revenge, but loitered over the fulfilment of his promise. Paulinus reminded the hesitating monarch of what had taken place twelve years before at Redwald's court. He laid his hand upon Edwin's head, and asked him if he remembered that sign and his pledge. Now was the time for its fulfil- ment. Whether Paulinus was the stranger himself, or had gathered from the queen, or some courtier, that Edwin had seen and heard all this in a dream, is a matter of doubt. A national gathering took place at Goodman- ham, near York, to consider the subject, and resulted in the king, coiurt, and many of the people becoming Christians. Northumbria was now opened to the mis- sionary work of Paulinus, and his time fully occupied. He made a convert of Blecca, the reeve of Lincoln, and through his means a church was erected on the summit of its hill in which Paulinus consecrated archbp. Honorius in 627. He is said soon after to have founded Southwell minster, and his appearance was described to Beda as he stood in the river baptizing convert after convert in king Edwin's presence. Mark him, of shoulders curved, and stature tall. Black hair, and vivid eyes, and meagre cheek. t>AULUS Of SAMOSATA At Donafflil, iirob.iblv thr lu.Mlcrn iKmrattcr. amid the remains o( ihc Kxniun camp, ihcrp was a Christian basilica with a st.mr altar, which may be ascribe^l to Pauhniis. At Dewsburv was a stone rrovs with an in- : tion stating that he preachetl there : whi Whallcy in Lancishire and near l-.i-iin*: close to York, there were other nected with his name, lie is >■ baptized very many at Hralbrt tenck. In Bcrnicia a streamlet < int .. . ., .■.,.- bum in the \. of N'orthumtvrland retams the great preacher's name, lie is s.iul i<> have been t>ccupied in instrurting and baptuin^- i r 36 consecutive days at Adgebrin or Yeav. ; There would yet be very few churches, these at first chiefly baptisteries on i . banks. There the catechumens were tau<;hi. and thence went down with their instructor into the water below. ' In 633. after six years of unceasing ami successful exertion, the labours of Paulinus in the north came abruptly to a close. Fdwin fell in battle at Hatfield, near Honcastrr. ■ ' the disaster was so complete that the : born Christianity of the north seemed lit; overwhelmed by the old idolatry, raiili. . thought that he owed his first duty to the widowed queen who had come with him into Northumbria, and he t<x>k her back, with her children and suite, to Kent. There he was made bp. of Rochester, which see had been vacant some time. In the autumn of 633 he received from the pope, who had not heard of the great disaster in the north, a pall designed for his use as archbp. of ^■ork. Whether or no, by virtue of the gift of this pall, he has a just claim to be considered an archbishop, he never went back to North- imibria. He is said to have been a benefactor to the monastery of Glastonbury, rebuilding the church and covering it with lead, and to have spent some time within its walls. He died Oct. 10, 644, and was buried in the chapter-house at Rochester, of which place he became the patron saint. Lanfranc trans- lated his remains into a silver shrine, giving a ^ cross to hang over it. .\mong the relics in York minster were a few of his bones and two teeth, but nothing else to commemorate his great work in the north, save an alt.ir which bore his name and that of Chad conjouietl. His life has been carefuUv related in I>r. Bright's Chapters of Early hnalisk Church History, and in the Lives of the Archbishops i>i York, vol. i.. for which see a full statement and sifting of the authorities. (j"-l Paulas (9) of Samosata. patriarch of An- tioch, A.D. 260-270. A celebrated Monarchian heresiarch. " the Socinus of the 3rd century " (so Bp. Wordsworth), deposed and excom- municated for heretical teaching as to the divinity of our Blessed Lord, a.d. 269. Hi» designation indicates that he was a native of Samosata, the royal city of Syria, whrro he may have become known to Zenot : ' Palmyra, through whom Cave ascribe his advancement to the ! in the SyTian church. I>r v< ■ out that the beginning "f ' synchronizes w^ith the com successes of Zenobia's Im against Sapor (Ar\ar\s 0/ the luurih Lcni. j . 4, alitv , birth, the J.. rather t a t hr: • PAULUS OP SAMOSATA «IA .IV .:... : :■■ ,t..li- , t!-. . .", hrt I'dtU"* 41x1 rh^r- :\r bi»h»t>* Tb« (h«T«. II • IV vain- .•ml .rat ■ ui* ■ ■<€• \>u ral . ol Ih« T* hf Ullg tut Ml a loity tiibui. . Tor) for priv.it. public ga/e. ! ' the psalms which w. which had ever pro\. orthodox faith, as in a century old (cf. Cams a/ li. 129), and to have init praise of him^flf which v church • ' • ■ . ' causiii at the as an .ti.^ • and gifts, an; power, he iii'l presbvters t" t other novelties. Hi, ; tu.itr in equally il.irk c. .lours. Hi in the |>leasures of th<- t iMr society of two Ix-ai.- spiritual sisters. " - couraged other rlrr ampl"-. to the ■ of ininv. N • had I.ut so >: Pauls It was clii.il-. the M ■ut. tii« .lid 4iid h;.- i. ilr illlied indulged lre*ly It,.! r„! .V.-.I tb« 816 PAULUS OF* SAMOSATA second synod heard from all quarters that his teaching was unaltered, and that this could be easily proved if the opportunity were granted. A third synod, therefore, was con- vened at Antioch, towards the close of 269. The leading part was taken by Malchion, a presbyter of Antioch, at one time president of the school of rhetoric there. Athanasius says that 70 bishops were present (Athan. de Synod, vol. i. p. ii. p. 605, ed. Patav.), Hilary says 80 (Hilar, de Synod, p. 1200). Malchion, as a skilled dialectician, was chosen by them to conduct the discussion. Paul's heresy being plainly proved, he was unanimously con- demned, and the synod pronounced his de- position and excommunication, which they notified to Dionysius bp. of Rome, Maximus of Alexandria, and the other bishops of the church, in an encyclical letter, probably the work of Malchion, large portions of which are preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vii. 30). In it the assembled fathers announced that they had of their own authority appointed Domnus, the son of Paul's predecessor Demetrianus, to the vacant chair. The sentence of deposition was easier to pronounce than to carry out. Popular tumults were excited by Paul's parti- sans. Zenobia supported her favourite in his episcopal position, while the irregularity of Domnus's appointment alienated many of the orthodox. For two years Paul retained pos- session of the cathedral and of the bishop's residence attached to it, asserting his rights as the ruler of the church of Antioch. On the defeat of Zenobia by Aurelian towards the end of 372, the Catholic prelates represented to him what they termed Paul's " audacity." Aurelian relegated the decision to the bp. of Rome and the Italian prelates, decreeing that the residence should belong to the one they recognized by letters of communion (ib.). The Italian bishops promptly recognized Domnus, Paul was driven with the utmost ignominy from the temporalities of the church, and Domnus, despite his irregular appointment, generally accepted as patriarch {ib. ; Cyril Alex. Hoin. de Virg. Deip. ; Routh, iii. 358). The teaching of Paul of Samosata was a development of that of Artemon, with whose heresy it is uniformly identified by early writers. Like the Eastern heresiarch, Paul held the pure humanity of Christ, " He was not before Mary, but received from her the origin of His being " (Athan. de Synod, p. 919, c. iii. s. 10). His pre-existence was simply in the divine foreknowledge. He allowed no difference in kind between the indwelling of the Logos in Christ and in any human being, only one of degree, the Logos having dwelt and operated in Him after a higher manner than in any other man. This indwelling was not that of a person, but of a quality. There is no evidence that he denied the supernatural conception of Christ. Athanasius distinctly asserts that he taught eeoi/ €k wapdevov, Geic €K Nafap^T ocpdivra (Athan. de Saint, adv. Apoll. t. i. p. 635) ; but he laid no particular stress upon it. His inferior Being was e/c Tvapdivov ; his superior Being was penetrated by the Logos, Whose instrumentality by it was continually advancing itself towards God, until the " Jesus Christ from below " (^KaTuidev) became worthy of union with God (e/c irpoKowrji PAULUS Ii. TeOeorroirja-daL). Therefore, although he called Christ God, it was not as God by His nature, but by progressive development. The Deity of Christ grew by gradual progress out of the humanity. He was convicted, according to Eusebius, of asserting that Christ was mere man deemed specially worthy of divine grace (Eus. H. E. vii. 27). He taught also that as the Logos is not a Person, so also the Holy Spirit is impersonal, a divine virtue belonging to the Father and distinct from Him only in conception. It deserves special notice that Paul'smisuse, •• (TupLaTiKQs et crasso sensu," of the term 6/xooi)(Jio?, " consubstantial," which after- wards at Nicaea became the test word of orthodoxy, is stated to have led to its rejec- tion by the Antiochene council (Athan. de Synodis, t. i. in pp. 917, 922). This is allowed by Athanasius, though with some hesitation, and only on the testimony of his serai-Arian opponents, as he said he had not seen the original documents {ib. pp. 918-920) by Hilary (de Synod. §81, p. 509 ; §86, p. 513) on the ground that it appeared that " per hanc unius essentiae nuncupationem soli- tarium atque unicum sibi esse Patrem et Filium praedicabat " (in which words he seems mistakenly to identify the teaching of Paul with that of Sabellius), and still more emphatically by Basil (Ep. 52 [30]). Dr. Newman regards Paul of Samosata as "the founder of a school rather than of a sect" (Arians, p. 6). A body, called after him Paulianists, or Pauliani, or Samosaten- sians, existed in sufficient numbers at the time of the council of Nicaea for the enact- ment of a canon requiring their rebaptism and the reordination of their clergy on their return to the Catholic church, on the ground that orthodox formulas were used with a heterodox meaning (Canon. Nic. xix. Hefele, i. 43). The learned presbyter Lucian, who may be con- sidered almost the parent of Arianism, was a friend and disciple of Paul, and, as being infected with his errors, was refused com- munion by each of the three bishops who suc- ceeded the heresiarch. The many references to them in the writings of Athanasius show that for a considerable period after the Nicene council it was felt necessary for Catholics to controvert the Samosatene's errors, and for semi-Arians to disown complicity in them (Athan. u.s.). The Paulinians are mentioned by St. Augustine as still existing (Aug. de Haer. 44), though pope Innocent spoke of the heresy as a thing of the past in 414 (Labbe, ii. 1275), and when Theodoret wrote, c. 450, there did nut exist the smallest remnant of the sect {Haer. ii. ir). Cf. Epiphan. Haer. 65; Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. iv. pp. 289-303. [e.v.] Paulus (10) II., patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 519-521 (Clinton, F. R.). On the expulsion of the Monophysite Severus by Justin, Paulus, a presbyter of Constantinople, warden of the hospice of Eubulus, was nominated by the emperor to the vacant see, and was canonically ordained at Antioch. He strictly attended to Justin's commands to enforce the decrees of Chalcedon, and by inserting in the diptychs the names of the orthodox bishops of that synod caused a schism in his church, many of the Antiochenes regarding the council with 1 ^AULUS MOLOI tlf suspicion, .u tfiuliiK t N'.M riaiiivm rirrifV. l.p f \i!.r.li-.i. . . I r>Mt ,- Imn • i r,< .. Idity, aiulri>sia< • him bof.rc U. that time iii ( becoming a bisii p. i in \ comint; lo any c»nrlusi.>ii, .4: repeatetl bol..rc Jiistin. 1 clear hiiiiscH. obt.uiu-tl lra\. i in. . ,,., to retire (roll) his bishopric, A. n. .Sii. Mr rty succecdetl by Euphrasiu*. Kvaijr. //. h. r. Thet)phan. p. 14 1; joaiin. Malal. lib. \ p. 4" : Eutycii. ii. isi ; hp. Juittnt. I..r >• IV. 1555; Lc(Jiiicii. Or. (*rii<. II. 732. ji t. Paillas(ll). sumamrd I ht liUik, ]ac e patriarcli of .\ntiiH-h from about the ini <«• of 6th cent, to 578. was a native of .M > .-.y aadria (A&scm. li.O. ii. 3311 ami, hV. : .1 Egyptians, a Monoph>-Mte. Befon I *>• bishop he maintained at Conit.i: •< successful public dispute in the ; «• palace with the Tritheites lonon an *• (16. 329). Either Mennas or liutv ■»• then have been patriarch. I'aul w.i •• then s>-ncellus to Therxlosius. tl. . *• patriarch of Alexandria, who was 1 ^f* exile at Constantinople, but ex< i '«i authority over the Jacobite roi <^ there and in E({ypt. Paul's conn \ '•• Theodosius, and his success as .1 '*• marked him out for the titular se<- ' '■* and the patriarchate of the wh. !■ M •* phN-site body, then beKinnin^ to U- r.. «» Jacobites, and he was consecrate*! bv | Baradaeus himself who originated ;' •• We cannot feel sure that tin-, was I '" I'aul apiH-ars in a list of celebritie> : 't in 571. All we hear of him aft. ; '5^ disastrous. The great i>frs«'cuiioii of •'. .Monophysites by the patriarch John S< li '• ticus broke out at C<instantinople, if the > S is right, on Mar. 20, 571, and I'aul was ..n< , and Lu IJ a^ic Jti. mJ- I i:. '" : ' -"»«* of four bishops (another being I'alli s (18) ) miserv to the Kr.»vr " p. i«'i. • >• . barbarously treated by him. He w.is iii.lu . .1 Piului 18 I.. ' ;f. » ; << ;;•• riv, j ir. to leave the monastery of the A< ■ ' '''* Constantinople for the patriarch •• whither the three others were als •• imder pretence of conferring on liir uur. •'" the church. The four were kept in ■ . i'* custody, and cruelly used until they jk' * to Communicate with the persecutor on "• promise to ejert the svn'>d of Chalcedoii I: * the church(Johnof Eph. //. / . p. 42). I ' * • twice communicated with him, loudly anat; '" matizinK the obnoxious synod; but the i-cucd t . t < at •• patriarch put off his part of the compact with of IVarr. r|.^ the excuse that he must fimt obtain tin '-t- it < !. .r. (. consent of the bp. of Koine. Thu« t! "fell into communion " with the clef.i' * "symxlite," and on their |...iflini: him ^ reproaches the severity of tli^ , increased and they wrre i! : .'^ in the monastery "f H<-flt \ ^ stantinople, w!.' ' ■> - After a time I made his way i received him \'.\- , keeping him \ ■■ ^^ to communi' I. .^ new patriarch ..y was appointed, anU I'aul "< j cealment at Conslantinoplr. .^. 382. as detailed by John of I.; /.^ F^OlOS (13), suruamed c/ fi.J. J4. Mt^ t . «'-«■ \uji\ 1 4 u^ -^i ..,.-• ■ -. 58 818 PAULUS EDESSENUS people would not hear of violence being done to their bishop ; they rushed upon the house where the general was, set fire to it, killed him on the spot, tied a rope round his feet, pulled him out from the burning building, and dragged him in triumph round the city. Constantius was not likely to pass over this rebellion against his authority. He rode on horseback at full speed to Constantinople, determined to make the people suffer heavily for their revolt. They met him, however, on their knees with tears and entreaties, and he contented himself with depriving them of half their allowance of corn, but ordered Paulus to be driven from the city. Athanasius was then in exile from Alex- andria, Marcellus from Ancyra, and Asclepas from Gaza ; with them Paulus betook himself to Rome and consulted bp. Julius, who examined their cases severally, found them all staunch to the creed of Nicaea, admitted them to communion, espoused their cause, and wrote strongly to the bishops of the East. Athanasius and Paulus recovered their sees ; the Eastern bishops replied to bp. Julius altogether declining to act on his advice. Constantius was again at Antioch, and as resolute as ever against the choice of the people of Constantinople. Philippus, prefect of the East, was there, and was ordered to once more expel Paulus and to put Macedonius definitely in his place. Philippus was not ready to incur the risks and fate of Hermo- genes ; he said nothing about the imperial order. At a splendid public bath called Zeuxippus, adjoining a palace by the shore of the Hellespont, he asked the bishop to meet him, as if to discuss some public business. When he came, Philippus shewed him the emperor's letter, and ordered him to be quietly taken through the palace to the waterside, placed on board ship, and carried off to Thes- salonica, his native town. He allowed him to visit Illyricum and the remoter provinces, but forbade him to set foot again in the East. Paulus was afterwards loaded with chains and taken to Singara in Mesopotamia, then to Emesa, and finally to Cucusus in Armenia, where he died. Socr. H. E. ii. 6, etc. ; Soz. H. E. iii. 3, etc. ; Athan. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. 275 ; Mansi, Coitcil. i. 1275. [w.m.s.] Paulus (28) Edessenus, Monophysite bp. of Edessa ; consecrated a.d. 510 in succession to Peter. In the first year of his episcopate he took part with Gamalinus, bp. of Perrha, against certain sectarians who refused the use of bread, water, and wine, except in the Eucharist. Justin, becoming emperor, under- took to force the decrees of Chalcedon on Severus of Antioch and his followers, and committed the task to Patricius, who came in due course to Edessa (Nov. 519), and ordered Paul either to subscribe the council or resign. Paul refused, and took sanctuary in his baptistery ; whence he was dragged by Patricius and sentenced to be exiled to Seleucia. Justin, however, hoping to over- come the bishop's resistance, reinstated him after 44 days. But Paul still refused to sub- mit, and was at length deposed and banished to Euchaita in Pontus, July 522. A later imperial order placed Asclepius in the see. Paul translated, no doubt in his days of PAULUS exile, the Greek hymns of Severus and other Monophysite writers, and arranged them so as to form a Syriac hymnal. A MS. of this collection as corrected by his famous successor Jacob — dated in the lifetime of that prelate (a.d. 675), and probably written by his hand — is in the Brit. Mus. (Add. MS. 17134)- On the death of Asclepius (June 525), Paul "re- pented" (as the orthodox author of the Chronicon Edesseniim states) and made sub- mission to Justinian, then acting for Justin. From him he obtained a letter supporting the petition he addressed to Euphrasius, then patriarch, praying to be restored to his see. He was accordingly permitted to return to Edessa as bp. in Mar. 526. He survived this his third inauguration less than 8 months, dying on Oct. 30, less than a year before J ustin died. The Jacobites, however, cannot have regarded him as a renegade, for he is com- memorated in their calendar on Aug. 23, as " Mar Paulus, bp. of Edessa, Interpreter of Books," a title likewise given to Jacob of Edessa. His hymnal consists of 365 hymns ; 295 being by Severus, the rest by his contemporary John Bar-Aphtunaya, abbat of Kinnesrin, John Psaltes his successor there, and others. Though the trans, is no doubt mainly Paul's work, it includes a few hymns of obviously later date. Bp. Lightfoot [Ignatius, vol. i. p. 185) gives the hymns of this collection "On Ignatius " at length, with a trans. [j.gw.] Paulus (30), bp. of Emesa, one of the most deservedly respected prelates of the period of the Nestorian controversy, the contemporary of Cyril and John of Antioch, the peacemaker between the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch after the disastrous close of the council of Ephesus, a.d. 431. He reached Ephesus together with John of Antioch and the other Oriental bishops, and joined in the deposition of Cyril and Memnon (Labbe, iii. 597) and in all the proceedings of the Oriental party. He was one of the eight Oriental deputies despatched to the emperor with plenipotentiary powers [ib. 724). His moder- ation in these difficult and delicate negotia- tions was condemned by the uncompromising Alexander of Hierapolis as proceeding from a mean desire for reconciliation at the cost of the truth (Baluz. Concil. Nov. Collect. 800). Paul was a sincere lover of peace, and above all things anxious to put an end to the disputes on points of faith, the mutual violence of which was a disgrace to the church, a scandal to the faithful, and a stumbling-block to unbelievers. He was a man of vast experience in ecclesias- tical matters, an accomplished theologian, possessed of great tact and courtesy, and one who — for unblemished holiness as well as for his advanced age — enjoyed the confidence and reverence of both parties. Weary of conflict and anxious to obtain peace, John of Antioch despatched Paul as his ambassador to Alex- andria to confer with Cyril on the terms of mutual concord, a.d. 432. Paul presented in his own name and John's a confession of faith originally drawn up' by Theodoret. The formulary was accepted by Cyril as orthodox, and he exhibited a formulary of faith which Paul approved as consonant with the creed of the Orientals (Labbe, iii. 1090). PAULUS Paul was then received into communion by | C>Til on exhibiting a written iliKUinent I acquiescinfj in the deposition of Nestorius, anathematizing his writings, and recognizing his successor Maxiinian (Cyrill. £/>^. 3J. 40. t. ii. pp. loo-ioi, i.SJ). I'aul was invited by CvTil to preach on the Sunday before Christ- ' mas Day and on Christmas Day itself. On the festival the chief church of the city was ] crowded, and Paul, having commenced with the " Gloria in excelsis Deo," passed on to Is. vii. 14, and concluded his exordium with words decisive of the whole controversy, " Mary the mother of God brings forth Hm- raanuel." The test title was received with j loud acclamations bv the con^jregation, " This ' is the true faith "; "This is the gift of God," j which were repeated when he proceeded to I enunciate the doctrine of " the combination j of two perfect natures in the one Christ," with | shouts of " Welcome, orthodox bishop, the j worthy to the worthy " (Labbe, iii. 1095). Paul preached a third time the following | Sunday, New Year's Day, 433, with equal acceptance. Portions of all these sermons | are still extant («"6. 1091, 1095, 1097). To ] quicken John's delay in accepting the terms of peace proposed by C\Til, Paul accompanied Aristolaus and a deputation of two of Cyril's clergy to Antioch, to lay before John for his signature a document recognizing Nest'irius's deposition and the anathematizing of his teaching. This, eventually, was signed by John, and brought back with great joy by Paul to Alexandria (ih. 1091). The happy reunion of the long-divided parties was pub- lished by C)Til, in the chief church of .Mex- , andria, Apr. 23, 433. Cyril acknowledged the receipt of John's formulary in a well-known letter — conveyed to him by the aged peace- maker — commencing with the words of Ps. | xcvi. II : " I.aetentur caeli," etc., by which it was subsequentlv known (ib. 1106 ; Baluz. 786). The time of Paul's death is uncertain. Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. (index) ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 419 ; Coteler. Mon. Eccl. Graec. i. 48 ; Clinton, Fast. Rom. ii. 240 ; .Migne. Patr. Gk. Ixxvii. 1433 ; Hefele, Hist, of Councils, Clark's trans, iii. 127-137- [e-v.] Paulus(73), St. (called Tlubafus ; 6 f^ritirjUty. N'iceph.), Jan. 10 ; called by Jerome the founder of the monastic life ("auctor vitae ^ monasticae," Ep. 22, ad Eustock ; " princeps vitae monasticae," Vit. S. Pauli, Prol.), and said to have been the first, in Egypt at least, to lead the life of a hermit, preceding even the celebrated .Anthony (Koswcyd, Vitae Patrum, in Patr. Lat. Ixxii'i. 105 and notes). He lived in the desert of the Thebaid, whither ^ he fled in youth from the terrors of the Dician persecution, and where he died, at an extra- ordinarv age, hale and hearty to the Inst (Hieron. Ep. 21, aJ Paul. Concordiens.). The palm-tree at the mouth of his cave supplied him with food and clothing (Vita Pauli, c. d). The ravens are said to have brought him bread, and two lions dug his grave (i/>. cc. 9. ' 13). Anthony is said to have paid him a visit shortly before his death, and ever afterwards ^ to have worn his tunic of palm leaves on ' great festivals. Jerome adds (c. 13), with: characteristic fervour, that such a garment, the legacy of so great a saint, was more | PCLAOIA H|0 glorious th.m the purple ol a kmR. Nicrph. Call. //. h. IX. m; HoII. .ida SS. io Jan. ». 6(>i ; Hutl<r. J.m. \\. (i.e.*.) PauluS (HO) Miinrlinii-t r n. < • 'i.^ Silentiarv." from his position .1 I Justinian's court, wrote sr\rr.»l served in the .^ »i/'i.i.' •:.* /'.i.'.i.', ■, . other works of mm . lusixxtitjl account of the lim ' at inn nf (hp (ireat Church of t iniMt. 4s the evidence of a conti 1111 .1 u \ , .ilwavs W 411 important authority on the Kreatei>t rffort of Byzantine church architecture. If t- written in Homeric hexameters, with .1 ' ' i iambic verse. Its vividness is by .-Xgathias, but. from his n< . ance of technical terms, it 1^ .. ; • . . i.. follow his description of the building. I ogcthcr with the iK<t>pa(Tts tov iniutroi, it was edited by Graefe (Lips. i8j2). .Some assistance to its better understanding in relation to church architecture is given by Ncale, Hiil. of Holy Eastern Church (Intro.). [ii.a.w.J PegaslUS (1), bp. of Troas c. yso-ifM. His name was found in a previously unknown letter of the emperor Julian, first published in Hermes (1875), pp. 257-2<>6. This letter gives a very interesting description of a visit paid by Julian to Troy before he became emperor. It describes the graves of Hector and .\chilles, and the temple of Minerva as being still honoured with sacrilices ; wliile the bishop of the nlace I'eg.isius seems to have acted as custodian of the temple and of the images which were in their places and in good order. He had evidently discerned Julian's tendency to paganism. J ulian, upon entering the temple, recognized traces of sacrifices, and asked if the people still sacrificed to the gtxls. The bishop defended the practice on the analogv of the honour paid by Christians to the mart\TS. The bishop turned pagan on the accession of Julian, whose letter was wiitten to plead his cause on the ground that such converts needed encouragement. This letter is of great interest in view of m<Hieni explorations of the site of Troy. Cf. Hoissier'i art. on Julian in Kevue des deut momUi. July i8«o. piJ. 106-108. Ic.T.s.) Pelagia (3), sumamed .\tiiri:anta, .Manna, and I'acatnx. an actress of .\ntioch about the middle of 5th cent., c.lebrated for her repentance. Her history is discussed at length in the .\.i. SS. Boll. (Jet. iv. 248-268. where she is distinguished from two other Pelagias of Antioch, and IVlagia of Tarsu*. martvr under Diocletian. The story of our Pelagia has been told by Jacobus, a deacon and eyewitness of her conversion. Nonnu*. bp. oi Kdessa and successor of Ibas in thai see, was onr^ preachine at Anti.ich when present at a synof! ■■< . i.'i.i i.iJi..!.. 1'. l.i.^'ij was then the fav ■ Antioch, whose ii. upon her and siii : ' the number of peai;> ;.h. ssuiL Mir < .iiue into the church during the sermon, to the astonishment and horror of the other bi»hop». Nonnus had b«en an ascetic of the wvcfe order of I'achoniius of ral>enna, and he addressed Pelagia with such plainnrM and sternness touching her »ini and the future judgtneuts of (iod, that she at once rc|>ented. S20 PELAOIANISM and PELAfilUS and with many tears desired baptism, which, after some delay, was granted, the chief deaconess of Antioch, Romana, acting as sponsor for her. She finally left Antioch for a cell on the Mount of Olives, where she lived as a monk in male attire, and died some three years afterwards from excessive austerities. Jacobus the deacon, recounting a visit he paid to her there, gives a very interesting description of an anchorite's cell, such as can still be seen in many places in Ireland. She was living as an enclosed anchorite, in a cell with a window as the only communica- tion with the external world. Her whole history is full of interesting touches, describing the ancient ritual of baptism and other ecclesiastical usages. [g.t.s.] Pelagianism and Pelagius (2). The details of the early career of Pelagius, whose name is identified with the prominent subject of theo- logical controversy of Latin Christendom in the 5th cent., are very imperfectly known from contemporary history. He is said by Augus- tine, Prosper, Gennadius, Orosius, and Mer- cator to have been a Briton. Jerome's words ("habet progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britan- norum vicinia," Pref. lib. 3 in Hieron.) may imply that he was an Irishman, the Scoti being then settled in Ireland. His name undoubtedly looks like a Grecized version of some earlier name ; but the tradition that the original name of the heresiarch was Morgan (Marigena, neXd7tos), and that he came from Bangor in N. Wales, rests on late and untrustworthy authority. His birth probably occurred c. 370. Both Orosius and pope Zosimus speak of him as a layman. He came to Rome very early in the 5th cent. If Mercator's statement is accepted, that he imbibed his opinions from Rufinus the S>Tian in the episcopate of Anas- tasius, we must fix his arrival in Rome not later than 401. His personal character at this period is spoken of with the utmost respect by his contemporaries. His great opponent St. Augustine describes him as being generally held to be a good and holy man, and of no mean proficiency as a Chris- tian (de Pecc. Mer. iii. i). Paulinus, bp. of Nola, who was much attached to him, es- teemed him a special servant of God. Pela- gius was actuated at Rome by a strong moral purpose, enforcing the necessity of a strict Christian morality as against a laxity of life content with external religious observances. To this period must be assigned his earliest 3 works : the first, in 3 books, on the Trinity ; the second a collection of passages from Scrip- ture, all bearing on Christian practice, called by Gennadius Eulogiarum Liber, by Augustine and Orosius Testtmoniorum Liber ; the third an exposition of the Epp. of St. Paul. At Rome Pelagius became acquainted with Coelestius, whose name was so intimately associated with his in the subsequent contro- versy. Coelestius, originally an advocate, was led by Pelagius to a strict religious life, and very soon became an ardent disciple and a propagandist of his master's views. De- spite the imputations of later opponents, it is evident that during his long residence at Rome Pelagius was animated by a sincere desire to be a moral reformer. The consciousness of the need of a pure and self-denying morality as PELAGIANISM and PELA6IUS an element in religion led him to lay exag- gerated stress upon the native capacity of the free will of man, to form a wrong estimate of the actual moral condition of human nature, and to overlook or fatally undervalue the necessity of divine aid in effecting the restor- ation of man to righteousness. The first signs of his antagonism to the Augustinian theories, which were then developing and obtaining general acceptance in the Western church, are exhibited in an anecdote related by St. Augustine himself {de Bono Persev. c. 53). Pelagius was violently indignant on hearing a bishop quote with approbation the famous passage in the Confessions of St. A ugns- tine, where he prays, "Give what Thou dost command, and command what Thou wilt." This language appeared to Pelagius to make man a mere puppet in the hands of his Creator. About the same time, apparently (A.D.405), Pelagius wrote to Paulinus (Aug. de Grat. Christi, 38). The letter is not extant, but St. Augustine, who had read it, declared that it dwelt almost entirely upon the power and capacity of nature, only referring most cur- sorily to divine grace, and leaving it doubtful whether by grace Pelagius meant only the forgiveness of sins and the teaching and example of Christ, or that influence of the Spirit of God which corresponds to grace proper and is an inward inspiration. Pela- gius remained at Rome till c. 409, when, as Alaric's invasion threatened the city, he withdrew with Coelestius to Sicily, and shortly after to Africa. He visited Hippo Regius, from which Augustine was then absent, and seems to have remained quiet at Hippo, but shortly afterwards repaired to Carthage, where he saw Augustine once or twice. Augustine was then deeply involved in the Donatist controversy, but learned that Pela- gius and his friends had begun to advocate the opinion that infants were not baptized for the remission of sins, but for the sake of obtaining a higher sanctification through union with Christ. This novel doctrine ap- peared to Augustine to deny the teaching of the church, as it virtually involved the denial of any guilt of original sin which needed forgiveness. Augustine, pre-occupied with the Donatist errors and not ascribing much weight to the chief upholders of the new heresy, did not then wTite in defence of the doctrine assailed. Pelagius, after a short interval, sailed for Palestine, leaving Coeles- tius at Carthage. In Palestine he was intro- duced to Jerome in his monastery at Bethle- hem. Coelestius at Carthage openly dis- seminated Pelagius's views, and on seeking ordination as a presbyter was accused of heresy before bp. Aurelius. A coimcil was summoned at Carthage in 412. Augustine not being present, the accusation was con-, ducted by Paulinus the deacon and biographer of Ambrose. The charges against Coelestius were that he taught that: (i)Adamwas created liable to death, and would ha\e died, whether I he had sinned or not. (2 ) The sin of Adam hurt himself only, and not the human race. (3) Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall. (4) Neither by the death nor the fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS Christ rise a^aiu. (s) Tlio Law inlriKluccs men into the kingdom uf heaven, just in the same way as the C.ospel docs, (h) Kvrn before tlie coming of Christ there were some men sinless, i>. men as a matter of fact without sin. (7) Infants, even though not baptized, have eternal life. Coelestius endeavoured to explain away some of his assertions; but his explanations were judged evasive and his doctrines ci>n- demned as unscriptural and contrary to the Catholic faith. .\ sentence of excommunica- tion was passed upon him and his followers. He shortly afterwards sailed to ICphesus. The prevalence of these opinions and the efforts made to diffuse them led .\u>;ustine to denounce them. In three or four sernums delivered at this time (170, 174. 175) he devoted himself to refuting the innovating doctrines, though he does not mention their chief upholders by name. His first written treatise on the controversv was called forth by a letter from his friend .Marcellinus. who was troubled by daily assaults of I'elagian disputations. The work originally consisted of two books. The first established the positions that death in man was the penalty of sin, and not a mere condition of his natural constitution ; that the whole offspring of Adam was affected by his sin, and that bap- tism of infants was for the remission of original sin, the guilt of which they bear from their birth. In the second book .Augustine argued that the first man might have lived without sin by the grace of God and his own free will ; that as a matter of fact no living man is whollv free from sin, for no man wills all that he ought to do, owing to his ignorance of what is right or his want of delight in doing it ; that the only man absolutely without sin is Christ, the God-man and .Mediator. Augus- tine added to this treatise as a third book a letter he wrote to Marcellinus when, a very few days after the compilation of the two books, he became acquainted with some fresh arguments against original sin advanced in the exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul by Pelagius, who, however, put the arguments in the mouth of another and di<l not avowedly express them as his own. In bks. i. and ii. Augustine never mentions Pelagius or Coeles- tius bv name, possible hoping they might yet be won back to orthodoxy ; in bk. iii.. while arguing strongly against the views of the nature of original sin propounded by Pelagius, he speaks of Pelagius with marked respect, calling him a signallv Christian man, a highly advanced Christian ("vir ille tam egregie Christianus," de Pccc. Mer. iii. 6; "non parvo provectu Christianus," th. iii. i). Pelagianism continued to propagate and assert itself and found many upholders in Carthage. It claimed the authority of the Eastern churches, whose tendency had always been to lay stress on the power of the human will, and, boldlv retorting the accusatfu of in- novation, it declared that the views of Augustine and the dominant party in Africa were a de- parture from the old orthodoxy. This rous«d the indignation of Augustine. In a sermon preached June 27. 413. he dealt with infant baptism and refuted some new phases of Pe a- glan opinion. From it wc learn that the Pela- PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS mSI ^;Mn^ now t4u»;hi !'^ ■■■ < ■ < — '_ ln>t l>rca»sr thrv : guilt of original Ml were wholly (rrr. the kingdom of i.i>U aiuI (. salvation and rtrrnal lilr. Tl ' sage in Koin. v. m. " \\\ n. t 1 into the world." tl .\dam stniird by caused all his <!' imitation of his f'\ un; i' 11 ' asked, mm are born sinnrrs ■ parent, why arc not nirn born ■ i>elirving p.irents who liavr !><• baptism ? If .\<lam's sin hurt • not sinned, whv, bv parilv •■! should not the (Irath of 1 liri ■ , who have not lK-lievr«l on Hum • J..a.*j.1 \..r cloM- of his sermon .\ugiislinr rrad !• tfir congregation from the ipistl.- .1 t' . 1: ,: tyred bishop St. I vprian. wrili pass.ige in whirli the judgm<-n; of his day was cmph.itirally | 1 baptism was administrrrd |o ini m! : nmission of sin which th-v had r.i.' through their birtli, ami fiidrtl tiv : an earnest appe.d to \\: continue to maint.iin ■ hostile to such a fundan doctrine and practice a ; be disowned by the chuicti .k- ti<i<iiial. ilr entreated them, as frieiuU, to srr tlir rrric into which they were driftnik' i" 1 " t '• provoke a formal sentence of < About the same time he rrrri\ ■ Pelagius, who was still in Pil'* ' in friendly and afTec letter is preserved in A ' Gtstis Pdati^ii (c. 5i). *^ out the unfair Use whicli i • 11-^. i ■ . > 1 to make of it at the symxl oi iii.«spoiis. The condemnation of IVlagiaiiism bv the synod of Carthage deterr.,1 its m i. 1 r luinrut uph')lders from the con!' 1 of its doctrines, but a (p;; tion of them continued. ' so greatly that .Augustin- ; i • to when- the evil might break 157). Tidings of su. h a lrr-,h ill 414 from Si< ilv. where our II him that some Christians at asserting that man ran be "1 : easily keep the rommaiidmnii will ; that an uiibapti/ed in' by death rannot possiblv pn: as he is born wmIi ni sit. < mentione<i bv Hi eusans exhibit .» I: thought, if thrv 1 ■ «• same S'lUrte. Tins, wtlt- th.it ■« II ■■ ':i^'l rannot enter the kingdom of (,od milr*« he S.-I1 .ill h'- Ills. .111.1 ih it if --aTui t ..v.,tl him t.. k. ■ ' ■ ■ '•■' ret . oft- a . ..u'liti 11 1 1 •' exaggeration of t Pclagiii*. a«ul ' orately r*-: ' • ' the argu About tl young niei, *' liun, Timauu* auU Jainci. LjJ bcc;. in .1 «<J 822 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS by Pelagius to renounce the world and adopt the monastic life and had adopted many of the peculiar opinions of their master. They had, however, been powerfully impressed by the arguments of Augustine on the nature of Christian grace, and forwarded him a book of Pelagius, to which they requested a detailed answer. This Augustine gave in his treatise de Natiird et Gratia. The book of Pelagius, if we may rely upon the fairness of Augustine's quotations, which there is no reason to dis- trust, advocated in the interests of morality the adequacy of human nature for good action. It affirmed it possible to live without sin by the grace or help of God. But the grace thus recognized was the natural endow- ment of free will, itself the gift of God, though sometimes the conception of it was enlarged so as to include the knowledge of right con- veyed by the Law. Sin was pronounced avoidable if men were to be truly accounted responsible moral agents, and sin being rather a negation than a positive entity could not vitiate human nature. When man has actually sinned, he needs forgiveness. Nature was magnified, as if the admission of a sub- sequent corruption was derogatory to the goodness of the original creation. All the O.T. worthies who are described as having lived righteously were quoted as proofs of the possibility of living without sin. The con- tinuance of controversy was obviously leading Pelagius to a more formal and systematic development of his theory. The same tendency to systematization is seen in a document of definitions or arguments attributed to Coelestius, which was communi- cated to Augustine by two bishops, Eutropius and Paul, as having been circulated in the Sicilian church. A series of i6, or as some condense them 14, questions is designed to point out the difficulties of the Augustinian theory and to estabUsh the contrary theory by one ever-recurring dilemma, that either man can live entirely free from sin, or the freedom of the human will and its consequent moral responsibility must be denied. Augus- tine replied to this early in 415, in his treatise de Perfeciione Justitiae Hominis, addressed to Eutropius and Paul. The scene of the controversy now changed from Africa to Palestine, where Pelagius had been resident for some years. In the begin- ning of 415 Paulus Orosius, a presbyter from Tarragona in Spain, came to Africa to consult Augustine as to certain questions, connected with Origenism and Priscillianism, which were rife in his native land. He had conceived an intense admiration for Augustine and became one of his most devoted disciples. Augustine describes him as quick in understanding, fluent in speech, and fervent in zeal. After giving him the instruction he required, he sent him to Jerome at Bethlehem, ostensibly to obtain further instruction, but really to watch the proceedings of Pelagius, and announce to the church in Palestine the steps taken in the African chmrch to suppress the rising heresy. Orosius reached Palestine in June and spent a few weeks with Jerome, who was then writ- ing his Dialogue against the Pelagians. He was invited to a synod at Jerusalem on July 28, and was asked what he could tell as to PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS Pelagius and Coelestius. He gave an account of the formal condemnation of Coelestius by the council of Carthage in 412, and mentioned that Augustine was writing a treatise in an- swer to a work of Pelagius, and read a copy of the letter from Augustine to Hilary. There- upon bp. John desired Pelagius himself to be sent for to have an opportunity of defending himself from any charges of unsound doctrine alleged. Pelagius was asked by the presbyters whether he had really taught the doctrines against which Augustine protested. He bluntly replied, "And who is Augustine to me ? " This bold and contemptuous rejection of the name and authority of the great bishop whose influence was paramount in the West owing to his signal services in the Donatist controversy, roused the indignation of the presbyters, but, to the amazement of Orosius, thepresiding bishop admitted Pelagius, layman and alleged heretic as he was, to a seat among the presbyters, and exclaimed, "I am Augus- tine here." He proceeded to hear charges against Pelagius. Orosius said that Pelagius, according to his own confession, had taught that man can be without sin and can easily keep the commandments of God, if he will. Pelagius acknowledged that he had used such language. Orosius claimed that such doctrine should be at once denounced as untenable on the authority of the recent council at Carthage, and of the writings of Augustine, and the judgment of their own venerated neighbour Jerome recently expressed in a letter to Ctesiphon. The bishop quoted the scriptural instances of Abraham, who was bidden " to walk before God and be perfect," and of Zacharias and Elizabeth, who were described as " walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the law blameless," as affording a prima facie justification of Pelagius, and argued. If Pelagius said that man could fulfil the commands of God without the aid of God, his doctrine would be wicked and worthy of condemnation, but as he maintained that man could be free from sin not without the aid of God, to deny this position would be to deny the efficacy of divine grace. Orosius pro- ceeded to anathematize the notion of such a denial of grace, and, seeing that John was unwilling to admit a charge of heresy against Pelagius, appealed to another tribunal. De- claring the heresy to be of Latin origin and most formidable in the Latin churches, he demanded that the whole question should be referred to pope Innocent, as the chief bishop of Latin Christianity. This compromise was accepted. The whole account of the pro- ceedings of this synod at Jerusalem is derived from the Apology of Orosius, and must be received with some deductions, having regard to the fiery and intemperate invective which the impassioned Spaniard lavishes upon Pelagius and all his followers. A renewed effort to quell Pelagianism, the result, Pelagius says, of the influence of J erome and a small knot of ardent sympathizers at i Bethlehem, was made towards the end of 415, when two deposed Western bishops, Heros of Aries and Lazarus of Aix, laid a formal accusa- tion against Pelagius before a synod at Dios- polis (the ancient Lydda), at which Eulogius, I bp. of Caesarea and metropolitan, presided. PELAGIANISM ind PELAGIUS Feurto.ii l.isli.-ps attciulcd it— l" iilofdu*. John, Ammoiiiaiuis. Eutonius, tw.i Torphy- rvs. Fidus, Zoninus, Zobofniius, Nvniphi- dius, Chromatins, Jovinus, Elcuthtriiis, and Cleinatius. The two accusers were absent from the hearing owing to the illness <>( one of them, but a document {hbtllus) was handed in containing the principal charges. Some of the propositions it attributed to IV- lapius were capable of being explained in an orthodox sense, and he did so exjilain them. It was objected to him that he had said that no one could be without sin unless he had the knowledge of the law. He acknowledged that he had said this, but not in the sense his opponents attached to it ; he intended bv it that man is helped by the knowledge of the law to keep free fri)m sin. The synod ad- mitted that such teaching was not contrary to the mind of the church. It was ch.-irged again that he had affirmed that all men are governed by their own will. He explained that he intended by this to assert the respon- sibility of man's free will, which God aids in its choice of good ; the man who sins is him- self in fault as transgressing of his own free will. This too was pronounced in agreement with church teaching, for how could any one condemn the recognition of free will or deny its existence, when the possibility of God's aid to it was acknowledged ? It was alleged that Pelagius had declared that in the day of judgment the wicked and sinners would not be spared, and it was inferred that he had intended thereby to imply that all sinners would meet eternal punishment, even those who had substantially belonged to Christ — it was probably implied that such teaching was a denial of the temporary purgatorial fire which was to purify the imperfectly righteous. Pelagius replied by quoting our Lord's words (Matt. XXV. 46), and declared that whoever believed otherwise was an Origenist. This satisfied the s\Tiod. It was alleged that he wTote that evildid not even enter the thought of the good Christian. He defended himself by saying that what he had actually said was that the Christian ought to study not even to think evil. The synod naturally saw no objection to this. It was alleged that he had disparaged the grace of N.T. by saying that the kingdom of heaven is promised even in O.T. It was supposed that by this he had proclaimed a doctrine that salvation could l>e obtained by the observance of the works of the Law. He explained it as a vindication of the divine authority of the O.T. dispensation, and its prophetic character. It was alleged that he had said that man can, if he will, b<- without sin, and that in writing a letter of commenda- tion to a widow who had assumed the ascetic life, he used fulsome and adulatory language which glorified her unexampled piety as superlatively meritorious. He explained that though he might have admitted the abstract possibilitv of ■^iniessness in man. yet he had never maintained that there had existed any man who had rf-mained sinless from infancy to old age. but that a man on his conversion might continue without sin by his own eflorts and the grace of God. though still liable to temptation, and those who held an opposite opinion he begged leave to anathematiie not wrr« ! ttlAtX with- .:4in%l vnod I hi* VPl It U -% he >tiip<l. •. thfl 1 the . and tiiutiC 4IHi rjftv ution ( vrn- ,. • Wl^ r- PELAGIANISM and PEUOIUS A3S I as hrrrlirs bill .i> ( I j sdlislird With thlv . by the help ol (i...! ' out sin. Other j i , him. such as thos. I o( Carthage in 41.- own, but n>.idr bv < he was willing frrrlv t.. hard to U-lirvr that m •.. not pronouncing cimdcn had himself on oit. r ... Finally. IVlagius ; doctrine of the II teaching of the h I the synod arknowled>;ril hnu . in full communion with the church. I feeling cvidcntlv ran very lii»;h. J regarded as a chief mov. of Pelagius. ;ind apparrn geance a violent and out made upon his monastcrv was ascril>ed to some of the I with what justice it is not r.i .As Neander rem.irks. it '.- '■■ Pelagius had any sharr proceediiiRs, .\s in that 1 outrage would doubtless li < the Roman bp. Innocent m the ii;U^»ju<;tl proceedings. Jerome, suspecting the ortho- doxy of many of its memWrs, sjHtke of the synod of Diospolis as a " miserable svno<l." .Aiugustine. in his treatise de (ifiln f'flactt, wTitten after he had received a full nfftnil record of the synod, argued that I' ' ! only escaped by a legal acquittal ■ worth, obtained by evasive ex; 1 by his condemning the very do^;...., l before professed. The controversy once more returned to (he West. A synod of more than '■ j l.i h.; * assembled at Carthage toward- • 416. Orosius produced the arcu had been presented against Pilu 1 and Lazarus. They recognized m t!.i:i t ,•• same heretical opinions previoiislv condemned at Carthage in 412, and determined t" t;;-'! to Innocent, bp. of Rome, on tl • tions at issue. Granting th.it t Jerusalem and Diospolis riiii.! • justified in the accpiittal of P- : ground of his explanations, eva claimers of resnonsibilitv for positions alleged, they calle<l att' continued prevalence of doctni.i ^ wl.uli affirmed the sufficiency of nature for the aviud- ancc of sin and fulfilment ments of (iod (thus virtu need of divine grace), an necessity of baptism in t' the way of obtain: and eternal salvati Numidia in 4i^>. wrote a letter to I: and with these t« a letter from .Ai; bishops, Aureliux Possidius, in which t!.< . the acquittal of Pelagius polis by saving that t!.- obtained by the .1. sentiment* and a< faith in ambiguoi. deceive the La»terti , : . .f il. 824 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS were of the full force of Latin words, and at the mercy of an interpreter. They demanded that Pelagius should be summoned to Rome and examined afresh, to see whether he acknowledged grace in the full scriptural sense. To enable the Roman bishop to judge dispassionately of the case they forwarded the book of Pelagius, on which Timasius and James had sought the judgment of Augustine, and the book {de Naturd et Gratia) which Augustine had written in reply. They speci- ally marked some passages in Pelagius, from which they thought Innocent must inevitably conclude that Pelagius allowed no other grace than the nature with which God had originally endowed man. Innocent answered this three- fold appeal in three letters written Jan. 27, 417. He began each with a strong assertion of the supreme authority of his see and many expressions of satisfaction that the contro- versy had been referred to him for final decision. He expressed doubt whether the record of the proceedings at Diospolis he had received was authentic. The book of Pelagius he unhesitatingly pronounced blasphemous and dangerous, and gave his judgment that Pelagius, Coelestius, and all abettors of their views ought to be excommunicated. Innocent died Mar. 12, 417, and was suc- ceeded by Zosimus, whose name seems to indicate his Eastern origin. Coelestius left Ephesus, whither he had gone on his expulsion from Africa and obtained ordination as pres- byter, and proceeded to Constantinople, whence, as he began disseminating his peculiar opinions, he was driven by its bishop, Atticus. He went at once to Rome to clear himself of the suspicions and charges urged against him. He laid before Zosimus a confession of his faith, which, after a minute and elaborate exposition of the chief articles of the Catholic faith, dealt with the controverted doctrines of grace. Treating them as really lying out- side the articles of faith, he submitted himself to the judgment of the apostolic see, if in any waj' he had gone astray from scriptural truth. He professed his belief that infants ought to be baptized for the remission of sins in accord- ance with church practice, as the Lord had appointed that the kingdom of heaven could not be bestowed save upon the baptized. But he did not admit that infants derived sin by propagation ; sin is not born with man, but is his own act of choice. To impute evil to human nature antecedently to any exercise of the will he held injurious to the Creator, as making Him the author of evil. Zosimus held a synod in the basilica of St. Clement. He asked Coelestius whether he condemned all the errors ascribed to him. Coelestius answered that he condemned all that Innocent had condemned, and was ready to condemn all that the apostolic see deemed heretical. Zosimus declined to pronounce a definitive sentence, but deprived and excommunicated the bps. Heros and Lazarus, who had not appeared to substantiate the charges made against the Pelagians, and after an interval of two months wrote to Aurelius and other African bishops, censuring them for the premature condemnation of Coelestius. He refused to decide upon the merits of the case trntil the accusers appeared before him, whilst PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS he informed the African bishops that he had admonished Coelestius and his followers to abstain from these nice and curious questions which did not tend to edification. After the despatch of this letter Zosimus received one from Praylius, the new bp. of Jerusalem, speaking favourably of Pelagius, and with it a letter from Pelagius and a confession of faith, which he had drawn up for Innocent, but which, reaching Rome after Innocent's death, were now delivered to his successor. This letter of Pelagius is lost, and known only by quotations in Augustine. The confession of faith is extant. Like that of Coelestius, it recapitulates the great articles of the Christian faith. In it he declared that he recognized free will in such a way as that man always needs the aid of God, and charged with error both those who say with the Manicheans that man cannot avoid sin, and those who assert with Jovinian that man cannot sin. He was willing to amend his statements if he had spoken incautiously, and to conform them to the judgment of the prelate " who held the faith and see of Peter." Zosimus had the letter and creed read in public assembly, and pronounced them thoroughly Catholic and free from ambiguity. He even spoke of the Pelagians as men of unimpeachable faith ("absolutae fidei") who had been %vrongly de- famed. He wrote afresh to Aurelius and the African bishops, upbraiding them vehemently for their readiness to condemn men without a proper opportunity of defence, strongly de- nouncing the personal character of Heros and Lazarus as rendering them untrustworthy witnesses, and gratefully acknowledging that Pelagius and his followers had never really been estranged from Catholic truth — a con- clusion strikingly different from that of his immediate predecessor. Augustine generally passes over in silence this action of Zosimus, speaking of it as an instance of gentle dealing with the accused, and rather implying that Zosimus, with an amiable simplicity, had allowed himself to be deceived by the specious and subtle admissions of the heretics. The African bishops were not willing to accept without remonstrance this judgment in favour of opinions which long study had taught them to regard as inimical to the faith and destruc- tive of all true spiritual life. Meeting at Carthage, they drew up a long letter to Zosi- mus, defending themselves from the charges of hastiness and uncharitableness, justifying the condemnation of Pelagianism pronounced by Innocent,_ and entreating Zosimus to in- quire afresh into the doctrines of Coelestius. The subdeacon Marcellinus was the bearer of this letter. Zosimus replied in a letter. Mar. 21, 418, extolling extravagantly the dignity of his own position as the supreme judge of religious appeals, but declaring that he' had not taken any further steps, hinting also at a possible reconsideration. On May i, 418, a full council of the African church, composed of 214 (others say 224) bishops, held in the basilica of Faustus at Carthage, Aurelius presiding, was unwilling to wait for a theo- logical determination from the see of Rome, but asserted its own independence and for- mulated nine canons anathematizing the principal Pelagian dogmas, some of them prob- PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS ably beiiii; a rcpublitation of lanciis passed at former minor coimcils. Anathemas wcrr i pronounced on the doctrine that infants | derive no original sin (mm Adam which needs expiation in baptism, and th.it there is some middle place of hapi>incss in the kingdom <>( heaven for infants who die unbaptij:ed. A strong protest was made against the views | that the grace of God by whicli we are justified through Jesus Christ avails only for the for- giveness of past sin and not for aid against the commission of sin. i>r that gr.ice is only the ', revelation of tiic will of Ciod and not an in- | spiring principle of righteousness, <>r that ' grace only enables us to do more easily what Ciod commands. The two ((Micluding cmmis i point to a peculiar application of IVlagi.m doctrine, which was a curious anticipation of the teaching of some modern sectaries. They reject the idea that the petition in the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our sins," is inappropriate for Christian men and can only be regarded as a prayer for others, and that it can only j be used as a fictitious expression of humility, not as a true confession of guilt. .\ppeal was now made to the civil power. The emperors Honorius and Theodosius issued a decree banishing Pelagius and Coelestius ' from Rome, and pronouncing confiscation | and banishment against all their followers. An imperial letter communicated this decree to the .African bishops. Zosimus. whether in vacillation or in alarm at the strong force ! of dominant Catholic opinion now supported by the state, proceeded to investigate the subject afresh, and summoned Coelestius for I fuller examination. Coelestius, seeing the j inevitable result, withdrew from Rome. [ Zosimus thereupon issued a circular letter \ {epistola tractoria) confirming the decisions of | the N. African church. He censured as con- trary to the Catholic faith the tenets of Pela- gius and Coelestius, particularly selecting for ; reprobation certain passages from Pclagius's Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul, which since his former consideration of the case had been laid before him, and ordered all bishops acknowledging his authority to sub- scribe to the terms of his letter on pain of deprivation. This subscription was enforced through N. Africa under the protection of the imperial edict by Aurelius the bishop and pre- sident of the council at Carthage, and in Italy under the authority of the prefect. In Italy r8 bishops refused, and were immediately deprived. The ablest and most celebrated was Julian, bp. of Eclanum in Apulia, who entered into controversy with Augustine with much learning, critical power, and well- controlled temper. He complained, not without some justice, that the anti- Pelagian party sought to suppress their opponents by the strong hand of imperial authority rather than convince them by an appeal to reason. He charged the Roman bishop and clergy with a complete departure from their fonner con- victions, and, complaining that subscription to the letter of Zosimus was being enforced on individual bishops in isolation and not at a deliberate svnod, demanded further discus- sion in a fresh council, refusing to acknowledge the dogmatic authority of the N. African church. A letter commonly supposed to be PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS 825 wniten by turn w.is lu.iil.ilrd !■> i- ■• ■■ it-' profcSSOil object ol Whirh wa-. mischievous convi|»rnrc» <•( i anti-Pcl.igian doctrine; ^nd .u written in the name o( the |H d. , : of Italy to Kufus. bp. of Thrv remonstrating ag.iinitt their • was probably drawn up by Juli.m I li< i» > letters reachetl Honifarr, who at the end <>l the ye;ir succee<led ZosimuH a^i l>p. "I H- nir. and were conununic.ited bv hirn tin ' ' ' to .-Vugustine, who replied ii> contra Puaa hf'islolas IWlnRtamr:, to Uonifare. ,ind subscipienllv ,..,.. argument ag.iinst Julian, tir>t in .1 trr.iii«4? conlra Juhaiium in six l>o..ks, wnlt'ii in 431, and thi-n in the dosing years ..( his li(r in 4 work of which six bo..ks onlv were 1 otnp|rtr<l. Julian throughout his wriling* sought to , .\\l a prejudice upon the Augustini in d'x tmir by raising forcible objections t<> it» more un- guarded assertions and exaggeration*. Ho boldly challenged it as a nvivrrl f nn '■! Manicheism, implying th.it lli> tion of .Augustine might still !>• doctrine. He objected that tl.' system denied the goixliiess .1 creation of ("kkI — repres<nle(i though a divine institution, ,is n — disparaged the righteousness 1 . saints— denied free will and Us i..ns..)u.ut moral responsibility — and nullifi<tl belie! in the forgiveness of all sins at baptism. Augus- tine shewed that these were unfair de<luction» from his statements, maintaining that the I original goodness of man's nature is not {incompatible with the recognition of ii» [ corruption after Adam's fall, that the O.T. i did not assert the sinlessness or fr'-"'!'-!!! from ; temptation of the saints; that '- " so vitiated by the fall that it for righteousness without the 1 : ; co-operating grace of Ciod ; and t:...; r ' the forgiveness ci>nveyed in b.ipUMu lii> le I remainetl the sinful clement of < .>n< iipis< em e. Augustine could confidently and su< < «-ss(ully appeal to the poi)ular consciousness of Chris- tendom, as bearing witness to man's moral impotence and his need of re<leiiii l" n Tlie experience of the human heart . a better judge of such spiritual : most subtle arguments of re.i- Aiding interpretations of the me.iMn.; t s 1 . I The tendency of IVIagiaiiisni to underrate 1 the necessity > f the diviix- rrdeinpiion, and to ' disp.iragc the dignity <-i •' •- •■ ■• •'- Redeemer bv denying II; , is manifested in the c.is. and presbvter of S. (i.iu; Africa, had been reclaiin.d (fwiii JrU»;ian 'views bv Augustine. In rr< anting hr ac- knowledged that he had l.ii.iM tK.l F<>ii> I Christ as a mere man \\ temptation, but bv His \ tions without divin. n ' feet holini-ss. Jesu to redeem inankii an exain|)le <>t hi i. 234 ; <«ennad. 'U ^' "/ • ' • Leporius's peculiar anthrop his theological coiicepti.m «i ( Annianus, a deacon ol Celada, »ame time in dcfenc* »l Pelagian Mtu». aud. 826 PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS at the suggestion of Orontius, one of the de- posed bishops, translated the homilies of John Chrysostom on St. Matthew in the interest, he alleged, of a high morality. He claimed Chrysostom as a powerful upholder of evan- gelical perfection, of the integrity of human nature against any Manichean notions of its essentially evil character, and of the free will which it was the glory of Christianity to recognize in opposition to pagan ideas of fate and necessity ; and as giving co-ordinate prominence to grace and free will. Pelagianism was not wholly extinguished even in Italy by the forcible measures adopted against it both by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, for pope Leo, writing c. 444, de- sired the bp. of Aquileia not to receive into communion any in his province suspected of the heresy before they subscribed a formal renunciation. The letters of pope Gelasius also refer to occasional outbreaks of the heresy in Dalmatia and elsewhere towards the end of the 5th cent. Pelagianism came under the formal con- demnation of the Eastern church in an incidental way. Several deposed Pelagian bishops repaired to Constantinople, where they found Coelestius. Atticus, the patriarch, had refused to receive them, but his successor Nestorius gave them a patient hearing. He wrote to Coelestinus, bp. of Rome, for infor- mation about the reasons of their condemna- tion and the nature of their peculiar doctrines, but received no answer. When Nestorius himself fell into disgrace because of his own heresy about the person of Christ, he was disposed to sympathize with Coelestius and his followers as the objects of persecution by a dominant party. The East had apparently not specially discussed the Pelagian contro- versy ; its leading rulers and writers re- cognized the co-operation of grace and free will without narrowly determining their limits. But the general council at Ephesus in 431 joined, under the influence of Cyril, in one condemnation the tenets of Nestorius and Coelestius, while refraining from specifying them. It pronounced sentence of deposition upon any metropolitan or cleric who had held or should hereafter hold their views. The personal history of Pelagius after the condemnation of his vuews by Zosimus is obscure. He is said to have died in some small town in Palestine, being upwards of 70 years old. Coelestius similarly disappears after the council of Ephesus ; the time and place of his death are unknown. Julian is said to have died c. 454 in an obscure town of Sicily, where he maintained himself by teach- ing. ' There is a story that in a time of famine he relieved the poor by parting with all he had. There is a tradition that in the gth cent. the inscription was still visible on his tomb : "Here rests in peace Julian, a Catholic bishop." A modiJ&ed form of Pelagianism, called by later scholastic writers semi- Pelagianism, arose in the closing years of Augustine's life. Its advocates were spoken of at the time of its introduction as Massilienses, as they were connected with the church of Marseilles. Its originator was John Cassian, commonly called a Scythian but probably a native of Gaul. He had been brought up in a monastery at PELAGIANISM and PELAGIUS Bethlehem, and after living some time with the monks of Egypt, went to Marseilles, where he founded two monasteries, one for men and one for women. He differed widely from Pelagius, for he acknowledged that the whole human race was involved in the sin of Adam and could not be delivered but by the right- eousness of the second Adam ; that the wills of men are prevented by the grace of God, and that no man is sufficient of himself to begin or to complete any good work. But though he admitted that the first call to salvation sometimes comes to the unwilling and is the direct result of preventing grace, yet he held that ordinarily grace depends on the working of man's own will. Augustine, at the sug- gestion of two lay-friends, Prosper and Hilary, in two treatises, one on the predes- tination of the saints, the other on the gift of perseverance, defended the doctrines of an arbitrary election and of a will determined wholly by grace, but failed to satisfy the objections felt by the church of Marseilles, and the Gallic theologians continued after the death of Augustine to regard his predestin- arian views as essentially fatalistic and in- jurious to moral progress. The monastery of Lerins''was a principal centre of opposition to ultra-Augustinian views. At length the con- troversy was closed in the time of Caesarius, bp. of Aries, an ardent admirer of St. Augus- tine, at a council at Arausio (Orange) in July 529. Of its 25 canons the first two, in opposi- tion to Pelagian doctrine, declare that by the sin of Adam not only his own soul but those of his descendants were injured. The next six expound the functions of grace, affirming that the initial act of faith is not from man but from God's grace, and that we cannot without grace think or choose any good thing per- taining to salvation. Others develop the doc- trine on similar lines, but not one touches the disputed question of predestination. An ad- dress appended by the prelates to the canons repudiates indignantly the belief that any are predestined to evil and asserts that without any preceding merits God inspires men with faith and love, leads them to baptism, and after baptism helps them by the same grace to fulfil His will. Pope Boniface II., who had succeeded Felix, confirmed the decrees of this Galilean council in a letter written to Caesarius. The moderation and good sense of the fathers of Orange, and their earnest desire to avoid the extravagance either of extreme pre- destinarianism, which would annihilate the human will, or an arrogant self-trust, which would claim to be independent of divine grace, had their reward. Their decrees met with general acquiescence, and both Pelagianism and semi- Pelagianism ceased to be dominant forces in Western Christendom. Semi- Pelagianism held man in his original state to have had certain physical, intellectual, and moral advantages which he no longer enjovs. In the beginning his body was not subject to death, he had extraordinary know- ledge of external nature and apprehension of the moral law, and was sinless. The sin of the first man entailed physical death and a moral corruption which was propagated to his posterity. Freedom of will to do good was not lost, but greatly impaired. The im- PELAGIUS I. putatioQ of original mh ib. remuvcd m b.iptisin, and baptism is esseatiai to salvation. Man needs the aid of divine prace for the perform- ance of good works and the attainment of salvation. The free will of man works in co- operation with divine grace. There is no such thing as an unconditional decree of GihI, but predestination to salvation or damnation de- pends upon the use wliich man makis .>f his freedom to good. Election is tlicrcfurc con- ditional. The merit of man's salvation is, however, to be ascribed to Ciotl, because, with- out God's Rrace, man's clTorts would be unavailing. Wiggers lias forcibly observed that .\ugustinianism represented man as morally dead, semi-Pcla^;iaiiisin as morally sick, Pclagianism as morally sound. The full theory of .\ugustiuianism in all its ! strong asseverations of an unconditional elec- tion and a total corruption of human nature did not retain its hold on the theology of the j Western church dining the succeeding cen- turies, nor was it ever acknowledged in the Eastern church. Men like popes Leo I. and Gregory 1., in the Sth and 6th cents., and Bedc in the 8th, were -Vugiistinian, but the general tendency of the West turned in another direction, while it sternly rejected Pelagianism proper. The famous history of the monk Gottschalk, in the latter part of the gth cent., proves how distasteful unqualified predestin- j arianism had become, but this lies beyond the assigned limits of this Dictionary. ' Pelagianism never developed into a schism bv setting up any organization external to the Catholic church. It practised no distinctive rites, it accepted all the traditional ecclesi- astical discipline. It freely retained the practice of infant baptism, though it formed a different opinion on the moral and spiritual significance of the act. It was a mode of thought which strove to win acceptance within the church, but which was successfully cast out. [.\LGiSTiNE, § 10.] Cf. Zuunier. Pelaguis in Irlaiui (Bvdiu. i<)Oi). [w.i.] PelagillS (8) I., bp. of Rome after Vigilius. in the reign of Justinian I., a.d. 555-560. A native, and deacon, of Rome, he had been ap- pointed by pope Agapetcs (a.d. 536) as his apocrisiarius at Constantinople. Under Vigil- ' ius he again held the same office, and joined with the patriarch Mennas in moving Jus- tinian to issue his edict for the condemnation of Origenism. .\fter this he returned to Rome, where he was one of the two deacons of Vigilius who applied to Ferrandus of Carthage for advice after the issue of the imperial edict " de Tribus Capitulis " (c. 544 )■ Vigilius being summoned bv the emperor to Constantinople in the matter of the Three Chapters, Pelagius remained as the archdeacon and chief ecclesi- astic at Rome ; and occupied this position when the Gothic king Totila (Dec. 546) entered Rome as a conqueror and went to pay his de- votions in the church of St. Peter. There Pelagius, bearing the gospels, met him, and falling on his knees said. " Prince, spare thy people." The conqueror answered with a significant smile, " Hast thou now come to supplicate me, Pelagius ? " " Yes." he re- plied, "inasmuch as the Lord has made me thy servant. But now withhold thy hand from these who have passed into servitude to thee." PEUGIUS I. R27 .Moved by these cntir.Uirs. FolIU lorbadr any further slaughter of the Kotn.in*. He al»o employed IVIagiuv together with » Uvman Thcotlorus, in an embassy to C ititsLinltnople for conchidmg pr.icc with the en>|><Ti>r. bind- ing them with an oath to do thrir Ix'st in hit behalf and to return without drUv to Italy. Tht V executed their cominls»ion and broui{ht back Justinian's reply th.U He||K.irnis vt»\ In milit.iry command, and had authority to arrange matters (Pr<Kop. </<• UfU. doth. L. i). Pope Vk.ilms having procee<led from Sicily on his voyage to lOnstantitiopIr in Ihr early part of 547. Pelacius joined hiin, and appears to have acted with him m his rhaiiKing attitudes of submission or resist.uice t<> the emperor's will. He proceiiL.l i.. k .tn.- .»(!« the death of \'igiliiis .«t ^ I wa% there consecrated pope, 1 I by Narses, at that time in <■ K>nir. who acted under the cmprr..r > .iln^. Tho appointment was not welcome to the Koinaii!!. and there was difficulty in getting prelate* to consecrate him. The real cans*- of his un- popularity was his consenting to condemn the Three Chapters and to support the decisions of the Constantinopolitan council. .\ great part of the western church still, and for many years afterwards, resolutely rejected the**! decisions, and the chief recorded action ol Pelagius as pope is his unavailing attempt to heal the consequent schism. In Gaul PeLigius was accused of heresy. Consequently the Frank king C hildel>crt sent to him an ambassador, by name Kulinus. re- questing him to declare his acceptance of the tome of pope Leo, or to express his t>elief in his own words. He readily did both, asserting his entire agreement with Leo and with the four councils, and appending a long orthiKlox confession of faith. But he made no mention of the fifth council, or of the necessity of accepting its decrees. He praised the king for his zeal in the true faith, and expressed the hope that no false reports about himself might occasion any schism in Gaul {hf>. xvi. aJ ChUdebertuni \ Ep. xv. ad Saf>audum). He showed anxiety to conciliate Sapaudus. bp. of .■\rles, fearing, we may suppose, the possible ' defection of the Callican church from Koiiie. He sent him a short friendly letter {Kf. viii). and afterwards the p.ill, and cofifcrre<l on him the vicariate jurisdiction over the churche* of Gaul which former popes had commit tr<l to ; metropolitans of .\rlcs {Epp. xi. xn. xiii.). He speaks of "the eternal S4>!;!" * •' • firm rock on which Christ ha. I church from the rising to the sun, being maintained by the .n;- {i.e. Peter's) successors, actuii; in i-.!."U, »>r through their vicars." And. .is hi* pre- deccssors had. by tii. ^i ,. . . t ■■ I 1 alcd the universal church ol ' • the bp. of .\rles. after then :■>« to ancient custom, su; firts. diction over Gaul, .i^ vn ir t U-.- , It cannot but strike readers of . during the reitrn of |,istiniin I ill the pro. ' ' " little the th' thus ellUlK I Pelagius hiii.-' .: •■•.■ - popedom actiuii a» the ue^liuc of lUc ua- 828 PELAGIUS II, peror, who had defied and overruled the authority of the Roman see. [J-b— y.] Pelagius (9) II., bp. of Rome after Bene- dict I., under the emperors Tiberius, Con- stantine, and Mauricius, from Nov. 578 to Feb. 590. He was a native of Rome, the son of Winigild, and supposed from his father's name to have been of Gothic extraction. At the time of Benedict's death the Lombards, ah-eady the masters of a great part of N. Italy, were besieging Rome. Consequently the new pope was consecrated without the previous sanction of the emperor (required since the reign of Justinian). Partly, perhaps, to excuse this informality, as well as to solicit aid against the Lombards, the new pope, as soon as possible after his accession, sent a deputa- tion to Tiberius, who had become sole emperor on the death of Justin IL in Oct. 578. It was doubtless now that Gregory, afterwards pope Gregory the Great, was first sent to Con- stantinople as apocrisiarius of the Roman see. On Oct. 4, 584, Pelagius sent him a letter to represent the lamentable condition of Italy and the imminent danger of Rome from the Lombard invasion; Longinus, the exarch at Ravenna, having been appealed to in vain. Gregory is directed to press on the emperor the urgent need of succour. He returned to Rome probably a.d. 585 (Joan. Diac. ib.). The emperor Mauricius had engaged the Frank king, Childebert II., for a large pecu- niary reward to invade Italy and drive out the Lombards. The invasion (probably a.d. 585) resulted in a treaty of peace between the Franks and Lombards (Greg. Turon. vi. 42 ; Paul. Diac. de Gest. Longob. iii. 17). On the retirement of Childebert from Italy, it appears that Smaragdus exarch of Ravenna had also concluded a truce with the Lombards (Epp. Pelag. ii. ; Ep. i. ad Episcopos Istriae). Pelagius took advantage of it to open negotia- tions with the bishops of Istria, who still re- mained out of communion with Rome in the naatter of the Three Chapters. In the first of his three letters he implores them to consider the evil of schism, and return to the unity of the church. He is at pains to vindicate' his own faith, and to declare his entire acceptance of the four great councils and of the tome of pope Leo, by way of shewing that his accept- ance of the 5th council, and his consequent condemnation of the Three Chapters, involved no departure from the ancient faith. He does not insist on condemnation of the Three Chapters by the Istrian bishops themselves. He only begs them to return to communion with Rome, notwithstanding its condemnation of the same ; and this in a supplicatory rather than imperious tone. In his second letter he declares himself deeply grieved by their un- satisfactory reply to his first, and by their reception of his emissaries. He quotes St. j Augustine as to the necessity of all churches being united to apostolic sees, but further cites Cyprian de Uniiate Ecclesiae (with inter- polations that give the passages a meaning very different fromtheir original one) in support I of the peculiar authority of St. Peter's chair. | Finally he calls upon the Istrians to send ' deputies to Rome for conference with himself, or at any rate to Ravenna for conference with a representative whom he would send ; and PEREGRINUS mentions (significantly, as appears in the sequel) that he has written to the exarch Smaragdus on the subject. Another, called his third, letter to Elias and the IstricUi bishops, is a treatise on the Three Chapters, composed for him by Gregory {de Gest. Longob. iii. 20). Appeals and arguments proving of no avail, Pelagius seems to have called on the civil power to persecute ; for Smaragdus is recorded to have gone in person to Grado, to have seized Severus, who had succeeded Elias in the see, together with three other bishops, in the chiu-ch, carried them to Ravenna, and forced them to communicate there with the bp. John. They were allowed after a year (Smaragdus being superseded by another ex- arch) to return to Grado, where neither people nor bishops would communicate with them till Severus had recanted in a synod of ten bishops his compliance at Ravenna (Paul. Diac. ib. iii. 27 ; cf. Epp. S. Greg. 1. i, Ep. 16). Towards the end of the pontificate of Pela- gius (probably a.d. 588), a council at Constan- tinople, apparently a large and influential one, and not confined to ecclesiastics, dealt with Gregory patriarch of Antioch, who being charged with crime, had appealed "ad impcra- toremet concilium" (Evagr. H.E. vi. 7). This council is memorable as having called forth the first protest from Rome, renewed after- wards more notably by Gregory the Great, against the assumption by the patriarch of Constantinople of the title " oecumenical." The title itself was not a new one ; as an honorary or complimentary one it had been occasionally given to other patriarchs ; and Justinian had repeatedly designated the pa- triarch of Constantinople " the most holy and most blessed archbishop of this royal city, and oecumenical patriarch " {Cod. i. 7 ; Novell, iii. V. vi. vii. xvi. xlii.). Nor do we know of any previous objection, and at this council it may have been ostentatiously assumed by the then patriarch, John the Faster, and sanctioned by the council with reference to the case before it, in a way that seemed to recognize juris- diction of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Antioch. In Nov. 589 a de- structive inundation of the Tiber at Rome was followed by a plague, described as " Pestis inguinaria," of which Pelagius II. was one of the earUest victims, being attacked by it in the middle of Jan. 590 (Greg. Turon. 1. X. c. i). According to Anastasius he was buried on Feb. 8 in St. Peter's. [j.b — v.] Peregrinus (1), called Proteus, an apostate from Christianity and a Cynic philosopher of the 2nd cent., whose history has been satir- ically told by Lucian. 1 hat Lucian's work is not a romance is amply shown by the account of Peregrinus in Aulus Gellius, Xoct. Attic, viii. 3, and xii. 11. Other writers, pagan and Christian alike, of the same age, mention him : e.g. Tatian, Orat. adv. Graec. c. 25 ; Athena- goras, pro Christian, c. 26, who tells us of his statue at Parium ; Maximus Tyrius, Diss. iii. ; Tertull. ad Mart. c. 4 ; and Eusebius in his Chronicon (ii. 178 seq. ed. Schone) ; cf. also I. Sorgel, Lucian's Stellung zum Christenikum, (1875) ; Schiller's Geschickte der Kaiserzeit, p. 685 ; and Bernays' tract Lucian u. die Kyniker (Berlin, 1879). The story of Pere- grinus is therefore a very valuable illustration Perpetua of the life .>f the Jiul i.iu. ]{,- was born at Parium on the Hellespont, where he c.iu»- mitted various crimes, incUulin*; parriiidc. He escaped justice by transferrin); his property to the municipality and then passtnl over to Palestine, where he became a Christian, and. according to I.ucian's account, a bishop or at least a presbyter. He was imprisoned (i>r the faith, and l.urian's words are a valuable and truthful description of the conduct of the Christians towards confessors K'enerallv. Crowds attended at the prison and ininister.-d to Peregrinus. bribing the ga.>l,rs to obtain admission. The " Teaching of tlu- Twelve Apostles " takes elaborate precautions against wandering apostles and prophets, wlm desired only to make gain of the gospel. Such a f.dse apostle was Peregrinus. His real character was, however, discovered, and he was excom- municated. He then became a Cynic phil- osopher, a sect which Lucian specially ab- horred, and resided at Rome. He made use of the licence permitted them to abuse the emperor himself, but was speedily expelled by the prefect Urbis. He next passed into Greece, and there, to obtain a greater notor- iety, burned himself alive at the Olvmpic games at the 236th Olympiad a.d. 165'. Cf. Strabo, xv. i. 73 ; Dion Cassius, liv. 9 ; and Lightfoot On Colossians, p. 394. Dr. Light- foot has elaborately discussed the relations between the stories of Peregrinus and St. Ignatius (SS. Ignatius and Polycarp, t. i. pp. 129. 133. 331. 450, ii. pp. 206, 213, 306, 356; cf. Salmon's Introd. to the N.T. pp. 522, 650). [LCCI.\N.] [G.T.S.] Perpetua (1), mart>T. Her full name was Vibia Pcri)etua. She was well bom, and had a father, mother, and two brothers living, one of whom was a catechumen. When 22 years old, married, and having lately borne a son, she was arrested. Her father n-peatedly strove to induce her to recant. She and her fellow- mart>TS were baptized after their arrest, possibly before their transference to the public prison 'cf. Le Blant, Actes des Mart. v. 9, p. 48). They were attended in prison, according to the ancient discipline of the Carthaginian church, by the deacons Tertius and P<jmponius (Cypr. Ep. 15 ad Mart.). Perpetua now had her first vision, indicative of her future pas- sion. She saw a ladder reaching to heaven guarded by a dragon. Saturus mounted first and then Perpetua followed. They came to a large garden, where was a shepherd clad in white, feeding sheep, while thousands in white robes stood around. The shepherd gave Perpetua a piece of cheese, which she received " junctis manibus " and consumed, the atten- dants saying " Amen." Their trial came soon after. The procurator Hilarianus condemned the martyrs to the beasts. After her con- demnation Perpetua saw a vision of her brother Dinocrates, who had died when 7 years old, in punishment, but after continuous prayer for him it was revealed to her that he was removed into a place of refreshment and peace. This vision is a clear proof that prayers for the dead were then used by that party in the church which claimed to adhere most closely to apostolic usages. Some, sup- posing Dinocrates unbaptized, have claimed it as sanctioning the view that the unbaptized PERPETUA 8S« ; dcatl are helpril bv t i . . 1 . .. .1 vii.i. j, \\x. I gustinc conibateil ; lib. I. I c. 10, and lib. iii. 1 ^ that Dinocratm w.is in , . om- 'nutted alter bapiiMii. 1 :• hrr passion Peri'etiu »aw m\ ■ rrrin I she triiunphed ovrr .in Kk mtnc I the devil, and was rew.inl. .1 wilL 1 Koldrn branch. When the hour of rxcrution arrivrU I the tribune .ittrmpt<-d !•> rrr.iv th^ mm »% priests of Saturn, tt -.«-» of teres, but yielded : • . %t o( Perpetua. Shr su alter being lossi-d by an .-..t, like Blandina at Lyons in a iikr trial, was uncon- scious of any pain (tl. Dodwrll'* Dm. in ! Iffn. ii. §§ 43. 46 ; Kouth'* Ktl. ^atr. i. 360). The precise year of the martyrdom 1* un- I certain, the succc'ssion ol African pro«on»uls I being very imperfectly known. We know that I they suffered in the year when Minuntu Tinil- nianus was pri>consul. t)ne cirruni»tanrc would seem to fix therl.itr i- m:. Tit f.irth<--.t I 203. There was .1^ ! of the Christi.tns, - . j itself. The freed.: Christians in mim-i..iiii, i iu. ,,....>..- .-. sutVn ieiit proof o) this. Why, thni. did they suffer? On Jan. i. 202. Severus wasat Antixh, where he appointed hiiii>>. li in.l i .irac^Ua consuls for the ensuing: i; the ; month he priK;eeded by • i 'Ujch i Palestine to Egypt, exer« 1 ■■ upon j the Jews which, according I ■ K- n iii. have I left their mark on the Talmud {Mmton d4 I Phinicie, pp. 775. 776). He published an edict forbidding any fresh convcn>ion» from I Paganism to Judaism or Christianity, while j imposing no penalties on original Jew* or Christians. Now all our martyrs were lre*h converts, and as such seem t<> have suffered under this edict. I Some have maintained that Tcrtullian ' wrote the Acts of these martyrs. The »tj'le is in many places very similar to his. The documents themselves profess to have l>orn written mainly by Perj>etua and Saturu», and completed for publi<ation by a third party, who cannot now bi- identified. Tertulhan I certainly knew the Acts, as hr refer* to the ' vision of Ferpi-tna in de Antmd, c. 55. I All our MhS. are in Latin ; yet Aub* {Ltt Chrit. dans I'Emp. Rom. \>. 615) thiiik» they may have been originally written in «.rrrk. One MS. represents I'erprtu.i a» •ti>caking (Ireek to bp. Optatus in l'ara«lise. I he Art» contain very many (•rc«k w>rds in LatiD characters, whmre we may at Irast cnrlude that the martyrs were bi-lingu-il ..n.l tl..»t (ireek was then very current The Acts contain sonir intrrcstii., i of ancient church rust. >ins. Ih. is given (c. X.). The Tris.igioii is "in,:, ml in (.reek (c. xii.). In the language of thr viu..n« we ran clearly »ee the intlilriire of the A\»<»- lypse (cl. specially c. xiil. I he Art» were cliscovercd and pub. bv I.uca* H.lsiriiiu* ta 17th cent. Thcv are in kuinart's .-It/a Stnifra ; Acta SS. Boll. M.irt. i. p. <.jo. Munter. Ftimnrd. KccUs. A/rtc. p. 22O; and Iran*, in Clark's Antc-Nirene Series. Cypnan"* »ork», , t. ii. p. 376. Aub*. Lc. p. 521. *»a» P"**- another version from a Parisian MS. The 830 PERPEtUUS best ed. of all three texts is ed. by J. A. Robinson, The Passion of St. Perpetua, with intro., notes, and original Lat. text of the Scillitan mart\Tdom, in Camb. Texts and Studies, i. 2 (ig'oi). [g.t.s.1 Perpetuus, St., 6th archbp. of Tours, be- tween St. Eustochius and St. Volusianus, both of whom were his relatives, belonged to one of the great senatorial families of the Auvergne. j He possessed considerable wealth (Greg. Tur. ^ Hist. Franc, x. 31), was a student of sacred literature and a friend of the two poets i Sidonius ApoUinaris and Paulinus of Peri- j gueux (Sid. Apoll. Ep. vii. 9 ; Paul. Petr. de Vita S. Mart. vi. ; Ep. ad Perpet. Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixi. 1064 sqq., 1071). Consecrated in 460 or 461, he presided in 461 over the council of | Tours, convoked to check the worldliness and profligacy of the Gallic clergy (Mansi, vii. 943 sqq.). The council of Vannes, c. 465, over which apparently he also presided, had the same object (ib. 951 sqq.). His principal work was the construction of the great church of St. Martin at Tours. The one built by Briccius had become too small for the fame and miracles of the saint. Of the new one which replaced it at 350 paces from the city, and to which the saint's body was translated with great ceremony (c. July 4, 473), we have, owing to its being Gregory the historian's own church, full and interesting details and | measurements. (See Hist. Franc, ii. 14 ; de \ Mirac. S. Mart. i. 6.) A good many other ; churches were built by Perpetuus, notably one in honour of St. Peter and St. Paul, which he constructed to receive the roof of St. Martin's old church, as it was of elegant workmanship. Perpetuus also bestowed much care on the services. Gregory recounts the fasts, vigils and regulations for divine service instituted by him for different seasons of the year and still observed in Gregory's own time (Hist. Franc. X. 31 ; cf. Hist. Liti. ii. 626-627 ; Ceillier, x. 438, 441). Perpetuus died in 490 or 491, after an episcopate of 30 years [Hist. Franc, ii. 26; x. 31), and, as he had asked in his will, was buried in the church he had built, at the feet of St. Martin (Epitaphium in Migne, Patr. Lat. Iviii. 755, and elsewhere) [s.a.b.] PetUianus, an eminent Donatist bishop, probably a native of Constantina or Cirta, chief town of Xumidia, born of parents who were Catholics ; but while still a catechumen carried off against his will by the Donatists, received by baptism into their community, and subsequently made, between 395 and 400, their bishop in Cirta. (Aug. c. Lit. Petil. ii. 104, 238 ; Serm. ad pleb. Caesar, de Emerito, 8.) He had practised as a lawyer with great success, so as to obtain the name of the Paraclete, the identity of which name with that of the Holy Spirit, if we may believe St. Augustine, was flattering to his vanity (c. Lit. Petil. iii. 16, 19). He took a prominent part in the Conference, a.d. 411, as one of the seven managers on the Donatist side, but after this we hear no more of him. (Aug. Retract. ii. 34; c. Lit. Petil. ii. 40, 95; iii. 57, 69; Optatus, 0pp. Mon. Vet. Don. liii.) About 398 or 400, Augustine in a private letter invited some of the leaders of the Donatist sect in Cirta to discuss the questions at issue between them and the church, an invitation PETILIANtJS ! rejected by them with contempt. But when he was in the church of that place, together with Absentius (Alypius) and Fortunatus its Catholic bishop, a letter addressed by the Donatist bp. (Petilianus, but without a name) to his own clergy, proposing to cut off com- munion with the Catholic church, was put into Augustine's hands. This proposal seemed so monstrous as to make him doubt whether the letter could have proceeded from a man of Petilian's reputation, until he was I assured that this was the case. Lest his j silence should be misunderstood, he under- took at once to reply to it, though it was plainly imperfect and ought to be presented in a complete state. The writer accuses the I Catholics of making necessary a repetition of baptism, because, he says, they pollute the souls of those whom they baptize. The validity of baptism in his view depends on the character of the giver, as the strength of a building depends on that of the foundation. He quotes Ecclus. xxxiv. 30 [25], applying to his own sect the words " wise men " (Matt, xxiii. 34), and interpreting the word "dead" to mean an ungodly person ; he charges the Catholics with persecution and " tradition," and makes an insinuation about Manicheism. To these charges, Augustine replied in his first book against Petilian. I In his second book, for the benefit of the ; less acute among his brethren (tardiores I patres) he takes one by one the charges of ] Petilian, whose letter had by that time been I received in a complete state. The statements, ro8 in number, including applications of Scriptiure passages, and an appeal to the Catholics, are answered by Augustine seriatim. The arguments used by Petilian come under two principal heads, but are much intermixed, and contain much coarse vituperation, (i) The inefficacy of baptism by ungodly persons. (2) The iniquity of persecution. In his reply Augustine shews, (i) The true nature of baptism. Those who fall away after baptism must retiurn, not by rebaptism, but by re- pentance. (2) As to persecution. Augustine [ denies the charge, and retorts it upon his adversary, whose partisans, the Circumcel- lions and others, were guilty of persecution. (3) In near connexion with the last question ' comes that of appeal to the civil power ; Au- gustine shews that the Donatists themselves '• appealed to Constantine, and took advantage of the patronage of Julian. (4) Language of Scripture and of the church perverted. Of a second letter from Petilian only some passages quoted by Augustine are extant, but it appears from Augustine's reply to have contained no new arguments but much per- sonal abuse (Possidius, Indiculus, iii.). In close connexion with these letters is the treatise of St. Augustine on the Unity of the I Church, wTitten between the second and I third of them, and intended to answer the question, " Where is the church ? " In the inquiry of 411 at Carthage Peti- lian took a leading part and was chiefly re- markable for ingenious quibbling and minute subtlety on technical details of procediu"e — using, in short, as Augustine said afterwards, every artifice in order to prevent real discus- sion ; and on the third day losing his temper PETRONILU and insulting Aut;ustiuc personally in a coarso and vulgar manner ; appeaniiK throughout as a pettifogging advocate, adroit but narrow, dishonest and suspicious of dishonesty in Others; spinning out the time in niattrrs of detail, taking every advantage he could, lair or unfair, and postponing, though witli much ostentatious protest to the contrary, the real matters in dispute. Set- Sparrow Simpson. 5/. .^Kt;. <jMi/ Afr. Ch. Divisions (loio). pp. 64 tl. [n.w.p.| Petronllla (l), saint and virgin, .\rcording to tiie legend related in the letter attributed to .Marcellus, son of the prefect of the city, and incorporated in the apocryphal .-Vets of SS. Nereus and Achilleus. she was the daughter of St. Peter, was struck with palsy by her father and afterwards restored to health by him. Her great beauty led count Flaccus to fall in love with her and come with soldiers to take her by force as his wife. She rebuked him for coming with an armed band, and desired him, if he wished her as his wife, to send matrons and virgins on the third day to conduct her to his house. He agreed, and she passed the three days in prayer and fasting with her foster-sister Felicula, and on the third day died, after receiving the sacrament, and the women brought by l-laccus to escort her home celebrated her funerid. She was buried on the estate of Flavia Domitilla, on the road to .\rdea, a mile and a half from Rome (.-lc/<iS5. .May, iii. 10, 11, vii. 420-422). The legend seems to have originated (see Lightfoot, S. Clement, 259-262) from the com- bination of two elements: (i) the Manichean apocryphal story mentioned by St. Augustine (c. Aditnantum, xvii. Op. viii. in Migne, Patr. Lat. xlii. 161) that St. Peter by his prayers caused his daughter to be struck with palsy (the account in St. Augustine implies also her restoration to health by her father) ; (ii) the existence in the Christian cemetery of Flavia Domitilla of a sarcophagus inscribed with the words Alreliae (or Aureae) Petronillae riLiAE DULCissiMAE. Petrouilla was assumed to be a diminutive of Petros ; the inscription, it was imagined, had been engraved by the apostle himself. Later writers, e.g. Baronius, felt the supposition that St. Peter had a daughter to be a difficulty, and explained fiita as a spiritual daughter, as St. Peter speaks of St. Mark as his son. Petronilla, however, is really derived from Petronius or Petro; and the founder of the Flavian family, the grand- father both of the emperor Vespasian and his brother, T. Flavius Sabiiius, the head of that branch of the Flavii to which the supposed converts to Christianity belonged, was T. Flavius Petro of Reate. Petronilla there- fore was probably one of the Aureiian gens, several of whom are shewn by the inscriptions discovered by De Rossi to have been buried in the same cemetery, and was by the mother's side a scion of the Flavian family, and there- fore related to Flavia Domitilla, the owner of the land over the cemetery, and was probably, like her, a Christian convert. Probably on account of her assumed rela- tionship to St. Peter she was held in hi^h veneration. Though the subterranean b.nsil- ioa constructed by pope Siricius between 301 and 395 contained the tombs of the martyr* PKTR08 fiSi M>i<d ' . . . a in v\h.kt h.td Uiii tlic iii4Uv..lciint •■( (l.r I tuulUn emtuT.>r«. cl<.*r t.'St. Vrirx'% {Ltl>^ Fomlt^tmiu in I'atr. t .11 I xx\ iii i i •, , Cav ■ ! the anrini; nnl the on. 4n.l the t..iiu.s .,, >> \ jnd fiiund a fresr.i. j>r<>b , ; ihr 4th rent. {Hull, ih , x\\% St. Pctr'>iiill \ ' ttvT, oondurtiiig iw. .\ chainbcT « '■lar. 4, iSSa) in til. . ...f ation, akin t<> tti<' i'.*iiii< i.«n. khiMtitK iit irreat antiquity. The in»rripti<>n which had been over the diH.r, wrillrn in rhAractert ol the F-favian era. i* AurLiATt. whtrh »uj(- gests that this iiiight br the t<>nib of the .\mplialus t«) whom St. Pinl illti!.'^ [Horn. xvi. 8). An intrre-i; di»> coveries and a diM m < St. Petronilla and the I. is in Cav. de Rossi's pai-.i- ............. u. ifi*A>- logia Christiana, 1H05. 40; 1874, i, o», 112 ; '875. 1-77; tS7S. 12V>4<>; l**7'>. I-20, M9- 160; iSSo. 169), and in v.>|. iv. o( Kama Sollerranea. ("D-l Petrus (4) L, St., archbp. of Aleiandria. succeeded Theonas, a.d. 300. He had three years of tranquil adniinistratiun, which he »4j used as to acquire the high rrputati"n indic- ated by Eusebius, who calls hiiii a W'liderful teacher of the faith, and " an admirable specimen <>f a bishop, alike in the exrellcnre of his conduct and his familiarity uiih Scrii>- ture" (Ens. viii. 13; ix. 6). Then came the Diodftian persecution, and in thr carlv part of 306 Peter found it neci-ss.irv to draw up conditions of reconciliation t. ti ■ , i.nr, h ami of readmission to her privil who through weakness hati < tfirir fidelity. The date is detni tint words Of this set of 14 " can in i i<«;uU- tions. " Since we arc approaching the fourth Easter from the beginning of the persecution," i.e. reckoning fr >m the lent of 303. (Thi« i» overltMiked in Mason's I'ersecultom of Ihoete- lian, p. 324, where these " canont " are assigned to 311.) The »ul>4tance ol Ihrte remarkable provisions (givrn at Irnicth in Kouth's Kthquiae Sucra*. iv. 13 fl.) it a« foll.iws. (i)Thos,- whodid not give way until extreme torturrs had ovennraincU Ihrlr powers of enduranir. and who had bern («>r thrre years alre.i.ly •' niournrr* " without being .idinitted to regular prnancr. mlichl rora- inuiiiratc after fasting 40 «l-»>*» ">"'«' *•«*• sperial strictn«-4&. (2) Th .»r who. at Peter phrase* it, had en«luretf only the " »ir|tc ol imprisonment," n-.t the "war of l.^liire*," and therefore <lr^rr\-rf! |r-ii pitv, \fi f,c\\t> theinwivesu; ' "' " ' ""the Name," alth "'»» relieve<l bv • i^*^ after .n: ■' *^« endur' '"** terror, U) IS not. .;.- .. '-"^ •mlatlou uvei Uf-H »h" Ua*i U-l IcirUtcU 832 PETRUS !. (Neale, i. 98). Peter cites the cursing of the fig-tree, with Is. Ixvi. 24 ; Ivii. 20. (5) Those who, to evade trial of their constancy, feigned epilepsy, promised conformity in writing, or put forward pagans to throw incense on the altar in their stead, must do penance for six months more, although some of them had already been received to communion by some of the steadfast confessors. (6) Some' Chris- tian masters compelled their Christian slaves to face the trial in their stead : such slaves must " shew the works of repentance " for a year. (7) But these masters who, by thus imperilling their slaves, shewed their disregard for apostolic exhortations (Eph. vi. 9 ; Col. iv. i), must have their own repentance tested for three more years. (8) Those who, having lapsed, returned to the conflict, and endured imprisonment and tortures, are to be " joy- fully received to communion, alike in the prayers and the reception of the Body and Blood, and oral exhortation." (9) Those who voluntarily exposed themselves to the trial are to be received to communion, because they did so for Christ's sake, although they forgot the import of " Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us," etc., and perhaps did not know that Christ Himself repeatedly withdrew from intended persecution, and even at last waited to be seized and given up ; and that He bade His disciples flee from city to city (Matt. x. 23), that they might not enhance their enem- ies' guilt. Thus Stephen and James were arrested ; so was Peter, who " was finally crucified in Rome " ; so Paul, who was be- headed in the same city. (10) Hence, clerics who thus denounced themselves to the authori- ties, then lapsed, and afterwards returned to the conflict, must cease to officiate, but may communicate ; if they had not lapsed, their rashness might be excused. (11) Persons who, in their zeal to encourage their fellow-Chris- tians to win the prize of martyrdom, volun- tarily avowed their own faith, were to be exempted from blame ; cf. Eus. vi. 41, fin. Requests for prayer on behalf of those who gave way after imprisonment and torture ought to be granted : " no one could be the worse " for sympathizing with those who were overcome by the devil or by the entreaties of their kindred (cf. Passio S. Perpet. 3 ; S. Iren. Sirm. 3 ; Eus. viii. g). (12) Those who paid for indemnity are not to be censured ; they shewed their disregard for money ; and Acts xvii. 9 is here quoted. (13) Nor should those be blamed who fled, abandoning their homes — as if they had left others to bear the brunt. Paul was constrained to leave Gains and Aristarchus in the hands of the mob of Ephesus (Acts xix. 29, 30) ; Peter escaped from prison, and his guards died for it ; the Innocents died in place of the Holy Child. (14) Imprisoned confessors in Libya and elsewhere had mentioned persons who had been compelled by sheer force to handle the sacrifices. These, like others whom tortures rendered utterly insensible, were to be regard- ed as confessors, for their will was steadfast throughout ; and they might be placed in the ministry. These " canons " were ratified by the council in Trullo, c. 2, a.d. 692, and so became part of the law of the Eastern church. (Cf. Eus. Mart. Pal. i ; Passto SS. Tarachi f>ETRUS 1. et Probi, c. 8, in Ruinart, Act. Sine, p 467 ; C. Ancyr. c. 3.) Very soon after these " canons " were drawn up the persecution was intensified by the pagan fanaticism of Maximin Daza. Peter felt it his duty to follow the precedents he had cited in his 8th canon and the example of his great predecessor Dionysius by " seeking for safety in flight " (Burton, H. E. ii. 441). Phileas, bp. of Thmuis, and three other bishops were imprisoned at Alexandria ; and then, according to the Maffeian documents, Meletius, being himself at large, held ordinations in their dioceses without their sanction " or that of the archbishop," and without necessity {Hist. W ritings of St. Athanasius, Oxf. 1881, Introd. p. xxxix). Peter, being informed of this lawless procedure, wrote to the faithful in Alexandria : " Since I have ascertained that Meletius, disregarding the letter of the martyred bishops, has entered my diocese, taken upon himself to excommunicate the presbyters who were acting under my author- ity . . . and shewn his craving for pre-eminence by ordaining certain persons in prison ; take care not to c(m"imunicate with him until I meet him in company with wise men, and see what it is that he has in mind. Farewell " (Routh, Rel. Sac. iv. 94). Maximin, besides presiding over martyr- doms in Palestine (a.d. 306, 307, 308), prac- tised other enormities at Alexandria (Eus. viii. 14 ; Burton, ii. 451). During Peter's retire- ment his habits had become more strictly ascetic. He continued to provide "in no hidden way " for the welfare of the church (Eus. vii. 32). The phrase ovk dcpavQs is significant, as it points to the well-imdcrstood system of communication whereby a bp. of Alexandria, although himself in hiding, could, as did Athanasius, make his hand felt through- out the churches which still owned him as their " father." Probably Peter's return to Alexandria, and the formal communication of the Meletians above mentioned, took place after a toleration-edict, which mortal agony wrung from Galerius in Apr. 311. This edict constrained Maximin to abate his persecuting energy ; but he soon again harassed his Christian subjects, and encouraged zealous heathen municipalities to memorialize him " that no Christians might be allowed to dwell among them " {ib. ix. 2). Thus at the end of Oct. 311 " the Christians found themselves again in great peril " (Burton) ; and one of the first acts of Maximin's renewed persecu- tion was to smite the shepherd of the flock at Alexandria. Peter was beheaded (Eus. vii. 32), " in the ninth year of the persecution " (311), by virtue of a "sudden" imperial order, " without any reason assigned " (ix. 6). Johnson and Routh reckon as a " fifteenth " canon what is, in fact, a fragment of a work on the Paschal Festival. In it Petrus says it is usual to fast on Wednesday, because of the Jews " taking counsel for the betrayal of the Lord"; and on Friday "because He then suffered for our sake." " For," he adds, " we keep the Lord's day as a day of gladness, because on it He rose again ; and on it, accord- ing to tradition, we do not even kneel." The custom of standing at prayer on Sunday was again enforced by the Nicene council (c. 20 ; Pktros II. Bright, S'olis on the dinons of the First Four Cou>u-i!<!. p. 73). (xv.H.) Petrus (5) II., archbp. of Alexandria, suc- ceeded Atlianasius in May 373. To promote the peaceful succession of an orthodox bishop. Athan.i'ius, being requested to rccoinnicnd one who could be elected by anticipation, nanud Peter, whom Ciregnry Nazianzen describes as honoured for his wisidom ami grey hairs(()ra/. 25. 12), "who had been a companion of ills labours " (Theod. iv. 20), and. in Basil's phrase, his spiritual "nursling" (/•/). 133); and who, in conjunction with another pres- byter, when they were passing through Italy to Egypt in 347, had accepted friun the notorious .-^rian intriguers Wdens and L'rsacius a written attestation of tiieir desire to be at peace with .\thanasius, when his cause was for the time triumphant (.\than. Hist. Ar. 26). The clergy and magistrates assented to the nomination ; the people in general applauded ; the neighbouring bishops came together to attend the consecration, in which, according to a " fragment " of .\lex- andrian iiistory, the dying arciibp. took the principal part (cf. Theod. I.e. ; and Hist. .Aceph. ap. .\than.). Five days afterwards (May 2) .\thanasius died, and IVter took possession of " the evangelical throne." But the .\rians seized the opportunity for which they had been waiting, and employed, as in 340, the agency of a pagan prefect. Palladius, by means of bribes, assembled a " crowd of pagans and Jews " and beset that same church of Theonas within which Syrianus had all but seized .\thanasius in 356. Peter was commanded to withdraw ; he refused ; the church doors were forced, and the brutal orgies described in .\thanasius's Encyclical were repeated : a youth in female dress danced upon the altar ; another sat naked on the throne, and delivered a mock sermon in praise of vice (cf. Peter ap. Theod. iv. 22 with Greg. N'az. Orat. I.e. ). .\t this point Peter quitted the church ; Socrates says that he was seized and imprisoned (iv. 21), but his own narrative points the other way. It proceeds to describe the intrusion of the .\rian Lucius. Peter tells us that the pagans esteemed Lucius as the favourite of Scrapis, because he denied the divinity of the Son ; and dwells on the brave confessorship (i) of 19 priests and deacons whom .Magnus, after vain attempts to make them Arianizc, trans- ported to the pagan city of Heliopolis in Phoenicia, sending also into penal servitude 23 monks and others who expressed their sympathy ; (2) of 7 Egyptian bishops exiled to Diocaesarea, a city inhabited by Jews, while some other prelates were " handed over to the curia," their official immunity from onerous curial obligations being annulle<l in \ requital of their steadfastness in the faith. Damasus of Rome, hearing of this new 1 persecution, sent a deacon with a letter of I communion and consolation for Peter ; the messenger was arrested, treated as a criminal, savagely beaten, and sent to the mines of ] Phenne. Peter adds that children were tor- | tared, and intimates that some persons were actually put to death or died of cruel usage, and that, after the old usage in pagan per- secutions, their remains were denied burial. PETRUS II. t)33 '»<{V. The narr.itivp ilhi'.tratr't at ..ik . ilir i> r,,], ritual, and olrctoral cust.'v church. I'ctrr piit'i into ( r iq confr-isors .\\\ urgunirnt, <i m in tone, from the rtc-rnitv of the I'lsuir 1 4lhcr. hood (cf. Alhan. d* lU<r. Stt. ij): |ik« .\thanasin«, hr there inM%t<i that (xxl coiitd never have existed without Hit " Witdotii " (cf. Ofj/. c .-If. I 14); divownt a inilrruluiie conception of the ->/rr9<rit (cf. dt Dttr. Sit. 1 1 ; ()f.i/. r. .-If. i. 21); quote* the .\ri4n (orroiiU V 6^* oi'* ^r (" onco the Son wa» not." cl. Oral. c. .4r. i. 5, etc.); and rpprr«rnt» the Hoinoousion as sumtnan/ing the pur|x>rt ol manv texts (cf. lU Deer. \ie. 20). IVter refers to the invt>cati.>ii -it the Holy Spirit at the Eurhm,!., . .-, . rr.iiion. and intimates that monk ,|r 4 nrwlv arrived bishop. ch.Ki im. When describing the uncan 1 o( Ltiriii*, he refers to the three -l- mtiils of a pr<ij»er episcopal election, as fixed by " the in^litu- tions of the church "— (i) the joint action o| the assembled bishops of the province. (1) the vote {if/ri<P^) of "genuine" clcrgv, (j) the request of the people {air^rtt, the I^itm suffiaeitutn, as Cyprian uses it, Ff>. $5. 7. speaking of the same threefold procrst. " de ciericorum testimonio, dc plebi<i . . . tuftragto. et de sacerdotum . . . collegio ' ; an<l (or the " requests " of the people, soinetimo urgently enforced, sec Athan. .-ipot. c. .\r. o). Peter remained for some time in concealment, whence he wrote his encyclical ( rillein. vi. 582) ; he afterwards went to Koine, and wai received by Dam.isus, as Julius welcomed .\thanasius in 340. He remained at Komo five years, gave information as to l-lgvptian monasticism (Hieron. F.p. cxxvii. s), and W4« present, as bp. of .-Mexandria, at a council held by U.im.isus, probably in 377. f"r th<- con- demnation of the .\pollinarians. Timothcua, wiiom .\pollinaris had sent to Koine, and Vitalis, bishop of the sect in .-Kntioch, were included in the sentence pronounce<l against their master (cf. Soz. vi. 25 with Theod. v. to) ; and Facundus of tlermiane, in his Dt- fenee of the Three .■trticle^, quote* part of a letter addressed by Peter to the exiled Egyp- tian confessors at Diocaesarea. " I aik your advice," he wTite«, " under the trouble that has befallen me : what ought I to do. when Timotheus gives himself out for a bishop, that in this character he may with more boUlnc»« injure other* an<l infringe tli«- law* of the Fathers ? For he chose (■< •' ■ "• mr. with the bps. Basil of ( nu*. Epiphanius, and niodoru "ini- cate with Vitalis alone "1/ , fiMwi. Captl. IV. 2). Here Peter tr.al-. rauliuu*. not Meletius, as the true bp. of Antloch. thu Jx-lnK the .-Mexaiidrian view. Hi. I'lin us with Basil were very kindly; 1 1 love and reverence for .\thaii.i ■ nitii a correspondence (Basil. / -n In 373); and a letter of Basil s ii> r • !•-»« *" interest for the chnrch-history of the time {Kp. 266). It aniK-iiP* tint 0\r I- ...vpiijii "confessors" hail f. > " '■ ' "' ■ "■-"'■ coiiiinuiiion the v:: of .Marcellus of Ai, B.isil. Peter had 1. ......: .. Basil ; and bad romuu>l[«tlcd wtiti ttu ckilcU 63 H34 i>ETRUS subordinates. Moreover, Basil's enemy Dor- otheus, visiting Rome to enlist Western sjonpathies in favour of Meletius as against Paulinus, met Peter in company with Dam- asus. Peter fired up at the name of Meletius, and exclaimed, " He is no better than an Arian." Dorotheus, angered in his turn, said something which offended Peter's dignity ; and Peter wrote to Basil, complaining of this and of his silence in regard to the exile's con- duct. Basil answers in effect : " As to the first point, I did not care to trouble you, and I trust it will come right by our winning over the Marcellians ; as to the second, I am sorry that Dorotheus annoyed you, but you who have suffered under Arians ought to feel for Meletius as a fellow-sufferer, and I can assure you that he is quite orthodox." Peter's exile ended in the spring of 378. The troubles of Valens with the Goths encour- aged the prelates he had banished to act for themselves. Fortified by a letter of com- mendation from Damasus, Peter returned to Alexandria ; the people forthwith expelled Lucius, who went to Constantinople ; and Peter was thenceforth undisturbed in his see. Jerome taxes him with being too easy in receiving heretics into communion (Chron.) ; and in one celebrated affair of another kind, his facility brought him no small discredit. Early in 379 he had not only approved of the mission of Gregory of Nazianzus to act as a Catholic bishop in Constantinople, but had formally authorized it, had " honoured ' Gregory " with the symbols of establishment " (Carm.de Vita Sua, 861), and thereby appar- ently claimed some supremacy over Constan- tinople (Neale, Hist. Alex. i. 206). Yet ere long he allowed himself to become the tool of the ambitious Maximus, who pretended to have been a confessor for orthodoxy, and thus perhaps reached Peter's weak side. He aimed at " securing the see of Constantinople ; and Peter, contradicting himself in writing," as Gregory words it {de Vita Sua, 1015), commis- sioned some Egyptian prelates to go to Con- stantinople and consecrate Maximus. The scheme failed disgracefully : Maximus had to leave Constantinople, and after attempting in vain to propitiate Theodosius, went back to Alexandria and tried to intimidate Peter, " putting the old man into a difficulty " {ib. 1018), but was expelled by secular force. Peter reconciled himself to Gregory, who panegyrized him as " a Peter in virtue not less than in name, who was very near heaven, but remained in the flesh so far as to render his final assistance to the truth," etc. {Orat. 34. 3). Peter died Feb. 14, 380. In ignorance of this event, Theodosius, a fortnight after- wards, named him with Damasus as a standard of Catholic belief in the famous edict of Thes- salonica (Cod. Theod. xvi. i, 2 ; see Gibbon, iii. 363). He was succeeded by his brother Timotheus. [w.b.] Petrus (6), siurnamed Mongus fStammerer), Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, or- dained deacon by Dioscorus, and said to have taken part in the outrages against Flavian at the Latrociniura (Mansi, vi. 1017). On the death of the Monophysite patriarch Timo- theus Aelurus in 4.77, arid in the absence of the orthodox Salofaciolus whom he had displaced, PETRUS the Monophysites determined to place Petef in the see. The emperor Zeno, indignant at the boldness of the Monophysites (Neale, Hist. Alex. ii. 17), ejected Peter, and ordered his expulsion from Alexandria (Mansi, vii. 983- 985). Accordingly, Peter was driven out of Egypt ; John, surnamed Talaia, steward of the great church, was chosen patriarch, but neglected to announce his accession to Acacius. who, piqued by this omission, prevailed on Zeno to expel John, and to restore Peter on condition that he should support an attempt to promote doctrinal unity without enforcing the authority of the council of Chalcedon. Zeno ordered Talaia to be expelled from Alexandria and Peter Mongus enthroned after accepting the Henoticok, or instrument of unity (a.d. 4S2). This was addressed to the bishops, clergy, monks, and laymen of the Alexandrian patriarchate; it recognized the creed of " the 318 " at Nicaea as " con- firmed by the 150 " at Constantinople, the decisions of the council of Ephesus, together with the 12 articles of Cyril ; it employed language as to Christ's consubstantiality with man which Cyril had adopted in his " reunion with the Easterns " ; it rejected the opposite theories of a " division" and a "confusion" in the person of Christ, and included Eutyches as well as Nestorius in its anathema. Instead of renewing the explicit censure directed by Basiliscus in a previous circular against the council of Chalcedon, Zeno employed an am- biguous phrase, " We anathematize every one who thinks or ever has thought differently, either at Chalcedon or at any other synod," words which might be explained as pointed at those wlio were admitted to communion at Chalcedon after disclaiming Nestorianism, while, as their adversaries alleged, they were still Nestorians at heart. At the same time all recognition of that council was omitted (Evagr. iii. 14 ; Liberat. c. 18, and note thereon ; Galland. Bibl. Patr. xii. 149). Peter was accordingly enthroned amid a great concourse, at Alexandria. His instructions were to unite all parties on the basis of the Henoticon. This, for the time, be effected at a public festival, when as patriarch he preached to the people, and caused it to be read (Evagr. iii. 13 ; Liberat. c. 18). In letters to Acacius, the patriarch of Constanti- nople, and pope Simplicius, he professed to accept the council of Chalcedon (Liberatus) ; and by playing the part of a time-server {Kddopvoi, Evagr. iii. 17) disgusted the thorough-going Monophysite John, bp. of Zagylis in Libya, and various abbats and monks of Lower Egypt, who raised a tumult in the Caesarean basilica (Liberat. «.s.). Peter could not afford to quarrel with them, and probably thought himself secure enough to shew his hand. (See Valesius on Evagr. iii. 16.) He accordingly anathematized the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of pope Leo, substituted the names of Dioscorus and Timotheus Aelurus for those of Proterius andTimotheusSalofaciolusonhisdiptychs, and gratified his own vindictiveness by taking the body of Salofaciolus from its place among the buried patriarchs and "casting it outside the city" (Liberat.; cf. Felix, ap. Mansi, vii. 1076I. This caused a great excitement ; the PETRUS earnest Catholics rcnouiucd IVtiT's roninm- nion; and tidings of this turn of events dis- turbed the mind of Acacius. who sent to Alexandria for an authentic account. Peter then surpassed himself in an evasive letter, wliiih Evagrius has preserved. Aearius was glad to accept his explanations, as he could not atTord to break with Mongus ; but he had now to deal with the clear head and resolute will of pope Felix II. (or III), the surc««ssor of Simplicius, who listened re.ulily to the com- plaints of the exiled Talaia and other Hgvptian bishops (F.vagr. iii. 20) against I'cter, and sent two bishops, Vitalisaiid MiM-nus. to Constanti- nople to denounce Peter ami summon Acacius to defend himself before a council at Konje. The legates were partly coaxed and partly frightened into communicating with the resident agents of Peter at Constantinople, and brought back to Rome letters in which Zeno and .\cacius assured Felix that Peter j was an orthixlox and meritorious prelate (Evagr. iii. 20; Mansi, vii. 1055, 1065, 1081). Their weakness was punished by deposition ; and Felix, with his synod, proceeded not only j to anathematize Peter as an " Eutychian " | usurper, but even to excommunicate the bp. ' of Constantinople as his patron (Julv iS, 484). He then wrote again to Zeno, desiring him to " cho(5se between the communion of Peter the apostle and that of Peter the Alexandrian " | (Mansi, vii. 1066). Nothing daunted. Acacius ; broke off ciimmunion with Rome and upheld Peter to the last, although he must have felt his conduct highly embarrassing, for Peter again anathematized the proceedings of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, and those who would not accept the writings of Dios- corus and Timotheus .Aelurus (Evagr. iii 22). He expelled certain orthodox bishops, and, from one named John, transferred the abbacy or hegumenate of Diolchos to his friend Ammon (Liberat.). These proceedings being reported to Zeno, he sent Cosmas to rebuke Peter and restore peace. Peter again mollified his tone, and wrote to Acacius, as if acknow- ledging Chalcedon. This double-dealing, be- coming known in Egypt, provoked some Monophysite clerics, monks, and laymen to disown him and to meet for worship apart, omitting his name in their diptychs (Liberat. 18), and these uncompromising dissentients became known as " Acephali " (Leontius, de Sectts, V. 2), and obtained as their bishop one Fsaias from Palestine (Liberat.). When Fravitas, or Flavitas, succeeded -Acacius in 489, he wrote to both Felix (Liberat. 18) and Peter (Evagr. iii. 23) ; but after four months he died, and was succeeded by Euphemius, who, on discovering Peter's real poiition in regard to the council of Chalcedon, indignantly broke off all relations with him (Evagr. iii. 23). A new strife between Constantinople and Alexandria was imminent, when Peter Mon- gus, respected by none, died at the end of Oct. 490 (Le Quien, ii. 422), leaving behind numerous works (Neale, ii. 24). [w.b.] PetrUS (10) (surnamed Fullo, " the Ful- ler "), intruding patriarch of Antioch, 47i-4«K. a Monophvsite, took his surname from his former trade as a fuller of cloth. Tilhinont shews considerable skill in harmonizing various statemeats of his earlier life [Em- PETRUS 83S f>fUurs, t. vi. p 4„,|. Ilr .....M.lr,, that Peter was oriKUi.dly 4 Mirnilxr o( the cnvrnt of the Aroiinrt.«c which hr pl.irrt in illlhviiU on the .\>ii.uic liili- 1 ii,, 11 .iii||,.ru«. And being expelled t.'f utr hlr Aliil heretical d.K-trinr, Con«iAnlt- nople, where he bi i.- t.. prrv>n« of distmctioii, by wh m h. »,is intr<Hlurp«l to Zeni>, the future cujperor, thr •on-inUw ul Leo, whose favour he v< urrd, obtaining through him the chief place in the rhurrh of St. Bassa, at I halrrdon. Here hit lru« character having speedily become kn<jwn, hw fled to Zeno, who w.is then »ettinf( out ('"r Antioch as coinmandrr of the Fj^t. Arrivini at .\ntiiK-h a.i>. 463, IVterS unbridlp<l am- bition soared to the patri.in hal throne, thm filled by .M.irtvrius, and having gained the ear of the rabble, he adroitly availed himM>n of the poweiful .\pollin.arian element among the citizens and the considerable iiuinl>er who favoured Kutychian doctrines, to etcite sus- picions against M.irtvrius as a concealed Ni-storian. and thus caused hit tunmltuwui expulsion and his own -lection to the throne. This was in 4f'9 'T 47o (Theod. l.ect. p 5\4 ; Labbe, iv. looq, 1082). When establi>ihed ai patri.irch, Peter at once declared himself opeidy .iKainst the council of Chalcedon. and .idded to the Trisagion the words " Who wast crucified for us," which he imposed as a test upon all in his patriatchatc, anathema- tizing those who declined to accept it. Ac- cording to the Synodtcon, he summoned ■ council at Antioch to give syno<lical authority to this novel clause (Labbc, iv. 1000). The deposed .Martyrius went to Constantinople to complain to the emperor Leo, by whom, through the influence of the patriarch Genna- dius, he was courteously receiv«nl ; a omncil of bishops reported in his favour, and his restoration was decreed (The<xl. Lect. p. 554; Liberat. c. 18. p. 122). But notwithstanding the imperial authority, Peter's personal in- fluence, supported by the favour of Z'-iio, was so great in Antiich that .NLirtyrius's pi>silion was rendered intolerable and, wearied by violence and contumely, he soon left .Anti'x:h, abandoning his throne again to the intruder. Leo was naturally indignant at this audactou* disregard of his commands, of which he wat apprised by liennadius. and he despatched an imperial decree for the deposition < J Peter and his banishment to the Oasis (Labbe, iv. n>J<2». .According to The«>florus Lect'i and J ulian wa« unanimously clr. his ro<jm, A.n. 471, holdinf; the s> thirdrestorationby Basiliscusin i p. 99; Theod. Lect p. 533)- "1 Prirr 6eA, val Peter dwelt at Constantinople, m ttiiic- I ment in the monastery of the Ac<.imet4e. hi* I residence there being connived at on a pledne j that he would not < reate further dutmbantc* (Labbe. iv. loog, 10S2 ; Theophan p. 104). During the short reign ol thnu.urr-r M iMlisrus (Oct. 475-June 477) il. ' Prter revived. Under the 11 : wile Basilisciis declared for 1: • ' re- ! calle<l Timothy Aelurus. . j dria. from exile, anil bvlu 1 encyrlir.il htter to the ! to anathematize the di ; - : 1 (Evajr. H. E. »u. 4). Ptler iUUly coUiiiUU, 836 PETRUS and was rewarded by a third restoration to the see ot Antioch, a.d. 476 {ib. 5). Julian was deposed, dying not long after. Peter on his restoration enforced the addition to the Trisagion, and behaved with great violence to the orthodox party, crushing all opposition by an appeal to the mob, whom he had secured by his unworthy arts, and who confirmed the patriarch's anathemas by plunder and blood- shed. Once established on the patriarchal throne, he was not slow to stretch its privi- leges to the widest extent, ordaining bishops and metropolitans for all Syria. The fall of Basiliscus, a.d. 477, involved the ruin of all who had supported him and been promoted by him. Peter was one of the first to fall. In 485 for the last time Peter was replaced on his throne by Zeno on his signing the Henoticon (Theophan. p. 1 15 ; Theod. Lect. p. 569 ; Labbe, iv. 1207 ; Evagr. H. E. iii. 16). He at once resumed his career of violence, expelling ortho- dox bishops who refused to sign the Henoticon and performing uncanonical ordinations, especially that of the notorious Xenaias ( Philoxenus) to the see of Hierapolis (Theophan. p. 115). He was condemned and anathe- matized by a synod of 42 Western bishops at Rome A.D. 485, and separated from Christian communion (Labbe, iv. 1123-1127). He re- tained, however, the patriarchate at Antioch till his death, in 488, or according to Theo- phanes, 490 or 491. One of his latest acts was the unsuccessful revival of the claim of the see of Antioch to the obedience of Cyprus as part of the patriarchate. After long debate the council of Ephesus in 431 had declared the church of Cyprus autocephalous. Tillem. Les Empereiirs, t. vi. pp. 404-407 ; Mem. eccl. t. xvi. passim. ; Clinton, F. R. vol. ii. app. P- 55 3- [e.v.] Petrus (12), bp. of Apamea, the metropolis of Syria Secnnda, under Anastasius, c. 510 ; a Monophysite, a warm partisan of Severus the intruding patriarch of Antioch, the leader of the Acephali, and charged with sharing in the violent and sanguinary attempts to force the Monophysite creed on the reluctant Syrian church. Peter was accused of having taken forcible possession of his see, in violation of all ecclesiastical order, not having received canonical ordination either as monk or pres- byter (Labbe, v. 120). The first formal com- plaint against him was made before count Eutychianus, governor of the province, by the clergy of Apamea, substantiated by their affidavits {ib. 219, 243). In these he is charged with declaring himself the enemy of the Chal- cedonian decrees, erasing from the diptychs the names of orthodox bishops and fathers, and substituting those of Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and other heresiarchs. Evidence is given of insulting language and overbearing conduct toward his clergy, acts of violence and grossness, and intercourse with females of loose character. He was accused with Severus of having hired a band of Jewish banditti, who slew, from an ambuscade, a body of 350 orthodox pilgrims and left their corpses by the roadside {ib. 119). Clergy were violently dragged from the altar by his emissaries and ruthlessly butchered if they refused to ana- thematize the Chalcedonian faith. On the accession of Justin, a.d. 518, the bishops of PETRUS Syria Secunda laid their complaints against Peter and Severus before the council as- sembled at the imperial city, July 518, asking the emperor to deliver them from so intoler- able a tyranny {ib. 215). Their prayer was granted ; Peter was deposed and sentenced to exile as a Manichee — as the Monophysites were popularly designated (Theoph. p. 142). Nothing seems known of Peter between his banishment and reappearance at Constanti- nople with Severus, on the temporary revival of the fortunes of the Monophysites, through the influence of the empress Theodora. In 536 Mennas was appointed to the patriarchal chair, and lost no time in summoning a council to pronounce the condemnation of Mono- physitism and its chief leaders, Peter and Severus being cut off from communion as men who had " voluntarily chosen the sin unto death," and " shown no signs of repentance and a better mind " {ib. 253). Justinian con- firmed this sentence. Peter was forbidden to reside in or near Constantinople, or any other important city, commanded to live in complete retirement, and abstain from association with others lest he should poison them with his heresy {ib. 267). Nothing more is known of him. Letters to him from Severus exist among the Syriac MSS. of the Brit. Mus. (Wright, Catal. p. 559, No. 5, No. 20). Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 913 ; Fleury, Hist. eccl. livrexxxi.,40, 44; livrexxxii., 52, 54, 57. [e.v.] Petrus (20), bp. of Edessa, succeeded Cyrus on his death, June 5, 498. During his episco- pate Mesopotamia was ravaged by Cabades, king of Persia, in his endeavour to wrest the province from Anastasius. Of the horrors of this terrible time of war, pestilence, and famine, in which Edessa had a full share, being more than once besieged by Cabades, we have a moving account from a contemporary wit- ness in the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite. Peter signalized his entrance on the episcopate by several ritual reforms. He was the first to institute the feast of Palm Sunday in the church of Edessa, as well as the benediction of water on the eve of the Epiphany, and the consecration of chrism on Maundy Thursday, and he regulated the observance of other fes- tivals (Jos. Stylit. c. 32). An earthquake occurring at Edessa a.d. 500, he instituted public processional litanies of the whole popu- lation {ib. 36). The same year, the city and province suffering grievously from famine, he visited Constantinople to petition Anastasius personally for a remission of taxes, but was only partially successful {ib. 39). The famine returning a.d. 505, Peter made a second ap- plication to the emperor, who received him with frowns and rebuked him for leaving his distressed flock at such a time, but, feeling the justice of the request, remitted the taxes for the whole province, sending the order , without informing Peter {ib. 78). Peter died on Easter Eve, a.d. 510. Asseman. Bibl. Orient, t. i. pp. 268 ff., 279, 406 ff. [e.v.] Petrus (28), patriarch of Jerusalem, a.d. 524-544 (Clinton, F.R.\ Niceph. C/i^on. p. 410), born at Eleutheropolis, succeeded John II. (omitted by Evagr. H. E. iv. 37) in 524. He manifested the same reverence as his pre- decessors for the celebrated ascetic St. Sabas, and frequently visited him in the desert. PKTRUS During his episcopate iHcurred the saiiRiiinarv insurrection against the Christians o( the Samaritans, goaded to madness by the perse- cution of Justinian, offering onlv the alter- native of baptism or rebellion (Ciibbon. c. 48). Many Christians were reduced to beggary. Peter therefore beggeil St. Sabas to go to Constantinople and lay before Justinian a petition for the remission of the taxes. His mission was successful and he was received with much jov on his return bv Peter and his flock (C>Till. Si-ythop. lit. S. Sab. No. 70-76). On the deposition of Anthinuis, the Mono- physite patriarch of Constantinople, by the single authority of pope Agapetus, then present on state business at the imperial city, and the appointment of Mennas as his suc- cessor, Agapetus issued a synodical letter dated Mar. 13, 536, announcing these facts, and calling on the Eastern church to rejoice that for the first time a patriarch of New Rome had been consecrated by the bp. of Okl Rome, and. together with the errors of Anthimus, stating and denouncing those of Severus of .\ntioch, Peter of .\paniea, and the monk Zoaras. On receiving this docu- ment Peter summoned a synod at Jerusalem and subscribed the condenmation, Sept. 10, 536, Agapetus having died on Apr. 21 (Labbe, v. 47, 275, 283). The rapid spread of Origen- istic opinions in some monasteries of Palestine under the influence of Nonnus was vehem- ently opposed by other monastic bodies and caused serious tr(jubles which Peter was un- able to allay. The Origenists were supported by a powerful court party, headed by the abbats Domitian and Theodore Ascidas (Evagr. H. E. iv. 38). The dignity and au- thority of Peter, a decided enemy of Origen- istic doctrines, being seriously weakened, he made concessions which compromised his position. His predecessor in the patriarchal chair, Ephraim, had issued a synodical letter condemning Origen, and the Origenistic party cl.nmoured to have his name removed from the diptychs. Peter was convinced that Jus- tinian had been hoodwinked by the powerful abbats and was ignorant of the real character of these doctrines. He therefore instructed two of his own abbats, Gelasius and So- phronius, to bring before him a formal com- plaint, setting forth the heresies of Origen in detail. This document he forwarded to Jus- tinian, with a letter describing the disturb- ances created by the Origenistic monks and beseeching him to take measures to quell them. The emperor, flattered by this appeal at once to his ability as a theologian and his authority as a ruler, the petition being sup- ported by a Roman deputation, headed by Pelagius, then at Constantinople on ecclesi- astical business, granted the request and issued a decree condemning the heresies of Origen, and ordering that no one should here- after be created bishop or abbat without first condemning him and other specified heretics. The emperor's edict was confirmed by a syn'>d convened by .Mennas, and was sent for signa- ture to Peter and the other patriarchs, a.d. 541 {Vit. S. Sab. No. 84 ; Liberat. lirevtar. c. 23 ; Labbe, v. 6^,5 ; Vtl. S. Euthym. p. 365) The object, however, was thwarted by the Origeoist leaders subscribing the edict, thus PETRUS M7 sacrificing truth to srK-inirrr^f n , .1, ,. niaintainrd his position at <<<: ened IVtrr witli drpoMii..u || 1 refuse to rrrrivr b.u k the rxprl monks {I'lt. S. Sab. No. 8>). I,: aunt ti.e emperor's attention an attack wa* rrjflllv organised by The.xli.re A^ |<U« and • ilirr* against wriliuKs of Thr.nlMrr of \\..\-. . ■ , Theotloret. and Ibas i>l IMrssa. *iipi' savour of Nrsti>rianjsni. Thrv h.cl diffirultv. backed bv Ihr powrrlul infl' • the empress The<Hlora, an .ivi.wrtl |.i\ Monophysitism, in prrsuading thr rw\ issue an edict condrnining thrsr wn . which, from the three points on win ! 11 specially dwells, obtained the naiiir of • | h turn de Tribus Capitulis. ' or " Thr 1 1 rr<- Chapters," by which the whole rontr^-vrrsy became subsequentlv known. This wlirt being published on the solr authority of the emperor, without syn-nlical aiithontv. Krr.it stress was laid on its acceptance bv the bishops, especially by the four Eastern p.^- triarchs. No one of them, however, w.i, .!i posed to sign a document which sr< in. I < ■ disparage the conclusions of Ch.tl' • 1 t I Mennas yielded first; Peter's signatur. w..* j obtained after a longer struggle. On thr tirst j publication of the edict he solemnly de« larrd, before a vast crowd oi turbulent monks clamouring against its impietv, that whoever I signed it would violate the decrees of Chalce- don. But Justinian's threats of deposition j outweighed Peter's conscientious convictions, and. with the other equally reluctant pa- triarchs, he signed the document (Facun«liis. lib. iv. c. 4). He did not long survive this disgrace, and died, a.d. 544, after a 20 years' episcopate. Vict. Tunun. at>. Clinton, ' F. R. ii. 557: Fleiiry. Wis/, eccl. livre 3j; Neander, (h. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 26j ff. ; I.e yuien. Or. ( hrnl. vol. ii. iHq seq. ft. v.] Petrus (35), first bp. of Parembolae in Pales- ' tine, i.e. of the military stations of the S.ir.i- ; cens in Palestine. He was originally a (.rrrk in the service of the I'ersians under Izdri-ird. : The Christians being persecuted by the Magian party, Aspebetus, as Peter was then called, was coijimissioned to close the passes against the fugitives. Being sorry for the iniHK-rnt victims of religious intolerance, he «xrriitrd his duty remisslv. and even assisted Ihrpi in their flight. This being reporte«l to I/,|. cir!. Petrus in fear for his life deserted to tt.-- I mans with his son Tenbo. his rrlati\rv i: 1 all his properly. Anatcilius. il'- •■ ' " '■ ' ' the East, gl.Klly welcomed hun in Arabia, and put him in con the tributary Saracen tribes 11, Terebo, still a boy. had before l.i» 1jI!.!i'» flight lost by paralysis the entire use <>! one side. After reaching Arabia tl.< t \ ».is \ warned in a dream to apply to I cure. The application was boy recovered, and the gral' 1 brother-in-law Marit. and all M^ followers receiveil baptism (tyrill "^ Wtt. S. EMihym. LC. iH-n: Coirlrr. fr.. Monutn. ii. pp. 2l^-J2^). The nrw devote<l himself to 4 rrli«i..us llfr ; number of Arabian convrrts having ' so large as to require a bUhop of their I was recommended by Eutbymius lo Juvcual, 838 PETRUS bp. of Jerusalem, by whom, in defiance of the canonical rights of the old metropolitan chair of Caesarea, the new see was created, and Peter appointed its first bishop {Vit. S. Euthym. c. 39 ; Cotel. p. 231). Tillemont gives reasons for placing this event before 428 [Mem. eccl. XV. 196). Peter attended the council of Ephesus in 431. His name appears among those subscribing the deposition of Nestorius and the decrees of the council (Labbe, iii. 541, 692). Peter s death must be placed before 451, when his second successor John attended the council of Chalcedon, his immediate successor Auxolaus, a Eutychian, having had a very brief episcopate Le Quien, Or. Christ, iii. 767 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. 378, 392, 432, 451; XV. 196, 203. [e.v.] Petrus (41), bp. of Sebaste, the youngest brother of Basil the Great and Gregory Nys- sen, and the last of the ten children of Basil the elder and Emmelia. His father died almost immediately after his birth, which must be placed before a.d. 349 (Greg. Nys. de Vit. S. Macr. ii. 185). His sister Macrina, more than 20 years his senior, adopted her infant brother as her special charge, proving herself, in Gregory Nyssen's words, " not only his sister, but his father, mother, tutor, and warder " (iraibayuyos). When Macrina and her mother retired to their religious retreat on the banks of the Iris, Peter accompanied them, where, according to his brother, he proved all in all to them, working with them towards the angelical life. He shared the high physical and mental endowments of the family. His acquirements were very varied, and he had a natural gift for handicrafts, in which, without any direct instruction, he excelled as much as' in intellectual pursuits {tb. 186). He assisted by manual labour to support his mother and sister, and the large crowds at- tracted in time of scarcity by their reputation for charity. For some years his brother Basil was his near neighbour on the other side of the Iris, where he had established a monas- tery for male ascetics, in the presidency of which Peter succeeded him when in 365 he was finally recalled to Caesarea by bp. Eusebius. He was ordained presbyter by Basil, c. 370 (ib. 187). He was present with Macrina at their mother's death-bed, a.d. 373, and was offered by her as her tenth to God {ib. 186). He continued to reside in his monastery till after Basil and Macrina died in 370. In 380 he was ordained bishop, probably of Sebaste in Lesser Armenia, on the death or deposition of Eustathius. That Peter was bp. of Sebaste is accepted without question by Tillemont {Mem. eccl. ix. 574). Nicephorus, however, a somewhat untrust- worthy authority, is the first writer who names his see {H. E. xi. 19). Theodoret {H.E. V. 8) and Suidas {sub voc. BacrtXetos, i- 539) simply style him a bishop, without naming his diocese. He took part in the council of Constantinople, a.d. 381 (Theod. u.s.). Olyrapias, the deaconess, the friend of Chry- sostora, entrusted large funds to him for distribution to the poor (Pallad. p. 166). Tillemont places his death between 391 and 394. The genius of Peter seems to have been rather practical than literary. Rufinus, instituting a comparison between the three PETRUS brothers, says that the two younger combined equalled Basil ; Gregory in word and doc- trine, and Peter in the works of faith (Rufin. ii. 9). Theodoret remarks that, though Peter had not received such a training in classical literature as his brothers, r^s Ovpadev TTaideias ou /iereiXrjxws cvv iKfivoLS, he was equally conspicuous in the splendour of his life {H. E. iv. 30). But though undistin- guished in theological literature himself, several of his brother Gregory's most import- ant works were written at his instigation ; e.g. as we learn from the proems, the two treatises supplementary to his brother Basil's Hexaemeron, the Explicatio Apologetica and the de Hominis Opificio (Greg. Nys. 0pp. i. I, 44). The latter treatise was sent to Peter as an Easter gift. Gregory's great doctrinal work against Eunomius was due to his brother's entreaties that he would employ his theological knowledge to refute that here- tic, and disprove the charges brought by him against Basil {ib. ii. 265, 266). Gregory's original intention was to limit his refutation to the first of Eunomius's two books. But Peter wrote a letter to him, his only extant literary production {ib. 268), entreating him to strike with the zeal of a Phinehas both the heretical books with the same spiritual sword, which he knew so well how to wield. The language and style of this letter shew Peter as not intellectually inferior to the more cele- brated members of his family (Tillem. Mem. eccl. ix. 572-580). [E.V.] Petrus (64), a solitary commemorated by Theodoret in his Religiosa Historia. By birth a Galatian, he embraced a monastic life when 7 years old, and lived to the age of 99. After visiting the holy places at Jerusalem and Palestine, he settled at Antioch, living in an empty tomb on bread and water, and keeping a strict fast every other day. His companion and attendant, named Daniel, he had delivered from an evil spirit. Theodoret relates that his mother, when a beautiful young woman of 23, failing to obtain relief from a malady in her eye from any oculist, was induced by one of her female servants to apply to Peter. Going to him dressed richly and resplendent with gold ornaments and gems, the solitary upbraided her for presuming to attempt to improve on the handiwork of her Maker, and having thus cured her of the malady of vanity and love of dress, signed her eye with the cross and she was speedily healed. Other members of her household he cured in a similar manner. When, seven years after, she be- came the mother of Theodoret and was given up by the physicians, Peter, having been summoned, prayed over her with her attend- ants and she speedily revived. She was ac- customed to bring her child once every week toreceive the old man's blessing. Petermade the young Theodoret a present of half his linen girdle, which was believed to have the miraculous property of relieving pain and curing sickness. The amulet was frequently lent, till kept by one of its borrowers, and so lost to the family. Theod. Hist. Rel. c. ix. ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xv. 209-213. [e.v.] Petrus (721, first abbat of the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul, commonly called St. Augustine's, Canterbury. He was probably PHILASTER PHILASTCR A39 one fif thf monks who arroinp.mir*! Aiijjusiine I been rnpir.1 t.\ si Vm.uj on his first joiirupy. and Ihcrrforc probalily matrruls : a monk of the monastery of St. Amlrrw at ing Urrtx Rome. Hp is first mrntionrd by Bcdc (//. F. trratur ■ u i. 25) as joined with I.aurrntius in the mission m) to ihr w iWv I I which Augustine after his consecration sent triu*. the f.irnjrr of wli to Rome to ann<nince that the (iospel had heresies hrf.ire i.ur I. "fl been accepted bv the KuKlish, and that he the ascension, the Uttrr , had been made bishop, and In put before the after. AuKustlnr refuM-s pope the questions which drew forth the I!piph.iniu>, whom he arc ■> l..( ir .,,,1 ,JS t'> Iwhrxr Ihjt nn» t.»r it'^ m re > ' I scttiuK down all the ih. which he disaKreetl. .111 1 held them as herrti(!i down as heretiis who iin..Ki excellent Fathers did, thai tl.^ vi. 2 were the offsprinR of .1: thought that any imcertainty > calculation of the number of t the creation of the world (c 11 famous " Responsiones Sancti Ciregorii." Me learneil of the two, .,.ul<l h must have returned some time before the of any heresies ku'-wn to death of .Augustine and been appointed or explains the diffrren. r .<f designated by him and Kthelbert as the arising from the word lirr. sn future head of the monastery, which at his sharply define<l applit .it request Ethelbert was building outside the to count opinioiu as h- ■ walls of Canterbury. The building was not so reckone<l by the oil finished when Augustine died, but l.aurentius. fact, F'hil.ister. in his ri. . his successor, consecrated the new chiu-ch and swell his list I'f heresies, h.is Peter became the first abbat. If the Canter- items whn h must f.. tri V bury computation be accepted, and on such count everv en a point it mav not be baseless, Peter must and when he ha>. have perished in the winter of 606 or of 607 sects calle<l afl- 1 at the latest. There is a notice of him in long list of an>ii\in . Mabillon's Ada SS. O.S.li. saec. i. pt. i. p. i ; and the Bollandist Acts, Jan. t. i. pp. 3^5, 336. See Gotselinus, de Translatione Sit. Augui- tini, ap. Mab. Acta SS. O.S.B. t. ix. p. 760; Elmham, ed. Hardwick, pp. 92-126; Thorn, CO. 1761, 1766 ; Hardy, Catalogue of Materials, etc. i. 206, 207 ; MonastUon Angl. i. 120. [s.] Phllaster (PhUastnus), bp. of Brixia (Brescia), in the latter part of the 4th cent. His successor in the see, Gaudentius, used plurality of heavens (c. 94) every year to preach a panegyrical sermon on infinity of worlds (c. 115). or the anniversary of his death (July 18). One there are fixed stars, being igi of these (preached on the 14th anniversary) i stars are brought every evenin. is extant, and from its vague laudatory state- , secret treasure-houses, and .t^ ments we have to extract our scantv infor- , have fulfilled their daily task ! mation concerning his life and wt)rk. We learn back thither again by the an. from it that he was not a native of Brescia, their course (c. 133). It is t From what country he came we are not told ; ; regards those as heretics (c. 11 Spain or Africa has been conjectured. He is 1 days of the week bv their li' ■ commended for zeal in the conversion of Jews instead of the scriptural nainrbtut day. and heathen, and in the confutation of here- second dav, etc. ; and some of his tranv rilxri sies, especially of Arianism ; and is said to have rebelled <>n being asked to write d wn have incurred stripes for the vehemence of his those as heretics who believe (c. iS4) iti >; \\-- opposition to that then dominant sect. He ravens brought flesh as well as bread I I .' travelled much; at Milan he withstood bp. who surely would never have us^l r .! Auxentius, the Arian predecessor of St. food. But it is not true th.it o > Ambrose ; at Rome he was highly successful enumerat<-d bv F'hil.ister. but in his defence of orthodoxy. Finally he Kpiphanius, are such as can l>r t settled down at Brescia, where he is said to I for. When Augustine, .it 1. ■ have been a model of all pastoral virtues. I his correspondent's re-i The onlv details we have for dating his , treatise on heresies, he i: episcopate or the duration of his life arc that of the 60 postChristi.iti ' he took part as bp. of Brescia in a council at Fpiphanius. and then adb j h t \ 1 , m re Aquileia in 381 (see its proceedings in the from Philastrius, remarking that thi» 4.1th. r works of Ambrose, ii. 802, or p. «>35. Migne) ; gives others alv. but that he hiniwH d'*^ ii-t and that he must have died bef'>rc 397. the reg.ird them as heresies . . . , . year of Ambroses death, since that bishop The relation between I htUstrr and hplph- interested himself in the appointment of his anius is imp-rntit »«- k!*' "i th- th~.rv "I successor. St. Augustine mentions having l.ipsius. n. u " " .-- . v seen Philaster at Milan in company with St. tis). that ' Ambrose; this was probably some time v)ur.rnaii. during 384-387. Possibly Philaster had been tus 1; • commended to the church of Brescia by it i-- Ambrose, who would know of his opposition dir. ■ • to Auxentius. The notices of Phllaster in mighi ecclesiastical writers arc collected in the Bol- ing l-'f i-iu. »arii> . » I n • landist Life (AA. SS. July 18, vol. iv. p. 299)- Ij »» chron-aoglrally 1 He is now chiefly interesting as the author to have read the tre.tis/- of a work on heresies, portioos of which, having appeared in 376 or 377- At itadrr whlrh rrl.-l of 840 PHILASTER his life Philaster's work was written we cannot tell. The notes of time in it are confusing. He, or his transcriber, places his own date (c. io6) over 400 years after Christ, and (c. 112) about 430. In c. 83 he speaks of the Donatists, " qui Parmeniani nunc appellantur a Parmenione quodam qui eorum nuper successit erroribus et falsitati." Parmeni- anus became Donatist bp. of Carthage c. 368, and died in 391 ; and the "nuper" would lead us to think that Philaster wrote early in this episcopate. But the form Parmenio, if not a transcriber's error, seems to shew that Philaster knew little of African affairs. Lip- sius suggests that Philaster mentions Praxeas and Hermogenes as African heretics (c. 54), because he got their names from Tertullian. Philaster's anonymous heresy (c. 84) seems plainly identified by Augustine (Haer. 70) with Priscillianism, the breaking out of which is dated in Prosper's Chrontcle a.d. 379. But Philaster's silence as to the name Priscillian seems to indicate an earlier date. However, the complete independence of his treatment shews that Philaster did not use the work of Epiphanius. Eager as he was to swell his list of heresies, he does not mention the Archontici, Severiani, Encratitae, Pepu- ziani, Adamiani, Bardesianistae, and others, with whom Epiphanius would hav^e made him acquainted ; and in the discussion of all heresies later than Hippolytus, which are common to Epiphanius and Philaster, the two agree neither in matter nor in order of ar- rangement. Hence Lipsius inferred that the agreements as to earlier heresies must be explained by the use of a common source. This also accounts for a striking common feature, viz. the enumeration by both of pre- Christian heresies. Hegesippiis (see Eus. H. E. iv. 22) had spoken of seven Jewish sects (twi' iwTo. aipiaewu) and had given their names ; and it would seem from the opening of the tract of Pseudo-Tertullian that Hip- polytus began his treatise by declining to treat of Jewish heresies. His two successors then might easily have been tempted to improve on their original by including pre- Christian heresies. Concerning the N.T. canon, Philaster states (c. 88) that it had been ordained by the apostles and their successors that nothing should be read in the Catholic church but the law, the prophets, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, 13 Epistles of St. Paul, and the seven other epistles which are joined to the Acts of the Apostles. The omission of the Apoc- alypse and Hebrews seems intended only to exclude them from public church reading. In c. 60 he treats as heretical the denial that the Apocalypse is St. John's, and in c. 69 the denial that the Ep. to the Hebrews is St. Paul's. He accounts for difficulties as to the reception of the latter as arising from its speaking of our Lord as " made " (c. iii. 2), and from the apparent countenance given to Novatianism in vi. 4 ; x. 26. Consequently the public reading of this epistle is not universal : " [leguntur] tredecim epistolae ipsius, et ad Hebraeos interdum." The first printed ed. of Philaster appeared at Basle in 1539 ; the most noteworthy subse- quent edd. are by Fabricius in 1721, containing PHILIPPUS an improved text and a valuable commentary, and by Galeardus in 1738, giving fromaCorbey MS. now in St. Petersburg chapters on six heresies, omitted in previous eds., but which are required to make the total of 1 56 mentioned by St. Augustine. This complete text has been reprinted by Oehler in his Corpus Haeresiologum, vol. i. The latest ed. is by F. Marx, in the Corpus Script. Eccl. Lat. (Vienna, 1898). See also Zahn, Gesch. der N.T. Kanons (1890), ii. i, p. 233. [g.s.] Philippus (1), of Tralles, asiarch at the time of the martyrdom of Polycarp. The historic reality of this Philip has been confirmed by an inscription found at Olympia, and Lightfoot (Ignatius, i. 613) printed two new inscriptions relating to him, and also by means of his full name, Cains Julius Philippus, there given, has assigned to him three other previously known inscriptions. Philip is thus proved to have been a well-known man of great wealth and munificence. Lightfoot (u.s.) shews that the date of his tenure of office indicated by these inscriptions is quite reconcilable with the date, otherwise determined, of Polycarp's martyrdom, without need of recourse to the perfectly admissible supposition, that Philip held the office of asiarch more than once. Concerning the office, see Lightfoot, ii. 990, where it is shewn that the holder was " high- priest of the province of Asia " and his tenure of office to be probably four years. [g.s.] Philippus (5), "the Arabian," emperor, a native of Bostra in Trachonitis and a man of low birth. Having been made pretorian prefect he supplanted the younger Gordian in the affections of the soldiers, and caused him to be deposed and put to death in Mar. 244. After making peace with Sapor the Persian king, he proceeded to Rome. In 248 the games to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the foundation of Rome were celebrated with great splendour. In the summer of 249 Philip was defeated by Decius near Verona and slain. The authorities for his reign are most meagre and conflicting. The only thing that makes it important is the report that he was the first Christian emperor. The chief foundation for this is the narrative which Eusebius (H. E. vi. 34) gives without vouching for its truth, namely, that Philip being a Christian wished at Easter to join in the prayers with the congregation, but that on account of the many crimes he had committed the bishop of the place refused to admit him imtil he had confessed and taken his place among the penitents, and that he willinglv obeyed. The name of the bishop is supplied by Leontius, bp. of Antioch c. 348 (quoted in Chron. Pasch. 270, in Migne, Pair. Gk. xcii. 668), who savs it was St. Babylas of Antioch. We are also told that Origen wrote to Philip and the empress (Ens. H. E. vi. 36), but the letters are not preserved, nor do we know their contents. St. Jerome also (Chronicon and de Vir. III. 54) calls Philip the first of all Christian emperors, in which he is followed by Orosius ; and Dionysius of Alex- andria (Eus. H. E. vii. 10) speaks of emperors before Valerian who were reputed to be Christians, but does not mention names. Against this doubtful testimony must be set the following: (i) Constantine is called by PHILIPPUS Euscbius (I'l/. Cons. i. 3) the first Clirislian emperor. (2) No event, except his alleged penitence at Antiorh, is recorded of I'liilip that implies he was a Christian. (3) He celebrated the millennial games witli heathen rites. (4) He deitied his i>redecess<ir, and was himself deified after death. (5) No heathen wTiter mentions that he was a Christian. (6) A year before Decius issue<l his edict against the Christians, and therefore while Philip was still reisning, a violent persecution had broken out at .Alexandria (Eus. H. E. vi. 41). which would not have been allowed to go on had the emperor really been a Christian. It seems, therefore, safer to conclude with Clinton {Fasti Rom. ii. 51) that Philip was not a Christian. Is there, then, anv foimdation for the story of Philip and St Babylas ? Philip may very possibly have been at Antioch at Easter, a.d. 244, on his return to Rome after Gordian's death, and perhaps feeling remorse for the way he had treated Gordian and believing that Babylas was able to purify him from his guilt, may have made some applica- tion to him, and this may be the origin of the story ; but it seems impossible to say with any certainty what parts of it, if any, are genuine and what fictiti<ius. Philip was the first emperor who tried to check the grosser forms of vice at Rome (Lampridius, V. Helio- gabali, 31 ; V. SfX'eri, 23), though his efforts were unsuccessful (Victor, de Caesaribus, c. 28). Zosimus. i. 18-22 ; Vila Gordiani Tertii, cc. 28-33 ; Tillcm. Mem. eccl. iii. 262 ; Gibbon, cc. 7, 10. 16. [f.d.] Phllippus (8), bp. of Heraclea in Thrace and martyr in the Diocletian persecution c. 304 with Severus, a presbyter, and Hermes, a deacon. His Acts present one of the most vivid and minute pictures we possess of that persecution, and are often quoted by Le Blanc in his Actes des Martyrs — eg. pp. 12, 41, 52, 54, etc.. where many incidental marks of authenticity are pointed out. The various steps in the persecution can be clearly traced, the arrest of the clergy, the seizure and de- struction of the sacred writings and vessels, and finally the torture and death of the mar- tyrs. Philip was arrested and examined by a president Bassus, who then committed him to the free custody of one Pancratus (c. vii.). Bassus was soon succeeded by a certain Jus- tinus, who was much more stern towards the Christians than his predecessor, whose wife was a Christian. After some lime Justinus brought them to Adrianople, and there burned Philip and Hermes on the same day (Ruinart, Acta Sincera, p. 442). [g.t.s.] Phllippus (9), of Side, an ecclesiastical historian at the commencement of 5th cent., a native of the maritime town of Side in Pamphylia, the birthplace of Troilus the sophist, whose kinsman he was proud of reckoning himself. We find Philip at Con- stantinople enjoying the intimacy of Chry- sostom, by whom he was admitted to the diaconate. Tillcmont says that he was the imitator of Chrvsostom's eloquence rather than of his virtue's, and that the imitati.-n was a very poor one. On the death of Atticus, A.D. 425, by whom he had been ordained presbyter, Philip was a candidate for the vacant see, and found a number of influential PHILO Ml supporters (Sf>rr. H. h vii xr). The prrfrr- ing of Sixinniu^ r.»u»r<l hini ntrrenr itcrtth- r.ition, wliirh hr rxhi><itr<t in hi* ( httxttam Hislorv. intr>Hlu<ing a violrnl n' ■ '■ ■• « the rharartrr b-ith of rlrrtrd more partirul.irly the l.iv Sisinnius. The bittrrnr^* and t charges arc noticed l)y Socralrv them undeserving mention in ! 2<>). Philip, when .ig.im » r.n. after the death of Sisinnius, a i> <;■< in 1 n the deposition of Nrst.iritu in 4 \t, had a r<in« siderable and enrrgrtii following (ih. vii. 20. 3,s), but was unsurcrssful. and dlrtl a prr*- byter. His chief work, entitled A < hnt. tian Histor\\ was divided into \(t IxM.k* and about a thousand chapters. It range*! fri-m the creation to his own times. Hxrrpt one or two fragments, the whole is l<»si. The descriptions of it given by Sorr.itrs fift. 37) and Photius [Cod. 3s) shew that its l->ss is n^t to be regretted on literarv groun<!s. S'-rratrs describes it as a medley of theorems in grome- try. astronomv, arithmetic, and inusir, with descriptions of islands, mountains, and trees, and other matters of little moment. The chrono|i)gical order of events was ronvt mtl-.- disregarded. Photius's estimate is r; ' low: "diffuse; neither wittv n'>r <!.,,: • full of undigested learning, with verv ••' bearing on history at all. still less on t Im m i:; history." A fragment r<-lating t"> tht- - ' 1 of Alexandria and the sucression • 1 th-- teachers has been printed by I)<Kiwell at the close of his dissertations on Irenaeus {Oxt. 1680). Of this N'eander writes : " The known untrustworthiness of this author; the discrepancy between his statements and other more authentic reports, and the suspicious condition in which the fragment has Ci>me down to us. render his details unworthv <<( confidence " {Ch. Hist. vol. ii. p. 460, Clark's trans.), .\nother considerable fragment is reported to exist in the Imperial I.ibrarv at Vienna, entitled de Chrislt Satmtale, ft dt Magis. giving the acts of a disputation held in Persia concerning Christianity between certain Persians and Christians, at which Philip was himself present. Tillem. Mim. eat. xii. 431 ; Hist, des empereurs, vi. 130; Cave, Hist. Lot. i. 305 ; Fabric. Bibl. Grate, vl. 112. lib. v. c. 4. 5 28. 'I V Phllo (2), deacon. Among tt' genuineness of the Ignatian lelt is the fact that we obtain t t' sistent story on pierin.- • n>)tices about obscure deacons are mentionetl, I Rhcius .\gath<>pus from .s Smvrn. 10, 13) VVe find thai had nr)t started with Ignatius, b afterwards, taking the same r Philadelphia, where Ignatius l.iiu.-:: encounteretl heretical oppo»ttioii. »< n ■ ' ! treated them also with contumelv , lli it •■' • ■ had been too late to overtake the %n ,! ■( Sinvrna. but had Iwscn kinrllv mtrrlaiiiri ) •, the church there. Finillv, thrv wrrr ...... Ignatius at Troas. and ft he rcreive<i the joyful n> ' the church of Syria hi 1 departure. The cIcarnrA, .<..;.. « ;.. whole story comc« out from oblique infermcc* 842 PHILOGONIUS is evidence that we have here a true history (Lightfoot's Ignatius, i. 334, ii. 279). It was no doubt the mention in the genuine epistles of this Philo from Cilicia that sug- gested to Pseudo-Ignatius to forge a letter in the name of the martyr to the church of Tar- sus, and to specify that city as the place where Philo served as deacon. [g.s.] Philogonlus, bp. of Antioch. 22nd in suc- cession, following Vitalis c. 319. He affords an example of a layman, a husband, and a father being raised at once, like Ambrose at Milan, to the episcopate of his city. He had been an advocate in the law courts, and gained universal esteem by his powerful advocacy of the poor and oppressed, " making the wronged stronger than the wronger." The few facts known of his history are gathered from a homily delivered at Antioch by Chrysostom on his Natalitia (Chrys. Oral. 71, t. v. p. 507, ed. Savile). Chrysostom comments upon the great difficulties (bvcrKoXiaC) Philogonius met with at the commencement of his episcopate from the persecution which had so recently ceased, and says that his highest eulogy is the pure and flourishing condition in which he left the church. The earliest ecclesiastical building in Antioch, " the mother of all the churches in the city," traditionally ascribed to apostolic times, the rebuilding of which had been begun by Vitalis, was finished by him (Theod. H. E. i. 3). He was denounced by Arius as one of his most determined oppo- nents (ih. 5). He was succeeded by Paulinus, the Arianizing bp. of Tyre, c. 323. He is called Philonicus by Eutychius (p. 431), who assigns him 5 years of office (Tillcm. Mem. eccl. t. vi. p. 194 ; Neale, Patr. of Ant. p. 84). [e.v.] PhllostorgiUS, a Cappadocian, born c. 368, and author of a church history extending from 300 to 425. The greater part has perished, but some fragments have been preserved by Photius. They were published by Godefrid at Geneva in 1642, and by Valesius, with a Latin trans, and notes, at Paris in 1673. An English trans, by Walford appeared in 1855. Photius regarded both author and book with worse than contempt. The style he allows to be sometimes elegant, though more frequently marked by stiffness, coldness, and obscurity. The contents he treats as unworthy of reliance, often beginning his extracts by denouncing the author as an " enemy of God," an " impious wretch," an " impudent liar." Even Gibbon, naturally inclined as he was to accept the statements of a heretic in preference to those of an orthodox theologian, is com- pelled to allow that " the credibility of Philos- torgius is lessened, in the eyes of the orthodox, by his Arianism ; and, in those of rational critics, by his passion, his prejudice, and his ignorance " {Hist. c. xxi.). Gibbon thinks that he appears to have obtained " some curious and authentic intelligence " (c. xxv.), yet was niarked in making use of it by " cau- tious malice " (c. xxiii.). These unfavourable opinions are shared by Tillemont {Hist. vol. iv. p. 281), and, though with some just expres- sions as to what might have been the value of his history had it been preserved, by Jortin {Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 122) and Schrockh (vol. i. p. 148). All existing evidence leads to the belief that the history of Philostorgius was PHILOXENUS less a fair statement of what he had seen and known than a panegyric upon the heretics of his time. [w.m.] Philoxenus (4) {Xenaias), a conspicuous leader of the Monophysites at the beginning of 6th cent. He shares with Severus of Antioch, the true scientific head of the pre- viously leaderless party of the Acephali, the reputation of having originated the Jacobite form of Monophysitism, which was long supreme in Egypt and is still adopted by the Copts. Our knowledge of Philoxenus comes almost exclusively from his theological opponents, against whom he was engaged in a determined and not very scrupulous warfare. Much that is stated to his discredit admits of reasonable doubt. Some stories we may absolutely reject. We know him as an acute dialectician, a subtle theologian, and a zealous and uncompromising champion of the unity of the nature of Christ against what he re- garded as the heresy of the two natures, and as one to whose desire for a faithful rendering of N.T. the church is indebted for what is known as the " Philoxenian Syriac Version." We soon find him in Syria, where, having accepted the Henoticon and the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, he proved an active op- ponent of all Nestorianizers and a zealous propagator of Monophysite views in the coun- try villages round Antioch. Calandio, the patriarch of Antioch, expelled him from his diocese. He was recalled by Peter the Fuller, who ordained him bp. of Hierapolis ( Mabug) in place of the more orthodox Cyrus, c. 485. During Peter's turbulent rule Philo- xenus actively supported his measures for suppressing the Nestorianizing section of the church and establishing Eutychian or Mono- physite doctrines in his patriarchate and generally in the East. The accession in 498 of the vacillating Flavian to the throne of Antioch, and his change of front from opposi- tion to support of Chalcedon, led Philoxenus to adopt a more active line of conduct (Evagr. H. E. iii. 31), pursuing Flavian with untiring animosity, endeavouring to force him to accept the Henoticon, on his refusal denounc- ing him as a concealed Nestorian, demanding that he should repudiate not only Nestorius but all who were regarded as sympathizing with him, Diodorus, Theodorus, Theodoret, and many others, repeatedly denouncing him to the emperor Anastasius, and at last accom- plishing his deprivation and expulsion. [Fla- viANUs OF Antioch.] In pursuance of his object Philoxenus more than once visited Constantinople. The first time was at the summons of Anastasius, a.d. 507. His arrival caused a great disturbance among the clergy, laity, and monastic bodies. To con- sult the peace of the city, the emperor was compelled to remove him secretly (Theophan. p. 128 ; Victor. Tunun. sub. ann. 499). Un- able in any other way to secure the deposition of Flavian and his supporter Elias of Jeru- salem, Philoxenus obtained from Anastasius an order for convening a synod ostensibly to define more exactly the points of faith, but really to remove the two obnoxious prelates. This synod of about 80 bishops met at Sidon early in 512, under the joint presidency of Philoxenus and Soterichus of the Cappadocian PHILOXENUS Caesarea. FoeliiiK r.iu so high and so much endaugiTcd the public pi-acc that the svnotl was broken up by the oinperor's roininaiul without pronouncing any scntonro {I.abbo, iv. 1413 ; Theophan. p. 131; I'tt. S. Sab. ap. Coteler, Man. Eccl. Orate, iii. 297 JT.)- In thr subsequent proceedings, when rival b<Hiics <i( monks poured down from the mountain ranges into the streets oi Antiixh. and were joined by ditlerent parties among the citizens, converting the city into a scene oj uproar and bloodshed (Evagr. H. E. iii. t,2), I'hiloxenus was left practically master of the held. Flavian was banished, and the Monophvsite Severus, the friend and associate of Philo- xenus, was put in his place towards the close of 51; (ib. iii. 33). The triumph of I'hilo- xenus, however, was but short. In 518 Anastasius was succeeded by the more orthodox Justin, who immediately on his accession, declaring himself an adherent of Chalcedon, restored the expelled orthcxlox bishops and banished the heterodox. Philo- xenus is said to have been banished to Philip- popolis in Thrace (Asseman. liibl. Orient, u. 19 ; Theophan. p. 141 ; Chron. Edess. 87), and thence to tiangra in Paphlagonia, where he died of suffocation by smoke (Bar-heb. ii. 56). He is commemorated by the Jacobites in their liturgy as a doctor and confessor. The Syriac translation of N.T. known as the " Philoxeniaa Version," subsequently revised by Thomas of Harkel, in which form alone we possess it, was executed in 508 at his desire by his chorepiscopus Polycarp {Moses Agnclius, ap. Asseman. Bibl. Ortent. ii. 83 ; ib. i. 408). It is extremely literal ; " the S>Tiac idiom is constantly bent to suit the Greek, and everything is in some manner expressed in the Greek phrase and order " ( Westcott in Smith's D. B. vol. iii. p. 1635 b). Philoxenus and Severus were the authors of the dominant form of Monophysitc doctrines which, while maintaining the unity of the natures of Christ, endeavoured to preserve a distinction between the divine and the human. This doctrine is laid down in eight proposi- tions at variance with the tenets of the early Christians, whom he stigmatized as Phan- tasiasts. Christ was the Son of Man, i.e. Son of the yet unfallen man, and the Logos took the bodv and soul of man as thcv were before Adam's'fall. The very personality of God the Word descended from heaven and became man in the womb uf the Virgin, personally without conversion. Thus He became a man Who could be seen, felt, handled, and yet as God He continued to possess the spiritual, invisible, impalpable character essential to Deity. Neither the deity nor the humanity was absorbed one bv the other, nor converted one into the other. Nor again was a third evolved by a combination of the two natures as bv chemical transformation. They taught one nature constituted out of two, not simple but twofold, /xi'a <pvaii avvOtTW. or ^>■la. <pi-<Ji% SiTTT). The one Person of the Incarnate Word was not a duality but a unity. The same Son Who was one before the Incarnation was equally one when united to the body. In all said, done, or suffered by Christ, there was only one and the same (iod the Word. VV ho became man, and took on Himself the condl- PHOCAS MS tion <if want an<l *u(lritni{, n.>t naturally but vohmt.irilv, for xUr an onipluhmrni o| man'* rrdrmpliMii. It |o||..wr<l ihjl (.<kI thr Word Miflrretl and died, and n^-l mrfrlv 4 Ixwiv distinct (ron> <>r ol>c<ltrnt to Hun. <>r in which He dwelt, but with which He wat n<>( onr. Their view as to the pergonal work o| ( hr»*l is briefly sttminrtl up in the Tho.ipjtchit*' formula. " unu^ e Trinitale dr^rndll do cocio, inrarnatus r«l. rrunfixu*. morluu*. resvirrexit. ascrndil in carhiin." I'hiloxrnu* held that " potuit non nion," not that "' n'-n potuit inori." It followed that hr ^(firnirtl a single will in Chri>t. In Ihr Kurharut he held that the living b.xlv ..| the living <i.«l was received, not anything br|onginK t" « corruptible man like ourvlve*. He W4» tl<cidedlv oppoM-d to all pictorial fprevnla- tions of' Christ, as well as i>l all »pirilU4l beings. No true honour, he !u»id, wa» done to Christ by making picture* of Hun. Mnre His only acceptable worship was that in »|>irU and in truth. To depict the H-'lv Spirit a» a dove was puerile. I-t it is said economirally that He was seen in the likrnr*s, n"^ in the bodv, of a dove. It was contrary to reav>n to represent angels, luirrly spiritual l>einK», by human bodies. He acted up to the** opinions and blotted out pictures "i angrU. removing out of sight those of t hrist (]<>ann. i Diaconus, de Eccl. Hut. ap. I.ablw. vii. 369). He was a very copious writer, and described bv ,\ssemaiii as one of the l>rst and in<>*l 1 elegant in the Svrian tongue (Btbl. Ortent. i. 475 ; ii. 20). .\ssem.uii gives a catalogue I of 23' of his works. To these niav Iw added 13 homilies i>n Christian life an<i charactrr (Wright. 764); 12 chapters against the holders of the Two Wills (16. 730. 749) : •© against those who divided Christ (16. 73o)- livagr. H. E. iii. 31. 32 ; The .d. Left, fragm. p. 369; Theophan. Chronogr. pp. i n. 12S, 120". 131, 141 ; Labbe, iv. 1153, vii. «8. ^68 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xvi. 677-681. 701-706; Sean- der, H. E. iv. 2^«i. Clark's trans. ; (.ie*eler, //. E. ii. 94 : Schr<j< kh. Ktrch. Geschuk. xviii. S26-538; Dorner. Penon of ( hrul. div. if. vol. "i. pp. 13V135. Clark's trans. [r.v.] Pboeas, of Sinope. a celebrated inart>T, ol I wh<iin verv little is actually known and wh«»*e real date is uncertain. Coin»>efi* place* his martyrdom in the last years of Trijin. hut Tillemont considers a later either that of Pecius or that more probable. Uur sole know !• , is from an or.ition in his honom ; I of Amasea. He states that Ph-^-s *-s 411 honest and in<lustriou» gardriirr at Sui'-|>e. a convert to Chrislianitv. and excerdliiKly ; hospitabl.- to strangers. Hring denounced u a Christian and sentenced to death, a party of soldiers was drspatchr<l to Siii'i • t • ■ .nrv the sentence inl') execution. I'l ably entertained them, and ' 1. their mission forlx.re to r^' Ay easily have doiir. and, vihvzc they c.-nld find l! known to them and wa» . His trunk was burird in ...... lor himsril. over which a c hui quently built. Hit rrlic* wirr miracles that he obtainetl the n i I maturgiu. Hi» b«xly w*» liau>lcxica to 844 PHOTINUS Constantinople with great magnificence in the time of Chrysostom, who delivered a homily on the occasion (Horn. 71, t. i. p. 775). A monastery was subsequently built on the spot, in which his relics were deposited, the abbats of which are often mentioned in early times (Du Cange, Constant. Christ, lib. iv. p. 133). Gregory Nazianzen mentions Phocas as a celebrated disciple of Christ (Carm. 52, t. ii. p. 122). That he was bp. of Sinope is a late invention. Some of his relics were said to be translated to the Apostles' Church at Vienne. He was the favourite saint of the Greek sailors, who were in the habit of making him a sharer at their meals, the portion set apart for him daily being purchased by some one, and the money put aside and distributed to the poor on their arrival at port. He is commemorated by the modern Greeks on two days, July 22 and Sept. 22. The former day may be that of his translation (Tillem. Mem. eccl. v. 581). [e.v.] Photinus, a Galatian, educated by Mar- cellus of Ancyra and afterwards deacon and presbyter of his church, perhaps too (during the time when Marcellus, expelled from his own see, a.d. 336, was wandering about between Rome and Constantinople) trans- ferred to the see of Sirmium. He made no secret of the doctrines he had imbibed from his master, and succeeded in obtaining a hearing for them. The Eusebians at Antioch, in their lengthiest formula, three years after the Encoenia, were the first to attack him, classing him with his preceptor. He was next attacked at Milan, then the imperial capital ; by the same party soon after at Sardica (D. C. A. "Councils of Milan " and "Councils of Sirmium") ; and two years later another and larger synod decreed his deposition. Moderns are not agreed where this synod met, but St. Hilary, beyond any reasonable doubt, fixes it at Sirmium (Fragm. ii. n. 21 ; cf. Larroque, Diss. i. de Phot. pp. 76 seq.), being the first of the councils held there, a.d. 349 (Larroque says 350). Constantius being absent when sentence was first passed on Photinus in his own city, the popularity he had gained there stood him in good stead, in spite of his avowed opinions, which Socrates tells us he would never disclaim. He re- mained in possession till 351, when a second council having assembled there by order of the emperor, then present in person, he was taken in hand by Basil, the successor of his master at Anc\Ta, and having been signally refuted by him in a formal dispute, was put out of his see forthwith. Hefele thinks he may have regained it under Julian for a short time, but was again turned out under Valentinian, to return no more ; and dates his death a.d. 366 (Counc. ii. 199). For a collection of authorities on the chronological difficulties in connexion with his history, see a note to Hefele's Councils (Oxenham's trans, ii. 188-189). [e.s.ff.] Photlus, bp. of Tyre, and metropolitan, elected on the deposition of Irenaeus, Sept. 9, 448. He is imfavourably known for cowardly tergiversation in the case of Ibas of Edessa. Under the powerful influence of Uranius of Himera, he and his fellow-judges first acquitted Ibas at Tyre and Berytus, and the next year PINIANUS at the " Robber Synod " of Ephesus zealously joined in his condemnation (Martin, Le Bri- gandage d'Ephese, pp. 118- 120, 181). At the same synod he accused Acylinus, bp. of Byblos, of Nestorianism and with refusing to appear before him and Domnus, the real ground of offence being manifestly that he had been appointed by Irenaeus. On Photius's state- ment alone Acylinus was at once deposed. Photius at the same time undertook to clear Phoenicia of all clergy tainted with Nestori- anism (Martin, u.s. p. 183 ; Actes du bri- gandage, pp. 86-89). With easy versatility Photius took his place among the orthodox prelates at Chalcedon, regularly voted on the right side, signed the decisions of the council, voted for the restoration of Theodoret to his bishopric, presented a resume of the pro- ceedings at Berytus favourable to Ibas, and signed the 28th canon conferring on Constan- tinople the same primacy, wpfa^ela. as that enjoyed by Rome (Labb'e, iv. 79, 328, 373, 623, 635, 803). At the same time, after pre- senting a petition to Marcian {ib. 541), he obtained a settlement of the controversy be- tween himself and Eustathius of Berytus as to nietropolitical jurisdiction, in favour of the ancient rights of the see of Tyre, together with a reversal of Eustathius's act of deposition of the bishops ordained by Photius, within the district claimed by the former {ib. 542-546 ; Canon. Chalc. 29). ' Photius was no longer bp. of Tyre in 457, when Dorotheus replied to the encyclical of the emperor Leo. Labbe, iv. 921; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 443; Ceillier, Aut. eccl. xiv. 271, etc. ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. vol. xv. index ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. x. 678 ; Le Quien, 1 Or. Christ, ii. 808). [e.v.] I Pierius (Hierius). An eminent presbyter of Alexandria, famous for voluntary poverty, philosophical knowledge, and public expo- sitions of Holy Scripture. He ruled the cate- chetical school of Alexandria under bp. i_ Theonas, a.d. 265, and afterwards lived at Rome. He wrote several treatises extant in St. Jerome's time, and some were known as late as that of Photius. One was a homily upon Hosea, which he recited on Easter Eve, wherein he notes that the people continued in church on Easter Eve till after midnight. Photius mentions a work on St. Luke's Gospel as part of a volume by him, divided into 12 books. From his eloquence he was called the younger Origen. Photius declares that he was ortho- dox about the Father and the Son, though using the words substance and nature to signify person. But his manner of speaking about the Holy Ghost was unorthodox, be- cause he said that His glory was less than that of the Father and the Son. In the time of Epiphanius there was a church at Alexandria dedicated in his honour. Some have there- fore thought that he suffered martyrdom in Diocletian's persecution. Eus. vii. 32; Hieron. Vir. III. c. 76 ; id. Ep. 70 al. 84, § 4, p. 429 ; id. Praefat. in Osee ; Photius, Cod. 119; Niceph. Call. H. E. vi. 35 ; Du Pin, H. E. cent. iii. ; Ceillier, ii. 462 ; Tillem. Mem. iv. 582. [g.t.s.] PInianUS (2), the husband of Melania the younger. Palladius speaks of him as son of a prefect (Vit. Patr. 119). He and his wife entertained Palladius of Helenopolis when he came to Rome on Chrysostom's affairs {Hist. PIONIUS Laus. 12 1). Thev U-fi Koim- in 40S. whni the siege by Alaric was iinpi-iidiUK- Mtl.mi.i tlic eider having died at Bethlchenj. they inherited her vast estates. They were intent i>n dmnj; good and are said to have hberated ft. 000 slaves (16. iiy). After the sa.k o( K..nie in 410 they setth'd in .\friia at la^iasle with ».i<. Alypius and desired to meet Au^'ustine. lie immediately wrote to welcome them {hp. 1 J4). but was unable to come to them, so thev went with Alypius to Hippo. There the strange scene, so instructive as to the church life of the period, occurred, which is recounted by Augustine (£/>. 126). The clergy and people of Hippo, knowing their wealth, determined that they should, by the ordination of Pini- anus, become attached to their church and city. A tumult was raised in the church, and though Augustine refused to ordain a man against his will, he was unable, or not firm enough, to resist the violence of the people, who extracted from Pinianus a promise that he would not leave Hijipo nor be ordained in any other church. Next day, however, fear- ing further violence, he, with Melania and her mother Albina, returned to Tagaste. Some rather acrimonious correspondence ensued be- tween them and .\ugustine (Ep. 125-12S). Alypius considered that a promise extorted by violence was not valid, Augustine demanded that it should be fulfilled; and the con- troversy lasted until, by the rapacity of the rebel count Heraclian. Pinianus was robbed of his property, and the people of Hippo no longer cared to enforce the promise. Being now free, though poor, Pinianus. with his wife and mother-in-law. went to Egypt, saw the monasteries of the Thebaid, and thence to Palestine, settling at Bethlehem. On the ap- pearance of the Pelagian controversy, their letters to Augustine induced him to write (a.d. 417) his book on grace and original sin. We only hear of Pinianus after this in a letter of Jerome in 419, in which he, Albina, and Melania, salute Augustine and Alypius. Hieron. Ep. cxliii. 2, ed. Vail. ; Aug. de Grat. Christi, ii. and xxxii. [w.ii.f.] Plonlus, martyr at Sm\Tna, in the Decian perse( uti'ii, Mar. 12, 250. It was probably this Pionius who revived the cullus of Polv- CARP in Smyrna, by recovering an an< lent MS. mart> rdom of that saint and fixing the day of commemoration in accf»rdance with it. When taken to prison, Pionius and his companions, Asclipiades and Sabina, found there already another Catholic presbyter, named Lemnus, and a Montanist woman named Macedonia. The divisi'jns of the Christian community were now well known to their persecutors for in the examinations of the martyrs those who owned themselves Christians were always further interrogated .is to what church or sect they belonged. The Acts give a long report of exhortations de- livered by Pionius to his f ell.. w- prisoners. With Picjiiius suffered a .Man.ionite presbyter Metrodorus, the stakes of both being turned to the east, Pionius on the right, Metro- dorus on the left. The .\rts are iinportant on account of their undoubted antiquity. Wc only know them by a Latin translation, of which two tvpes are extant — one which M-em* more faithfully to represent the oritjinal, n08 L 84A publUhrU by Surlu% 411.I rrptinfr.l l.v ihr |» ,|. uudi.st<t (Feb. i) . t (.;.» StH<era, p. nri « ,. cortainlv read b\ 1 givi'S a drM riptioii .1 in. agrees too often with th Arts to br intriulrd. reprevnts Pioimu u» s time as Polvcarp. whih- : hiin a century later, a Paschal IhronuU. whi< h in the Decian pervi iition, ^ud t..,iiiiiii4> . 1 . ! internal evidence. On the l.lfc o| P'l. .4t;> j ascribed to Pionius, »<^ PoLVCAiir. I f. /aim. { Fonchuni^fn lur Gtitk. dtr S.F. Kan-^nx : IV. 271. (o.t.) ! PIu$ I., bp. of Rome after Mveinin in thn middle part of 2nd cent. Thr ' be fixed with ccrtamtv, the ti contradictt>ry. The LilM-rian 1 the Fehcian both name Anti>ni: I 161) as the contemporary m.; Kusebius (//. £. iv. 11). I.ii der rum. liischof.), after full div . ! chronology, assigns from 1 jg to JS4 a<. the earliest, and fr >ni 141 to 15'> a» the Utr^l, tenable dates The absence of distinrt r.irly records of the early Roman bishop* w w.-.'.y, r shewn by the fact that both the I.it»rri 1 , ! Felician Catalogues place .Anicetui |..t.v n Hyginus and Pius. So also Optatus 11 ♦'^i and Augustine (Ep. 5^. ordo notm). But th.it the real order w.is llyginus, Pius, .\m<rtiii. may be considered certain Iroin the aulhontv of Hegesijipus (tjuoted bv V.ws. H. E. iv. 22), who was at Rome hiins<-lf in the time of .\nicetus, and, when there, made out 4 mh - cession of the Roman bishops. Irena<v. ' visited Rome in the time of Hlruthrni the same order (adv. Haet. in. 3 ; cf. I . 1. II ; V . 24 ; Epipb. adv. Haer. xxvii. (>). The episcopate of Pius is important for the introduction of (inostic heresy into Roinek The heresiarchs Valeiitinus and Cerdo had come thither in the time .>f Hvginus and con- tinued to teach there under Plus (Irrri 1 27, ii. 4; cf. Eus. H. E. iv. ni. Mar. i •. f Pontus, who took up the trarhing o| 1 and dcvelope<l from it his own peculiar - arrived there after thr death of H.«.:.^» (Epiph. Haer. xlii. i ; cf. Eu*. H. E. iv. ii». Pius, according to the .Mikatohia.s Fmac,- ME.NT (c. 170) and the I.iberian Calaloicur. was brother to Hekmas. the writer .if the Skrp- herd. I.ipsius (op. ctl.) considers thi* re- j lationship i-stablishcd. Wr^t. tt < .m n of I A'.r. pt. i. c. 2) accepts It. ai. ' ! ternal evidentc in the w.irk oi : I Th'>se wh.> inaint.un th^ virw terian c.instituti'.n ' *' ' and of the earh' I been in fact onlv 1 a distinct epis* ••;... assigned by way of ttaciiiK ilir su. ■ ■ - • .. would attribute the devrlopinrnt ■! t!'" I later epi-u-.-pal »v%t. in t . tlir .«^r 1 1 . Thus I.ipsius si- bishop in thr stri< (' [Sinn"). He supi' 1 to have pre<nil«l ..\.t tl.r . ' ter*. though onlv a« ^nmt tntf need of a rrr.icnucd hrad •>! ; resist Liu.itUc icafhcn to ha\c ir 11 u.w 846 PLACIDIA latter obtaining a position of authority which, after his time, became permanent. The ad- vocates of this view adduce passages from the Shepherd of Hermas, in which messages are sent in rebuke of strifes for precedence among the Christians at Rome {Vis. iii. 9; Mandat. ix. ; Simil. viii. 7). These strifes are assumed to denote the beginning of struggles for episcopal power in the supposed later sense. But there is no evidence in the passages of the strifes having anything to do with such struggles. [Hermas.] More cogent is the fact that, in the account given by Epiphanius of Marcion's arrival in Rome, he is represented as having applied for communion to the presbyters, without men- tion of the bishop. Those to whom he applied, and who gave judgment, are called " the seniors (irpea^vTai), who, having been taught by the disciples of the apostles, still survived " (adv. Haer. xlii. i) ; also " the presbyters (irpfff^vTepoi) of that time" {ib. c. 2) ; also iirieiK€ts Kal Travdyioi Trpeff^uTepoi Kal Si5d- ffKuXoi T7}{ dyias eKK\rjaias. But these ex- pressions do not disprove the existence of a presiding bishop, acting in and through his synod, who would himself be included in the designation 7r/3c<T/3(7Tepot. For it was not till some time after the apostolic period that the names iirljKOTroi and wpeajStjTepos were used distinctively to denote two orders of clergy. Even Irenaeus, though enumerating the bishops of Rome from the first as distinct from the general presbytery, still speaks of them as presbyters ; using in one place (iii. 2, 2) the phrase " successiones presbyterorum," though in another (iii. 3, i and 2) " succes- siones episcoporum." Cf. iv. 26, 2, 3, 5 ; v. 20, 2 ; and Ep. ad Victorem {ap. Eus. v. 24) ; where the bishops before Soter are called TrpeffjivTfpoi ol irpo(7TdvT€i rrjs eKKXrjcrla^. Ter- tullian also (Apol. c. 39) calls bishops and presbyters together seniores. Moreover, the omission by Epiphanius of any mention of a head of the Roman presbytery at the time of Marcion's visit may be due to a vacancy in the see. For it is said to be after the death of Hyginus, with no mention of Pius having suc- ceeded. In such circumstances the college of presbyters would naturally entertain the case. Certainly very soon after the period before us, both Pius and his predecessors from the first were spoken of as having been bishops (how- ever designated) in a distinctive sense, and Anicetus, the successor of Pius, appears his- torically as such on the occasion of Polycarp's visit to Rome (Iren. ap. Eus. H. E. v. 24). Four letters and several decrees are assigned to Pius, of which the first two letters (to all the faithful and to the Italians) and the decrees are universally rejected as spurious. The two remaining letters, addressed to Justus, bp. of Vienne, are accepted as genuine by Baronius, Binius, and Bona, but have no real claims to authenticity. [j.B — y.] Plaoidla (1), empress. [Galla.] Poemen (l), {Uoi/xvv, Pastor), a famous anchorite of Egj'pt. He retired very young into the monasteries of Scete c. 390, and con- tinued there 70 years, dying c. 460. His Life occupies much space in Rosweyd's Vitae Patrum, v. 15, in Patr, Lat. t. Ixxiii. and in POLYCARPUS Cotelerii Monum. Eccl. Graec. t. i. pp. 585-637, The anecdotes in the last-mentioned authority give the best idea of the man. He treated his aged mother with neglect, refusing to see her when she sought him. His solitary life des- troyed all feelings of human nature. His story is concisely told in Ceillier, viii. 468-470, and Tillemont, Mem. xv. 147. [g.t.s.] Polycarpus (1), bp- of Smyrna, one of the most prominent figures in the church of the 2nd cent. He owes this prominence less to intellectual ability, which does not appear to have been pre-eminent, than to the influence gained by a consistent and unusually long life. Born some 30 years before the end of the ist cent., and raised to the episcopate apparently in early manhood, he held his office to the age of 86 or more. He claimed to have known at least one apostle and must in early life have met many who could tell things they had heard from actual disciples of our Lord. The younger generation, into which he lived on, naturally recognized him as a peculiarly trustworthy source of information concerning the first age of the church. During the later years of his life Gnostic speculation had be- come very active and many things unknown to the faith of ordinary Christians were put forth as derived by secret traditions from the apostles. Thus a high value was attached to the witness Polycarp could give as to the genuine tradition of apostolic doctrine, his testimony condemning as offensive novelties the figments of the heretical teachers. Ire- naeus states (iii. 3) that on Polycarp's visit to Rome his testimony converted many dis- ciples of Marcion and Valentinus. Polycarp crowned his other services to the church by a glorious martyrdom. When, at the ex- tremity of human life, it seemed as if he could do no more for the church but continue his example of holiness, piety, and orthodoxy, a persecution broke out in which he, as the venerated head of the Christian community in Asia Minor, was specially marked out for attack. He gave a noble exhibition of calm courage, neither courting nor fearing martyr- dom, sheltering himself by concealment while possible, and when no longer so, resolutely declaring in defiance of threats his unshaken love for the Master he had served so long. Such a death, following on such a life, made Polycarp's the most illustrious name of his generation in Christian annals. Irenaeus states (III. iii. 4) that Polycarp had been instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen Christ, and had also been established " by apostles" as bishop in the church at Smyrna ; and doubtless Tertul- lian {de Praescrip. 2,2) is right in understanding this to mean that he had been so established by St. John, whose activity in founding the episcopate of Asia Minor is spoken of also bv Clem. Alex, in his well-known story of St. John and the robber [Quis. div. Salv. p. 959)- The testimony of Irenaeus conclusively shews the current belief in Asia Minor during the old age of Polycarp, and it is certain that Polycarp was bp. of Smyrna at the time of the mart\Tdom of Ignatius, i.e. c. no. Ignatius, journeying from Antioch to Rome, halted first at Smyrna, where, as at his other resting- places, the Christians flocked from all around POLYCARPUS POLYCARPUS to receive his counsels .iiul bestow attention^ Uiu'<i4;;r in win. li si I'a'ti ' M7 on him. From the city where he next h.tlteil he wrote separate letters to the chiin h of SnuTna .uul to Pi.lyc.irp its bishop. A later stage was Philipni. ami to the rhurrh there Polvcarp wrote alterwanls a letter still extant, sending them copi,-s of the letters .>f Ignatin<i and inquiring ('ir inf<>rmati>>n about Ignatius, the detailed storv of wh.>s«- martvrdom appears not yet t<i have reachetl Snjyrna. The question as to the genuineness I'l the extant Ep. of Polvcarp is very nuich ntixtd up with that o( the genuineness of the Ignatian letters. The course of modern investigation has been decidetllv favourable to the genuine- ness i>f the Ignatian letters [Kinatu'sI. and the Ep. of Polycarp is guaranteed bv ex- ternal testimony t>f exceptional go.Hlness. It is mentioned by Polycari^'s disciple Irenaeus (III. iii. 4), and an important passage is quoted by Eusebius. Further, as I.ightfoot | epistle are l>ev'>nd what ran f jirl has conclusively shown {('onlfmp. Rei'. May i sidered ar< ident at, ami pr.-bablv th. 1875, p. 840), it is impossible that Polycarp's | gainetl bv ( lrinrtit'% ^I1i^tlr t^-i the rx.»iu( letter and those of Ignatius could have had 1 to bishops ' f wrilinr (•• I I'u any common authorship. S>>nie of the topics 1 churches. ^, h..wrvrr, il. .t 1 on which the Ignatian letters lay most stress own letter : d bv thr ■ loii ;. are absent from that of Polvcarp; in p.ar- j Philippi. .s u*e ..f p..l\ .: ticular, Polycarp's letter is silent about epistle seems to have cntinurtl In Am . episcopacy, of which the Ignatian letters ' jeroim-'s time; if we run lav *tr«-k<> speak so much, and it has consequentlv been rather ubs* ure expression {( aItU \ " rii-i thought probable either that episcopacv had j quae usque h<Klii- m ronvmtu AMar trKitui not yet been organized at Philippi,i>r that the The chief difference iM-twrrn t Innent' office was then vacant. The forms of ex- pression in the two letters are different ; N.T. quotati>)ns, profuse in Polycarp's letter, are comparatively scanty in the Ignatian ones ; and, most decisive of all, the Ignatian letters are characterized by great originality of .if. b .ih (irrr .ind in tli. de« Ivivrlv rrfiHr* ihr II . op|x«*Jti..n brtwf,-ii tl,r ! Paul. It illuvlrjt Hu»ebiu« to pr<>it<. I NT. IvH.k* undi though In- lloIlK-^ IIV Iji I' I I. Peter, hr is %llrnt •* \i< \\\l% r\ of St. Paul's Irtirr^ p.lv. trt ■' 1 tloiis ill! ludr diMi: I. and II. Inn., an a use of Koiii . I I riie einploviliriil ..j t i.,.i I (iiient. There ih onr iinmi«i . ilelice with .\tX\. Thr \\sf of | is probable. The report of oiii I agrees in subsiaiirr with our i..r«.|><i«. l.i.i ,..^s or may not liavr l»ern dire< ilv lakm ir n them. The coini idmrr* with I Imirni U . I. Polycarp's letters is in the uv of the H T.. which is perpetual in the former, vrry tare in the latter. There is oincidniir with ••nr passage in Tobil, two in P- md »tr m I< : and certainlv in one of tli ■ in all three, the adoptrl OT thought and expression, while Polvcaq^'s isbut directly from th« a commonj>lace echo of the apostolic epistles. | difference, however, is rx When we comp.ire P.)lycarp's letter with the in mind that I lemriit extant remains of the age of Irenaeus, the , br.)Ught up in Judaism born of Christian parmt' the apostolic writings It • Our knowledge of P thedatcof his letter and 1 supenor antiquity of the former is evident, whether we attend to their use of N.T., their notices of ecclesiastical organization, their statements of theological doctrine, or observe the silence ia Polycarp's letter on the questions! almost entirely fr..m \ n •tl..^ l.v Ui which most interested the church towards the I The first is in his letter to Fiorini close of the 2nd cent. The question has been second in the trralis* on Hrrr^ir^ (!M raised whether, admitting the genuineness of 1 the third in the letter .11 Polycarp's epistle as a whole, we mav not which part is pn-servr.l reject as an interpolation c. xiii., which speaks I Irenaeus, writing in ad of Ignatius. The extant MSS. of P.jlycarp's vivid his r.<..ll.- •• • letter are derived from one in which the been a hr.»rer .1 1 leaves containing the end of Polycarp's letter how well herrin. 1 and the beginning of that of Barnabas w.f m ■! ' ■" '' ■ wanting, so that the end of Barnabas seem. : the continuation of Polycarp's epistle. II concluding chapters of Polycarp are onl known to us bv a Latin translation. The , ilunci I ui I r. Is 1.0 hiatus, however, in the (.reek text begins not ' in complete arr.-rd wii at c. xiii. but at c. x. ; and the part which | The reminivm. rs f I: speaks about Ignatius is exactly that for which agreement with P we have the Greek text assured to us by the picture of hit at: quotati<in of Eusebius. There is therrf..re ab- .^^-mn n--\ I-, h-. solutely no reason for rejecting c. xiu. mil. on the supposition that the forgery of tl. Ignatian letters has been demonstrated. Though Polvcarp's epistle is remarkable ( •: its co»i..us use of NT. language, there arc no form.il quotations, but it is meiitione<I that St. Paul had written to the church of Philippi, to which Polycarp's epistle i» addrc»»€d. I he . and »-■ Hid *i\U \u ii^' the hr., t|..r fr..r. , and y 848 POLYCARPUS attempt to supersede Christ's gospel by fictions of their own devising. Irenaeus tells how, when he heard their impiety, he would stop his ears and cry out, " O good God ! for what times hast Thou kept me that I should endure such things ! " and would even flee from the place where he was sitting or standing when he heard such words. In so behaving he claimed to act in the spirit of his master John, concerning whom he told that once when he went to take a bath in Ephesus and saw Cerinthus within, he rushed away without bathing, crying out, " Let us flee, lest the bath should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within " ; and when Marcion meeting Polycarp asked him, " Do you recognize us ? " he answered, " I recognize thee as the first- born of Satan." This last phrase is found in the extant letter. He says, " Every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist ; and whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the Cross is of the devil ; and whosoever perverteth the oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and saith that there is neither resurrection nor judg- ment, this man is a first-born of Satan." This coincidence has, not very reasonably, been taken as a note of spuriousness of the letter ; the idea being that a writer under the name of Polycarp who employs a phrase traditionally known as Polycarp's betrays himself as a forger striving to gain acceptance for his production. It might rather have been supposed that a coincidence between two independent accounts of Polycarp's mode of speaking of heretics ought to increase the credibility of both. Irenaeus, who reports the anecdote, was acquainted with the letter, and, if we cannot accept both, it is more conceivable that his recollection may have coloured his version of the anecdote. One of the latest incidents in Polycarp's active life was a journey which, near the close of his episcopate, he made to Rome, where Anicetus was then bishop. We are not told whether the cause of the journey was to settle points of difference between Roman and Asiatic practice ; those existed, but did not interrupt their mutual accord. In particular Asiatic Quartodecimanism was at variance with Roman usage. We cannot say with certainty what kind of Easter observance was used at Rome in the time of Anicetus, for the language of Irenaeus implies that it was not then what it afterwards became ; but the Asiatic observance of the 14th day was un- known in Rome, although Polycarp averred the practice of his church to have had the sanction of John and other apostles, and therefore to be what he could by no means consent to change. Anicetus was equally determined not to introduce into his church an innovation on the practice of his pre- decessors ; but yet shewed his reverence for his aged visitor by " yielding to him the Eucharist in his church." This phrase seems capable of no other interpretation than that generally given to it, viz. that Anicetus per- mitted Polycarp to celebrate in his presence. The story of the martyrdom of Polycarp is told in a letter still extant, purporting to be addressed by the church of Smyrna to the church sojourning (Tro/joi'voi'tr]?) in Pbilome- | POLYCARPUS lium (atown of Phrygia) and to all the irapoiKlaL of the holy Catholic Church in every place. This document was known to Eusebius, who transcribed the greater part in his Eccl. Hist. (iv. 15). A trans, of this and of Polycarp's Ep. appears in the vol. of Apost. Fathers in Ante- Nicene Lib. (T. & T. Clark). The occurrence of the phrase " Catholic Church " just quoted has been urged as a note of spuriousness ; but not very reasonably, in the absence of evidence to make it even probable that the introduction of this phrase was later than the death of Polycarp. We know for cer- tain that the phrase is very early. It is used in the Ignatian letters {Smyrn. 8), by Clem. Alex. (Strom, vii. 17), in the Mura- torian Fragment, by Hippolytus [Ref. ix. 12) and Tertullian. Remembering the warfare waged by Polycarp against heresy, it is highly probable that in his lifetime the need had arisen for a name to distinguish the main Christian body from the various separatists. The whole narrative of the martyrdom bears so plainly the mark of an eye-witness, that to imagine, as Lipsius and Keim have done, some one capable of inventing it a century after the death of Polycarp, seems to require great critical credulity. With our acceptance of the martyrdom as authentic Hilgenfeld (Zeitschrift, 1874, p. 334) and Renan (Eglise chret. 462) coincide. We see no good reason to doubt that the narrative was written, as it professes to be, within a year of the martyr- dom, bv members of the church w^here it occurred and who had actually witnessed it ; and we believe it to have been written spe- cially to invite members of other churches to attend the commemoration on the anniversary of the martyrdom. It is deeply tinged by a belief in the supernatural, but it is uncritical to cast doubts on the genuineness of a docu- ment on the assumption that Christians of the 2nd cent., under the strain of a great perse- cution, held the views of their igth-cent. critics as to the possibility of receiving super- natural aid or consolation. The story relates that Polycarp's martyr- dom was the last act of a great persecution and took place on the occasion of games held at Smyrna, eleven others having suffered before him. These games were probably held in connection with the meeting of the Asiatic diet (rb Koivbv r^s 'Acr/as), which met in rota- tion in the principal cities of the province. If more information were available as to this rotation and as to the seasons when these meetings were held, we should probably be able to fix the date of Polycarp's martyrdom with more certainty. The proconsul came from Ephesus, the ordinary seat of govern- ment, to preside. It may have been to pro- vide the necessary victims for the wild beast shows that the Christians were sought for (some were brought from Philadelphia) and required to swear by the fortune of the em- peror and offer sacrifice. The proconsul appears to have discharged his unpleasant duty with the humanity ordinary among Roman magistrates, doing his best to persuade the accused to save themselves by compliance, and no doubt employing the tortures, of which the narrative gives a terrible account, as a merciful cruelty which might save him from POLYCARPUS proctviliiin to tlic last ixiriiiKs. In onr r.iso his luTsii.i-iion was siu irssful. V"'"'"*. •« Phrygian by nation, who had prcsciitnl him- self voluntarily (or inartNTdoni. on si«hl oj thr wild beasts lost courage and vieldcd to the proconsul's entreaties. The Christians learne«l from his case to condemn wanton lourtinK o| danger as contrary to the gospel tearhmg. The pn>consul lavished similar entreaties .<n a youth named (iermanicus. but the lad was resolute, and instead of shewing fear, pro- voked the wild beasts in order to gain a speedier release from his perset ut'Ts. The act may have been suggested by the language of Ignatius {Rom. v. 2) ; and certainly this language seems to have been present to the mind of the narrator. At sight of the bravery of Ciermanicus, a conviction seems to have seized the multitude that they should have rather chi>sen as their victim the teacher who had inspired the sufferers with their obstinacy. A cry wasraised. ".\way with the atheists ! Let Polycarp be sought for ! " Polycarp wished to remain at his pt>st, but yielded to the solicitations of his people and retired for concealment to a country house, where he spent his time, as was his wont, in continual prayer for himself and his own people and for all the churches throughout the world. Three days before his appre- hension he saw in a vision his pillow on fire, and at once interpreted the omen to his friends : " I must be burnt alive." The search for him being hot, he retired to another farm barely escaping his pursuers, who seized and tortured two slave boys, one of whom betrayed the new place of retreat. Late on a Friday night the noise of horses and armed men announced the pursuers at hand. There seemed still the possibility of escape, and he was urged to make the attempt, but he re- fused, saying " (iixl's will be done." Coming down from the upper room where he had been lying down, he ordered meat and drink to be set before his captors and only begged an hour for uninterrupted prayer. This was granted; and for more than two hours he prayed, mentioning by name every one whom he had known, small or great, and praying for ' the Catholic church throughout the world. At length he was set on an ass and c.nducted to the citv. Soon they met the irenarrh Herod, the police magistrate under whose directions the arrest had been made, in whose name the Christians afterwards found one of several coincidences which they delighted to trace between the arrest of Polycarp and that of his Master. Her.xl. acompanied by his father Nicetcs, took Polycarp to sit in his carriage, and both earnestly urgeil him to save his life : " Whv, what harm was it to say Lord Caesar, and to sacrifice, and so on, and escape all danger ? " Polycarp, at first silent, at last bluntly answered, " 1 will not do as you would have me." Annoyed .it thr old man's obstinacy, they thrust him the carriage so rudeiv that he scrape<l In the marks no doubt beinff visible t-. his t: when he afterwards stripped for the -.im. But at the time he took no notice of the hurt and walked on as if nothing h.id haj-pened. At the racecourse, where the multitude was assembled, there was a prodlgioiu uproar; POLYCARPUS M9 but thr t hli 1 ' ■■• I . . - which <rir.l . Ihr ni4n I luinull th' and lh<« t 1 : heaven. I! ha\r pitv .1. fortune of I .11 sir. -.iv ' A» atheist* !' " Thr niartvr, »t< 1 round on the a^vinblwl hrjthcii , looking up t" hr.ivrn tald, "A\»as »ill. Um atheists!" ■'Swear then. n<>w." Mid the pr^H onsul. " and I will Irl voii Kh ; rrvilo Ihrist." Then p. Iv ■• 1- •*- ■- ' I- answer. " Ilighlv i Mini, and H<' h.is n then, ran I bias; ! Saviour! " The K(> >«ar» naiil <1<ujU i -uul from Polycari»'» bapium ; »o that If wc «r« not to ascribe to hiin an iinpr. b.d Ir I. n^th o| life, we must infer that I • ild of Christian parents and hi .1, il not in infanrv. in vr-rv r 1 th.f magistrate < cut matters a Christian .1; to explain wii.n > .;.... the consent of the i rtl ihr pf>- consul. " Nay." r. ; . " I count it your due that I -i ^ drfrnrr to you, because we have b««n lau^ht t" give due honour to the powers ordainc<l of (.od; but at for these people. I owe no vindiralion lo them." The prin-onsul then h.vl rrciuti* to threats, but finding them unavailing, ordered his crier thrice to pr rl titu in thr mi.Nt o| the stadium. " Pol\ " ' rnwK a Christian." Tl.. irrV from heathen and 1 '<hrr of the Christians, ' i...- i. «hi* destrover i.f the w.-rship --t the g.Kln. i'hilip the asiarch. or president of the gainr«, wa» called on to loose a li-n .-n Poly. arp. I>ut re- fused, saving the wild beast sh..ws were now over. Then with one voice the raultitu<ie demanded that Polycarp should be burnt alive ; for his vision must nrrds be fulfilled. Rushing to the w.rksh.ps and bath* ihrv collected wood and lagg-.ts, thr Jrws. asu*ual. taking the most active i>art. We have evi- dence of the aclivitv of the Jews at Smyrna at an earlier p.ri.Kl, kev. li o. and at a lairr in the story of the marf ' '' ' "" When the i>ile was rradv I t'l undn-ss hiniMll : and h autoptic- t"<i-i. I. 111.,.- ! marked tin- tried to tak- years since tl perniitte<l him t > i il ni self. When he ha.l been request, n'-l iiiil- 'D t ■' offered up a 1 the flame b. 1 -siil '.( .1 ^^;; l.r had h«.l l*lt». : b«~ tSOl IK. rly r,(. I |i>r the I. was 1'. ( in ^«hrd to U»e ■ forth that lUc Uuiuc .^MUbcd, 850 POLYCARPUS The Christians were about to remove the body ; but Nicetes, here further described as the brother of Alee, interfered and said, " If you give the body, the Christians will leave the Crucified One and worship him, ' ' an idea deeply shocking to the narrator of the story, who declares it was impossible for them to leave, for any other, Christ the Holy One Who died for the salvation of the world. Him, as the Son of God, they worshipped ; martyrs they loved on account of the abundance of their zeal and love for Him. The Jews eagerly backing up Nicetes, the centurion had" the body placed on the pyre and saw it com- pletely consumed, so that it was only the bones, " more precious than jewels, more tried than gold," which the disciples could carry off to the place where they meant on the anni- versary to commemorate the martyr's "birth- day." The epistle closes with a doxology. Euarestus is named as the writer ; Marcion [or Marcianus] as the bearer of the letter. Then follows by way of appendix a note, stating that the martyrdom took place on the 2nd of the month Xanthicus, the 7th before the calends of March [there is a various reading May], on a great sabbath at the 8th hour; the arrest having been made by Herod ; Philip of Tralles being chief priest, Statius Quadratus proconsul, and Jesus Christ King for ever. A second note states that these Acts were transcribed by Socrates (or Isocrates) of Corinth, from a copy made by Caius, a companion of Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus. A third note states that this again had been transcribed by Pionius from a copy much decayed by time, the success of his search for which was due to a revelation made by Polycarp himself, " as will be shewn in what follows," from which we infer that the martyrdom was followed by a Life of Polycarp. The first chronological note may be accept- ed as, if not part of the original document, at least added by one of its first transcribers, and therefore deserving of high confidence. The name of the proconsul Statius Quadratus indicates best the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius in his chronicle had put it in the 6th year of Marcus Aurelius, i.e. a.d. i66. M. Waddington [Memoir es de V Academic des Inscriptions, 1867, xxvi. 235) shewed that Eusebius's date was doubtful, Eusebius seems to have had no real knowledge of the date, and to have put it down somewhat at random, for he places Polycarp's martyr- dom and the Lyons persecution under the same year, though the Lyons martyrdoms were as late as 177. At this time the ordinary interval between the consulship and procon- sulate ranged between 12 and 16 years. Quadratus we know to have been consul a.d. 142. We are at once led to reject Eusebius's date as placing the inadmissible interval of 24 or 25 years between the consulship and proconsulate. Waddington made out a prob- able case for a.d. 155, and an additional argu- ment appears decisive. The martyrdom is stated to have taken place on Sat. Feb. 23, and among the possible years 155 is the only one in which Feb. 23 so fell. The reading of this chronological date is not free from variations. The " great sabbath " would in Christian times be thought to mean the Sat. POLYCARPUS in Easter week, and as Easter could not occur in Feb. there was an obvious temptation to alter Mar. into May, but none to make the opposite change, and we have independent knowledge that Feb. 23 was the day on which the Eastern church celebrated the martyr- dom. But we do not know why Feb. 23 should be a " great " sabbath. We believe the true explanation to be that the Latin date in this note is not of the same antiquity as the date by the Macedonian month. Probably Pionius, when he recovered the very ancient copy of the martyrdom, translated the date 2nd Xanthicus into one more widely intelli- gible and thus determined the date of sub- sequent commemorations. We accept, then, the 2nd Xanthicus as an original note of time faithfully preserved by a scribe who did not understand its meaning, because he inter- preted according to the usage of his own day. When we have abandoned the date Sat. Feb. 23 we lose one clue to fixing the exact date of the martyrdom, but we gain another. Since Nisan 2nd was Sat. the year must be one in which that lunar month commenced on a Friday. The only such years within the neces- sary limits were 155 and 159, and 155 again agrees best with the usual interval between consulship and proconsulate. The date Apr. 8, which A.D. 159 would require, is likely, more- over, to be too late. The chief difficulty raised by the date 155 is that if we adopt it the chron- ology of the Roman bishops obliges us to put Polycarp's visit in the last year of his life and the first of the episcopate of Anicetus. For the literature connected with Polycarp see bp. Lightfoot's ed. of Ignatius and Poly- carp. An ed. of Polycarp's remains by G. Jacobsonis in Patr. Apost. (Clar. Press, 2 vols.). A small popular treatise on St. Polycarp by B. Jackson is pub. byS.P.C.K. Cf. also Zahn, Forschungen, iv. 249 ; Harnack, Gesch. der .ilt.-Chr. Lat. 1897 (ii. i, 334). [g.s.] Polycarpus (5). Moyses of Aghel {c. 550), in a Letter to Paphnutius prefatory to his Syriac version of the Glaphyra of Cyril of Alexandria, prepares his readers to find variations from the Peshitto in Cyril's citations of Scripture after the Greek, by referring them to " the translation of the N.T. and of David into Syriac" from the Greek, which "the Chor- episcopus Polycarpus made for Xenaias [Philoxenus] of Mabug " (Assem. ii. p. 82 ; see also Dr. Ign. Guidi in Rendiconti della R. Academia dei Lincei, 1886, p. 397). Now we know from Gregory Bar-hebraeus (Prooem. in Horr. Mysit.) that, " after the Peshitto, the N.T. was more accurately translated again from the Greek at Mabug in the days of Philoxenus." The same facts are stated in a note purporting to be written by Thomas of Harkel in 616, appended in slightly varying forms to many MSS. of the version of the N.T. known as the Harklensian, one of which (Assem. xi., now Cod. Vat. 268) is probably (Bernstein, Das Heil. Evang. des J oh. p. 2) of the 8th cent. In this MS., and others, the note gives also the date of this Philoxenian version, a.d. 508. In all of them it proceeds to describe the Harklensian version as based on this — in fact a revision of it ; and the same description in more direct terms is given by Bar-hebraeus in two places in his Chronicon POLYCARPUS Eccl. (i. 49, ii. 22; Asstiu. 11. \-\<. U4, 4Mi. NVe may safely infer that this iMrlitr vrrsi.m was made by the I'olviarp named bv M.>vsrs (and by no other writer) at the instan.e .>< his bishop. Philoxenus, the ffreat Monoj.hvsite leader (485-522). The aim <>( Philoxenus in having the version made was probablv. as the remark of Mov-ses snggests, to enable Svriar- speaking Monophx'sites to read the Scriptures as they were read by those Creek Fathers whom he owned as authorities and bv their (.ireek-speaking brethren within the Antiorh- ene Patriarchate. It does not appear that the translation shewed, or was ever impugned as shewing, a doctrinal bias. Of the PliiK.xciiian N.T. as it was bef.ire Thomas of Harkil revised it, we onlv know with certainty the few small fragments'of St. Paul recovered by Wiseman from the margin of his MS. of the Karkaphensian Syriac, and pub. by him in Horae Syriacae (p. 178, n. ii). It seems highly probable that we have a considerable portion of this original Philoxe- nian, in the version of the four minor Catholic Epistles (II. Peter. II. and III. J.>hn.and Jude) not included in the Pt-shitto though printed with it in the Polyglotts and in most SsTiac New Testaments — first published bv Pococke (1630) from a .MS. of no great age (Bodl. Or. 119). These four Epistles in the version in question are found also in a few Paris MSS. (see Zotenberg's Calal.), in one (formerly VVetstein's) at .\insterdam, in Lord Craw- ford's MS. in the Cambridge MS. (Oo, i. i, 2). and in several MSS. in Brit. .Mus. ; one of which, Add. 14623 (7). written 823, is theoldest extant copy of this version. It is included also in the " Williams MS." of the N.T. Epistles, whence Prof. Hall issued it in photographic facsimile. This version is dis- tinct from the Harklensian rendering of the same Epistles, which, however, though more servilely exact and greci^ed, is unmistakably founded on it. As then we have in this ver- sion the unmistakable basis of the Harklen- sian, and as the Harklensian is known to have been a revision of the Philoxenian. the iden- tity of this version with the Philoxenian proper (as distinguished from the Philoxenian usually so-called, viz. the Harklensian revi- sion) follows. We have then the materials for judging of Polycarp's merits as a trans- lator, and we find reason to estimate thcin highly. The translation is in the main accurate and close without being servile. Dr. Scrivener (Intro, to M.T. p. 646, ed. 3) justly describes it as one which " well deserves careful study ... of great interest and full of valuable readings," siding as it does frequently with thf oiliest (ireek uncials. Here also we have m.iteri.il to determine the mutual rela- tion between his work and Thomas's revisi.m of it, and we conclude that the latter w.irk is not (as has been taken for granted by many) a merely corrected re-issue of the earlier one, with merely linguistic alterations in the text and variants inserted on its margin ; but is substantially a new version, proceeding on the lines of the former, but freely quitting thctn when the translator saw tit. We are niit informed what O.T. bo..ks wcrt included in the w.jrk of Polycarp. Movmt. mentions onlv his versioa of the Fsaln POLYCHRONIUS S.'i rVld- ^ the »c by Will.h IS i .St. hut wr 1, , eiice that a Phil, xriiun 1 lor a rendering «>( U, ix ' Hexa|>la and from thr II jgrmng with a rrjdinK loimtl m of the I..\.\. (H..lnir*-» IS, ,f,, 4 q\, 106, 147, jn). I* in»rri..l of the .\iiil)r<>stjii Svfo-H • and is there intr.Hlured .. other text which wa* reii.l : the care of Philoxenu*. bp • ( N| i!;^. ' th« I word being the Mine as in the hr»t • i|j||<>n (above) from theCAron. Hut. «i Marhrbraru*. That the I..\.\. was in the hands "I Svriac I writers antl translators Iwfore the time of Philoxenus is certain. Yet internal rvidrnre concliisivelv pr.'Ves that the Hebrew and not the I..\.\. is the main basis of the Prshiltu Psalter. [J.f.w.) PolyOhrOnllU (4), brother of The^nlorr of , Mo^>suestia and bp. of .Apatiiea iHi the C)r.>nte« I in Syria Secumla. He l>e|<>ngrd t«i a wealthy I family of position at .\nti.H h. and the literary character of his remains iiuIk ates that hit I early education was lil>eral and many-sulr<l. I A Polychronius was among the correspondent* I of Libanius {Hf>p. 27, 207, 22N, rtc), but that I he was the same is more than doubtful. That our Polychronius fell more or less dire<tly ' under the influence of Di.nlore seems certain. j Polychronius was probably youn|{er than The.Klore ; at any rate his conserrati>>n as bp. I was some ten years the later. In the srr of .\pamea he must have followrtl .\gapetus, who surceedetl Marcellus a.d. 398 (Thcod. //. f.. v. 27 ; Hist. Relig. § 3). He was still bishop when his brother died, a.d. 42.H (d. Thcod. H. E. V. 40). But within the next three year* he had died or otherwise vacated the see. lot in the records of the Council of Kphr«u« Alexander is bp. of Apainea (Mansi, iv. 123), 1270). Both I.e (Juien (Ofi/ns Ckrtst. li. 911) and (iams {Senei I:pi%c. p. 436) strangely omit Polychronius from their lists of the bps. of Apamea. The t'-stimony of Thp»>- d.iret, however, is une<)uivocal, and is that of the contemporary bishop of a iieighbourinK see. The city of Apamea was raisetl by The.Klosius II. to metropolitan rank (J"h. Malal. Chronogr. xiv. ; Migne, I'atr. (.*. xcvil. 543) and the see attaine<i a corresponding dignity. In the history of the church, how- ever, the name '>f Polychronius nrruwlr* a coinparativelv insignificant place. Our know- ledge of him is drawn ilrti st rx. Iiisively from the scanty encniiii: ' "' ' irt re-etho*sl by Cassi.jornsanl Wc iiiusi be Content to learn ' |». he was characterized by it.. . ^k .•! his rule, grace of oratory, and conspicuous pufllv of hie (The.Kl. H. F. V. 4"; rf Cas»i.Ml. Httt. Inparl. X. 34 ; Nicei.li. xiv i.. It has been geip t vr bp. of Apainea is ideiin I the same name in I! linlory (i 24). Bill «- p.rSII«4 points in an A^adi^M • tt-'h. Poly- •If to ins, j The following have been aicnbcsl to 1 (I) 852 POLYCRATES Scholia on the Pentateuch in the catena of Nicephorus. (2) Prologue and fragments of a commentary on Job. (3) Scholia on the Proverbs. (4) A MS. exposition of Eccle- siastes, said to be preserved in several Euro- pean libraries. (5) Scholia on the Canticles. (6) Scholia on Jeremiah. (7) An exposition of Ezekiel, cited by Joannes Damascenus {De Imag. iii. ; Migne, Pair. Gk. xciv. 1380, no\i);)(poi'£Oii eK Trj'S els rbv 'le^eKir)K ep/xr]veiai). This work happily survives in an almost com- plete form, and has been published by Mai {Nov. Patr. Bibl. vii. p. 2, pp. 92 seq.). (8) A commentary on Daniel, quoted in gth cent, by Nicephorus (Pitra, Spic. Solesnt. i. p. 352). Of these remains the scholia on Proverbs, Canticles, and Jeremiah are of more than doubtful genuineness. Those on Proverbs and Canticles are in some MSS. ascribed to " Polychronius the Deacon," and all these collections are characterized by a partiality for allegorical and mystical interpretations quite alien to the instincts of the Antiochenes. The style of Polychronius has been described (Bardenhewer, Polychronius, p. 36) as clear and concise, contrasting favourably with the loose and complex manner of his brother Theodore, a criticism which agrees with the verdict of Theodoret (supra). As an ex- positor Polychronius follows the historico- grammatical method of his school, condemn- ing expressly the Alexandrian tendency to convert history into allegory. " His manner of exposition is scholarly and serious, breath- ing at the same time an air of deep piety." So Mai, who points out the fulness of historical illustration in his commentary on Daniel. His comments are based (the book of Daniel excepted) on the LXX., but he calls in the aid of Symmachus and Theodotion ; and the frequency of his references to the Hebrew, as well as the remarkable fragment on the " Obscurity of Scripture" among the extant fragments of his commentary on Job, shew some acquaintance with that language. With regard to the canon, Polychronius assumes an independent attitude. Against his brother he stoutly maintains the historical character of the narrative of Job, but discriminates between the Heb. Daniel and the Greek addi- tions, refusing tocomment upon the Song of the Three Children as not being in the original. Of his doctrinal standpoint little can be learnt from his published remains. His temper was not controversial, and he has no place in the history of polemical theology — a circumstance which has saved him from the stigma of heterodoxy, but consigned his life and works to comparative obscurity. [h.b.s.] Polycrates (1), bp. of Ephesus in the last decade of 2nd cent. When Victor of Rome sought to unify the practice of the whole Christian world in the matter of Easter celebration, he first asked for meetings of bishops in different places to report on the practice of their localities. This request was made in the name of his church, as we learn from the use of the plural in the reply of Polycrates. From every other place, as far as we can learn, the answer was that they celebrated the feast of our Lord's Resur- rection on no other day than Sunday ; but Polycrates, writing in the name of the bishops PONTIANUS of Asia, declared that they had preserved untampered the tradition to celebrate only on the 14th day of the month, the day when the Jewish people put away their leaven. He appeals to the authority of the great lumin- aries which the Asian church could boast, and whose bodies lay among them, Philip, one of the twelve apostles, and his three daughters, John, who lay on our Lord's breast, a priest who wore the ir^TaXov, Polycarp of Smyrna, Thraseas of Eumenia, Sagaris, Papirius, Melito, all of whom had observed the 14th day, according to the Gospel, walking according to the rule of faith. Polycrates himself had followed the traditions of his kindred, seven of whom had been bishops before him, and had been confirmed in his view by his own study of the whole Scripture and by conference with brethren from all the world. Although his letter bore no signatvure but his own, he claims that it had received the assent of a great number of bishops (Eus. H. E. v. 24). For the sequel see Irenaeus. [g.s.] Pomponia Graeclna, one of the earliest and most distinguished Roman converts. Tacitus (Annals, xiii. 32) tells us, referring to a.d. 57 or 58, that Pomponia Graecina, a distinguished lady, wife of the Plautius who returned from Britain with an ovation, was accused of some foreign superstition and handed over to her husband's judicial decision. Following an- cient precedent, he heard his wife's cause in the presence of kinsfolk, involving, as it did, her legal status and character, and reported that she was innocent. She lived a long life of unbroken melancholy. After the murder of Julia, Drusus's daughter, by Messalina's treachery, for 40 years she wore only the attire of a mourner. For this, during Claudius's reign, she escaped unpunished, and it was afterwards counted a glory to her. This is the only notice of her in ancient literature. She came into prominence through De Rossi's discoveries in the catacomb of Callistus (Roma Sotterranea, ii. 360-364). De Rossi identified her with St. Lucina (cf. Aube, Hist, des persec. t. i. p. 180). Cf. for other notices Brownlow and Northcote's Roma Sott. t. i. pp. 82, 83, 278-282. De Rossi {op. cit. t. i. pp. 306-351) discusses the crypt and family of St. Lucina at great length (cf. also his Bullettino di Archeol. Crist, passim). [g.t.s.] Pontianus (3), bp. of Rome from July (?) 21, 230, to Sept. 28, 235. These dates, given in the Liberian Catalogue, are probably correct, though later recensions of the Pontifical give them differently. The same record states that he was, with Hippolytus a presbyter, banished to Sardinia, which it describes as " nociva insula," implying possibly that he was sent to the mines there. His banishment doubtless took place under Maximinus, who succeeded Alexander after the assassination of the latter in May 235. The date, Sept. 28 235. was probably that of his deprivation only. His only episcopal act of which anything needs to be said is his probable assent to the condemnation of Origen by Demetrius of Alexandria. Jerome {Ep. ad Paulam, xxix. in Benedict, ed. ; Ep. xxxiii. in ed. Veron.) says of Origen : " For this toil what reward did he get ? He is condemned by tne bp. Demetrius. Except the priests of Palestine PONTITIANUS Arabia, PhiH>ni( ia, ami Arhaia. the world consents to his condemnation. Kome herscH assembles a senate (meaninj; apparently » synod] against him." The condemnation o( driijen by Demetrius beinu supposed (though not with certainty) to have been c. 231. the Roman bishop who assembled the syn<Kl was ini^st [<r >li.ibly Pontianus. Two spurious epistles ir.- assigned to him. [j.b— v.] Pontitianus, a s-^ldier, perhaps of the prae- , torian guard, an .\frican by birth and a Christian, who indirectly contribute much towards the conversion <^f St. Augustine, who , relates in his Confessions how one day. while he was at -Milan with .\lypius, Pontitianus came, as it seemed by accident, to visit his countrymen, and found on the table a book , containing the writings of St. Paul, and having expressed some surprise, informed the friends that he was a Christian and constantly prayed to God both in public worship and at hoine. The conversation then turned upon .\nthony the Egyptian monk, of whose history Ponti- tianus knew much more than they did. He ! told them how, when he was at Treves, in ' attendance on the emperor, with three com- rades he went to the public gardens. Having separated, two of them met again at the dwelling of a recluse, and found there an account of St. .■\nthony, which one read to the other until he was stirred to relinquish his military life and enlist in the service of God as a monk, and prevailed on his companion to join him. Pontitianus and the fourth member of the party coming up, the other two endeavoured to persuade them to follow their example, but without success. They returned to the palace while the disciples of St. Anthony remained behind. We hear no more of Pontitianus ; for the sequel see Ai'GL-STiNE (.\ug. Conf. viii. 6, 7). [h.w.p.] i Pontius (2), Mar. 8, a deacon of Carthage. , \S' know him only from his Vila Cypriani, I r ! X -d to all editi'>ns of St. Cyprian's works. !!• was chosen by Cyprian to accompanv him into exile to Ciirubis (cc. xi. and xii. ; cf. Dodwell's Dissertationes Cyprianicae, iv. 21). The Vita is evidently an authentic record. Its style is rugged, and in places very obscure ; yet presents all internal marks of truth and antiquity. It uses all the correct technical terms of Roman criminal law, and refers to all the usual forms observed in criminal trials. Jerome, in his Lther de Vir. III. c. 6K, d<rscribes the Vita of Pontius as " egregium volumcn vitae et passionis Cypriani." [g.t.s.] Porphyrius (4), patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 404-413, succeeded Flavian (Socr. H. E. vii. 9), and is described in the dialogue which g<K^ under the name of Palladius as a man of in- famous character, who had disgraced the clerical profession bv intimacv with the scum of the circus (Pallad'. Dial. p. 143)- Although his character was notorious, by his clrvernr^* and adroit flattery he obtained considrrabl- influence with the magistrati-s, and gaine-l the confidence of some leading bishops of th- province. Flavian's death having .K^rurrr-I almost contemporaneously with Chryv>»tonr» exile, it became vitally important to the anti- Flavian cabal to have the vacant throne of Antioch filled with a man who would carry out their designs for the complete crushing PORPHYRIUS R53 of Flavian** adhrrrnt» P rphvrv wa* rh-nrn. To rlear the ijrid Con%t4ntlu«. the Irmlvd friend "f ( hrv^ st m wf, .m Hi-- \r j.ir .f Anti- ' i was .1 of th. , with tli< I'. II i\ tn< ,1 ,, .,,11:. „| Porj>hvrv ohtJlnr<l an tipt banishing Constantms !•• t: 140- tins anti(-ip.ii>-'i ii >- 1 ^ « .«. 14.M. Porpt hands Cvri.i byters of th-- to be troubles lut-, .uul x lini il.c .ij-.-iiuuit v of the Olvmpian festival at .\nti'Th. whrn the population had poured forth to the tp<>rtar|p« of Daphne, to I.kW hiin*rU and hi* three consecraton, .\cai lus, .And >rhuv and Srver- ianus, whom he had k-]>t hi.dnt- n his own house, with a few ' • ih» chief church, anil i u at thrir hands. The 1 nrji morning attacked i vrv. seeking to burn it ovrr tn riflu- ence of Por])hvry scruml • ij <.( a savage ofhcrr as captain , 1 ird», who by threats and violrnn- ilj-.-.t il*. ^oi>le to the church (16. 147). Forrwamr*! of hu real character, pope Innocent rrrrivr<| por- ph\Tv's request for Communion with silmre {ib. 141). porphyry was complrtrlvdrvrted by the chief clergy and all thi- l.idir^ of rank of .Antioch, who refu- " h hit church and held their nv- ■ mely {ib. 149). In revenge P : ••ii a decree, issued bv Arcadi.- N > 1-, 404. sentencing all who refused communion with .\rsarius, Theophilus, and Porphvrv to b«« expelled from the churches, and instrurtinK the governor of the province to forbid their holding meetings elsewhere (Sox //. f.. viii. 24 ; Cod. Theod. 16, t. iv. p. loj). His efforts to obtain the recognition of the .\ntiorhpnr« proving fruitU^s, while Chrvsostoui's spiritual power in exile became the greater for all hU efforts to crush it. Porphyry's exasperation drove him to take vengeance on Chrvvp«|oin. Through his machinations and ih--*^ '•< Severianus, ordrrs were issued f'.f •' ' of Chrys >stom from Cm usus t.i I'; the exeiution of whn h Ihr troubles endrd bv death (Palla.l / .. , , Porphvrv's own death is placrti l.y ciini-it {Fast. R»m. ii. JS2) in 413 (cf. The.id. H E. iii. 5). He was succrrdrti bv Al'ttn.lrr, bv whom the long distracted It is a misfortune that t' only sourre for the char.i the violent pamphlet ■ •■ warm partisanship ("r ' blackf-n* ill hi% ..i.iw.»,.-i,i repr- .1 Aiiii-o Ik " iu.t>iV tiid of ht« rttnark- ■/ / ^ V 4* *rll j> bv a sliU -.tr :.. in The.Ml..rrts In; calls him one " oi 1 who was adorne<l l> tri »ii(i 4 Miiiuni iiir and an acquaintance with divine docirlnn " 854 PORPHYRIUS (Theod. Ep. 83). Fragments of a letter addressed to Porphyry by Theophilus of Alexandria, recommfinding him to summon a synod, when some were seeking to revive the heresy of Paul of Samosata, are found in Labbe (Concil. p. 472). [e.v.] Porphyrius (5), bp. of Gaza, a.d. 395-420. According to his biographer Mark, he \yas born at Thessalonica c. 352, of a good family. His parents were Christians, and took care to have him instructed in the Scriptures as well as in secular learning. When about 25 he retired to the desert of Scete in Egypt, which, at the end of 5 years, he left for Jerusalem, and passed another 5 years in a cavern near the Jordan. A painful disease, brought on by his austerities, compelled him to revisit Jerusalem, where he made the acquaintance of Mark, who became his devoted disciple and companion. By Porphyry's desire Mark visited Thessalonica, and turned the proceeds of Porphyry's share of his paternal property into money, the whole of which, on his re- turn. Porphyry distributed to the poor and to various monasteries, supporting himself by manual labour. About his 40th year he reluctantly received ordination from John, bp. of Jerusalem, who committed to his guardianship the sacred relic of the True Cross. After a presbyterate of three years, in 395 on the death of Aeneas he with still greater re- luctancebecamebp. of Gaza, being consecrated by John of Caesarea, who had sent for him on the pretext of consulting him on some scrip- tural difficulty. The people of Gaza were then almost all pagan, and the position of a zealous Christian bishop was one of no small difficulty and even danger. The cessation of a severe drought at the beginning of the 2nd year of his episcopate, J an. 326, was attributed to his prayers and those of the Christians, and caused the conversion of a number of the inhabitants. This was succeeded by other conversions, arousing great exasperation among the heathen population, which vented itself in a severe persecution. Porphyry endured their ill-treatment with the utmost meekness. At the same time he despatched his deacon Mark and his minister Borocas to Constantinople, who, through the powerful advocacy of Chrysostom, obtained the em- peror's order to destroy the idols and close the temples. This was carried out by an imperial commissioner, who, however, it was asserted, was bribed to spare the principal idol named Marnas, and to wink at the entrance of the worshippers into the temple by a secret pas- sage. To these events Jerome refers in a letter to Laeta (Hieron. Ep. vii. p. 54). The idolaters still remained the dominant section, and were able to shut out Christians from all lucrative ofiBces and to molest them in the enjoyment of their property. Porphyry took this so much to heart that he exhorted his metropolitan, John of Caesarea, to allow him to resign. John consoled him, and went with him to Constantinople to obtain an order for the demolition not of the idols alone, but of the temples themselves, arriving Jan. 7, 401. Chrvsostom was then high in the empress Eudoxia's favour, and their suit was success- ful. The bishops reached Majuma, the port of Gaza, on May i, and were followed in ten POSSIDIUS days by a commissioner named Cynegius, accompanied by the governor and a general officer with a large body of troops, by whom the imperial orders for the destruction of the temples were executed. In ten days the whole were burnt, and finally the magnificent temple of Marnas, and on the ground it occupied the foundations of a cruciform chiurch were laid according to a plan furnished by Eudoxia, who also supplied the funds for its erection. The church was 5 years building, and was dedicated by Porphyry on Easter Day, 405 or 406, being called " Eudoxiana " after its foundress. Jerome refers to its erection (Hieron. in Esaiam, xvii. I. vii. t. v. p. 86). The heathen population, irritated at the destruction of their sacred buildings and at the spread of Christianity in Gaza, raised a tumult, in which several Christians were killed, and Porphyry himself barely escaped with his life. We may certainly identify him with one of the two bishops of his name who attended the anti-Pelagian synod at Diospolis in 415 (Aug. in Julian. Hb. i. c. 15). He died Feb. 26, 419 or 420. He is said to have been indefatigable in instructing the people of Gaza in a simple and popular style, based entirely on Holy Scripture. Migne, Pair. Lai. xlv. pp. 1 21 1 ff. ; Ceillier, Aut. eccl. vi. 329; Tillem. Mem. eccl. x. pp. 703-716. [e.v.] PossidlUS, bp. of Calama, a town of Numidia, S.W. of Hippo, between it and Cirta, but nearer Hippo (Aug. c. Petil. ii. 99 ; Kalma, Shaw, Trav. p. 64). His own account repre- sents him as a convert from paganism, be- coming on his conversion an inmate of the monastery at Hippo, probably c. 390. Thence- forward he lived in intimate friendship with St. Augustine until the latter's death in 430 (Possid. Vita Aug. praef. and cc. 12, 31). About 400 he became bp. of Calama. He seems to have established a monastery there, and, probably early in his episcopate, con- sulted Augustine on [a] the ornaments to be used by men and women, and especially ear- rings used as amulets ; (6) the ordination of some one who had received Donatist baptism (Aug. Epp. 104, 4, and 245). In 401 or 402 a council was held at Carthage, at which Possidius was present, and challenged in vain Crispinus, Donatist bp. of Calama, to discuss publicly issues between the two parties. After this Possidius, though he modestly conceals his own name, while going to a place in his diocese called Figulina, was attacked by Crispinus, a presbyter, and narrowly escaped alive (Aug. Ep. 103 ; Possid. Vii. 12). In 407 he was one of a committee of seven appointed by Xanthippus, primate of Nu- midia, at the request of Maiurentius, bp. of Tubursica, to decide a question, of whose nature we are not informed, but which was at issue between himself and the seniors of Nova Germania (Morcelli, Afr. Chr. iii. 34 ; Hardouin, Cone. ii. 922; Bruns, Cone. i. 185). In 408 Possidius was again in trouble and personal danger, in consequence of the disturbances at Calama described above. In 409, on June 14, a council was held at Car- thage, and a deputation of four bishops, Florentinus, Possidius, Praesidius, and Benan- tus, was appointed to request the protection of the emperor against the Donatists. On POSTHUMIANUS this occasi Ml Possiilius CDiucycd .i letter fmm Augustine to Pauliuus of Nola, but nothing more is known as to the journey of the depu- tation or their interview, if any, with the emperor, who was then at Ravenna. In 410. however, an edict was issued by Honorius on or about the day on which Ronie was taken by Alaric, viz. Aug. ^6, to Heraclian, c<Mint of .\frica, to restrain by penalties all enemies of the Christian faith, and an<ither of a similar nature on Oct. 14, 410, to Marrellinus, the president of the inference in 411 (.\ug. Ep. 93, i. ; 105, i. ; Cod. Thfod. xvi. s, si, and li. 3; Baron. 410, 48, 40). At the conference Possidius was one of the seven Catholic man- agers (Coll. Carth. ap. Man. \'et. Don. liii. i ; ii. 29 ; iii. 29, 148, 168, ed. Oberthiir). Me was with Augustine at Hippo in 412 (Aug. Ep. 137, 20) and in 416 signed at the council of Mileum the letter sent to pope Innocent concerning the Pelagian heresy (Aug. Ep. 176). He also joined with Augustine, Aurelius, Aly- pius, and Evodius in a letter to the same on the same subject (ib. iSi, 182, 183). He was at the meeting or council of bishops held at Caesareaon Sept. 29, 418. St. .\ugustine men- tions that Possidius(c. 425) brought toCalama and placed in a memorial building there some relics of St. Stephen, by which many cures were wrought (Civ. D. xii. 8, 12, 20). When the Vandals invaded Africa, he took refuge in Hippo with other bishops, and there attended on St. Augustine in his last illness until his death, a.d. 430, in the third month of the siege. He has left a biographical sketch of Augustine, whose unbroken friendship he enjoyed for 40 years, being his faithful ally and devoted admirer. This sketch gives many particulars of great interest as to Augustine's mode of life, and a description, simple but deeply pathetic and impressive, of his last days and death. Though few men's lives are written in their own works more fully than that of .-Vugustine, yet history and the church would have greatly missed the simple, modest, and trustworthy narrative, gathered in great measure from Augustine himself, which Possidius has left us. It was apparent- ly published, not immediately after the death of Augustine, but before 439, as he speaks of Carthage and Cirta as still exempt from capture by the barbarians, and in Oct. 439 Carthage was taken by Genseric fPossid. c. 28 ; Clinton, F. R.). Possidius has also left a list of Augustine's works which, though very full and ompiled with great care, does not pretend to be complete and of which some have not vet been discovered. It is given in the last vol. of Migne's ed. of .Augustine's works. Prosper relates in his Chronicle that Possidius, together with Novatus, Severianus, and other bishops of less note, resisted the attempts of Genseric to establish Arian doctrine in Africa, and was driven with them from his see A.D. 4 37- Baron. 437. >• ; M->rcelli. Afr. Chr. iii. 140; Ccillier, ix. 564; Tillcm. vol. xiii. 3S1. [H.w.p.] Posthumianus (2), a friend of Sulpicius Severus of Gaul and Paulinus of Nola, was a native of Aquitania, and made at least two journeys to the East. After the first, when he made the acquaintance of Jerome at Beth- lehem, he appears to have visited CampanU to PRAEDESTINATUS 8A5 see Paulinus (S. I'unliui, l.pp. i». ni MiKn«>. Pair. Lai. Ixi. 227). Hr!Milr«l Ir-un N4rlv>nno in 401 i«r 402 on his second v<iv.«j{r, of whi< h 4 full and intrrentmu ac.cunt is in bk. 1. «•( tho Dialogues of Sulpicius Sevrru* (Pair. IM. xx. 183), in which Postl)Uini4iius with .Srvrru%4nd (•alius are the sprakm. In five (Iav* ha re.»che<l Carthage, where he visited thr t<inib of St. Cvjirian. Drtaine*! brtwrm .Mm 4 4iid Cyrene bv bad we.ithrr, he l.iiidrd t" explore the country, which was inhabitrd bv 4 very primitive tribi-, who, however, were C hris- tians, and w.is hospitably entrrt4inr<l by 4 |>riest. Alex.iiidria w.«s (hen convulsed by the <]uarrel between the patri.in ti Ihe.'philuk and the monks about the writings o( Ori^'en, and Posthumianus went on bv land to Bethle- hem, where he spent six months with Jerome, wh<mi he praises highly both for virtue and learning. Posthumianus then returned to .Alexandria, and thence went to the Theb.iid, spending a year and seven months visiting it» monasteries and hermitages. He penetrated into the Sinaitic peninsula, saw the Kc<l Sea, and ascended Mount Sin.ii. After three years' absence he returned, taking 30 da\-» from Alexandria to Marseilles. He may have been the priest of that name who was present at the death of Paulinus (Uranius, Ep. in Patr. Lat. liii. 861). (p.d.1 Potamisena (June 28), one of the most celebrated mart>TS at Alexandria in the perse- cution of Severus, being a virgin distinguished alike for her beauty, chastity, and courage. Eusebius (W. E. vi. 5) relates how she was cruellv tortured, and death finally inflicted by burning pitch poured slowly about her from feet to head. Her story is alstt given bv Pal- ladius {Hxst. Imus. 3). (o-ts.) Pothlnus (Photxnus. (Ireg. Tur. /-../immj), martvr, first bp. of Lyons in the 2nd cent. Who consecrated hun, and in what year, is un- known, though a desire to find an apostolic foundation has suggested to different writers the names of SS. Peter, John, and Polvcarp. His name suggests that he was a Greek. Of his episcopate we have no record bevond the account of his mart\Tdom by pagans, with 47 others, contained in the letter of theChristi-ms of Lvons and Vienne to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, which Eusebius preserve^. Ojv pressed with infirmities and more than <>o years old, he was dragged by soldiers before the tribunal, where he comported hiniself with dignity. To the question of the president what the Christians' God might be, he replied. " If thou wert worthy, thou shouldst know." The blows and ill-usage of the crowd as he was carried back to prison caused his death twodays later. His successor was St. Ireiiacu*. Eus. H. E. v. I ; <;reg. Tur. Htit. Franc, i- 27 ; Sfirac. lib. i. ; dtGlor. Marl. 49. iosa<i ; Gall. Chrtst. iv. 4. . (!**•»•] PraodestlnatlU. The author known bv this name wrote .111 anonymous work, first pub. in 1643 from a .MS. in the Cathedr-il III' '■• ' Rheims bv Sirmonil, who somewhat 1: priatcly gave it its title from th.*r . whom it was directe<l, .ind several tr printed. r«. bv Migne [Pair. Ut. Uiii. and bk. i. by Ohler in his Cotpu% Hatrtsiologuum. The author coinpUms that mm were passing tbcm»elve$ oQ *s of the household ol 856 PRAEDESTINATUS faith who really were most treacherous enemies of the church. These men taught that certain were bv God's foreknowledge so predestined to death that neither Christ's passion nor baptism, faith, hope, nor charity could help them. They might fast, pray, and give alms, but nothing could avail them, be- cause thev had not been predestined to life. On the other hand, those who had received this predestination might neglect and despise all righteousness, yet the gate of life would be opened to them without knocking, while against others who knocked, nay shouted, for admission, it would remain firmly closed. A work by one of these heretics had lately fallen into the writer's hands, and it was necessary to drag it to light and completely refute it. This accordingly is done in the present treatise, consisting of three books. In bk. i. the author clears himself of all sus- picion of sympathy with heresy of any kind by enumerating and repr.)bating the 90 heresies by which up to his time Christ's truth had been perverted, the last and worst being that of the Predestinarians. It determines limits for the date of the book that in this list the last but one is the Nestorian heresy. From this and the silence about Eutychianism we may infer that it was written between 431 and 449, just the period when the semi- Pelagian controversy was most active. The author professes that his heretical catalogue was epitomized from Hyginus, Polycrates, Africanus, Hesiodus, Epiphanius, and Phil- aster, who, he tells us, wrote against different heresies in this chronological order. It is remarkable that the first four of these con- futations of heresy are not mentioned by any one else, but still more remarkable that the writer is silent as to his obligations to the tract on heresies which Augustine addressed to Quodvultdeus, although his list of 90 heresies agrees, article by article, with Augustine's list of 88, with the addition of the two later here- sies, Nestorianism and Predestinarianism, while the substance of each article is mani- festlv taken from Augustine. These un- favourable suspicions of the writer's literary morality are confirmed as we proceed. It is the author's plan to mention with each heresy the name of the orthodox writer who refutes it. We are thus told of a number of person- ages whom no one else mentions^Diodorus of Crete who refuted the Secundians, Philo the Alogi, Theodotus of Pergamus the Color- basians, Crato, a Syrian bishop, who refuted the Theodotians, Tranquillus the Noetians, Euphranon of Rhodes the Severians, and a host of others of whom we should expect to hear elsewhere if they were not imaginary personages. Moreover, when Praedestinatus ascribes the confutation to real persons his assertions are usually chronologically im- possible. Thus he makes the apostle Thomas confute Saturninus, Barnabas in Cyprus the Carpocratians ; he makes Alexander, who was bp. of Rome at the very beginning of the 2nd cent., write against Heracleon, who lived in the latter half of the century ; the Tertul- lianists are condemned by Soter, who must have been dead 30 years before Tertullian separated from the church ; the imaginary heresiologist, Hesiod of Corinth, is made to be PRAXEAS the bishop who first opposed Arius, and in answer to whose prayers that heretic died. We have thus before us, not inaccurate history but unscrupulous and unskilful invention, and it can only be from want of acquaintance with i his character as a writer that he is ever cited as an historical authority. [g.s.] Praxeas, a somewhat mysterious heretic about whom various theories have been held. He was a Monarchian and Patripassian. Ter- tullian wrote a treatise against him and places his scene of activity first of all at Rome, but never mentions Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Sabellius or Callistus. On the other hand, Hippolytus, who denounces these in his con- troversial works for the very same tenets, never once mentions Praxeas as teaching at Rome or anywhere else. Some have regarded Praxeas as simply a nick-name. Thus De Rossi (Bullet. 1866, p. 70) identifies him with Epigonus, Hagemann (Gesch. der rom. Kirche. § 234) with Callistus. Dollinger however (//tp- pol. u. Kallist. § 198) and Lipsius (Chronolog. der rom. Bisch. § 175) maintain that Praxeas was a real person who first of all started the Monarchian and Patripassian heresy in Rome, but so long before the age of Hippolytus that his name and memory had faded in that city. They fix his period of activity in Rome during the earliest years of Victor, a.d. 189-198, or even the later years of his predecessor Eleu- therus. This explanation, however, seems to ignore the fact that Hippolytus must have been a full-grown man all through Victor's episcopate, as he expressly asserts (Refut. ix. 6) that he and Callistus were about the same age. Praxeas remained but a short time in Rome, and the shortness of his stay offers a better explanation of Hippolytus's silence. He then proceeded to Carthage, where he disseminated his views. Tertullian [adv. Prax.) attacks the heresy under the name of Praxeas, the local teacher, but was really attacking Zephyrinus and Callistus. The facts of his life we gather from TertuUian's notices in c. i. He was a confessor from .A.sia Minor, where he had been imprisoned for the faith. Asia Minor was then the seed-plot of Monarchian views. He came to Rome when the Montanist party had just gained over the pope. Praxeas con- verted the pope back to his own opinion, which ! was hostile to the Montanists. Most critics ! agree that the pope so converted by Praxeas I was Eleutherus: cf. Bonwetsch's Montanismus, § 174 ; Hilgenfeld's Ketzergeschichte, p. 569. I Dr. Salmon, however, maintains that it was I Zephyrinus. [Mont.^nus.] By this, says Ter- tullian, Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome, " he drove away prophecy and he introduced heresy. He put to flight the j Paraclete and he crucified the Father." He then went to Carthage, where he induced some I to adopt his opinions. Tertullian opposed him prior to 202, according to Hilgenfeld (I.e. p. 618), and converted Praxeas himself, who acknowledged his error in a document extant among the Catholic party when Ter- tullian wrote. Praxeas then seems to have disappeared from Carthage, while Tertullian joined the Montanists. The controversy some years later broke out afresh, spreading i doubtless from Rome, and then Tertullian I wrote his treatise, which he nominally ad- I PRIMASIUS dressed against IV.ix.as as tlu> best known expositor of these views at CarthaKe, but really against the Patripassian system in general. Hilgenfcld {I.e. p. 6ii)) dates this work c. 206; Harnack c. 210. i.r about 251 years after the first arrival of I'raxeas in Rome ; while Dr. Salmon dates it after the death of Callistus in 222 : so great is the uncertainty about the chronology of the movement. Mar- Hack's article on " Monarchianismus " in t. x. of Herzog's Real-Encyclopddie contains a good exposition of the relation of Praxeas \.o the Patripassian movement ; cf. I.ipsius Tertul- liati's Schrift uider Praxeas in Jahrb. fur deutsche Theolog,. t. xiii. (i860) §701-724. Among patristic writers the only ones who mention Praxeas are pscudo-Tertullian ; Aiisust. ./(• Haer. 41 ; Pracdestinat. 41; and tieiin.i'i. </c- Efc/fS. Dog. 4. [o.t.s.] Primasius, bp. of .\drumetum or Justiniano- 1 polis. in the Byzacene province of N. Africa. | He flourished in the middle of 6th cent., | and exercised considerable influence on the ; literary activity of the celebrated theological ; lawyer Junilius, who dedicated to him his Institutes, which spread the views of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the West. Primasius first comes before us in a synod of his province in 541, the decrees of which are known only ; through Justinian's decrees confirming them, as given in Baronius, Ann. 541, n. 10-12. He was sent to Constantinople in connexion with the controversy on the Three Chapters c. 351. He assisted in the synod which pope X'igilius held against Theodore Ascidas and was still in Constantinople during the session of the fifth general council, but took no part in it, ' notwithstanding repeated solicitations (Mansi, ix. 199 seq.). He was one of 16 bishops who signed the Constitutum of pope Vigilius, May 14, 553. When, however, Vigilius ac- cepted the decrees of the fifth council, Prima- sius signed them also. Acc<jrding to Victor 1 Tunun. (Migne's Patr. Lat. t. Ixviii. col. 939), ' other motives conspired to bring about this change. He was at first exiled to a convent, and then the death of Boethius primate of the Byzacene aroused his ambition to be his successor. He gained his point, but, returning home, his suffragans denounced him as guilty of sacrilege and robbery. He died soon after- wards. His writings {ib. pp. 407-936) embrace commentaries on St. Paul's lipp. and the Apocalypse; likewise a treatise (now lost), de Haeresibus, touching on some points which Augustine did not live to treat with sufficient fullness (Isid. Hispal. r«>.///. xxii. in ih.lxxxiii. I09'5 : Cave, i. 525; Tillem. xiii. 927, xvi. 21). Our Primasius is sometimes confounded with bp. Primasiusof Carthage. The best ace iunt"f Primasius of .Adrumetum is in Kihn's Theodnr von Mopsuestia, pp. 248-254, where a critical estimate is formed of the sources of his exegetical works. [Chiliasts.] Cf. alsoZahn, Forschunzin, iv. 1-224 (iS'Ji)- (G.T.3.] Primlanus, Donatist bp. of Carthage, suc- cessor to Parmenian, a.d. 392. Among many things charged against him by the Maxi- mianists, they alleged that he admitted the Claudianists to communion and, when some of the seniors remonstrated with him, en- couraged, if he did not even originate, a riotous attack upon them in a church in which PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM 857 soiii,. lost Ihrir livrs. Itirlhir. lli.it he W41 guilty of v.inou5 art* o( an arbitrary «nd violciii kind, superseding bi^hopn, rxioni- numicating and (ondemniiig rlrrgvinm with- i>ut suftirirnt cause, rlosinn his < hiir< h do.>r» against the i>eoplr and thr iinprri.d offirrr*. and taking possession of building* to which he had no right. (,\ug. En. in /'i. 36. ao ; c. Cresc. iv. (>, 7. and 7, 9, also 48, 58. and 50, 60; Mon. Vet. Don. xxxv. cd ObrrthUr.) M the proceedings before the civil magitlralr, arising out of the decision of the c..unril o( Bagaia, Primian is said to have taunted hit opponents with relying on imperial etlirt*. while his own party bn'Ught with them the C.ospels only (Aug. Post Coll. xxxi. H,|. When the confer.-nrc was proposed, heresintrd it, remarking witli scornful arroR.mre that " it was not fit th.it the sons of martvrs should confer with the bro.nl of tradit.-rs" {CarlH. Coll. iii. 116 ; Aug. lirextc Coll. iii. 4. 4). A» one of the seven managers at the conference, A.D. 411, on the Donatist side, he helpeil to delay the opening of the pr.Keedings and to obstruct them during their progress, but showed no facility in debate (lirevic. (oil. ii. 30 ; Carth. Coll. i. 104). He p.issed a just sentence of condemnation on Cyprian, Dona- tist bp. of Tubursica, for an act of scandalous immorality (Aug. c. Petit, iii. 34. 40). Sec Dr. Sparrow Simpson, .S^ .fu^;.' and .4/r. Ch. Divisions (1910), p. S2. 'le.w.p.] PrisclIIIanusandPrlsclIIIanlsm. The Priscil- lianists, whose doctrines were .Manichean and Gnostic in character, were organized as a sect by their founder Priscillian. The spread of the heresy was not wide either in time or space. The sect sprang up and flourished in Spain during the last third of the 4th cent, in the reigns of the emperors (iratian and Maxi- mus. After the synod of Saragossa, 381, it ramified into Aquitaine, but never took deep root beyond the P\Tenees. Where the her«-sy first ajjpeared in Spain is unrecorded. There it spread through most provinces, especially in cities. The agitation at Cordova, Merida, Avila, Astorga, Saragossa, Toledo, Braga, sufficiently indicates its prevalence and poi>u- i larity. The council of Bordeaux, 384. fol- lowed by the violent measures of Maximus, intensified for a while the enthusiasm of Pris- cillian's adherents. But in 390, at the synod of Toledo, many leading Pri.srillianists re- canted and were admitted to church com- munion. The sect continued to diminish in number. Pope I.eo I. exerted himself vigor- ously to repress it. It lingered in Spain till the middle of the 5th cent. .After the council of Toledo, 447, .uid th.it at Braga in iialit u, 44S, especially held ag.iinst them, they dis- appear from liistorv. Priscilli.inism became a remembrance and a suspi< ion. Marcus, a native of .Memphis in Kgypt, introduced the (iiiostic an<l M.inii heaii here- sies. Nothing is known of his life beyond his Hgyptian origin, his coming to Spain, .u : ! 1. teaching. Two of his follower* were A a Spanish ladv. and Melpidius, a rhet n i . Their convert wa* the l.tyman Pris< illi.ui. whi>se place of birth or residence i» unknown He was of good family, wealthy, and well educated. He bccaino at once an ardent pro«r- lyte: an apostle of the Oriental d(xtrinc«. Hit 858 PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM character is described by the contemporary historian Sulpicius Severus, in his Sacred His- tory (ii. 46). Eloquent, learned, pious, sincere, austere, ardent, and zealous, Priscillian was well fitted to be the apostle and founder of a sect. Modifying and framing the Oriental doctrines into a system of his own, he soon became their able exponent and advocate. Attracting a large following, he organized them into a religious society. Many of the wealthy and noble, and a great number of the people, received his teaching. Some bishops, as well as clergy and laity, became his dis- ciples. The Gnostic mysticism spread rapidly and widely in all Spain. Among Priscillian's first and most devoted followers were two bishops, Instantius and Salvianus, in the S. of Spain. Adyginus, bp. of Cordova, was the first to oppose the rising sect. He reported the matter to Idatius, bp. of Emerita (Merida), and took counsel with him. Their conference led to an organized movement against the new errors. All S. Spain became agitated by the controversy. Idatius is blamed as too rough and violent. By intolerant severity he promoted rather than prevented the spread of the sect. Ady- otinus, dissatisfied with his colleague, became rather the protector of the Priscillianists and incurred thereby much reproach and odium. At length a synod was to be held at Caesar- Augusta (Saragossa) on the Ebro, a site sufficiently far north from the localities where the Priscillianists and the orthodox were in hostility to be neutral ground, and also having the advantage of nearness to Gaul. It was proposed to gather there the bishops of Spain and Aquitaine. The synod was held in 380. The Priscillianists did not venture to appear. In their absence their opinions were condemned. The four leaders, Instantius and Salvianus the bishops, Helpidius and Pris- cillian the laymen, were excommunicated. The bp. of Cordova fell under the lash of the leaders of the synod. He had received into terms of communion some of the heretics. The council anathematized all who shared or connived at the new errors of faith and practice. The task of promulgating the decrees and executing the ecclesiastical sentences was given to Ithacius, bp. of Sossuba. The important and lamentable result of the synod was the assumption by Ithacius of the leadership of the persecuting party. A preconcerted counter-movement now began on the part of the Priscillianists. At the hands of Instantius and Salvianus, Priscil- lian received episcopal ordination. His see was Avila (Abila) on the Adaja, a tributary of the Douro, midway between Salamanca and Madrid (Hieron. de Script. EccL). This measure of defiance shewed the strength of his party. It led to further progress towards persecution. On behalf of the church au- thorities, Idacius and Ithacius applied to the secular government. Aid was brought against the heretics. Powers were asked for execu- tion of the decree of the synod, and in 381 Gratian granted a rescript, excluding all ' heretics from the use of the churches and ordering them to be driven into exile. The Priscillianists were thus cut off from civil pro- tection. Vigorous defensive measures were necessary to their very existence. An appeal was proposed by them to the two most eminent bishops of the West, Daraasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan. Their influence, it was hoped, might lead to a rescinding of the imperial decision. Instantius, Salvianus, and Priscillian went to Rome to clear themselves and their party in the papal court. On their way they penetrated into Interior Aquitaine, perhaps to try measures of conciliation among the bishops of that province, who had con- demned them unseen and unknown at Sara- gossa. The seeds of the heresy were sown by them as they travelled. Elusa (Eluso) near Eauze, a town on the Gelise near Auch, is especially mentioned. All the church centres were, however, hostile to them. They were vigorously repulsed from Bordeaux (Burde- gala), by the vigilance of bp. Delphinus. On their journey they were joined by many from Gaul whom they had infected with their errors. Euchrocia and her daughter Procula, amongst these, ministered of their substance to Priscillian and his colleagues. A promis- cuous crowd nf others, especially women, are mentioned. In consequence, injurious re- ports, probably calumnies, were vigorously circulated against Priscillian and his retinue. On their arrival at Rome the Priscillianists were repulsed by pope Damasus. They re- traced their steps to Milan, and found Am- brose, whose power and reputation were at their height, steadily opposed to them. The Priscillianists put on a bold front and began aggressive measures against their assail- ants. The wealth of Priscillian and his followers was liberally employed. " The silver spears " were now in the hands of the partisans on both sides. Macedonius, the master of the offices (magister officiorum). was won over to the interests of Priscillian and his party. By his powerful influence a rescript from Gratian protecting them was obtained. The Priscillianists were to be restored to their churches and sees. Instantius and Priscillian, returning to Spain, regained their sees and churches. All things seemed turned in their favour. Idacius and Ithacius, though for the moment powerless, had not ceased to make a show of resistance. The Priscillianists charged them with causing divisions and disturbing the peaceof the church, and Ithacius wascompelled to fly. At Treves resided the Caesar who ruled Gaul, Spain, and Britain. Ithacius escaped thither from Spain. Gregory, the prefect there, warmly espoused his cause and strove to bring the complaints of the orthodox bishops again before Gratian. The Priscillianists had, however, friends at court powerful enough to ward oS the danger. The cause was taken out of the hands of Gregory and transferred to the court of Volventius the vicar of Spain. An unlooked-for political change now came. The overthrow and assassination at Paris of the unpopular Gratian, the usurpation of the purple by Clemens Maximus, his proclamation as emperor by his soldiers in Britain, his triumphant entrance into Gaul, with the con- sequent ofiicialchanges, destroyed all the bright hopes of the Priscillianists. The fortimes of their adversaries revived. On the arrival of Maximus at Treves in 384 Ithacius brought a formal accusation with heavy charges against PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM PRISCILLI A NUS. PR1S( ILLIANISM M» Prisiillian and his (oUowrrs. Maxinuis, .1 ^ iard by birth, listciinl to the Spanish t 1 and reversed the vacillatinK poliry of (.1 . treating the matter n»t as one o! eerlcM.isti. n rivalrv. but as one <>( nioralitv and s«><-iety. In his letter afterwards to Siricius. who »ur. ceeded Hamasus in 384 in the see i>f K'Hur. he expressly dwells upon these points and slorir* in the part he had OMisequcntly taken against the heresy of Prisrillian. Both parties were suinnione<! to a svnod at Bi'rileaux in i-S^. Instantius and Priscillian were the first to appear. Instantius was declared to have for- feited his bishi>pric. Priscillian n-solvwi to forestall the expected hostile judgment and " appeal unto Caesar." No protest was made. The appeal was allowed. A purely spiritual oflence was remitted for criminal trial to a secular tribunal. In due course both parties appeared before Maximus at Treves. At Treves there was one at this crisis of the church whose prophetic insight saw the real significance of the issues at slake, Martin, bp. of Tours, whose influence was then at its height. Through his mediation between the contending parties, the trial of Priscillian was delayed, Maximus for a while yielding to his protests, even consenting to promise him that no life should be sacrificed. But at last St. Martin, at the call of other duties, was obliged to withdraw from Treves. The emperor was now surrounded by other influences. By Idacius and Ithacius, ably supported by two bishops of a like stamp, Magnus and Rufus, powerful at court, Maximus was unremittingly urged to take severe measures. The trial of the Priscillianists, once resolved upon, was soon brought ab< >ut and they became a defenceless prey to their enemies. Their " appeal unto Caesar " was truly an appeal to a pitiless Nero. As a stroke of state policy nothing could be wiser in the eyes of the adherents of Maximus than their destruction. Both pagan and Christian authorities attri- bute mercenary motives to the emperor and state that the possessions of the rich Priscil- lian and of his foll.)wers ex< ited his cupidity (Sulp. Sev. Dialog, iii. 9 ; I'anei;\r. of Lai. Pac. Drep. on Theodosius, Panegvr. Vel. xvi. 29). At the same time there could not be a more brilliant inauguration of the lu-w reign than a vigorous assertion of orthodoxy on the lines of the now famous Thc<xlosian decrees. Priscillian and his chief followers were con- demned to death by the imperial consistory at Treves. Several others, after confiscation of their go<xis, were banished to the Scilly Isli-s, others into (laul. Priscillian is rcci.rded as the first of those who suffered death ("gladio perempti "). With him died two presbvters. lately become disciples, Feluissimus and Ar- menius, and Latronianus a poet and Kurhr-KUa the rich and noble matron of Bordeaux. In- stantius. depiised from his bishopric by the synod of Bordeaux, and Tibcrianus were ban- ished to the dev>latc Scilly Isles. Asariiiu* and Aurclius, two deacons, were executed. TertuUus, Potamius. and Johannes, as meaner followers who turned king's evidence, wcr. temporarilv banished within Gaul. The immediate consequence* were not rr assuring to the persecuting party. At Tr*vr» a violent strife arose between the bisbopt I 'M the Ilirtll il«tr«. 4 bitl !'v| t»,r tl ••■ olth. lianis; Then . ; thovwh..h.. wcht to Spam aiii «tlh great p>mp . 4% • saint, was n>>w, ^lav:^ >.;1, . ^d «% a martyr. Signs were n^t » ii(»r«l the orth<Ml.<s. lli..l 1!:. ! . irly aimeilatshr t t!>r Kut«« of a secret r^ .\ddition.ii ^1. Mail- mus r«i»>lvr<i I . s. n I ii.iiuirs (ritiunr« to Spam with unliitutnl |>..wrr^. They wrtr to investigate rhargcs ■>! hrrt-%y, rsaniinr here- lies, take life and pr'prrlv fr'H' ••• ■ .n-. They were men little likely to I. with merry. At thi*. )uiutui Tours returne<I to rr<^veii. Nm • induce hiin to be reconriled to ih< i^i :;» iri\ and abettors of the late rxecuti.ins. The persuasi m and threats of \h<- rm; . i r fu'i ,; to ni'>ve him. he was <lis: presence in anger. Tidii that the tribunes had bcf i, • He hurried to the ;■ i" and agreed to unit- fellowship. The ell: tunity and Martin ;■■ side i>f humanity «• 1 he liilxuirs were recalled an- 1 ' spared the horrors of a religi u :i The schism contiuutd * .luc lime betwern those that approveti and tho*e that C"K»demnc«l the severities ag.iinst Pri-- lUim F-r li years the contention w.t^ . I the merits of the controversy 1 t. Ue canvasse<l. The violent 1 • itnlv not extinguishe<l the Iim ' even to take deeper root i a council at Toledo mair. over and were readmiiii.i > - . •■ •• munion. .\m>ngst theM; was l>ii tiuiiius, « F'risrilliaiiisl bishop. aulh..r .-f /A/ S<*l*i (Libra), wherein Priscillianut ";i!.i :.•• »'te expounded and adv">cate«l. In 4 : presbyter, ()r>>sius. wr^ie to A . cerning the sect. Alonglett-r • extant, written t'> Cereti'i ing the apocryj'hal Pris especially a hvmn attnbtr years later Tumbius. b, in v>rrow and peri>lcxitv t advice for dralmi? with ; danger- •u> .1-1 - ' t-i i,e..'» r- Tole<l-.in4i 448, where 1 ; the usual ai»i*llt4"».ii- A la-l nienll-.n -•! the Priscillianists ■ binali->n with the Artaiis. In Ih-^ council of Braga. in i<>». N-> ancient writer hat itivm «n Accur*!* ...... unt f \hr Prt^'illlintil d---!rtr»r l».ir a lew verbal aiiuaiuoa in cualctti|^ai)r ^*€^ 860 PRISCILLIANUS, PRISCILLIANISM writers. The Priscillianist system, already 1 sufficiently dark and perplexed, has had new obscurity added by unstinted misrepresenta- tion. The general outline may be made out of their opinions, fantastic allegories, daring 1 cosmogonies, astrological fancies, combined | with the severest asceticism. It is easier to compare the general resemblances of their t doctrine to Cabalism, Syrian and Egyptian Gnosticism, Manicheism, Persian and Indian Orientalism, than to detect, analyse, and i assign the differences. There are no authentic extant records of ! the Priscillianist writers. A fragment of a letter of Priscillian himself has come down to us in quotation (Orosii Common, in Aug. Op.). There are allusions to a multitude of aporry- phal scriptures which they used, thus differing from most heretical sects in accepting all apocryphal and canonical books as scripture, explaining and adapting them to their purpose in a mystical manner. Our clearest account of their tenets is in the controversial correspondence slightly later than Priscillian, between Leo the Great and Turribius, bp. of Astorga. The latter summed up the doctrines in i6 articles. Leo replied in a lengthy epistle, commenting seriatim on each proposition ( Leo, Ep. xv.). ( i) Their wild cosmical speculations were based on the bold Gnostic and Manichean conceptions of a primeval dualism. The two opposite realms of light and darkness, in eternal antagonism, were their basis. ! (2) Their anti-materialism led them very far from the sublime simplicity of Scripture. Perplexed by the insoluble problem of the j origin of sin, they indulged in most fantastic i dreams and myths. j (3) The astrological fatalism which pope, Leo condemned so sternly as subversive of all moral distinctions was a striking peculiar- ity (Leo, Ep. XV. 11-12). They believed the 12 signs of the Zodiac to have a mysterious supre- macy over the members of the body. (4) Their Christology is difficult to gather. If thev held a Trinity at all, it was but a Trinity of names. Their adversaries accused them of Arianism and Sabellianism. Leo sharply criticizes their application and inter- pretation of the Scripture attributive of the Redeemer, " the Only-begotten." (5) Their rigid asceticism resulted directly from their idea of the innate evil of matter. Marriage was proscribed ; austerities of all sorts required. (6) Their moral system plainly deserves the charge of dissimulation. Holding an esoteric and exoteric doctrine, they, with some other theosophic sects, affirmed falsehood allowable for a holy end ; absolute veracity only binding between fellow-members. To the unenlight- ened they need not always and absolutely state the whole truth. This looseness of principle thev supported by Scripture, distorting, e.g., Eph.iv. 25 in support of their practice. It was a Priscillianist habit to affect to agree with the multitude, making allowance for what they considered their fleshly notions, and to conceal from them what they regarded them as incap- able of comprehending (Dictinnius in Libra). In the agitation of controversy some church ecclesiastics were in favour of fighting the PRIVATUS Priscillianists with their own weapons. Augus- tine's treatise de Mendacio was expressly written against such laxity. It is easy to see how such practice arose from their principles. We may illustrate it by their Gnostic ideas about Scripture. The Christian Scripture was to them an imperfect revelation. What the Jewish rehgion was to Christianity, that the Priscillianists considered Christianity was with regard to their own speculations. As the O.T. was full of types and shadows of Christianity, so the N.T. in their hands became a figurative and symbolical exposition and veil of Priscil- lianism. The outer form was for the ignorant and profane ; the inner truth for the wise and initiated. The grace of faith was fitted only for the rude mass of men ; to know was the vocation of the privileged, the spiritual, the elect. A step further led the Priscillianist to disregard moral distinctions and believe him- self entitled to prevaricate, which often led to things still worse, in his dealings with the common herd (cf. Mansel, Gnostic Heresies, lect. xii. p. 196 ; ix. p. 135 ; Neander, Ch. Hist. ii. p. 26). See Priscill. qua Supersunt, etc. accedit Orosii Commonitorum, etc. (Vienna, 1889), in Corpus Scr. Eccl. Lat. xviii. [m.b.c] PrisCUS (11), St., 30th archbp. of Lyons, has been the subject of much controversy. Gregory of Tours, the historian, his contem- porary, brings against him the gravest charges. According to the Hist. Franc, (iv. 36), he set himself, with his wife Susanna, to persecute and destroy those who had been the friends of his predecessor St. Nicetius, out of malice and jealousy, and never wearied of declaiming against his memory. The Vitae Patrum (viii. 5) also has an instance of his contempt for the same prelate, whose chaplain he is said to have been. On theother hand, he is numbered by the church among the saints. He was present at numerous councils, the 4th of Paris in 573, Chalons in 579, Macon in 581 or 583, 3rd of Lyons in 581, another at Lyons in 583, Valence in 584 or 585, and the 2nd of Macon in 585, at some of which he presided, and at the last was honoured in the preface with the dignified title, very rare in the West, of patriarcha (Mansi, ix. 949 ; Ceillier, xi. 896). For these and other reasons the Bollandists {Acta SS. Jun. vi. 120-127) refuse credence to Gregory's charges. [s.a.b.] PrivatUS (2), once bp. of the important but shortlived city of Lambaesis in Numidia, the present Tazzui or Tezzulot (Momms.). He was condemned for heresy and multa et gravia delicta, by 90 bishops at a council under Donatus, bp. of Carthage (Cypr. Ep. 59, xiii. ; i ro), and apparently under the Roman bishopric of Fabian (a.d. 240, Morcelli). Apparently the council was held at Lambaesis, and after- wards Donatus and Fabian issued letters condemnatory of Privatus and his opinions. 1 In 250 Privatus visited Rome, and C\T3rian, ' apprehensive of his influence, warned the clergy against him. They replied (Ep. xxxvi. 4) that they had already detected him in an attempt to obtain litterae {communicatoriae) from them fraudulently. ! He presented himself {vetus haereticus) and desired to be heard on behalf of the party who took the lax view as to the lapsi, at the 1 2nd council Id. Mai., 252, and, on being re- PROBUS jected, consecrated Fortun.iliis |>scud<>-l>ishop ( /ip.lix. 13), assisted by a pscud»-bishu|>, Folix, ut his own consecration, and by Jovinus and Maxiiuus. and a lapsed bishop, Krpostus Suturnicensis. k-wii.' Probus (4), S«xtus Anioius Petronliu (Cor{>. Inscrif>. vi. i. n. irs-). a nuiubrr «>( one of the most illustrious f.iuulies in Konie, con- sul with Ciratian in a.d. 371. and four tinjes pretorian prefect of Italy, Ulyricuni, the liauls, and Africa. He had also been pro- consul in Africa in 358 (Cod. Thfod. xi. 3(> ; xiii.)- He was appointed pretorian prelect of Italy and Illyricum in 3h8 (Annnian. xxvii. I ). During his tenure of oftice he chose St. Ambrose, then a young advocate, as one of 1 his council, and afterwards appointed him ijovernor of Liguria and .-^emilia with the rank of consular. On this occasion Probus uttered the words, afterwards considered prophetic, " Go, act not as a judge but as a bishop " ; and many years later he sent one of his servants, who was possessed with a devil, to be healed by him (Faulinus. Vila Ambr. 5, 8, 21, in Migne, I'atr. Lai. xiv. i8, ^9, 34). Probus continued prefect of Italy until Valentinian died in 374. He appears as pretorian prefect of Italy in 380, and as pretorian prefect in 383-384 {Cod. Theod. j vi. 28 ii. ; xi. 13 i. ; vi. 30 vi.). .\fter the ' murder of Gratian in 383 he acted as regent to Valentinian II. in Italy, accompanying him and his mother Justina in their flight to Thessalonica on the invasion of Maximus in 387 (Socr. H. £. V. II ; Soz. H. E. vii. 13). He died before the end of 394 (Claudian. m Frob. el 01. Cons. 31) at the age of nearly 60, after having received baptism (Corp. Inscnp. vi. I, p. 389). It may be owing to his Chris- tianity that .\mmianus (xxvii. 11) paints him in such unfavourable colours, a remarkable contrast to the glowing panegvric of Claudian , and .Ausonius (£p. 16). All agree as to his ; immense wealth and boundless liberality. [ His wife Anicia Faltonia Proba belonged to the .A.nician house, and their sons I»robinus and Olybrius had the unique honour of being consuls together in 395. Six letters of Svramachus, who was his intimate friend (Epp. i. 56-61), are addressed to him (Tillem. Emp. V. 42, 72)- (p-d) Prochorus (Ilp6xopo?), the name of one of the seven deacons in Acts vi. 5. Later tradi- tion makes him one of the 70 disciples, and afterwards bp. of Nicomedia in Bithynia (cf. the list of the 70 in the so-called iJorotheus). Under his name has been preserved an apocrvphal History of Ihe Aposlle John, first published in the fireek text by .Michael Neander in the appendix to the 3rd ed. of his Graeco-Latin version of Luther's Short Catechism, along with a Latin trans, by Sebastian Castalio (Catechesis Marltnt Lutheri parva graeco-lalina poslremum rfcogmla. Basileae, 1567. PP- 526-663). The narrative begins with the parting of the apostles and St. John's mi^^ion mto Asia. In punishment for a first refusal to go by sea John suffers shipwreck, but arrives safely at Kphrsus, accompanied bv l'r(x:horos his disciplc. Here he takes service in a public bath ; restore* to life the owner's son, who has been slain by a demon, destroys the image of Diana (Artemis) PROCHORUS •61 and exjM-U tlir .I.111..11 wlnrh h.1.1 h ul..,i4tr«i there ; is baiii^lird hiiiixrll ' ' iiii* to be again rxiird to Pat *nd of the rni|>rrtir. On thr i ho rrstiTfS .1 (Irowtinl iii.m to ill. .11 . I : -r«l, ..n.t li.-.iN ., M. W ►:m.u.1mu..i. 1 1,. ^■'■.•irr pari ot the siil.s.-.ni.iil ii.»n.iti\r !•. ..<<u|i..| with the w.. lull. Ills ilir.l. ! t . . • t Ir 111 hit baiiishiiient, his m ' ;iilri% with demons and sorni itioij ul a learned Jew in a 1 nuincf<iu% mir.icles of healuifr alul l.ii iiiK If 'in thr dead, and triumphant issues out of rvrry onidict in which his iM-rsrculing cnrinir* involve hiiii. After a resulence in Patni«»» of 15 year* he has converted almost the whole island. Ke« ceiving |>erniission to return to l-.phr«u«, he first retires to a solitary place in the lUand (itardi-aixrit) and there dictate* hi« K<»»tx-| to l*riH horos. and when hni»hed leave* it Iwhind as a memorial of his work in Patnio*. Hp then goes bv ship to Lphesus, and dwells there in the house of Domnus. whom hr had formerly in his youth raised to life. Alter reMdinjt tb years more at Kphesus he bune* hiinsrll alive. Prochoros and six other disciple* dig his ^rave, and when he has laid hini->< H in it. r.vrr him with earth. On the grave 1 .• nlly reopened, the apostle has li This writing of the allet:. . i^. In its main contents at least, in n- w iv .1 recen- sion of the old Gnostic Acts of John, but the independent work of some Catholic auth.*. Though the writer makes s..ine use of the (;nostic Acts, he can hardly have known thera in th<-ir original text. Its purp«»se srrm* lo be to supplement the Lphc^ian hiNtorir* ol the apostle which alre.idv existed in a Catholic recension bv a d.t.uUd account of his deed* and adventures in Patmos. The author can have had no h^cal interest in its coini»'Mtion. His notions of the situation, size, and general characteristics of the island, which he c«-rtainly never saw, are most extraordinarv. In con- structing his narrative he has made only par- tial use of older materials. Hy far the tu.«t of these narrations of the pretended Pri>choro» are free inventions of his own. None brtray any leaning towards (.no>ticisni. The •""'hor shews no tendency to a^r•tl. \ " where he draws from older in discourses attributed 1 theological element is 'juit- takes no notice of the .\\ ncepl ipposition to the older tr the He 1. in the composition .'f the Ko*pri Ihe .iccount given of this is rrrt.onlv i> I irriveO from the Gnostic ll(^o3«. The date of romp, .sit 1 n , ann -t h«- 1>««^ «h»n the middle of 5th r. ;.• not only in the Cht 470, ed. Bonn . r< also id thr .!■ to Dori.thr.i Urmtnus a ^u niiig of the s;.. otiw.ird« and not appear to have kn' " the ap'-stlr*. With • fart that the author i an diffusion of Chrutianitv i- Aegean Archipelago. It 1 detcnnine the place of ■ ; , I. r<»i. but >ite<l Ihe <ia- time « I Iter* tlr«o| s the ^rvil \ the .it lo The S62 PROCLUS author is certainly not a native of Asia Minor, but rather perhaps of Antioch, or the coast region of Syria and Palestine. He is better acquainted with the topograpliy of those parts than with the neighbourhood of Ephesus. Of his personal circumstances we can only say that he certainly was not a monk ; perhaps he was a married cleric, possibly a layman. Cf. Zahn, Acta Joannis (Erlangen. 1880); Lipsius, Die Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, i. 355-408. [R.A.L.] Proclus(t) {Proculus), aMontanist teacher, and probably the introducer of Montanism into Rome at the very beginning of the 3rd cent. For the account given by TertuUian (adv. Prax. i) of the apparently favourable reception the new prophesying at first met with at Rome, and its subsequent rejection, see Montanism. Proclus was publicly op- posed by Caius, commonly called a Roman presbyter, and the record of their disputation, though now lost, was read by Eusebius, and is mentioned by several other writers. [Caius.] Pseudo-TertuU'ian states {Haer. 21) that the Montanists were divided into two sections by the Patripassian controversy, Proclus leading the section whose doctrine on that subject agreed with that of the church, and Aeschines the opposite section. This schism among the Montanists is mentioned also by Hippolytus {Ref. viii. 19). We can scarcely be wrong in identifying Proclus the Montanist with the Proculus whom TertuUian in his tract against the Valentinians (c. 5) calls " Proculus noster, virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas." He there refers to him as one who, like Justin Martyr, Miltiades, and Irenaeus, successfully confuted heresy. He is also named as a leader of the Montanists by Pacian {Ep.ad Sympron.), and no doubt it is his name which is disguised as Patroclus in the MSS. of Theodoret (Haer. Fab. iii. 2). [o.s.] Proclus (2), St., patriarch of Constantinople. The friend and disciple of Chrysostom, he became secretary to Atticus the patriarch, who ordained him deacon and priest. Sisin- nius, the successor of Atticus, consecrated him bp. of Cyzicus, but the people there refused to receive him, and he remained at Constanti- nople. On the death of Sisinnius, the famous Nestorius succeeded, and early in 429, on a festival of the Virgin, Proclus preached the celebrated sermon on the Incarnation inserted in the beginning of the Acts of the council of Ephesus. When Maximianus died on Thur. before Easter, 434, Proclus was, by the per- mission of Theodosius, immediately enthroned by the bishops at Constantinople. His first care was the funeral of his predecessor, and he then sent both to Cyril and John of Antioch the usual synodical letters announcing his appointment, both of whom approved of it. In 436 the bishops of Armenia consulted him upon certain doctrines prevalent in their country and attributed to Theodore of Mop- suestia, asking for their condemnation. Proclus replied (437) in the celebrated letter known as the Tome of Proclus, which he sent to the Eastern bishops asking them to sign it and to join in condemning the doctrines arraigned by the Armenians. They approved of the letters, but from admiration of Theodore PROCOPIUS OP CAESAREA hesitated to condemn the doctrines attributed to him. Proclus replied that while he desired the extracts subjoined to his Tome to be con- demned, he had not attributed them to Theodore or any individual, not desiring the condemnation of any person. A rescript from Theodosius procured by Proclus, declaring his wish that all should live in peace and that no imputation should be made against any one who died in communion with the church, appeased the storm. The whole affair shewed conspicuously the moderation and tact of Proclus. In 438 he transported to Constan- tinople from Comana, and interred with great honour in the church of the Apostles, the remains of his old master St. Chrysostom, and thereby reconciled to the church his adherents who had separated in consequence of his condemnation. In 439, at the request of a deputation from Caesarea in Cappadocia, he selected as their new bishop Thalassius, who was about to be appointed pretorian prefect of the East. In the time of Proclus the Trisagion came into use. The occasion is said to have been a time when violent earthquakes lasted for four months at Constantinople, so that the people were obliged to leave the city and en- camp in the fields. Proclus died most prob- ably in July 446. He appears to have been wise, moderate, and conciliatory, desirous, while strictly adhering to orthodoxy himself, to win over those who differed from him by persuasion rather than force. His works (Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixv. 651) consist of 20 sermons (some of doubtful authenticity), 5 more pub. by Card. Mai (Spic. Rom. iv. xliii. Ixxviii.), of which 3 are preserved only in a Syriac version, the Greek being lost ; 7 letters, along with several addressed to him by other persons ; and a few fragments of other letters and sermons. Socr. H. E. vii. xxvi., and passim ; Theophan. sub an. 430 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. 704; A A. SS. Act. x. 639. [f.d.] Procopius (8) GazaeUS, Christian sophist, temp. Justin and Justinian (518-565). Of his life we know only that he was the preceptor of Choricius the sophist. His fame rests on his Scripture commentaries. These, though diffuse, are but abridgements of the collections he had made (see his Prolog, to the commentary on Gen.); his profession of belief as to the nature of the Triune God, and the importance, authority, and interpretation of Scripture, is very satisfactory. His style is highly polished and concise. He must be distinguished from his contemporary sophist, Procopius (9) of Caesarea. His collected works are pub. by Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvii. in 3 parts, but his commentaries have also appeared separately. Of more doubtful authenticity and probably belonging to Procopius Caesarensis, though commonly attributed to P. Gazaeus is Pane- gyricus in Imp. Anastasium (Gk. and Lat.) in Corp. Script. Hist. Byz. (Bonnae, 1829), pp. 489 seq. and Migne u.s. pt. iii. ; Descriptio Basi- licae Sanctae Sophiae (Gk. and Lat.) Migne, ib. ; and Menodia tn S. Sophiam terraemotu coUapsum (Gk. and Lat.) in Migne, ib. pt. ii. (Cellier, Aut. Sacr. xi. 176 seq.; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 504 ; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. vi. 258 ; vii. 535 ; viii. 375 ; ix. 447 ; L. Eisenhofer, Procopius von Gaza, Freiburg i/Br. 1897.) [j.G.] Procopius (9) Ol Caesarea, Byzantine his- PROCOPIUS OP CAESAREA torian. Born at Cai-san a in r.ilrstinr, he went during tin- rii^n <>t Aiiasi.isius to (.on- stantini>plo, wlurc he taught riu-toric and pleaded in the courts. We meet him hrst c. ^27. when he was wnt by Justinian to accompany H.li^ariuv »'' secretary and privy councillor, in his ex|>edi- tions against the Persians. In 5^3 he was with him in .Africa, warrinjc a^^'Ust the Vandals, and. after their subjection, was left behind to reduce the coiu]uered into order. A mutiny of the soldiers drove him in ^\b to Sicily, which Belis;u-ius was then ennaKl-d in reducing, and he accompanied the l.ittrr into Italy in his campaign against the tioths. In 542 lYocopius returned to Constantinople, where he seems to have remained to the end of his life, devoting himself mainly to writing a history of the expeditions, in which he had borne no unimportant part. It is a question whether he was a Christian or a heathen. He speaks of the church of St. Sophia at Constantinople as the temple of the great Christ of Ciod {t6 if/>Af toi" tif)d\ov \piaToO Toi~ etoC, de Bell. Vandal, i. 6). He describes Jesus as the Son of Cod Who went about clothed with a human body, shewing that He was the Son of God both by His sinless life and His superhuman deeds [dt Bell. Pets. ii. 12). Christians are in his eyes those who have right opinions respecting dod (de Bell. Vandal, i. 21). The Virgin Mary is often mentioned under the name t*«oT6«ot (e.g. de .Aedif. v. 7). The Hellenic religion is alluded to as impiety (16. vi. 4). On the other hand, he often alludes alike to Christians and heretics as if he occupied a calm position superior to them both (de Bell. Pen. i. 18). The controversies of the church had done much to alienate him from doctrinal Christian- ity ; and, though he does speak at times as if he had embraced some of its distinct tenets, it is hardly possible to think that he had done so in the sense ^if regarding them as an express revelation of divine truth to man. His works consist of a history of the Persian war from 408 to 'S4') ; a history of the war with the Vandals in Africa from v>5 to 545 ; a history of the (iothic wars in Italy from 487 to 574 ; a work de Aedifuns Justiniani Imp. ; and a work entitled Anecdola or a secret history of Justinian, the empress Theodora, Belisarius, his wife .AntfUiina. and others of the court. This last, intended for |>ublication only after the author's death, is describ«'d by Cave in the strongest terms of reprobation, as written to shew the court of Justinian as no better than a diaholorum lerna, and as exhibit- ing such audacity, falsehood, calumny, and charges of unheard-of crimes, that It has been doubted whether Procopius really wrote it. (See SchriJckh, vol. xvi. p. 168, etc.) As to the- value of the three works first mentioned there can l>e no doubt. l*riK-opius had enjoved most favourable op{«)rtunitirs of acquainting himself with the events he describes. Gibbon draws largely on the "sober testimony of I*rocopius." and als4. describes him as " the gravest historian of the times " (c. xxxviii.). De Aedtfictis is throughout a tribute to the glory of Justinian. It is devoted to a de- scription of the great buildings, temple*, forts, frodicos MS castles, »iri.U:r-. m.riu .trr ir . 41. ,t •.tn,.iuir» of r\. all I) ' Tl.. with ....>..,,,.... , as the roiKtitioii . • the Abasgl. Ktii. Huns, I'rtsians. \ sarius, his rharj< '. notices ol towns, 1 1 countries over a » 1 : of the blsho|>s, and tt • ■ • « )■ i.i la jl •« c ui • rentes <if his time. rtc. Ihr li«~»t rtl t» that o| nindorfinthe (orpmi Strtf'l. Hnl. H\t.. «ilh th<' I .itiii trans, of Mallrilus. |w h.) Prooulus, Monlanisi. (pH(K-Lt«.| Proculus (7). bp. of Marsrillrs. allhrcoUDCtI of .Aquilna, A.l>. j8i. where he joined in roo- demning the errors «>f PalUdius and Se<-un- dinianiis (.\mbros. hp. vm. pp. •>!»• (7«'>). 915 (1*02). ()\t) (HoM. ed. .Migne). At t he- council of Turin, A.I). !•*'>. or nmrr prol>al>ly 401, though Flrurv pUrrs it as late as 404, I*roculus claimed the primacy as melr<>|><>litan over the churches not only of his own p»i>. vine*, but alscj of NatMtnensis Sttunda. The council, while rulinft that the bishop of tb« civil metropolis of a i-rovinre should be regarded as the metro|H>litan. saiirlionrd the claim of I'roculus for his own life, in considera- tion of his age and high rrpulalion (Hruiis. Cone. ii. 114 , Baron, vol. v. j<j7. 4) , Urucv, H. F. xxi. 52). His high charartrr i- .»rkn..w. ledged by St. Jerome in his lrtt<r ■ 1 • A.U. 411 (hp. I2i. 21,), l.Ul 1 seems to havr had a strong !• him, and in 417 decreed that P.i^ Aries from 412. was entitled to i politan. Whether our I'roculus . bp. of that name to whom St. An. in 427 is not quite clear. Tillein \.l x j p 698, 6<><) ; Ceillier, VII. pp. 328-537. (M.w.r.| ProdieUS, a Gnostic teacher of rn.t rrnt . concerning whom trustworthy 11 ■ very scanty. He is not nuiu principal writers iiii h«r«~sii-^, Ir> : iytus, Epiphaniiis, <>r Philast< twice mentions hiiii {.Sforpiaie 1 3), both times III coinpaiiv with \ such a way as to suggest thai h< two heretics as of the same sthi»-i lu li^ first passage PriMlirus and Valrntinus are s[H>ken of as iiarhing that i hiisi did not wish His disciples to ronfrss Him t<ul>lirl\ il thai Would expo-t- their lives to lUngrr , in Ihr second thrv are drscriUd j ir.lr .li.r.rr tn opposition to the ( real. 1 god like .Marrioii. but a 1 l)ur only other trust wrif l^rtMlicus Is in Ihr ■ Alexandria. Thr states that th<^w . Pr<KllCUs boaslrd of /<,r..astrr. A| ; PfiKlirus was ilrjil still in rxislrlirr. that his foll.iwrrs prayer. ( letuent .. of objection. Th' of the«ect i%(iA. Ill < who claim to Im- ' declare that they j. first giMl, and priviir,r,i , > i,..^ii 1. u 864 Prosper to live as they choose, being "lords of the sabbath," and " as king's children above the law " ; and living " as they chose " meant living very licentiously. For further information we have to come down to the 5th cent, to Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i. 6), who seems to have no knowledge of Prodicus except from Clement, whom he quotes, mixing up, however, some of the things which Clement says about other licen- tious Gnostic sects ; e.g. it seems an unauthor- ized combination of Theodoret's to connect Prodicus with Carpocrates, and we may reject as equally arbitrary Theodoret's assertion that he founded the sect of the Adamites, of which Theodoret would have read in Epiphanius (Haer. 52). [c.s,] Prosper (4), St., a native of Aquitaine, not certainly known to have been in holy orders ; probably born c. 403. About 426-429 he removed to Marseilles, where he lived as a monk until 440. Some time between 420 and 427 John Cassian put forth in his Collaiiones a doctrine concerning grace and free will con- trary to that taught by St. Augustine. This doctrine was taken up warmly by many monks at Marseilles, and both Prosper and Hilary (as to whom see further on), afraid lest a doctrine they believed erroneous should becorne prevalent among the monks, were thinking of writing to Augustine to request him to e.xplain some of his statements. In the meantime came out Augustine's Correp- tione et Gratia, by which Prosper hoped all doubts would be settled. But those who thought differently only became more obstin- ate in their opposition. Although Prosper had never seen Augustine, he had written to him by Leontius, a deacon, and received a reply, but neither letter nor reply has survived. He now wrote again to him in 428, as also did Hilary, and his reply to these letters is con- tained in the consecutive treatises de Prae- destinatione Sanctorum and de Dono Persever- antiae, written either in 428 or 429 (see Aug. Epp. 225, 326 ; and 0pp. vol. x. pp. 947-1034, ed. Migne). [Augustine.] Augustine died A.D. 430, and the opponents of his doctrine in Gaul professing willingness to abide by the decision of the Roman pontiff, Hilary and Prosper went to Rome and brought back a letter from Celestine I. to the Gallic bishops, Venerius of Marseilles, Marinus, Leontius of Frejus, Auxentius of Nice, Auxonius of Vi- viers, and Arcadius of Venice. In this he speaks of Hilary and Prosper as men " quorum circa Deum nostrum solicitudo laudanda est," and reproved, but without effect, the indis- cretion and ill-informed zeal of their opponents (Coelest. Ep. xxi. i, 2). To this letter are subjoined in some editions a series of so-called decisions of the apostolic see concerning grace and free will, which, however, cannot be regarded as authentic. When Leo I. returned from his mission into Gaul, a.d. 440, to be made pope, he persuaded Prosper to accom- pany him to Rome, and employed him as his secretary (notarius). Photius says that he confuted the Pelagians at Rome in the time of Leo, and a MS. of the monastery of Corbev adds, but without mention of authority, that he was sent by him on a similar errand into Campania to oppose Julian of Eclanum. PROSPER Gennadius says that he was the real author of the epistle of Leo against Eutyches concerning the incarnation of Christ. The chronicle of Marcellinus shews him alive in 463. Fulgen- tius (ad. Mon. i. c. 30) speaks of him as " eruditus et sanctus"; Photius (Biblioth. 54) as one who was truly a man of God, but with no other title than Y\p6(xw€ip6s ns.who confuted the Pelagians in the time of Leo. Gennadius, no friend to him, speaks of him (de Scr. Ecc. 84) as "sermone scholasticus et assertionibus nervosus " (Butler, Lives of Saints, June 25 ; Ceillier, vol. x. p. 278). The letter of Prosper to Augustine describes the view taken at Marseilles and elsewhere concerning predesti- nation. Those who adopted it, he says, believe that mankind has sinned in Adam, and that without God's grace there can be no salvation for any one. God offers salvation to all, so that they who attain faith and re- ceive baptism are in the way of being saved. But before the creation of the world God fore- knew who would believe and be saved, and predestined them to His kingdom, being called by grace and worthy of being chosen and of going out of life sound in faith. No man, therefore, need despair of salvation, but this selection on God's part makes human exertion needless either for recovery from sin or for progress in holiness. Thus a doctrine of fatal necessity is introduced. They also think that men can by their own merit, by praying, beseeching, knocking, attain that state of grace in which we are born anew unto Christ. Infants dying without baptism will be saved or not according as God foreknows what their conduct would have been if they had grown up. Christ died for the whole race of man- kind, but some miss this salvation because they are known beforehand to have no incli- nation to receive it. They also deny that the merits of saints proceed from divine grace, and that the number of the elect can be either increased or diminished, and they assert that the only way in which a man is called either to repentance or to progress in holiness is by the exercise of his own free will. They thus place obedience before grace, and the first step towards salvation in him who is to be saved, not in Him Who saves. Great difficulties arise, Prosper says, in his attempts to convince the holders of these opinions of their errors, from his own want of ability and from the great and acknowledged sanctity of their lives, a remark which he probably intends especially of Cassian ; and also from the elevation of some of them to the highest office in the church. He therefore begs Augustine to ex- plain (a) how Christian faith can escape division through these disputes ; (b) how free will can be independent of prevenient grace ; (c) whether God's foreknowledge is absolute and complete ; (d) whether foreknowledge depends in any way on human purpose, and whether there can be any good which does not proceed from God ; (e) how those who despair of their own election can escape carelessness of life. He asks him to explain all this in a way consistent with God's previous ordinance of vessels of honour and dishonour. One of these men, Hilary, bp. of Aries, is known to Augustine as an admirer of his doctrine and as wishing to compare his own view with his PROSPER by writiiijj to him. but whether he will d<> so or not Prosper does not know (Aur. Hf. Ji.M. The letter of I'rosper was acconip-inird or very soon followed by one on the same subject by Hilary, concerning whom three opini<uis have been held: (i) That he w.vs the bp. of Aries mentioned by Prosper ; H) that he was a lay monk of Gaul; (^) that he w.is ti.. Hilary who wrote to Augustine from Syr i A.D. 414. That he was a lav monk ap tolerably clear. Augustine replied in tl Prafd. and iU Don. Pcrsev., which are riall> consecutive volumes of one work. I .\bout the same time Prosper wrote ait I answer on the same subject to a friend n^uned I Ruffinus or Kutinus, about whom nothing is { known except that Prosper addresses him as I Sanctitas tua. perhaps implying a member of I a religious community. He wrote partly to ' vindicate himself from unfavourable reports as to his doctrine, p.artly to direct his attention j to the writings of .\ugustine and clear them j from the accusation of denying free will and I setting up .Manichean doctrine. The line of argument against Pelagian or semi-l'elagian , views is much the same as in the letter to 1 Augustine, but he also mentions the cases of | Cornelius and Lydia as instances of persons who had been led by God's grace into the way of eternal life, and as not by any means favouring the Pelagian theory. Why all men are not saved is a mystery of liod's, not explicable by human understanding, and of which we niay be thankful to be ignorant (Ep. ad Rufin. ; for a long account of which see Ceillier, vol. .x. 279-284). Prosper also wrote or compiled several works in prose and verse. I. Verse. — The longest is the poem de Ingratis, a term by which he describes those who teach erroneous doctrine about grace, viz. the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. It is explained clearly in v. 685 : " Vos soli Ingrati, quos urit gratia, cujus Omne opus arbilrio vullis consistcrc vcstro." It consists of 1002 lines with a short elegiac preface, and is divided into four parts. A theological treatise in verse ratherthan a poem, it describes accurately the history of the Pelagian doctrine, whose author it calls " colu- ber Britannus," and mentions the treatment his opinions met at Rome, in the Eastern church and in .\frica through the influence mainly of .Augustine, "the light of the age." The manner in which the Roman church is spoken of is worthy of notice, v. 40 : ". . . pestem subcuntcm prima reci<lit Sedes Roma Petri, quae pastoralLi homirU Facta caput mundo, quidquid non poasidcl amsi« Rellglonc leneU' Though without any claim to high rank as poetry, and exhibiting, though in a less degree than does Paulinus, the degenerate standard of its age in language and vfr-.itication, it treats its subject with well-,ustained vigour and generally with clearness, and now and then expresses theological truths, thougii perhaps with severity, yet with remarkiM- force and terseness. .Ampere condemn- he considers its violence, its hard, inelam and desponding tone, amounting s..iii. " to a pale reflection of bell." He also p.-ims PROSPER 80S out a %iinilarity in itt M>niin>ri>t {•• f<nir wo«kt of Pascal and thr Port-K .'1 h« contra\t* unlavourablv " of HosMIrt in lM^ f-1-.lV >>;t I'-. Httl. till. ,!<■ I ■ : riu. ,4ne kind. . ^t of ''■"-■ •■CV 4d- SI. ■,.• *4 f I rfm, u 111 s-uiif ! dJ. Ill ra.iu;.^. . ».>rkt, but is quoted by lirdr in hi« trraliw d4 AfU Mflrua as the work >( I'r -; -: Tii . It con- sists of i(» lines of .\ii . wcti by 08 elegiac lim-s, .1 : the Christian life .ind :. . .of considerable force ami 1..1 :,(ht and expression. It was 1 .^hI during the confusion and ! by the b.irbari.iii irv... . i,m there is no 1 r ol .-V<|uitaine w.i uie% the improbal': the poem is not liktlv t i be : II. Pkose.— (I) AVv/H.n w . ttmo ad CapiluU GaUxrum. A -i ; r ij heads of the objections of l\v •> illi< la.hopt to the doctrines of St. .\ugustinc on Predestin- ation, with answers to each. (2) Htif^iHtiomet ad Capitula Obieclionum I'lntfnharutium. A similar work in i»> chapters. The objection* express, in a manner harsh, rrvohiiu;. and unfair, the possible results .1 1 <■■<■ 'Mirjan doctrine carried to its t • (j) Kfiftimstonfi ad Eicftpta (• 'tne clergymen of Genoa had in vari- ous passages from the two lu-itiM . if St. .Augustine, dfl'rufdf^linalntnfSamtorum, and df Dono Fenneranliat, aiul t > tti. s.i I*ro*j>er addresses a courteous c\; tinit passages cited by them .1: own replies, gathered in some r 1 ^ 'td* of .Augustine, and in one c . i an egregious blunder made 1 tinK as his opinion words int.: • an opponent's objection. (4) 1 f/». John Cassian had writtni a b.«.k mtillrd Spiritual Conltrtncfi (i\ttlaliont\). 17 in number, in the 13th of which, eiitillrd ds Protectione Del, he condemned %evefrly .\ugustine's d'Ktrinc on prrd«-»tination. Thu is defended by ProsfH-r partly by arKunicnl* drawn from Scripture and the nature of the cise, and p.irtly by the authority of the church's "f R'.mr l\\r I- 1^1 .ind Africa He warns : • ■ .rh to the p. -»« the h , ">"' by th. ,... • ,, a» It had been b-. H'f b*wk must have : *'^n ihaui dates. ,M 1- ' '•• W. (omitt; •«n«l ..ft.i. ••""• St. Au. «»o« a mrr. ,. : . and judiciou% rci : fteal kill of the \ «t«n ,.lditi..i,, ..I ^bly ,1 f. ^jv ' ■**« i ui t..(jctber, probaL.;, ..(, - — *u\nX 866 PROTERIUS for his own use. They are very short, and are a sort of compendious index to the opinions of St. Augustine. Other works are assigned to Prosper, but on insufficient authority. (6a) The Chronicle, probably the best known of the works of Prosper, is attributed to him without hesitation by Cassiodorus, Gennadius of Marseilles, Victorius, and Isidore, though Pithou and Garnier doubted it. It extends from the earliest age to the capture of Rome by the Vandals, a.d. 455, and consists of three parts: (i) To a.d. 326, founded, as it states, on that of Eusebius, and though much abridged, treating the subject with some independence. (2) From 326 to 378, which uses similarly Jerome's continuation of Eusebius, with both additions and omissions. (3) From 378 to455. As might be expected, predominance is given to ecclesiastical events, especially such as concern the rise and fall of heretical doctrines. The Chronicle arose out of an endeavour to fix the date of Easter, for which purpose Prosper constructed a Paschal cycle now lost. (b) Chronicle of Tiro Prosper. Besides the Chronicle just described, another much shorter and relating to the latest period only, bearing the name of Prosper, was edited by Pierre Pithou in 1588 from MSS. in the library of the monastery of St. Victor at Paris It is difficult to believe that the two Chronicles could be by the same writer, or if they were, to understand why he published both, as must have been the case, about the same time. It is much more probable that Prosper of Aquitaine and Tiro Prosper, despite an apparently mistaken statement of Bede, were different persons. The best ed. of Prosper's collected works, by Desprez and Desessarts (Paris, 171 1), con- tains all the works rightly attributed to Prosper, together with others not belonging to him, and various pieces relating to the semi-Pelagian controversy. It is revised and reprinted in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. li. See L. Valentin, St. Prosper d' Aquitaine (Paris, 1900). [h.w.p.] ProteriUS, St., patriarch of Alexandria, was presbyter and church-steward under Dios- corus, and left in charge of the church when Dioscorus went to the council of Chalcedon. After Dioscorus was deposed by that council, the emperor Marcian ordered a new election to the see. The suffragan bishops, except 13 detained at Constantinople by a resolution of the council (Chalced. c. 30), were assembled in synod ; and the chief laymen of Alexandria came as usual to express their mind and assent to the prelate's choice (cf. Liberat. Breviar. c. 14, and Evagr. ii. 5). There was great difficulty in reaching a conclusion ; for the majority of the Alexandrian church people were profoundly aggrieved by the action of the council. In their eyes Dioscorus was still their rightful "pope," the representative of Cyril and of Athanasius. Ultimately, however, opposition to the imperial mandate was felt impracticable. It was resolved to elect, and then all favoured Proterius, who was con- secrated and enthroned (a.d. 452); but the passions of the Dioscorian and anti-Dioscorian parties broke out at once into tumultuous dissension, which Evagrius likens to the surging of the sea. Proterius sending Leo the usual announcement of his elevation, Leo asked some definite assurance of his orthol PROTERIUS doxy (Leo, Ep. 113, in Mar. 453), and received a letter which he regarded as " fully satis- factory," shewing Proterius to be a " sincere assertor of the Catholic dogma," inasmuch as he had cordially accepted the Tome (Epp. 127, 130). Thereupon (Mar. 454) he wrote again to Proterius, advising him to clear himself from all suspicion of Nestorianizing, by read- ing to his people certain passages from ap- proved Fathers, and then shewing that the Tome did but hand on their tradition and guard the truth from perversions on either side. Leo took care, in thus addressing the " successor of St. Mark," to dwell on that evangelist's relation to St. Peter as of a dis- ciple to a teacher ; and he bespeaks the support of the Alexandrian see in this resist- ance to the unprincipled ambition of Con- stantinople, which in the 28th canon, so called, of Chalcedon had injured the "dig- nity " of the other great bishoprics (Ep. 129). .\nother question prolonged the correspond- ence. The Nicene Fathers were believed to have commissioned the Alexandrian bishops to ascertain and signify the right time for each coming Easter. Leo had consulted Cyril as to the Easter of 444 ; and he now, in 454, applied to Proterius, through the emperor, for his opinion as to the Easter of 455, which the Alexandrian Paschal table appeared to him to place too late {Epp. 121, 127). Proterius replied to Leo at some length (Ep. 133, Apr. 454) that Egypt and the East would keep Apr. 24 as Easter Day, and expressed his belief that all Christians everywhere would " observe one faith, one baptism, and one most sacred paschal solemnity." Proterius had troubles with his own clergy. Not long after the council a priest named Timotheus and a deacon named Peter (nick- named Mongus) refused to communicate with him, because in his diptychs he ignored Dios- corus and commemorated the council of Chalcedon. He summoned them to return to duty ; they refused, and he pronounced in synod their deposition (Liberat. c. 15 ; Brevic. Hist. Eutych. or Gesta in causa Acacii, in Mansi, vii. 1062). Four or five bishops and a few monks appear to have actively supported them, and to have been included in their condemnation and in the imperial sentence of exile which followed (Ep. Aegypt. Episc. ad Leonew ^Mg. in Mansi, vii. 525). The monks in Egypt, as elsewhere, were generally attached to the Monophysite position, which they erroneously identified with the C>T:illine. They took for granted that the late council had been practically striking at Cyril through Dios- corus ; and that Christ's single personality was at stake. Thus, besides those monks who had overtly taken part with Timotheus and Peter, others apparently had suspended com- munion with the archbishop ; and Marcian had addressed them in gentle and persuasive terms, assuring them that the doctrine of " one Christ," symbolized by the term Theotokos, had been held sacrosanct at Chalcedon, and exhorting them therefore to join with the Catholic church of the orthodox, which was one (Mansi, vii. 481). But the schism, once begun, was not thus to be abated ; the zealous seceders raised a cry, which has practically never died out, that the Egyptian adherents PRDDENTIUS of the council of (."li.ilcriK'ii wcif .1 mere stjtc- made church, upheld hv the cnurt .iKani»t the couvictions of the faithful. To thu dav the poor remnant of orthodoxy in K^vpt In-ari a name which is a stigma. Melchitcs. or •' adher- ents of the kinjj." (Cf. Kenauilot, //m». I'aU. .-J/cr. p. id; Ncale. Htsl. Fair. AUt.\i. 7. Thev both add that the orthodox accepted the ternj.) Even after 1 >ioscorus died in exile Proternis wa* ignored and di-iclauned. and knew that he wa* the object of a hatred that wa'i bubn^ Us tune, and " during the greater part of his pontiti- cate." as Liberatus tells us. depended for safety on a military guard. .\i last, in Jan. 457, Marcian died, and the Monophysitc* thought they saw their opportunity. .Sonjc malcontent Egyptian bishops renewed their outcry against the councU (hulogius. m Phot. Bihl. 130. p. J83, ed. Bekk.) ; and Tnnotheus. returning to .\lexandria. began those mtrigues which won him his title of "the Cat." ITiMO- THKis .■Keluri.'S.) The "dux" Dionysius being absent in Upper Egypt. Timotheus found it the easier ti> gather a disorderly following and obtain irregular consecration. DionN-sius, returning, expelled Timotheus ; and the latter's partisans in revenge rushed to the house of Proterius, and after besetting him for some time in the adjacent church of (Juirinus, ran him through with a sword in its baptistery, and he died under many wounds with six of his clerics. His corpse was dragged by a cord across the central place called Tetrapylon, and then through nearly the whole city, with hideous cries, " Look at I^oterius ! " Beaten ! as if it could still suffer, torn limb from limb, and finally burnt, its ashes were " scattered to the winds." The day was Easter Day, 1 Mar. 31. 457. See also Evagr. ii. 8 ; LeQuien. ii. 412 ; .N'eale. Wis/. AU\. ii. iz. (w.b.) Prudentlus, Marcus (?) Aurelitu Clemens. the chief Christian [)oet of early times, born A.D. 34.S (Praef. 24, cf. Apolhfom. 449), some- , where in the N. of Spain, near the Pyrenees [ (Peristeph. vi. 146). His name, education, ; and career imply that he was of gwul family ; he was educated in rhetoric and law, and his poems shew an exact knowledge of the Latin classical poets, especially \'irgil, Ovid, Horace, and Juvenal ; he seems to have known little Greek and no Hebrew. He speaks of his early life as stained with much sinfulness, but must have been held in high respect, for after practis- ing as an advocate, he twice held an important civil office, and was at last raised to some high position at the emperor's court (cf. Kays<r. p. 254 n. ; Brockhaus. p. 16 n.; Fagurt, p. 17). Late in life he received some deeo religious impression, in consequence of whu li he gave up public life. Some cxpre^M his seem to imply that he joined a r^ society (Catk. ii. 45; iii. 56; cf. /'sv. 573), He has no longer any money t" the poor ; the only offering he can i; God is his poetry [Epil. 10). To thi prayer he devoted his life, seeking t" among the educated classe^i a correct ledge of Christianity, or, like a "( i Pindar," ti> sing the triumphs of the n. on their festal days and so win them gnai.i honour. At some peritxl of great anxieiv to himself he visited Kome; a» he pa*sed Iniola he poured out his soul in prayer before the picture PRUDBNTIUS M7 ofSt .• .- ' • . : .\t l< and ! Ivtti. .At K .:ur ;,.- W4. ineinoriaU of the and cluirrlir% n. on liie de.ii There he ( 1 the |>oem« ..! some of his <>» II hiH |H>ein« oil St. 1 lytus, request ing ; ol>wrvancr of ihr Spain (XI.). In i second IxHik conh . published an edit. , . , preface shewing that ail !.;. rxt.4i.t w.rffc*, except the />!(/»« Aj/on and (>erh4|r« the l'%r- i:hitm<Kk%a. were then written. Of hit Uler life and death nothing is known. His character, juilging from hU «rTil(nc«, was verv lov.iMr \{r vexf. a l^vil K^man proud ..f t!. >)Uests ailil par.ition f..; ing for great , , ; the cross (I'trnt. ii. i-n. 41 1-4^4, » t^tum , c. Symm. i. 4I5-^o5. ii. S7r-77l). He has * great fondness for art. wishing fo kerp even pagan statues if regarded only as <>mamrnl» (f. .Svmm. i. 50^). He had an intellectual horror of heresy, though with 4 j.r.iijl im dernt-ss for heretics (ifc. II / to all church customs aii<l a strong appreciation of his lofty conceptu>n ol tii<- .S-mur ,1 ...^t {Catk. IV. 7-1 ^ ; AMk. H4-QO ; H^tm. J7 »eq. ; c. Symm. i. 325 ; rrrttl. x. <iol. ol the Trur Temple (Catk. iv. ih-21 ; s...«.« o ^49; .-l^o/A. 516). the True W..: »4i|. the True Nobility of But True Kiches (16. ii. 203). the 1 ..1. vi. 20I-220), the True Kew ard i.. .symm. u 7^0). He shews a pious tenderness ol spirit (cl. Af>oth. yn). kissing tt.r sj. rr.l J kt (lb. 598) and the altar (/ a deep |>rrsonal humili' venture to contend with - which offers his verses to v ;.ii are but the "earthen vessel 1/ "rustic poet " (/VriW. 11. ^74. • has !« "I "■ " ■!' '■ ' ' :- - trail • on I ft<hl k» arr (<<l Ivrkral, Ihr 1 metir and phrase 1 y 868 PRUDENTIUS asus. The hexameter poems are much in- debted to Virgil, and in a less degree to Lucretius and Juvencus. All shew great fluency, relieved by dramatic vividness {e.g. Perist. V. ; c. Symm. ii. 654 sqq.), rhetorical vigour of description (e.g. Apoth. 450-503 ; c. Symm. i. 415), considerable power of satire (Apoth. 186-206 ; Ham. 246) and humour (Perist. ii. 169, 407, ix. 69, 82), and much epigrammatic terseness of expression ; but he dwells on unpleasant details in the accounts of martyrdoms (e.g. ib. x. 901) and of the coarsenesses of heathen mythology (Cath. vii. 115 sqq.). They are full of typical adapta- tions of Bible history (e.g. prefaces to Ham., Psych., and i. ii. Symm.). In this way, and in the substance of their arguments, they have a theological value, as shewing the tone of thought common at the time. Their lack of originality of thought makes them even more valuable for this purpose. (For the substance of the theology v. Brockhaus, c. vii.) But perhaps their historical value is the greatest. They give considerable information about heathen antiquities, e.g. the kinds of torture in use (Perist. i. 42), methods of writing (ib. ix. 23), the corn supplies of Rome (c. Symm. ii. 920), the gladiatorial shows (ib. i. 384, ii. 1909), the religious rites (ib. i. ii. passim; Perist. x.), and still more about Christian antiquities : the luxury and avarice of the times (Ham. 246 ; Apoth. 183, 210, 450), the position of deacons and archdeacons at Rome (Penst. ii. 37, v. 29), the times and details of fasting (Cath. iii. 57, vii. viii. 9), the use of anointing (ib. vi. 125, ix. 98; Apoth. 357, 493 ; Psych. 360), the sign of the cross (Cath. vi. 129, ix. 84 ; Apoth. 493 ; c. Symm. ii. 712), lights in churches, especially on Easter Eve (Cath. v.), funeral rites (ib. x. 49), and the veneration for the saints (Perist. passim, esp. i. 10-21, ii. 530 sqq., x. ad fin., xi. ad in. xii.). Especially do they illustrate the art of the time. We have mention of the Lateran church (c. Symm. i. 5S6), that of St. Laurence (Perist. xi. 216), of buildings over the tombs of SS. Peter and Paul (xii.) and of the catacombs (xi. 153) at Rome ; of a church at Merida (iii. 191), and a baptistery apparently at Calahorra (viii.); of a picture of the martyrdom of St. Cassian in the church at Imola (ix.), of St. Hippolytus in the cata- combs (xi. 123), and of St. Peter (xii. 38). The Dittochaeon consists of titles for pictures, and nearly all the symbols which he uses (the Dove, the Palm, the Good Shepherd, etc.), as well as the Bible scenes illustrating his poems, are found on gems or on the walls of the catacombs, so that he may have derived his use of them from thence (Brockhaus, c. ix.). From the first his poems were held in great honour ; they are quoted with high praise by Sidonius Apollinaris, Avitus, Leo, Isidore, Rabanus Maurus, Alcuin, etc. In the middle ages the Psychomachia and the Cathemerinon were special favourites, and the MSS. of them are very numerous. The best eds. of the poems are those of Areval, 1788 (reprinted in Migne, lix., Ix.) ; Chamillard (in the Delphin classics, with useful index), 1687 ; Obbar, 1845 ; Dressel, i860. The Apotheosis is separately printed in Hurter, Patrum Opuscula Selecta, xxxiii. Translations of selected poems PRUDENTIUS were made by F. St. J. Thackeray (1890) ; a study of the text by E. O. Winstedt in Class. Rev. 1903 ; a metrical study by E. B. Lease (Baltimore, 1895) ; and an excellent mono- graph by Brockiiaus, A Prudentius ins einer Be- deutung fiir die Kirche seiner Zeit (Leipz. 1872). We give a fuller account of each poem. A. Lyrical, (a) Cathemerinon (i.e. Ka0ri/j.e- pivuv vfxvwv), described in the Pref. 37, 38; a collection of hymns for the hours of the day and for church seasons. Though necessarily too long for public worship, extracts were made at least as early as 9th cent., and are found frequently in the Mozarabic Liturgy (cf. V. vi. vii. ix. x.), and a few in the Roman and Salisbury breviaries ; on Tues., Wed., Thurs. at Lauds (i. ii.). Compline at Christmas (ix.), Compline on Good Friday (vi.), Easter Eve (v.), Epiphany, the Holy Innocents, and the Transfiguration (xii.). (Daniel, i. 119, and Kayser, Gesch. d. Kirchenhymnen, 275-336.) (b) Peristephanon (i.e. irepl (TTecpdvuv, de Coronis Martyrum), described in Pref. 42 ; a collection of 14 lyrical poems, all (except viii. which is an inscription for a baptistery) in honour of martyrs. The choice of the martyrs is inspired by circumstances of the poet's life ; the details perhaps taken from existing Acta Martyrum. Half are connected with his own native church of Spain (i. ii. (?) iii.-vi. xiii.), the rest are saints whom he found specially honoured at Rome (ii. vii. x. (?) xi. xii.) or on his journey thither (ix.). B. Apologetic (referred to in Pref. 39). (a) Apotheosis = airod(waii, perhaps The Deifica- tion of Human Nature in Christ (cf. Pref. 8, 9, and 176, 177 ; c. Symtn. ii. 268). The writer deals with Patripassian, Sabellian, Ebionite, and Docetic errors on our Lord's Nature. (b) Hamartigenia = afxapnyeveia. A treat- ise on the origin of sin ; discussed in a polemi- cal argument against Marcion. The poem falls into two parts, (i) 1-639. God is not the creator of Evil. The existence of good and evil does not justify Marcion's theory of two Gods, for unity is essential to our conception of God. (2)640-931. God permits evil but does not sanction it. The whole object of the Incarnation was to save man from evil (640- 669). The cause of evil is man's free will, but this was needed to secure moral goodness and his power of ruling creation. The thought is mainly based on Tertullian, adv. Marcionem. The language shews reminiscences of Vergil, Persius (384), and Juvenal (763). Like the other poems, it is full of O.T. illustrations, mystically applied (Pref. 409, 564, 723). The full description of hell and paradise, and also the graphic portraiture of Satan, are especially noteworthy as the earliest in Christian litera- ture, and so probably of great influence upon later art and literature. Both Dante and Milton may indirectly be indebted to them. (c) Libri c. Symmachum (described in Pref. 40, 41). In 384 Symmachus had presented a petition to Valentinian II. for the restitution of the altar of Victory in the senate-house, which had been removed by Gratian, and also of the incomes of the vestal virgins. Through the influence of St. Ambrose (Epp. 17, 18) this had been refused. In 392 the altar was re- stored by Eugenius ; in 394 again removed by Theodosius. After his death the heathen PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS party. oiicour.»i;(-ii by the invasion of thr r.oths, which thfv attributed to thr npRlrct of hoathotiisin, againattiMuptrdto havritrc>torfil by Arcddius and Mouorius. IVudrntius wrote these books to counteract their influence. The date of bk. ii. is fixed, as after the battle of PoUentia in a. p. 40.1. and before the aboli- tion of the gladiatorial games, a.o. 404 (ii. 710. 1 1 14). Bk. i. deals Rencrally with the history and character of heathenism (cf. li. 1-3). Bk. ii. also has a preface, with a prayer to Christ to help the poet as He once helped St. Peter on the water. The poet then deals in detail with the arguments of Synimachus. Tile poeni is very interesting and of great historical value for the circumstances of the time and for the details of Roman mythology and religious rites. The prefaces consist of the typical use of Scripture, but there is no scope for it in the body of the books. They are full, however, of a sense of Rome's majesty, of vigorous description, and of high moral scorn. The language recalls Vergil (;)<isiim), Ovid, Juvenal, Horace, and Claudian (ii. 704). Plato is quoted in i. 30. The subject-matter is influenced in parts by Tertullian (i. 306) and Minucius Felix (i. 48). but mainly by St. Ambrose, whose arguments arc at times repro- duced almost verbally. C. AlUgorical.—Psychomachia = ♦I'xo/xax'a. De CompugnatUia Animi (Gennadius) (the Spiritual Combat). The Preface consists of a mvstical application of Gen. xiv. .■Ks Abraham with his 318 servants freed Lot, was blessed bv Melchizedek, then begat Isaac ; so the Christian, with the aid of Christ's cross {tiij, 3i8 = the cross (t) of 'Irjcovi), frees his soul, wins Christ's blessing, and brings forth good works. The poem opens with a prayer to Christ to shew how the soul is aided in its conflict (1-20), which is then described. D. The Dxttochaeon, imSxoiiov, (?) Utto^, 6xri- the double food, or double Testament, stands by itself, and can scarcely be called a poem. It comprises 49 sets of 4 verses on scenes from O. and N. T. They are dry and jejune, and chiefly interesting as apparentiv composed to describe a series of paintings. See Lanfranchi. Aur Prud. Clem. 0pp. ix<}i\ 1902, 2 V..K. (Turin). (w.L.l Pseudo-ChrysoStomUS. opus Impfrfectum in Malthaeum. — .\mong the works which have been ascribed to Chrysostom is a commentary on St. Matthew's Gospel. It is divided into 54 homilies ; but this division does not pro- ceed from the author, and (32, 132*) the work was one intended, not for oral delivery, but to be read by persons from whom the writer was absent. The work is defective, wanting from the middle of the 13th to the end of the 19th chapter, and breaking ofl at the end of the 25th. Hence its title, Opus Impfrfectum, in distinction to the genuine series of Chrv- sostom's 90 homilies on St. Matthew, which have been preserved complete. It is quoted as Chrvsnstom's by Nicolas I. {Ke^ponx. ad BulR. .Maiwi. XV. 403) and other pope*; and in the middle ages was accepted without doubt as his. In the Catena Aurea of Fhoma* Aquinas it is largelv employed ; and Fabriciu* quotes Dionysius the Carthusian as *aying • In the reference* the flr»t flRurc ilenotrt Ih* HomUy ; the second the Benetlicllne page. PSEUDO-CMRYSOSTOMUS H«0 - Ih« V • Urn •tout .-. 1 that he would r.«tti«T (lAvr perfect than Ik- lord of author, far from Iwnu* other .>rth..<|..x <|i\ :■ bittrr Ariaii M>i< ' fr>>m iiianv of its r- of successive traii some parts inav h.i with ficresv that • suffice. Somp carls • the genuinrne** of thr rtj iu»:.iir 1 ( nil. contending that the na%\aite« found In w>tn<- copies, where the rf rtnnr . f -tr I "fd** equality with the F.i- " iled. had been but sent ' the margin of .tn orthi iith mistake had crept iiii ii' i«^ (the heretical passages can br rul "iit without iiijurv to the context, but thrtp rrinain manv passages <if ui>>lio ut. .1 .-. n nn. i.rss m which the author ir ' i» position, and reveals t of 4 unall persecuted ^< , • ! thr domin- ant church as li-r- ti. ,.1. ml w.s in turn de- nounced as heretical by thr »tate and as tuch visited with temporal penalti'-- uul *••• markt the reign of Throdosius . Alien ortho<loxy was overwhrlii '•hat 1 he calls the heresy of the H >me triumphant (4S. 100 ; 4'j . •^lear that the author was not ' the Catholic church, it is ww '■ ubt the genuineness of the j r- he exhibits his .\rianisni, e.g. w!i<i. !;«■ < xplaint that our I.ord called hrrelics •spinas et tribulos," because, foresenng that heresy I would prevail above all others. He called them I "tribulos, quasi trinitatis professotrs et trian- gulam bajulantes iinpietatrm " NVe must therefore regard the exp'ii . pa»- ' sages as probably due to t! ! was not only the Arian \ expurgated, h-e- where in- "..;•, .'•*•»» (19. 93) of " offering the sacrince o| bread and , wine," he is made to sav " the samlicr of Christ's body and bl«H.d " ; and a passage i» cut out altogether where he argues that It it be dangerous to transfer to private usrs the consecrated vessels "which contain not the Lord's real bod v. but the mvsterv of H|« body " how much m<ire to profane tfie vrsseU of our own bodv which (itnl has prepared lor His dwelling-place. When the controversial passage* had been expurgated, there was nothinx to excite «irtho. dox suspicions in our writers language about our Lords divinitv. Thr Anaiis v»ere not rnitarians. their <l.«-lrin.s. .t. the contrary, being open to the r) .-. cordinglv our writ- concerning our I ■ : great God and Su% minus, whose d'Ktrinr i ance with that of the formula is " l>«-us grsut Sometime* it is 7«r»>t*«At). Hml is eager to arjr'ie »' things wrr> neither »>e 1 ' to Hun. he I doctrine th.a ..- - - ■ hcre«y ol the MoinoouM*i»» l» uwl Ui**«e i«H*»' It vere , ,,f lM''...in Ac. .iia«e our Mail. rocd- III* 870 PSEUDO CHRYSOSTOMUS bated than that of Photinus, who, in his recoil from Arian ditheism, completely separated the Saviour's manhood from the one supreme Divinity. The Third Person of the Trinity is comparatively seldom mentioned, but on this head the writer's doctrine is even more dis- tinctly heretical. The Holy Spirit is evidently regarded as a third Being, as much inferior to the Son as the Son is to the Father (34, 146). This is the representation also of the Ascension of Isaiah, a work quoted in the present treatise. Naturally a better side of Arianism is ex- hibited in this work than elsewhere, in the main not controversial but exegetical and practical, written when all court favour had long been lost, and when the sect met from the state with nothing but persecution. How much there was to recommend the book to a religious mind is evident from the fact that it passed so long as Chrysostom's. The work itself makes no claim to such authorship ; the writer is evidently addressing persons who knew him, and to whom he had no motive for trying to pass himself off as other than he was. He had also written commentaries on St. Mark (49, 211) and St. Luke (i, 23 ; 9, 56). Fragments of ancient Arian homilies on St. Luke have been published by Mai (Bib. Nov. Vet. Pat. iii.), but they have no resemblance to this work Many favourable extracts from this commentary could be given to justify the estimation in which it was so long held ; e.g. the whole comment on the text " Seek and ye shall find " (Horn. 17). But possibly the book was commended to medieval readers less by its merits than by what most modern readers would count its faults, for, utterly unlike Chrysostom, this writer constantly follows the mystical and allegorical method commonly connected with Alexandria. In this style he shews remarkable ingenuity. E.s;. the name Bathsheba, or, as he reads it, Bersabee, he finds in Hebrew denotes "seven wells." He deduces from Prov. v. 15 that " well " denotes " a wife." Bathsheba was the seventh wife the literal David ; but we learn spiritually that Christ is the spouse of seven churches, for so the one church is designated on account of the seven Spirits by which it is sustained, and accordingly both Paul and John wrote to seven churches. This last remark may sug- gest the writer's acquaintance with the work of which the Muratorian Fragment is a part. The writer shews a strong preference for the ascetic life. He remarks (24, 135) that when the disciples said " U the case of the man be so with his wife it is not good to marry," our Lord did not contradict them or say it was good to marry. He holds (1,24), thatconjugal union is bad and in itself a sin ; and although on account of God's permission it ceases to be sin, yet it is not righteousness. In the beginning of the world men married sisters — a sin excusable at the time on account of the fewness of men. Afterwards this was for- bidden, but a man was allowed to have more wives than one ; then, as population increased, this too was forbidden, but a man was allowed to have one wife ; " now that the world has grown old we know what is well-pleasing in God's sight, though on account of incontinent men we dare not say it." Some hard language concerning women will be found (24, 135). PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS Yet to those who will not take his counsel he gives advice concerning the choosing and ruling of a wife. He regards the apostle's permission of a second marriage as but licence given on account of the hardness of men's hearts, a second marriage in itself being but " honesta fornicatio." This is quoted as Chrysostom's in the Decretum of Gratian (par. 2, caus. 31, quaest. i, 9). The writer owns there was more continence in the dominant church than in his own sect, but is not any more disposed therefore to condone that church's heresy. A heretical sect is no more a church than an ape is a man. If you see a man who does not worship God in truth doing what seem to you good works, do not believe your eyes and say he is a man of good life, but believe God, Who says " An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit." If you call him good you make Christ a liar ; you only see the outside, God sees the heart. The works of a man who does not care to believe rightly can spring from no good motive, for it is better to believe rightly than to act rightly. Faith without works is dead, but still it is some- thing ; works without faith are nothing at all. The foolish virgins had the lamps of right faith, but not the oil of good works to burn in them ; but what avails the oil of good works to Jews or heretics who have no lamps wherein to light it ? He will not even own the baptism of heretics as valid. It has been questioned whether the original language of this commentary were Greek or Latin, but it appears to us that it was certainly Latin. A translator may conceivably, in- deed, have modified the language "Jesse latino sermonerefrigerium appellatur " (p. 16), or "in graeco non dicit ' beati pauperes " sed ' beati egeni ' vel ' beati mendici ' " (9, 56). But there are other passages where the argu- ment turns on the use of Latin, e.g. (53, 223) money passing from hand to hand — " usu ipso multiplicatur, unde dicitur usura ab usu," or (7, 53) where an explanation is suggested why, at the call of the apostles, Peter and his brother are described as " mittentes retia," John and his brother "retia componentes," " quia Petrus praedicavit evangelium et non composuit, sed Marcus ab eo praedicata com- posuit ; Joannes autem et praedicavit evan- gelium et ipse composuit." The commenta- tor, however, clearly uses Greek authorities. From such he must have derived his explan- ation (49, 205) why the commandments are ten — "secundum mysterium nominis Jesu Christi quod est in litera iota, id est perfec- tionis indicio " (see also i, 23). He knew no Hebrew, though he lays great stress on the interpretation of Hebrew names, making use for this purpose of a glossary which we cannot identify with that used by any other writer. It must have been from the work of some Oriental writer that he came by the name of Varisuas as that of a heretic (48, 199)- for Barjesus seems plainly intended. He does not use Jerome's Vulgate, but a previous translation. Thus (Matt. v. 22) he has " sine causa," which Jerome omits, and he anti- cipates bp. Butler in his observations as to the uses of anger — "Justa ira mater est discip- linae, ergo non solum peccant qui cum causa irascuntur sed e contra nisi irati fuerint PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOMUS peccant." In the Lord's I'ravrr he has " quotidianuni." not " siiprrsiihstantialrm." He has the doxolo^'v at the end ; in this difler- ing from the usage of Latin versions hut agreeing with the At>ostolu Consliluttons (iii. 1 8), a work he highly valued. In the beati- tudes he follows the received text in placing " Blessed are they that mourn " before " Blessed are the meek," contrary to Jerome and the bulk of the Latin versions. Both here, however, and in the case of the doxoioev, he agrees with the Codex Brixianus. Me reads " neque tilius " (Matt. xxiv. 36); he distinctly omits Luke xvii. 36 (so. 21^). Besides the Scriptures he uses the Shfphfrd of Hermas (33, 142). but acknowledges that it was not universally received ; the Clem- entine Recognitions (20. 04 ; 50, 212 ; 51, 214). the Af>ostolic Conslttuhons or Canons as he calls them (13, 74 ; 53, 221). The first of these passages does not appear in our present text of the Conslilulions ; the second is from bk. viii., which Krabbe gives good reason for thinking an Axian addition to the previously known work. In the latter half of the 4th cent, the Arians appear to have made active use of literary forgery. In their interests was made the longer edition of the Ignatian ep- istles, which Zahn has conjecturally attributed to .\cacius of Caesarea. Interpolations of Arian tendency were also made in the Clem- entine Recognitions. Our wTiter used Jo- sephus. He had also, besides the Ascenston of Isaiah, another O.T. apocryphal book (not the book of Jubilees) from which he learned the names of Cain and .Abel's sisters, fuller details about the sacrifice of Isaac, was enabled to clear Judah from the guilt of incest in his union with Tamar, etc. He had further N.T. .Apocrypha, which, though not absolutely authoritative, might, in his opinion, be read with pleasure. These related in full detail the story of the Magi, compendiously told by St. Matthew, telling how they had learned to expect the appearance of the star from a book preserved in their nation, called the book of Seth, and had in consequence for generations kept a systematic look-out for this star. Probably the same book told him that Joseph was not present when the angel appeared to Mary, and related how our Lord conferred His own baptism on John the Baptist. Directly or indirectly the writer was much indebted to Origen, and there may be traces of acmiaint- ance with two or three other anti-Sicene fathers. His fanciful interpretations of Scrip- ture, though including some few of what may be called patristical commonplaces, seem to be mostly original. With reference, however, to the question of authorship, it is important to determine whether his coincidences with St. Augustine are purely accidental. He is certainly no follower of Augustine. He has little in common with that fathers comments on the same passages of St. Matthew, and differs in various details, ^./j. (49, 205 ) he follows Origen's division of the Commandm»-nts, making " Honour thy father and mother " the fifth, and (p. 21R) counting it as belonging to the first table ; yet he appears to have Ixrn acquainted with Augustine's Enarraitonts on the Psalms, as he has scarcely a quotation from the Psalms which docs not shew some PUBLIUS h71 resrmbUnrr to .\uK'mtin<>'« rommrnl on Iht same passage ; e.g. (4. 4,) In \\ viil. 4. " The heavens, thr work of Thv fuu'«^i " mr«n the Holv Srrn<turr\ . (^ - ■■ 1, n_ the rrn».«rk " f'oit.itur n.n propter hoiiornn potrvtaii with .\ugustinr's " I It. , , ad infinnitatrin doi: honoriftrentium." 1 similaritv (7, Si) J ■ • "mittentes retia" and Aiuu.t: non rum rb«l t n« tnark* on th.it subject in Ps. Ixiv. 4. The intrrpre- tation that the " mountains " t ■•« ' \> '•. ( hrl»- j tians are to flrr ,ire the 11 may have been suggr^trd bv An tjv. 2 ; sec also the srrmon (4- <i%." Our author lavs rlaini I iHV. Hesavs(52,2i8) that the ti- rd's ascension had been nearl\ life of an antediluvian palii.i:>.. . liiiirly Mill (Praet. N.T.) fixes his <I.iir a.l. -i'-i. In favour of the late date thrrr is thr us«- of lh« medieval word " bladuin " for mrn, thouxh we do not know the exact date when such words crrpt into popular langiiagr. But a very strong argument for an earlirr date It that the author's studies appear all to have , lain in Christian literature earlier than the middle of the sth cent. ; and that hr appears to know nothing of anv of the controvrrsies tn the Christian church after that datr. Maklnic all allowance for tho narrowing influrnrr of 4 small sect, we find it hard to tx-lieve that the type of Arianism which existed at the time specified could have been prcscoed in such complete purity two or three centuries later. I Our author does not appear to have lived in j an Arian kingdom outside the limits of the j Roman empire. He draws illustrations (jo, I 130) from the relative powers of the offices I praefectus, vicarius, consul ; from the fact that a " solidus " which has not the " rhar- 1 agma Caesaris " is to be rejected as bad 1(38, 160). When he wrote, heathenism was i not extinct, as appears from the encl of Hoin. 13 and from what he says (10, lO as to ! the effect on the heathen of the g<Mxl ■»r bad '■ conversation of Christians. All things con- sidered, we are not disposed to date the work [later than the middle of the sth cent., which \ would allow it time to grow into such renute in an expurgated form as to pass for Chtf i sostom's with Nicolas I. If so cjrlv a date can be assigned to it. we have at onrr a claim- ant for its authorship in the Anm bp Mail- minus, who hrld a r ' ■' '■ *:«:u«- tine. The Opus Im i by an Arian bishop at 1 i>le, as Maxiniinus then ■.•. . ' the two writers is idriitiul. -i ml* of agreement in what .M.i' •» to thi! temporal penalties to w ' »»oo of his opinions was liable, anl i ! !' -^ duty, notwithstanding, of confrsMiii; the truth !>•• foremen. MaxiniimiN "hilr n, \friri rr.qld hardiv help makin^t »Uh the writings of St. A • ery conceivably adopt ! dar passages, though "n tur wn ir n.iijlitly regarding his authority. (« »l FuMluS (B). ■» solitary, commemorated by [ Thc«xl.iret In his Reltctoi* Hulorui, c v.. b«jfO I at Zeugma, on the Mellespoal, o| a family of 872 PULCHERIA senatorial rank. His person and mental endowments were equally remarkable. On his father's death he sold all he inherited from him, and distributing it to those in need, built for himself a small hut on high ground about 7 miles from his native town, where he passed the remainder of his days. He devoted his whole time to psalmody, reading the Scriptures, and prayer, together with the labour necessary for his maintenance and the entertainment of strangers, and latterly for the government of his brotherhood. His reputation for sanctity attracted many, whom he lodged in small huts near his own. He exercised a very strict oversight, imposing on them a very severe rule of abstinence and nightly prayer. After a while, on the advice of one of these fellow-ascetics, he erected a common house, or coenobium, that they might derive profit from their companions' virtues, and all be more immediately under his eye. At first all his fellow-coenobites were Greeks ; but the native Syrians having expressed a desire to join the society, he built another house for them, and between the two erected a church common to both, where each might attend matins and evensong, singing alter- nately in their own language. This double coenobite establishment remained to Theo- doret's time, who gives a record of its succes- sive provosts. [e.v.] Pulcheria (2), Sept. lo, daughter of the emperor Arcadius and sister and guardian of Theodosius II. She practically ruled the eastern empire for many years. For her secular history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. She was only two years older than her brother, whose education she superintended, having been born Jan. 19, 399. She was declared Augusta and empress July 4, 414, and at once entrusted with the management of affairs. She was learned and vigorous, could speak and write Latin and Greek, personally investigated the affairs of state, directed much attention to religion, and brought up her brother in the strictest orthodoxy (Soz. H. E. iv. i). She was a correspondent of St. Cyril during the Nestorian controversy, and two letters are still extant from him written in 430, requesting her assistance (see Mansi, iv. 618-883). In 450 she had a long correspondence with pope Leo and his archdeacon Hilarius on the subject of Eutyches and the Monophysite heresy. We possess also an epistle of hers addressed to the Palestinian monks and another to one Bessa, abbess of a convent at Jerusalem, both in defence of thecouncilof Chalcedon. Bishops and clergy from every part of the empire appealed to her and on every subject. Theo- doret {Ep. 43) wrote in 445 about the taxation of his episcopal city of Cyrrhus ; the clergy of Ephesus, in 448, concerning the episcopate of Bassianus. She had in early life taken a vow of virginity in conjunction with her sisters Arcadia and Marina. In 450 she was obliged to assume the government of the empire, and feeling herself incompetent for the task married Marcian, an eminent general. She reigned till her death, Feb. 18, 453. She convoked and assisted at the fourth general council of Chalcedon. Her devotion to the culture of relics was very great. She trans- ported to Constantinople those of St. Chrysos- QUADRATUS torn with great pomp in 438, and of the 40 mar- tyrs of Sebaste in 446 (Soz. H. E. ix. 2 ). Ceillier (viii. 471, 533, X. 20, 67, 213-226) gives fully her religious history. Hefele'sCoMncj7s(Clark's trans, t. iii.) gives details of her action against Nestorius and Eutyches. [g.t.s.] Purpurius, bp. of Limata, or Liniata, some place in Numidia, a truculent ruffian, men- tioned both by Optatus and Augustine as a sample of the leaders of the Donatists (Mor- celli, Afr. Chr. i 205). For some cause un- known he murdered his own nephews in the prison of Mileum, and when taxed with the crime threatened the same to any who stood in his way (Opt. i. 13 ; Aug. Brevic. Coll. iii. 15, 27 ; c. Gaud. i. 16, 17 ; c. Cresc. iii. 27, 30). This had taken place before the council of Cirta, A.D. 305. Purpurius was also dishonest, for of the money distributed by Lucilla in bribes (a.d. 311) his share amounted to 100 folks. At some time, perhaps soon after 313, when Christian worship was made legal and heathenism became unpopular, advantage appears to have been taken by some of the "baser sort" of Christians to plunder the heathen temples, and Purpurius carried off some cups from the temple of Serapis, prob- ably of Carthage. This theft was brought to light at the inquiry held by Zenophilus, a.d. 320. But the result of the inquiry is unknown, as the MS. is imperfect {Man. Vet. Don. iv. pp. 172, 173, ed. Oberthiir). [h.w.p.] Q QuadratUS (3), the author of an apology for the Christians, presented to the emperor Hadrian {regn. 117-138). Eusebius {H. E. iv. 3) says the work was still in circulation in his time and that he himself was acquainted with it. He quotes one sentence which proves, as he observes, the great antiquity of the work. QuadratUS remarks that the Saviour's mir- acles were no transient wonders, but had abiding effects. Those who had been cured or raised from the dead did not disappear, but remained for a considerable time after the Saviour's departure, some even to the times of QuadratUS himself. Accordingly Quad- ratUS is called a disciple of the apostles by Eusebius in his Chronicle, under the 8th year of Hadrian according to the Armenian, the loth according to the Latin. St. Jerome twice (de Vir. III. 19 ; Ep. 70, ad Magnum) identifies the apologist with QuadratUS, bp. of Athens, and states that the apology was presented when Hadrian visited Athens and was initiated in the Eleusinian mysteries. On chronological grounds we must reject this identification. For it is improbable that any one contemporary with subjects of our Lord's miracles should survive to 170. We may doubt also whether the apologist resided at Athens. A writer against the Montanists (ap. Eus. H. E. v. 17) contrasts the behaviour of the Montanist prophetesses with that of those recognized in the church as prophets, e.g. the daughters of Philip, Ammia, and QuadratUS. Eusebius evidently under- stood the reference to be a Quadratus of whom he speaks (H. E. iii. 37) under the reign of Trajan, and who is apparently the apologist. rabbClas But since the author whom I (iNrbiu* qu. !■ HTote in Asia Minor, it w.is i<r..t..»t>lv th. that Quadratus rnjovrd tin- r<j<utati<<ii .t prophet, as did the daughters ..J Philip i.. Hierapolis. and Anunia in Philadelphia. His Apolofv seems t<> have survivttl until 6th cent., for several passages were quotr<l in controversv between the monk Andrew ai EisEBiis (86) (F'hot. Cod. ifi2). t (. /al. Forschuni:fn (looti), vi. 41; Harnark. (.rj. (iff Alt.-Chr. Lit. 1. <)5 ; ii. i, 3t^-27l. [r.-s.] Rabbulas, bp. of Kdessa, 4I2-435- Chief authoritu<: ( i ) a panenvric in SNTiae. compilr ' soon after his death bv a coiUeniporarv cirri himself a native of Hdtssa. extant in a MS. 6th cent., of which Mickell has furiusli. ,1 German trans, in Thalhofers .-lii . Schriftcn der KtrchenvdUr (vol. x. pp (2) the later and less trustworthy bi . of Alexander, the founder of the .Acomitt.it , According to the panegyrist, Rabbulas was bom in Kenneschrin, known by the (ireeks as Chalcis in Osrhoene, of rich and noble paren- tage. His father was a heathen priest, his mother a Christian. He received a liberal education, and was well versed in pagan literature. From his father he inherited a considerable fortune, and was chosen prefect of his native city. He was still a heathen and for a long time resisted his mother's entreaties to become a Christian. He took, however, a Christian wife. Various instru- mentalities contributed to his conversion. The paneg>Tist attributes it to his intercourse with Husebius of Chalcis and Acacius of Beroea. and to two remarkable miracles wit- nessed by him. The biographer of Alexander ascribes it to Alexander's influence and teach- ing. Both accounts probably are substan- tially true. On his conversion he went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem and was baptized in the Jordan, having previously renounced his property and manumitted his slaves. His wife, daughters, and all the females of his household embraced the religious life, and Rabbulas retired to the monastery of St. Abraham at Chalcis. The see of Kdessa being vacant in 412 by the death of Diogenes Rabbulas was appointed by a synod mettiiig at Antioch. Kdessa was famous for its intellectual activity. Rabbulas liecanie thr leading prelate of the Oriental church, r< garded, according to the exaggerated langua*.. of the biographer of .Mexandt-r. as " tt,. common master of Syria, .Ariv • • ■ i-r nay of the whole world." I . describes him as having stcadi: doctrines of Nestorius from t The church of Kdessa, with the I..1 .t K' followed the teaching of Diodorr of T.n Theodore of Mopsuestia, in which th trines were virtually contained, and : presbyter of his church, who woul personal knowledge, sayv th.it H.ibJ • no exception. Uy degr- ■ las veered round, and < : compromising o[)ponent ing, using his utmost • ;. . ..■•■^ about the suppression of his work*. li»A».j RABBULAS 1*71 Irrt.., ;hb „ ,.. ■ j fiery «eal (or ■ I anathematixe An I at Kdrsta ; an«l I Rabbulas, whn prrarhrd in Ih"- i to the Cl.: 1/. col. 70^) .ties of th.- n''. 725). in ' of Cyril's • vacillation visit to Co: council. 4 : N'estorins' Maxi- the • his.'. no ( .1 . ; claiiiud t" Theodore revered thi Nestorianisin and .n.' was to repudiate the tl had been taught to n guides. Rabbulas saw must be attacked at his Diodore and The<«l"r«' the strong will an 1 We have a lett. (Labbe, v. 46<<). •: author of the 1 denied that Marv Cyril, in his repl preserved ( 1'' ' I in ex|>elliiu indicated I from men I Cilifiaii," ! crr<l«<l. I so f ,1 ,1 t" ' tbe C)ntUi«tt ttiu le*tl lUwUuc* 874 RADEGUNDIS books, which he was everywhere committing to the flames. A synod summoned at Antioch by the patriarch John despatched letters to the bishops of Osrhoene desiring them, if the reports were true, to suspend communion with Rabbulas (Baluz. xliv. col. 749). Meanwhile Rabbulas was corresponding with Cyril on the terms of reconciliation between himself and the East ; and the two prelates were agreed that nothing short of complete submission on the part of the Orientals and the withdrawal of the condemnation of Cyril's anathemas would satisfy them. A letter of Cyril to Rabbulas {ib. cviii. col. 812) in 432 expresses the impossibility of his repudiating all he had written on the subject. The reconciliation was effected in the spring of 433. Andrew of Samosata, becoming convinced of Rabbulas's orthodoxy by perusing his manifesto, at once left his diocese for Edessa to make reparation to his antagonist. Alexander's anger having been aroused, Andrew wrote to the oeconomi of Hierapolis to justify himself. He had not yet seen Rabbulas, but he accepted communion with him and Cyril, and embraced the peace of the church (ib. ci. cvi. coll. 807-810). Rabbulas, also, with Acacius of Melitene, wrote to warn the Armenian bishops of the Nestorian heresy in the writings of Diodore and Theodore. In their perplexity they sum- moned a synod, and dispatched two presby- ters to Proclus (who in Apr. 434 had succeeded Maximian as patriarch of Constantinople), entreating him to indicate which was the orthodox teaching. Proclus replied in his celebrated " Tome " on the Incarnation, wherein he condemned Theodore's opinions without naming him, a precaution counter- acted by the ofiiciousness of the bearers of the document (Liberat. Breviar. c. 10, ap. Labbe, V. 752 ; Garnerii Praef. in Mar. Merc. p. lii. ed. Par. 1673). The fiery Rabbulas did not long survive this letter. His death is placed Aug. 7, 435, after an episcopate of 23 years. Nearly all his few surviving works were printed by Overbeck in the original Svriac text, in his ed. of Ephrem Syrus (Oxf. 1865), pp. 210-248, 362-378. They include the scanty remains of the 640 letters which, according to his biographer, he wrote to the emperor, bishops, prefects, and monks. See also 'BickeWs Ausgewahlte Schriflen, pp. 153- 271. [E.V.] Radegundis, St., born in 519, queen of Clotaire 1. and founder of the nunnery of Sainte-Croix, at Poictiers. Her father was a Thuringian prince named Bertharius. Her austerities were so incessant that it was com- monly said the king had wedded a nun (Venant. Fort. Acta S. Rad. c. i.). Abhorring the married state from the first, she seems to have finally decided to escape from it upon her husband's treacherous murder of her brother. Withdrawing to Noyon on the pretext of some religious observance, her urgency overcame the hesitation of bp. Medardus to make her a deaconess. She then escaped from her hus- band's territory to the sanctuary of St. Martin of Tours, and thence to St. Hilary's at Poictiers. Here she founded her monastery within a mile or two of the city ; finally, with the consent of Clotaire, clerks were sent to the East for wood of the true cross to sanctify it, and the RECCARED rule of SS. Caesarius and Caesaria of Aries was adopted. Here the rest of her life was spent, first as abbess, then as simple nun under the rule of another. We have full information about the beginnings of this institution from the two Lives of Radegund, one by Venantius Fortunatus, her intimate friend (Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 651), the other by one of her nuns called Baudonivia (ib. 663) ; and also from the fact that in Gregory's time, after Radegund's death, the attention of all France was drawn to the spot by the scandalous outbreak of a body of the nuns, headed by Chrodieldis, a natiu-al daughter of king Charibert I. After a residence of about 37 years she died Aug. 13, 587, and was buried by Gregory of Tours (de Glor. Conf. c. cvi.). [s.a.b.] Reooared (the uniform spelling in coins and inscriptions), younger son of Leovigild by his first marriage. For his parentage and life till the death of his father see Leovigild and Hermenigild. Between Apr. 12 and May 8, 586 (Hiibner, Insc. Hisp. n. 155 ; Tejada y Ramiro, ii. 217), he succeeded his father without opposition, having been already associated with him in the kingdom. He first allied himself to his stepmother Gois- vintha, the mother of Brunichild and grand- mother of Childebert II. By her advice he sent ambassadors to Childebert and to his uncle GuNTRAMNt's (2), the Frankish king of Burgundy, proposing peace and a defensive alliance. The former alone were received. Then followed the great event of Reccared's reign, his conversion from Arianism to Catho- licism. We can only conjecture whether, as Dahn supposes, his motives were mainly politi- cal, or whetherheyieldedto theinfluenceof the Catholic leaders such as Leander or Masona. In Jan. 587 he declared himself aCatholic, and, convening a synod of the Arian bishops, in- duced them and the mass of the Gothic and Suevic nations to follow his example. Some Arians did not submit quietly, and 587-589 saw several dangerous risings, headed by coali- tions of Arian bishops and ambitious nobles. Perhaps, from the geographical situation, the most formidable was that of Septimania, headed by bp. Athaloc, who, from his ability, was considered a second Arius. Amongst the secular leaders of the insurrection the counts Granista and Wildigern are named. They appealed for aid to Guntram, whose desire for Septimania was stronger than his detestation of Arianism, and the dux Desiderius was sent with a Frankish army. Reccared's army defeated the insurgents and their allies with great slaughter, Desiderius himself being slain (Paul. Em. 19; J. Bid.; Greg. T. ix. 15). The next conspiracy broke out in the West, headed by Sunna, the Arian bp. of Merida, and count Seggo. Claudius, the dux Lusitaniae, put down the rising, Sunna being banished to Mauritania and Seggo to Galicia. In the latter part of 588 a third conspiracy was headed by the Arian bp. Uldila and the queen dowager Goisvintha, but they were detected, and the former banished. Reccared, after his conversion, had again sent to Guntram and Childebert in 587. The implacable Guntram refused his embassy, asking how could he believe those by whose machinations his niece Ingunthis had been RECCARED Imprisoned ami banished and hrr husbaml slain ? ChildfbtTl and his mother Bninirhil.l accepted the present of lo.ooo sohdi. and wri« satisfied with Keccared's declarations that ht was guiltless of the death of hiKunthis. In the spring of 589 Ciiintram, perhaps in concert with C.oisvintha. made one more attempt on Septimania. It was defeated with great loss by the (ioths under Claudius. The rest of his reign was peaceful, except for some expeditions against the Romans and Basques. Third Council of Tolfdo. — This the most important of all Spanish councils, assembled by the kings command in May. sHq. On Niay 4 the king shortly declared hisreas<ms for convening them, and the next three days were spent in prayer and fasting. Keccared's ad- dress, read to the assembly by a notary, con- tained an orthodox c<Mifession of belief. He declared thatCiod had inspired him to lead the Goths back to the true faith, from which they had been led astray by false teachers. Not only the Goths but the Suevi. who by the fault of others had been led into heresy, he had brought back. These noble nations he offered to God by the hands of the bishops, whom he called on to complete the work. He then anathematized .\rius and his doctrine, and de- clared his acceptance of Nice. Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon. and all other councils that agreed with these, and pr')nounced an anathema on all who returned to .\rianism after being received into the church by the chrism, or the laying on of hands ; then fol- lowed the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon, and the tomus concluded with the signatures of Keccared and Baddo his queen. It was received with general acclamation. Its praises of Reccared. its numerous scriptural quotations, and the clearness with which the Catholic and Arian doctrines are defined shew that it was com- posed bv a theologian, probably bp. Leandrr or abbat Eutropius, who had the chief manage- ment of the council (Jo. Bid.). One of the Catholic bishops then called on the bishops, clergy, and Gothic nobles who had been con- verted to declare publicly their renunciation of .\rianism and their acceptance of Catholicism. They replied that though they had done so already when with the king they had gone over to the church, they would comply. Then followed 23 anathemas directed against Arius and his doctrines, succeeded by the creeds of Nice and Constantinople and the definition of Chalcedon, the whole being subscribed bv 8 Arian bishops with their clergy, and by all the Gothic nobles. The bishf>ps were Ignas of Barcelona, Ubiligisclus of Valencia, .Muril.i of Palencia, Sunnila of V'iseo, (iardmgus of Tuv, Bechila of Lugo. Argiovitus of Oporto and Froisclus of Tortosa. The names of at least six shew their Gothic descent. Five- come from sees within the former Suevic king- dom, probably shewing that I.covigild, after his conquest, had displaced the Catholic by Arian bishops. Keccared then bid the council with his licence to draw up any requisite canons, particularly one directing the creed to be recited at the Holy Communion, that hence- forward no one could plead ignorance a» an excuse for misbelief. Then followed 2 3 canon* with a confirmatory edict of the king. The REMIGIUS NTS iirtU .\run bishops. pfi. I>ren converted. »■ their wives, the ;; should be read at « (>i%h.>i- k t^l.ir ib.<iii« meals ; bv the tjth Arun chiirrhe* mrtti transferred to the bishi>|>« f>f thrlr dt»r<>««-« . I the 13th forbade clerics to iirocred •i(«in%l clerics before lav tribunals , the i^ih \>^\\»i\r ; Jews to have ( tiristun wives. r<>nrubinr%, c< slaves, ordered the rhildirn nl swrh unl<>n« lo be bapti/etl. .ind disqiialitied )rw» fr->ni any office in which thev miKht have t.> punish Christians- thristun slave* whom thev had circumcised, or made to share in thrir rite*, were xp^o tado free; the 21st (<>r»>adr rivll authorities to lay burdens on clrurs or the slaves of the church or clergv ; the ijnd f<ic- bade walling at funerals; the Jird forbade celebrating saints' davs with mdecrnt danri>» and songs. The canons were \ut>srril>ed hrsC bv the king, then bv s of the 5 mrtro|>olUans. of whom Masona signed hrst '•: h:- h- p^ Mgned I in person, h by proxy. \ ' Tarra- I conensis and Septimania nallv j or bypr»»xv; in other pr- «ere I missing. The pr'K-eedincM 1 1 - ■ mily bv I.eander on the conversion ot the«.oth*. The information for the rest of kercared'« reign is most scantv. He is praised bv Uidxe ' for his peaceful government, clenieiirv. and generosity. He restored various r>ro|>«lies. both ecclesiastical and private, conhscaled br ; his father, and founded manv churche* and monasteries. Gregory the (ireat. writinx I" Reccared in .\ug. joo {h-pp- ix. M. tit). extols him for embracing the true faith and inducing his people to do so, and for refusinn ! the bribes offered by Jews to procure the repeal of a law against them. He sends him a piece of the true cross, some fragments of the chains of St. Peter, and some hair^ i>f ^t. John Baptist. Keccared died at Toledo in «k>i. after reigning 15 years, having publicly con- fessed his sins. He was succerded by hi» win I.rova II., a vouthof about iH. luhn. K>mtt* der Gfrmanm. v. ; Helflerich. FmhUkunf ttiU JifscktchU d(s WfU^nikfnHttkti . t.amv ' KtrchenRfschictxtf von Spamm, w {i)- (r.P ) I RemlgiUS (2) (A'rm.). St , arrhbp of Kheims ; and called the Apostle of the Iranks (( 4^:• i S?o), holds .in important p...i«i..n in \\e%|etn history and IS honoured .1 - ' ••'■Rteal patron-saints of France ''li'" winiiini; I lovis and his I -doi tiu.tid K.t a> lall->, Ji.'J Jl> '■jjI'tJ •■•■ apparently existed [ser «.rrit. Tuf. hranc. ii. 31) was 1. ^t brfnrr the nth Some think that ' the exhortations • both, »ome that h- parti/aiiship of tlir iv stniggle with the Ariai. Visigoths, (t Lovml Ai happy event for orthodox I force ol character to imptcM a l»af Laiu will. !i .1 by lh« hi% with )Uk« 876 RHODO Clovis was stationed in the pathway of his conquests. Few details are known of Remi- gius's life. He was born c. 435, and conse- crated in his 22nd year (c. 457)- We first hear of his intercourse with Clovis in the campaign against Syagrius (c. 486). About 492 the king married the Catholic Clotilda, who proved a powerful ally for the bishop. The story of his baptism on Christmas Eve, 496, with his sisters Albofledis and the Arian Lanthechildis and more than 3,000 Franks, is well known. " Mitis depone colla, Sicamber, adora quod incendisti, incende quod adorasti," are the words put by Gregory into Remigius's mouth (ib. 27). His episcopate is said to have lasted 70 or more years, his death occurring c. 530. His literary remains are 4 letters (one, to 3 bishops, presents a curious picture of con- temporary manners), a spurious will, and a lew- verses ascribed to him (Pair. Lat. Ixv. 961-976 ; cf. Hist. litt. de la France, iii. 158 sqq.). The references in Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc, ii. 27, 31, viii. 21, ix. 14, x. 19 ; Hist. Epit. xvi. ; de Glor. Conf. Ixxix.), Sidonius ApoUinaris {Ep. ix. 7), and Avitus (Collat. Episc. sub init. ; Patr. Lat. lix. 387), comprise all that is historical about him. History and myth are mingled in the exhaustive notice of the Bollandists (Oct. i, 59-187). [s.a.b.] Rhodo (1), a Christian writer of the end of the 2nd cent., our knowledge of whom now exclusively depends on the account of his writings, and some extracts from them in Eusebius (H. E. v. 13). He was a native of Asia, converted to Christianity at Rome by Tatian, as he himself says in a treatise against Marcion addressed to Callistion. In it he tells of the sects into which the Marcionites split up after Marcion's death, and gives an interesting account of an oral controversy held by him with the Marcionite Apelles, then an old man. He mentions a book of " Problems " published by Tatian, intended to exhibit the obscurity of the Holy Scriptures, and promises to give the solutions ; but Eusebius does not seem to have met with this work. He also wrote a treatise on the Hexaemeron. Through a lapse of memory Jerome (de Vir. III.) speaks of him as author of the anonymous treatise against the Montanists from which Eusebius makes extracts (H. E. v. 16). [g.s.] Romanianus, a wealthy citizen of Tagaste, possessing there and at Carthage a house and other property. He shewed great kindness towards Augustine in his early life, which he did not fail in later days gratefully to acknow- ledge. In a passage of the second book against the heathen philosophers Augustine relates with pathetic simplicity how when he was but a boy and in poverty, arising no doubt from his father's "spirited" disregard of expense, he found in Romanianus a friend who provided him a home and pecuniary help in his studies at Carthage, and shewed him — what he valued more than these — friendship and kindly encouragement. After the death of Augustine's father in 371, Romanianus received him into his house at Tagaste as his honoured guest, and though, in a patriotic spirit, he tried to dissuade him from returning to Carthage, when he saw that his youthful ambition desired a wider range than his native town could afford, he supplied him with the ROMANUS necessary means. Nor, as Augustine mentions with special gratitude, was he offended at a neglect to write, but passed over it with considerate kindness (Aug. Conf. ii. 3, vi. 14 ; c. Acad. ii. 2 ; Ep. 27, 4). Romanianus had a son Licentius, who may have been a pupil under Augustine while he was teaching rhetoric at Carthage, but of this there is no evidence, though he undoubtedly was 10 or 12 years later at Milan. Romanianus appears to have had another son, Olympius, frequently mentioned in the various discourses composed by Augustine at Cassiciacum near Milan, who received baptism at the same time as Augus- tine, and who afterwards became bp. of Ta- gaste, of which place he was certainly a native, and of a rank in life agreeing entirely with that of Romanianus (Aug. Conf. vi. 7). Like Augustine himself, perhaps in some degree through his influence, Romanianus fell into the prevailing errors of Manicheism, which, however, he appears to have cast off, though without adopting as yet the true philosophy of the gospel, by the time when, as we gather from the description of Augustine, he visited him at Milan in 385. He had gone thither on important business, and entered with some warmth into the scheme of a life in common of 10 members. In 386, while Augustine was with his friends in the house of Verecundus at Cassiciacum, and meditating the great change of life which he made in 387, he composed 4 discourses, dedicating to Ro- manianus the one against the academic philosophers, entreating him to abandon their doctrines, and declaring his own inten- tion to abide by the authority of Christ, " For," says he, "I find none more powerful than this" (c. Acad. i. i ; iii. 20; Retract, i. 1-4). Some time during the 3 years follow- ing the conversion of Augustine Romanianus became a Christian, thus drawing still closer the intimacy between Augustine and himself and his family. The same year Augustine addressed to Romanianus his book on true religion (c. Acad. ii. 3, 8 ; de Ver. Rel. 12 ; Ep. 27, 4 ; 31, 7). We find Augustine also writing, a.d. 395, to Licentius, entreating him in the most affectionate manner to shake off the bonds in which he was held by the world, to visit Paulinus at Nola and learn from him how this was to be accomplished (Aug. Ep. 26, 3). This letter he followed up by one to Paulinus, introducing to him Romanianus, the bearer of the letter, and commending Licentius to his attention (Ep. 27, 3, 4, 6). In 396 Paulinus wrote to Romani- anus congratulating the church of Africa on the appointment of Augustine as coadjutor- bp. of Hippo, and expressing the hope that the trumpet of Augustine may sound in the ears of Licentius, to whom he wrote both in prose and in verse, exhorting him to devote himself to God (Paulin. Epp. vii. viii.). [h.w.p.] Romanus (7), a solitary, born and brought up at Rhosus, who retired to a cell on the mountains near Antioch, where he lived to extreme old age, practising the utmost auster- ities. Theodoret describes him as conspicu- ous for simplicity and meekness, attracting to his cell by the beauty of his character large numbers, over whom he exercised a salutary influence (Theod. Hist. Relig. c. xi.). [e.v.] ROMANUS Roraanus i9!. St.. a ccKbrjlcd hvmn. writtr oi the Laitmi church, who i<> »aiil lo have wTitten more than i.ooo hymn*. o( the kind called >.omma, a form which he |>rol>- ably invented. It |H>rha|>s drrive* it« vmie- what disputed name from the legend a* to it* origin, found in the Svnaxasion of St. Kom- anus's dav {Mrnafa, Oct. i ). which !uy\ that the Blessed XirRin appeared to him, and com- manded him to eat a roll (•orrdaior) which she gave him, and that, oln-vinR, he found himsrli endowed with the power of composing hvmn- If he was the hrst who wrote kofrdfia, it i an argument in favour of plaring him (as d" Pitra and the Bollandists) in the reign of Anastasius I. (491-518) rather than of .\na-i- ' tasius 11. (713-719). (II. A. w.) Ruflnus (3), Ivrattmus, of .Aquileia, th translator of Origen and Kusebius, the frieii.. of Jerome and afterwards his adversary ; .1 Latin ecclesiastical writer of some merit, and highly esteemed in his own time ; born r. 345 at Concordia in N. Italy ; baptized at .\(]uileia c. 371 ; lived in Egypt some K years and in Palestine about 18 (371-397); ordained at Jerusalem c. 390 ; in Italy, mostly at .^quileia, 397-408; died in Sicily. 410. Sources. — The works of Kufinus himself, especially his Apology (otherwise Invectivfs), two books, against Jerome; Hieron. AfoUio against Ru/inus, three bmiks ; Id. Chronidf, 01. 289, An. I, A.D. 37« ; Id. Ef>p. 3-5, si, 57, 80-84, 97, 125, 133; Id. Pr/f. to Comm. on Ezk. and Jer. bk. i ; Paulin. Fpp. 28. 40, 46,47; .\ug. Epp. 63, 156; Pallad. His/. Laus. 118; Gennad. de Script. Eccl. c. 17; Sid. Apoll. lib. iv. Ep. 3 ; ('•elasius in Conctl. Rom. {Pair. Lai. li.x. col. 173). Literature. — Kufinus's career has usually been treated as an appendage to that of Jerome. There is a full Life of Kufinus by Fontanini (Kome, 1742). reprinted by .Migne in his ed. of Kufinus {Pair. Lat. x.xi.) — minute and exhaustive in details and in fixing dates; a shorter account by Schoenemann. liibiio- iheca Hislorico-Literaria Patrum Lat. (Lips. 1792), is also reprinted by Migne. Works. — The genuine original works of Rufinus still extant are: .-I Dissertation on the Falsification by Heretics of the Horks of Origen, prefixed to his trans, of Pamphilus's Apology (or Origen; .4 Commentary on the Benedictions of the Twelve Patriarchs {C.en. xlix.); the Apology for himself against the attacks of Jerome, in two b<K>ks; a shorter one addressed to pope Anastasius ; two books of Eccl. Hist., being a continuation of Luse- bins; a History of the ILgyptian Hrrmits, and an Exposition of the Creed. BeMdrs these there are several prefaces to the trjnslation<k from (ireek authors, on which his chief labour was expended, and which include J he .Munattic Rule of Basil, and his « Homilies ; the Apology for Origen, WTitlen by Pamphilusand i;u%ebiu»; Origen's II«/J ApX'^" ^'"1 many of his commen- taries; 10 works of (iregory Na/ian«-n , tli. Sentences of Sixtus or Xystu4 ; the Sentcnc of Evagrius, and his bo<ik addressed to Vn gins ; the Recognitions of Clement ; the 1 books of Eusebius's History; the Pa*<:l. >: Canon of Anatolius of .■Klrxandria. Early Life: Concordia and Aquileia.— Hi parents were probably Chrisliaof, wnce tb«« RuriNus tn hus I). I ina<!. IS %h. go 11.; work-...! Ui!.,i\ 1 councils of the fw-f.irr (If ifi tit .\|>o|ogv against friend. Kuhiiiis w lllls.ll.,1 !u. I.-.,!' . ' , lllc Uioslu 1.. I...t V1I..W at the tl>:.. se lavit." li Life in It how long t gether at .\ ; tion. But ' Jerome to tin- 1 .l^l. im.: company of MeUnia f.: the monasterirs of Nitri.i iiH; Hieron. Ep. In. . apparently intended to reuuin. But the church of .Mexandria was then in a state o| trouble. Athanasius died in 37^. and ht* successor, the Arian Luciuv acting with tb« successive governor* of Alexandria, came «t a wolf among the sheep (Kuf // / li \ . Socr. iv. 21-23 ; S«<£. vi. i 1 was thrown into prison. . manv other confessors, t (//. E. ii. 4 ; .</>«>/. aJ in carceribus, in exiliis "1 . r re- turned as soon as the -; rs«u- tion abated. In Egypt .. ■ , .r.| Didymus. who wrote for im.. the questions suggested l«v ll • fants (Hier.t. I,' . m .• ' . praises in 1;; ' • .u ,'.• He also was a ; iter ward* b|>. of Alexan.l: :*' Mr -xw also the ).■ ! still more .Macarius t other Ma< their teacl and frequ' them 111 I • ' - 6 years he wrnt ici .Melania had »K-^n with cert.«iii Hi ■MkI. I'.iili.!: . her . n<'« But !• Val." lir rrt.lM.r.l (,. years {Apol. 11. 2 2). M. jmi-^aletn is jl». -1».v f- At Uic death ul i'aiulia'^ «1 878 RUPINUS the accession of Theophilus in 385 (Fontanini, Vita Rufini, i. c. ii. § 7)- Palestine. — For 18 or 20 years, reckoning either from 377 or 379 to 397, Rufinus lived on the Mount of Olives. He was ordained either by Cyril or more probably by John (made bishop 385 ). He built cells at his own expense (" meis cellulis," Apol. ii. 8a) for monks, who occupied themselves in ascetic practices and learned pursuits. Palladius, who was at Jerusalem and Bethlehem for some time before he went to Egypt in 388, says of Rufinus : " He was a man of noble birth and manners, but very strong in following out his own independent resolutions. No one of the male sex was ever gentler, and he had the strength and calmness of one who seems to know everything " ; and tells us that, in common with Melania, Rufinus exercised an unbounded hospitality, receiving and aiding with his own funds bishops and monks, virgins and matrons. " So," he says, " they passed their life, offending none, and helping almost the whole world." Jerome also, early in their stay at Jerusalem, spoke of Rufinus with highest praise, mentioning in his Chronicle {sub ann. 378) that " Bonosus of Italy, and Florentius and Rufinus at Jerusalem, are held in special estimation as monks " ; and when he settled in Palestine in 386 had frequent literary intercourse with Rufinus and his monks. Rufinus records that Jerome was once his guest at the Mount of Olives (ib.); and Jerome acknowledges {ib. iii. 33) that, up to 393, he had been intimate with him. In 394 Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis, came to Jerusalem, and in the dissension which arose between him and John, bp. of Jerusalem, Rufinus was the leader of the clergy who sup- ported John, Jerome siding with Epiphanius, the consequence being an alienation between Jerome and Rufinus. This estrangement was but temporary. Jerome speaks frequently of their " reconciliatas amicitias " {Ep. Ixxxi. I ; Apol. iii. 33). In 397, the year when Rufinus quitted Palestine, they met (probably with many friends on both sides) at a solemn communion service in the Church of the Resurrection, joined hands in renewal of friendship, and, on Rufinus's setting out for Italy with Melania, Jerome accompanied him some little way, perhaps as far as Joppa. Italy, 397-409. — Melania returned to Italy in order to promote ascetic practices in her family. Rufinus, whom Paulinus speaks of as being to her "in spiritali via comitem," returned in her company. His mother was still living, and he wished to see his relations and Christian friends again (Hieron. Ixxxi. i ; Apol. ii. 2). After a voyage of 20 days they arrived at Naples in the spring of 397. Thence they went to visit Paulinus at Nola, all the nobles of those parts and their retinues accom- panying them in a kind of triumph (Paulin. Ep. xxix. 12). Melania, who was connected, probably, by ties of property with Campania, since Palladius speaks of her successors Pini- anus and Melania living there {Hist. Laus. 119), after staying with Paulinus some time, went on to Rome, where her son Publicola and his wife Albina and her granddaughter Melania with her husband Pinianus were living. Ru- finus went to the monastery of Pinetum near RUFINUS Terracina, of which his friend Ursacius or Urseius was the abbat, and there stayed probably for a year, from early spring 397 till after Lent 398. He had brought many works of the Eastern church writers which were but little known in Italy ; and his friends were eager to know their contents. Rufinus, having used Greek more than Latin for some 25 years, at first declared his incompetence {Apol. i. 11), but by degrees accepted the task of translation, which occupied almost all the rest of his life. He began with the Rule of Basil, which Urseius desired for the use of his monks. Next, probably, he translated the Recogni- tions of Clement. [Clementine Literature.] Paulinus begged his assistance in the inter- pretation of the blessing upon Judah in Gen. xlix., and, some months later, of the rest of the blessings on the patriarchs. His reply is extant. Meanwhile he had a scholar named Macarius, who at Pinetum had been much exercised by speculations on Providence and Fate and in controversy with the many Mathematici (astrologists and necromancers) then in Italy. About the time Rufinus arrived he dreamed he saw a ship coming from the East to Italy which would bring him aid, and this he interpreted of Rufinus. He expected help from the speculative works of Origen, and besought Rufinus to translate some of them. Rufinus, though knowing from the recent controversy at Jerusalem that his orthodox reputation would be imperilled by the task, yet undertook it {Apol. i. 11 ; prefaces to bks. i. and iii. of the Tlepl 'Apx^v). He began, however, by translating the Apo- logy for Origen written by the martyr Pam- philus in conjunction with Eusebius, adding a treatise on the corruption of Origen's works by heretics, and a profession of his own faith which he held in common with the churches of Aquileia and Jerusalem and the well-known bishops of those sees. Then he translated the Ilepl 'Apx^f itself, adding to the first two books, which he finished during Lent 398, a very memorable preface, in which he speaks of the odium excited by the name of Origen, but asserts his conviction that most of the passages which have given him the reputation of heresy were inserted or coloured by the heretics. He therefore felt at liberty to leave out or soften down many expressions which would offend orthodox persons, and also, where anything was obscure, to give a kind of explanatory paraphrase. He pointed out also that he was not the first translator of Origen, but that Jerome, whom he did not name but clearly indicated, and of whom he spoke in high praise, had in the time of Damasus translated many of Origen's works, and in the prefaces (especially that to the Song of Songs) had praised Origen beyond measure. Two questions gave rise to great controversy : First, was this reference to Jerome justifiable ? Secondly, was Rufinus's dealing with the book itself legitimate ? The reference to Jerome was hardly ingenuous. If the praises he bestows are not, as Jerome called them, " fictae laudes," they are certainly used for a purpose to which Jerome would not have given his sanction, and their use in view of the controversy at Jerusalem, without any RUFINUS allusion to Jeromes altered attitude towards Origen, was ungenerous and misleading. The second point is obscured by the loss of the chief part of the Greek of the Wtpi A^jxwr. but we have enough upon which to form a judgniont. Some passages, vouched for and translated by Jerome (/•/>. cxxiv. 13), were, with much that leads up to them, omitted by Kufinus, who also carried the licence t>f para- phrasing ditftcult expressions to an extreme length. But the textsof Origen wercsomewhat uncertain ; the standard of literarv honestv was not then what is it now ; and then Jerome himself had in his letter d^ Of>t. (,fn. Intfrpretandi (Ep. 57) sanctioned a mode of interpretation almost as loose as that of Kutinus. (See also his words to Vigilantius, Ep. Ixi. 2, "(^uae bona sunt transtuli, et mala vel amputavi vel correxi vel tacui. I'ex me Latini bona ejus habent et mala ignorant.") We may acquit Kutinus of more than a too eager desire, unchastened by any critical power, to make the greatest exponent of OrientalChristianity acceptable to Roman ears. Rome. — The first two books Iltpi 'ApxCiv, with the preface, were first published probably in the winter of 3q7-398 ; the other two, having been translated during Lent 398, were carried by Rutinus to Rome, whither Macarius had already gone, when he went to stay with Melania and her family. During his stay Apronianus, a noble Roman, was converted, partly through Rufinus, who addresses him as " mi fill." The friends of Melania were, no doubt, numerous. Pope Siricius also (elected in 385 when Jerome had himself aspired to the office) was favourable to Rutinus. But the expectations formed by Rufinus in his preface were realized at once. Many were astonished at the book of Origen, some finding even in Rufinus's version the heresies they connected with the name of Origen ; some indignant that these heresies had been softened down. Jerome's friends at first were dubious. Euse- bius of Cremona, who came to Rome from Bethlehem early in 398 (Hieron. .Ap. iii. 24), lived at first on friendly terms with Rufinus and communicated with him (Ruf. .-{pol. i. 20). But Jerome's friends Pammachms, Oceanus, and Marcella resented the use made of their master's name and suspected Rufinus's sin- cerity. According to his account, Eusebius, or some one employed by him, stole the trans- lation of the last two books of the llf/x '.KpxCii'. which were still unrevised, from his chamber, and in this imperfect state had them copied and circulated, adding in some cases words he had never written (.Ap. i. 19 ; ii. 44). But, being in uncertainty as to the value of the translation, Pammachius and Oceanus sent the books and prefaces to Jerome at Bethle- hem, who sat down at once, made a literal translation of the lltpl Wpx^"- and sent it to his friends with a letter (84) written to refute the insinuations through which, as he con- sidered, Rufinus's preface had associated him with Origenism. He sent them also a letter (81) to Rufinus. protesting against his " fictac laudes," but refraining from any breach of friendship. When these documents arrived in Rome, affairs had changed. Rufmus had gone ; pope Siricius had died (date in Fagius Nov. 29, 398) ; the new pope Anastasius was RUPINUS h70 ready to listen to fncnd'* ol I crump . Kuhnu* the Syrian, Jrn.nicS friend, had arrivrti in Rome (ilirron. .ip. in. 24) and with luw- bins of C'rrinona had K""" throuKh the rhici cities of Italy (Ruf. .Ap. i. ji) p.untinK out all the heretical passaKo in OriKrn. Kuhnut, a little before the death of i>.>|h" Sirirau. had obtained from him letters <il rrnuntnrndalion ("llterae furmat.ir "). to wliirh he apfwalrd afterwards as slirwiiig hr w.is in roinnninion with the Roman rhiirrh (Mirroii. .Ap. in. .• 1 ). .\t Milan he nirt Eiisebiiis in ihr prr^nrr of the bishop, and ronfronlrd him when he rraJ heretical passages from a ropy of the \\t^ 'ApX"** received from Marcrlla and piir|Miriin|| to be Ruhnuss work (Ruf. .Ap. 1. ig). Mr then went t<i .\>|uileia. where bp. t hroinaliu\ I who had b.ipti/ed iiim 27 yrani brforr, re- ceived him. I .Aquilcm.- Mere hrstxin heard that Jrrume't translationof the II«/W 'Apx<^''-tl>«>UK>> inirndrd only for I'ammachius and his frirnds. had been published, and that Jerome's letter against him was in circulation. Of this Irllrr ; he received a copv from Apronianus [.Apol. \. I); but I'ammachius kept back the more friendly letter adilressed to Rufinus htinself. [This act of treachery, which Jerome »ul>^- quently in his anger at Rufinus's Apuloxy^ , brought himself to defend (Hieron. .AfnU. ill. 28), caused Rufinus and Jerome to assail each other with fierce invectives. l-"or that con- ' troversy and for the letters of luipe .Anastasius to Rufinus and John of Jerusaleni, and Rufinus's letter of apology. s«'e Jkkome. We pass on to the last decade of Ruhnuss life. His friends at .A(]uileia were eager as tht»w at Pinetuin had been for a knowledge ol the Christian writers of the l^ast ; and kutinus''i remaining years were almo*t entirely occupied with transl.ition, though several of his original works belong also to this (n-riod. The translations have no great merit, but on the I whole are accurate, with no need for omis- sions and paraphrases as in the IN^ 'Afjjwr. They were undertaken in n« distinct order, but according to the request of friend*. Rufinus wished to translate the C4>iniiientarie^ I of Origen on the whole Heptateuch, and «>nlv Deuteronomy remained untranslated when j he died. The Commentary on the Koman«, I however (see preface), and se\eral other*, ', besides other works, intervened. I The Exp<»sitiono( the C reed is of importance, as a testimony to the variations in the creed* of the various churches (that of .Aquilria having " Patrum invtr,tbilem tt impas\tbttem," j " in SpiritM Sanctw," and " huiu\ carnis re^ur- Irectionem" as distinctive |>eculiaiiiir^). and from Its intrinsic merits and as shrMiiiK the influence of Eastern theology, hariiioni/ed by a sound judgment, on Western theology. The History is on a i>ar with those of S<k- rates and So/omen. exhibiting no roncet>liua of the real functions ol history ii<< ol the relative proportion of diflermt rla»s<-t ol events, yet dealing h>.nestly with the (art* within the writer's view. It was trans into (ireek. and valur«l in thr East, as his tran« oj Eusebius, of which it Is a continuation, wa* in the West ((.ennad. d* Sinpl. hal xvii.). The History «if the ICgvptian in..iiks prrwnl* many diUicultick. It U dutin< tl> attrtbuttd 880 RUPINUS to Rufinus by Jerome {Ep. cxxxiii. 3), but not included in the list of his works given by Gennadius, who says that it was commonly attributed to Petronius, bp. of Bologna (Gennad. op. cit. xli.)- The preface says it is written in response to repeated requests of the monks on the Mount of Olives. Fontanini (Vita Rufini, lib. ii. c. xii. § 4) grounds upon this with much reason the theory that Pet- ronius, having been in the East, and having received the request of the Olivetan monks, but having himself, as Gennadius testifies, but little skill in composition, on his return to the West begged Rutinus to write the history. The adventures recorded would thus be those of Petronius, not of Rufinus. The Historia Lausiaca of Palladius is in many of its sections identical with the Historia Monachorum. It is, however, more probable that Palladius, who did not leave the solitary life in Egypt till 400, and wrote his History for Lausus at Constantinople apparently some time after- wards {he lived till 431). was indebted to Rufinus rather than the contrary. Rufinus had not, like Jerome, any large range of literary knov.'ledge, and his critical powers were defective. He quotes stories like that of the Phoenix (de Symbolo, 11) without any question. He had no doubt of the Recog- nitions being the work of Clement, and he translated the sayings of Xystus the Stoic philosopher, stating, without futher remark, that they were said to be those of Sixtus, the Roman bishop, thus laying himself open to Jerome's attack upon his credulity. The Apology is well composed and more methodical than that of Jerome. Its reason- ing is at least as powerful, though its resources of language and illustration are fewer. His efforts for peace and refusal to reply to Jerome'slast invectives, thoughthe temptation offered by a violent attack in answer to a peaceful letter was great, shews a high power of self-restraint and a consciousness of a secure position. Last Years. — The years at Aquileia were un- eventful. The letter of Anastasius which told him of the rumours against him at Rome and requested him to come there to clear himself, drew from him the Apologia ad .Anastasium, a short document of self-defence not lacking in dignity. He enjoyed the friendship of Chroma- tins, at whose request he consented to cease hisstrife with Jerome, though Jerome, adjured by the same bishop, refused to do so (Hieron. Apol. iii. 2). He enjoyed the friendship of the bishops near him, Petronius of Bologna, Gaudentius of Brixia, Laurentius, perhaps of Concordia, for whom he wrote his work upon the Creed. Paulinus of Nola continued his friendship ; and Augustine, in his severe reply to Jerome, who had sent him his work against Rufinus, treats the two men as equally esteemed, and writes: "I grieved, when I read your book, that such discord had arisen between persons so dear and so intimate, bound to all the churches by a bond of affec- tion and of renown. Who will not in future mistrust his friend as one who may become his enemy when it has been possible for this lamentable result to come to pass between Jerome and Rufinus ? " (Aug. Ep. y^ ad Hieron.). RUPINUS Last Journey and Death. — Chromatins had died in 405, and Rufinus's thoughts turned again to Melania and to Palestine. He joined Melania in Rome in 408 or 409, Anastasius having been succeeded in 403 by Innocent, who had no prejudice against him. Owing to Alaric's invasion, they left Rome, with .\lbina, Pinianus, and Melania the younger (Pallad. Hist. Laus. 119), and resided in Cam- pania and Sicily. Rufinus records that he was in the " coetus religiosus " of Pinianus on the Sicihan coast, witnessing the burning of Rhegium across the straits by the bands of .\laric, when he wrote the preface to the trans- lation of Origen's Commentary on Numbers. Soon after writing this he died. The cloud on the reputation of Rufinus due to Jerome's attacks has unduly depressed the general estimation of his character. In the list of books to be received in the church promulgated by pope Gelasius at the Roman council, in 494 (Migne's Patr. I.at. lix. col. 175), we read: "Rufinus, a religious man, wrote many books of use to the church, and many commentaries on the Scripture ; but, since the most blessed Jerome infamed him in certain points, we take part with him (Jerome) in this and in all cases in which he has pronounced a condemnation." With this official judgment may be contrasted that of Gennadius in his list of ecclesiastical writers (c. 17) : " Rufinus, the presbyter of Aquileia, was not the least among the teachers of the church, and in his translations from Greek to Latin shewed an elegant genius. He gave to the Latins a very large part of the library of Greek writers. . . . He also replied in two volumes to him who decried his works, shewing convincingly' that he had exercised his powers through the insight given him by God and for the good of the church, and that it was through a spirit of rivalry that his adversary had employed his pen in defaming him." See Ruf. Comm. in Symb. Apost. ed. by Rev. C. Whitaker, Lat. text, notes, and trans, with a short hist, of Ruf. and his times (Bell). A trans, by Dean Fremantle of the works of Rufinus is in the Lib. of Sicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, [w.h.f.] Rufinus (4), a Roman presbyter at the end of 4th cent.; an admirer of Jerome he espoused his cause in the Origenistic controversy and against Rufinus of Aquileia. Eusebius of Cremona, sent by Jerome to Rome in 398, re- ported the kindness of Rufinus, who wrote to Jerome to ask an explanation of the judgment of Solomon. This Jerome gives him, making the false and true mothers to be the Synagogue and the Church. Jerome speaks of him with gratitude and respect, hoping he may not only publicly defend him, but in private judge him favourably (Ep. 74, ed. Vail.). [w.h.f.] Rufinus (5), a friend of Jerome ; known as the Syrian, to distinguishhim from (3) and (4), both his contemporaries. He was one of the company of Italians settled at Bethlehem with Jerome ; and in 390 was sent by him to Rome and Milan in the cause of their friend Claudius, who was accused of a capital offence (Hieron. Ep. Ixxxi. 2 ; cont. Ruf. iii. 24). This Rufinus is doubtless the one mentioned by Celestius (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 3) as having been known by him at the house of Pam- machius at Rome and having asserted there SABAS that sin was n<->t iuheriteil. M.iriuH Mercator says that it was this Kutiiuis who instilird into the mind of IVKigiiis the views known as Pelagian (Mar. More. Lib. Subnolattonum in Verba Juliani, c. .;). (w.ii.r.) s Sabas l2). a Gothic martyr under .\than- aric. king of the (.'loths towards the end of 4th cent. His .\cts seem genuine, and contain many interesting details of C.othic life in the lands bordering on the Danube. Thus village life, with its head men and communal respon- sibility, appears in c. ii. .\fter various tortures he was drowned in the Musaeus. which flows into the Danube. The .\cts are in the form of an epistle from the llothic church to that of Cappadocia, whither Soranus. who was "dux Scvthiae." had sent his relics (Kuinart. Acta Smcera. p. 670 .AA. 5S. Boll. .\pr. ii. «S; Ceill. iv. 278; C. .-v. .\. Scott. Ulfilas. Apostle of the Goths. 1885, p. 80). The topography of the region wliere he suffered is exhaustively treated in the Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akad. 1S81-1882, t. xcix. pp. 437-40^. by F'rof. Tomaschek, of Graz University. [o.t.s.] Sabas (6). St., abbat in' Palestine and founder of the laura of St. Sabas ; born in 439, near Caesarea in Cappadocia. When 8 years old he entered a neighbouring mon- astery, and at 18 went a pilgrimage to the holy places at Jerusalem, where he entered the monastery of St. Passarion. At 30 he estab- lished himself as an anchorite in a cavern in the desert. Several persons joining him, he laid the foundations of his monastery on a rock on the Kidron river, where it still re- mains. (Cf. Murray's Handbook for Syria, p. 229.) He was ordained priest by Sallustius, patriarch of Constantinople, in 491. Several Armenians united themselves soon after to this community, which led to Sabas ordaining that the first part of Holy Communion should be said in .\rmenian, but the actual words of consecration in Greek. In 403 the monastery had increased so much that he built another at a short distance. He was sent as an ambassador to Constantinople in a.u. 511. by the patriarch Elias, to counteract the inllu- ence of Severus and the Monophysites with the emperor .A.nastasius; and again by Peter, patriarch of Jerusalem, in 531, to ask from the emperor remission of the taxes due by Pales- tine and help to rebuild the churches ruined by invasion. He died Dec. 5. 53'. ^Kcd 91 years. His Life was written by Cyril of Scythopolis. [Cvrillus (18).] Copious ex- tracts from it are in Ceillier, xi. 2 74-2 77. and Fleurv, H. E. lib. vii. f§ 30-32. The whole Life is in Cotder. Monument, t. iii. (<;.t.s.) SabbatlUS (2). ordained by .Marcianus as Novatianist bp. of Constantinople, seceded. before 380, from the main body of that sect, with two others, Theoclistes and .Macarms, maintaining that Easter ought to be celebrated on the same day and in the same manner as by the Jews. He also complained that un- worthy persons were admitted to the N'ova- tianist communion, thus finding the same fault with the Novatianists that Ihcv did with the church. He became bishop of a small »ecl, SABELLIANISM called afirr him Sjtilutiaui, » was rrrogni/rd in Ihr 7th can^ genrral rounril. So/.iiini [II. I a long arroimt ..f !. Sab«lllanUin. t! nioveinrtit diMk'n.i! 8Hl West. It f..rnir.l ., ; Mon.irrlu.in iimm num. rightiv underst I m r We can tr.ice its ri^' • ■■ ' Martyr. In his .4; " who affirm that t condemns them — .1 [.. I , 1 .iiip (.«r lh« oiiwn In lh« : :> <•( the KTrat ixl rjii Mtilv t>e tir\i<ii) thrrrwtlh. . I' . . r ,,t liuitn thoMi and !. hfl 13". «• ♦'• the :rd repeats in his Dialonue u:tk lf,{'hi. \ 12H (c( Bulls Defence of Sic. (reed, t. I (>2h ; Judgm. Calk. Ch. iii 1 (•<i cent, was the age of Gnosi. of the essential principlrv theory, which places a emanations from the IM i..- mediate between Go«l an^l • I he champions of I hristi.in ort d, in opposition, to insist str. ■ the Divine Monarchv. tiod's lent, and absolute existence .«i > we find Irenaeus writing a tri - i,'Xi«t f. 190, addressed to a Ki>man j i. .bvter, Florinus, who had fallen awav to Gnmlirtun. .Asian Gnosticism regarde<l the Son and the Holv Ghost as aeons or emanations (rf. Ter- tull. cont. I'rai. c. 8». Christians had to %hew that the existence of the Son and the Holy Ghost could be reconciled with the Divine .Monarchv. Some therefore adoptrd the view which Dorner rails Khionite Monarch- ianism. defending the M'" "■ ' >^ '■ ••' iivin< the deity of Christ. Ot 1 the Persons of the (iodhe.id 'T, a theory which was called ^ 'iigh that name is not derived in.iu ilic .riginal inventor of this view. Salwllianisni, in fact, was one of the mistakj-s men fell into while groping their way to the complete Chri»t.H logical conception. It was in the ind cent, an orthodox reaction against (in-wtieisni fl« in the 4th cent, the Sabellianism ' " " ' of .\nc\Ta was a reaction agait Tertullian exprexslv .isserts. in • of his treati • '■^ ■'■ heresv had - '•»«" orthodox V. 1 ■«* •»( the chief^ sti. TMaJ struggle was w.»^.d. I lit \i.it ■■! '':i,:en to Koine, some time in 211-217. inu»t have intro- duced him to the c.iifr .\.t^\. ..% abundant references to it an ! 'It are In his writings. Th. iracinit the development of S . I'lrinit the 3rd cent, .ire ver'. " '" "•» the Trinitv (ec. 11 .» an acknowledged heri , ture arguments as Ju*lii. i . Trypk. II I20I2.J. .N.OV, author who distinctly r Sal)ellian hereby. I h- emerges into the f'v c. 2'>o. It ixrrmeji of Prntapoli« in I 1 of two l)i*hop» of ( KiPMKASOH. Dl"i against their teai . accused of heresy to I M'Unmu. •i i\ ■■ docuracotk bcarmK 00 the d»»puir rllr^t the .«r..te wa% .. The txvtwrea :a 882 SABELLIANISM these two fathers are in Routh's Rel. Sacr. iii. 370-400 ; for a discussion of the contro- versy see DiONYSius (6). In 4th cent, it again burst forth when Marcellus of Ancyra, in op- posing Arianism and the subordination theory of Origan, was led to deny any personal dis- tinction between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity. Marcellus was probably only guilty of loose expressions, but his disciple Photinus worked out his system to its logical conclusions and boldly proclaimed Sabellian views. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote against McU^cellus, and from the extracts in his two treatises, cont. Marcell. and de Ecclesiast. Theolog. we derive most of our information concerning Marcellus (cf. Epiph. Haer. Ixxii.). Athanasius, Basil, Hilary, Chrysostom, all condemned Marcellus and his teaching. Basil's letters are a repertory of information about the controversy during the latter half of 4th cent. Basil first called Sabellius an African, solely, it would seem, because of the prevalence of Sabellianism in the Pentapolis, under Dionysius of Alexandria, when probably Sabellius himself was long dead. The interest in the controversy ceased by degrees as the great Nestorian and Eutychian discussions of the 5th cent, arose. Yet Sabellianism lin- gered in various quarters. Epiphanius {Haer. Ixii.) says that in his time Sabellians were still numerous in Mesopotamia and Rome — a fact confirmed by an inscription discovered at Rome in 1742, which runs: "Qui et Filius diceris et Pater inveniris," evidently erected by Sabellian hands (Northcote's Epitaph, of Catacombs, p. 102). Augustine speaks of them, however, as practically extinct in Africa (cf. Ep. ad Dioscorum, ex.). We add a brief exposition of this heresy. One section of the Monarchian party (see supra) guarded the Monarchy by denying any personal distinctions in the Godhead, and thus identifying the Father and the Son. But Christ is called the Son of God, and a son necessarily supposed a father distinct from himself (Tertul. cont. Prax. c. 10). They evaded this difficulty by distinguishing be- tween the Logos and the Son of God. The Logos was itself eternally identical with God the Father. The Son of God did not exist till the Incarnation, when the Eternal Logos manifested its activity in the sphere of time in and through the man Christ Jesus. " In O.T.," says Sabellius, "no mention is made of the Son of God, but only of the Logos " (Athan. Orat. iv. § 23). The Sonship is a mere temporary matter, however (cf. Greg. Nys. cont. Sab ell. in Mai's Coll. Nov. Vett. Scriptt. t. viii. pt. ii. p. 4), and when the work of man's salvation is completed the Logos will be withdrawn from the humanity of Christ into that personal union and identity with the Father which existed from eternity, while the humanity will be absorbed into the original Divine nature. All this was summed up in the distinction drawn between the \670s evhiddeTos and the \6yo'5 irpocpopiKds. Here Sabellianism merged into Pantheism. The ultimate end of all things, according to Sabellius, was the restoration of the Divine Unity ; that God, as the absolute Movds, should be all in all. If, then, the absorption of Christ's humanity into the absolute Movdj SABINA, POPPAEA was necessary, much more the absorption of all inferior personal existences. Neander points out that this system presents many points of resemblance to the Alexandrian- Jewish theology. Epiphanius, indeed, ex- pressly asserts (Haer. Ixii. c. 2) that Sabellius derived his system from the apocryphal Gospel of the Egyptians, which stated that Christ had taught His disciples, as a great mystery, the identity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This Gospel insisted upon the element of Sabellianism most akin to Pantheism, viz. that all contrarieties will be finally resolved into unity. Thus, according to it, Christ replied to the question of Salome when His kingdom should come, " When two shall be one, and the outer as the inner, and the male with the female ; when there shall be no male and no female." Neander {H. E. t. ii. pp. 317-326, Bohn's ed.) gives the clearest exposition of this heresy and its connexion with kindred systems. [g.t.s.] Sabellius, heretic, after whom the sect of the Sabellians was called (see preceding art.). The known facts of his history are but few. All 4th-cent. writers follow Basil in saying that he was born in Africa. The scene of Sabellius's activity was Rome, where we find him during the episcopate of pope Zephyrinus, A.D. 198-217. From the statement of Hippo- lytus, he was apparently undecided in his views when he came to Rome, or when he first began to put forward his views at Rome, for the silence of Hippolytus about his birthplace suggests that it may have been Rome. In Refut. ix. 6, Hippolytus says that Callistus perverted Sabellius to Monarchian views. Hippolytus argued with him and with Noetus and his followers {ib. iii.). Sabellius, convinced for a time, was again led astray by Callistus. In fact, during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, Callistus, Sabel- lius and the pope seem to have united in persistently opposing Hippolytus. Soon after his accession Callistus (a.d. 217) excommuni- cated Sabellius, wishing to gain, as Hippolytus puts it, a reputation for orthodoxy and to screen himself from the attacks of his persis- tent foe. Sabellius thereupon disappears from the scene. He seems to have written some works, to judge from apparent quota- tions by Athanasius in his 4th treatise against Arianism. [g.t.s.] Sablna (1), Poppaea, empress, 2nd wife of Nero. Like certain members of the Flavian family, it is very highly probable, though not absolutely certain, that Poppaea was a Chris- tian. She was almost certainly a Jewish proselyte, as the language of Josephus, 0eo<Te/3r?s 70^ V (■^nt. xx. 8, 11) almost implies. The fact that her body was em- balmed and not burnt after the Roman custom (Tac. Ann. xvi. 6) has been urged to shew that she had embraced a foreign religion. Cer- tainly at least twice (Jos. I.e., and Vita, 3) she exerted her influence with Nero in favour of the Jews (see Lightfoot, Philipp. 5 note). It has even been conjectured that it was through her that the Christians and not Jews were selected as the victims to suffer for the burning of Rome. A romantic theory was put forward by M. Latour St. Ybars of a rivaky between the Jewish Poppaea and Acte the former SABINUS mistress of Noro, wli... ..u tin- strciiKlh of 4 pa^-sage in St. Chrysostom (Horn, in Ada xlvi. m Migiie. Pair. Gk. \x. 3^5). ii conjectured to have boon a Christian. ScluUrr. (iesth. J. r^m. Katsirrrfichs untfr Sfro, 430 n., and \\.\\^, Hut. iUs p(Tsic. 421 n. For tln> Keiu-ral histurv <if I'oppaoa see Mcrivale. c. liii. I'-i'-l S»bInUS (10). bp. of H.raclia in Thracr. and a lead.-r of the P.irtv and s»-ct of M.irrdonnis. He was the author of a collection «if the .\cts of the councils of the church from the coiwinl of Xicaea to his own time, which was much used by Socrates in his Feci. //is/.. wh>> speaks of it as untrustworthy, because Sabinus was an unscrupulous partisan, and omitted, and even wilfully altered, facts and statements adverse to his views and interests (cf. Socr. op. cit. i. 8; ii. 15). Socrates shews how Sabinus tries to disparage the fathers of Nicaea in the face of the contrary evidence of liusebius, and makes no mention whatever of .Macedonius, lest he should have to describe his evil deeds. Baronius {ad ami. 3^5. xxxi.t., a<i a»iM. 344. iii. etc.) speaks strongly of Sabi- nus's unscrupulous handling of history, calls him " homo mendacissimus.'' and suggests that Sozomen gives a garbled account of the election of .\tiianasius. " ex otficina Sabini." Cave (Hist. Ltt. i. 41 1 ) fixes the date at which Sabinus flourished as c. 425. [g.w.d.] Salamanes (2). a solitary of Capersana, a village on the right bank of the Euphrates, who shut himself up in a cell <m the opposite bank, having neither door nor window. Once a year he dug himself out, obtained fond fi>r the next year, and returned, having spoken with none, ffis dioc«>an, desiring to confer orders on so distinguished an .iscttic, had the cell wall broken down and laid iiis hands upon him. Salamanes neither consenting nor dis- senting. With equal passiveness he allowed himself to be transferred to another cell .icro^> the river by the inhabitants of the village, and to be taken back again by his former neigh- bimrs ( Theod. Htst. Relig. c. xix.). [e.v.J SalvianUS (3). priest of .Marseilles, a writer whose works illustrate most vividly the state of Gaul in 5th cent. The one external authority for his Life is (iennadius. d* Scrtptt. EccUs. c. 67. who gives a list of hi* writings. In 429 St. Hilary of .\rles. in a sermon on St. Honoratus. describes him as " the most blessed man Salvianus the presbyter." His own expressions (de dub. Det, vi. 72) indicate that he was born in <iaul. probably at Treves, the manners and customs of which place he knew intimately and reproves sharply. He, or at least some of his relations, resided at Cologne, occupying a respectable position in that city. When a young man he married Palladia, daughter of Hypatius, and had one daughter Auspiciola, after whose birth Sal- vianus and his wife adopted the monastic life. This greatly inccns*'d Hypatius, who retired to a distant region, refusing any conuiiunication ! with them for 7 years. Ep. iv. is a very earnest appeal by Salvianus, his wife, and daughter, for a renewal of the love and friendship o( Hypatius, with what success we arc not told. Salvianus was in extreme old age when Gennadius wrote, and w.is held in the highest honour, being expressly termed "l-piscoporum Magister," and regarded as the very type of a SALVIUS MS . ltC4l . lit* in tn . the *rrl 1.1 IV. .4111% di%- ' iilal mrd .li«t. monk and 4 \ch0l4r ••■ "■' tant from 4 »m:i41. point of view. Ill ; lively picture of t; empire due to the luujiu: vogue, riius lib. v. cc. \ C4Use of brlg4nd44;r, th< system, 4nil the evil* of \ 14 he refers to the crowds III 4ll the cities of (.4ul, .1 : covery of Syri4n. .AMyrian inscriptions in France h.. (cf. l.e Hlanfs ln\. (hr/l Nos. 22.^. .S57. and f.i j). II .ler- stand the interruption of 1 srra Konian and British C hri : and oth cents. The empire \\ sur- ! rounded by a ring fence ol liM.ulc .tair*. all ' barbarous, and several of thrin heretical ' which served as .i r. ti. .it fi-m It.. • ■■^^^t. and I a barrier to t! > rent. , and a half t' mk* I and BurguiKii . ^ueiit [for Koines nil-.-! •11.11 \ -•< u .>u;. m ti >>it>linK I with the regions Ik-voiuI. The tre4tiM' 4|C4intt avarice is a laudation of the ascetic life and of almsgiving; he even in l-K ■ ......i.iv di»- cusses whether 4 man sh" pri»- perty at all to his ^on^. 1)'*) devotes a lengthenetl notin : , with a full analvsis of his wrUings. The latest ed. of his works i% that in the Corp. E(cl. Scnptorum of the Vienna .Academy. t.viii.(Vindob. IS.S3). ed. byf-'r. I'4uly. 1<..T.».) Salvlna (Si/iinil), daughter ol the .Mtxiruh chief (iildo, count of .\(ric4. The Chrtttun virtues which, according to Jerome and I hry- sostom, distinguished the Ijdles ol <illdo'» family, were in strong contrast with tirulal and savage vices which rendered his name detect- able. While still a girl, Salvina was trail*- ferred by Iheodosius t<» his own court, at « pledjje of the loyalty of her father and of the province of Africa which he governed. She was brought up with the voung iiieint>er» u( the im|H-rial family, and muti.t . 390 •Nebridius, the son of the nii, who had been educated with hi ture emperors, .\rcadius and II' > im». dying s.N.n after, left her witli .• '.a. s. .ri.llU*. and a daughter (Hieron. hp. ix.). Mie devoted herscll to(>o<rs service, and, a* her husband had il.iiie. protected the Oriental churche* and ecclesiastics at the court of .\rcadiu». Her lame having spread to I'alesline. Jrrouie. though a siraiigrr. v>f->ir her a letter the arrogant tone of which might well have iiffended. il the coarseness had not %hockrd her. Iheyouii^c wi.l.vv uu.I l.ri .tul.tfrn then forme«l one h" . .iilo"» widow (ti.- h. 1 "»al aunt at Con 1 ■ . d* Srn'. I'lrf. ; l.p 1 i • ^al* vma's ardent pletv : l« Chrysontoni. Shr 1 ••«• ess«-s, eipialllt ■ ■ ' > m devoll.ili to I ' «U the last. an. I •»"> and I'r.K-uU. • " "» the bajtlstrtv ..1 t;.. > at;.' -i: a; ll.r ;..^,.'.; 'I hU linal rxpulsloii (I'alUd p. -^O- U *.| S«1tIiU (3). Doi.alist l>p. of .MriubfaM (.Mfditt il llab), one ol the Ii ofdauie** ul 884 SALVIUS Maximian. He is mentioned as one who practised rebaptism (Aug. Farm. iii. 22). Refusing to return to the party of Primian, he was displaced, and Restitutus appointed in his stead. Salvius believed that his opponents could not take advantage of the laws against heretics without implicating themselves in its operation (Aug. c. Cresc. iv. 57, 58, 60, 82 ; Ep. 108. 14 ; En. Ps. 57. 18 ; Cod. Theodos. xvi. 5, 22, 25, 26). The action appears to have been brought during the proconsulate of Herodes, a.d. 394, but not to have been decided until that of Seranus, a.d. 398. When the judgment was published, the people of Membresa, by whom Salvius, now an old man, was greatly beloved, appear to have supported him in opposition to the edict; but the people of Abitina, a neighbouring town, took upon themselves, without any official sanction, to execute it, and having attacked Salvius, maltreated him cruelly and ignominiously. Whether this attack caused the death of Sal- vius we know not, nor do we hear of him again, but his case is often quoted by Augustinewhen retorting on the Donatists their charge against the Catholics of persecution. [h.w.p.] Salvius (5) iSauve), St., bp. of Alby, an intimate friend of Gregory of Tours, who gives the story of his early life from his own lips. He had been an advocate, and had led an active and worldly life though unstained by the passions of youth. After his conversion he entered a monastery to embrace a new life of poverty, austerity, and worship. In time the monks made him abbat, but craving for still higher sanctity, he withdrew to a solitary cell, where, after a fever, he fell into a sort of trance, and was laid out for dead. While unconscious he was conducted by two angels to heaven, and shewn the glory of it, but not permitted to remain, as work still awaited him on earth. The account of this Dantesque vision, which Gregory calls God to witness he heard from the bishop's own lips, is interesting (Hist. Franc, vii. i). The authenticity of this chapter has, however, been questioned (see Boll. Acta SS. Sept. iii. 575, 576). As bishop Salvius indignantly scouted the heretical and somewhat crude views on the Trinity which king Chilperic wished to force upon the church {ib. v. 45). He was at the council of Braine in 580, and while bidding farewell to Gregory there, he pointed to the king's palace and asked him if he saw aught above it. Gregory could see nothing but the upper story just built at Chilperic's command. Then Salvius, drawing a deep sigh, said : " Video ego evagi- natum irae divinae gladium super domum banc dependentem," and after 20 days the two sons of the king were no more (v. 51). When Mum- molus carried off some of the flock of Salvius as prisoners, he followed and ransomed them at his own cost ; and when Alby was almost depopulated by a plague that ravaged S. France, he refused to desert the city (vii. i). He died c. 584, being succeeded by Desider- atus (vii. 22). [s.A.B.] Samson (1) (Sampson), Welsh saint, bp. of D61. His legend is obscured by the admixture of several traditions. The materials for his Life are of their kind very abundant. Taking the Life in Lib. Land, as a type of the British tradition as distinguished from the SARBELIUS Galilean, Samson was son of Amwn Ddu, prince of Armorica in the 5th cent. Born in Glamorganshire, educated by St. Illtyd at Llantwit Major, ordained deacon and priest by St. Dubricius, he became for three and a half years abbat of St. Peirio or Piro's mon- astery on an island near Llantwit ; some say at Llantwit. Afterwards he lived in a desert near the Severn, was consecrated by St. Dubricius and others to the episcopate, though, according to the common Celtic custom, without reference to a specific see, and in course of time proceeded to Armorica, where he became the deliverer of the captive prince Judual, and died at D61 (Lib. Land. 305). Thus far, and excluding the miraculous elements, the tradition is generally consistent and complete, though some Welsh traditions bring him back to die at Llantwit. To this are added several fictions, probably of the 12th cent., traceable to Geoffrey of Monmouth and to Girald. Cambr. The monumental inscribed stones to SS. Illtyd and Samson found in the churchyard of Llantwit Major cannot be of this early date ; the Samson there mentioned must have lived in the gth cent., and the lettering would agree with that date. Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 626-628 ; Rees, Welsh SS. 181, 255). [J.G.] SarbeliUS (1) (Sharbil). S>Tiac Acts of Sarbclius and other Edessan martyrs are in Cureton's Antiq. Man. Syr. (1864), and a Latin trans., with abundant illustrative matter, was pub. by Moesinger (Innsbruck, 1874). Accord- ing to them, Sarbelius was chief priest of the idol- worship of Edessa. Trajan, in the 15th year of his reign (also described as the 3rd of Abgarus, the 7th king, and the 416th of the era of Alexander the Great), commanded the rulers of the provinces to see that sacri- fices and libations were renewed and in- creased in every city, and to punish with torture those who refused to take part. Barsimaeus, the bp. of the Christians, accom- panied by a priest and deacon, thereupon waited on Seirbelius and warned him of his responsibility in leading so many to worship gods made with hands. They briefly told him of the doctrine concerning our Lord's Incar- nation and death, taught by Paluth, the dis- ciple of Addai the apostle, and believed in by the earlier king .A.bgarus. Sarbelius was at once converted, baptized that night, and made his appearance next day clad in his baptismal robes. A great multitude, including some chief men of the city, were converted with him. The Acts then relate how the governor Licinius brought Sarbelius before him and commanded him to sacrifice. As each form of torture was tried without success, Licinius ordered a new and more severe one, 18 being described. Finally, Sarbelius was put to death with new tortures, being partially sawn asunder and then be- headed, his sister Barbea being martyred with him. There are separate Acts of Barsimaeus, evidently by the same hand. They relate how he, after the martyrdom of Sarbelius, was brought before the tribunal and similarly tor- tured. But a letter, ordering persecution to cease, arrived from Trajan, who had been con- vinced of the excellence of Christian morality and of the general agreement of their laws of conduct with the imperial laws. SATURNINUS SATURNINUS M5 These hdessan Acts acqiiirod \ ery cmiidcr- of life; ami llirsr .uiKrU %4V. 4^ in (.mcit, able celebrity. M.Hsiiifjer put.hsli.il an " L*t u* make man aftrr our imaKr." We Armenian translation, and Sarlielui> is com- mav count S.itMrtiinti t. thr ..riKinat-.r „J ih« memorated in the Creek .Ui-nui-ii and the latin mvth. for t!; : 'n ha« marki of Ir^t MartNTolocies under Jan. 2<) and Dot. 15. There simplicity is also a Thathuel. commemorated S<'pt. 4. Satiirnii whose story is identical with that of S.irlx-lius. Moesinger argued that the extant .Acts were written by a contempor.iry of Sarbeliiis and were historically trustworthy ; but his argu- ments are too weak to deserve serious refuta- tion. Two marks of tiction are obvious : the turiiiii the Jews \s.., He and his comp.i: with S.I tan and a c likewise, there w. ; men. the bad ever aiJtU their conflicts with the it ihAl Ml* (;<>H »( h\ iJ.t g<MKl. Then the power of .•\rchons ; he Cod and to extravagant amount of tortures alleged, and Supreme F-'ather wnt a Saviour to cWtrov the the familiarity of Sarbelius with N.T.. which would have been noteworthy in a Christian of long standing in a.d. 105, but is incredible in a newly-made convert. He is made to quote the Gospels several times, the Psalms, and Romans. We may ascribe the .Acts to the latter part of 4th cent. They are probably later than Eusebius, who shews no knowledge This is t>ne of of the story ; but are largely employed in a between the rej S|>ark of life in thri This Saviour had f the Jew* and the ..thrr save thov wh<> had the — that is to«..n- thr - .1. o human bi: ' t, body, and was i>nlv a man in 1 Saturiiinus asrril)rd the Jr«i st>me to the creator angels and rrai points s civrn bv I: sermon, printed by Moesinger, by James of teaching of Saturninus and Sarug (d. 522). There is a strong family These do not ascril>c any <>f thi- pr..pli,'«.i. , to likeness between the .Acts of Sarbelius and Satan, but Irenaeus (f 11) gives the schrme those of Habibus, and of Samona and Curia, according to which they di>tributed thrn» also given in Cureton's work. Since the latter among the several angrls. Saturninus d<>«-» mart>Ts are said to have suffered under Dio- not appe.ir to have left any writings. His \rct cletian, the former .Acts, which seem to have is named by Justin Martvr {rnfhn. \\) and the same origin, are at least no earlier, [g.s.] by Hege>ippus (lius. //. t. iv. n). N'.i l.»|rr Saturninus (l). In the section of his work h» resiologist appears to know anythinK alx>'it commencing I. 22 Irenaeus gives a list of heretics, apparently derived from Justin MartvT. The first two are the Samaritan heretics, Simon and Menander ; the ne.xt, a> having derived their doctrines from these, Saturninus and Basilides, who taught, the former in the S>Tian Antioch, the latter in Egypt. Irenaeus says that Saturninus. like Menander, ascribed the ultimate origin of things to a Father unknown to all ; and taught that this Father made angels, arch- angels, powers, authorities, but that the world and the things therein were made by a pcrated the people that him beyond what he learned from Irrn.i and Irenaeus probably derived all his know- ledge from Justin Martyr. (<-s.) Saturninus (2) (.^^cmin). St., mart>T. first bp. and patmn of Toulouse. According to his Acta, published bv Surius (N..v. 2'}) and bv Kuinart after careful reviMon in his A dm Stnc^ra (pp. 128-133), Saturninus came to Toulouse in the consulship of Decius and Gratius (a.d. 251), apparently from Rome (cf. V'enant. Fort. Misc. li. 12, Sligne. I'air. IM. Ixxxviii. loi). Here his preachinc v) rxas- : the' put hiin t< certain company of seven angels, in whom n<i sh(K;king death by binding htm to doubt we are to recognize the rulers of the which they infuriated by goads. Th» seven planetary spheres. He taught that two other traditions current in early man was the work of the same angels. They one that Satuniinus was sent into | r had seen a brilliant image (ttVax) descend from st. Clement at the end of the i-t r. the Supreme Power, and had striven to detain other that his mission was from th<- it, but in vain ; for it immediately shot back themselves. The former is in Cr- again. So they encouraged each other : " Let Tours (de dor. .Marl. i. 4*^). a"d the us make man after the image and after the as old as Venantius Fortunatus, likeness " (for finofa xal xad' onoiuxny. Gen. S. Diortysit is rightly ascnlx-d t' i. 25). They made the man, but were too «.». 579). and appears in manv feeble to give him power to stand erect, and sources (ste Ceillirr. ii. 111 n.). ' he lay on the ground wriggling like a worm Imaris celebrated his martynl (wj aKwXriKOi aKapi^ofTOf) until the Upi>er stan/as (/•./>. ix. 16). Vrnantius I Power, taking compassion on him because he vjmr verses on the same ev had been made " in Its likeness," sent a spark working virtues of hi of life which raised him and made him live. Migne, «.».<>'»>. and 01 Saturninus taught that after man's death this built towar! •' ■• ■' ■ spark runs back to its kindred, while the rest IxkIi- of man is resolved into the elements whence • " he was made. The same creation myth is reported by Irenaeus (I. xxx. 5) to have been included in the svstem commonly known as Ophite ; and literary dependence of the two storit-s is clear from the common use of the word '»«o^i'<< But according to the Ophite story it is not the Supreme Power, but laldabaolh, the chief of bull. If tl.' • hill: t..inl. the I . .( Mh (...; 1 hr was U.UI..I I., the bull and « '•«• known as du Taur or duTani. ! Uhj). (sah ) Saturninus i2l). "^tii bp. i>( .\t\n, » pillar of .Ananism in the West. In the wuitrr of 1. .t .it t!,.- f'.unrll .-f Arlrs. whtrti. )S^U At! to Hll.>r^ the creative company, who bestows the breath and wju bcocelocth m the Wot the c: 886 SCAPULA of orthodoxy against Saturninus, Ursacius, Valens, and the emperor. In 356 Saturninus presided at the council of Beziers, which decreed the exile of Hilary ; and it seems probable from allusions in Hilary's writings that he was also at the council of Rimini in 359, and was one of the legates dispatched thence to the emperor at Constantinople (Hil. ad Const. Aug.W. 3 ; Migne, Patr. Lai. x. 565). This seems to have been the zenith of the bishop's fortune. Hilary, not long after, re- turned to Gaul ; and Saturninus, still unbend- ing in his opposition, was deprived of his see, and even excommunicated, as is thought, at the 1st council of Paris in 362. [s.a.b.] Scapula, a proconsul of Africa, with whom Tertullian remonstrated for his persecution of the Christians ; not because the Christians feared martyrdom, but solely because their love for their enemies made them desire to save them from the guilt of shedding innocent blood. Tertullian recoimts the temporal calamities which had overtaken former per- secutors of the Christians, and denounces the injustice of punishing men pure in life and loyal, and whose innocence the magistrates fully acknowledge by their evident unwilling- ness to proceed to extremities and by their ex- ertions to induce the accused to withdraw their confession. If, as had been done in another province, the Christians of Carthage were to present themselves in a body before the proconsul's tribunal, the magistrate, he says, would find before him thousands of every age, sex, and rank, including many leading per- sons, and probably relations and intimates of his own friends, and might well shrink from severities which would decimate the city. The tract is later than the emperor Severus, of whom it speaks in the past tense. The Scapula addressed was probably Sca- pula TertuUus, one of the ordinary consuls in 195. The usual interval between consulship and proconsulship was 15 to 20 years ; this also would place the proconsulship not very long after Severus died on Feb. 9, 211. [c.s.] Sclllitan Martyrs, 12 mart>TS at Carthage j (one of them Felix) from the African town of \ Scillita. According to their Acta, one of the women, Donata, when they were called upon by the consul, Saturninus, to sacrifice, replied, j "We render honoxu: to Caesar as Caesar, but worship and prayers to God alone." On 1 receiving their sentence they thanked God. It was Ruinart's theory that the Scillitan MartjTS suffered under Sept. Severus between i 198 and 202. M. Leon Renier, an eminent French archaeologist, however, noticed that the first line of the received codices of the Acts I of these mart\TS gave the names of the consuls j for the year of the mart>Tdom very variously, a fragment published by Mabillon {Vet. Analect. t. iv. p. 155) reading, " Praesidente bis Claudiano consule." He therefore sug- gested that the word " bis " ought to follow a proper name indicating a second consulship, and that the word " consule " ought to be replaced by " consulibus." Finding, more- over, in the Fasti the names Praesens II. and Condianus as consuls for 1 80, he proposed that the first line of om: Acts should be read, "Prae- sente bis et Condiano Consulibus." Then in 1881 Usener, a Bonn professor, published a SECUNDUS hitherto unknown text of these Acts from a Greek MS. in the Bibl. Nat. of Paris, dating from the end of 9th cent., and explicitly nam- ing the very two consuls Renier suggested, Praesens II. and Condianus. There is no mention of Severus. It quite correctly speaks of one emperor, since Commodus on July 17, 180, was sole emperor. The proconsul of Africa is Saturninus. He continues the policy of the previous reign, which is not yet I modified by the domestic influences which I led Commodus to favour the Christians. In j 177 persecution had raged at Lyons. It was I now the turn of Africa. Usener regarded the I Gk. text discovered by him as a translation from Latin. Aube, viewing the Gk. text of Usener as an original document and the source j of all the Latin texts, replied to Usener's ! arguments, pointing out that Greek was large- j ly spoken at Carthage in the latter half of 2nd cent., and urging many critical considerations j from a comparison of the Latin and Greek [ texts which seem to support his view. For a further discussion of the question see Aube and Usener. To the Biblical critic these Acts in both shapes are interesting, as indicating the I position held by St. Paul's Epp. in 180 in i the N. African church. The proconsul asked J the martyr Speratus what books they kept laid up in their bookcases ? He replied. Our books, or, as the Latin version puts it, j the four Gospels of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I in addition the Epistles of Paul the holy man. Etude stir un nouveau texte des Actes des Martyrs SciUitains (Paris, 1881) ; cf. Light- foot's Ignatius, t. i. p. 507. [g.t.s.] Sebastianus (2), Jan. 20, military martyr at Rome under Diocletian. He was of Milan, where he commanded the first cohort. He confessed Christ, and was shot (apparently) to death with arrows in the camp. He was celebrated in the time of St. Ambrose (Enarr. in Ps. 118, No. 44), and is the favourite saint of Italian women, and regarded as the pro- tector against the plague. His symbol is an arrow. [g.t.s.] Seoundinus (11), a poet, a contemporary and correspondent of Sidonius Apollinaris (Ep. V. 8) who apparently highly esteemed Secun- dinus as a writer of hexameter verse on minor subjects, such as royal hunting parties and marriages. Secundinus afterwards attempted satire, and Sidonius highly commends a composition in hendecasyllabic metre, urging him to continue this kind of composition. It appears (Ep. ii. 10) that some of his hexa- meters were inscribed upon the wall of the basilica built at Lyons by Patiens (bishop c. 451-491), and he may have been one of the many minor poets who flourished at Lyons in the latter half of 5th cent. [h.a.w.] Secundus (1), Gnostic of 2nd cent., a disciple of Valentinus, and apparently one of the earliest of that teacher's successors, since he is the first of that school of whom Irenaeus gives an account (I. xi. 2). Irenaeus reports two things as peculiar in his teaching: (i)he divided the primary Ogdoad into two Tetrads, a right-hand and a left-hand one, the one being called light, the other darkness; (2) he did not allow the Sophia out of whose passions, according to the Valentinian theory, the ma- terial world took its origin to have been one SECUNDUS of the io primary Acoii';. Thr short notice in Irenanus seems the iiltim.ite source of all authentic information about Sccundus. (o.";.) SeCUndUS (4). bp. of Tij;isis. a f.^rtilied town of Numidia, in the neighbourhood of Lambeso and Thamagada (lYocop. I'antial. ii. u). The persecution under Hiocletian appears to have reached its height in Feb. 304, and on May 19 Paulus, bp. of Cirta. committed the act of "tradition " which partly gave rise to the proceedings in which Secnndus became con- spicuous. Panliis soon died, and some 11 or 12 bishops met at Cirta on Mar. .■> (according to Optatus May 8), 305, under the presidency of Secundus, as primate of Numidia, to appoint a successor. Although persecution had virtually ceased, the churches were not vet restored, and the assembly met in the house of Urbanus, where they ordained Sil- vanus. Optatus says that amid the uproar of mutual incrimination [Donatism) Purpurius of Limata taxed Secundus with tradition, because, instead of leaving his post of duty before the inquisition, he remained imtil dis- missed in safety, which would not have been the case unless he had purchased his safety by act of surrender. On this a murmur arose in the assembly, and Secundus, in alarm, ac- cepted a method of escape suggested by his nephew Secundus the younger, that such questions as this of personal conduct ought to be left to the judgment of the .■Mmightv. a judicious evasion received with acclamation by all (Opt. i. 14 ; Aug. Ef>. 43. 6). When, on the death of Mensurius, bp. of Carthage, a.d. 311, Caecilian was appomted to succeed him, Secundus was sent for in haste to preside at a meeting of 70 mal- contents at Carthage, and their factious opposition resulted in the schismatic appoint- ment of .Majorinus (Opt i. 19 ; Aug. Parm. i. s). The case was brought up afresh at the conference of 411. Tillem. vi. 5-14 ; Morcelli, Afr. Chr. ii. 194-207 ; Ribbek, Au/^. utui Don. PP- 52-37. 69 ; Sparrow Simpson, St. Aug. and Afr. Ch. Divtxions (1910), p. 32. [h.w.p.] SeduHus (1), a 5th-cent. poet, of whose life very few details are known. The only trust- worthy information is given by his two letters to Macedonius, from which we learn that he devoted his early life, perhaps as a teacher of rhetoric, to heathen literature. Late in life he became converted to Christianity, or, if a Christian before, began to take a serious view of his duties. Thenceforward he devoted his talents to the service of Christ, living as a priest (cf. i. 7-9), in close intercourse with a small body of religious friends (pref.). He gives us a charming account of this group : Macedonius, the father and life of the whole ; Urslnus, the reverent priest spending his life in the service of the King of Heaven ; Laur- ence, the wise and gentle, who has spent all his money on the poor ; Clallicanus. another priest, not learned, but a model of goodness and loyalty to church rule ; I'rsicinus, com- bining the wisdom of age with the brigliln«-s8 of vouth ; the deaconess Syncletica, of noble birth and nobler life, a worthy temple of <;<>d, purified bv fasting, prayer, and charity, learned and liberal ; and lastly Perpelua, the young pure matron, perpetual in fame and purity as in name. Sedulius, too, longed to SEDULIUS ss7 devote his t.ilrnt to (.,mI .mcl to strrnKthrn hi« own spiritu.il life by exhorting <>^Urx^. Mr ve.irn.<l |o t.ii thr hr.ithrn of the won.lrri of the Cosprl, .uid WTotr thr ( armm t'axtkaU to invito then to share thr (.mprl (r.l^t. Thi« was dedicate.! to .Macedonius, and aflrrwar.U at his request, was translaird into i.roxr {Opu't PiischaU). The works shew a rharacirr of much humility (rf. i. ad ftn.). of trndrrne** o( heart (v. c,h), of warm gratiliidr {(arm. l'A\ch. , pref.), and of krrn susceptibility to criticism (Opiis I'asch. pref.). These are the only certain fact*. Lvrn hit date is uncertain, lie refers to St. Jrromr at a well-known student, and his work is praised by a decree of pope Celasiiis in 4'»s ..r 496. I Syncletica mav have l>ern a sjstrr of i;usi.|. thius, who livecl early in 5th rent. Hrnrr the I date of Sedulius must be c. ^y). A mass of ! information about him is in later writers, but much of it arises from a confusion with S<»du- lius the Scotchman. The l)est authenticated j account makes him a native of Home who studied philosophy in Italy, l>ccame an am- I ttstes (I.e. probably a presbyter) and wrote hit book in .Vchaia. The internal evidence as to these details is very slight : his friends bear i Latin names almost entirely ; he is in the j presence of educated idolaters and takr< I special pains to argue against sun-worshii> ; , but these indications are very v.igue. Hit works became popular very soon. Thrv were edited by an editor of Vergil, T. Kuhus Asterius (consul A.D. 494) — perhaps in consequence of the importance attached to them by the pope's decree. Thev are mentioned with praise by Venantius Fortunatus (viii. i) and Theodulf of Aries ; were commented on, perhaps by Remi of ,^uxe^■e (oth cent.), and frequently quoted and imitated by the writers of the middle ages. Areval quotet 16 MSS. dating from cents, vii. to xvi. ; since then more than 40 editions have been printed, and special prominence was given to him by German writers last century. (i) Carmen Paschal f, " a poem in honour of Christ our Passover," consists of five t>ooks. Bk. i. is an introductory appeal to the heathen to give up idolatry and listen to the deeds of the true (iod. Bks. ii.-v. dcscrilx? in full detail the miracles of the (lospel and the I.ord't Prayer. In the earlier part the mmttv<-^ of SS. Matthew and Luke .irr pi-' ' ' m chronological order. Through to the final entry into Jerusal' lows St. Matthew, with a few w ;. m SS. John and Luke ; then adds a siiccr>sion o< miracles from SS. Mark and Luke, without regard to chronology (iv. 59.3^1). and the chirf incidents of St. John's <i<»spel ; from the entry into Jerusalem to the end he mainlv follow* St. John. As a rule the details of the scenes are given slightly and followed by frequent comment, sometimet doi;matiral (e.g. on the Nature of the Irinitv, i. i6-jo, 281 sq<j., ii. 171, the Fathrrho<xl of (i.Ml. ii. 234, the lYirsthfHKlof Christ, iv. 207. etc.). at othrr times pointing out the typical niraninK of Scripture, both of O.T. (i. lo.'-irx). IJ7. 142. 152. iii. 202. iv. 17") an<i NT. ; t.g. the number of the evangelist* and of the a(><>stle« (Prol. to lib. ii. ; iil. 172), the numlxr and nature of the gifts of the Maf i (ii. 93), the dove 888 SENOCHUS (ii. 170), and all the details of the passion (v. loi, 169, 190, 243, 257, 275, 402). More often still they consist of moral warnings or of explanations of our Lord's teaching (cf. ii. 106, iii. 321, iv. 16, 163, etc.)- The style is rhetorical but pleasant, with considerable terseness and power of antithesis ; and fairly correct in prosody, shewing considerable acquaintance with classical authors. The reference to Origen (Opus Pasch. pref.) and the play on Elias and ^Xios (i. 170) imply some knowledge of Greek ; of Latin authors he knew Terence, Juvenal, and specially Vergil, from whom he frequently borrows ; possibly, too, the poem of Juvencus. There is a growing frequency in the use of leonine rhymes. For an analysis with a dis- cussion of its sources and theology see Leim- bach, Ueber den Christlichen Dichter Sedidms (Goslar, 1879). (2) Opus Paschale. — This prose translation mainly follows the Carmen faithfully, but adds illustrations and fills up gaps. It is preceded by another interesting letter to Macedonius. (3) Elegia. — An elegiac poem of no lines, corresponding in subject to the Carm. Pasch. It describes the effect of the Incarnation in contrast to the work of Adam, and Christ as the antitype of the types of O.T. (4) Hymn. — " A solis ortus cardine." This may be called a hTical expression of the Carmen. It is a call to praise Christ with a description of the chief facts of His birth, life, and death. It is an alphabetical hymn in iambic dimeters with four-lined strophes. It shews a growing tendency to rhyme and a careful attempt to avoid any conflict between accent and quantity. Two extracts have been widely used in church services, viz. A-G in Lauds for Christmais week ; and H, I, L, N, which celebrate the adoration of the Magi, the baptism, and the miracle at Cana, on the feast of Epiphany. These sections are in Daniel Thes. i. p. 143, and with a full German com- mentary in Kayser, pp. 347-383. (5) Cento Virgilianus " de Verbi Incarna- tione " is sometimes ascribed to Sedulius (e.g. by Bahr), but is only found in one Corbey MS., and there only follows the other poem's without being ascribed to Sedulius. It is in Martene, Vett. Scr. Coll. ix. p. 125. The most available edd. are Migne, Pair. Lat. xix. ; a text of the poetical works by J. Looshorn (Munich, 1879); of the Carm. Pasch. in Hurter's Op. Selecta, xxxiii. ; and Huemer's ed.of thewhole(Vienna, 1885). [w.l.] Senochus (l), St., a presbyter of great reputation for sanctity near Tours ; born c. 536 in a district near Poictiers called Theiph- alia, which had been for many years settled by a Scythian or Tartar race, to which he belonged. He became a Christian, and in some ruined buildings by Tours built himself a cell, at a spot where an old oratory existed, in which St. Martin, according to tradition, had been wont to pray. St. Euphronius, then bp. of Tours, consecrated it afresh, and or- dained Senoch a deacon. Here with a little company of three he practised the greatest austerities, but aspiring to higher sanctity, afterwards shut himself in a solitary cell. In 573 Gregory became bp. of Tours, and received a visit from him. Soon after Senoch went to SERAPION see his kinsfolk in Poitou, and came back, according to Gregory, so puffed up with spiritual pride that the bishop had to reprove him. He consented, at Gregory's persuasion, to forego his absolute solitude, that the sick might be healed by his virtues. He died, aged about 40, c. '576. He had redeemed many from captivity or healed or fed them, I and miracles were attributed to his corpse. j Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, v. 7 ; Vitae Patrum, c. XV. ; de Glor. Conf. c. xxxv. ; Boll. Acta SS. Oct._ X. 764 sqq. [s.a.b.] Senuti, an anchorite whose history was investigated by E. Revillout in a paper on the I Blemmyes (Mem. de I' Acad, des Inscr. 1874, I ser. I, t. viii. p. 395), and still more elaborately in a series of articles in the Revue de Vhist. des religions (1883), Nos. 4 and 5. He was born about the middle of 4th cent. His father was a farmer in Egypt, and Senuti fed his sheep in boyhood. But it was an age when every enthusiast devoted himself to the monastic life. He attached himself to the monastery of Panopolis near Athrebi in Upper Egypt, where he soon attained such fame for sanctity and orthodoxy that Cyril would only set out for the council of Ephesus if he had the com- pany of Senuti and Victor, archimandrite of I Tabenna. Zoega, Cat. MSS. Coptic Mus. I Borg. p. 29, gives us CjTil's account of this affair. Senuti's conduct at the council of Ephesus, as described by his disciple and successor Besa, fully justifies the charges of outrageous violence brought by the Nestorian party against their opponents. A lofty throne was in the centre of the hall with the four gospels on it. Nestorius entered with pomp, flung the gospels on the floor, and seated himself on the throne. This enraged I Senuti, who, snatching up the book, hurled it , against the breast of Nestorius with vigorous 1 reproaches. Nestorius demanded who he j was, and what brought him to the council, being " neither a bishop, nor an archimandrite, nor a provost, but merely a simple monk." I " God sent me to the council," replied Senuti, " to confound thee and thy wickedness." Amid the plaudits of his adherents C>Til at once invested him with the rank and robe ! of an archimandrite. His career was now marked by miracle. He was wafted on a I cloud to Egypt. His fame was everywhere established, and Roman commanders sought his assistance. Thus c. 450 the dux of Upper ; Eg}-pt, Maximin, hurrying to repel a terrific I invasion of the Blemmyes, before he would j advance sought the presence of Senuti, who [ gave Maximin his girdle to wear whenever he joined battle. According to the Coptic MSS. Senuti followed Nestorius with bitter perse- cution to the last, even offering him personal violence when he lay dying in Egypt. Senuti lived to be a heretic in the opposite extreme from Nestorius. After the council of Chalcedon he became a Monophysite and a violent partisan of the patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria, dying imder Timotheus Aelurus aged 118 years. [g.t.s.] Seraplon (1), bp. of Antioch, reckoned 8th in succession, a.d. 190-203 (Clinton), succeed- ing Maximin in the nth year of Commodus (Eus. H. E. vi. 12 ; Chron.), was a theologian of considerable literary activity, the author SERAPION of works of which Eusobius had no certain knowledge besides those enumerated bv him. Of the latter Jerome gives an account (de Script. Eccl. c. 41) borrowed from Kusebius (H. E. V. K) ; vi. 12). They are— (i) a letter to Caricus and Pontius against the Cataphrv- gian or Montanist heresv. containing a copy of a letter of ApoUinaris of Mierapolis. and substantiated as to the facts by the >ignatures of several other bishops, inciuiliug some of Thrace; (2) a treatise addressed to Domninus, who during the persecution of Severus had fallen away to the Jewish "will-worship"; and (3). the most important, directed against the Docetic gospel falsely attributed to St. Peter, addressed to some members of the church of Khossus, who were being led awav by it from the true faith. Serapion recalls the permission to read this apocryphal work given in ignorance of its true character and expresses his intention of speedilv visiting the church to strengthen them in the true faith. Dr. Neale calls attention to the important evidence here furnished to " the power vet possessed by individual bishops of settling the canon of Scripture" (Patriarch, of Antioch, p. 36). Socrates refers to his writings, as an authority against Apollinarianism {//. £". iii. 7). Jerome mentions sundry letters in harmony with his life and character. Tillem. .Mem. eccl. iii. 168, § 9 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 86 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 702. [e.v.] Serapion (3), a penitent of Alexandria, who fell during the Decian persecution. Dinny- sius of Alexandria uses his case as an argu- ment against the Novatianist schism, to which his correspondent, Fabius of Antioch, was ' inclined. Serapion lived a long life without blame, but had sacrificed at last. He often begged for admission to the church, but was refused. He was then taken sick, being three days without speech. When he awoke to consciousness he dispatched his grandson for a presbyter, who was sick and unable to ome, but sent a portion of the consecrated Euchar- ist, telling the boy to moisten it and drop it into Serapion's mouth, who then died in peace. Reservation of the Sacrament must then have been practised in .Alexandria. No argument, however, for communion in one kind can be drawn from this, as doubtless the bread had been dipped in the Eucharistic wine, according to Eastern fashion (see Bingham's 1 /In/i?. lib. XV. c. v.). Eus.//.£. vi.44. [o.t.s.] Serapion (9), surnamed Scholasticiis, bp. of Thmuis in Egypt. He was a friend of St. Athanasius and St. -Anthony of the desert, and occupied a position of some importance in 4th-cent. theological struggles. Anthony be- queathed one of his sheepskin cloaks to Sera- pion and the other to Athanasius {Vita S. Anth. in 0pp. S. Athan., .Migne. I'atr. iMt. t. xxvi. col. 971). Serapion's literary activity was considerable. St. Jerome {Catal. No. <>'») mentions several of his writings, as his treatise contra Manichaeos, his de I'salmorum Tituln (now lost), and some epistles. His work against the Manicheans, described by Jerome as " Egregiura librum," and noticed by Photius {Cod. 85), was for the first time printed in its original form by Urinkmonn m 1894. It had previously been mixed up with a similar work by Titus of Boslra. In SERAPION HH9 its restored form it is a valuablr 4rKumrt,t ag.»inst .M.inicijriMu. Iwo Iritrr* by him were pub. by t .irdin.il M41 — <Mir a r<>nsoUlory letter to bp. Eudoxiiiv who had l»rf-n (<irturp<l; the other misurinK soiiir monk« of .Alrv4i»l- ria. In Teite und InlenuthuHgen (Iripi. iSi)«) WobbiTinin publishrd .» d<>»{iiMttr Iriirf "on the Father .iiid thr S>n, " jiid )•■ litur- gical prayers, the 1st and iMh ..« which are the work of Ser.ipion. They have \trrn reprinted, with valuable note-, .mil di»<-u»Mi>nv by F. 1;. Mrighlinan in the Ott. Joutn. •>/ Theol. Studies. iK.).)-i.>ii). under the title .»( The Sacramentary ot Serapion of Ikmuit, and an English trans., ed. by bp. Wordnw.wth of Salisbury, has been pub. by S. I'.l .K. (<..t.».) Serapion (ID. surnamed Sin.l.,niiei from the linen or cott.m clothing hi- alw.ivs wore ; an Egyptian monk in the time o( Palladium Though uneducatrd. hr knew the Scriptures by heart. Some of his sayings are recorded in the I'erha Seniorum (Kusweyd. I'll. I'at. lib. V libell. vi. $ 12. IiIhII. xi. 31). and in the .■ipophlheRtnala I'atrum (lotelrr. <ir. E(€. Monum. i. (>Ss. (>Hf>) there is an account ol hu visit to a lewd woman, whom he brought to repentance. His missionary zeal Ircl liiiu to travel, but in iiif)re than apostolic |K)yerlv. and he even sold his volume of the g<>>|>el to relieve a destitute person, a circutn«t.incc alluded to by Sfxrrates (iv. 23), though without naming Serapion. Once he sold himself a> a slave to a theatrical company, and oner to a Manichean family, with a view to converting them from their errors. He visited .Vthcdi and Sparta. .At Rome he met Domninus, a disciple of Origen (Pallad. l.au^\ Hal. «3. H4 ; Vtt. Joan. Eleemos. c. 22 in Kosweyd. lib. 1.). He died, aged 60, c. 400, not at Koine as stated in the Latin version of the Lau^nac History, but in the desert, as in Her.iclid«-s (/'iiraJit. c. 24)and the (ireek of Palladius. Theiirerk* honoured his memory on .May 21, the Menaea erroneously calling him o d»6 l«(3orot, be- longing to Sidon. He mav l>e the S<-rapion of .Mar. 21 in the Latin .SlartNTologie* {vtd. I). C. .4.), though the Koinan Martyrology makes this one bp. of Thmuis. (<"•»«.] Serapion (14), a solitary of Scetc. and leader of the .Anthropoinorphites against the festal epistle »)f I'heophilus, patriarch of Alex- andria. The monks of Scete. with the one exception of Paphnutius, an abbat. rejected the orthodox view as to (tiHl's nature. Serapion, however, was converted bv the efforts of Photinus, an Orii-ntal deacon. Cassian tells us that an abbat Isaac explained to him in connexion with Serapiitri rr^m'-r- sion that the Anthropomorphit simply a relic of paganism. I Serapion had been v> long ar< image that without a malrri.il 1. w .. . — ! their prayers si-tMiiecl objrctlrss. i assian, Collat. X. id; CVill. viii. i7'>. (<..t.».) Serapion (16). bp. of llerarlra .111 I K. ; tMU bv birth, ordained deacon Iv (>>r)cr. H. E. vi. 4). and by hr deacon of the church of Con^tr ■ H. E. viii. ')). His rharactrr .l^ .li ..»;. !v contemjH)rary hisioruiis l» ino*t unlavour.iM<-. Presuming on hi* oHicial |M)wer, he tfutnl others with contempt and exhibited u\ intolerable arrogance (Socr. H. E. vl. 11 ; 890 SERAPION Soz. U.S.). His unbounded influence over Chry- sostom tended continually to widen the breach between the bishop and his clergy which the stern line of action originally adopted at Serapion's instance had opened early in his episcopate. Socrates records, as a character- istic speech, that Chrysostom, having vainly endeavoured to enforce his strict notions of discipline on his worldly and luxurious clergy, Serapion exclaimed in their hearing, " You will never be able to master these men, bishop, unless you drive them all with one rod " (Socr. H. E. vi. 4). Chrysostom mistakenly regarded Serapion's harshness as proof of his holy zeal [ib. vi. 17). On Chrysostom's leaving Constantinople early in 401 to regulate the affairs of the church of Asia, he deputed Severian, bp. of Gabala, to act as his commissary, but the real management of the diocese and its clergy was left to Serapion. Severian was ambitious and devoid of a high sense of honour, and Serapion had soon to report, probably with exaggera- tions, that he was undermining Chrysostom's influence with the court and aristocracy, and seeking to outdo him as a preacher. Chry- sostom hastened back to Constantinople, and Serapion greeted him with the astounding intelligence that Severian had denied the In- carnation. The grounds of this charge were the following : Serapion having ostentatiously refused to rise to pay Severian as he passed the accustomed homage of a deacon to a bishop, with the express intention, declared to the clergy around, of shewing " how much he despised the man." Severian, at this studied insult, indignantly exclaimed, " If Serapion dies a Christian, then Jesus Christ was not incarnate." Serapion repeated the latter clause alone, and delated Severian as a denier of the chief article of the Christian faith. The report was confirmed by bystanders and readily credited by Chrysostom, who expelled Severian from the city as a blasphemer (Soz. H. E. viii. 10; Socr. H. E. vi. 11). An account favourable to Serapion is found in a fragment (unwarrantably embodied in some Eng. translations of Socrates's Hist.) printed as an appendix to Socr. vi. 11. According to this, Serapion's act of disrespect was brought before a synod, which, on Serapion affirming on oath that he had not seen Severian pass, acquitted him of intentional rudeness, while Chrysostom, hoping to soothe Severian's ruffled feelings, suspended Serapion from his ecclesiastical functions for a short time. Severian, however, insisted on his deposition and excommunication. Chrysostom. annoyed at his pertinacity, quitted the synod, leaving the decision to the bishops, by whom his mild sentence was immediately confirmed. Chry- sostom then broke off all intimacy with Severian and recommended him to return to his own diocese, which he had neglected too long. For the remainder of this unhappy transaction see Severianus (2). Chrysostom rewarded the supposed fidelity of Serapion by raising him to the priesthood, and returning from the brief expulsion which followed the synod of the Oak, gave Serapion the metro- politan see of Heraclea in Thrace (ih. 17). On Chrysostom's second and final banishment Serapion, taking refuge in a convent of Gothic SERGIUS I monks known as the Marsi (Chrys. Ep. 14), was discovered, dragged from his hiding-place, brought before Chrysostom's enemies, deposed from his bishopric, banished to Egypt, and left at the mercy of the patriarch Theophilus (Pallad. p. 195 ; Soz. H. E. viii. 9). [e.v.] Serenus (4), solitary in the Nitrian desert, who, when visited by Cassian, a.d. 395, dis- cussed de Animae Mobilitate et Spiritalibus Nequiliis (Coll. vii.), and de Principatibus seu Potestatibus (Coll. viii. See Migne, Pair. Lat. t. xlix. 667 seq.). In the former he treats mostly of the nature of the soul, the rapid movement of the thoughts, the influence of evil spirits upon them, and the duty of fixing the desire on God. In the latter he declares i the nature of evil spirits, their fall, subordina- tion, and occupation. His Life, without details, is in Vitae Patrum, c. 50. Migne, Pair. Lat. t. Ixxiii. 844 seq. ; Ceill. Aut. sacr. viii. 170 seq. ; Fleurv, H. E. xx. c. 7. [J-g.] Serenus (5), loth bp. of Marseilles c 595-600, known from the letters of (iregory the Great. To his good offices were commended St. Augus- tine on his mission to England in 596 (Greg. Magn. Ep. vi. 52 ; Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxvii. 836), and, three years later, the monks dis- patched to help him (xi. 58, Pair. Lat. 1176). Two other letters from Gregory are preserved. Serenus in an excess of iconoclastic zeal had entered the churches of Marseilles and broken and cast forth the images. Gregory, com- mending his fervour against idolatry, reproved his violence, since the use of representations in a church was that the unlearned might read on the walls what they were unable to read in the Scriptures (ix. 105, Patr. Lat. 1027). Serenus, disregarding the warning and even affecting to believe the letter a forgery, re- ceived a severe rebuke and a reiteration of the pope's views (xi. 13, Patr. Lat. 1128, written Nov. I, 600). Gall. Christ, i. 639 ; Ricard, Eviques de Marseille, 24, 25 ; Vies des saints de Marseille, S. Serenus, Bayle. [s.a.b.] Sergius (2), a very celebrated military saint and martyr of the Eastern church. His Acts call him " Amicus Imperatoris." He and Bacchus were regarded as the patron saints of Syria. Sergius sufiered at Sergiopolis, or Rasaphe, in Syria, early in the 4th cent. Their united fame soon became widespread. Le Has and Waddington (Voy. archeol. t. iii. No. 2124) notice a church of E. Syria dedicated in their I honour in 354 as the earliest case of such con- j secration to saints, and (ib. No. 1915) describe one dedicated in 512 to SS. Sergius, Bacchus, and Leontius, and offer reasons for regarding Leontius as a martyr under Hadrian when ruling Syria during the last years of Trajan. Theodora, wife of Justinian, presented a jewelled cross to a church of St. Sergius, which Persian invaders carried ofif. Chosroes, king of Persia, returned it to Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, in 593. (Cf. Evagr. H. E. iv. 28 ; vi. 21, where Chosroes is represented as a convert to the cult of Sergius.) The fame of Sergius and Bacchus spread to France, where Le Blant (Christ. Lat. Inscrip. of France, t. i. p. 305) notices a church at Chartres dedicated in their honour. Le Blant (Actes des mart. p. 77) notes the marks of genuineness in his Acts as told in A A. SS. Boll.; cf. Tillem. v. 491. [g.t.s.] Sergius (12), the name of the two Monophy- SEVERIANUS site priests persecuted with John of Ephesu* ! at Constantinople. He relates the sufTerinKs of the Sergii. one of whom was his syncellus, the other his disciple. While John was in»- prisoned in the penitentiary of the hospital of Eubulus the two priests were seized, and, as they would not yield, were publicly scourRecl and then imprisoned in a " diaconate," or hos- pital, attended by deacons and laymen, for 40 days. The s>iicellus was finally sent to the monastery of Beth-Kabula. where he was kindly treated, the monks there " having; no love for the council of Chalccdon nor even proclaiming it in their worship " (John of Eph. H. E. p. no, trans. I'avne Smith). [c.h.) Severianus (2), bp. of Gabala on the sea- board of Syria, c. 400 ; described by (ienna- dius (///. Eccl. ScripU. c. 21) as "in Divinis Scripturis eruditus, et in Homiliis declamator admirabilis." He repaired to Constantino- ple, and was kindly received by Chrysostom, who often selected him to preach on injport- ant occasions. In spite of a rough provincial accent, he obtained considerable popularity with the people in general and with the emperor and empress, who often appointed him to preach (Gennad. m.s.). When early in 401 Chrysostom left Constantinople for the visitation of Asia .Minor, he deputed his official authority to Severian as commissary, all real power being invested in his archdeacon Serapion. Severian. in Chrysostom's absence undermined his influence with the court, and fostered the dislike of the worldly and lu.xu- rious clergy of Constantinople, whom Chrv- sostom's severity had (greatly alienated. His conduct was reported in the darkest colours to Chrysostom by his jealous and artful rival Serapion. For the events which compelled Severian to leave for his own diocese see Serapion. Severian had barely crossed the Bosphorus when the imperious Eudoxia com- pelled Chrysostom to allow his return. But Chrysostom steadily refused to readmit the offender to friendly intercourse. The em- press carried her infant son, the future emperor Theodosius, in her arms, into the church of the Apostles, and casting him in Chrysostom's lap, conjured him with solemn imprecations to be reconciled with Severian. Chrysostom consented, and ex- horted his congregation to submit, as loyal subjects and good Christians, to the wishes of those in authority (Homil. de rectptend. Severian. t. iii. p. 422, ed. .Migne). The re- quest was acceded to with applause. Seve- rian next dav delivered a short rhetorical eulogy on the'blessings of peace (Sermo ipstui Severiant de Pace, ib. p. 493)- The hollow- ness of the reconciliation was soon proved. Severian joined in a plot, under the inspiration of the empress and the powerful female influ- ence of the court, for Chrysostom's humilia- tion, which ultimatelv proved only tO') succ»-ss- ful (Pallad. I>ial. pp. 35. 4«. 72)- At the assembly of the Oak, Severian took a leading part (Pallad. p. 72 ; I'hot. Cod. 59. P- 53). and on Chrvsostom's deposition, mounted the pulpit and publicly expressed approbation of the act, which he said Chrys»jslom had well merited for his haughtiness alone. Thi« "barefaced attempt to justify injustice rendered the people furious, and they were SEVERINUS HOI only retrained from ^u^l^lArv mej\um bf Chrvsostom's sj>erdy recall. S<-vrriAii «nd his brothrr-inlriKurm flc«l (Sorr. //. h. vi. 16, 17 ; So/. //. /•:. viii. 10 . I'alljd. htMi. p. ifi). We find them at (<<ii%(4iilinop|p %ecoiidmK new designs for the drxtrurtKin <i( ( hrwNiDin set on f<K)t bv Eudoxia and Ihr court p4rlv. and securing hi« hnal rMiulemnalinn (PjlUd. Dial. pp. 7<), H,8 : So/. //. /-. VIII. 11). srvr. rian's malice did not rrasr with I hrvvi^kiuni't expulsion. He is charged by PalUdiuo with using his influence to obtain the removal •>! the aged invalid from ( uriiMii. whrre the climate had not proved m. fatal as the malice of his enemies desirrd. to thr morr bleak and inaccessible town of Pitvus {Dial. 97). Seve- rian's death may be placed under Theodo- sius II. betwi-en 40H and 430. \'ery few of his numerous writinirn are extant. Some homilies printed in Chry- sostom's works have l«"rn attributed to him with more or less prob.ibijuy. The f.>!li>wing are regarded on satisfactnrv gr'iuiuls as his : de Creaiione Mutuii. de S'alivUaU (AriWi, dt Sif;illis Lihroriim. deSerpente .ienro. de Saltvi- tale. We mav add de Storte InnoterUium. and de Cruce Homiha. pub. bv ( omlM"fis with sonic of Chrysostom's. Du Pin attributes to .S«!- verian, from intern.al evidmce, a l.uge nuiiilH>r of homilies which pass under t hrvsf>stom'» name. Severian is said to have conip<»^rd a large number of commentaries on Holy Scripture, the whole |.ein« lost except (or fragments in the Caletute. (•eniiadius read with pleasure Irc.itises i.f his on Haplt^m and the Epiphany. A work contra .Kofatum is quoted by <'ielasius, de Puabui Chri-sh Saluris ; and one contra Judaeos by Cosinas Indicopleustes, vii. 202. According to Mabil- lon (A/i*s. Ital. i. pp. 13, 124), 8H homilies bearing his name exist in MS. in the .Am- brosian library and others in the Coislinian. Fabr. Bibl. Graec. ix. 267 ; Cave, Hut. I.it. 1. 37s ; Hupin, H. E. [ev.) Severinus (4), monk and apostle of Noricu0) (.\ustria) in the sth cent. He was assisted bv El'gippu'S, who afterwards presided over a mf>nastery dedicated to his iiiemorv, and there wTote his I.ife c. mi, describing Seventm- >. coining from the East to preach in P n • : ' and Noricum. about the time that A' death was followed by contests am'ti.: ' i sons, which wrought havf>c and ile^trurti'ii in these provinces. Severinus lived a life o( the sternest asceticism in a small cell where he could barely stand erect. His I. if' i • of the wonders wrought and pre.l uttered by him. but is imp<irtant a» ii ing the v>cial life of the out!- of the empire when the (oni: m'xlern European system wer. be laid. Thus c v. i. IK .( t exercised in intri"! He was a most d' ■■ liy Koman and Miught hull out and .|. if.t lu al>out to iiiva<ie Italy. " P<" saint, " your de^in" : i r •<-rr,l • will vxm ca»t a • skins, and your your lil>rrality <■( Sevrrinut died a.i-. «--. "i"..* • - *'•• Life iiin AA. SS. Boll. (Jan. i, 4»3I«m1 »'»*. 892 SEVERUS, L. SEPTIMIUS Scriptt. Res Austr. I. 62. Herzog's Encydop. has a very exhaustive article upon him. [g.t.s.] Severus (1), L. SeptimiUS, emperor, born at Leptis in Tripoli in Apr. 146. His family were of equestrian rank, and two of his uncles had been consuls. His early life at Rome was a mixture of study and dissipation, his talents attracting the attention of M. Aurelius, who conferred various offices upon him. In one capacity or another he held office in nearly all the western provinces. In 193 he was in command of Pannonia and Ill>Ticum. When the news arrived of the murder of Pertinax and the sale of the empire to Didius Julianus, it aroused great indigna- tion in the Pannonian army, and Severus, taking advantage of this feeling, got himself saluted emperor by them at Carnuntum in Apr. or May, and immediately marched on Rome. Julian was abandoned by the prae- torians, and put to death by order of the senate on June i or 2. Severus left Rome after 30 days, to fight his most formidable rival Pescennius Niger, who had assumed the purple at Antioch a few days before himself, and overthrew him in 194. Albinus, who had assumed the title of emperor, was defeated and slain on Feb. 19, I97, in the plain of Trevoux near Lyons. In the autumn of 204 the secular games were celebrated with great 1 magnificence for the last time. In 208 | Severus set out for Britain, and marched 1 through Caledonia to the extreme N., cutting down forests and making roads. He added a new rampart to the wall built by Hadrian from the Tyne to the Solway. He died at York on Feb. 4, 211. Of all emperors from Augustus to Diocletian, Severus was probably the man of greatest power. Crafty, ambi- tious, and unscrupulous, he allowed no con- siderations of humanity to stand in his way. Yet he did not delight in cruelty for its own sake, and anv weakness on his part would have been fatal to himself and have plunged the Roman world again in the anarchy from which he had rescued it. Disorder and brigandage throughout the empire were put down with a firm hand. He was an adept in astrology and magic. . , , In the earlier part of his reign he favoured the Christians. He believed he had been cured of an illness by oil administered by a Christian named Proculus, whom till his death he maintained in the palace ; and the nurse and some of the playmates of Caracalla were Christians. No Christians took a prominent part on the side of Niger or Albinus, and it is even probable that those who tried to hold Byzantium for Niger ill-treated the Christians there during the siege. The number of councils held in the early years of Severus on the time of observing Easter proves that the church was then unmolested. The first change for the worse appears to have been at the emperor's entry into Rome, a.d. 197, after the defeat of Albinus. The Christians excited the fury of the mob by refusing to join in the rejoicings, an act they considered inconsistent with their religion. But Severus used his influence to protect Christian men and women of rank against the fury of the mob [ad Soap. 4). But in 202 he issued an edict forbidding future conversions to Judaism or Christianity SEVERUS, L. SEPTIMIUS (Vita S evert, 17). His motives are unknown. Probably, as a stern statesman of the old Roman school, he foresaw the peril to the national religion and the constitution of the state that lay in the active Christian pro- paganda, and though personally friendly to some among them, thought it time to check the further progress of the religio illicita. Though the edict applied only to new con- verts, and catechumens were accordingly the greatest sufferers, yet there were numerous victims among the Christians of long standing. In the East, the Christians suffered most in Egypt, perhaps because the emperor had visited it immediately after the promulgation of his edict. So terrible was the outbreak that Judas, a Christian writer, made the 70 weeks of Daniel expire with the loth year of Severus, and thought the advent of Antichrist at hand. Laetus the prefect and his successor Aquila were merciless enemies of the Chris- tians, who were dragged from all parts of Egypt to their tribunal at Alexandria. Among the most notable martyrs was Leoni- das, the father of Origen, who was only pre- vented by a stratagem of his mother from sharing his father's fate. By a strange incon- sistency Origen was allowed to visit the mar- tyrs in prison and to be present at their trial, and even to accompany them on their way to execution, apparently without being molested by the government, though several times in great danger from mob violence. In Africa the persecution began with a violation of the cemeteries, and a bad harvest following, the rage of the people against the Christians increased (ad S cap. 3). [Scillitan Martyrs.] In the spring of 203, under Hilarianus the procurator, who had assumed the government on the death of the proconsul, the famous group of martyrs among whom St. Perpetua was most conspicuous, suffered. Yet here again we find the same inconsistency as at Alexandria. Deacons were allowed to visit the imprisoned Christians, unmolested, to alleviate their sufferings, and even to procure their removal to a better part of the prison. In 205 or 206, under the milder government of Julius Asper, the persecution seems to have abated, after raging for 3 years (de Pallio, 2). Many Christians had sought refuge in flight, while others tried to escape by bribing the Roman officials, and in some cases the Christian community as a whole seems to have done so. These subterfuges were regarded with scorn and abhorrence by the more enthu- siastic, but no trace is to be found of the Libellatici so notorious in later persecutions. The abatement seems to have continued till near the close of the reign, but in 210 and 211 the persecution broke out again in its sharpest form under the proconsul Scapula and extended to Mauritania. There the sword was the instrument of execution, whilst the cruel Scapula burnt his victims alive or flung them to the wild beasts of the amphitheatre. Of persecution in other parts of the empire we have only a few isolated notices. The aged Irenaeus and his companions suffered at Lyons in this reign, but no details are pre- served, and even the date is uncertain. In Syria, Asclepiades, afterwards bp. of Antioch, was a confessor (Eus. H. E. vi. 11). Cruel as SEVERUS. AURELIUS ALEXANDER SEVERUS. AURELlUS ALEXANDER ^VJ it was. ami stvirt-r th.m auv previous i>nr, the persecution under Severus had not the s\-strjn- atic character of thos<> of Decius and J)i.K-le. tian. Kxcept Irenaeus no bishops or pro- minent men»lH>rs set- ni to have Un-n executr<l ; many, like Tertullian and Orijien. who nuRht have been thought certain victims, were un- molested, and the resohition of the martyrs under their suflerinKs caus<'d manv conver- sions. Kus. H. E. vi. i-ii ; Tillem. SUm. ful. iii. ; tiorres, in Jahrbtuhtr fur Protf^t. I'htol. 1878. 273 ; for Africi in particular. Tertullian, Apoloe^eltctts ; <j(/ Martyrfs ; ad Salxones ; ad Siiif>ulam ; </<• /"kj,-.! ; ./<• (",>r,)>i<i Mtlitn ; .\uIh\ Knuf hfitortifuf. xi. ;(t. |F.n.) Severus (2). Aurelius Alexander, emperor, born at .-Vrca Cae<area in Svria. Oct. i, 2o."i (Lampridius) or 208 (Herodian). For an account of his family see Elacabahs. Like him he was made in childhood a priest of the Sun at I'mesa. and when his cousin bj-came emperor he and his mother Julia Mainmaea accompanied him to Rome. .Mammaea took the utmost pains to educate her son and to preserve him uncontaminated by the mon- strous excesses of his cousin. Created Caesar by the emperor in 221 ; on Feb. 1.222 (Clinton), he became emperor on the death of Flagabalus and his mother Soaemis at the hands of the indignant soldiery. Being then at most not yet 17, the administration rested with his mother and grandmother Julia .Mammaea and Julia .Maesa, the latter of whom, till her death c. 225, enjoyed the greater power. Their chief minister or regent was the famous jurist L'lpian, whose appointment appears to have been due to Maesa's influence, though Mammaea afterwards acquiesced in it (Lamp. 50). He was assisted by a council of at least 70 members. 16 to 20 eminent jurists of whom formed a sort of inner cabinet (cf. Herodian, vi. i. with Lamp. 15) ; separate committees of this council administering different departments of the state. The first step of the new administration was to reverse the acts of Elagabalus. The images of the gods he had collected at Home from all parts of the empire were restored to their former shrines. His creatures were removed from offices obtained by disgraceful means. The senate, knights, trilx's. and army were purged of the infamous persons appointed by Llafiabalus. and the imperial establish- ment reduced as low as possible. The praetorians and the army did not easily acquiesce in these reforms. I^robably in order to check their mutinous spirit their prefects Flavianus and Chrestus were put to death and Ulpian made sole prefect. From some trifling cause a riot broke out l)etween the praetorians and the people, lasting for three days. The soldiers, getting the worst of it. set fire to the city and thus checked their assailants. They could not endure the firm rule of Ulpian. Several times he had to t.iU-- refuge in the palace, and was saved with di" culty by the emperor from their furv. last, probably in 22H. he w.is killed bv 1 soldiers in the presence of Alexander and ■ mother, who were only able bv a strata*;- to punish the ringleader. Throughout i: empire the same insubordinate spirit pre vailed. The tro<jps in Mesopotamia mutinied i'annoiiia %» rxnird the hatrr ! _ .r. tonans that Alrxandrr was tllnrii Ij the humiliating eX|>e<i|rti| <■( tr.|ii<-^lini; him ant to Ciiiiir t<i Koiiir il'inn^' f,i ., ,- .f,.. ,!■.•,)> This spirit ..( 1. ous as this reigii under .\rl.i\"Ti which. a(!- •' which th. ■ pletely l>i m<»st e\ti i establish, d tl.. k, \ . heir of the anri. 1 the .Asiatic proxir sions naturally jT-liir. ,| a >% It. \i U.r rli.J of 231 or the l>eginning ■ >! JiJ the rm|i«>r.w. accompanied bv (its ni. tfirr Irft K tTIl- to fight the I'. decisive [• bv news .1 the Khin. ,; Rome on S.|.t. : 1 t.i the Rhine (r i and killed Ihnr r<>iiiiiiaiidrr. Iron. The historian l>|.iO b i'annoiiia %<> exn lorians that .Me liuniilialing ex|><s lo c.ime t<i Rome This spirit ..( t. mis as this reigii umler .\rla\eTi which. a(!- •' which th- ' I'letely l>i in<»st e\ti , i^tablishrd tl.. k, lieir .>f the anci- the .Asiatic pro\ir »i.>ns naturally p of 231 or the l>e( accompanied bv fight the I'. decisive t- bv news ■ 1 ■ the Rhin. R.>me .>n S«pt. : t.i the Rhine Ir. his tent, and hi^ ; : ence, at the beginuui(j ol ^35 iCliiiliuw. t>> Itte mutin.ius soldiery. Thus |H-rished .me of the n>->st vutii-u. ->( the em|>erors. Apparently I were an excessive deference t" I a certain want .'f energy. I! temperate, and chaste. H. reading, preferring dreek to 1 His favourite works wer>- the h and the df l>[h(ni and J' '■'-' He w.is also fond of \ was acquainted with >; paint, and ould sing > instruments. Though he ati.inJ.d t!ir tem- ples regularly and visited the Capitol every seventh day. and though he rebuilt and adorned the shrines of various deities bv « curious anticipation <>( C»nitism. the ob)r<-t» of his peculiar veiirr.it i"!i were ii-? th" it-xU of the various i ' • . ■ . . ,j heroes and men. ' he perf.irmed I.; < contained no iii< ' canoni/ed men predecessors. .M- < l>e called his pair of Tyana. Abraham. an.i i :.ii-t. li» a AnW'-t chapel were imager of Achillrs. VergiMwh.xn he used to call the Plato of p.K-1 i ( i- -r ^t' I other great men. From his 1. course with Origen (Lu». // woul-l nnfririllv h.ivr »x-tter i; th. • ■ ■ th.. ' he r\rf |.<[lll null UlJl 11 Ml -.ll.l lo^ f.'---" ' • •-* cuok». Thu dcclUoa linpllet a ocrtAtn recwg. 894 SEVERUS nition of the right of the Christians as such to hold property, which is also implied by the life of Callistus. Consistently with this, it is in the reign of Alexander that edifices set apart for Christian worship begin to appear — at any rate in some parts of the empire (cf. the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian (in Migne, Pair. Lat. iii. 1163) with Origen, Horn. 28 on St. Matthew (quoted in contra Celsum, viii. 755, in Migne, Patr. Gk. xi. 1539)). A form of the golden rule of Christian morality ("Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself") was so admired by the emperor that he caused it to be inscribed on the palace and other buildings. A curious anecdote of Lampridius (44) shews the emperor's acquaintance with Christian usages and also the antiquity of the practice of pub- lishing to the congregation the names of those who sought ordination. In imitation of this the emperor caused the names of persons he was about to appoint to be published before- hand, exhorting any who had charges against them to come with proofs. Strange to say, in later tradition the em- peror, whom all writers near his time represent as a friend, nay almost a convert, to Christian- ity, whose chapel contained an image of Christ and whose household was filled with Christians (Eus. H. E. vi. 28), appears as a cruel perse- cutor. It is said that pope Callistus with many companions, St. Caecilia and her com- rades, pope Urban I., and many others suffered in his reign, and that he personally took part in their martyrdom. On the other hand, no Father of the 3rd, 4th, or 5th cents, knows anything of such a persecution, but on the contrary agree in representing his reign as a period of peace. Firmilian (I.e.) testifies that before the persecution of Maximin the church had enjoyed a long peace, and Sulpicius Severus (ii. 32 in Patr. Lat. xx. 447) includes the reign of Alexander in the long peace lasting from Septimius Severus to Decius, broken only by the persecution of Maximin. Against this can be set only the evidence of late authors, such as Bede, Ado, and Usuard and unauthentic Acts of martyrs. The most famous of the alleged martyrs of this reign, St. Caecilia and her companions, are placed by other accounts in the reigns of M. Aurelius or Diocletian. All are given up by Tillemont except Callistus. His chief ground for con- sidering him a martyr is that in the Depositio Martyrum, written in 354 (in Patr. Lat. cxxvii. 123), a Callistus is mentioned as martyred on Oct. 14, the day on which the pope is commemorated. Lipsius (Chronol. d. rom. Bischofe, 177) acutely conjectures that this notice refers, not to the martyrdom, but to the confession of Callistus before Fuscianus men- tioned by Hippolytus, as up to the Decian persecution the word " martyr " was still used in the wider sense. We may therefore conclude that all these accounts of persecutions and martyrdoms, so inconsistent with the known character of the emperor and passed over in silence by all authors for more than two cents, afterwards, are fictions of a later date, [f.d.] Severus (3) and Severians. [Encratites.] Severus (12) SanctUS (Endelechius). Per- haps identical with the rhetorician mentioned in the subscription of the Cod. Flor. of Apu- SEVERUS, SULPICIUS leius, as teaching at Rome in 395. He is the author of a Christian idyll, in Asclepiad metre, upon the subject of a great cattle-plague ; possibly that mentioned by St. Ambrose [Comm. in Luc. x. 10). This plague occurred c. 376, which fact, together with the date assigned for Endelechius's teaching, and the possibility that he was the correspondent of St. Paulinus of Nola (Ep. xxviii. 6), would fix the date of the poem at the end of the 4th or beginning of the 5th cent. The poem is entitled "de Mortibus Boum," and written with some taste and a good deal of vigour. It represents certain herdsmen — apparently Aquitanians — -discussing their fortunes in the general affliction. One of them asserts that his herds have been protected by the sign of the Cross and by his own belief in Christ. The others resolve to adopt a religion which, ac- cording to his account, is at once profitable and easy. The poem has been often edited : first by Pithoeus (Paris, 1586). It is in Werns- dorf, Poetae Lat. Min. ii. ; Migne, xix. Cave, Hist. Litt. i. 290 ; Ebert, Gesch. der Chr.-Lat. Lit. ; Fabric. Bibl. Graeca, x. 626, 2nd ed. ; Teuffel, vol. ii. [h.a.w.] Severus (18), Sulpicius, ecclesiastical his- torian in Gaul, belonging to a noble family of Aquitaine, born after a.d. 353. He became an advocate and married a woman of consular rank and wealth, who did not long survive the marriage. While yet in the flower of his age, c. 392, caressed and praised by all and eminent in his profession (Paulinus, Ep. v., Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixi. 169-170), he braved his father's anger and the flouts of worldly acquaintances [ib. i. col. 154), and retired from the world. Thence- forth with a few disciples and servants he led a life of ascetic seclusion and literary activity. Where he abode is not quite certain, but probably at Primuliacum, a village between Toulouse and Carcassonne, where he built two churches {ib. Ep. xxxii.). It was probably an estate of his wife or mother-in-law, his father apparently having disinherited him (cf. Ep. ad Bassulam). According to Gennadius he was a priest, but this has been questioned, and his tone towards the bishops and clergy, against whom he constantly inveighs as vain, luxurious, self-seeking, factious foes of Chris- tianity and envious persecutors of his hero St. Martin, lends countenance to the doubt (Hist. Sacr. ii. 32 ; Vita S. Martini, 27 ; I^ial- I, 2, 9, 21, 24, 26). Later authors have believed him a monk, some of Marmoutiers, Martin's foundation at Tours, others of Marseilles, whither he may have been driven by the Vandal invasion. This seems probable from c. i. of Dial, i (cf. also ii. 8). Gennadius asserts that in his old age he was deceived into Pelagianism, but recognizing the fault of loquacity, remained mute till his death, in order by penitential silence to correct the sin he had committed by much speaking. Others, from a passage in St. Jerome (in Ezech. c. xxxvi., Migne, Patr. Lat. xx. 85), have accused him of Millenarianism. At the Roman council held by pope Gelasius in 494 the Dialogi, under the name of Opuscula Pos- tumiani et Galli, were certainly placed among the libri apocryphi (Mansi, viii. 151). The charge rested on Dial. ii. 14, where a strange theory as to the imminent appearance among SEVERUS. SULPICIUS men of Nero ami An'iclirist is put into the mouth of St. Martin. The chapter has h.-cii expunged in many -.talian MSS. (Ilalm. Sulptc. Sm. Praffatto). Various years between 406 and 429 have been suggested for his death. The principal authorities for his Life are the short biofO"aphv of Cienn.ulius (de Scriptt. EccUs. xix., Mi^ne, I'atr. I.al. Iviii. 1071), the letters of his friend Panlinus of Nola, with whom between 304 and 403 he constantly interchanged gifts and letters, though only one letter of Sulpicius, and that probably a forgery, survives {Epp- i. v. xi. xvii. xxii.- xxiv. xxvii.-xxxii., Migne, Patr. I.al. Ixi. 153-330; Ceillier, vii. 55 sqq.), allusions in his own writings, esp. the Vila S. Marthtt, the Epislolae, and the Dialogi, and a paneg>Tic by Paulinus of Perigueux {de \'ita i>. Martini lib. V. Pair. Lai. Ixi. losi). A modern and exhaustive notice is bv Jacob Bernays, Die Chronik des Sulp. 5«'. (Berlin. 1861). His works consist of the Hislona Sacra or Chronica, a Life of St. Martin of Tours, 3 letters, and 3 dialogues. .\n Lng. trans, is in Schaff and Wace's Lib. of Posl-Sicene Fathers. The Historia, written c. 403, was an attempt to give a concise history of the world with dates from the creation to his own times, the consulship of Stilicho in 400. His sources are the LXX, the ancient Latin version of the Scriptures, the Chronicles of Eusebius. and the Historici Ethnici, as he calls the non-Christian authors (Herbert, Notice, p. 7). Bk. i. and part of ii. are occupied with universal history down to the birth of Christ. Then, omitting the period covered by the Gospels and Acts, he adds some details to Josephus's narrative of the siege of Jerusalem, recounts persecutions of the Christians under q emperors, and describes the Invention of the Cross by St. Helena, as he had heard it from I'aulinus. His account of the .\rian controversy (ii. 35- 45) is inaccurate and of little value ; but of more importance is that of the Priscillianist heresy, which had arisen in his time and with the details of which he was familiar. The Vita S. Martini, the earliest of his writings, is very important as containing, with the Dialogues and 3 letters, practically every- thing that is authentic about that p<»pular saint of Western Christendom. He tells us that, having long heard of the sanctity and miracles of Martin, he went to Tours to see him, asked him all the questions he rould, and got information from eyewitnesses and those who knew (c. 25). This visit, probably c. 394, was followed by many others. The book was pub. during Martin's lifetime. In the Dialogi, writt.n c. 405, the inter- locutors are his friend Postumianus. just back from a three years' stay in the East, tiallus, a disciple of St. Martin, now dead, and Sul- picius himself. Twenty-two chapters of Dial. i. contain interesting pictures of the contro- versy at .Alexandria between archbp. Theo- philus and the monks concerning Origen. St. Jerome at his church in Bethlehem, and thr monks and hermits of the Thebaid. Postu- mianus asks about St. Martin, and bears witness to the enormous popularity of the Life in almost every country. Paulinus had in- troduced it at Home, where the whole city had fought for it. All Carthage was reading it. the SEVERUS MOS .Mexandrians knew its ronlrnls almost \ir\m than tlie .lutlxir. an<l it lud tH-iirtrjtrd inlu i;gypf. Nitria. and the Thrluid. All wrr« rJanionring (or thusr (nrthrr w<iiidrr« which Sulpicius h.td iiniutrd (c. i\. cf. Vila, ptol.) ami with wliu h ihr rrniaimlrr of the |ii4l<>Kur« is almost entirely occupied. The Epistlr> ar«- als4. alxMit St. Mjrtin. the first giving the story ol his dr.ith .uul burul. Seven more letters have Im-ch piiblulird umirr Sulpicius's n.iine ; several h.ivr Ix-rn grnrr- ally suspectetl (I eillier. iKj-iio). but jll are pronounced spurious bv ll.iliu {Prtl. xi.-dii.). The Iwst ed. of the ollpctr.l w..rks 1* that of C. Halm (Sulpicit Sex'eri l.ihri </mi \Hper%umi, Vindob. i8()«>). His works have Ix^n several times translated into French, e.g. by M. Herbert (Pans. 1H47). Apart from tlie uni<]ue History of St. Mirtia (which, however, is the worst of hii wntinKv from a literary point of view). Sulpicius's chief title to fame rests on his beauty and purity »( style, in respect of which he is pre-riainmt. i( not unique, among ecclesiastical authors, and well merits his appellation of the " C hristian Sallust." He seems to have taken Ihit historian as his mmlel. but his writings shew familiarity with Vergil. Livy. Tacitus, and most classical authors. Perhaps his work is somewhat lacking in vigour, and not entirrly free from the affectations and bad taste i>f hu time. The credulity and su|>crstitioii of the narrative had. as regards Martin's Mir.irles. evidently excitrd scfptirisni even among thr Christians in Sulpicius's own time (see Dial. iii.6). [Marti.s (D). For an cstiinatr of Sul- picius's Works see Crill. viii. 121-112. (s.a.b.) S«VerUS (19). bp. of Mileum or Milrus. a native of the same place as .■Kugustine. and a j fellow-student, lifelong friend, and ineinl»rr of the same monastic community. Early in I his episcopate, probably in 401, .■Kugustine, ! Alypius, and Samsucius had to explain their I conduct in the matter of Timotheus and to ! call on Severus to accept their explanation (.■Vug. Epp. b2. t>3), but this temporary mis- understanding ditl not interrupt his (rn-iuKhip with Augustine, nor caus«- any illwill on hi« j part towards Timotheus (.Aug. In. /'%. u't- « ; I de Civitale Dei.xxi. a). In a letter somewhat ' later, perhaps a.I>. 40(). address«>d to Novatus, Augustine regrets U-iiig not oftiii able to ser his old friend, who wrote s«-ld<iin. and thrn chi«-tiy on busim-^s, not from want i>f gixKlwill but from necessity (.•Kug- Ep- «4)- S«-vrru* j exchanged letters and friendly messages with I Paulinus of Nola (16. ji. 4 and u. 1). and .. [ 409 wrote to Augustine expressing his great delight in his writings, as Irading him !•> grratrr I love of Gixi. and iM-gging hiin to write in rrtiiru {Epp. log), .\ugustiiu- replietl. insisting thai he hiins4-lf was thr debtor. Srvcru» apv>eaf» to have joimd in th«- adiirrss to |nnorriiliu« concerning Pi-lagianisiii. \.i>. 4i<> (Aiik'. tpP- 17^. 171.). He probably di.d .. 4i<' |M.w.r.| SevertlS (22). bp »i .Minorca, known by hu • luvdicil irttrr nfrrrcd to in the Ixiok d* .Miru(uli\ .S. Stephani. coini«».ird bv ocdrr of Evodiust)f Trails (.Mignr. Pair. IjtI. xt. 7 U »• Orosius had dr-|Kr.,itcd v.mr recmtly di»- covered relics of St. Strphrii in the church dl Magona (Port .Mahon). where thrre were a large number of Jews, one of whoco, the rabbi ^96 SEVERUS Theodorus, was defensor civitatis. The arrival of the relics caused great religious excitement among Minorcan Christians, which led to constant arguments between them and the Jews, ending in riots in which the synagogue was set on fire and burnt to the bare walls. The conversion of a great number of Jews, including Theodorus himself, followed. On the site of the destroyed synagogue the Jews erected a church. These events occurred in the last week of Jan. 418. Gams, Kircheng. von Sp. ii. (i) 406. [F.D.] Severus (27), Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, a.d. 512-519, a native of Sozopolis in Pisidia, by birth and education a heathen, baptized in the martyry of Leontius at Tri- polis (Evagr. H. E. iii. 33 ; Labbe, v. 40, 120). He almost at once openly united himself with the Acephali, repudiating his own bap- tism and his baptizer, and even the Catholic church itself as infected with Nestorianism (Labbe, M.S.). On embracing Monophysite doctrines he entered a monastery apparently belonging to that sect between Gaza and its port Majuma. Here he met Peter the Iberian, a zealous Eutychian, who had been ordained bp. of Gaza by Theodosius, the Monophysite monk, during his usurpation of the see of Jerusalem (Evagr. I.e.). About this time Severus apparently joined a Eutychian brotherhood near Eleutheropolis under the archimandrite Mamas, who further con- firmed him in his extreme Monophysitism (Liberat. Brev. c. xix. ; Labbe, v. 762 ; Evagr. I.e.). Severus rejected the Henoticon of Zeno, applying to it contumelious epithets, such as k€putik6v, "the annulling edict," and 8iaip€TiK6p, "the disuniting edict" (Labbe, v. 121), and anathematized Peter Mongus, the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria, for accepting it. We next hear of him in an Egyptian monastery, of which one Nephalius was abbat, who. having been formerly a Monophysite, had embraced the faith of Chalcedon. Nephalius with his monks ex- pelled Severus and his partizans (Evagr. I.e., of. iii. 22). Severus is charged with having stirred up a fierce religious war among the excitable population of Alexandria, resulting in bloodshed and conflagrations (Labbe, v. 121). To escape the punishment of his tur- bulence he fled to Constantinople, supported by a band of 200 Monophysite monks (ib. iv. 1419)- Anastasius, who had succeeded the emperor Zeno, the author of the Henoticon, in 491, was a declared favourer of the Euty- chians, and by him Severus was received with honour. His advent was an unhappy one for the peace of Constantinople, where a san- guinary tumult was stirred up by rival bands of monks, orthodox and Monophysite, chant- ing in their respective churches the opposing forms of the " Trisagion." This tumult re- sulted, A.D. 511, in the humiliation of Anas- tasius, the temporary triumph of the patriarch Macedonius, and the depression of the Mono- physite cause (Theophan, p. 132). Severus was eagerly dispatched by Anastasius to occupy the vacant throne of Antioch a.d. 511. He was ordained, or, in the words of his adver- saries, "received the shadow of ordination" (Labbe, v. 40), and enthroned on the same day in his patriarchal city (ib. iv. 1414 ; Theod. SEVERUS Lect. ii. 31, pp. 563, 567 ; Theophan. p. 134), and that very day solemnly pronounced in his church an anathema on Chalcedon, and accepted the Henoticon he had previously repudiated. He caused the name of Peter Mongus to be inscribed in the diptychs ; declared himself in communion with the Eutychian prelates, Timotheus of Constanti- nople and John Niciota of Alexandria; and received into communion Peter of Iberia and other leading members of the Acephali (Evagr. H. E. iii. 33 ; Labbe, iv. 1414, v. 121, 762 ; Theod. Lect. I.e.). Eutychianism seemed now triumphant throughout the Christian world. Proud of his patriarchal dignity and strong in the emperor's protection, Severus despatched letters to his brother-prelates, announcing his elevation and demanding communion. In these he anathematized Chalcedon and all who maintained the two natures. They met with a very varied reception. Many rejected them altogether, nevertheless Monophysitism was everywhere in the ascendant in the East, and Severus was deservedly regarded as its chief champion (Severus of Ashmunain apud Neale, Patr. Alex. ii. 27). Synodal letters were interchanged between John Niciota and Severus ; the earliest examples of that inter- communication between the Jacobite sees of Alexandria and Antioch, which has been kept up to the present day (Neale, I.e.). The triumph of Severus was, however, short. His sanguinary tyranny over the patriarchate of Antioch did not survive his imperial patron. Anastasius was succeeded in 518 by Justin, who at once declared for the orthodox faith. The Monophysite prelates were everywhere replaced by orthodox successors. Severus was one of the first to fall. Irenaeus, the count of the East, was commissioned to arrest him. Severus, however, escaped, and in Sept. 518 sailed by night for Alexandria (Liberat. Brev. I.e. ; Theophan. 141 ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 4). Paul was ordained in his room. Severus and his doctrines were anathematized in various councils. At Alexandria his recep- tion by his fellow-religionists was enthusiastic. He was gladly welcomed by the patriarch Timotheus, and generally hailed as the cham- pion of the orthodox faith against the cor- ruptions of Nestorianism. His learning and argumentative power established his authority as " OS omnium doctorum," and the day of his entrance into Egypt was long celebrated as a Jacobite festival (Neale, u.s. p. 30). Alex- andria speedily became the resort of Mono- physites of every shade of opinion, who formed too powerful a body for the emperor to molest. But fierce controversies sprang up among themselves on various subtle questions con- nected with Christ's nature and His human body. A vehement dispute arose between Severus and his fellow-exile Julian of Hali- carnassus as to the corruptibility of our Lord's human body before His resurrection. Julian and his followers were styled " Aph- thartodocetae " and " Phantasiastae," Sever- us and his adherents " Phthartolatrae " or " Corrupticolae," and " Ktistolatrae." The controversy was a warm and protracted one and no settlement was arrived at. The Jacobites, however, claim the victory for Severus (Renaudot, p. 139). After some SEVERUS SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS hu7 years in Egypt spent in continual literary and forced upon hint hv the c.iirili.it.rv jHrniion polemical activity, Severus was unexpectedly he ainu-d at. HopinK to emhr^rr 4* ntauy summoned to Constantinople bv Justin's as i>osMblp of varvin« thc-oloRical colour he successor Justinian, whose consort Theodora followed the traditionalfornujla* of the church warmly favoured the Eutychian party. The as cl..selv as he could, while athxiUK' hi* ..wn emperor was utterly weary of the turmoil sens*- upon thrin (l)orner. /Vn. 0/ < fcrii*. div. caused by the prolonged theological discus- ii. vol. 1. p. nc. i l.»rks tram.). In i.^m iIw sions. Severus. he was told, was the master - of the Monophysite party. Unitv coulil only be regained by his influence. M this period, A.D. 535, Anthimus had been recently ap- pointed to the see of Constantinople by Theodora's influence. He was a concealed Eutychian, who on his accession threw of! the orthodox mask and joined heartily with Severus and his associates, Peter of .\pamea and Zoaras, in their endeavours to get Mono- physitism recognized as the orthodox faith. This introduction of turbulent Mi>nophysites threw the city into great disorder, and l.irge numbers embraced their pernicious heresy (Labbe, v. 124). For the further progress of this audacious attempt to establish .Mono physitism in the imperial city see Justinias Agapetls. Eventually, at the instance of pope .\gapetus, who happened to visit J communicate with John, archbji Constantinople on political business at this He was then allowed to return t Sixth W<H)I; of Ihf StUd l.ftUr\ ol Sn-frux, in the Svriac version of .AthaiiaMiis of Nitibis were ed. by (,. E. W. Uro«)k> (I.ond). F.< 4 full statement of hit opinion* *c« the ((real work of Dorner. and art. " M«mophy»iten " in Hcriog's Encsc. l«.v ) Severus (31), patriarch of Aquilria. »uccccd- ing I'Mi.is c. .SS(). I. ike his predecessor*, he wat a strenuous champion of the Three Chapter*. Soon after his consideration the exarch Smar- agdus seized him in his iMsilJca 4I (irado, where the bishops of .■Kijuileia had takrn re- fuge, and c^irried him olT to Kavenna with three othej bishops —Severus of Tric-le. J.>hii of Parenzo, and Vid-mius of Ceneda. Ihero he was imprisoned a whole year and subjected to personal ill-treatment till hrconsented with those three suffragans, and two others, to f Kavenna. <irado. but time, the Monophysites .-Vnthimus and Timo- the people refused to communicate with hini theus were deposed, and Severus again sub- till he had acknowledged his fault in com- jected to an anathema. The orthodox Mennas, municating with those who condemned the succeeding Anthimus (Libcrat. Breviar. c. xxl.; Three Chapters and had been received by a Labbe, v. 774), summoned a svmxi in May and synod of t<'n bishops at .Marano, c. 589 (Paulus June 536 to deal with the Monophysite ' Diac. Hist. Lang. iii. 20). question. Severus and his two companions I Gregory the Cireat, at the end of ^90 or were cast out " as wolves " from the true fold, ! beginning of 591, wrote to him expn-ssing hi« and anathematized (Labbe, v. 253-255). The regret at his relapse into schism, and summon* sentence was ratified by Justinian (ib. 265). ing him by the emperor's orders to Rome, with The writings of Severus were proscribed ; any j his followers, that a symxl might decide the one possessing them who failed to commit | matter (Epp. i. ind. ix. 17 in Migne, Pair. ImI. them to the flames was to lose his right hand 1 Ixxvii. 461). Three separate api>eals were (Evagr. H. E. iv. 11 ; Novell. Justinian. No. ^ presented to the emperor .Maurice, the third 42 ; Matt. Blastar. p. 59). Severus returned (and only one extant) Uing by the bishops of to Egypt, which he seems never again to have | the continental part which was in the hands left. The date of his death is fixed variously of the Lombards. In it the bishops urge the in 538, 539, and 542. .\ccording to John of , injustice of the pope, from whose communion Ephesus, he died in the Egyptian desert (ed. ] they had separated, being judge in his own Payne Smith, i. 78). cause. They profess willingness. wh<n peace He was a very copious writer, but we pos- \ is restored, to attend and accept the decision* sess little more than fragments. .\n account of a free council at Constantinople, an.i |<..int of them so far as they can be identified, is out that the clergy and people of the s ;-!r i- given by Cave (Hist. Lit. vol. i. pp. 499 ff-) and gans of Aouileia arc so zealous for th.- 1 ■■■:■■ Fabricius (BM. Graec. lib. v. c. 36, vol. x. Chapters that, if the patriarch is comi>. 11. l t iuffragans the new bishoos would consecration from the the province of .\.|iiil<i i •ken up (.Mansi, x. I'l Ihr ,,.,;.• t, _ atriarch is comp pp 614 ff. ed" Harless). A very large number submit by force, when future vacancies ^k:ci exist only in Smac, for which consult the among his suflragaiis f catalogue of the'Syriac MSS. in the Urit. .Mus. be compelled to seek by Prof. Wright. . ^ . bishops of Gaul, and tl Severus was successful in his great aim of would thus be brokei uniting the .Monophysites into one compact Maurice accrdinglv dirrrtrd body with a definitely formulated creed. For leave Severus and his Mi;f- ■ • notwithstanding the numerous subdivisions present. Gregory siibim ...,,^ of the Monophysites, he was, in Dorner's tamed his position thrMi|. ..1 words "strlctlv speaking, the scientific le-ider died in ««jO or (h)7 (Pauh. .. ■,''!;' of the most compact p.,rtion of the p.irty," .1.1 episcopate of 21 years and .. .a...a .. Me and regarded as such by th. Monophysites and l,e.,ueathcd all his pro,.ertv to his cu hrdral their opponents. He was the chief object of at (.rado (CAr. I'ulr. UraJ. in >^"r'- ""• attack in the long and fierce contest with the iMtti!. V)4)-^^ , ,„ , . ,, l' » I r!s;.r r.f.^„«,irs''t^r;;ii" ,.„d"5i^,„'f Mrs, :.,"•,-„"-: 67 898 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS near Lyons speaks of him in the highest terms, especially on this account. His great-grand- father held a high ofhcial situation (Sid. Ep. iii. 12, i. 3); his father was a tribune and a notary or secretary under Honorius, and under Valentinian III. became praefectus praetorio of Aquitania I. a.d. 449 [ib. iii. i, v. 9, viii. 6). First Period, 431-471. — Sidonius was bom Nov. 5, 431 or 432, probably at Lyons {Carm. XX. I). He was apparently educated at that then famous seat of education, in the same school as his cousin Avitus. Soon after he was 20 years old he married Papianilla, only daughter of Flavins Eparchius Avitus, a native of Auvergne, who was praefectus prae- torio at Aries from 439 to 443. Avitus, a soldier, diplomatist and lover of nature and literature, retired after 451 to his ovm house and patrimonial estate at Avitacum, near the modern Clermont {ib. vii. 230, 316, 339, 460, etc.). Avitus had two sons, Ecdicius and Agricola, with whom, after his marriage, Sidonius lived on most friendly and affection- ate terms. He had a son Apollinaris and two daughters, Roscia and Severiana. A letter is extant, addressed to Apollinaris when almost 16 years old, commending his blameless behaviour, and warning him against the bad example and vicious society of some profli- gates at Lyons, where he was studying (Ep. iii. 13). There is also a letter to Agricola, mingling tender feeling with quiet humour, excusing himself from joining a fishing excur- sion as his daughter Severiana was alarmingly ill, on whose behalf, aswell as his own, he begs Agricola's prayers. He expresses his firm trust in Christ as his best support {Ep. ii. 12). On the death of Maximus, Avitus was pro- claimed emperor at Toulouse and at Beau- caire, a.d. 455, and was followed to Rome by his son-in-law, who pronounced on him a panegyric poem of 602 hexameter lines on Jan. I, 456 {Carm. vii. 369-404, 510-572), and as a reward received the honour of a brazen statue in the basilica of Trajan, in a space between the two libraries. The reign of Avitus ended in 456. Majorian, who became emperor, crossed the Alps, defeated the Burgimdian invaders, captiured Lyons, impos- ing hard conditions and heavy taxes on the citizens, which he was induced to remit (Mar. 459) by ^ florid panegyric in 603 hexameters pronounced by Sidonius and some elegiac verses addressed to him and to his principal secretary Peter, a man ambitious of literary renown, whom Sidonius calls his Maecenas. Sidonius obtained also, perhaps somewhat later, the office of count of the Palace {Ep. i. II ; Carm. iii. iv. v. xiii.). In 460, when the emperor was holding his court at Aries, and had gathered round him the most eminent literary men of Gaul, Domnulus, Lampridius, and Severianus, Sidonius distinguished him- self by an improvised poem in praise of a book by secretary Peter. From 461 to 465 Sido- nius appears to have lived in retirement from public business, but fulfilling his part as a great landed proprietor at Avitacum of a possession into which he came in right of his wife on the death of Avitus, and which he describes enthusiastically, in a letter written in the style of Pliny to his friend Domitius. His description of the house and grounds is SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS very pleasing and picturesque, its trees and underwood, its lake, fountains, and cascade. Several letters to friends belong to this period, especially one to Eriphius, a citizen of Lyons, perhaps a.d. 461, describing a church gathering in commemoration of St. Justus at Lyons on Sept. 2, the procession before daybreak, the large congregation of both sexes, the psalms sung antiphonally by monks and clerks, the Eucharistic celebration, the great heat caused by the crowd and the number of lights, cooled after a time by the autumnal morning. When Anthemius became emperor, a.d. 467, he sent for Sidonius to Rome, on business which the people of Auvergne deputed him to manage on their behalf. Under the favour of Christ, as he says, he undertook the mission, his expenses being provided by the imperial treasury. At Rome he stayed at the house of Paulus, a man of prefectorian rank, possess- ing literary and scientific ability, who per- suaded him, as likely to promote his own interests, to celebrate the inauguration of Anthemius the new consul by a ptoem. The result was a panegyric in 548 hexameters. This was rewarded by the high office of prefect of the senate and of the city of Rome, of which he writes in a tone of gratified ambition to Philimatius. He remained at Rome until 469, and then retired to Gaul, residing partly at Lyons and partly at Avitacum. Towards the end of that year or the beginning of 470, the province of Lugdunensis I. was surrendered by Anthemius to the Burgundians as the price of their assistance against the Visigoths (Tillem. Emp. vi. p. 357). These barbarians Sidonius describes as less ferocious than other German races, but complains of their perverse ways, revolting and odious to those over whom they domineered. Of their ruler (tetrarches) Chilperic II., and his wife Agrip- pina, he speaks more favourably {Ep. v. 7 ; Carm. xii.). About this time a new church was erected at Lyons through the exertions of bp. Patiens, for whom Sidonius had the most affectionate reverence. He was present at the dedication, which he describes in hen- decasyllables {Ep. ii. 10). At the request of bp. Perpetuus he wrote an elegiac inscription for the church of St. Martin at Tours, which Perpetuus had enlarged {Ep. iv. 18). Second Period, 471-475.— Threatened by invasion and surrounded by enemies political and religious (for Euric, the Visigothic king, whose capital was Toulouse, was a zealous supporter of Arian doctrine and persecuted the Catholics with great severity), the people of Clermont, when their bishop, Eparchius, died, A.D. 471, united in a clamorous demand that Sidonius should succeed him. He was not in holy orders, but had shewn himself without ostentation a devout Christian, though a somewhat flexible and elastic politician. His ability was beyond question ; as a man of letters he stood in the foremost rank ; he held a high place, probably the highest, among the landed proprietors of his province, whose interests he was firm and patriotic in uphold- ing, and had taken an active part more than once on behalf of its inhabitants, in which also he had been ably and zealously supported by his friends, of whom, both in military and civil SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS affairs. Ecdicius, his wife's brotlu-r, held the chief place in the district (CircK. Tur. ii. 21). Fully aware of his own deticiencies, he accepted the office unwillingly, begging his friends, among them Fonteius bp. of Vaison, Euphro- nius bp. of Autun. I^ontius bp. of Aries, and Lupus bp. of Troyes. who wrote to congratu- late him on his appointment, to pray for him {Epf>. V. 3 ; vi. I. 3. 7 ; vii. 8, 9 ; ix. 2). From this time he gave up writing vers»»s of a light kind, as ill-suited to his time of life and the gravity of his otVice (Ef>. ix. 12). Hut at his friends' requests he criticized compositions and wrote hymns in honour of m.irtyrs. With his wife Papianilla, though there is no doubt of his undiminished alTection for her, he prob- ably, as is assumed by Sirmond, Tillcmont, and others, lived on terms not of connubial but of fraternal intimacy ; no evidence of this appears from his own writings. That they continued to live together is plain from the story told by Gregory of Tours, that she found fault with liim for parting with his plate to give to the poor (Greg. Tur. ii. 22). He be- came a diligent student of Scripture, though disclaiming earnestly any ability as a commen- tator, and also of ecclesiastical writers, as Augustine, Jerome, Origen, etc. (Epp. viii. 4 ; ix. 2). From 471 until 474, when .Auvergne was first attacked formally by the Visigoth, it is not easy to fix accurately all the dates of events or of letters. After he came to the throne of Toulouse in 466 Euric lost no opportunity of increasing his dominions by aggression upon the Roman. During 473, or early in 474, the province of Berry fell to him, and he took advantage of the weakness of the Roman empire after the death of Anthemius to extend his dominion towards the Rhone and the Loire ; Auvergne being now the only province remaining to the Romans W. of the Rhone and in constant danger of invasion. No form.il attack, how- ever, took place until the autuimi of 474. At some time in 474, as it seems, Avitus, brother- in-law of Sidonius, endowed the see of Cler- mont with a farm called Cuticiacum (Cunhiae), not far from the city, and in the letter men- tioning this Sidonius speaks also of the threatened invasion and of his confidence in Avitus in case of negotiation (fc>. iii. i). Meanwhile, as the autumn advanced, the Visigoths entered the territory of .Auvergne, and communication with distant places became more dilficult. In preparations to resist the enemy Sidonius acted as a leader of the people, and was greatly assi>ted by hi^ brother-in-law Ecdicius, who with a handful of cavalry attacked and defeated a large force of the enemy. They retired at the endof 474 or beginning of 475, but not so completely as to remove the apprehension of future attack or the necessity for watch to be kept on the walls during the snowy days and dark nights of winter (Ep. iii. 7)- A brief truce with the Visigothic king appears to have been arranged earlv in 475, perhaps through the agency of Epiphanius, bp. of I'avia. During this temporary cessation of hostilities a report became current that Euric had invaded the Roman territory of Auvergne. and Sidonius summoned his people to join in acts of fasting SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS SM and pr.iver rondurtp.l like the KiiRation* instituted, or rather rcvivp<l and reorKAnucd, some years previously by .Maiuprtut, bp. oj Vienne, and of which, in a letter to hiin, he recounts the history. He alto \trg* the prayers of the bishop and his tlock (or the people of .\uvergne. and as a rUim upon their attentiim mentions the transfer to virnnr at some previous time of the rem.iins of Frrrcoliu and the head of Julian, both of them inartyrt and natives of .Auvergne. He also wrote to his friend .Aper. entreating him as a riti/en of Clermont to le.ivc his warm baths at .\quae Calidac and come to t lerimmt to take part in the solemn service {Epp. v. 14; vii. i ; (ircg. Tur. Hist. Er. ii. 11, Jt Mtriu. 11. i, i, "Roga- tion Days," D. C. A. vol. ii. p. 1H09 ; Uaron. ann. 475, xii.-xxi. ; Tillem. vol. xvi. pp. 247, 1 24S). No actual invasiun of Auvergne ap- pears to have i>ccurred, and negotiations, in which bps. Basilius of .\ix, Faustus of Kiel, (iraecus of .Marseilles, and Leontius of ,\rles, ' were among the acting couns<-llors, ultimately ! resulted in the surrender of Auvergne to the Visigoths. It was probablv during thrs« negotiations that Euric, a zealous partisan of the .-Vrian heresy, whose hostility in this ! direction. Sidonius says, he feared more thaa 1 his attacks on Roman fortifications, deprived ! of their sees, and in many cases put to death or banisheiL many bishops in the regions i subject to him. allowing no successors to be I appointed. Churches were overthrown, their j sites overrun by animals. Christian discipline destroyed ; and writing to Kasilius, Sidonius I implores him. as in touch with the political ' negotiators, to obtain permission for the ( exercise of episcopal ordination (Ep. vii. 6). The surrender of Auvergne. marking as it did the utter prostratif>n of Roman inmience, was a heavy blow to Sidonius, and he wTote to (Iraecus, bp. of .Marseilles, recounting the 1 unswerving loy.iltv of the Auvergnians and their sutferiiik's during the siege, and invcigh- ■ ing bitterly against the selfish policy which, to secure for a time only the districts in which the negotiators were interested, had handed over the faithful province of Auvergne (oc punishment to the enemy. The remonstrance was fruitless, and Auvergne passed to the Visigoth. It was placed under a governor named Victorius, with the title of Count, who appears at first to have behaved with real or affected moderation (Greg. Tur. Iltst. Er. it. 20 ; Sid. Ep. vii. 17 ; Chaix. li. 2>>o). Third PrrioJ. A.n. 475-4«<>.— Sidonius wm soon banished for a time to a fort named I.ivia, probably Capendu. about ten miles from Carcassonne on the road to Narbonnc {Et>p. viii. 3 ; ix. 3 ; Vaissette. //•»/. d* iMHgufJoc, V. vol. i. p. 501). S«ime of the inconveniences he suffered there arc descril>rd in his Icttrrt to Faustus. bi). of Kiez. and to a friend, l.e-i, a native of .Narlxmnc and -f K"t!nn urigio, but filling a high olficr u ' ' They consisted chirrty in the .. . d by his luighliours, two qii.iii ■'■n old (lOthic w.iinrn {hp. vili. ,, .►.;* I et)'» infiuence he s<m)Ii Dbtainrd release from con- finement, but his return to Clernumt was delayed by an enforced sojourn at liurdeaui, whither he went to seek from Euric authority for recovering the inberitaiicc belungin| to 900 SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS him in right of his mother-in-law. Two months passed before Euric would grant him an interview, nor do we know its result. In no letter does he speak of opposition or personal ill-treatment, and the tone of his later letters is cheerful, and he appears from the last of them to have met with no hindrance in his episcopal duties except from weather. Gregory of Tours relates that, in the later years of his life, he was much annoyed by two priests, probably of Arian opinions, whose names he does not mention, but said by Chaix, though without citing any authority, to have been Honorius and Hermanchius. These men, Gregory says, succeeded in pre- venting him exercising his episcopal functions and even in reducing him to extreme poverty ; but after the death of Honorius he was restored to his office, and being attacked by fever, desired to be carried into the church of St. Mary, and there, after speaking words of love to his people, and pointing out Aprunculus, bp. of Langres, as fit to be his successor, he died, though not, apparently, in the church, Aug. 489. He was buried in the chapel of St. Saturninus, in the centre of Clermont, beside his predecessor Eparchius, and an epitaph in hendecasyllabic verse by an un- known author was placed near his tomb with the date, " xii. Kal. Sept. Zenoneimperatore." This has disappeared, but a copy is preserved in a MS. of the abbey of Cluny. A gentleman of easy fortune living in the country, Sidonius entered eagerly into its employments and active amusements, but was also keenly sensible of the more refined and tranquil pleasures derived from natural objects. He exerted without scruple a lordly influence over his own dependants in the province, sometimes in a high-handed and peremptory manner, but usually with kindness and consideration. Affectionate and con- stant to his friends, he loved to give and receive hospitality, and some of his most agreeable letters describe such social gather- ings. His eulogies were poured forth without stint or discrimination, alike on Avitus, Majorian, and Anthemius, and even Nepos did not fail to obtain a small share. He has compliments at fitting seasons, direct or indirect, for Euric and his wife. A poet laureate by nature, he must be regarded as a pliant politician, but he never forgot his duty as a patriotic citizen. Faithful to his country- men, whether by birth as of Lyons, or of adoption as in Auvergne, he never failed to plead their cause, uphold their interests, denounce their oppressors, and stand by them against injustice or hostile invasion, nor need we wonder that his memory should be revered by them as that of a saint. Invested against his will, and without previous preparation, with the episcopate, he laboured hard to repair the deficiencies of which he was conscious. He shrank from no duty, personal trouble, or responsibility, and in times of extreme diffi- culty shewed courage, prudence, and discre- tion. His character and abilities commanded the respect and cordial affection of the best men of his time, as Basilius, Felix, Graecus, Lupus, Patiens, Principius, Remigius, as well as Leo and Arbogastes, and many others ; and though he did not shrink from remonstrating SIOEBERT I. gravely and even bitterly with some of them, especially Graecus, he does not appear to have forfeited their esteem and affection. A man of kindly disposition, he treated his slaves with kindness and took pains to induce others to do likewise. He was friendly to Jews, em- ployed them, and recommended them to the good offices of his friends. Literary Character. — Though he shewed him- self a sincere and devout Christian, both before and after he became bishop, it is as a man of letters that he will always be best known, for, as it has been observed, his writings are the best-furnished storehouse we possess of infor- mation as to the domestic life, the manners and habits of public men, and in some points the public events of his period. Gifted with a fatal facility of composition, his longer poems are remarkable more for adroit handling of unpoetical material than for poetry in its true sense, and deserve to a great extent the con- temptuous judgment of Gibbon. Yet some of the shorter compositions, especially those in hendecasyllabic metre, are more successful, and touch scenes and characters with a light and discerning hand. His letters, though often turgid and pedantic, defaced by an artificial phraseology and abounding in passages of great obscurity, often describe persons, objects, and transactions in a very lively and picturesque manner. The ed. of his works by M. Eugene Baret (Paris, 1879) has an extremely valuable intro- duction, containing remarks on the times and state of society, and lists of grammatical forms, words, and phrases used by Sidonius, illustrating the transition state of the Latin language, and some peculiar to himself ; also an attempt to settle the chronology of the letters, a task of great difficulty. The best ed. is by Liitjohann, in Monum. Germ. Hist. Auct. Antiquiss. {^tvMn, 1887), viii., and a smaller ed. is by P. Mohr (Leipz. 1895). [h.w.p.] Sigebert (1) I., king of the Austrasian Franks (561-575), son of Clotaire I. by In- gundis (Greg. Tur. Hist. Franc, iv. i). Scarcely had the four brothers buried their father at Soissons when Chilperic the youngest began the civil wars which desolated France. Seizing the royal treasure at Braine, near Soissons, and purchasing the support of the Franks, he occupied Paris. His three half- brothers leagued together and compelled him to make a fair division. To Sigebert fell the kingdom which had belonged to Theodoric I., i.e. the country occupied by the Ripuarian Franks and a part of Champagne, with Rheims for his capital, which division was now begin- ning to be known as Austrasia (Greg. Tur. iv. 21, 22 ; Hist. Epitom. Iv. ; Marius Aventic. ann. 560). To Sigebert fell also, on the death of Charibert I., as far as can be gathered from later events (see Greg. Tur. ix. 20), a third share of the city of Paris, the coast of Provence with Avignon, theformerpossessionsof Theodoric I., in Aquitaine, the N. part of Brie, Beauce, Touraine, and Poitou (Richter, Annalen, 68; Bonnell, Anfdnge des Karolmgischen Hauses, Beilage, pp. 206 sqq. ; Fauriel, Hist, de la GauU Merid. ii. 175-177). About this time he mar- ried the famous Brunichild (Brunehaut), a daughter of Athanagild, the Visigothic king in Spain she having first renounced Arianism SIGISMUNDUS for orthodoxy (lireg. Tur. i%'. 27 ; Vcnant. ' Fort. vi. 2, 3, Migne, Pair. Lat. Ixxxviii. 204- 209. For the character and accomplishments of this queen, who in later life became almost supreme in France, see aUc^ Fauriel.ii. i(>6sq(])- The remainder of the reign was taken up with miserable civil wars between the brothers, in which Chilperic strove to capture parts of Sige- bert's dominion : Tours and I'oictiers, with tluir respective districts, being his principal object of attack. Two years running (a.d. 574-575) his armies overran those districts (Greg. Tur. iv. 46. 48). On the second occasion Gregory, after depicting the churches burnt and plundered, clergy killed, monasteries in ruins, and nuns outraged, uses these memorable words : " fuitque illo in tempore pejor in ecclesiis gemitus quam tempore persecutionis Diocletiani " (iv. 48. See too his outburst of indignation in c. 49). Sigebert recruited his forces with pagan Germans from beyond the Rhine (iv. 50, 51), and finally in 575, with the assistance of Guntram. carried his arms to Paris and Rouen, and while Chilperic w.is shut up in Tournay. was raised by his subjects on the shield and declared king in his place. At that very moment, however, he was struck down by assassins, probably emissaries of Fredegund (Greg. Tur. iv. 52 ; Marius Avcnt. Chronicon. ; Venant. Fort. Miscell. ix. 2, [ Migne, u.s. 298 sqq.). He left a son of five years, Childebert II. ' Sigebert was much the best of the sons of Clotaire. In happier circumstances he might have been a humane and enlightened king, but his misfortune was to reign at perhaps the darkest period of French history. His clem- ency towards Chilperic's son Theodebert, who had invaded his territory (Greg. Tur. iv. 23). his motives in seeking Brunichild's hand in marriage, as described by Gregory (iv. 27). and his intrepid attempts to restrain his barbarian trans-Rhenish allies from plundering (iv. 30), throw light upon his character. He was true to the orthodoxy of his race (iv. 27), and recalled St. Xiceiius of Treves from exile and appointed Gregory to Tours. [s.a.h.] Sigismundus, St., martyr, 5th king of the Burgundians (516-524), brought up under the influence of Avitus, the orthodox archbp. of Vieane, who succeeded in winning him, with two of his children, from the Arianism of his nation and family (.\vitus, Epp. 27. 29, Migne, Patr. Lat. lix. 243, 246 ; .Agob-irdus, adv. Leg. Gund. xiii. Patr. Lat. civ. 124), and sought to lead his inclinations towards the Roman empire (see Mascou, Annotation ii., where the passages are collected, and Fauriel. Hxst. de la GauU Merid. ii. 100). He married Ostrogotha, the daughter of Theodoric the Ostrogothic king of Italy (Jornandcs in Bouquet, ii. 28). While his father was still living, Sigismund was invested with regal dignity and held his court at Geneva (Avit. Epp. 29, 30 ; (ireg. Tur. Epitom. xxxiv.). In 515 he founded or (Hist. litt. de la Erance. iii. 89, 91) refounded the monastery of St. Maurice at Agaunum, where tradition placed the martvTdoin of the Legio Thcbaea (.Marius Avent. Chronicon. Patr. Lat. Ixxii. 7')f>)- '" 516 he succeeded his father (Marius, tb.), and in 517 convened a council, under the pre- sidency of Avitus, at Epaunum (supposed to SILVANUS 001 be the prevnt Irnc on the Kli.me . " Fpjoii." l). C. .i. ■ /^^^ htl. III. .,). If the rxirnt ol his dominion m.iy be infrrrr«l from the ve« of the bishi»ps present, Hurgundy then in- cluded, besides the later durhy and county, Dauphinv and Savov, the rilv and dominion of Lyons and the Val.iis. besidei .» part of th« present Switzerland (M.isroii, xi. 10. \t). In 523 CImlomir, llot.urr, and ( hilclrlxrt, three of the four sons of tlovis. stirred up bv their mother the widowed (lotil.la, invaded Huf' gundy. Sigismund was drfraird and flrd to St. Maurice, where he was Iwlravrd bv hi« own subjects to CI'Mloinir and carrir<l privmer in the garb of a m.mk to Orleans. Shortly afterwards, with his wife and two children, he was murdered at the neighliouring villaKC of Coulmiers, bv being cast alive, as was saul, into a well (Marius. 16. ; Greg. Tur. iii. 6). His brother, Godemar, succeeded hiin as 6lh and last king of the Burgundians. Sigismund was well-intentioned but weak. He apparently yielded t>)o much to the influ- ence of Roman ideas and habits for the kinfc of a barb.irian people, neighboured on one side by the powerful Ostrogothic monarchy and on others by the ftercelv aggri-ssive Franks. His partisanship for the orthiKlox faith, while it harmed him with his subjects, was not thorough-going enough to win the clergy from their leaning towards the Franks (see Pauriel, ii. 100 sqq.). (S.A.B.] Silvanla. [Svivia.] Silvanus (2), bp. of Ga/.a, a mart\T in the piTstrutii>n of Maximin. c. 305. He was a presbyter at its outbreak, and from the very i)eginning he endured many varied suffering* with the greatest fortitude. Not long l>efore his martyrdom, which w.is one of the last in Palestine, he obtained the episcopate. Fuse- bius speaks with high admiration of his Chris- tian endurance, saying that he was " reserved to the last to set the seal, as it were, to the conflict in Palestine " (Fus. //. E. viii. 7. lih He was decapitated, according to the Roman martyrologv, on Mav 4. 308. Theoph. p. 9; I.e Ouien. Or. Christ, iii. 605. [f..v.) Silvanus (3), bp. of Emesa. In extreme old age, after 40 years' episcopate, he was thrown to the wild beasts in Diocletian's persecution. Eus. H. E. viii. 13 : ix. 6 ; Theophan. p. 9 ; Le Quien. Or. Chrnt. ii. 837. (r.v.I Silvanus (4). bp. of Cirta. siibdr.icon un<ler Paulus. bp. of that see during the i>ers«-cution under Diocletian, and, as well as he. guilty «.f " tradition." Thes<- (arts were elicitetl at the inquiry under Zenophilus, a.k. 5:0. at which it was pr«jved. by ample rvidrncr. that Sil- vanus was guilty of this ch.irge. and also that with others he had appropriated plate and ornaments from the heathen temple i>f Sna- pis; and after he l>ecamr a bishop received as a briln; for ordaining Vict-.r, a fulkr. to W a presbvter, monev which ought to have Xnt-n given to the p.Mir. After the inquiry he was banished for refusing to coinmuniralr with I'rsacius and /mophilus, at the time of thr mission of .Macarius. a.i«. 14«- Aug. /V/i/. i. 2 j. . 69, 70 ; de (ieU. Emer. \ : c. Crete. Iii. JJ. 33. 34. iv. 66; de I'nuo liapl. 30- 3i: Au*- EP- 53- 4 : berthlir; pp. 107-17 . Silvanns (6). hp- ol Tarsus and inetr<>(xj|it4n. MoH. Vet. I), pp. 17". «»«. ««'. «i- Oberthlir; pp. 167-171. ed. Dupin. [M.w.rl 902 SILVANUS one of the most excellent of those semi-Arians whom Athanasius described as " brothers who mean what we mean, and differ only about the terms" (Ath. de Synod. 41). He suc- ceeded Antonius in the reign of Constantius. He was one of the 22 Oriental bishops who, at the council of Sirmium, in 351, joined in the deposition of Photinus (Hilar. Synod, p. 129 ; fragni. i. p. 48). On the deposition and banishment of Cyril from Jerusalem, early in 358, Silvanus received him hospitably at Tarsus, despite the remonstrances of Acacius (Theod. H. E. ii. 22). That year he took part in the semi-Arian council of Ancyra (Labbe, ii. 790), and in 359 in that of Seleucia, at which he vociferously advocated (v-iyo. dveKpaye) the acceptance of the Lucianic dedication creed of Antioch (Socr. H. E. ii. 39), the mere mention of which made the Acacian party leave the place of assembly as a protest. Silvanus was among the semi-Arian leaders who, first of the rival church parties, memori- alized Julian on his arrival at Antioch after becoming emperor, requesting him to expel the Anomoeans and call a general council to restore peace to the church, and declaring their acceptance of the Nicene faith (Socr. H. E. iii. 25). In 366 he was, with Eustathius of Sebaste and Theophilus of Castabala, a deputy to Liberius. He returned with the letters of communion of Liberius and the Roman synod (Basil. Ep. 67 [30]). His death is placed by Tillemont in 373 (Mem. eccl. t. vi. p. 502 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 872). [e.v.1 Silvanus (12), solitary of Sinai, a native of Palestine. " He founded at Geraris near the great torrent a very extensive establishment for holy men, over which the excellent Zachariah subsequently presided " (Soz. H. E. vi. 32). He trained his followers to industrial pursuits. A wandering ascetic seeing all the brethren working very diligently said to them, " Labour not for the meat which perisheth ; Mary chose the better part." Silvanus over- hearing this said, " Give a book to the brother and lead him to an empty cell." When the ninth hour came, no one came to call the stranger to eat. At last, wearied and hungry, he sought Silvanus, and said, " Father, the brethren have not eaten to-day." " Oh yes," replied the abbat, " they have eaten." " And why," said the other, " did you not send for me ? " " Because," responded Silvanus, " thou art a spiritual man, and dost not re- quire food; but we are carnal and wish to eat, and therefore are compelled to work. Thou, however, hast chosen the better part and con- tinuest in study the whole day, nor art willing to consume carnal food." The stranger con- fessed his fault and was forgiven, Silvanus playfully saying, " Martha is evidently necessary to Mary." Cotelerius tells stories of his prolonged trances. On one occasion he awoke very sad because he had been in the eternal world and seen many monks going to hell and many secular persons to heaven (Monument, t. i. p. 679). [g.t.s.] Silvanus (14), first known bp. of Calahorra. We know of him from 2 letters of Ascanius, bp. of Tarragona, and the bishops of his pro- vince to pope Hilary, and Hilary's reply dated Dec. 30, 465 (in Migne, Pair. Lat. Iv'iii. 14). The first letter shows that Silvanus had, 7 or SILVERIUS 8 years before, consecrated a bishop without any request from the places comprised in his see or the approval of Ascanius. The other bishops of the province were satisfied with ad- monishing him, and received the new bishop ; but the see in question being again vacant Silvanus had lately repeated the act, with the aggravation that the priest consecrated be- longed to the diocese of another bishop, and the other bishop at the instance of the bishops of Saragossa having refused to join, Silvanus had performed the consecration alone. In the second letter the bishops express their surprise at the pope's delay in answering. His reply was remarkably favourable, in consequence probably of letters from people of rank and property at Calahorra, Tarazona, and neigh- bouring towns, which alleged in excuse for Silvanus that his were not the only irregulari- ties, bishops having been consecrated for other cities without the previous approval of the metropolitan. The pope in consideration of the troubled times granted an amnestv for the past, while enjoining strict observance of the canons for the future. As the first letter was wTitten some time before Hilary's reply, Silvanus probably became bp. c. 455. Esp. Sag. xxxiii. 128 ; Gams, Kirchg. von Sp. ii. (i) 430. [f-d.] Silverius, bp. of Rome during the reign of Justinian I. Agapetus having died at Con- stantinople when about to return to Italy (on April 22, according to Anastasius) in 536, Liberatus tells us (Breviar.) that on the news of his death reaching Rome, Silverius, a sub- deacon and son of pope Hormisdas, was elected and ordained, doubtless in the same year. According to Anastasius (Lib. Pontif. in Vit. Silverii) the election of Silverius was forced upon the Romans by the Gothic king Theodatus, who then held the city, the presbyters assenting for the sake of unity. Silverius did not long enjoy his dignity. Belisarius, having got possession of Naples, entered Rome in the name of Justinian on Dec. 10, 536. Vitiges, the successor of Theodatus, commenced a siege of Rome, now in the possession of Belisarius, in Mar. 537. Belisarius, after entering Rome, is said in the Hist. Miscell (lib. 16 in Muratori, t. i. pp. 106, 107) to have been reproved and subjected to penance by Sil- verius for cruel treatment of the Neapolitans; whereas the contemporary historian Pro- copius (Bell. Goth. lib. i.) commends the peculiar humanity of Belisarius after the capture of Naples. Vigilius, one of the deacons of Agapetus at Constantinople, had, on that pope's death there, been sent for by the empress Theodora and promised the popedom through the agency of Belisarius on condition of his dis- allowing, after his elevation, the council of Chalcedon, and supporting the Monophysites whom she favoured. Vigilius, on his arrival in Italy, found Belisarius at Naples, to whom he communicated the commands of Theodora (Liberatus, Breviar.). Belisarius havinggained possession of Rome, Vigilius followed him there and measures were taken to carry out the wishes of the empress. Accusations were laid against Silverius of having been in com- munication with the Goths who were besieging SILVESTER Rome, and having writtrn to VitiRr-; oflorinR to betray the city. Summoned before Heli- sarius, with whom was his wife Aiitonina, who was the spokeswoman and real aRCJit in these proceeding's, he was charged with the crime, and banished to Patara and then to C.reece. The emperor, on hearing the facts, asserted himself, ordering his recall to Konie and investigation to be made. But the empress succeeded somehow in keeping her husltand quiet. For, on the arrival of Silverius at Rome (as we are informed bv Liberatus), Vigilius represented to Belisarius that he could not do what was required of him unless the deposed pope were delivered into his bands. He was thereupon given up to two dependants of Vigilius, under whose custody he was sent to Palmaria in the T>Trhene sea (or Pontia, according to Martyrol. Rom. and Anastasius). where he died from famine, according to Liberatus and .■Vnastasius. Procopius (Hist. .Arcan.) speaks of one Eugenius, a servant of Antonina, as having been her instrument in bringing about his death, the e.xpression used seeming to imply a death by violence, .\llemann (note on Hist. Arcan.) argues that the account of Pro- copius. who was living at Rome at the time and likely to know the facts, is preferable ; and attributes the implication of Vigilius to prejudice on the part of Liberatus. Silverius died June 20 (xii. Kal. Jul. al. Jun. Attastas.), most probably a.d. 538, his depo- sition certainly occurring in 537. [j-b — v.| Silvester (1), bp. of Rome after Miltiades, Jan. 31, 314, to Dec. 31, 335. Though his time was important in church history, we have few genuine records of any personal action of his, but a great store of legend. In his first year of episcopate Constantine the Great summoned the first council of .Aries to reconsider the decision against the .African Donatists of the synod held at Rome by his order in 313 under pope Miltiades. At the council of Aries Silvester was represented by two presbyters, Claudianus and Vitus, and two deacons, Eugenius and C>Tiacus, whose names appear in his behalf fifth among the signatures. Whoever presided, the general conduct of the council seems to have been committed by the emperor to Chrestus, bp. of SvTacuse (see a letter to him from Constan- tine preserved by P^usebius, H. E. x. s). Certainly Silvester did not preside, nor did any representative in his place. Constantine, in making arrangements for the council, cvi- dentlv takes no account of him, not even mentioning him in writing to Chrestus. There is indeed a letter of the bishops of the Aries council to Silvester. It opens: "To the most beloved pope Silvester," and concludes in reference to the decrees: " \N e have thought it fit also that they should be especially made known to all through you. who hold the f.reater dioceses." The phrase, " <|ui majores dioceses tenes," with the consequent desire expressed that the pope should promul- gate the decrees, has been used in proof of the pope's then acknowledged patriarchal juris- diction over the great dioceses (1.*. exarch- ates) of the western empire. For the word SioU-nffii denoted the jurisdiction of a patri- arch larger than that of metropolitans, the SILVESTER 94>3 word for 4 diocrsr in the nvxipin \rn\r bring projHurly wapoma. Hut it 1% highly im- probable th.»t diocf^e wa* uv^l rccJrM4\llC- ally in thi< srnse m» p.irlv at JI4. Ilrnro Bingham c<>iitpndp<l {.ini. ix. i. 11, and 11. j) that if the paHS,»gr. " bv all 4ckti'i-.v|f-,1-rt| lo b« a very corrupt one, " l>e 4cr> • " must be taken in the '^iwr i expressed bv waixxKla ; and li' stances of Its Use in this srlis.- m ( 11 .11. .( Carthaginian counnls. Hut jTolialilv th»» whole epistle (nolr it* grnrr.il .uiarhronistn o( tone) is a forgery intrndr<l to magnify th* Roman see. To the more memorable cmncil of Nicaea in 3iS Silvester wa» invited, but excuMOK himself on account of age, sent two prr^bvtrr*. Vitus and Vincentius, as hii rrprrsrtitativc* (Eus. V.C. iii. 7; S<»cr. //. f. i. 14: So/». H.E.i.17 ; Theod. //. F. 1. 6). The view that thev presided in his name, or that Us B.uonint maintains) Hosirs of Cordova did v>. i^ with- out foundation. In the subscription* to the decrees Hosius signs first, but simply as bp. of Cordova, not as in any way rpprrsentiiic Rome ; after which come those of Vitus and Vincentius, who sign " pro venerabili viro papa et episcopo nostro, sancto Sylvestro, ita credentes sicut scriptum est." The r.irli«>*t and inde<'d only authority for Hosius havinn presided in the poi)c"s name is that of ("irlasiu* of Cvzicus (end of 5th cent.), who sav* only that Hosius from Spain, "qui Silvestri epiv copi maximac Komac locum obtinebat," together with the Roman presbyters Bito and Vincentius, was present (Gelas. Hist. Coii^tl. Nic. I. ii. c. <i, in Labbe. vol. li. p. i6i). Equally groundless is the allegation first mada by the 6th oecumenical council (')8o), that Sil- vester in concert with the cm|)eror summoned the Nicene fathers. The gradual growth of this idea appears in the pontifical .vinals. The catalogue of popes called the Felicjan (A.D. 530) says only that the synml was held with his consent ("cum consensu ejus"); some later .MSS. improve this phrase into " cum praecepto ejus." It is evident from all authentic documents that the synod of Nicaea. as that of Aries, was oMivenrd by the vile authority of the emperor, and that no peru- liarly prominent p<»sition was accorded to the pope in either rase. But thf most memorable fable alvnit Sil- vester is that of the baptism of Constantino bv him. and the celebrated " Donation." It is, though variously related, mainly a* follow* : The emperor, having Iw-fore hi» convrr»ii« authorized cruel i>ersecution of th-- rhri^ti ms W.1S smitten with leprmy bv diM ' • He w.as advis<-d to use a bath of I for cure. .\ great multitude . : accordingly collecte«l for OauKlit" . <""■ '■"- emperor, moved by their c^le^ and Uwse o| their mothers, desisted from hi* puriH.«-. He was thereupon visits.! ••• •<<-■'■■' m in. i.v SS. Peter and Paul, and ' recall Silvester from his • w<iuld shew him a po*!! !■ ; ' he would I)c hcale<l. He rctallc.l ilic ;■••;>€ was instructed by him in the faith, cured ol his leprosy, and baptlre<l. Moved bv Rrati- tudc. he made over to the pope and hl» *uc- cessors the temporal domlDit»n ol Rome, ol the 904 SILVIA greatest part of Italy, and of other provinces, thinking it unfit that the place where the monarch of the whole church and the vicar of Christ resided should be subject to earthly sway. (See Lib. Pontif. in Vit. Sylvestri, and the Lections in Fest. S. Sylvestri in the Bre- viaries of the various uses). The earliest known authority for the whole story appears to be the Acta Sylvestri (see below). The attribution of Constantine's conversion and baptism to Silvester is as legendary as the rest. His profession and patronage of Christianity were anterior to the time spoken of, and he was not actually baptized till long afterwards, at the close of his life. There is abundant testimony that he did not seek baptism, or even imposition of hands as a catechumen, till in a suburb of Nicomedia, as death drew near, he received both from Eusebius, the Arian bishop of that see. (Eus. V. C. iv. 6i, 62; Theod. i. 32 ; Soz. ii. 34, iv. 18 ; Socr. i. 39 ; Phot. Cod. 127 ; Ambrose, Serm. de obit. Theodos. ; Hieron. Chron. an. 2353 ; Council of Rimini.) The Acta S. Sylvestri, which seem to have furnished the materials for most of the le- gends — including the banishment to Soracte, the leprosy of Constantine, his lustration by Silvester, and his Donation — are mentioned and approved as genuine in the Decretum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis, common- ly attributed to pope Gelasius (492-496), but probably of a later date. They are quoted in the 8th cent, by pope Hadrian in a letter to Charlemagne, where the Donation is alluded to, and in another to the empress Irene and her son Constantine on the occasion of the 2nd Nicene council in 787. The original Acts have not been preserved. The extant edi- tions of them, given in Latin by Surius {Acta SS. Dec. p. 368), and in Greek by Combefis {Act. p. 258), purport to be only compilations from an earlier document. Silvester died on Dec. 31, 335, and was buried in the cemetery of St. Priscilla. [j.b — v.] Silvia. [GORDIANUS (7).] Simeon (l), 2nd bp. of Jerusalem, succeed- ing James, the Lord's brother. According to the statement of Hegesippus preserved by Eusebius, Simeon was the son of Clopas "mentioned in Holy Scripture" (John xix. 25), the brother of Joseph, and therefore, legally, the uncle of our Lord, while Simeon himself — 6 iK rod delov rod Kvpiov — was, leg- ally, his cousin, 6vTa a.ve\pdiv rod Kvplov, and of the roj'al line of David (Eus. H. E. iii. 11, 32 ; iv. 22). The language of Hegesippus {H. E. iv. 82) evidently distinguishes between the relationship of James and Simeon to our Lord. Dr. ^Iill, however, follows Burton {H. E. i. 290) in regarding Simeon as a brother of James and also of Jude, though perhaps by another mother (Mill, Pantheistic Principles, pp. 234, 253). Such an interpretation of Hegesippus's language is very unnatural and at variance with the statement of Epiphanius that Simeon was the cousin — avi^ptds — of James the Just (Epiph. Haer. Ixxvii. c. 14, p. 1046 ; cf. Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 262). Bp. Lightfoot regards his age as "an ex- aggeration," and suggests that his being " a son of Cleopas mentioned in the Evangelical records " requires us to place his death earlier SIMEON STYLITES than the generally received date. According to Hegesippus, Simeon was unanimously chosen to fill the vacant see of Jerusalem on the violent death of James the Just, the date usually assigned for which being 62 or 63 (see jbsephus. Ant. xx. 9. i). Whether the appointment of Simeon immediately succeed- ed or was not made till the retirement of the Christian Jews to Pella cannot be deter- mined. The former seems rather more prob- able. His retreat at Pella would save him from the inquisition after descendants of the royal line of David, made by Vespasian, according to Eusebius {H. E. iii. 12), as well as the later inquiry instituted by Domitian {ib. 19, 20). He must have returned with the Christians to Jerusalem when allowed to do so by the Roman authorities. Of his epis- copate we know nothing. He was martyred in the reign of Trajan (iyrl Tpaiavov ; Eus. H. E. iii. 32), but the exact date is uncertain. By a misinterpretation of the Chronicon of Eusebius, which seemed to assign his martyr- dom with that of Ignatius to the 9th or loth year of Trajan, Simeon's death has been assigned to 107 or 108. Bp. Lightfoot has shewn good reason for placing it earlier in Trajan's reign (Lightfoot, Ignatius, i. 21, 58- 60, ii. 442-450). Hegesippus says that in his i2ist year Simeon was accused before Atticus, then proconsul, by certain Jewish sectaries, first, that being of the line of David, he was a possible claimant of the throne of his royal ancestor, and secondly that he was a Christian. He was tortured for many days in succession, and bore his sufferings with a firmness which astonished all the beholders, especially Atticus himself, who marvelled at such endurance in one so advanced in age. Finally he was ordered to be crucified (Eus. H. E. iii. 32). [E.V.] Simeon (12) Stylites, a.d. 388-460. Simeon was, according to Theodoret, originally an enclosed anchorite, and raised his cell to avoid the honours paid to him (cf. Reeves on church of St. Doulough, pp. 8-1 1, with Evagr. H. E. i. 21). The fashion rapidly spread even to the sects, as we learn from Joannes Moschus {Prat. Spirit, cxxix. ; cf. Ccill. xi. 701) that the 6th-cent. Monophysites had pillar saints. Sometimes both parties had opposition Sty- lites in the same district. Evagrius tells us that Simeon's pillar was only three feet in circumference at the top, which would barely afford standing ground. Assemani has de- picted Simeon's column in his Life of the saint with a railing or kind of wooden pulpit at the summit. Some such structure must have been there, not only to prevent his fall, but also for him to write the epistles he sent broadcast to emperors, bishops, and councils on all pressing questions. He was born at Sisan, a village on the borders of Cilicia and S>Tia, and when about 16 embraced the monastic life. From 413 to 423 Simeon dwelt in an enclosed cell near Antioch, where his austerities speedily attracted a number of followers, who formed a society called the Mandra. In 423 he built a low pillar, which he gradually raised, till in 430 it was 40 cubits high ; there, with his neck manacled by an iron collar, he spent his last 30 years of life engaged in perpetual adoration, save when SIMON MAGUS he was bestowing advice about mundane ' matters. His extraorilinarv life made a great impression ; large luimbiTs o( Arabians. Armenians, and other pagans were converted by him, while emperors, bistiops, and pilCTims from distant lands, even Spain and Hrit.iin, consulted him most reverently. .\n object of deepest reverence all through life, at the news of his approaching death great crowds assembled (July 450) round his pill.ir t<> receive his last woids. On .\ug. 20 he was seized with a mortal illness, and died Sept 2, 459. His body was transported with great pomp to .\ntioch, attended by bishops and clergy, and guarded by the troops under Ardabryius, commander of the forces of the East. The emperor Leo sent letters to the bp. of Antioch demanding it to be brought to Constantinople. The people of Antioch piteously leminded Leo, " Forasmuch as our 1 city is without walls, for we have been visited in wrath by their fall, we brought hither the sacred body to be our wall and bulwark," and were permitted to retain it; but this did not avail to protect the city against capture by the Persians. Simeon wrote many epistles on current ecrl ^siastical matters: (i) one Evagrius mentions (W. E i. 13). to the emperor Theodosius against restoring their synagogues i to the Jews. It effectually incited the I emperor to intolerant courses. He withdrew | the concession and dismissed the official who \ advised it. (2) .\n epistle to Leo. on behalf of 1 the council of Chalcedon, and against the 1 ordination of Timotheus .Aelurus (ii. 10). (3) Evagrius gives {ib.) extracts from one to Basil of .\ntioch on the same topic. (4) An epistle to the empress Eudocia on the same (Niceph. xv. 13), by which she was converted from Kuty- chian error. (5) Eulogius of .Alexandria mentions his profession of the Catholic faith, which Cave conjectures to have been identical with (2) (cf. Phot. Rtblioth. cod. 230). Besides : these, there is extant a Latin version of a ' sermon, de Morte Assidue Cogitanda, which in the Btblioth. Patr. is usually ascribed to our ; Simeon. Lambecius, on the authority of a | MS. in the imperial library at Vienna, ascribes it to Simeon of Mesopotamia {Comm. de Bihliolh. Caesarea, vol. viii. lib. v. col. 198 d, ed. Kollar). Evagrius (i. 13) describes the appearance of Simeon's relics in his time, and also (i. 14) a visit he paid to the monastery! and pillar of Simeon. The pillar was then enclosed in a church, which no woman was ever allowed to enter, and where supernatural manifestations were often seen. Count de Vogii6 iSxrie CentraU. t. i. pp. I4i-154. Paris, 1865-1877) describes fully the present state of the church, and shews Evagrius's minute \ accuracy. [o.t.s.) Simon (1) Magus, the subject of many legends and much speculation. It is import- ant to discriminate carefully what is told of him bv the different primary authoritir-s. The' Simon of the Acts of the A po-itles.— Be- hind all stories concerning Simon lies what is related .•\cts viii. 9-24, where we see Simon as a magician who exercised sorcery in Samaria with such success that the people universally accepted his claim to be " some great one," and accounted him " that power of C.od which is called great." We are further told that he SIMON MAGUS WMi wn% %o Jmprrs'.e<l l>v the niirarlr* wrought by Philip, that he a-kkrd and obtatiird admuMiW to christian baptixin ; but that he »ul»*<<« quentlv brtraveil thr ho||ownr%« of hi* ron» version by oflfrriuK inotirv to IVtrr to obtain the power of ronfrrring thr gift of the Holv Ghost. .Ml sul>^rnuriit account* reprr^rnl him as possessing magical powrr an<l cominn personally into colli^imi with I'rtrr, Tha .Acts say nothing as to hi* Ix-ing a trjrhrr of heretical doctrine ; nor do thrv tril whnhrr or not he broke of! all ronnrxion with th« Christian s<x-ictv aftrr his exposure by IVicr. The StmoH of Justin Martvr. -W'hrn Ju»tin Mart>T wrote his Af^oloi;v the Siinonian vet appears to have l>ern forinidablr. (or ha speaks four times of their foundrr Simon {Apol. i. 26. 56; ii. t5 ; Dial. jo), and un- doubtedly identified him with the Simon ol .Acts. He states that he wa* a Samaritan, born at a village called C.itta ; he devril>r« him as a formidable magician, who canir to Rome in the davs of Claudius Caesar and made such an impression bv his magical powers that he was honoure<l as a go<l. a statue being erected to him on the ri»>er, between the two bridges. I>earing the inscrip- tion " Simoni deo Sancto." Now in iS74 there was dug up in the place indicated bv Justin, viz. the island in the Tiber, a marble fragment, apparently the base of a statue, bearing the inscription, "Semoni Sanro Dro Fidio," with the name of the dedicator (see Ciruter, Inscrip. .4ntiq. i. p. oS, n. ^). The coincidence is too remarkable to admit of anv satisfactory explanation other than that Justin imatjined a statue really d«-dicated to a Sabine deity (Ovid. Fasti, vi. 214) to have been in honour of the heretic Simon. Justin further states that almost all the Samaritans, and some even of other nation*, worshipped Simon, and acknowledged him a» "the first God" ("above all principality, power, and dominion," Dial. 120), and that they held that a woman nam<-d Hrlma. formerly a prostitute, who went about with him. was his "first conception" (/rrwa it^tt;). In connexion with Simon. Justin speaks of another Samaritan hrretic. M«s- ANDER, and states that he (Justin I had pub- lished a treatise against heresies. When Irenaeus (Haer. i. 23) deals with Simon and Menander, his coincirlrnces with Justin are too numerous and striking to leave any doubt that he here uses the work of Justin as hi* authority, and we get the following additional particulars : Simon claim«-<l to l)r himsdl the highest power, that is to say. the Fathrr who is over all ; he taught that he was the same who among the Jews appearrd as S.in. in Samaria descended as Father. Inothrr nation* had walked as the H"lv Spirit. \\r was con- tent to be called by whalrver li.iinr mrn rh<»*« to assign to him. Helm was a prostitute whom he ha«! redeemed at Tvrr " ' '• ' ■' "• with him. saving that shr w.i ception of his mind, thr ni'-i' whom he had In the l>rginninK ■ making of angri* and arrhangt U. Ki» r.Mii»{ thus his will, she had lra|M-<l awav from him. <lescended to the lower regions, and grnrrated angel* and power* by whom thi* world wa* made. But this "Knnoca" wat detained In 906 SIMON MAGUS these lower regions by her offspring, and not suffered to return to the Father of whom they were ignorant. In this account of Simon there is a large portion common to almost all forms of Gnostic myths, together with some- thing special to this form. They have in common the place in the work of creation assigned to the female principle, the concep- tion of the Deity ; the ignorance of the rulers of this lower world with regard to the Supreme Power ; the descent of the female {Sophia) into the lower regions, and her inability to return. Special to the Simonian tale is the identification of Simon himself with the Supreme, and of his consort Helena with the female principle, together with the doctrine of transmigration of souls, necessary to give these identifications a chance of acceptance, it not being credible that the male and female Supreme principles should first appear in the world at so late a stage in history. It is possible that Justin's Simon was not identical with the contemporary of the Apostles, the name Simon being very common, and the Simon of the Acts being a century older than Justin. Moreover, Justin's Simon could hardly have carried his doctrine of transmigration of souls to the point of pre- tending that it was he himself who had ap- peared as Jesus of Nazareth, unless he had been born after our Lord's death. Hence it is the writer's opinion that the Simon described by Justin was his elder only by a generation ; that he was a Gnostic teacher who had gained some followers at Samaria; and that Justin rashly identified him with the magician of the Acts of the Apostles. The section on Simon in the Refutation of all Heresies, by Hippolytus, divides itself into two parts ; the larger portion is founded on a work ascribed to Simon called the /J-eydXt) dir6(pa(Tis, which we do not hear of through any other source than Hippolytus. But towards the close of the art. on Simon there is a section which can be explained on the supposition that Hippolytus is drawing directly from the source used by Irenaeus, viz. the anti-heretical treatise of Justin. In connexion with this section must be considered the treatment of Simon in the lost earlier treatise of Hippoly- tus, which may be conjecturally gathered from the use made of it by Philaster and Epipha- nius. Between these two there are verbal co- incidences which prove that they are drawing from a common source. When this common matter is compared with the section in the Refutation, it is clear that Hippolytus was that source. But one thing common to them was appar- ently not taken from Hippolytus. Both speak of the death of Simon, but apairt from the section which contains the matter common to them and Hippolytus, and here they have no verbal coincidences. Both, however, know the story which became the received account of his death, viz. that to give the emperor a crowning proof of his magical skill he at- tempted to fly through the air, and, through the efficacy of the apostle's prayers, the demons who bore him were compelled to let him go, whereupon he perished miserably. We may conclude that the story known to Philaster and Epiphanius, though earlier than SIMON MAGUS the end of the 4th cent, when they wrote, is of later origin than the beginning of the 3rd cent, when Hippolytus wrote. That Hippolytus did not find his account of Simon's death in Justin may be concluded from the place it occupies in his narrative, where it is in a kind of appendix to what is borrowed from Justin ; and also because this form of the story is unknown to all other writers. The Simon of the Clementines. — The Clemen- tines, like Justin, identify Simon of Gitta with the Simon of Acts ; but there is every reason to believe that they were merely following Justin. Justin has evidently direct know- ledge of the Simonians, and regards them as formidable heretics ; but in the Clementines the doctrines which Justin gives as Simonian have no prominence ; and the introduction of Simon is merely a literary contrivance to bring in the theological discussions in which the author is interested. The Simon of igth Cent. Criticism. — The Clementine writings were produced in Rome early in 3rd cent, by members of the Elkesaite sect, one characteristic of which was hostility to Paul, whom they refused to recognize as an apostle. Baur first drew attention to this characteristic in the Clementines, and pointed out that in the disputations between Simon and Peter, some of the claims Simon is repre- sented as making {e.g. that of having seen our Lord, though not in his lifetime, yet subse- quently in vision) were really the claims of Paul ; and urged that Peter's refutation of Simon was in some places intended as a polemic against Paul. The passages are found only in the Clementine Homilies, which may be regarded as one of the latest forms which these forgeries assumed. In the Clementine Recognitions there is abundance of anti-Paulism ; but the idea does not appear to have occurred to the writer to dress up Paul under the mask of Simon. The idea started by Baur was pressed by his followers into the shape that, wherever in ancient documents Simon Magus is mentioned, Paul is meant. We are asked to believe that the Simon of Acts viii. was no real character, but only a presentation of Paul. Simon claimed to be the power of God which is called Great ; and Paul calls his gospel the power of God (Rom. i. 16 ; I. Cor. i. 18), and claims that the power of Christ rested in himself (II. Cor. xii. 9), and that he lived by the power of God (xiii. 4). In Acts viii. the power of bestowing the Holy Ghost, which Philip does not appear to have exercised, is clearly represented as the special prerogative of the apostles. When, therefore, Simon offered money for the power of con- ferring the Holy Ghost, it was really to obtain the rank of apostle. We are therefore asked to detect here a covert account of the refusal of the elder apostles to admit Paul's claim to rank with them, backed though it was by a gift of money for the poor saints in Jerusalem. Peter tells him that he has no lot in the matter, i.e. no part in the lot of apostleship (see Acts i. 17, 25); that he is still in the "gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity " — i.e. full of bitter hatred against Peter (Gal. ii. 11) and not observant of the Mosaic Law. We are not to be surprised that St. Luke, Paulist though he was, should assert ia his history SIMON MAGUS this libel on his niastrr. He knew the story to be current among the Jewish disciples, and wished to take the stinp out of it by tellinR it in such a way as to represent Siujon as a real person, distinct from Paul. So. having begun to speak of Paul in the beginning of c. viii.. he interpolates the epistxle of Philip's adven- tures, and does not return to speak of I'aul until his readers attention has been drawn off. so as not to be likely to recognize Paul under the mask of Simon. It is not necessary to spend much time in I pulling to pieces speculations exhibiting so ' much ingenuity, but so wanting in common I sense. If. by way of nickname, a public ' character is called by a name not his own. common sense tells us that that must be a name to which discreditable associations are akeady known to attach. If a revolutionary agitator is called Catiline, that is because the name of Catiline is already assiKiated with reckles"; and treasonable designs. It would be silly to conclude from the modern use of the nickname that there never had been such a person as Catiline, and that the traditional story of him must be so interpreted as best ' to describe the modern character. Further, while obscure 3rd-cent. heretics, fearing the odium of assailing directly one held in venera- tion through the rest of the Christian world, ' might resort to disguise, Paul's opponents, in his lifetime, had no temptation to resort to J oblique attacks : they could say what they pleased against Paul of Tarsus without needing to risk being unintelligible by speaking of Simon of Ciitta. Lipsius, whose account of his predecessors' speculations we have abridged from his art. \ "Simon,"' in Schenkel's Btbel-l.fxikon. excr- , cises his own ingenuitv in dealing with the legendary history of Simon. The ingenuity which discovers Paul in the Simon of the Acts j has, of course, a much easier task in finding him in the Simon of the legends. But since the history, as it has come down to us, leaves much to be desired as an intentional libel on Paul, we must modify the legends so as best to adapt them to this object, and must then believe we have thus recovered the original form of the legend. Thus, the Homtlus represent the final disputation between Peter and Simon to have occurred at Larxlicea ; but we must believe that the original form laid it at Antioch, where took place the collision be- tween Peter and Paul ((ial. ii.). The Clemen- tines represent Simon as going voluntarily to Rome ; but the original must surely have represented him as taken there as a prisoner by the Roman authorities, and so on. It is needless to examine minutely speculations vitiated by such methods of investigation. The chronological order is— the historical personage comes first ; then legends arise about him ; then the use made of his name. The proper order of investigation is, therefore, first to ascertain what is historical about Simon before discussing his legends. Now, it cannot reasonably be doubted that Simon of Gitta is an historical personage. The here- tical sect which claimed him for its founder was regarded by Justin Martyr as most formidable ; he speaks of it a» predominant in Samaria and not unknown elsewhere ; SIMPLICIANUS 9«»7 probably he h.id mr| mrmlx-r't of it at Rome. Its exisiencc i* teslilir<l by llr(;t~tippu« (|;u». IV. 21); trlsu« (Orig. adv. Crh. v. hj). who states that some of thmiwrrr rj||r<lllrlrni4nl, and I Irmrnt of .Mrx.indria {Sirom. vti. 17), who states th.it "IIP branch W4% cjjlrd lluty- chitae. It had Ix^oine alnnni r»|inr| In Origen's tiinr, who <lotil>t\ (44/r. (fix. t. ^7) whether tlurr were thru \n Siinonun\ in the world ; but we nrr«l iiMt doubt ll« rxistrnrr in Justin's time, n.>r Ihr fact that it cUuhmI Simon of (.itta as iiv foundrr. Wrilino •" hit name were in rircuUtion, Ustr the ( Irmrntine Rfcognition'i, and Kpiphaniiis 4x c<mhrntin|t Hippolytu>. The Simon of Arts is alv> a real person. If we read .Acts viii., which rrUtrt the preaching of Philip, in connexion with c. xxi.. which tells of M-veral davs sprni by I uke in Philip's house, wr have tlir simple explana- tion of the insertion of tlie former rh.i|trr. that I.uke gladiv included in his hi.i c, .1 narrative <.( the e.ulv prearhing of the i.; ..|«-| communicated bv .\i\ evr. witness. \Vc n<-ed not ascrif)e to I uke .inv more recondita motive for relating the incident Ih.in that ho belit'ved it had occurred. There is no rvid- ence that this Samaritan in.igirian had ob- tained elsewhere any great notoriety ; and there is every reason to think that alt later writers derive their knowledge from the .\rl* of the Apostles. We have already sanl that we believe Justin mistaken in identifying Simon of the Acts with Simon of (iitta. whom we take to have been a 2iid-cent. (in<r.tic teacher; but this identification is followed in the Clementines. In any case, we see that the whole manufacture of the latter stiM-y is later than Simon of ("litta, if not. as we believe, later than Justin M.irtyr. The anti-Paulisis, therefore, who dressed Paul in the disguise >.f Simon, are more than a cenlurv later than anv opponents Paul \ud in his lifetime, who, if they wished to fix *nickiiaine on the apostle, were not likely to go to the Acts of the Ap<»stle* to look for one. [<• "».l Simpllclanus, St.. bp. of Milan next after St. Ambrose, a resident there l>etween iSo and ^^o, and instrumental in ronverlmg Victorinus (Aug. Conf. viii. 2). later j>erhaps than this he became intimate with St. .Am- brose, whose father in the Christian faith hn is called bv Augustine. About 174. the vear Ambrose was rais«>d to the episcopate. Sun- plician appears to have s«-ttled at .Milan (Tillem. vol. x. p. 308). Mr w.is held in deep reverence bv St. Ambrose, who wai often consulted by him, and speaks of Ins continual study of Holy Scripture (Aug. Con/, viii. 2 ; Ambr. /;/>/». 37. 2 ; »>5. 1). Four replv-lcttrr* to him by St. Ambrose <in |»oiiit4 of Scrip, ture arc extant (Ambr. hff'. \7. i8. 61. 67). Augustine, residing f ■' M'l'" »" '">. b<-cainc acipiainted wr >• account of the con\' awakened an eager deMf ' > {Conf. viii. M. and the iji. ua.hii' l.l.^ted throughout Augustine'i life. Simplician'i ap- pointment to the see of Milan, A.n. if)7. >« dc- scril>edby Paulinus in his life of St. An»br.»\e (C. 46). Me app.ireiitly die<l in 4<»«i, and wa» succeeded by Veneriu*. quiri' c» elicited the treatise of Augustine, d/ Ihvfrui Qu**^ , concerning various passages In O. and N. T. 908 SIMPLICIUS Tillem. x. 401 ; Ceill. iv. 325, vi. 7, ix. 6, 78, 24.9- 254 ; Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 299. [h.w.p.] SImpliclus (7), bp. of Rome after Hilarius, from Feb. 22, 468 (according to the conclusion of Pagi, in Baron, ad ann. 467, iv.), to Mar. 483. According to Lib. Pontif. he was a native of Tibur, the son of one Castinus. He witnessed, during his episcopate, the fall of the Western empire and the accession (a.d. 476) of Odoacer as king of Italy. This change, however politically important, does not seem to have affected at the time the pope or the church at Rome. The later emperors, Anthemius, Nepos, Augustulus, who reigned during the earlier years of Simplicius's popedom, being merely nominees of the Eastern emperor, had little power ; and Odoacer, himself an Arian, did not interfere with church affairs. The reigning emperors of the East were, first Leo I., the Thracian, called also " the Great," and after him Zeno, his son-in-law, who succeeded him a.d. 474, but whose reign was interrupted from 475 to 477 by the usurpation of Basiliscus. The contemporary bp. of Constantinople was Acacius (471-489). The most memorable incidents of the ponti- ficate of Simplicius were his negotiations, and eventual breach, with this prelate and with the emperor Zeno who supported him — leading up to the long schism between the churches of the East and West, which ensued in the time of the following pope, Felix III. (or II.). The difference arose on questions connected partly with the rival claims of the sees of Rome and Constantinople, partly with the Monophysite or Eutychian heresy. The first occasion was the promulgation of an edict by the emperor Leo I., at the instance of Acacius, confirming the 28th canon of Chalcedon. This canon, said to have been passed unanimously by all present except the legates of pope Leo" I., not only confirmed the 3rd canon of Constantinople, which had given to the bp. of new Rome (i.e. Constantinople) a primacy of honour (i.e. honorary rank) next after the'bp. of old Rome, but further gave him authority to ordain the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses, thus investing him with the powers as well as the rank of a patriarch, second only to the pope of Rome. Pope Leo had subsequently ob- jected to this canon and never gave it his assent. He claimed that it was an infringe- ment of the canons of Nice and entrenched on the rights of other patriarchs. It indicated a desire on the part of the bps. of Constan- tinople, then the real seat of empire, to rival and perhaps eventually to supersede the old primacy of Rome. At Rome the position maintained was that the authority of a see rested on its ecclesiastical origin, and that of Rome especially on its having been the see of St. Peter. The view at Constantinople was that the temporal pre-eminence of a city was a sufficient ground for ecclesiastical ascen- dancy. Hence the long struggle. Acacius, by inducing the emperor to con- firm the 28th canon of Chalcedon by a special edict, hoped to make it plain that the emin- ence and authority thereby assigned to his see were still maintained and had not been con- ceded to the remonstrances of pope Leo. The language used by the emperor in his edict — SIMPLICIUS styling the church of Constantinople " the Mother of his Piety, and of all Christians, and of the orthodox faith" — confirms the supposi- i tion that an idea was even entertained of the new seat of empire superseding the old one in ecclesiastical prerogative as well as temporal rank. Simplicius naturally took alarm. He sent Probus, bp. of Canusium in Apulia, as his legate to Constantinople to remonstrate ; but with what success we know not. In the doctrinal controversies of the day between Rome and Constantinople, Simplicius appears to have been in accord with the emperor Leo. and for some time with Zeno, as well as with Acacius. The great patri- archal sees were, during the first years of his reign, occupied by orthodox prelates, who had the imperial support. Alexandria had been held by Timothy Salofaciolus since the Euty- chian Timothy Aelurus had been banished by the emperor Leo I. in 460. At Antioch Julian, an orthodox patriarch, elected on the expulsion of Peter FuUo by Leo I., a.d. 471, was still in possession. But the usurpation of the empire by Basiliscus, a.d. 475, intro- duced immediate discord and disturbance. Basiliscus declared at once for Eutychianism, and promptly recalled Timothy Aelurus to Alexandria. Having taken possession of the see and driven Salofaciolus to flight, Aelurus repaired to Constantinople to procure the calling of a new general council to reverse the decisions of Chalcedon. Certain clergy and monks of Constantinople sent a messenger with letters to represent this state of things to Simplicius at Rome. Sim- plicius promptly wTote to Basiliscus and Acacius. His letter to Basiliscus expresses horror at the doings of Aelurus, of whom he speaks in no measured language. The op- portunity is not lost, in the course of the letter, of insinuating to the new emperor the peculiar spiritual authority of the Roman see: " The truths which have flowed pure from the fountain of the Scriptures cannot be disturbed by any arguments of cloudy subtilty. For there remains one and the same rule of apostolical doctrine in the successors of him to whom the Lord enjoined the care of the whole sheepfold — to whom He promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against him, and that what by Him should be bound on earth should not be loosed in heaven." And the pope conjures the emperor in the voice of St. Peter, the unworthy minister of whose see he is, not to allow impunity to the enemies of the ancient faith, and especially urges him to prevent, if possible, the assembling a council to review the decisions of Chalcedon. Meanwhile Basiliscus at Constantinople, issuing an encyclic letter, repudiated and condemned the council of Chalcedon ; re- quired all, under pain of deposition, exile, and other punishments, to agree to this condemna- tion ; and ordered the copies of pope Leo's letters and of the Acts of Chalcedon. wherever found, to be burnt. The document is given in full by Evagrius (iii. 4). Acacius refused to sign it. But in the compliant East else- where it was accepted generally. At Constan- tinople Acacius, supported by the clergy and monks, was resolute and successful in his resistance. Daniel Stylites, descending from SIRICIUS his pillar, aided in rousing the populace ; and Basiliscus had to leave the city for safety. The disaffection was taken advantage of by Zeno, who in 477 marched on Constantinople, and without further ditficulty In'canje again emperor of the Kast. During these troubles under Basiliscus Simplicius seems to have had no opportunity of exercising influence ; but as siH>n as he heard of the restitution of Zeno he WTote to that emperor, exhorting him tofollow the steps of his predecessors Marcian and Leo. to allow no tampering with the decisions of Chalcedon, to drive all Eutychian bishops from the sees they had usurped, and especially to send Aelurus into solitude. To .\cacius he wTote to the same effect. Zeno does not appear, however, to have taken any step against Peter Mongus. Possibly the emperor and his advisers were already disposed to the con- ciliatory policy towiu-ds the liutychians which they afterwards maintained in spite of indig- nant protests from the pope. Simplicius complained, too, of the Eutychian leaders having been allowed to remain at .\ntioch, and attributed the troubles there to this cause. The death of Timothy Salofaciolus at Alex- andria in 482 gave rise to much more serious differences between Constantinople and Rome. Strained relations now resulted in decided conflict, ending in an open schism, which lasted 35 years, between Eastern and Western Christendom. John Talaias was elected canonically by a synod of the orthodox at Alexandria in the room of Salofaciolus. Sim plicius received a notification of the election from the synod, and was about to express his assent, when he was startled by a letter from Zeno accusing Talaias of perjury, and intimat- ing that Peter .Mongus was the most proper person to succeed Salofaciolus. Simplicius at once (July 15, 482) addressed Acacius (who had not written himself), imploring him to do all he could to prevent it. The letter written to Zeno himself has not been preserved. Hearing nothing from .\cacius, he wrote to him again in Nov., but still got no reply. So much appears from the extant letters of Simplicius (Epp. xvii. xviii. Labbe). [Acacius (7); JOA.sNES (11).] Liberatus (c. iS) informs us that, driven from Alexandria, John Talaias appealed for support to Simplicius, who on his behalf wrote to Acacius, but received the reply that Acacius could not recognize Talaias, having received Peter .Mongus into communion on the basis of the emperor's Henoticos. Sim- plicius wrote to .\cacius that he ought nut to have received Peter into communion without the concurrence of the apostolic see ; that a man condemned by a common decree could not be freed from the ban except by a common council ; and that he must first accept un- reservedlv the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of pope Leo. Simplicius received no reply to this second letter, and died not long after, early in .Mar. 483. according to Anas- tasius. (J-B— v.] SiriclUS,bp.of Romeafter Uamasus from late in Dec 3«4, or earlv in Jan. 3«S. to Nov. 26 (■'). 3.58. He followed the example of Damasu* in maintaining the authority of the Roman see. SIRICIUS MM When the prefecture of Matt lllvricum had l>eeii a'vsigncd (a. 11. }7>>) t<> the KaUem divi- sion of the empire. i)am.is<n hit in-i.t'- t .>a its Ix-iiig still subject til t . V of Rome, .iiid had con of Thess.iliiiiica. and .il'. . > succeeiled .\cli.>liu4 a.i>. i w m. .«ii si..nt for the in.iintenaiire <>i hucIi authority. Siricius, on his .»cc<"ssion. rnicwrd I hit vicariate jurisdiction to .Xnysnu (IninK". l-.pp i-. »iii.). One of hiH earliest acts was ti> issue ihr hr»t I Papal Di-cretal that has any claim to genuine- ness, though he si>eaks in it of earlier dtcttU sent to the provinces bv |>oi>e Lilteriut. 1 1 it dated Feb. 11, 3H5. Its genuinenes* it un- disputed. It is plainly referred to by p<>(»« Innocent I. (Et>. vi. ad Et^uperium). <Ju«^ncl incluiles it without hoitalion in hit CoJ. Kom. cum Leone edit. c. 24. Its ckx-isiou wa» a letter from Mimcrius, bp. of Tarragona in Spain, addressed to Dainasiis but recrivcJ by Siricius, asking the jx)pe's advice on mat ten of discipline and with regard to abuses pre- valent in the Spanish church. Siricius. havniK taken counsel in a Roman synod, issued thit decretal in reply, to be communicated by I Himerius to all bishops of Spain and neigh- bouring provinces with a view to univtrsal observance. The opportunity was taken of asserting in very decided terms the authority of the Roman see : " We bear the burdens of I all who are heavy laden ; nay, rather the bless«^d apostle Peter bears them in us. who, as we trust, in all things protects and guards us, the heirs of his administration. " .\iiioiig the rules thus promulgated f«>r universal observance, one relates to the rcbaptuiiig of .■\rians returning to the church, and another to clerical celil)acy, which is insisted on. Thus what the oecumenical council had re- fused to require Siricius now, on the authi»rity ' of the apostolic see, declared of general obliga- tion. The rule laid down by him atfectcd. however, only the higher clerical orders, not including subdeacons, to whom it was ex- j tended by Leo I. (c. 442. Sec Ef>p. xiv. 4 ; cxivii. 3), in Sicily, by pope Gregory the i Great (Greg. Epp. lib. i. Ind. ix.. Ep. 42). I The zeal of Siricius against heresy api>ear» I in his correspondence with the usurper Maxi- I raus, who in 383 had obtained the iini>eiial ! authority in Gaul. The uooc wrote, cxh )rtiin( him to support the Catholic faith and com- plaining of the recent ordination of one .Agri- cius, who seems to have been suspected of heresy. Maximus, in his extant replv. declares his desire to maintain the true (aitn. undertakes to refer the case of AgTicmt to a synod of clergy, and takes credit f.* measures already in force against the .Manichcjiu in Ciaul, doubtless alluding to the I'riscillian- ists, who were often called M f" ' ■ ■" I (i*- pope was zealous against tli' 'i Rome, where " he found .M.. 1 he sent into exile, and pro.. ■ v should not coininunicate with lUc UilUlul, since it was not lawful to vcx the l.«)cd» Uxlv with a polluted mouth " (l.*b. Ponitf- •«• *'«X* ^iririi). The reference teem* to be to the alleged habit of the .Manicbcant to make a show of conforinitv bv frequenting Catholic cuminunioii. It i» added that even convrtt* Iroia them were to be »enl mto inou*»leric», no SIRICIUS and not admitted to communion till at the point of death. Another class of heretics afterwards fell under the condemnation of Siricius. Jovin- ian, notorious through St. Jerome's vehement writings against him, having been expelled from Milan, had come to Rome and obtained a following there. His teaching came under the notice of two eminent laymen, Pam- machius and Victorinus, who represented it to pope Siricius who assembled a synod of clergy at which Jovinian was excommuni- cated, together with his abettors, Auxentius, Genialis, Germinator, Felix, Frontinus, Mar- tianus, Januarius, and Ingenius. These departed to Milan, whither Siricius sent three presbyters with a letter to the Milanese clergy, informing them of what had been done at Rome, and expressing confidence that they would pay regard to it. The letter is full of strong invective against Jovinian and his colleagues — "dogs such as never before had barked against the church's mysteries " — but contains no arguments. Siricius disclaims any disparagement of marriage, " at which," he says, " we assist with the veil," though he "venerates with greater honour virgins devoted to God, who are the fruit of marriages." The synodical reply from Milan is preserved among the epistles of St. Ambrose (Ep. xlii. ed. Bened.), who presided at the Milanese synod. He and his colleagues thank Siricius for his vigilance, concur with his strictures on Jovinian, supply the arguments which the pope's letter lacked, and declare that they had condemned those whom the pope condemned, according to his judgment. The introductory words of this epistle have been adduced in proof of the view then held of the pope's supreme authority. They are : " We recognize in the letter of your holiness the watchfulness of a good shepherd, diligently keeping the door committed to thee, and with pious solicitude guarding the sheep- fold of Christ, worthy of being heard and followed by the sheep of the Lord." This language, though expressing recognition of the bp. of Rome as the representative of St. Peter, cannot be pressed as implying that he was the one doorkeeper of the whole church or an infallible authority in definitions of faith. On the contrary, the bishops at Milan endorsed his judgment, not as a matter of course or as being bound to do so, but on the merits of the case, setting forth their reasons. Tiiese proceedings apparently occurred in 390. About the same time, or soon after, the Meletian schism at Antioch came under the notice of Siricius. His attitude to it is not certainly known. Some six months after the death of Damasus, whose highly valued secretary he had been, Jerome had left Rome for ever. In his bitterly expressed letter to Asilla, inveighing against his opponents and calumniators, he does not mention the new pope ; but it may be concluded, if only from his silence, that he had lost the countenance he had enjoyed under Damasus. One expres- sion suggests that he had been a little dis- appointed at not being made pope himself, and that coolness between him and Siricius may have arisen from this. Siricius and he were at one in their advocacy of virginity SIRMIUM, STONEMASONS OP against Jovinian and in their general ortho- doxy, but there seems to have been no inter- course between them, and, even in the course of the controversy against Jovinian, Siricius appears to have joined others at Rome in disapproving of J erome's alleged disparagement of matrimony. Further, Rufinus, the once close friend of Jerome, having quarrelled with him in Palestine about Origenism but been temporarily reconciled, in 395 left Jerusalem for Rome. He was favourably received by Siricius, who gave him a commendatory letter on his departure, the quarrel with Jerome having recommenced with increased violence. For his neglect of Jerome and patronage of Rufinus, Baronius disparages Siricius, even saying that his days were shortened by divine judgment (Baron, ad ann. 397 ; xxxii.). A further ground of complaint (ad ann. 394 ; xl.) is his supposed unworthy treatment of another ascetic saint, Paulinus of Nola, who says he was badly treated by the Roman clergy when passing through Rome (a.d. 395) on his way to Nola, and especially blames the pope (Paulin. ad Sulpic. Severum, Ep. i. in nov. edit. v.). For such reasons Baronius has excluded Siricius from the Roman Martyrology. Pagi (in Baron, ad ann. 398, I.) defends the pope against the animadversions of Baronius. Siricius died in 398. [j.b — v.] Sirmium, Stonemasons of. The Acts giving the history of the martyrdom of the five stonemasons of Sirmium have been known for centuries, being found in substance in Ado's Martyrology, but only last century was their relation to the history of Dio- cletian's period recognized. They were stone- masons belonging to Pannonia, engaged in the imperial quarries ; one of them, Sim- plicius, was a pagan. They distinguished themselves by their genius and ability, and attracted the notice of Diocletian by the beauty of their carving. Simplicius was converted by his four companions, and bap- tized secretly by a bishop, CjTil of Antioch, who had been three years a slave in the quarries and had suffered many stripes for the faith. The pagans, jealous of their skill, accused them before Diocletian, who, however, continued to protect them. When, however, the emperor ordered them to make, among other statues, one of Aesculapius, the masons made all the others, but refused to carve that. The pagans thereupon procured an order for their execution. They were enclosed in lead coffins and flung into the Save. Their Acts then proceed to narrate the martyrdom of the saints called the Quatuor Coronati, whose liturgical history has been told at length in D. C. A. t. i. p. 461. Diocletian, coming to Rome, ordered all the troops to sacrifice to Aesculapius. Four soldiers, Carpophorus, Severus, Severianus, and Victorinus, refusing, were flogged to death, and their bodies buried by pope Melchiades and St. Sebastian on the Via Lavicana at the 3rd milestone from the city. These Acts are very valuable illustra- tions of the great persecution, but are full of difficulties. The whole story is in Mason's Diocletian Persecution, p. 259. Attention was first called to the Acts as illustrating Diocle- tian's period by Wattenbach in the Sitzungs- berichte der Wiener Akad. Bd. x. (1853) S, SISINNIUS 1 18-126. Tliey were di-icussed in Biidingrr, VnUrsiich. sur rom. Kaisergfich. ii. 2b2, iii. 321-338, with ilaboralf ;irchaeoIoi;ical and chronological conuncntarios. [g.t.s.) Sisinnlus (7), a bishop of tho Novatianists at Constantinople, succciding on Marcian's death in Nov. 3ys (Socr. //. /•.. v. ji ; vi. i ; Soz. H. K. viii. 1 ). Ho puMi-;lu-d a treatise warmly controverting Chrysostoni's impassioned lan- guage as to the etticacy of repentance and the restoration of penitents to communion, de Poenitfntia (Socr. H. E. vi. 21). Chrysostom, \ taking umbrage at this and at bis claim to exercise episcopal functions in Constantinople, threatened to stop his preaching. Sisinnius jocosely told him he would be much obliged to him for sparing him so much trouble, and thus disarmed his anger (ib. 22). Sisinnius enjoyed a great reputation for witty repartees. Several are collected by Socrates (I.e.), but do not give a very high idea of his powers. He is described as a man of great eloquence, enhanced by dignity of countenance and person, gracefulness of action, and by the tones of his voice. He had a considerable reputation for learning, being very familiar with philosophical writings as well as exposi- tions of Scripture, and was well skilled in dialectics. Together with Theodotus of Antioch he composed a synodic letter against ^ the Thessalians, in the name of the Novatian- ist bishops assembled at Constantinople for ! his consecration, addressed to Berinianus, Amphilochius, and other bishops of Pamphylia (Phot. Cod. Iii. col. 40 ; Cave, Hut. Lit. i. 290). Though a bishop of a schismatic body, he was much estetined by the orthodox bishops, especially by .\tticus, and was the honoured friend of leading aristocrats of Constantinople. He kept a sumptuous table, though not ex- j ceeding the bounds of moderation himself. Sisinnius died the same year as Chrysostom, A.D. 407, and was succeeded by Chrysanthus (Socr. H. E. vii. 6 ; Cave, u.s.). [e.v.] SlXtUS I.— so called in the Liberian Cata- , logue by Optatus (1. 2) and Augustine {hp. liii.) ; but A'yWus, .\istu-i, or .\estu!>, in Catal. Feltc, Irenaeus (adv. Haer. iii. 3), Eusebius (//. £. iv. 4, 5. and Chron.). Hpiphanius (Haer. 97, 6)— one of the early bps. of Rome, called the 6th after the apostles, and the successor of .■Mexander. \\\ assign him an episcopate of ab<jut 10 years, and place him in the reign of Hadrian. Culal. l.ibfr. dates his episcopate 117-126; Husebiiis (//. /•-'.) ii<)- 128 ; his Chronicle i I4-I-24- l-ip^ins (Chronol. der rom. Bischof.) gives 124-126 as the possible limits for his death. The Felician Catalogue and the Martyrologies represent him as a martyr, and he is commemorated among the apostles and martyrs, after I.inus, Cletus. Clemens, in the canon of the mass. But Telesphorus being the first bp. of Rome designated a martyr by Irenaeus, the claim to the title of Sixtus and other early bps. of Rome, to the great majority of whom It has been since assigned, is doubtful, [j.b— v.) Sixtus II. (.Vx-s/us). bp. of Rome after Stephen for about one year, martyred under Valerian Aug. 6, 25H. A conteinpc,rary letter of St. Cyprian (Ep. 80) confirms this date as given in the Liberian Catalogue. I'robably bis accession was on Aug. 31, 257 (see Lipsius, SIXTUS III. I'll Chronol. Jtr r-m. HmH-f). Hit pre- decessor Strphrii had Ik^u at i*»uc with Cyprian of I artliJKe as t<i the rrbaptiun uf liorctics. Under XvHtii*, who wa* inure ci>n- ciliatory. though he uplirld the Kntnan u«aKr, l>eacc was rrstorrd (Hut. //. /•.. vii. V7). The cirruiiistatires of his martvrdiiiii apix-Ar to have be<-n as (oll.iws. Ihr rnn«-r.if Vale- rian had alri'.idy, lirforr tlir arrrssion of .\ystus, forbidden the resort of l hrisiiaitt to the cemeteries on pain of baiiishiunit. Hut in the middle of 3^H, when Wilman wat arming for his Persian war, he vnt .1 rescript to the senate <if much severer import ; i>rdrr- ing bishops, priests, and deacons to i>e turn- m.irilv execute<l ; M-nators and other |x-r»on» of rank to Im« visited with loss of dignitv and gi>ods, and, on refusal t'l renounce ( tiristianiiy, with death ; matrons to l>e despoiled and exiled; and iin|H-rial ollicials (( uz-tanami to be sent in chains to labour on tli<- iMi(M-rial domains (Cyp. Ep. «■>)• .Xystiis fell an f.ulv victim to this rescript. He was found by the soldiers seated on his episcopal chair, in the cemetery of Praetextatus <hi the .\ppian Way, surrounded by memlx-rs of his Hnck. As these endeavoured to protect him. he thrust himself forwaril l«t they should sutler m his stead, and was beheaded and several companions slain. His body was afterward* removed by the Christians to the usual burial- place of the bishops of that |HTi.Ml. the neighbouring cemetery i>f Callistus. Hi* two deacons, .\gapetus and IVIirissiinus. with others, were buried in the cemetery where they fell. This account of the 4>ccurreiicc \% gathered from Cypri.ui's conteiniH>rary letter to Successus (Ep. 80), and from the Daiuasiiic inscription in the papal crvpl of the cemetery of Callistus, of which a few fragments have been found by De Rossi, and which originally began as follows : " Tempore quo gladiti^ «<niit pla vbcrt« m«t(i« ^ Hie posltus rector coticstlu dona ducrtium . . .' (I'.rutcr, 117). i «'. That these verses refer to .\ ystus, and not, as assumed in the .Acts of St. Stephen, to hi« predecess<ir, is satisfactorily shewn by l.ipsiu» (op. cit.). That he was buried there is e»- pressly stated in the l.il«rian I ata|..»;u.- ..1 Martyrs, as well as bv all later autli ; '.> and the statement is contirined by nwi f-raffitt on the walls of the crvpt, m wi.i name is prominent. The line " Hir p...ini etc., may refer to the calHeJru on whuli he sal when found by the M.ldiers. which had In-en removed with his lunly to the pap tl -•- • That the cemetery of Praetextatus scene of his martyrdom ancieiil trailiii wiliH-ss, and in arcrdaiice willi it an was afterw.irds built on the siKit. •"r.-iii.te rium ubi d<-collatus est .Xvsius " Ihe iraili- lion is contirined by repri-sriilatioeis of hiin and his chair in this criuclery, under irtie ol which is the legend svsTvs. |).ii V-l Slxtiu III., bp. of Roiiir fn- «!'> ««"^ C<>eU»,linus. and the ii.. of l-eo the « treat. Tw- I daywerePeUgianistnaii.i I his acces4ioii he had tak.-ii i ■■( 01 . • I trovcfiies. It ap|>€ars from Augu»tii»e » icUci* (12 SIXTUS III. to him when he was still a Roman presbyter under Zosimus, that the Pelagians had claimed him as being, with the pope, on their side ; but that, when the pope was at length induced to condemn the heresy, he also had written to the African church expressing his concurrence with avigour of language that fully satisfied Augus- tine, who also rejoices to have heard that he had been foremost in anathematizing Pelagian- ism in a large assembly at Rome (Aug. Epp. 191, al. 104, and 194, al. 105). Apparently Sixtus had, before his accession, also inter- vened in the Nestorian conflict, for in his letter to John of Antioch {Ep. ii.) he speaks of having once admonished Nestorius ; and this must have been before the latter's final condemna- tion, and hence before the accession of Sixtus, who was evidently a man of mark and influ- ence at Rome before becoming pope. It seems, however, that the Nestorians as well as the Pelagians claimed Sixtus as once having favoured them ; and he was reported to have taken in ill part the condemnation of Nestorius. These claims may have arisen from his having evinced a conciliatory spirit and a reluctance to condemn too hastily. There are two extant epistles of his, written to Cyril and John of Antioch, expressing his great joy in their reconciliation ; from one of which it further appears that he had written often previously to Maximian, the successor of Nestorius at Constantinople. A synod had been held at Rome on the occasion of his birthday, at which the joyful news of the reconciliation had been made known, and he was, when he wrote, expecting the speedy arrival of a deputation of clergy from John of Antioch. These two letters are given by Baronius (a.d. 433, xii. and xvii.) ; from a Vatican MS., which he speaks of as corrupt but trustworthy. (See also Labbe, Concil. Eph. iii. 1689, 1699.) The letter to John is quoted by Vincent of Lerins (adv. Haer.). Two previous letters of Sixtus, conceived in a similar spirit, are given by Cotelerius from MSS. in the Biblioth. Reg. (Coteler. Monum. Graec. Eccles. vol. i. p. 42). One was to Cyril ; the other was apparently an encyclic to him and the Easterns generally, sent by two bishops from the East, Hermogenes and Lampetius, who had been present at the pope's ordination. Both announced, as was usual, his accession to his see, and declared his communion with the Eastern churches. But in both, while he fully concurs in the condemnation of Nestorius by the council of Ephesus, he refers with regret to the dissent of John of Antioch and his adherents, whose reception into communion he desires and recommends, if they should come to a better mind, as he hopes they will. Sixtus was no less vigilant than preceding popes in maintaining the jurisdiction of the Roman see over lUyricum, and that of the bp. of Thessalonica as the pope's vicar over the rest of the bishops there. Four letters of his (two written in 435, another in 437) on this subject were read in the Roman council held under Boniface II., a.d. 531. (See Labbe, vol. v., Concil. Rom. III. sub Bonifac. II.) In the fourth, addressed to all the bishops of lUyricum, he enjoins them to submit them- selves to Anastasius of Thessalonica as, like SOCRATES his predecessor, vicar of the apostolic see, with authority to summon synods and adjudicate on all cases, except such as it might be neces- sary to refer to Rome. He bids them pay no regard to the decrees of " the oriental synod," except those on faith, which had his own approval. He probably refers to the council of Constantinople, which in its 3rd canon had given a primacy of honour after old Rome to Constantinople. On the strength of this the patriarchs of Constantinople had already assumed jurisdiction over the Thracian dio- ceses, though not till the council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451 ; can. xxviii.) was the express power of ordaining metropolitans in lUyricum for- mally given to them, despite the protest of pope Leo's legates. Towards the end of his life Sixtus still concurred decidedly in the condemnation of Pelagianism. For we are told by Prosper (Chron.) that Julian, the eminent Pelagian, being deposed from the see of Eclanum in Campania, essayed in 439, by profession of penitence, to creep again into the communion of the church, but that Sixtus, under the advice of his deacon Leo, " allowed no opening to his pestiferous attempts." This Leo was the successor of Sixtus in the see of Rome, Leo the Great, who thus appears to have been his archdeacon and adviser. Three works issued under the name of Sixtus (de Divitiis, de Malis Docioribus, etc., and de Castitate) are apparently of Pelagian origin (see Baron, ad ann. 440, vi.), possibly put out in his name on the strength of the old report of his having once favoured Pelagianism. Sixtus died a.d. 440, and was buried (according to Anastasius, Lib. Pontif.), "ad S. Laurentium via Tiburtini." He is com- memorated as a confessor on Mar. 28 : " Romae S. Sixti tertii, papae et confessoris " (Martyrol. Roman). Why he should be called a confessor is not obvious. The title may rest on a spurious letter to the bishops of the East, which complains of persecution. In the Lib. Pontif. extraordinary activity in building, endowing, and decorating churches is attributed to him, and to the emperor Valen- tinian under his instigation. He is said to have built the basilicas of St. Maria Maggiore on the Esquiline (called Ad Praesepe), and of St. Laurence, and to have furnished both with great store of precious instruments and orna- mentations. Pope Hadrian, in writing to Charlemagne {Ep. 3, c. 19) alludes to the former. [j.b— v.] Socrates (2), one of the most interesting and valuable historians of the early Christian age, was born at Constantinople, probably early in the reign of Theodosius the younger, a.d. 408. He tells us that he was educated there under Helladius and Ammonius, two heathen gram- marians, who had fled from Alexandria to escape the emperor's displeasure. They had been guilty of many acts of cruel retaliation upon the Christians there, who had sought to overthrow the idols and temples (H. E. v. 16). Socrates studied rhetoric, assisted Troilus the rhetorician and sophist, and entered the legal profession, hence his name Scholasticus, the title for a lawyer. His life was spent at Constantinople, and hence he, in his history, occupies himself much with the affairs of that SOCRATES city. " No wonder," he says " I write more fully of the famous acts done in tliis city (Constantinople), partly because I behold most of them with my own eyes, partly be- cause they are mi>re famous and thought more worthy of remembrance than many other acts "(v. 23). Here we see the true spirit of the historian, and a worthy anxiety to be correct. How sincerely Socrates desired to be so is shewn by his use of similar expressions in the beginning of bk. vi., where he says he had a greater liking for the history of his own than of bygone times, because he had either seen it or' learned it from eye-witnesses. A certain Theodorus, otherwise unknown, en- couraged him to become a historian of the church. His object was to continue its history from where Eusebius had ended down to his owni day. His work is divided into seven books, from Constantine's proclamation as emperor, a.d. 306 to 439, a period of 133. or, as he himself calls it, in round numbers, 140 years. Especially in bks. i. and li. Rutinus appears to have exercised considerable influ- ence. But at that point, the writings of Athanasius and the letters of other celebrated men coming into his hands, he ft)und that Rufinus had been misinformed and had misled him on many points. His own statement seems to imply that he re\vT0te those books to have the satisfaction of knowing that he had set forth the history " in a most absolute and perfect manner" (ii. i). Of his own style Socrates, addressing Theo- dorus, says, " But I would have you know, before you read my books, that I have not curiously addicted myself unto a lofty style, neither imto a glorious show of gay sentences ; for so peradventure, in running after words and phrases, I might have missed of my matter and failed of my purpose and intent. . . . Again, such a penning proftteth very little the vulgar and ignorant sort of people, who desire not so much the fine and elegant sort of phrase as the furtherance of their know- ledge and the truth of the history. Where- fore, lest our story should halt of both sides, and displease the learned in that it doth not rival the artificial skill and profound knowledge of ancient writers, the unlearned in that their capacity cannot comprehend the substance of the matter by reason of the painted rhetoric and picked sentences, I have tied myself unto such a mean as that, though the handling be simple, yet the effect is soon found and quickly understood " (vi. pref.). His matter was to be chiefly the affairs of the church, but not to the complete exclusion of " battles and bloody wars," for even in these there was something worthy to be recorded. He believed the narrative of such events would help to relieve the weariness which might overcome his readers if he dwelt only on the consideration of the bishops' affairs and their practices everywhere one against another, .\bove all, he had observed that the weal of church and state was so closely bound up together that the two were either out of joint at the same time, or that the misery of the one followed closely the misery of the other (v. pref.). It was the troubles of the church, too, that he desired chiefly to record. His idea wai that, when SOCRATES m: ! peace prevailed, Ihrrr wa* no nutter (.* a historiographer (vii. 47). One important qualihcatiun Socratr* po*i- cssed for his task v/,is that he wa* 4 Uvmaa. This in no degree hindrrrd hi» cjpabiiiiv «>( forming a correct ju<lgmrnt <in tlir..l.i«iral contruTrsirs, for arouml tli-- •■■-in interest of lay an well as cl< ; . centred in his davs and they w I undexstixxl bv all educated t . , while his lay position and training uinu. .lion- ably helped to raise him alnivr thr bitter I animosities and prrsrculing spirit o( hit aKr, j and led him to see the amount <>( h.iir>plitting \ in not a few of the current dispute*. Hii I recognition of rimmI in those from whom he , differed forms one of the most plcttmij I characteristics of his history. Hit iiiip.irti- I ality has, indeed, exposed him to a chatK'c o( heresy. He saw, and ventured to uwn, some good in the Novatiaiiists. and espi-cially in several of thiir bishops, and he hat been accordinglv often charged with Novati.initm. But his historv shows little, if any. reason why we should doubt his orthodoxy. Like the most enlightened men of his age. he gave caty ' credence to miraculous stories, and there are manv scattered throughout his page* quite ai improbable and fo<illsh as those lound in the most superstitious writers of his time. Yet Socrates often displays a singular propriety I of judgment, while his occasional reflection* t and digressions constitute one of the most I interesting and instructive parts of his history. : Thus his defence of the study by Chn.liant ' of heathen writers may still be read with profit, and perhaps much more could not : even now be added to his argument (111. 14)- His chapter on ceremonies, their nlacc in the Christian system, the ground of their obliga- i tion, and their relati(m to the true word ol the I gospel, shews an enlargement and enlighten- ment of mind (V. 21 ). His whole history shews I his keen eye for the mischief done by heated I ecclesiastics, and for the unworthy motives that , frequently swaved them (vi. 14)- I F.w manv other points the student will find his Wis/orv valuable. It contains manyoriginal d.Kuments, e.g. decre.^ of councils and letters of emperors and bishops. It gives many important details as to the councils of Nicaea. Chalccdon. Antioch, Alexandria. Conttanti- noplc, Ephesus. etc. ; the ciniK-rors o< the time treated of ; the most distinguished bishops, B.isil of Caesarea, (iregory of Na/ian- zum Ambrose, Athanasius. Chrysostoiii. Eusebius of Nicomedia. Cyril, etc. : the Egyptian monks and their miracles : I Iphila*. bp.of the (ioths. and the famous Hypati i M embraces some important statements ■ ■ t:,. independence ..f Koine cKumrd bv tlir I . ; : a church and the encroachf: * •*■ ■' see upon the lattrr ; 011 ' secular power of the K": ' the introtluction <■* ■'' ' ' ' The progress of ti "1 ,1.*; Saracens, and IVi *" ""^ Jews, and the pi '» ^OM- troversy are treated at lar^'-. A (.reek and Latin cd.. with note*, by Valesius. wa* pub. at l'ari« in H>68. repealed at Cambridge in 1720. and in Migne-. latf. Gk. (t. Ixvii.) in i»59- In «'*53 apinrarcd Ibe 68 914 SOPHRONIUS Gk. and Lat. ed. of R. Hussey (Oxf. 3 vols. 8vo). An ed. with Eng. notes and intro. by W. Bright is pub. by the Clar. Press. There s an Eng. trans, by Meredith Hanmer, Prof, of Divinity, pub. in London by Field, i6iq, and more recent ones pub. by Bagster in 1847, and in Schatf and Wace's Post-Nicene Lib., and in Bohn's Lib. (Bell). [w.M.] Sophronius (7), a learned Greek friend of Jerome, who was with him in 391-392, and is included in his catalogue of ecclesiastical writers. He had, while still young, composed a book on the glories of Bethlehem, and, just before the catalogue was written, a book on the destruction of the Serapeum, and had translated into Greek Jerome's letter to Eus- tochiuin on virginity, his Life of Hilarion, and his Latin version of the Psalms and Prophets. Jerome records that it was at Sophronius's instance that he wrote the last-named. So- phronius had, in dispute with a Jew, quoted from the Psalms, but the Jew said that the passages read differently in Hebrew. Sophro- nius therefore asked from Jerome a version direct from the Hebrew, which Jerome gave, though he knew that alterations from the received version would cause him some obloquy. The importance of these alterations led Sophronius to translate the versions into Greek. They were well received, and were read in many of the Eastern churches instead of the Septuagint. The translations have not come down to us ; but a Greek version of the catalogue of ecclesiastical writers bears the name of Sophronius. It is not quite accurate, but appears to have been the version used by Photius. The presence of his name on this book probably gave rise toL ts insertion in some MSS. between the names of Jerome, who, however, does not appear to have adopted it. Hieron., de Vir. III. 134 ; cont. Ruf. ii. 24; Ceillier, vi. 278 ; and Vallarsi's pref. to Jerome, de Vir. III. [w.h.f.] Sophronius (10), bp. of Telia or Constantina in Osrhoene, first cousin of Ibas, bp. of Edessa. He was present at the synod of Antioch which investigated the case of Athanasius of Perrha, in 445 (Labbe, iv. 728). At the " Robbers' S3^od " of Ephesus in 449 (Evagr. H. E. 10) he was accused of practising sorcery and magical arts. He was also accused of Nes- torian doctrine, and his case was reserved for the hearing of the orthodox metropolitan of Edessa, to be appointed in the place of Ibas. No further steps appear to have been taken, and at the council of Chalcedon he took his seat as bp. of Constantia (Labbe, iv. 81). His orthodoxy, however, was not beyond suspicion, and in the 8th session, after Theod- oret had been compelled by the tumultuous assembly reluctantly to anathematize Nes- torius, Sophronius was forced to follow his example,with the addition of Eutyches (Labbe, iv. 623). Theodoret wrote to him in favour of Cyprian, an African bp. driven from his see by the Vandals (Theod. Ep. 53). Assemani, Bibl. Orient, i. 202, 404 ; Chron. Edess. ; Tille- mont, Mem. eccl. xv. 258, 579, 686 ; Martin, Le Pseudo-Synode d'Ephese, p. 184 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 967. [e.v.] Soter, bp. of Rome after Anicetus, in the reign of Marcus Aurelius, during 8 or 9 years. Lipsius (Chronol. der rom. Bischot.) gives 166 SOZOMEN or 167 and 174 or 175 as the probable dates of his accession and death. In his time the Aurelian persecution afflicted the church, though there is no evidence of Roman Chris- tians having suffered under it. But they sympathized with those who did. Eusebius (//. E. iv. 23) quotes a letter from Dionysius, bp. of Corinth, to the Romans, acknowledging their accustomed benevolence to sufferers elsewhere, and the fatherly kindness of bp. Soter : " From the beginning it has been your custom to benefit all brethren in various ways, to send supplies to many churches in every city, thus relieving the poverty of those that need, and succouring the brethren who are in the mines. This ancient traditional custom of the Romans your blessed bp. Soter has not only continued, but also added to, in both supplying to the saints the transmitted bounty, and also, as an affectionate father towards his children, comforting those who resort to him with words of blessing." The unknown author of a book called Prae- destinatus (c. 26) states that Soter wrote a treatise against the Montanists. But the writer is generally so unworthy of credit that his testimony is of no value. [Montanus ; Praedestinatus.] As to the Easter dispute between Rome and the Asian Quartodecimans, it seems probable that Soter was the first bp. of Rome who was unwilling to tolerate the difference of usage. His immediate predecessor Anicetus had communicated with Polycarp when at Rome ; but Victor, who succeeded Soter's successor Eleutherus, incurred the reproof of St. Ire- naeus and others for desiring the general excommunication of the Asiatic churches on account of the dispute ; and Irenaeus, in remonstrating with Victor, refers only to bps. of Rome before Soter, mentioning them by name, and ending his list with Anicetus, as having maintained communion with the Quar- todecimans (Eus. H. E. v. 24). [j.B — Y.] Sozomen, author of a well-known Eccle- siastical History, born c. 400. In his book Sozomen has some notices of his birth and of his bringing up (v. 15). His family belonged to Bethelia, a small town near Gaza in Palestine, where his grandfather had been one of the first to embrace Christianity. Thus Sozomen was nurtured amidst Christian influences. He tells us (I.e.) that his grandfather was endowed with great natural ability, which he consecrated especially to the study of the sacred Scriptures, that he was much beloved by the Christians of those parts, who looked to him for explana- tions of the word of God and the unloosing of its difficulties. Sozomen came to the writing of ecclesiastical history in no spirit of indiffer- ence. He believed in Christianity, and even in the more ascetic forms of it, with a genuine faith, " for I would neither," he says, " be considered ungracious, and willing to consign their virtue [that of the monks] to oblivion, nor yet be thought ignorant of their history ; but I would wish to leave behind me such a record of their manner of life that others, led by their example, might attain to a blessed and happy end " (i. i). He was probably educated at first in Beth- elia or Gaza, for some memories of his youth are connected with Gaza (vii. 28). Thence SPYRIDON he seems to have gone to Berytus, a city of ! Phoenicia, to l>c trained in civil law at its famous school. His education tinishcd, he proceeded to Constantinople, and there entered on his profession (ii. 3). 1 VV'hile thus enRafjed he formed the plan of his EccUsiii.-;ticai History (ii. 3), being attracted to the subject both by his owi taste and the example of Kusebius. It appeared in 9 books, extending over the years 3^3-430. and was dedicated to Theodosius the Younger. It thus covers the same period as that of Soc- rates, and as both were written about the same time and have many resemblances, the ques- tion arises as to which w.is the original and which not unfrequcntly the copyist. V'alesius, upon apparently good grounds, decides against Sozomen, although allowing that he often adils to and corrects his authority. Like Socrates, Sozomen is habitually trustworthy, and a consciei\tious and serious wTiter. In his account of the council of Nicaea, which may be taken as a favourable specimen of his work as a whole, he seems to have drawn from the best sources, to have proceeded with care, and to have made a sufliciently good choice among the apocryphal traditions and innumerable legends which in the 5th cent, obscured the reports of this great council (cf. De Broglie, iv. siecle, ii. 431). But he inserted in his 1 history not a little that is trifling and super- stitious. In style he is generally allowed to be superior, but in judgment inferior, to Socrates. His History is especially valuable for its accounts of the monks, wliich, though by an admirer, are not therefore to be despised, or we should be equally entitled to set aside accounts by their detractors. It is impossible to read his repeated notices of the monastic institu- tions of his time or his long account of their manners and customs (i. 12). without feeling that here are statements as to the nature and influence of monasticism which cannot be set aside. He also gives not a few important particulars concerning both theevents and men of the time covered by it, particularly of the council of Nicaea, the persecutions, the general progress of the gospel, the conversion of Con- stantine, the history of Julian, the illustrious Athanasius, and many bishops and martyrs of the age ; and also a number of original docu- ments. The best ed., by Valesius, appeared at Paris in 1668, and was followed by one, with the notes of Valesius, at Cambridge, in 1720. The ed. of Hussey (Oxf. i860) al^o deserves men- tion. An ling, trans, in Bohn's Eccl. /-ift.(i855) deserves high commendation; another was pub. by Baxter in 1847 ; and there is one in the Lib. of Xicene and Poit-Stcene Fathers. [w.M.) Spyridon, bp. of Trimithus in Cyprus, one of the most popularly celebrated of the bishops attending the council of Nicaea, although his name is not found ui the list of signatures. He was the centre of many hgendary stories which Socrates heard from his fellow-islanders (Socr. H. E. i. 12). Spyridon was married, with at least one daughter, Irene. He con- tinued his occupation as a sheep farmer alter, for his many virtues, he had been called to the episcopate. He is mentioned by Athanasius among the orthodox bishops at the council of Sardica (Athan. Apol. ii. p. 768)- His body STEPHANUS I. 915 was first buried in his native islauil, tlirn rr- moved to I'onstaniuioplr, and when the I urk« captured the city it was tr-inMiiittrd to t orlu, where it is annually carrir<l tn prxr^iimi round the ca^>it.il as the patron saint ol (he loni.m isles (Stanley, Ea.sUrn Chur(h. p. lifi). His Life, written in iambics bv liis ^>upll, Triphylhus o( I.cdra, is spoken of by SuuUi as " very protitalile " (Suulas iub wtt. Irl- phyllius, II. <)47). Kutin. i, 3-^ ; .S.<:r. //. E. I. 8, 12 ; St»/. //. /•.. i. II ; Niceph. //. h. . vili. 15, 42; Tillemoiit, St^m. reel. vi. <>4 j. «>;<>, vil. 242-24(> ; Hefele, //n/. 0/ Couiuilt, vol. i. p. 284, Clark's trans. ; Stanley, o/>. cil. i>p. i24-t2<., 132). le.v.) SUglrus {Slaginus), a young friend of Chrys«)stoin, of noble birth, who against hi% father's wishes einbracrtl .1 monastic life, join- ing the brotherhoinl of which t hrvsostom wat a member, and continuing there aftrr (allure of health compelhd I hrysosioin's return to .\ntioch. Ihe self-indulgent lite StaKirus h.id led was a pi>>r prep.ir.ition t'>r the austerities i_)f monasliciNin, and he proved a \ery un- satisfactory monk. He found the nightly vigils intolerable, aiul reading hardiv less dis- tasteful. He spent his time in attenduig to a garden and orchard. He also manifested much pride of his high birth. His health broke down under the strain of s«) uncon- genial a life. He became subject to convul- sive attacks, which were then considered to 1 indicate demoniacal possession. He employed I all recognised means for expelling the evil I spirit. He applied to pers«)ns of sui)crior j sanctity, often taking long journeys to obtain the aid of those who had thr r«-putatii>n of healing those alllicted with spiritual maladies, and visited the most celebrated martVTs' i shrines, and pr.iyed long and fervently both j there and at home, but in vain, though his religious character sensibly improv»il. He I rose at night and devoted much tune to I prayer and became meek and humble. Chry- sostom's counsels to him are in the 3 bo<iks aJ Slanirium a daemone veiatum, or de Ihvina Frovidenlia (S<K:r. //. /•-. vi. 3). What the physical issue was we do not know, .\ilus highly rjiinmends his piety, humility, and contrition, but uses language which uidicate* that his attacks did not entirely pass away (Nilus. Ef>r>. lib. III. i<»). (K-v.) Stephaaus (1)1., bp. of Kome. after l.ucms. from .May 12. 254. to Aug. 2. 257- The>c dates are arrived at by l.it>sius {I hroH. dtt rum. Uischof.) after careful examinaliou. , Those given by the ancient catalogues are erroneous and conQicting. II Lucius died, ai is supposed, on .Mar. y 2i4. Stephen wa« appointed after a vac.incy of 61 day*. At the time of his accession the |M-rsecution of the church, begun by Decius and renewed by (iailus, had ccas«-d for a timr under Valerian. The internal disputes a* to the reception of thr Utf">t. which had given ri*« to the schism of NoVATlAV. still continued. In the autumn of 254 •» council was held at Carthage, the first during the episeopatc of Stephen, on the matter of two Spanish bi*hop%. U.isilidcs and Martiali*, de;M,4ed lor compli- ance with idolatry. Uasilidc* had Ix^n to Rome to represent his ca«c to Stephen and procure reiuslatemeul ui hi» »oe ; and Slcpboo 916 STEPHANUS had apparently supported him. The synod- ical letter of the council (drawn up, without doubt, by Cyprian) confirmed the deposition of the two prelates and the election of their successors, on the ground that compliance with idolatry incapacitated for resumption of clerical functions, though not for reception into the church through penance. The action of Stephen was put aside as of no account, though excused as due to the false representa- tions of Basilides (Cyp. Ep. 67). A letter from Cyprian to Stephen himself, probably written soon after the council and in the same year, is further significant of the relations between Carthage and Rome. Stephen seems to have been determined to act independently in virtue of the supposed prerogatives of his see, while Cyprian shews himself equally deter- mined to ignore such prerogatives. The subject of the letter is Marcian, bp. of Aries, who had adopted Novatianist views, and whose deposition Stephen is urged to bring about by letters to the province and people of Aries. The letter shews that Faustinus of Lyons had repeatedly written to Cyprian on the subject, having also, together with other bishops of the province, in vain solicited Stephen to take action. While allowing that it rested with the bp. of Rome to influence with effect the Gallic provinces, Cyprian is far fiom conceding him any prerogative beyond that of the general collegium of bishops, by whose concurrent action, according to his theory, the true faith and discipline of the Church Catholic was to be maintained. In praising the late bps. of Rome, Cornelius and Lucius, whose example he exhorts Stephen to follow, Cyprian seems to imply a doubt whether the latter was disposed to do his duty {ib. 68). A new question of dispute, that of the re- baptism of heretics, led to an open rupture between Rome and Carthage, in which the Asian as well as the African churches sided with Cyprian against Rome. The question was raised whether the adherents of Novatian who had been baptized in schism should be rebaptized when reconciled to the church (ib. 69 ad Magnum). But it soon took the wider range of all cases of heretical or schismatical baptism. It had been long the practice in both Asia and Africa to rebaptize heretics, and the practice had been confirmed by synods, including the first Carthaginian synod under Agrippinus. Cyprian (Ep. 73, ad Jtibaianum) does not trace the African custom further back than Agrippinus, but he insisted uncompromisingly on the necessity of re- baptism, and was supported by the whole African chiurch. At Rome admission by imposition of hands only, without iteration of baptism, seems to have been the immemo- rial usage, the only alleged exception being what Hippolytus states (Philosophum. p. 291) about rebaptism having been practised in the time of Callistus. Stephen took a view opposite to that of Cyprian. Cyprian would baptize all schismatics, whether heretical in doctrine or no ; Stephen would apparently rebaptize none, whatever their heresies or the form of their baptism (Cyp. Ep. 74). The first council of Carthage on the subject, held in 255, issued a synodal letter supporting STEPHANUS 1. Cyprian's position. Cyprian then sent to Stephen a formal synodal letter, agreed on in a synod at Carthage, probably at Easter, 256, in which the necessity of baptizing heretics and of the exclusion from clerical functions of apostate clergy on their readmission into the church, is urged. But the tone of the letter is not dictatorial. Stephen may retain his own views if he will without breaking the bond of peace with his colleagues, every pre- late being free to take his own line, and responsible to God (Ep. 72). Stephen's reply, written, according to Cyprian, " unskilfully and inconsiderately," contained things " either proud, or irrelevant, or self-contradictory." Cyprian charges Stephen with "hard obstinacy," "presump- tion and contumacy," referring, by way of contrast, to St. Paul's admonition to Timothy, that a bishop should not be "litigious," but "mild and docile," and replying to the arguments advanced by Stephen. Stephen had so far apparently not broken off com- munion with those who differed from him (Ep. 74). Cyprian summoned a plenary council of African, Numidian, and Mauritanian bishops, numbering 87, with presbyters and deacons, in the presence of a large assembly of laity, which met on Sept. i, 256. Cyprian and other bishops separately gave their opinions, unanimously asserting the decision of the previous synod. But Cyprian was careful, in his opening address, to repudiate any intention of judging others or breaking communion with them on the ground of dis- agreement. After this great council, probably towards the winter of 256, Firmilian, bp. of Neocaesarea, wrote his long letter to Cyprian, from which it appears that Stephen had by this time renounced communion with both the Asian and African churches, calling Cyprian a false Christ, a false apostle, a deceit- ful worker. The question has been raised whether Stephen's action was an excommuni- cation of the Eastern and African churches, or only a threat. H. Valois and Baronius say the latter only ; but Firmilian's language seems to imply more, and so Mosheim (Comm. de Rebus Christian, pp. 538 seq.) thinks. Routh and Lipsius also hold that excommunication was pronounced. Stephen claimed authority beyond other bishops as being St. Peter's successor, and took much amiss Cyprian's independent action ; Cyprian, supported by all the African and Asian churches, utterly ignored any such superior authority ; his well- known position being that, though Christ's separate commission to St. Peter had ex- pressed the unity of the church, this com- mission was shared by all the apostles and transmitted to all bishops alike. Unity, according to his theory, was to be maintained, not by the supremacy of one bishop, but by the consentient action of all, allowing consider- able differences of practice without breach of unity. Stephen seems to have taken the position, carried to its full extent by sub- sequent popes, of claiming a peculiar supremacy for the Roman see, and requiring uniformity as a condition of communion. The arguments of Stephen were mainly these : " We have immemorial custom on our side, especially the tradition of St. Peter's see, STEPHANUS which is above all others. We have aUo Scripture and reason on our side ; St. Paul rejoiced at the preachiuR of the gospel, and recognized it, though preached out of envy and strife. There is but one baptism ; to reiterate it is sacrilege, and its eflicacv depends, n<»t on the administrators, but on the institution of Christ ; whoever, then, has been once baptized i in the name of Christ, even by heretics, has ! been validly baptized, and may not be bap- tized again." Cv-prian's answer was : " .\s to your custom, however old. it is a corrupt one, and not primitive ; no custom can be set against truth, to get at which we must go back to the original fountain. Scripture is really altogether against you ; those at whose preaching of the gospel St. Paul rejoiced were not schismatics, but members of the church acting from unworthy motives ; he rebap- tized those baptized only unto St. John's bap- tism, without acknowledgment of the Holy Ghost ; he and the other apostles regarded schism and heresy as cutting men off from ■ Christ ; the Catholic Church is one. ' a closed garden, a fountain sealed ' ; outside it there is no grace, no salvation, consequently no baptism ; people cannot confer grace if they have not got it ; we do not reiterate baptism, for those whom we baptize have not previously , been baptized at all ; it is you that make two baptisms in allowing that of heretics as well ' as that of the church." Stephen's martyrdom under Valerian is asserted in the Felician Catalogue, but not in the earlier Liberian Catalogue. [j.b — v.] Stephanus (12), bp. of F.phesus at the time of the " Robber Synod " and the 4th council of Chalcedon. The nth session of that council (Oct. 29, 451) was wholly occupied with in- vestigating a complaint brought by Bassianus, formerly bp. of Ephesus, against Stephen, who was in advanced age, having been then 50 years one of the clergy of Ephesus. Bassi- anus had been expelled by violence from the | see c. 448, and succeeded by Stephen. Both 1 were deprived of the see by decree of the synod, but allowed a pension of 200 gold pieces (Mansi. t. vii. 271-294 ; Hefelc's Coun- cils, t. iii. p. 371, Clark's trans.). The name ' of Stephen of Ephesus is attached to a .MS. collection of sermons in the Vienna imperial librarv (Lambecii, Comment, iii. 66; Fabric' Bih. Grace, xii. 183, ed. Harles). [r,.T.s.| Stephanus (16) 1., patriarch of Anti<x:h A.D. 47S-4S0 (Clinton, F. R. ii. 536. 553)- Stephen having sent a synodic letter to .\cacius bp. of Constantinople acquainting him with the circumstances of his consecration, Acacius convened a synod, a.d. 478, by which the whole transaction was confirmed. The parti- sans of Peter the Fuller accused Stephen to Zeno of Ncstorian heresy, and demanded to have his soundness in the faith investigated by a synod. Zeno yielded, and a syiKxl was called for the SvTian Lafxlicea (I.abbe, iv. 1 1 52). The charge was declared Kr<>undle^s (Theophan. 108). Stephen's enemies, rendere*! furious by defeat, m.ide an onslaught on the church of St. Barlaam in which he was ct-le- brating the Eucharist, dragged him (r<>m th«- altar, tortured him to death, and threw his body into the Orontes (Evagr. H. E. iii. 10 ; Niceph. H. E. xv. 18). The emperor, indig- SYMMACHUS 017 nant at the mur.lir ..f hw n..nunrr. .|r^p,,trhr<l a military fnrrr !■• punish the Kutvrhian party, at whoHe instigation thr criinr hail Iktii coin- mitted (.Siw/'/ifM /•/.. tie. ad Zfiunum. l.abl>e, iv. ion ; l.th. .SynoJ. 16. nsi). Ac- cording t«i s<inie authorities it was Stephen'* successor, .inothrr Stephen, who was (hu* murdered. Valesius Seb. Minnis. lillrni.mt l.Mfm. xvi. 31 s) iiiid I.e yiiirn {Or. (^hn^t. ii. 7-'') take the view given .»bovr. (r.v.) Stratonloe, martvr at Cyzirum in M>-»ia with Seliiirus her husband at the quinqiicn- nalia of (ialerius during Diocletian's persecu- tion. The wife of a leading magistrate of the town, she came to see a large numl>er <if Christians tortured. Their patience converted her and she converted her husliand. Hrr father, .\pollonius, after every effort to win her back to paganism had failed, brranie hrr most bitter accuser. Husband anci wife were beheaded, and buried in on«' tomb over which Constantino built a church (.Assemani. Acta .Mart. Orient, t. ii. p. As). The Acts offer many marks of authenticity. Cf. I.e Blant. Acta dei Martyrs, p. 224, etc. ; A A. SS. Boll. Oct. xiii. pp. 89V9i<> ; Ceill. ii. 481-48^. [c.t.s.) Sylvia iSilvania), sister of Flavins kufinus, consul in 392 and prefict of the liast under Theodosius and .Arradius. A work wTitten by her was discovered at Arezzo in 18H5, bound up with an unpublished work of St. Hilary of Poictiers [dc .Mystenn). It con- tained 2 hymns and an account of a journey in the East. M. Ch. Kohler gave an anal\-sis of the text in Bibl. de i Ecole des Chartrrs, and .M. (.amurrini discussed its authorship in a paper before the .Academy of ( hristian .Archae- ology at Rome (cf. Ke\ue Critique, May 2 J. 1885, p. 410). It has since bern shown bv M. Feratin that the pilgrim author is Etheri.V, a Spanish nun, mentioned by the monk Valerius(Migne, Patr. l.at. Ixxxvii. 421 ). It has been generally quoted, however, as the Pere- grinatio Silviae. It is of the highest interest from its account of the services at Jerusalem at the time (r. 385). Important extracts from it are given in Duchesne's ihtgines du Culle Chretien, of which a go«Hl tr.in>. bv .Mr*. McCliire has been pub. by S.P.C.K. ( f. aNo F. Cabrol, I.ex Enlises de Jeru\alem ; la du- ctpline et la liturRie au IV"^ Steele, Etude siir la f'erecrinatso Stlviae. (ri.T.s. anh m.w.) SymmachlU (2), author of the (.reek vrrsi.in of O. T., which in Origen's Hexapla and letra- pla occupied the column next after that of Aquila and before those of the I.X.X and Theodotion. Eusebius speaks of Symmachut as a heretical Christian, while I-'piphaniu* represents him merely as passing from the Samaritan sect to Judaism. The account of Eusebius is confirmed (i) by the name " Svtn- machians," which, a* we know from the Ambrosiaster {I'rol. in Ef. ad dalat.) ami from Augustine {(onl. Cresc. i. 31 ; cont. EauU. xix. 4), was appllc<| even in thr 4th cent, to the Pharis.iic or " Na/arran " l-,l>ionitr^ ; (2) by the fact that Eusebius could refer to a work of Syminachu* as extant, in which he main- tained the Ebioiiile hrrrsv In the »ha|>r of an attack on St. Mattlirw's *.os|m-I. Thu work, according to Euvbius (//. E. vi. 17; />r- momtr. Evang. vii. i ). was stated by Orii;en to have been obtained by hitn, together with 918 SYMMACHUS Q. AURELIUS other interpretations on the Scriptures, from one Juliana, who had received them from Symmachus himself. A later writer, Palla- dius (c. 420), adds that this Juliana was a virgin who lived in Caesarea of Cappadocia, and gave refuge to Origen for two years during a persecution, adducing as his authority an entry which he found in Origen's own hand : " This book I found in the house of J uliana the virgin in Caesarea, when I was hiding there ; who said that she had received it from Sym- machus himself, the interpreter of the Jews " {Hist. Laus. i47)- Heut (Origemana, libb. I. iii. 2 ; 111. iv. 2) is probably right in assigning the sojourn of Origen in this lady's house to the time of Maximin's persecutions (a.d. 238-241). Eusebius speaks of the version of Symmachus (vi. 16) as being, like those of Aquila and Theodotion, in common use in Origen's day, in contrast with the obscure " Fifth " and " Sixth " versions, which Origen brought to light ; and Origen's extant remains shew that he knew and used Symmachus's version long before the time of Maximin (236-239). Palladius, by his incidental statement, coming almost direct from Origen himself and resting on the testimony of a lady who had known Symmachus personally, powerfully confirms Eusebius, and makes it clear that Symmachus was a Christian (or " semi- Christian " as Jerome expresses it) of the Nazareo-Ebionite sect. Epiphanius's ac- count is therefore to be rejected ; and with it the theory of Geiger, who seeks to identify him with the Jew Symmachus, son of Joseph. The authority of Epiphanius has, however, been commonly accepted for placing the date of Symmachus under the reign of Severus ( 193 -'2 1 1 ) — e-g- by the compiler of the Chronicon Paschale {s.a. 202), Cave {Hist. Lit. s.a. 201), etc. The extract from Palladius roughly fixes limits for the possible date of Symma- chus, by shewing that he was an elder con- temporary of Juliana, who was contemporary with Origen, but that he had died before Origen's sojourn in her house. Symmachus's object in his version seems to have been to imitate Aquila in following the Hebrew exclusively, but to avoid his bar- barous diction and to commend his work to Greek readers by piurity of style. Thus, his renderings are externally dissimilar to Aquila's, but (frequently) internally akin. Remark- able cases of identity of translation between these two versions occur, e.g. Dan. ix. 26, 27, which appears to have been borrowed by Symmachus verbally from Aquila. Of his other writings nothing is known. [j.Gw.] Symmaohus (3) Q. Aurelius.the last eminent champion of paganism at Rome, son of L. Aurelius Avianus Symmachus, who was pre- fect of the city in 364, consul suffect and pre- torian prefect in 376, and one of the envoys sent by Julian to Constantius (Ammian. xxi. 12, 24). He was educated at Bordeaux {Epp. ix. 88), where he and Ausonius became firm friends (Auson. Id. 11, in Migne, Patr. Lat. xix. 895 ; Symm. Epp. i. 13-43)- After being questor and praetor, he became corrector of Lucania and Bruttium in 365 and proconsul of Africa in 373 {Cod. Theod. viii. tit. v. 25 ; xii. tit. i. 73)- Being again in Gaul c. 369, he delivered his first panegyric on Valentinian SYMMACHUS Q. AURELIUS as he witnessed the construction of his for« tifications on the Rhine {Laud, in Valent. Sen. ii. 6). He was appointed prefect of the city at the end of 383 or the beginning of 384. He bore himself modestly in that office, which had been conferred on him unsolicited, declining the silver chariot which his predecessors had permission to use {Epp. x. 24, 40) and the title of " Magnificence " {Epp. iv. 42). In 382 he headed a deputation in the name of the majority of the senate, to the emperor Gratian, to request the replacement of the altar of Victory in the senate house and the restoration of their endowments to the vestals and the colleges of priests. The Christian senators, who, according to St. Ambrose, were really the majority, forwarded through pope Damasus a counter-petition, and by the influence of St. Ambrose the efforts of Symmachus were defeated, as again in 384, after Gratian's death (S. Ambr. Epp. 17, 18, 57, in Patr. Lat. xvi. 961, 972, 1175 ; Symm. Epp. x. 6r). He probably took part in the missions for the same purpose sent by the senate by Theodosius after the fall of Maximus, and to Valentinian 11. in 392 (S. Ambr. Ep. 57), and again suffered the same disappointment. In 393 the pagan party had a momentary triumph. Eugenius, at the instigation of Flavian and Arbogast, who had placed him on the throne, restored the altar of Victory and the endowments of the priests (Paulin. Vita S. Amb. in Patr. Lat. xvi. 30), but they were again abolished by Theodosius after the defeat of Eugenius and Arbogast. Symmachus appears to have made a final attempt in 403 or 404 ; at least such is the natural inference from the two books of Prudentius, contra Symmachum, written after Pollentia and consequently c. 404. Though a champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus was on excellent terms with the Christian leaders. He was a friend of pope I Damasus and apparently of St. Ambrose him- i self, whom Cardinal Mai considers to be the Ambrose to whom seven of his letters are addressed {Epp. iii. 31-37), of St. Ambrose's brother Satyrus (S. Ambr. de Excessu Fralris, i. 32, in Patr. Lat. xvi. 1300), and of Mallius Theodorus, to whom St. Augustine {Retr. i. 2, in Patr. Lat. xxxii. 588) dedicated one of his works. When prefect, he sent St. Augustine as a teacher of rhetoric to Milan {Conf. v. 19, in Patr. Lat. xxxii. 717), and was thus the unconscious instrument of his conversion. His Christian opponents always speak in high terms of his character and abilities. He was a member of the college of pontiffs, and as such exercised a strict supervision over the vestal virgins. In the case of one of the Alban vestals, who had broken her vow of chastity, he demanded the enforcement of the ancient penalty against her and her paramour {Epp. ix. 128, 129), and sternly refused the request of another to be released from her vows before her time of service ended {Epp. ix. 108). The letters of Symmachus give a remark- able picture of the circumstances and life of a Roman noble just before the final break-up of the empire. His wealth, though not above that of an average senator (Olymp. ap. Phot.), was very great. He had a mansion on the Coelian near S. Stefano Rotondo and other houses in Rome {Epp. iii. 14), and numerous SYMMACHUS country residences, of which he mentions four suburban (£/>/>. i. 6. ii. 57, iii. 55. vi. s«) and several more, remote {Epf>. i. i, 8, 10, ii. (>o, iii. 50, iv. 44, vi. (>(>. 81, vii. is. 35). He had property near Aquileia and in Sam- nium, Sicily, and Mauritania (i>^. iv. 68. vi. II, ii. 30. vii. (>(>). The expenses of his son's praetorship, which he paid, amounted to j.ooo pounds of Kold (Olymp. u.s.), and in many of his letters he asks his friends to send him rare wild beasts for the sports of his son's praetor- ship and que^torship. AmonR other, seven Irish wolf-dogs are mentioned (Epp. ii. 77). In three of his letters he speaks of his advanc- ing years (Epp. iv. 18, 32, viii. 48). He was cextainly alive in 404. His letters are reprinted in 10 books in Patr. Lat. .xviii. Early in the iqth cent. Cardinal Mai discovered in the Ainbrosian Library fragments of g speeches of Svin- machus, which he published in 1815. and again in 184(1. A new ed. of the Relaiiones, , his official correspondence with emperors, was pub. in 1872 bv \V. Meyer. [f-d-I Symmachus (9), bp.of Rome from Nov. 498, to July, 514, when Theodoric the Ostro- goth was king of Italy and Anastasius emperor in the East. For the circumstances of his election see Laurentius (10). The virulence of the two opposed parties is accounted for by the fact that they repre- sented two opposite policies with regard to the then existing schism between the Western and Eastern churches. Laurentius was elect- ed in the interests of the policy of concession to Constantinople and the East, which the previous pope, .\nastasius II., had favoured ; Symmachus for the maintenance of the unbending attitude taken by Felix III. when the schism first began. Several extant letters of Symmachus refer to the rivalry between the Gallic sees of Aries and Vienne. [Zosimus ; Leo I. ; Hilarius (pope); Hilarius Arelat.] Anastasius II., the predecessor of S>Tiimachus, had sanctioned some invasion, on the part of Vienne, of the jurisdiction assigned to Aries by Leo. After the accession of S>'inmachus, Eonus, then the primate of Aries, complained to him, appar- ently in 499, of .\vitus of Vienne having, under such sanction, ordained bishops beyond his proper jurisdiction. The reply of Sym- machus shews an evident readiness to impute blame to Anastasius (whose whole policy, with regard to the East, he had been elected to counteract), and is remarkable as a decided repudiation by a pope of the action of a pre- decessor. He lays down the principle that the ordinances of former popes ought not to be varied under any necessity, as those of Leo had been by .Anastasius, and must be now maintained. He, however, requires both Eonus and Avitus to send full statements of their case to Rome ; and in his letter to Avitus, while he repeats that the confusif)n introduced by Anastasius was not to be tolerated, he invites Avitus to state any reasons for some equitable dispensation under existing circumstances. It was not till 513 that we find the bp. of Aries finally confirmed in the rights accorded to his sec by pope Leo ; Caesarius having then succeeded Eonus. Symmachus then wrote to this effect to the SYMPHORIANUS 1M9 bishops of Caul, and in M4 to (\«e<wiriuv waming him to rrspert llir anrirnt riK'hls of other inetrr)politans .uul to rrport anything amiss in liaul or Spain to Kf>iiir. •After the defeat of the p.irtv of I^urentitu at Rome and the final sritlnnent of Sym- machus in the see. tli<> rmprmr An.i>.tasiiiv to whom the result would br prruli.irly unwrN come, issiu-d a in.uiifcsto .i^.tiiist Symm.ichiiv reproaching hiin with having been util.iwfiillv elected, accusing him of Manich< an hrr«-sy. and protesting against his pnsnmplion in having (as he saitl) excommunir.ilcd an emiirror. Symm.ichus replied in a letter entitled " .Apologetica adversus Anastasii imprratoru libellum famosum," and in strong and indig- nant language rebutted the charges aKaiiut himself, and retorted that of heresy on the emperor ; he accuses him of presuming on his temporal position to think to trainpir on St. Peter in the person of his vic.ir. and remind* him that spiritu.il dignity is, at least, on a par with that f>f an emperor ; and he protest* strongly against the vif)lencc used against the orthodox in the East. Anastasius w.is by no means awed or deterred by these papal fulminations, which had probably the opposite effect. He appears after this more than ever determined to support Eutychianism. Some time during the episcopate of Sym« machus Theodoric visited Rome. Cassio- dorus gives an account of the visit, placing it under the consuls of a.o. 500 ; and that Theodxric rein.iined at Ravenna while the case against the pope w,is pending may f>« gathered from the d<Kuments that refer to it. Himself an Arian, Thcotl'ric evidently had no desire to intervene personally in the dis- putes of the Catholics, declaring it his s<>lo desire that they should agree among them- selves and order be restored at Rome. Symm.ichus is said by .Vnast.isius {Ltb. Pontif.) to have built, restoreti, and enriched with ornaments many Roman churches, to have spent money in redeeming captives, to have furnished yearly money and clothing to exiled orthodox bishops, and to have ordered the " Ciloria in exa-lsis " to l>c sung on all Sundays and Saints' days, [j.ii— v.) Symphorianus (1). mart\T, according to the MSS. of his .\rts, under Aurelian. for which name Ruin.u-t would substitute .Aurclius, dating his passion c. 180. He was born in Autun, of noble parentage, and trained in Christianity from his childhoo<l. Autun w.»s devoted to the worship of Berccynthia ; and the consul.ir Hcraclius, who governed there, anxious to convert the Christians bv argu- ment, entered into discussion with S\im, ' anus, who reviled his f.ilsr driiirs. Iti' i used threat* and tortures, .md hnally !>• ! him outside the walls in tin- pl.icr of <..i, ,;.... execution. The Acts of this m.irtyr h.ivr l>. . u evidently compiled out of very anrieiit .1- n- meiits. The judici.il investigati<in is rrpori. .1 in the mml exact and technical form* of Roman law. The questioa* proposed and the answers given arc such as wc fiml in the inmt genuine remains of antiquity. Vet Ihrrr .\tc also indications that they have Iwen worknl up into their i>resriii shape. The details of the worship of Cvl>ele may be very uvfullv compared with those given in the p»»»ion ol 920 SYNESIUS St. Theodotus and the Seven Virgins of Ancyra. Celtic idolatry in Asia and in Gaul followed precisely the same ritual. Ruinart, Acta Sincera, pp. 67-73 ; Ceillier, i. 472 ; AA. SS. Boll. Aug. iv. 496-498- [g.t.s.] Synesius (2), bp. of Ptolemais in the Libyan Pentapolis, early in 5th cent. A treatise by H. Druon, Etudes st4r la vie et les cBuvres de Synesius (Paris, 1859), gives valuable informa- tion respecting the chronological arrangement of Synesius's writings, especially the letters ; another by Dr. Volkmann, Synesius von Cyrene (Berlin, 1869), is a well--vvritten treatise, but not so elaborate. Synesius of Cyrene witnessed the accomp- lishment of two great events on which the whole course of history for many centuries depended — the ruin of the Roman empire and the complete triumph of Christianity. He was born when the pagan world was mourning the untimely death of the last of the pagan emperors. He died amidst the horrors of the barbarian invasions, when the recent fall of Rome seemed to every portion of the Roman empire a sign of impending ruin. He was born c. 365 at C>Tene, " a Greek city of ancient fame," but then already in decay, and superseded by Ptolemais as the capital of Pentapolis. He was of good family, inheriting an ample fortune, with considerable estates in the interior of the country. In his early years he served in the army and was passionately fond of field sports. Leaving the army, he commenced his studies at Alexandria, where Hypatia then lectured in philosophy. Through her he be- came attached to neo-Platonism. But the great school of Alexandria was not then considered sufficient for any one who aimed at the reputation of a philosopher. To Athens, therefore, Synesius was driven by the remonstrances of his friends. But both with the city and its teachers he was profoundly disappointed. He returned to Pentapolis, de- termined to divide his time between country pursuits and literature, planting trees, breed- ing horses, training dogs for hunting, writing poetry, and studying philosophy. From this pleasant life he was called to plead the cause of his native city before the court of Constan- tinople, arriving there a.d. 397, and remaining 3 years. Through the friendship and influence of Aurelian, a distinguished statesman, the leader at that time of what may be called the patriotic party, Synesius was allowed to pronounce before the emperor Arcadius and his court an oration on the nature and duties of kingship. This oration is still extant, but the language is in parts so bold, the invective so personal, as to suggest a doubt whether it was actually delivered, at least in its present form. Some of the evils which Synesius anticipated were soon realized. The Gothic leader Gainas revolted, and triumphed without diflSculty over the effeminate court of Arcadius. Aurelian was sent into banishment, and his sup- porters in Constantinople exposed to consider- able dangers. Synesius declared afterwards that he had only escaped the devices of his enemies through warnings sent him in dreams by God. In a few weeks the power of Gainas sank as rapidly as it had risen. Part of his SYNESIUS army perished in a popular rising in Constan- tinople. The rest were destroyed by an army of Huns in the pay of the emperor. Aurelian returned to Constantinople, and for the remainder of Arcadius's reign had great in- fluence at court. Through him Synesius obtained the boon he asked for Cyrene, and was able at length to quit the hateful city. From his country retreat, and from the city of Cyrene, Synesius kept up a brisk corres- pondence with his friends in different parts of the world, especially at Alexandria and Con- stantinople. Some of his letters were to influential friends in behalf of persons in distress. Of the 156 letters still extant, 49 are to his brother Evoptius. They form a pleasant series, full of interesting details. With the death of Theodosius the last hope of maintaining the grandeur of the Roman empire seemed suddenly to pass. Rome and Milan, Lyons and Aries, fell by turn before Goths and Vandals, leaving many records of suffering, but not one of a heroic struggle for life and liberty. The characteristics of the time are well illustrated by the letters of Synesius. The miseries of the empire did not spare the distant province of Pentapolis. The nomadic tribes of Libya took advantage of the weakness of the Roman government to sweep down upon the fertile land. Their inroads were at first merely predatory incur- sions. They seem to have begun not long after Synesius's return from Constantinople. At Cyrene, as elsewhere, there were no troops to oppose them. Synesius's spirits rose with the danger. "I at all events," he writes, " will see what manner of men these are who think they have a right to despise Romans. I will fight as one who is ready to die, and I know I shall survive. I am Laconian by descent, and I remember the letter of the rulers to Leonidas — ' Let them fight as men who are ready to die, and they will not die.' " Here and there a few displayed the same courage. Things grew worse, till he wrote almost in despair this touching letter to Hypatia : " I am surrounded by the mis- fortunes of my country, and mourn for her as each day I see the enemy in arms, and men slaughtered like sheep. The air I breathe is tainted by putrefying corpses, and I expect as bad a fate myself, for who can be hopeful when the very sky is darkened by clouds of carnivorous birds ? Still, I cling to my country. How can I do otherwise, I who am a Libyan, born in the country, and who have before my eyes the honoured tombs of my ancestors ? " Shortly afterwards, owing to the arrival probably of a new general, the Ausurians were repulsed, and Synesius in 403 left for Alexandria, where he married and remained two years. Returning, he found Cerealis governor, under whose rule the pre- datory incursions of the barbarians became a regular invasion. " He is a man," wrote Synesius to an influential friend at Constan- tinople, " who sells himself cheaply, who is useless in war, and oppressive in peace." Obviously Synesius thought that, at least in Pentapolis, the country might have been easily protected against the barbarians if there had been any ability in the government or vigour in the people. He was probably right. SYNESIUS The Roman empire (ell because so few of its citizens c.ired to do anything to preserve it. It was Init natural that men. even of strong patriotic feelinR. like Svnesius. should turn from the (ioKTadatioii of crtuial life to live in thought amoiiK the glories of the heroic age of action in the images of Homer, and the heroic age of thought in those of Plato. His philosophical studies did not meet with much encouragement among the people of Penta- polis. " I never hear in Libya the sound of philosophy, except the echo of ray own voice. Yet if no one else is my witness, assuredly Cod is, for the mind of man is the seed of f.od. and I think the stars look down with favour on me as the only scientific observer of their move- ments visible to them in this vast continent." He pursued the study of astronomy, not only from his love for the beauties of nature, but as a valuable introduction to the highest branches of philosophy. To him, as to IMato, astronomy is " not only a very noble science, but a means of rising to something nobler still, a ready passage to the mysteries of theology." He had received instruction in it from Hypatia, his " most venerated teacher," at Alexandria. While at Constantinople he sent his friend Paeonius a planisphere, con- structed in silver according to his own direc- tions, with a letter giving a curious description of it. He mentions that Ptolemy, and the sacred college of his successors, had been contented with the planisphere on which Hipparchus had marked only the i6 largest stars by which the hours of the night were known, but he himself had marked on his all the stars down to the 6th degree of mag- nitude. In philosophy Synesius is not entitled to rank as an independent thinker. He is simply an eclectic blending together the elements of his belief from widely different sources, with- out troubling to reduce them to a strictly harmonious system. He had neither depth nor precision of thought sufficient to win a high place in the history of philosophy. But he constantly speaks of his delight in philo- sophical studies, and always claims as his especial title of honour the name of a philo- sopher. If he had been asked which he con- sidered the most philosophical of his writings, he would probably have answered his poems. For, from his point of view, poetry was in- separably connected with philosophy ; for both are occupied with the highest problems of life ; both look at the ideal side of things, and in the union of the two religion itself consists. The Homeric poems were valuable to him, not only for literary excellency, but as furnishing a rule of conduct. He quotes Homer as a Christian then quoted his Bible. He evident- ly regarded Homer as an authority in political, social, moral, and even religious questions. He was certainly well vers<-d in the whole range of Greek literature. There is hardly a poet, historian, or philosopher of eminence not quoted or alluded to bv hwu. In this, as in other respects, he faithfully represents one of the latest phases of thought in the Alexandrine school. The ascetic system of Plotinus and Porph^TV had failed as an opposing force to the rising tide of Christianity. The theurgical rites and mysterious forms of magical incan- SYNESIUS f»2I tation with which l.iml)lirhu\ and olhrrt sought to pri>p up the l.tlling rrrnl h.id UmI but a limited success. Krpratrd Uw» oj incxeasing severity had brrn passed to rri>res» the m.igic.d arts, .tiid many accused of practising them imprisoned and even r»e« cutetl. Besides, the very persons ovrr whose credulity such prrimsions couUI rx- ercise any intlumce would in the 4th cent, naturally Ih> much more attr.irtecl l>v Ihr far more wonderful pretensions of thr I hristian hermits, and the countless t.iirs of visions srrn and mirach>s wrought by mouk» of Nitria .ind Scetis. which continually exciteil the wonder and stimulate<l the religion ol the |>eople o( .Mexandria. In supposed inir.icles, as in r«-al austerities, no pagan philosopher was likely to rival Anthony or .Amnion. Among the higher classes the great majority of thinkiuK men, who were still unwilling to rmbrace Christianity, were chiefly influenced in the Eastern empire by their attachnimt to (,rrrk literature, in the Western empire by thrir reverence, partly politiciil. partly religious for Koine itself, whose greatness s/rmed to them to depend on the maintenance of that system, partly political, partly religious, under which it had been acquired. The drerk mythology had lost its hold on thi-ir »>elief. but the poetry that mythology hatl inspired still retained its power over the imaginati<^>n of educated men among the cities of the Eastern empire, which, however slightly Cireek in origin, had become thoroughly Greek in language and in culture. Besides, the ideal of life presented in Greek literature was far more attractive to many minds than that presented by the popular teaching of Christianity, especially to those minds in which the intellectual were stronger than the moral impulses. Those who " still cared for grace and Hellenism," to use Synesius's expression, turned with increasing fondness from the intellectual degeneracy of their day to the masterpieces of former times, seeking to satisfy the universally ft-lt craving for a definite religious creed, by taking from all the writers they admired the elements of a vague system, which they called a philosophy, but which (l<p<ii(l<(l f.ir lUMrr upon poetical feeling* than phiiosophic.il arguments. Synesius's own poems are his most original works. Their literary merit is not of the highest order. His power lay not so much in the strength of imagination as in warmth o( f)oetical feeling. The metre's are unfortunate- y chosen and not sufl^cientlv varied to escai>« monotony. The fatal facility of the »hr)rt lines constantly led to a jingling re[>etiti(>n o( the same cadenc«-s and turns of construction. Still, the ten hymns extant would l>e interest- ing, if only as specimens of a stvlr of |\-rical poetry, the meditative poetry partly philo- sophical and partly religious, which was hardly ever attempted in aii'""' <.r«.-r- though common enough in i Their chief value, howrvrr, t light thrown on the religiou 1 ex|>criences of a man of drrplv lutit! .tmg character. Any one who wishes to know the religious aspect of neo-Platonism and the different ph.ises of thought throuxh which an able roan of strong religious (oelingt could in 922 SYNESIUS the 5th cent, pass to Christianity, can hardly do better than study these hymns. The God to Whom he thus offers the " un- bloody sacrifice " of his prayers is at once One and Three — " one root, one source, a triple form." To attempt to explain the mystery of this Trinity would be the atheistic boldness of blinded men. The three persons of the Trinity, to use the Christian form of expres- sion never employed by Synesius himself, are not as with Plotinus — Unity, Intelligence, Soul. Most frequently the Christian terms are used — Father, Spirit, Son — for the resern- blance between the attributes assigned in neo-Platonic philosophy to the soul, the third God, the ruler of the world, and the attributes assigned by Christianity to the Son apparently led Synesius to place the Son third in his system of the Trinity. The Father is also called the Unity. The Spirit is nowhere called the Intelligence, but is often called the Will. The Son, Who emanates from the Father through the Spirit, is also called, with a curious combination of expressions, the Word, the Wisdom, and the Demiurgus. The stream of life and intelligence descends from the Father through the Son to the intellectual worlds, and from them to the visible world which is the image of the intellectual. To all in heaven and in the sky, and on the earth and beneath the earth, the Son imparts life and assigns duties. Nor is the Father, however myste- rious in His nature, so " hidden in His glory " as to be inaccessible to sympathy for His children. In the efficacy of prayer and in the reality of spiritual communion with God Synesius firmly believed. " Give, O Lord, to be with me as my companion the holy angel of holy strength, the angel of divinely inspired prayer. May he be with me as my friend, the giver of good gifts, the keeper of mv life, the keeper of my soul, the guardian of mv prayers, the guardian of my actions. May he preserve my body pure from disease, may he preserve my spirit pure from pollution, may he bring to my soul oblivion of all pas- sions." And again in the beautiful prayer of the soul for reunion with God : " Have pity. Lord, upon Thy daughter. I left Thee to become a servant upon earth, but instead of a servant I have become a slave. Matter has bound me in its magic spells. Yet still the clouded eye retains some little strength, its power is not altogether quenched. But the deep flood has poured over me and dimmed the God-discerning vision. Have pity. Father, on Thy suppliant child, who, often striving to ascend the upward paths of thought, falls back choked with desires, the offspring of seductive matter. Kindle for me, O Lord, the lights which lead the soul on high." Synesius has nowhere expressly stated that he regarded matter not as created by God but as existing independently and necessarily evil, but this idea is most consistent with the lan- guage he generally employs. God is nowhere said to have created the world, but the Son is said to have framed the visible world as the form and image of the invisible. At all events the corruption of the soul in each individual is attributed to the seductive in- fluence of matter, a view expressed at some length in his very curious treatise on D^e^mls. SYNESIUS The soul, he says, descends from heaven in obedience to a law of Providence to perform its appointed service in the world. It then receives, as a loan, the imagination, figurative- ly called the boat or chariot by which the soul travels on its earthward voyage. In other words, it is the connecting link between mind and matter. It is something intermediate between the corporeal and incorporeal, and philosophy therefore has great diflftculty in determining its real nature. It is the duty of the soul to purify and elevate the imagination. It is the constant aim of the daemon of matter to corrupt and degrade it. The action of Providence in the government of the world is described by Synesius in his treatise written at Constantinople. All exist- ence, he says, proceeds from God and has been assigned by Him to an infinite variety of beings, descending in regular gradations from God Himself, Who is pure existence, to matter, which, being in a state of constant flux, does not, properly speaking, admit of existence at all. The beings of the highest order are called gods, and they are divided into two classes, the first controlling the upper parts of the universe, the other ruling this earth. These gods find their chief happi- ness in contemplating the God Who is above them, but to preserve the earth from the evils which would soon result from the destructive activity of the earth-daemons thev must in- terpose from time to time. This they do gladly, because thus they render their ap- pointed service to the supreme Deity. As regards a future state, Synesius says that philosophy teaches us that it is the result of the present life. With death the husk of matter, which we call the body, perishes, but the soul and the imagination remain. He repeatedly protests against giving pub- licity to doctrines which are above the com- prehension of men not thoroughly trained in philosophical studies. " Philosophy is one of the most ineffable of all ineffable subjects." He reproves his friend Herculian for talking of such with unphilosophical persons, and will not even discuss them in letters lest they fall into the hands of others. Proteus is the problem of the true philosopher eluding vulgar curiosity by concealing the divine under earthly forms, and only revealing it to the per- sistent efforts of heroic men. This desire for secrecy arose from a fear lest the highest truths should be corrupted and degraded by those unfit to receive them, a feeling by no means unknown in the Christian church at that time.* Lysis, the Pythagorean, quoted by Synesius with great approbation, says that " the publicity given to philosophy has caused many men to look with contempt upon the Gods." Doubtless enough is plainly stated for us to form a sufficiently accurate idea of Syne- sius's philosophical and religious views, but there are subjects — e.g. the nature of the Trinity, the connexion between the old mytho- logy and philosophy, the reabsorption of the soul and of all intelligence and existence into * So Theodoret {qiioted by Bingham, vol. i. p. 35) says: "We speak of the divine mysteries in obscure language because of the uninitiated (the unbaptizcd), but when they are gone we instruct the initiated (bap- tized) plainly." SYNESIOS the Divinity, the nature and origin of matter, the nature and work of the imaKiuation, the scientific arrangetnent and nomenclature of the virtues — on whicJi we have not the last word of Hypatia's teaching. We cannot say what means Synesius had of becoming acquainted with Christianity in his early years. No one living in any part of the Eastern empire at the close of the 4th cent, could fail to be brought into frequent cont.ict with Christians. Hut throughout his works, WTitten before he became a Christian himself, the same phenomenon appears which is so striking in Claudian's poems — the existence of Christianity is entirely ignored. In his speech addressed to .\rcadius, though the greatest prominence is given to the religious idea of duty, there is no allusion to the prin- ciples of Christianity, even where such a reference would have given force to his argu- ments. The orator appears unconscious that he is addressing a Christian emperor. The deity to whom he appeals is the god of the Theist. " whose nature no man has ever yet found a name to represent." Still more striking is a passage in one of the hymns written immediately after his return from Constantinople: " to all Thy temples, Lord, built for Thy holy rites I went, and falling headlong as a suppliant bathed with my tears the pavement. That my journey might not be in vain, I prayed to all the gods Thy min- isters, who rule the fertile plain of Thrace, and those who on the opposite continent protect the lands of Chaltedon, whom Thou hast crowned with angelic rays, Thy holy servants. They, the blessed ones, helped me in my prayers ; they helped me to bear the burden of many troubles." Of course the temples of which he speaks were Christian churches. No pagan temples had been erected in Constan- tinople, and even in the other cities they had been closed some years by an edict of Theo- dosius. Yet it is perfectly certain that Synesius was not then a Christian. This picture of a pagan philosopher praying in a Christian church to the saints aiid angels of Christianity, while investing them with the attributes of the daemons of neo-Platonism, is no bad illustration of the almost uncon- scious manner in which the pagan world in becoming Christian was then paganizing Chris- tianity. As eclectic in religion as in philoso- phy, Svnesius took from Christianity whatever harmonized with the rest of his creed, often adapting the tenets he borrowed to make them accord with his philosophical ideas. How his opinions were so far altered in the next four years that he became a Christian, we have, unhappily, but scanty means of knowing. In none of his letters is there the slightest trace of any mental struggle. The change was effected gradually, probably almost imperceptibly even to himself. He had never been really hostile to Christianity, and as the world gradually became more Christian he became more ChrislLm too. Almost without a struggle the old |)agan society had yielded, and was still yielding, to the tide which each year set more strongly in the direction of Christianity. With all the vigour he displayed, in great emergencies Synesius was not a man to stand long alone SYNESIUS 0J3 or to fight to the en<l 4 b,Utlr .drrjdv |o%t. Some personal intliirnecs h.id jIvo Ixrn brought to hc.u on him. He had known and highly resprctrd ( hrvv.stnm at Con»tanti. nople. .ind afterwards come into rontart with Theophilus the iiatri.irch of Alexandria. Hi« wife, to whom hr was warmly .ittached and whom he ni.irried at Alexandria in 401, wan a Christian, and in her he may have h.i<| an opportunity of rem.irkiiig one of the nol.lr^t features of Christianity, the elevation it im- parted to the female character by the promin- ence given to the frnimiiie virtues m the character of Christ and therefore in the trarh- ing of the church. Hut above all, when he returned to Pcntapolis. in 404, to hnd hi* country desolated by barbarian invasion he must have f.-lt how little the highest form of neo-Platonism could meet the wants of iuch a troubled age. The philtKophical and poetical creed was the religion of a prosperous man in peaceful times. When sufiering and danger came, its support failed precisely where most needed. To rnjoy that intellec- tual communion with (iod for which he craved with his whole heart, and on the possibility of which his whole system of belief depended, he needed above all things an untroubled mind. It was one of the points which had marked most strongly his separation from Christianity, that in his hvinns he had alwa\-!i prayed at least as earnestly for freedom from anxieties as for freedom from sin. He had formed an ideal of liff which could not he maintained in troubled times, and with it necessarily fell the beliefs with which it was intimately connected. The old creed told him that " the woe of earth weighs down the wngs of the soul so that it cannot rise to heaven." The new religion taught him that cares and sorrows rightly borne, so far from hiding the divine light, reveal it in increased brightness. In former days, when he shrank into private life from " the polluting influence of business and the vicissitudes of fortune," he had probably considered the doctrine of the Incarnation as the greatest obstacle to his becoming a Christian, because it s<>emed to degrade the Deity by connecting it with the contamination of matter. Now, when he had left his seclusion to battle and suffer with his fellow-citizens, no doctrine of Christianity had such attr.iction for him as that which told of a Cod Who had resigned His glory to share the sufferings of His creatures and to Ik? the Saviour of mankind. Formerly he had sought to purify his mind that it might ascend in thought to God ; now he caught at the dfx;trine of the Holy Spirit devrending into men's hearts to make them the temples of ( .ixl. So the first hymn which in.irks the transition to Christi.inity begins with an invocation to Christ as the .Son of the Holv N'irgin. and ends with a prayer to Christ and to the Fatlirr to s<nd down upon him the Holy .Spirit " to refresh the wings of the soul, and to prrfrct the diyinr gifts." Hut though his pravrs were now addressed to Christ, it is obvi.nis that he had rather added certain Chrutian tenets to his old creed than adopted a new religion. The attributes of Christ are de- scribed in almost exactly the same terms as the attributes of the Son had been described 924 SYNESIUS in former hymns. The prayers for himself are almost identical. It is also cmrious to find that he still considered the Spirit the second person of the Trinity ; to use his own illustra- tion, " the Father is the root, the Son the branch, the Spirit intermediate between root and branch." Still, the decisive step had been taken by acknowledging Christ as the Saviour of mankind ; after that the subse- quent steps were natural and almost inevit- able. He was baptized, probably about five years after his marriage. How far he then felt it necessary to give up the language and ideas of his old creed may be imagined from the following hymn, addressed to Christ : "Thou earnest down to earth and didst sojourn among men and drive the deceiver, the serpent-fiend, from Thy Father's garden. Thou wentest down to Tartarus, where death held the countless races of mankind. The old man Hades feared Thee, the devouring dog (Cerberus) fled from the portal ; but, having released the soul, of the righteous from suffer- ing, Thou didst offer, with a holy worship, hvmns of thanksgiving to the Father. As Thou wentest up on high the daemons, powers of the air, were affrighted. But Aether, wise parent of harmony, sang with joy to his seven- toned hnre a hymn of triumph. The morning star, day's harbinger, and the golden star of evening, the planet Venus, smiled on Thee. Before Thee went the horned moon, decked with fresh light, leading the gods of night. Beneath Thy feet Titan spread his flowing locks of light. He recognized the Son of God, the creative intelligence, the source of his own flames. But Thou didst fly on outstretched wings beyond the vaulted sky, alighting on the spheres of pure intelligence, where is the fountain of goodness, the heaven enveloped in silence. There time, deep-flowing and unwearied time, is not ; there disease, the reckless and prolific offspring of matter, is not. But eternity, ever young and ever old, rules the abiding habitation of the gods." While the old and new were thus strangely blended in his creed, an unexpected event changed the whole current of his life. In defiance of the law, which enacted that no one should hold the governorship of the province of which he was a native, Andronicus had been appointed governor of Pentapolis. A native of Berenice, of low origin, he had gained the office, Synesius says, by bribery. Against his appointment Synesius vigorously pro- tested, in a letter to an influential friend at Constantinople: "Send us legitimate gover- nors ; men whom we do not know, and who do not know us ; men who will not be biassed in their judgments by their private feelings. A governor is on his way to us who lately took a hostile part in politics here, and who will pursue his political differences on the judgment seat." When the ancient Romans were threatened with oppressive rulers, they chose the bravest of their fellow-citizens as tribunes to protect them. In the 5th cent, of the Christian era, under similar circumstances, the people of Ptolemais elected Synesius a bishop. They knew him as a man of high character and great abilities, universally liked and respected, but probably still more recom- mended to them by the \'igour he had dis- SYNESIUS played in the recent siege. No one who has attentively studied his life and writings can doubt that he was sincere in his wish to decline the proffered honour. A frank statement of his feelings was made in a letter written to his brother Evoptius, then resident at Alex- andria, and intended to be shewn to Theo- philus : " I should be devoid of feeling if I i were not deeply grateful to the people of Ptolemais who have thought me worthy of higher honours than I do myself. But what I must consider is not the greatness of the favour conferred, but the possibility of my accepting it. That a mere man should receive almost divine honours is indeed most pleasing, if he is worthy of them, but if he is far from being so, his acceptance of them gives but a poor hope for the future. This is no new fear, I but one I have long felt, the fear lest I should i gain honour among men by sinning against I God. From my knowledge of myself I feel I ! am in every respect unworthy of the solemnity of the episcopal office.* ... I now divide my time between amusements and study. When I am engaged in study, especially religious studies, I keep entirely to myself, in my amusements I am thoroughly sociable. But the bishop must be godly, and therefore like God have nothing to do with amusements, and a thousand eyes watch to see that he observes this duty. In religious matters, on the other hand, he cannot seclude himself, but must be thoroughly sociable, as he is both a teacher and preacher of the law. Single- handed, he has to do the work of everybody, or bear the blame of everybody. Surely then it needs a man of the strongest character to support such a burden of cares without allow- ing the mind to be overwhelmed, or the divine particle in the soul to be quenched, when he is distracted by such an infinite variety of employments." Again, there was the diffi- culty of his marriage. " God and the law, and the sacred hand of Theophilus, gave me my wife. I therefore declare openly to all and testify that I will not separate entirely from her, or visit her secretly like an adulterer. The one course would be contrary to piety, the other to law. I shall wish and pray to have a large number of virtuous children." Still more important in his opinion was the question of religious belief. " You know that philosophy is opposed to the opinions of the vulgar. I certainly shall not admit that the soul is posterior in existence to the body. I cannot assert that the world and all its parts will perish together. The resurrection which is so much talked about I consider something sacred and ineffable, and I am far from sharing the ideas of the multitude on the subject." He would indeed be content to keep silence in public on these abstruser points of theology, neithei pretending to believe as the multitude, nor seeking to convince them of their errors, " for what has the multitude to do with philosophy ? the truth of divine mysteries is • iepfus and the kindred terms are applied by Synesius after he became a Christian only to bishops ; the term presbyter is always used of the second order of the Christian ministry. Before his conversion he uses iepevs apparently of heathen priests, and on one occasion certainly of Christian presbyters. In one or two instances, however, iepev'? may be intended to include presbyters as well as bishops. SYNESlUS not a thing to be talked about. But if I am called to the episcopacy 1 do not think it ri^ht to pretend to hold opinions which I do not hold. I call God and man as witnesses to this. Truth is the property of (."lod. before Whom I wisii to be entirely blameless. Though fond of amusements — for from mv childhood 1 have been accused of being mad after arms and horses— still I will consent to give them up— though I shall regret to see my d.irling dogs no longer allowed to hunt, and my bows moth- eaten ! Still I will submit to this if it is Citnl's will. And though 1 hate all cares and troubles I will endure these petty matters of business, as rendering my appointed service to God, grievous as it will be. But I will have no deceit about dogmas, nor shall there be variance between my thoughts and my tongue. ... It shall never be said of me that I got myself consecrated without my opinions being kiiown. But let Father Theophilus. dearly beloved by God, decide for me with full know- ledge of the circumstances of the case, and let him tell me his opinions cle;irly." For seven months at least the matter re- mained undecided. Synesius went to .Alex- andria to consult Theophilus, and popular feeling ran so high throughout the country that he felt if he declined the bishopric he could never return to his native land. The people also sent two envoys to Theophilus urging him to use all his influence to overcome Synesius's scruples. This Theophilus was sure to do, for, apart from the regard he may well have had for Synesius, it must have been a welcome triumph for him over his opponents at Alexandria that the most distinguished pupil of the Alexandrine school should be consecrated by him a Christian bishop, a visible sign to the people that even the noblest form of paganism was found insuthcient by its noblest disciples. The religious difficulties were just those which might be expected in a pupil of the Alexandrine school, whether he derived his inspiration from Origen or from Hypatia. How far, and in what way, Theo- philus, already so well known as a vigorous opponent of such views, succeeded in inducing Synesius to change them we have unfortun- ately no means of knowing. After all, these views were rather in opposition to the com- monly received opinions among Chri'^tians than to any dogmatical teaching of the ciuirch. Even as regards the doctrine of the resurrec- tion, S^Tiesius would probably have had no difficulty in accepting the Greek form of the creed, the resurrection of the dead, though he could hardly have accepted the Latin form, the resurrection of the body, or the resurrec- tion of the flesh. His amusements and his hunting seem to have been given up entirely. It has been assumed that he retained his wife, but there is no evidence whatever to shew that he did so. His own letter is a sufficient proof that a bishop was generally expected to separate from his wife, or, in the language oi the day, to live with her as a sister, though it may be true, as Socrates asserts, that excep- tions might easily have been found in the Eastern empire. The bishop, especially if occupying an important post, felt that by retaining his wife he lost caste among his people, and Sjoiesius, in giving up so much in SVNEStUS 925 the hope of bemhting the people «>( Pt<>lrtnai«, was hardly likely to pursue a courte which must fatally damage hit inlhirncc. cvni if hit wife would have coiivntcd to a imnic of lif« which must inevitably lower both hrrsrU and her husband in public r%timatioii. iirMdr«, Synesius never mentions his wifr in anv sub- sequent letter, and in one written only one year afterw.irds he speaks of his drsolatioa in terms whidi make it almost incrrdibl« that his wife was living with him then. .So child was born to him after he was elected bishop. Yielding at last to the importunities and arguments of his friends, Synesius. in 410, WTote to the presbyti-rs of the diocese of I'tole- mais : " Since (iod has laid upon me not what I sought but what He willed, 1 pray that tie Who has assigned me this life will guide me through the life He has assigned me." He soon found that his fears h.id Ix-en more prophetic than his friends" hop«'s. When he returned, I'tolemais presented the ap|>earance of a city taken by storm. Nothing was to l>e heard in the public places but the groans of men, the screams of women, and the cries of boys. New instruments of punishment had been introduced by .\ndronicus, racks and thumbscrews and machines for torturing the , feet, the ears, the lips, the nose. At first Synesius remonstrated ; his remon- strances were treated with contempt. He reproved ; his reproofs made the governor I more furious. His house was b«"set with I crowds demanding sympathy and protection. He could not move without seeing and hearing the sutTerings of his people. To add to his grief " the dearest of his children died.' With a heart wrung with anguish he turned for con- solation to Ciod. " But what was the greatest of my calamities, and what made life itself hopeless to me, 1 who had hitherto alwa)** ' been successful in prayer, now for the tirst time found that I prayed in vain." He had accepted the office of a bishop in times of difficulty without being sulficiently m sympathy with the prevailing spirit of the Christian church, and the consciousness of : this increased his natural self-distrust. The ' calm serenity of thought, with which in happier years he had held communion with Ciod, was gone. As he prayed, the calamities of his house and country rose up before him as a sign that he had, by his un- worthiness, profaned the mysteries of (kxI. The soul, distracted by conflicting feelings, I grief and anger, shame and fear, could not rise above the earth. He prayed, an. I (...d was afar off. M first it s«-eined that Ip sink in despair under th«-sc accu:. sorrows ; there were even thoughts of He was roused by fr«-sh tidings of .\n<lr i excesses. Kver ready to assist othrr-> 1 misfortunes, however great his own im, he heard the people murmuring that ih. . ■•■ ;• forsaken by their bishop. Srlf-distrwst gave wav to indignation. Once rousrd hr acted with vigour and judgment. He wrote to influential friends at Constantinoplr. drtailin* the cruelties of An<lr<jnicus, and rarnrstly pleading for hi« recall. Then, without wait- ing the result of his appeal to thr «uthontic« of the state, be proceeded tuprououucc agauut 926 SYNESIUS the offender the judgment of the church by a formal act of excommunication. Before this letter of excommunication was sent, Andronicus professed his penitence for his crimes, and entreated that the sentence against him might not be published — a strong proof of the power which the sentence of ex- communication then exercised on men's minds. Synesius unwillingly yielded to his entreaties and to the representations of the other bishops of the province. Relieved from this moment- ary fear, Andronicus soon returned to his old cruelties, and the sentence of excommunica- tion was definitely pronounced. A short time passed and Sjmesius wrote in triumph to Constantinople thanking his friends for pro- curing the dismissal of Andronicus. Another short interval, and Synesius was writing to the patriarch of Alexandria to implore his good offices for the fallen governor. " Justice has perished among men ; formerly Androni- cus acted unjustly, now he suffers unjustly." Freed for a time from these secular cares, Synesius could attend to other episcopal duties. In a long letter addressed to Theo- philus he has given a very interesting account of a visitation tour, undertaken atTheophilus's request in the course of the same year, through a part of the country still exposed to the incursions of the barbarians, to the villages of Palaebisca and Hydrax on the confines of the Libyan desert. Near the village of Hydrax, on the summit of a precipitous hill, stood the ruins of an old castle, much desired by the people as a place of retreat in invasion. Their bishop Paul had obtained it for them by a surreptitious consecration, turning it into a church ; but Synesius refused to sanction that, and insisted on a regular purchase. The next subject which occupied his atten- tion was one of the worst evils resulting from the misgovernment of the country. He found that even bishops were often accused by other bishops, not that justice should be done but to give the commanders of the armies oppor- tunities for extorting money. Then Synesius asked the patriarch's advice as to certain bishops who did not choose to have a fixed diocese, wandering to wherever they thought they would be best off. The time during which he held his bishopric was so short, apparently only three years, and marked by so many public and private calamities, that we possess but few letters which throw much light upon his life. His principal correspondent at this period was Theophilus, whom he always addresses with a reverence and affection which may surprise those who have only known that prelate as the persecutor of Chrysostom, and which are the more important because Synesius, even in writing to Theophilus, professed his admira- tion for Chrysostom. Equally noticeable is the unqualified obedience which Synesius, though himself metropolitan of Pentapolis, cheerfully yielded to the " apostolic throne " of Alexandria. " It is at once my wish and my duty to consider whatever decree comes from that throne binding upon me," he \vrites to Theophilus. The unquestionable superior- ity of Alexandria to all the cities of E. Africa had given to the patriarch of Alexandria an authority over their bishops unsurpassed, even TARACHUS if it was rivalled, by the supremacy of Rome in that day over the bishoprics of Italy. Of the bp. of Rome, and of the affairs of Rome, there is no mention in any of his letters — one of the many proofs his works afford of the greatness of the separation, in government and in feeling, between the Eastern and Western empires. Though thoroughly well versed in all the branches of Greek literature, he never alludes to any Latin author. It is almost impossible to resist the belief that he was ignorant of the Latin language. Still some notice of the crowning calamity, when Rome yielded to Alaric without a struggle, could hardly have failed to appear in his writings, had not the misfortunes of Pentapolis been so great as to absorb all his thoughts. In the winter Synesius lost " the last com- fort of his life, his little son." The blow was too much for the father already crushed by the cares of his office and the misery of his country. As death drew near his thoughts were curiously divided between the two objects to which in life he had given his faith. His last letter was addressed to Hypatia. His last poem was a prayer to Christ. The pagan philosopher retained to the end the reverence and affection of the Christian bishop. " You have been to me a mother, a sister, a teacher, and in all these relationships have done me good. Every title and sign of honour is your due. As for me, my bodily sickness cornes from sickness of the mind. The recollection of the children who are gone is slowly killing me. Would to God I could either cease to live, or cease to think of my children's graves." In the hymn to Christ Synesius added an epilogue to the poems in which he had already recounted the drama of his soul. The actor who began so confident of success ended with a humble prayer for pardon. " O Christ, Son of God most high, have mercy on Thy servant, a miserable sinner, who wrote these hymns. Release me from the sins which have grown up in my heart, which are implanted in my polluted soul. O Saviour Jesus, grant that hereafter I may behold Thy divine glory." So in gloom and sadness, cheered by the Christian hope of the resurrection, closed the career of one who in his time had played many parts, who had been soldier, statesman, orator, poet, sophist, philosopher, bishop, and in all these characters had deserved admira- tion and love. A cheap popular Life of Synesius of Cyrene, by A. Gardner, is pub. by S.P.C.K. in tlieir Fathers for Eng. Readers. [t.r.h.] Tarachus, also called Victor, martyr, an Isaurian from Claudiopolis, and a soldier, who left the army on the outbreak of Diocletian's persecution. The Acts of Tarachus and his companions Probus and Andronicus are one of the most genuine pieces of Christian antiquity. They were first pub. by Baronius in his Annals, under a.d. 290, but from an imperfect MS. Ruinart brought out the most complete ed. in Greek and Latin from a com- parison of several MSS. in the Colbertine Library. The martyrs were arrested a.d. 304 in Pompeiopolis, an episcopal city of Cilicia. TATIANUS TATIANUS »27 They were publicly examined and tortured at The chronol..(;y ..| Ins literary carerr i* more three principal cities— Tarsus, Mopsuestia. or less ronnrcted with the in.irlvrdoiii uJ and Anazarbiis. where they were put to death Justin c. ib\-H>7. Manv critics coti%idrr and their relics carefully preserved. The Justin's .-IMocy and the (Vu/io t<i have b«>cn Acts are often quoted by Le Hlant {l.es AcUs composed about the \ame time (rl. /ahn. p. des martyrs) to illustrate his argument. Thus. 279 ; liarn.ick. I fit* u. I'ntfnuih. 1. 6/ifA. d. p. 9, he notes the sale of copies of the IViKon- altchrist. I. it. i. p. i<>0), if. a.i». lio-ijj. sular .\cts by one oi the othcials for two hundred denarii. He also illustrates by them the judicial formularies, proconsular circuits, etc. (cf. pp. 27-2g, 32, 63, 68, 72, 74, etc.). They suffered under a president Numerianus Othirs place the Ord/io .liter the death of Iu>lin (l.ij-litfcHit HI Conlftnp. Rf\-. Mav. 1H77 ; Hil^jenfeld, Kflier^f',chi(hte. p. 3<>s . l-unk. /ur Chronol. Tattan'i m TulunKen / hfol. (Jtuitlal- schrtfl for 1S.S3, p. J 19, etc.). Ihe dillrrrnce Ma.\imus(Ruinart, .4r/dSim:. 454-4Qi)- l^-TS.) in opinion turns very much u|H»n the e%timalc Tatlanus (1) the ".Apologist," " born in the formed of a passage in llusi'biU'. (//. f. iv. !«»)• laiid of .\ssyria " (Oratio, c. xlii.), i.e. E. of the ,\ similar want of unanimity prevails a» t.. Ihe Tigris, in a land incorporated, under Trajan, place of compoMtion of the Oralto. Ilarnack with Mesopotamia and Armenia into one (pp. i<>S-r9<)) ari{ues from its latiKuage that it Roman province of Syria (Zahn, Forsch. x. was not written at Rome, where /ahn( p. 280) Gesch. d. N.T. lichfn Kanons ; 1. Theil, places it. " Tatian'sniatessaron," p. 268). Of his parents, date of birth (c. no, Zahn ; c. 120, Funk), and early training, little or nothing is known. In S>Tia were Clreek official representatives of Rome, merchants, and residents. Among such. A. 1 he Oralio. -The Oraito. by which he i% best known, Ix-longs to that part i>( latian't the most interesting and ditlirult of the t.rerk apologetic writings. The title, TariOJ-oe w^. 'E\\7)»'at, terse and abrupt, is ch.irarteristic of stationed in the .\ssyrian district, may have life which is reckoned orthodox. It is one of been the parents of Tatian ; persons perhaps the treatise. Tatiaii did not care for style, of birth and wealth (cf. Oratio, c. xi.). The lad, 1 Christianity was not, in his opinion, de|>endent Semitic as regards the land of his birth, but ' upon it. It was absent from the Scripture* possibly Greek by parentage and name, was which had fascinated him ; it Ixdoiiged to the educated in the Greek teaching open to him Creek culture he had left behind. Vet he at (Ora/io, c. xlii.). As he grew older his iiupiiring times shews himself no novice in the art he mind led him to a personal examination of condemned. C. xi. is a noble piece of declam- the systems of his teachers (c. xxxv.). A [ ation ; c. xix. a scathing denunciation of the peripatetic by disposition if not in philosophy, , false, passing into a grave appeal in behalf of he " wandered over many lands, learning from the true. He can draw word-pictures, eg- no man," but with eyes open and ears un- those of the actor (c. xxii.), the wealthy patron stopped, listening, observing, hearing, ponder- of the arena (ih.), and the Cynic philov.pher ing, until he abajidoned the learning that had (c. xxv.), which are as clever and lifelike as made him a pessimist, and became a teacher ; those of Tertullian. The ihalw has two of that " Word of God " which had taught principal divisions introduced by a preface (cc. him a holier faith and a happier life (cc. xxvi. i.-iv.). Div. i. states the Christian doctrim-* xlii.). He notes that the simplicity of style 1 and their intrinsic excellence and sui>rriority of Holy Scripture first attracted and then , to heathen opinions (cc. v.-xxx.) ; div. li. dc- converted him (c. xxix.). The "barbaric [i.e. I monstrates their superior antiquity (cc. xxxi.- Christian] writings, ■ upon which he stumbled xli.) ; the whole clos<'s with a f«w word* by chance, charmed him by their modest autobiographical in character (c. xlii). diction and easy naturalness. He sofm dis- Tatian opens (c. i.) by deprecating as un- covered that these writings were older than the oldest remains of Greek literature, and in their prophecies and precepts diviner and truer than the oracles and practiri-s of the must powerful gods or the purest philo^iphers. Tatian's information about himself ceases with the autobiographical allusions and state- ments in the Oratio. .According to Irenaeus {adv. Haer. i. c. 28 ; cf. Eus. //. /•-". iv. 29) he was a hearer (d»voar/j?) of Justin Martyr; and the Oratio indicates that he and the " most admirable" Justin were at Koine together, and were both exposed to the hostility of the Cynic Crescens (cc. xviii. xix.). Tatian's Christian life, like that of Tertul (c. reasonable the contemptuous aiiimo-,itv of the Greeks towards " B.irbarians." and point* out that there was no practice or ru-.toiu current among them which they did not owe to "Barbarians." ()iifirol..gy, astrology, aug- uries from birds or s.icrihees had come to thrm from ext.-rnal sourc.-s. lO Habvloiiia IhrV owed astronomy, to IVrsia magic, to l-gvpt geometry, to I'hiM-nicia instruction by lettrri. Orpheus had taught th.iii jMH-try. song, and initiation into the mysteries, tlie Tuscan* sculpture, the l!gyptians history, rustic Phrygians the harmony of the sliej.herd's \>i\x; Tyrrhenians the triiin|>rt, the I vrlot>r* the smith's art. and .\tossa. ipirrn of the Persian*, liari, divides into pre-heretical and heretical the method of joining letter-tablets (*«•«• into* periods. So long as Justin was alive, says note). They should not lH)ast of thnr excel- Jrenaeus he brought out no * blasphemy " ; lent diction when they importetl into it t.ar- after his' death it was different. baric " expr.ssion and maintaine*! no unil.«-m- The testimony of his pupil Khodon (Eus. ity of oronunriation. Of l>«>ric .A"»c, H E V 13) leaves the impression that Tatian Aeolian. Ionian, which wa* the real (.rc«-k for some time after Justin's death worked and Further, let them not lM,a*t whilr they us^d taueht at Rome busying himself with his rhetoric to »ul>*«rrye injustice and »ycophancv. "book of questions " ^r^.o^\mdru>' fi^,'i\>o.U poetry to depict battle^ the amour* of r-Js dealing with what was " hidden and obscure and the corruption of the «,u I. in the sacred writings " {t.e. of O.T ). C. v.. one of the mmt Important (doc d2g TAtlANUS trinally) and difficult in the Oratio, opens thus: " In the beginning was God. We have been taught that the beginning is the power of the Logos. For the Lord of all, being Himself the substance (vTroaraan) of all, in so far that creation had not yet taken place, was alone ; but in so far as He was Himself all power, and the substance of things visible and invisible, all things were with Him : (and thus) with Him by Logos-power (5td XoyiKiii Swdfieu^), the very Logos Himself, Who was in Him, subsisted (i^n-^orryo-e). By the simple will of God the Logos springs forth, and not proceed- ing forth without cause {Kara k€vov), becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him we recognize as the beginning of the world. He was born by participation, not by scission (/card )X€picr/x6i> ov Kara dtroKOTnii') ; for He Who proceeds by scission is separated from the first, but He Who has proceeded by par- ticipation and has accepted a part in the administration of the world (rb . . , oi<ovofxia% TTjv a'ipeaiv TrpoaXajSdv), hath not rendered Him defective from Whom He was taken. Just as many fires are lighted from one torch, but the light of the first torch is not lessened through the kindling of the many, so the Logos coming forth from the power of the Father hath not made Him Who begat Him without Logos (dXoyof)." Tatian upholds the belief in the resurrection of the body at the end of all things. His argument is briefly : " There was a time when I did not exist : I was born and came into existence. There will be a time when (through death) I shall not exist ; but again I shall exist, just as before I was not, but was afterwards born [cf. Tertull. Apol. xlviii.]. Let fire destroy my flesh, let me be drowned, or torn to pieces by wild beasts, I am laid up in the treasure-chambers of a wealthy Lord. God Who reigneth can, when He will, restore to its pristine state that which is visible to Him alone." In c. vii. Tatian returns to the Logos, that he may demonstrate His work as regards angels and men. The thoughts of the better land and of God's revelation by the prophets lead Tatian to God's revelation of Himself in the Incarnation. That doctrine he treats in a manner likely to be admitted by a Greek, if very differently from the way (e.g.) Justin Martyr presented it to the Jews. We are not mad, he says (c. xxi.), nor do we utter idle tales when we say that God was made (7e7o^^i'ai) in the form of man. The mythology of the Greeks was full of such appearances — an Athene taking the form of a Deiphobus, a Phoebus that of a herdsman, etc., etc. Further, what did so frequent an expression as the origin of the gods imply but that they were mortal ? The difficulty attendant upon the heathen belief was not removed by the tendency to resolve all myths and gods into allegory. Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise on Homer, in- vited men to believe that the Hera or Athene or Zeus, to whom they consecrated enclosures and groves, were simply natural beings or elemental arrangements. That, argues Ta- tian, was to surrender their divinity ; a siur- render he freely endorses, for he will not admit TATIANUS any comparison between the Christian God and deities who " wallow in matter and mud." Tatian (c. xxii.) lashes with ridicule the teaching offered to and accepted by the Greeks, the teaching of the theatre and arena. It might be urged that such places were fre- quented and delighted in by the uncultured only. Tatian therefore places the philosophers also at the bar of judgment, and his contempt for their teaching is only equalled by his ridi- cule of their appearance (c. xxv.). He denounces them as tuft-hunters and gluttons, to whom philosophy was simply a means of getting money. No two of them agreed. One followed the teaching of Plato, a disciple of Epicurus opposed him. The scholar of Democritus reviled the pupil of Aristotle. Why, protests Tatian, do you who are so inharmonious fight us Christians who are at least harmonious ? " Your philosophers maintain that God has a body : I maintain that He is without a body ; that the world shall be often consumed by fire, I once for all ; that Minos and Rhadamanthus will be the judges of mankind, I God Himself (cf. c. vi.) ; that the soul alone is immortal, I the body together with the soul." We, he con- tinues, do but follow the Logos of God, why do you hate us ? We are not eaters of human flesh ; the charge is false. It is among you that Pelops the beloved of Poseidon is made a banquet for the gods, that Saturn devours his own children, and Zeus swallows Metis. After all, the philosophers do but make a boast of language taken from others (c. xxvi.), like the jackdaw strutting about in borrowed plumes. The reading of their books is like struggling through a labyrinth, the readers must be like the pierced cask of the Danaids. Why should they affirm that wisdom was with them only ? The grammarians were at the bottom of all this folly ; and philosophers who parcelled out wisdom to this and that system-maker knew not God and did but destroy each other. "Therefore," Tatian concludes scornfully, " you are all nothing — blind men talking with deaf ; handling builder's tools but not knowing how to build ; preaching but not practising ; swaggering about in public but hiding your teaching in comers. We have left you because this is your character. We can have nothing more to do with your instructions. We follow the word of God." Tatian then explains (c. xxix.) how he be- came a Christian. It was not through want of knowledge of what he was leaving. He had been initiated into the (Eleusinian) mysteries, and had made trial of every kind of religious worship. The result had sickened him. Among the Romans he had found the Latiarian Jupi- ter delighting in human gore, Diana Aricina similarly worshipped, and this or that demon systematically urging on to what was evil. He withdrew to seek by some means to dis- cover the truth. "As," he says, "I was earnestly considering this I came across certain barbarian writings, older in point of antiquity than the doctrines of the Greeks, and far too divine to be marked by their errors. What persuaded me in these books was the simplicity of the language, the inartificial style of the writers, the noble explanation of creation, the TATIANUS predictions of the future, the pxc<>Ileuce of tlie preci'pts. aiui the assortiou of the- ^jov.tu- ment of all by One Beiuc. Mv soul beiuK I'jus taught of r.od I understand how the writiuK's of the Gentiles lead to condemnation, but the sacred Scriptures to freedom from this world's slavery, liberating us from thousands of tyrants, and giving us. not iiuleetl what we had not received, but what we had once re- ceived but had lost through error." Tatian. with all the energy of a convert. . loudly proclaiujed the truth which satisfied him. He goes on to shew (cc. xxxi.-xli.) that the Christian religion was a " philosophv " far more ancient than that of the Greeks. He compares Homer and Moses, " the one the oldest of poets and historians, the other the founder of our barbarian wisdom." The comparison proves the Christian tenet* older than those of the Greeks, and even than the invention of letters. After enumerating numerous variant opinions as to the date, parentage, and poetry of Homer, he rem.irks upon such discordant testimnny as prnvnig the history untrue ; so difTerent from the unanimity comnion among Christians. " We reject everything." he says, "which rests upon human opinion ; we obey the conimand- ments of God arid follow the law of the Father of immortality. The rich among us follow philosophy, and our poor are taught gratui- tously. We receive all who wish to be taught, aged women and striplings : every age is respected by us. . . . We do not test them by I their looks, nor judge them by their outward i appearance. In body they may be weak, but ' in mind they are strong. . . . What we do keep at a distance is licentiousness and falseh(X)d." His mention of the women who received Christian instruction leads him to a digression in defence of them. The (ientiles scolT«'d. he says, at them, and alleged that the Christians talked nonsense among them. Tatian retorts (cc. xxxiii. xxxiv.) by pointing to the disgrace the Greeks cast upon themselves, not only by their unbecoming conduct to women gener- ally, but by the statues they erected to coiut- esans and wanton poetesses. " All our women," bursts forth Tatian, " are chaste ; and our maidens at their distaffs sing nobler songs about God than a Sappho." The Greeks should repudiate the lesion of immor- ality which their statues had immortalized and the foul practices inculcated by indecent writers, and turn to Christianity which en- joined truth and purity of thought and life. " I do not." says Tatian (c. xxxv.). " speak of these things as having merely heard about them. I have travelled much ; I have studied your philosophy {al. rhetoric, cf. lius. H. E. iv. 1 6, and Otto's note here), and y<mr arts and inventions. At Rome I saw the multitude of statues you have collected there. And, as the result. I have turned from Kotnan boastfulness, Athenian exaggeration, ill- connected doctrines, to the barbaric Christian philosophy." He now returns to the subject started in c. xxxi., after one word in deprecation of the sneer at himself: "Tatian, the man so superior to the Greeks, so superior to the numberless teachers of philosophy, ha* opened up a new vein of learning — the doc- TATIANUS 0:>tt trine5 of the barb.irian* ! " WJicther Homer W.1S c.ntrmpor.irv wnh the TroJ4n w,»r m a s«»ldier under Ag.imrmn.>n. or rvm livwl \h>' fore the invention ,>f Irttrrs. M. >%«••» vrt Iivr«| long before cither th.- biiildiiig or taking nt Troy. In pr.n.f of this. rati.iii apjyraU to ih« Chaldeans. PhiH-niriaiis. and i:t:v|>luii«. /• r. BcT.Kus. the Babylonian historian. "4 n»mt comiH-t.Mit authority. ' sixikr of the wat* oJ N'ebuchadnezz.ir against the I'h.K-ninan* and Jews which happened 70 vear* b«-forr the Persian rule, and l.mg after the agr of SUncx. Ph.HMiician histr.rians. such a* The.Mioluv Hvpsicrates, and M.^-hus had referred to events connect.-d with Hiram of Tvrc. whm« date w.is somewhere alxnit thr rroj.»n w^r. Both Solomon and Hiraiii lived lon^' aJtrr .Moses. The Kgvptiaiis w.rr not.-<l for the accuracy of their chronicles, and I'tolrmv. the priest of .Mendes, spoke of the dep-irture of the Jews fmin Kgypt as having takm place under the leadership of Mos<-s under king Aukmu. This king, according to him. lived in thr time of the .\rgive king. Inachus, after who>.- r«ign, dating 20 generations, the taking of Troy wai reached. Therefore, if .Mos«-s was a contmi- porary of Inachus. he lived some 4(«> year* before the Trojan war. It was not till after the time of Inachus that the mo-it illu-triou* deeds of gods and men in (ireecr were com- mitted to writing and became known. Such records, therefore, were far less anrunt than the time of .Moses. Tati.m sums up (c. xl.) by affirming it self-evident that .Mos«-s was of far greater antiquity than the ancient heriH~*, wars, or gods (demons). .Men ought, there- fore, to believe the more ancient authority in preference to the (;re.-ks, who ha.l Uirrowetl from .Moses, as from a spring, without acknow- ledgment {al. unconsciously) ; and 111 many cases had perverted what they t<Mik. .Mos4-h was. moreover, older th.in all the writer* before Homer. <".»,•. th.iii I.inus. the teacher o( Hercules, who lived in the geiier.ition Ixfore the Trojan war, than Orpheus, wlio was a contemporary with Hercules, and than th« wisest of the wise men of (ireece. en. .Minos — so famous for his wisdom, shrewdiu-ss, and legislative powers— who lived in the nth generation after Inachus ; Lycurgus, lh« Lacedemonian lawgiver, who was Utrn Ioiik after the taking of Troy ; Draco. Sol<iii. Pythagoras, and thi>se s«-ven wis<- men. the oldest of whom lived alxMit the 50th of thoMi Olympiads which began alxmt 400 years after the taking of Troy. The tre.»tis<' is a defence of Chrittianity rather than of ( hristians. and not v> much a defence of doctrines as an answer <»r oration to those who sneered at them. He depict* Christianity a* contrasting by it* gixxlnr^*. wisdom, and truth with the hrathenittit which revelled in vice, foolishnc**. and rrrer. I'niike other ajxilogists. there is little care to diicus* Thyrstean bani|uets (cf. c. x»v.), or refute want of patrioiitin (c. iv.) Hi* weapons are weaj>on% of orteiicr rather thaa of defence. In Tatian "barbaric {t.e. Chri*- tian) philosophy " dares to tarry thr war into the enemv's camp, and scorn is turiie<l ufnta the scorners. It it a typical sjwTimen of the clas* to which the IrrtMo tiffttitium Pktia%9- phorum of Hkrmiaa aUu bclonfi. 6» 930 TATIANUS The Opinions of Tatian. — (a) God (see c. iv.)- — With Tatian, as with Justin, God, not contemplated as He is in His nature but as revealed in His works, is the starting-point of all Christian philosophy. Tatian's doctrine about the creation is in c. v. In the creation itself he recognizes two stages (c. ii.) : (a) mat- ter, shapeless and unformed, is put forth {wpo^f^Xrj/xfVT]) by God ; and (/3) the world, separated from this matter, is fashioned into what is full of beauty and order, though eventually to be dissolved by fire (c. xxv.). {b) The Logos (see c. v.)- — The relation between God (6 deairdrris) and the Logos Who subsists in Him, the Hypostasis, is conceived from a different point of view, and set forth in different terms from those of Justin. With Tatian the Logos springs forth (Trpoir-qda.) by the Will of God. The process of begetting, the relationships of Father and Son, and the worship due to the Son, are not brought TATIANUS wickedness " (c. xv.). Though material, none of the demons possess flesh ; their structure is spiritual like that of fire or air (ib.). (e) Man. — Tatian recognizes the three parts of body, soul, and spirit. At the fall man lost the spirit or highest nature, which had in it immortality (c. vii.). As the angels were cast down from heaven, so man was driven forth from earth, "yet not out of this earth, but from a more excellent order of things than exists here now." Tatian would seem to place Paradise above our earth ; he describes it (c. XX.) as one of the better aeons unaffected by that change of seasons which is productive of various diseases, as partaking of a perfect temperature, as possessing endless day and light, and as unapproachable by mortals such as we are. Man, though deprived of the spirit, must aim at recovering his former state. Body and soul are left him. The soul is composite : it is the bond of the flesh ; yet forward. The inward communion between \^^° that which encloses the soul is the flesh them which carries with it these truths indeed expressed by the deep phrase <tw airrip 5id \o-yu-^5 5l'^'a.^leoJS avrbi /cat 6 \670s ; but the outward exhibition of this communion — the " springing forth " — is suggestive of emanation rather than of begetting. The distinction between the X670S evdidOeros and the X6>o? ■irpo(popiK6s, so strongly expressed by the apologist Theophilus (ii. 10), is more than visible. Tatian, in fact, presents the Logos as the personification of an abstraction. (c) The Holy Spirit is evidently with Tatian a distinct personal Being. He does not, as The soul cannot appear without a body, nor can the flesh rise again without the soul. Faith is a necessity for knowledge of divine things ; 6 in<jTevwv iiri-yvihaeTai (c. xix.) ; faith and knowledge together help towards the victory over sin and death. Men, after the throwing away (aTroiio\r}v) of immortality, have conquered death by the death which is through faith (cf. c. xi. : " Die to the world ! Live to God ! ") ; and through repentance a call has been granted to those who (according to God's word) are but a little lower than the <» u.^uuct pci.un^ii racing, n^ uoes nui, as ^"^^^f (^-/.y;)- Through laith. and as ^he Justin Upol. i. 60), speak directly of His share I °^J^?,^ ^^ .^^'V^, Tatian proclaims that God in the creation ; he rather leads up to His work ^'^^ ^o™, '" ^he form of a man (c. xxi. , and and office as "the Minister of the suffering i "P'^^J^^ ."t.^.^ie .Holy Spirit as the minister of God " (c. xiii.), when he would present its bearing upon the nature of man. Stalling from the initial positions, " God is Spirit," and the Logos "a Spirit born of the Father," Tatian recognizes two varieties of Spirit : (a) " the spirit which pervades matter, inferior to (^3) the more Divine Spirit " (c. iv.). To the Spirit is attributed pre Abiding with the just and locked in the em- brace of the soul {<Tvp.ir\eK6iJ.evov ry i'^XV)' He proclaims to other souls by means of pro- phecies that which is concealed. He uses the I Prophets as His organ (cf. c. xx.). This action Tatian has also attributed to "the Power of the j Logos " (c. vii.). Perhaps, as with Justin, this title of the Logos, i] Suva/Jus, defines for Tatian the meaning of the irvev/xa (cf. IL Cor. iii. 17). The Spirit is the Divine Power of the Logos. j (d) Angelology and Demonology. — Of good angels Tatian says nothing ; but he speaks as ' strongly as Justin of evil angels, though he souls in his conception. Though the flesh presents their work and ways in different j were destroved by fire or wild beasts, or dis- language and (in some respects) from a : persed through rivers or seas, " L" says different point of view. When expelled from Tatian, "am laid up in the storehouses of a heaven the fallen angels or demons lived with j wealthy Lord. God the King will, when He animals. Some of these they placed— the i pleases, restore to its former state my substance dog, the bear, the scorpion, etc.— in the hea- , which is visible to Himself alone " (c. vi.). vens as objects of worship. Of demons, Tatian \ As regards free will, Tatian uses even more recognizes two classes. Receiving alike their ' emphatic language than Justin (e.g. Apol. i. constitution from matter, and possessing the j 43). He opposes the Scriptural (and Platonic) spirit which comes from it, few only turned j belief in free will to the fatalism of philosophers to what was purer, the many chose what was , (cc. viii.-x.), and while he pours scorn upon licentious and gluttonous (c. xii.) ; they be- j their views, pens a touching appeal to them came the very " effulgences of matter and I as men " not created to die " (see c. xi. end). the God Who hath suffered {toi' diaKovov rev ■weTTovdoTos deov, c. xiii.). If he never men- tions the names Jesus or Christ, it is because the facts of the Incarnation and Passion would commend themselves independently of names to Gentiles, to whom such facts were illus- trated by their mythology (cf. Justin, Apol. i. tv,^ c„- t • *4. u . A- u\- I 21). Faith animates the famous passage on the ,Spirit IS attributed^ ^l^.^f]': P°A^I^- | the soul (c. xiii.), and especially in connexion with the resurrection. " We have faith in this doctrine," he exclaims (c. v.) ; but he does not rest his reasons on the resurrection of Christ (as St. Paul), but on an argument which may have suggested the more elaborate reasoning of Tertullian (Apol. c. xlviii.) : There was a time when as man he was not ; after a former state of nothingness he was born. Again, there would be a time when he would die ; and again there would be a time when he should exist again. There was no- thing of metempsychosis or transmigration of TATIANUS Christian Pnic/ic^.— Though Tatian docs not speak of his co-religiouists as Christians, but accepts willingly the contemptuous expression " barbarians," it is the diKtrines of Christ which alone have, in his opinion, raised them above a world deluded by the trickeries of frenzied demons (c. .\ii.),'and wallowing in matter and mud (c. xxi.). Where the old nature has been laid aside, men have not only apprehended God (c. xi.), but through a knowledge of the True One have remodelled (nerap^vOniidf) their lives (c. v.). Holy baptism and meinbersliip in the church did not enter into his .irguincnt. A passing allu- sion to the Holy Kucharist perhaps underlies his indignant protest against the frequent defamation that Christians indulged in Thyes- tean banquets (c. xxv.). He seems to prefer advancing the great help which the Scriptures had been to himself, and might be to his philosophical opponents. " Barbaric " though these Scriptures were, they were in the O. T. portion both older and more divine, more full of humility and of deep knowledge, more marked by excellence and unity than any writings claimed by the Greeks (c. xxix.j. These "' divine writings " made men " lovers of God " (c. xii.) ; and men thus God-taught were helped by them to break down the slavery in the world, and gain back what they had once received, but had lost through the deceit of their spiritual foes (c. xxix.). The O.T. seems to have greatly attracted Tatian. It probably formed the basis of the lost work TTpodXrj^.dTuji' liifi\lov mentioned by Rhodon ; and in his attempt to collect and solve O.T. difficulties, Tatian was among the first, if not the first, of Christian commenta- tors. The Oratio shews that he knew well the Gospels, .\cts, and Pauline Epistles. H reference to O. and N. T. is more marked by allusion than by direct quotation, the cause is the well-known practice of the apologists, who usually abstain from such quotations when writing to Gentiles who would have allowed little authority to them. Tatian's references to St. John's (iospel are, however, both exceptional and indisputable, and testify to a widespread knowledge of that (iospel at the period in question. Independently of co- incidences of exposition, three passages may be specified : Tatian. St. John. Ch. iv. irvivna o «co? Ch. iv. 24. wwi>»a u »«0<. . Ch. xiii. i|(7ltoTloTO(^<.<^ou Ch. i. 5. to <>w« tV Tp KOTaAaji^om. atotuf^int. Kat t| fficorta Ch xix. 7701TO i-ir" avrov Ch. 1. 3. nana ii' a aiiToi, Kai x-P'? a^"" t-)r.«TO, ««. Y«-yon»' oiitt if. J"*"* avrov fycwTO oi>4« .V. ( Wfttcoll & Hort.) Of these the second is prefaced by rh tlfnf- nivuv, the expression which in N.T. introduces the Scriptures (cf. Luke ii. 24 ; Acts ii. 16, xiii. 40 ; Kom. iv. i«). The third passage is punctuated by Tatian in the manner invari- ably followed by the early Christian writers (contrast the textus receptus. ovS^ fy i itfooty). The coiacidence is, as noted by Up. I.ightfoot, TATIANUS lt3| remarkable, (or the words arc rsirrmelv tiinpU in theiiiselvi->. I hnr ordrr and adaptation give uniqueness to the rxprrssion. 11. The IhaltManm. <i) //n/ory.— The history of the rrcoverv of (his w<ick It sulhciently romantic. In the liirraturr o( the Western church there 1* lui srrvirrable testimony to it till the middle o( dtb crnt. ; in the Kastern rhurch luisrbiut (tjig-j^o) is the only (irerk writer of the lir»t (our cents, who givi-s any iii(orinalioii alxiut il. It was apparently (see CoJ*t /-MUmui, ed. kanke. 1S08, ix. 1) mere chance which put into the hands of bp. Victor of Capua (t J54) a Latin book ..( the (..^pels without title <« author's name, but evidently rompile<l (r<im the four canonical books. Thii unknown work excited his interest ; and se.»rrhiin{ in vain the I-atin Christian literature <>( the past, he turned to the (ireek, and (ound in l':u%<-biut two notices of Harmonies, (ii) In the Irtier to Carpianus the harmony of .\minonius of Alexandria (ird cent.) was descril>ed. Itt principle was that of comparison. The G<>«|>el of St. .Matthew was followed continuously, and the passages — and only those— from the other Ciospels which tallied with the text o( St. Matthew were referred to at inserted in the margin or in parallel columns. This excluded the greater part of St. John's (•<>s|>el and much of St. Luke's. The Harmony was f<ir private use. not for the public service of the church. Whether or not the descriptive title given to it in Husebius -rA iii Ttaaif>um fi''a->y\joi»— was that ol the church historiaa or of .\inmonius remains undetermined, (h) In his Church History (iv. 29. 6), Euscbius refer* to Tatian as having composed a " s<irt of connexion or compilation, I know not how, of the Gospels, and called it the l)talf\%aton " iavva<ftnOiV Tn>a »oi tfi'»'a")urYi)r oi''« oJ3' 6rwt Twr tuayytXiwi' <rv»fO(i% Cf. Up. Lightfoot in ConUmp. Rev. May 1877 ; Zahn, i. pp. 14. 15) ; and he adds that this work was current in hi« day. Its principle was ainalgaination. not comparison, \ictor came to the conclusion that his unknown work was substantially the DiaUssaron of Tatian. This acute vrrdici — purged of some unimportant errors (see light* f(H)t, I.e. ; /ahn. i. pp. 2. 3)— has survived the difficulties which a comparison ■ if (heCuJ^i hut- I dfnsii with the Dtatf^'-aron at first prevnted. I A notice in the treativon Heresies, written I in 453 by Fheodoret (t 457-4 V*). I>p.<'( Cyrrhu* on the 1-uphrates, is the tirst ilrhnitr rvitlriire ' to the Dtatessaron alter (he time o( Lusebius. The ideiititication o( it by Lpiphaiiius (Hurr. xlvi. I) with the <t<ts|>el according to (he Hebrews is an earlier tcsdinoiiy iti p<>iii( of date (Li>iphanius t 403), but is cmnrrtrd with a blunder which, (hough capable o( rxplaiia- tion. somewhat dlsqiiallhe> (he e\ ideiice. Testimony to (he l}ial*s\aron coinr« ralhrr from the SvTiac-sifeakinx church o( (he hast (han from (he <irerk. The.Kloret »av» i»f Ta(ian : " He composed the <.<^|>el which It called Dtatfisaron. cutting out the geiiealoKle* and such other passagi-s as »hew tnr |.or«i tu have been born o( (he sre<I of David a(ter (lie flesh. This work wa» in use no( only ani<>ii< persons belonging (o his m-c(, liu( alwi ain»<iK (hose who (oilow (he a|Mn(olic dor(rine, a« they did not jxrccivc the uU* hicl u( the 932 TATIANUS composition, but used the book in all sim- plicity on account of its brevity. And I myself found more than 200 such copies held in respect in the churches in our parts. All these 1 collected and put away, and I replaced them bv the Gospels of the four Evangelists " (i. 20. ' Cf. Lightfoot, I.e.; Zahn, i. p. 35). This passage indicates a considerable circula- tion of the Diatessaron in the bishop's diocese and neighbourhood. The language of that dis- trict was SvTiac (Zahn, i. pp. 39-44); therefore the book to which Theodoret refers was in Syriac and not Greek. This simple fact helps to explain the language of Eusebius and the blunder of Epiphanius ; and is itself illustrat- ed by the fact that the commentary on the Diatessaron was composed not by a Greek writer, but by Ephrem the Syrian. Epi- phanius's statement that Tatian on leaving Rome went into Mesopotamia, points to a visit to Edessa, the only place in the district where Christianity had secure footing (see Zahn, i. p. 282 and Excursus ii.) and a city famous for its schools. To the same Tatian rumour assigned the Diatessaron which some called " the Gospel according to the Hebrews." How did Epiphanius confound two works so essentially different ? Zahn's explanation seems perfectly satisfactory. The report was current that there was a Syriac book of the Gospels, called a Diatessaron, used in the Syrian churches, e.g. those of the diocese of Cyrrhus. Further, it was reported that there was another book of the Gospels, written in a kindred dialect and used e.g. at Beroea, i.e. in the neighbourhood of CvTrhus, by the half- heretical Nazareans. An outsider like Epi- phanius might very easily confound them and even identify them (i. p. 25. See VVace, Expositor for 1882, p. 165). Eusebius had not actually seen Tatian's Diatessaron. His statement, " I know not how " Tatian com- posed it, shews that he had not personally examined it, doubtless because of non- acquaintance or non-familiarity with S>Tiac. Theodoret's language implies, moreover, that the Diatessaron had been current in his diocese for a very long period ; and this is confirmed by an examination of the com- mentary of Ephrem S>Tus{t 378). Dionysius bar Salibi, bp. of Amida in Armenia Major (t 1171 Mosinger and Bickell, or 1207 Assemani and Lightfoot, see Zahn, i. p. 98, n. 4), states in the preface to his own commentary on St. Mark (quoted in Assemani, Bihl. Or. i. 57, ii. 159 ; see Mosinger, p. iii. ; Zahn, i. pp. 44, 99) that Tatian, the pupil of Justin, made a selection from the four Gospels (al. Evangelists), which he wove together into one Gospel, and called a Diatessaron, i.e. Miscellanies. This writing I St. Ephrem interpreted. Its opening words were, " In the beginning was the Word." An Armenian version (5th cent.) of Ephrem's Commentary was printed at Venice in 1836, but remained unserviceable until a MS. Latin and literal translation of the Armenian made by J. B. Aucher, one of the Mechitarist monks of that city, together with one of the Armenian codices, was placed in the hands of a Salzburg professor. Dr. G. Mosinger, who revised, cor- rected, and published t^e Latin text at Venice in 1876. Internal and external [ evidence (see Mosinger, pp. vi-x) combine in 1 TATIANUS justifying the conclusion that in this Latin translation of the Commentary of Ephrem is contained substantially Tatian's Diatessaron, and that from it Tatian's text may be in a great measure recovered. The bearing of Mosinger's translation upon the corresponding portion of the Codex Ful- densis may be briefly summarized. Dr. Wace (Expositor for i88r, pp. 128 seq.) may be said to have proved that Victor of Capua's Har- mony preserved in that Codex is not only very closely allied with Tatian's Diatessaron, but exhibits substantially the document on which Ephrem commented with some occasional alterations of order and few additions ; the difference being remembered that in Victor's Evangelium Tatian has been transferred into the Latin text of St. Jerome, whereas Ephrem commented upon him in a Syriac translation. The Mosinger text and the Codex proceed pari passu, and agree in order where that order is certainly remarkable. The very interesting fact is thus established, that Tatian's Diatessaron found acceptance in the West as well as the East, and was transferred rather than trans- lated into a Western version. This is not surprising. Theodoret's statement as to its popularity in his diocese may well account for its existence in a Latin form a century later. It remains to indicate the manner in which the Syriac Diatessaron passed into Latin form, such as is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (Zahn, i. pp. 298-328). The interesting fact comes out that this took place without the use of any intermediary Greek Diatessaron. In language and form the Latin Harmony is based upon St. Jerome's version ; and the differ- ences between the Codex and Tatian — -such as alterations in chronological order, expansions and abbreviations, coincidences and devia- tions — indicative as they are of dependence of the Codex upon Tatian, do not require the explanation which an intermediate Greek text would easily supply. The Codex Fuldensis must be dated between 383 (when Jerome put forward his revision of the translation of the Gospels) and 546 (when Victor of Capua wrote down the Latin Harmony preserved in the Codex) ; or, more approximately, c. 500 (Zahn, i. p. 310). Translations from Syriac into Greek existed in 4th cent. (Eus. H. E. i. 13, iv. 30), and the fact — with its conse- quence, a further translation from Greek into Latin — might be quoted in proof of a more early date than a.d. 500 for the Codex Fulden- sis ; but, independently of other reasons, the age of Victor of Capua has yielded proofs of direct translations from Syriac into Latin, which render appeals to a Greek Diatessaron unnecessary. Kihn (Theodor von Mopsuestia mid Junilius .Africanus ; see Zahn, i. p. 311) has shewn that in the days of Victor of Capua, Junilius, Quaestor sacri palatii at Constanti- nople (c. 545-552) sent to Primasius, bp. -of Adrumetum, a Latin introduction to the Scriptures (Instituta regularia divinae legis) which was a free rendering of a work written {c. 533-544) by the Syrian Nestorian Paul, a pupil and teacher of the school of Nisibis. {2) Recovery of the Diatessaron. — This is due to the energetic scholarship of Zahn. By the use principally of Ephrem's commentary (ed. Mosinger) and of the quotations in the TATIANUS Homilies of Aplir.iatcs he has priiitcd the text (i. pp. II3-2IQ) in detail; coinparinR it throughout with the Svriac of Curcton (Sc), the Peshito (P.), and frequently the I'hilo- xenian text revised bv Thi>ni.is of H.trkrl (HI.), with the Greek MSS. X. K, and P. and with Sabatier and Bianchini's editions of the MSS. of the Itala. \erse by verse the text is reconstructed and tabulated in sections. Each section is accompanied by an exhaustive critical and expository comment, and an index to all the passages incorporated in the Har- mony enables the student to examine the evi- dence respecting any individual verse. These sections indicate the character of the Harmony and may be seen as given by Zahn. with the refs. to Ephrem omitted in favour of I-ng. headings in Fuller's Harmony of the GospfU (S.P.C.K.). Zahn has pursued the subject further in his Forschungfn iur GeschichU des N.T. Kanons, ii. 286-299, and his Geschichte des N.T. Kanons, (iS88)i. i, 369-429 ; (189a), ii- 2, 530-556. {3) The Theological Opinior%s of Tatian. — Until the death of Justin Martyr he was considered orthodox ; after that heterodox. The change can only be roughly sketched. In the Oratio are found traces of the three heretical \iews which Irenaeus attributed to him. (i) The allusion to Aeons above the heavens (c. xx.) may very well have led on to theories akin to those of Valcntinus (Iren. adv. Haer. i. 28). (ii) The doctrine that the protoplast lost the image and likeness of (lod (cc. viii. xii. xv.) might lead to the denial of the salvation of Adam (ib. iii. 23, \ 8). (iii) His allusion (c. xv.) to man as distinguislied from the brute — implying by contrast points of resemblance between them — makes pos- sible a transition to the severer views of denouncing marriage as defilement and forni- cation as did Marcion and Saturninus (Iren. c. XV. ; Hieron. Cnmm. I.e. in Ep. ad Gal. vi.), and also the use of meats (Hieron. adv. Jovin. i. 3). Were the heretical writings in existence which Irenaeus affirmed that Tatian had written and he himself had read (Zahn, i. p. 281), we might be able to judge how far they justified Irenaeus in describing him as " elated, puffed up as if superior to other teachers, and forming his own type of doctrine," and to trace something of his erroncousness in the Problems, and other lost works, e.g Concerning Perfection according to the Saviour ; and in the criticisms, para- phrases, or translations of some of St Paul's Epistles, which Euscbius (//. E. iv. 20) had heard of, and which Jerome described as repudiations of those apostolic writings (Pra<'/. in Comm. to Tttus, see Zahn, i. p. 6, n. 4). A few hints only arc forthcoming on these points, and these filtered through unfriendly channels. But the general impression cannot be resisted. Tatian became first suspected and then denounced. He left Rome, possibly pausing at Alexandria to teach, among his pupils being Clement of Alexandria (cf. Lightfoot, p. 1133 ; Zahn, i. p. 12), and then proceeding to the East, to Mesopotamia (Epi- phan. Haer. xlvi. i. Correct his error in chronology by Lightfoot and Zahn, i. p. 282), there to live until his death. It is more than probable that on leaving Rome he carried "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" .'.IS the /)i.j/<',%\.if(>M with liiiii. llnl.^lMl^h^^^. In the West he h.id txrcoinr uiiarrrptablr. The langu.ige of Irrii.ieus c. !>>>', t.f. prob.ibl V 4(t^r Tati.m's de.ith leaves ni> «lout>t upon (htt point. .Men hoimured An<l valued the Oraho (cf. tnt. al. Milgenfcld. Kflterefuhuhte. pp. 386, 387); but sdv nothing of the l>iatriiarnH. in the (ireek-spe .iking churches (»f the l-.ast the writer of the Dratio was not Irs* valued (cf. Eus. //. E. iv. 2'>. v. 28), and thrv sjx-ak of the Dtatessaron ; but it is bv report or at second-hand only. I'glv rumours nrculalr<t. Tatian, described broadly as "connrxio omnium haercticoruin " (Iren. aJv. Haer. ni. 23), had become, in dehanre nf histoncd I>robability(Zahn. i. p. jSH). .in Km HATirr. one whose tenets had spread into .\sia Minor from Antioch. and who blossomed out at last into " Encralitaruin acerrimus haeresiarches " (Hieron.). Had Irenaeus. Eusebius, or Je- rome known the l>iatesiaron, would they not have examined it as they had examined Tatian's Oratio and other works ? Would not the very compilation of a Dtatessaron have been obnoxious to one who, like Irenaeu«, counted the fourfold (iospels (neither more, nor less) an absolute necessity ? But in the S>Tiac-speaking l-.ast he was unknown, or not followed by troublesome reflections upon hi» orthtxloxy. and there the teacher who wa* eclectic rather than heterodox rovild pr^xluca and circulate that work, which commended itself to the " simplicity " of the churches .(round l>lessa " on account of its brevity," till Theodoret enlightened them. The date of his death is unknown, but if h« left Rome c. 172 or 173 he would have been about 62 years of age, and, humanly speaking, with time before him to circulate the lUalei- saron before he died. j Literature. — In the prolegomena (pp. xiii- ! xxix) to Otto's ed. of the Oratio will be found a description of the M.SS., edd., etc, in exist- ence (cf. also Harnack, op. cit. pp. i-07 : Donaldson, History of Christian Literature atul Doctrine, iii. pp. 60-62). For other work* besides those freely used and specified in this art. see Preuscheii's art. s.n. in Herzog't A*. E.3 The text of the Diates^aron cd. by J. White is jMib. iiv < >xf. I iiiv. I'r.ss. .md a trans, in ifil,-.\ic<ne I i'>. (j-M.P.) " Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. ' Brven- nius discovered at Constantinople a .MS. thu« entitled in a vol. containing an unmutilaled .MS. text of the two Epp. ascril>ed t-> ("lenient, .ind pub. it at the close of 1H83. no other copy being known to exist in MS. or print. The .MS. bears the heading " Teaching n( the Twelve .Apostles," followed by the fuller title "Teaching of the lord bv the Twelva Apostles to the (.entiles." That both title* belong to the original form appears probable , from the phrase " the Twelve .\postles." The phr.ise Jiiax*) t'uh' dfotfroXwr fKCurs in Acts li. 42 ; and the earliest writers who have been suppose<i to speak of the work (Euvbius and Athanasius) do so inerrlv under the name "Teaching of the Apostles" ; the additKm of "Twelve" being su|>er(luous when the wi>rd " Apostle " had becr>me limite«l to the Twelve. In the work itself " .\(M>stle " is usr«l in a verr wide sense ; so that if this really reprevnt% church usage when it was wriltcn, the title 934 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" " Teaching of the Apostles " would be quite vague without the addition " Twelve " (cf. Luke vi. 13 ; Rev. xxi. 14). The title was only intended to describe the substance of the work, not to assert anything as to its direct authorship. Though called " Teaching (Didache) of the Lord," our Lord is certainly not represented as the speaker ; see such expressions as " concerning these things spake the Lord," " as the Lord ordered in His Gospel," "as ye have in the Gospel of our Lord." Neither is it written in the name of the twelve apostles ; for the author uses the singular, addressing his disciple as " my child." Nor does the treatise contain any indication that the author of the whole claimed to be one of the apostles, or that the work is to be broken up into sections supposed to be spoken by successive apostles. In this respect it is favourably distinguished from a number of spurious works which claimed apostolic authorship in early times. But, as in the case of the Apostles' Creed, a title apparently originally only intended to assert conformity with apostolic teaching, came to be understood as an assertion of authorship, and later authorities undertook to specify the portions contributed by each apostle ; and later works founded on the Didnche are divided into sections supposed to be contri- buted by individual apostles. The work divides into two parts : the first, which we shall refer to as the " Two Ways," forming the first 6 chapters of Bryennius's ed., contains moral instruction ; the second (cc. 7-15 Bryennius) deals with church ritual and discipline, a chapter (16) being added on our Lord's Second Coming. Several very early writers exhibit coincidences with pt. i., such as to prove that they borrowed from the Didache, or the Didache from them, or that both had a common source. With pt. ii. similar coinci- dences are much later and much more scanty. Part i. was intended for catechumens, or at least for use in their instruction, for part ii., which begins by treating of baptism, directs that candidates shall first have received the preceding teaching. Contents. — The work begins by declaring that there are two ways : one of Life, the other of Death ; phrases borrowed from Jer. xxi. 8, a passage itself derived from Deut. xxx. ig. It then describes first the Way of Life, which is summed up in two precepts ': love God Who made thee ; and love thy neighbour as thyself and do not to another what thou wouldest not have done to thyself.* Then follow several precepts from the Sermon on the Mount. As c. i. is based on the Sermon on the Mount, so is c. ii. on the second table of the Decalogue. C. iii. instructs the disciple to flee not only from every evil, but from every- • This negative form is found in substance in Tob. iv. 15. It may be due to the influence of the Didache that it is found appended in this form to the instruc- tions to Gentiles in Acts xv. in D. and some cursive MSS., confirmed by Irenaeus or his translator (III. xii. 14) and Cyprian (Test. iii. 119). The precept is found in the same form in Theophilus (ad Autol. ii. 34) ; but the context does not furnish coincidences such as would prove the Didache the source. I,am- pridius says (Alex. Sev. 51) that Alexander Severus was fond of quoting this precept, which he had learned either from some Jews or Christians. "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE " thing like it. C. iv. contains miscellaneous precepts. C. v. gives an enumeration of the sins which constitute the way of death. C. vi. is a short exhortation to abide in the fore- going teaching ; but giving permission if the disciple cannot bear the whole yoke, especi- ally as regards food, to be content with bearing as much as he can ; provided always he abstains from things offered to idols. Here terminates the section addressed to the catechumen. Then follow (c. vii.) directions for the baptism of candidates who have received the preceding instruction. It is to be in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ; in rimning water if it can be had ; if not, in any water, even warm water. If sufficient water for immersion is not at hand, it will suffice to pour water three times on the head. Baptizer and baptized must fast beforehand ; the baptized for a day or two : others, if possible, to join in the fast. This rule of fasting may be illustrated by the account given in the Clementines {Horn. iii. 1 1 ; Recog. vii. 36) of the baptism of Clement's mother. Peter directs that she shall fast one day previous to baptism. C. viii. relates to fasting and prayer. The disciples must not fast " as the hypocrites," on the 2nd and 5th days of the week ; but on the 4th and on the preparation day. Neither must they pray as the hypocrites, but as the Lord ordered in His Gospel. The Lord's Prayer is given in conformity with St. Mat- thew's text with but trifling variations, but adding the doxology " Thine is the power and the glory for ever." This prayer is to be used thrice daily. Chaps, ix. x. contain Eucharistic formulae. In the opening words " Concerning the thanksgiving, give thanks in this manner," we can scarcely avoid giving to the word fi'XapKTTla the technical meaning it had as early as Ignatius (Philad. 4 ; Smyrn. 6, 8 ; Eph. 13 ; cf. Justin, Apol. 66). This interpre- tation is confirmed by a direction that of this " Eucharist " none but baptized persons should partake, since the Lord has said " Give not that which is holy unto the dogs." But the forms themselves are more like what we should expect in prayers before and after an ordinary meal than the Eucharist proper. There is no recital of the words of institution ; no mention of the Body and Blood of our Lord, though both Ignatius and Justin Martyr so describe the consecrated food. The sup- position that we have here private prayers to be said before and after reception is excluded by the direction that " prophets " should be permitted to offer thanks as they pleased, where it is plain that public thanksgiving is intended. The explanation seems to be that the celebration of the Eucharist still accom- panied the Agape or Love Feast, and that we have here the thanksgivings before and after that meal. In the Clementines, which in several points manifest affinity with the Didache, it is not merely the Eucharist from which the unbaptized are excluded. They can take no food of any kind at the same table with the initiated. An unbaptized person is the home of the demon, and until this demon has been driven out by baptism, no Christian can safely admit him to a common table (Recog. ii. 71 ; see also i. 19, vii. 36) ; and all "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE' through the Clcmoutiiirs (h.- l.tuKua^f in which the benediction of everv uual is de- scribed is such as to make it imrrrtaiii whethera celebration of theKucharist is meant. In the form in the Didachi we notice that : ( i ) the benediction of the cup precedes that of the bread (see Luke xxii. i7-i'>). (2) The broken bread has the technical name rd (r\d<rfia. (i) The thanksKiviuR for the cup runs : " We give thanks to Thee our Father, for the h..lv vme of Thy servant David which Thou hast made known to us through Thv servant Jesus." This expression the "vine of Oavid ' was known to Clement of .\lexandria, who savs of Christ (Quts Dives Salv. 29). " Who poured forth the wine, the blood of the vine of David, for our wounded souls." Elsewhere {Paed. i. 5 ).treating of Gen. xlix. "binding the colt to the vine," he interprets " the vine of the Logos Who gives His blood, as the vine yields wine. (4) The benedictory prayer contains a petition that as the broken bread had been scattered on the mountains and had been brought together and made one, so might the church be col- lected together from the ends of the earth. (5) The thanksgiving praver after reception is directed to be said " after being filled " (fitTi t6 (urXrjffHrjvai). words answering better to the conclusion of an .\gape than of a Eucharist ic celebration (cf. Reco^. i. ig). Chaps, xi. xii. xiii. treat of the honour to be paid to Christian teachers, who are de- scribed as " apostles and prophets." This combination of terms reflects N.T. usage (I. Cor. xii. ;8, 20 ; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 8, iv. 11). The word " apostle " in our document is not limited to the Twelve, but is used as our word " missionary." Every true apostle was a prophet, but only those prophets received the name apostle who were not fixed in one place, but accredited by churches on a mission to distant localities. This terminology is a proof of the antiquity of our document {see Light- foot on the word Apostle, Gal. p. 92). The word was used by Jews to denote an envoy sent by the authorities at Jerusalem to Jews in foreign places, especially the envoy charged with the collection of the Temple tribute. Our document is solicitous to provide for the due entertainment of Christian missionaries, and yet to guard against the church's hos- pitality being traded on by imp<istors or lazy persons. Every apostle was to be received as the Lord ; but if he wanted to prolong his stay beyond two days at most, he betrayed himself as a false prophet. Clearly the apostle is an envoy on his way to another place ; for it could never have been intended to forbid a missionary to settle down in one spot for a longer period of preaching. The false apostle is said to betray himself if he asks for money or for a larger supply of tra- velling provisions than will provide for his next stage. There are commands in a similar spirit for the hospitable treatment of ordinary Christian strangers. If such a one wishes to settle among them, he must work at a handi- craft or employ himself in some other wav ; but if he wants to eat the bread of idleness, he is one who makes merchandise of Christ (XptffT^/ziropii <'<rrti'). The use of this word by Pseudo-Ignatius {ad Trail. 6, ad .Magn. 9) agrees with the conclusion, drawn from other ttSA c.iiisidii.ili..ii.. th.»t III. iiiirr|-.l.it.< WM acquainted with the Otdofh/. There Is a coiiitiiand in which r<iiiimrnt4l<ir« have found a dithcullv, that .1 prophrt siirak- ing in the spirit must not \w proved n<ir tested. " Every sin shall Ik- f.irKivm. but not that." Vet there follow m.irk% hit di%- cerning the false prophet from the true. The subsequent history of .MoiitaniMn casts 4 clear light on the su»»jrrt. The bishops atlrniplr<| to test the Montanist prophrlrssrs by applvuiK to them the fciniuilae of rxorrism. to (tiicl whether it were possiblr to cast out ^n rvil spirit who poss«-sse<| thrill. Tills the Mon- tanists naliirallv resisted as a frightful imliR- nity. Such testing bv rxorrisni is hrre manifestly forbidden, as involving, if applied to one really inspired by th»> Spirit of <,.kI, the risk of incurring the penalties denounced by our lord, in words plainly here refrrrrd to, upon blasphemy against the Ho|y <.hmt. That this precept of thr IhJach/ was appar- ently not quoted in the M<intanist disputes it one of manv indications th.it our document had only a very limited cirrnlatioii. tlilKen- feld's notion, that the l)tJac>w is as late a« Montanism, is condemned Iwith liy the whole ch.iMCter of the docuim-nt and bv its silenru on the vital question in the Montanist con- troversy, whether true prophets lost thrir self- command when prophesying. To label every early document which speaks of prophesying Montanistic is to ignore the f.ict that pro- phetical gifts were recognized in the early church, and that M(mtanism was an unsuc- cessful Irical attempt to revive pretensions to them after they had gener.illv ceased to Im regarded as an ordin.iry feature of church life.* The Didachi gives a diflen-nt way of discerning the false prophet from the true, viz. by his life and convers.ition. If he taught th<- truth but did not practiv it. he was a false prophet. He might, when s|>eaking in the spirit, command gifts to l>e l>estow«<| on others ; but if he asked anything for him- self, or gave commands in the l>enefit of which he was to share, he was a fake prophet. Hut a true prophet, settling in one place, deserves his maintenance. So also <irx>s a teacher, by which apparently is meant a preacher who dfX's not speak in prophetic ecstasy. To the prophets are to l»e given the first-fruits of all produce ; " for they are your high priest*." If there are no prophets, the first-fruits aic to go to the poor. C. xiv. directs Christians to come together each Lord's Day to break bread and rivo thanks, having confess«'d their sins in order that their sacrifice may l)e pure. Th<»%e at variance must not pollute the sacrihce f>v coming without having f>een first reconcilcl. Our document then guotrs Mai. i. 10, in which so many Fathers from Justin d-iwnwards (Trvphn, 41, 116) have seen a pre<lictlon of tho Eucharistic oblation. C. xv. f>egins : " Elect therefore to yourselves bishops and deacons." Tln-s<- arc to receive thr same honour as the prophrts and teachers, as fulfilling a like ministration. In the preceding chapter* where church officers arc s|)<jkrn of, mention • In the l-;p. of Ivnatlui, "thr Ptophcl* " me.in« O.T. pfophcln, and Ihcrr b 00 imllcalkm o( •n order o( prophrl* thn la the Chrbtkn chufch. 936 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" is made, as in T. Cor., only of apostles, prophets and teachers ; and of these, apostles are only stranger visitors of the church, and prophets are men endowed with supernatural gifts of the Holy Ghost, who may or may not be found in any particular church. Bearing in mind the account given by Justin {Apol. i. 66) of the share taken by " the president " and the deacons in the Eucharistic celebration, we seem warranted in inferring from the " there- fore " at the beginning of c. xv. that it was with a view to the conduct of the weekly stated service that bishops and deacons are described as appointed ; and that, though gifted men were allowed to preach and teach in the church assemblies, the offering of the Eucharist was confined to these permanent officers. It is possible that the section on " bishops and deacons " may have been added later when the Didache assumed its present form, the editor feeling it necessary that mention should be made of the recognized names of the officers of the church in his time. C. xvi. is an exhortation to watch for our Lord's Second Coming, in order to be able to pass safely through the heavy trial that was immediately to precede it. This time of trial was to be signalized by the appearance of one who is called the " deceiver of the world " ((fOfT^uoTrXdi'os), who should appear as God's Son and do signs and wonders, and into whose hands the earth should be delivered, so that under the trial many should be scandal- ized and be lost (cf. II. Thess. ii. 3, 4 ; Rev. xii. 9 ; Matt. xxiv. 21, 24, x. 22). But then shall appear the signs of the truth : first the sign of outspreading (e\-7r6Tdo-ew?) in heaven (a difficult phrase which need not here be dis- cussed) ; then the trumpet's voice (Matt. xxiv. 31 ; I. Cor. XV. 52 ; I. Thess. iv. 16); thirdly the resurrection of the dead — not of all, but, as was said, the Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming on the clouds of heaven. External Attestahon. — The sketch just given shews that our document bears marks of very high antiquity. We next ask what ancient WTiters expressly speak of the Didache, or manifest acquaintance with it, earlier than the appearance in its present shape of the Apostolic Constitutions, the first half of bk. vii. of which contains an expansion of the Didache. The forger of this book was plainly acquainted with the whole Didache ; for he goes through it from beginning to end, making changes and additions, the study of which throws interesting light on the development of church ritual during the interval between the two works. Harnack has given good reasons for thinking that the same forger manipulated the Didache and the Ignatian letters, and that his work may have been as early as a.d. 350. Hence the Didachi was by then an ancient document, but one in such small circulation that it could be tampered with without much fear of detection. It is necessary here to notice the tract professing to contain apostolic constitutions, published by Bickell in 1843 and described D. C. A. i. 123. This is quite independent of and earlier than the work commonly known as the Apostolic Constitutions. The two forms employ some common earlier documents, but "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" there is no reason to think that the framer of either was acquainted with the other. Bickel calls this tract Apostolische Kirchenordnung, and to avoid confusion with the Apostolic Constitutions, we refer to it as the Church Ordinances. It had been translated into various languages, and is the foundation of Egyptian Canon Law. It has so much in com- mon with Bryennius's Didache that either the Church Ordinances certainly used the Didache or both drew from a common source. In form they differ ; for in the Ordinances the precepts are distributed among different apostles by name, the list being peculiar, Cephas appearing as distinct from Peter ; he and Nathanael taking the place of James the Less and Matthias. In substance the two works closely coincide, but only in the section on the " Two Ways." Writers earlier than the Apostolic Consti- tutions know of a work which professed to contain the teaching of the apostles, but concerning them we cannot say with certainty whether the work to which they witness is the same as ours. The list of direct witnesses is indeed much shorter than it must have been if the work had obtained any wide acceptance as containing really apostolic instruction. Earliest isEusebius, who to his list of canonical Scriptures (H. E. iii. 25) adds a list of spurious books of the better sort, recognized by church writers, and to be distinguished from writings which heretics had forged in the names of apostles. Among these he enumerates next after the Ep. of Barnabas, " what are called the Teachings of the Apostles " (tQv awocrTd- \oi}v ai \ey6/x(vai 5i5axai). Some 3'ears later Athanasius {Ep. Fest. 39) adds to his list of canonical Scriptures a list of non-canonical books useful in the catechetical instruction of converts, viz. the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the so-called Teaching of the Apostles {diSaxri KoKovnivrj Tuiv dTt-o(TT6\u}v), and the Shepherd. The only obstacle to our supposing our Didache to be here referred to is the Eucharistic for- mulae it contains, which Athanasius would scarcely place in the hands of the uninitiated, unless indeed he thought them so unlike the truth as to make no revelation of Christian mysteries. It will be observed that Eusebius uses the plural (SiSaxat), Athanasius the sin- gular. Unmistakable coincidences with the Didache have been pointed out in writings ascribed to Athanasius, but rejected as spu- rious in the Benedictine ed., though the genuineness of at least the second of these is still urged : viz. de Virginitate (Migne, p. 266), Syntagma Doctrinae ad Monaches (p. 835), and Fides Nicena (p. 1639). Among the spurious writings printed with those of Athan- asius is a Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae, which, because of its coincidences with the Sticho- metry of Nicephorus, Credner has dated as late as loth cent. The Stichometry doubtless preserves an ancient list, and there among the apocryphal books appended to the N.T. Canon we find the Sidaxv awocrTdXwv. Those that precede it are heretical apocrypha ; but those that follow, viz. the Epp. of Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Shepherd, are all orthodox. The number of (rri'xot attributed to the Didache is 200 ; whereas 1,400 are "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" assigned to the Revelation of St. John. I al- dilations foiuuied on slichoinetry are uncer- tain ; so we cannot lay nuicJi stress on the fact that this appears to indicate a somewliat shorter work than Bryennius's 3i5ax»j. which according to Harnack would make about 300 (TTixw. and on a rough estimate seems about a quarter the length of the .-Kpucilvpse. A list of 60 books of Scripture appended to a writing of Anastasius, patri.irch of Antioch in the reign of Justinian, is in Wcstcotts .V.7. Canon, p. 550. This gives as an appendix a list of apocryphal books ; one being the Travels {ir(pio&oi) ami Trackings {St&axai) of the Af^ostUs. The absence of the Ihdath^ from the list of the Codex Claromonianus agrees with other indications that this work possessed no authority in Africa. In one of the fragments, published by Pfaff, as from Ire- naeus, we read : "Those who have followed the Second Ordinances of the Apostles (oi rats 5fiT^pai5 Tu)>' diro(Tr6\wv SiaTa^tai wap1)^o\ov^ OvKdTf^) know that our Lord instituted a new offering in the New Covenant according to the saying of Malachi the prophet, ' From the rising of the sun to the going down, my name has been glorified in the (ientiles ; and in every place incense is offered to my name and a pure offering.' " This passage is quoted in the Didachi with reference to the Eucharist ; not, however, textually, as in the fragment, but very loosely. We can only say then that it is possible the Dtdache may be the Second Ordinances of the Apostles referred to here. The fragment is probably ancient, but con- tains a citation of Hebrews as St. Paul's, which proves, as Zahn and others have remarked, that Irenaeus could not have been the author. Western testimony to the Didachi is scanty, and rather indicates that anv book which circulated in the West as the Teaching of the Apostles was not the same as Bryennius's Didachi. Rufinus (Comm. in Symb. A post. 38) gives a list of canonical books which bears marks of derivation from that of Athanasius ; but where the Didache should come he has '■ qui appellaturDuae Viae vel Judicium Petri." This suggests that either the entire Didachi, or at least the first half, the "Two Ways," had been translated into Latin and circulated under the name of the Judgment of Peter, to whom, and not to the apostles generally, the authorship would seem to have been ascribed. The existence of a Latin "Two Ways " is independently proved by the dis- covery of a fragment by von ("lebhardt, re- printed in his Texte und Vntersuchungen, ii. 277. It is so short as to leave it undetermined whether the Latin version contained anvfhing corresponding to what follows the "Two Ways " in Bryennius. Lactantius {Div. Itisiit. vi. 3, etc., and ICpil. c. 50) gives an unmistakable expansion of the teaching of the "Two Ways," who must have used our Latin version, thus proving it older than a.d. 310. The treatise de .-lleatoribus, falselv ascriln-d to Cyprian, contains a quotation from l>oc- trina Apostolorum (Hartcl, ii. <)(>) not found in the Didachi. though there is one passage (xiv. 2) which might have suggested the idea to the framer of the Latin. If we may ever rely on the argument from silence, wc should "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" lt37 k-alher fn.iu Trrtullun'i diiu-iuMun on the "Stations " (dr Oral. 19. de /n*"* i. i". i«> that he was unac.juamted with «>ur docummt. Thus, scantv though the Wr^itrrn notier* «rr. thev seem to prove that the lUdathi, in Mrvennniss form, never rirruUtrd in the «est; that the Latin Doclnna ApoUoUtrum. •"y*"" '?,'' fRards the Motion on the "Two Wavs. " was not a tr.iiisl.ition of Iirvrniitu\°% Dtdach/, but contained a ditfrrent inunipuU- tion of a probablv common oriK'nial ; and that l>eyond the " Two WaN-s " there \s no evidrnre that the Latin form had anything in common with the Dtdachi. We now come to coincidences with the Dtdachi in works which do not mention it by name. Far the most im|M)rtant of thrv are found in the Kp. of n.irnab.is, in whirh, after the conclusion of the doctrin.il tearhmg. the writer proposes to pass to another dortrine and discipline (-yfuffn- «at iihaxrt*), and adfU an appendix of moral instructions. Thi» appendix agrees so completelv in substance with the section on the " Two Wavs " th.it a literary connexion between the two dortinirnt« is indisputable. Hut there is great diverMty of detail. The precepts in H.irnabat are without any orderly arrangement, while the Dtdachi contains a systematic comment on the second table of the l>ecalogue. Hrvenniu* differ-* from Liter critics and some earlier ones who consider it probable that Harnaba* was the borrower. The whole character o| the Didachi makes it unlikely that its author collected the precepts scattered in Harnabas's appendix, digested them into systematic order, and made a number of harmonious additions ; while if in what Harnabas sa\-» about the " Two Ways " he is but repro- ducing an older document, his uns\'^tematic way of quoting its precepts, just as thev came to mind, is quite like his mode of dealing with O.T. We have still to inquire whether Har- nabas borrowed from the Dtdachi t»r from a common source. Now a studv of the Dtdachi, as compared with Jewish literature, shew* very clearly its origin among men with Jewish training, and the work fr<^in which t>oth borrowed may have be«-n not onlv Jewish but I)re-Christian. For Barnabas's letter is of so earlv a date that, if we sutiiM)s«- him t"> have copied an earlier ( hristian document, we briiiK that document into the apostolic age. which would give It all the authority that has »>ern claimed for it. We must, then, in romparmi; Barnabas with the Didachi. distinguish care- fullv the specially Christian element from those p.irts which might have t>een written bv a Jew unacquainted with ( hristianitv. II llarnabas ropie<l thr Didachi. he would have naturallv included thr (hristian element. If Barnabas and the Didachi iiide|>«-n<lrnily copi<-d an originally Jewish doriimriit, the C hristian elements they might add would iio( Iw likely to l»c the same. In thr section in BarnalMs we are struck by the extreme meagreiirss of the t hristian element. There is no mention of our Lord, scarcely anv coin- cidence with N.T. language, very little that might not have been written by 4 jew tiefore our Lord's coming. In the Didachi coin- cidences with N.T. are extremely numerous, and it begins with a whole section cmbodyin( 938 "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" precepts from the Sermon on the Mount. This section is entirely absent from Barnabas- It is impossible to resist the conclusion that Barnabas did not know the Didache in Bry- exinius's form. He has elsewhere coincidences with N.T., and had no motive for avoiding them. If a book before him contained a number of N.T. precepts he would never have studiously avoided these in using the work, nor have forgotten them even if he wrote from memory. The coincidences between the two works, therefore, must be explained by the use of a common document. This conclusion is confirmed on taking into the comparison also the Latin "Two Ways," and the Egyptian Church Ordinances, both of which, like Barnabas, do not recognize the Didache section founded on the Sermon on the Mount. Neither is this section recognized in Pseudo-Athanasius. The Church Ordinances exhibit signs of acquaintance with Barnabas ; the Latin form does not. In the order of the precepts the Ordinances and the Latin both agree with the Didache against Barnabas. The Ordinances differ from the Latin by excess, but scarcely at all otherwise. The same reasons that forbid us to think that Barnabas. if he had known the Didache, would have left out its Christian element, prove the Ordin- ances and the Latin likewise independent of the Didache. The phenomena are explained : if we assume an original document in substan- \ tial agreement with the Latin, enlarged in the ' Didache by additions from N.T., and after- wards independently enlarged by the framer of the Church Ordinances, who broke it up into sections supposed to be spoken by differ- ent apostles ; while Barnabas worked up in his own way the materials he drew from the document. We cannot say positively whether this original proceeded beyond the " Two Ways." The Latin fragment breaks off too soon to give any information as to the length of the original : the Church Ordinances cease to present coincidences with the Didache after the section on the "Two Ways" ; but this may be because the directions for ritual and discipline had become out of date when the Ordinances were put together, the editor therefore designedly substituting what better agreed with the practice of his own age. The quotation by Pseudo-Cyprian leads us to think that the Latin Doctrina Apostolorum did go beyond the " Two Ways." No great weight can be attached to the length ascribed to the Dtdache in the Stichometry, but this rather favours the idea that the document intended was longer than the "Two Ways," but shorter than the Didache of Bryennius. It remains to be mentioned that there is a j coincidence between Barnabas and the Didache outside the " Two Ways." The opening of the Ep. of Barnabas and the last or eschatological chapter of the Didache both contain the warning that the disciples' faith would not profit them unless they remained stedfast in the last times. There is a good | deal of difference in the wording of the warn- [ ing, but not more than is usual in quotations by Barnabas. The supposition that Barnabas ; was acquainted with Bryennius's form of the | Didache has akeady been excluded ; therefore either (i) the earlier form which Barnabas did I "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" use included an eschatological chapter con- taining this warning, or (2) the editor who changed the earlier form into that of Bryennius was acquainted with the Ep. of Barnabas. We prefer (2), on account of the reasons we shall presently give for thinking the document used by Barnabas to have been pre-Christian. If the editor of Bryennius's form knew Hermas, he might also have known Barnabas, with whom he has a second coin- cidence in a passage about almsgiving, which, as implying a knowledge of Acts and Romans, Barnabas was not likely to have found in his original. Possibly there is a third coinci- dence ; for a plausible explanation of the diffi- cult word iKviraffLS in c. xvi. is that it means the sign of the cross, being derived from Barna- bas's interpretation of eieTriracra in Is. Ixv. 2. Hermas also presents coincidences with the Didache, but it is not easy to say that there is literary obligation on either side, except in one case, viz. a coincidence between the second " commandment " of Hermas and the " Sermon on the Mount " section, which we have already seen reason to think belongs to a later form of the Didache. In this case the original seems clearly that of Hermas. His instructions as to almsgiving are perfectly clear. The corresponding passage in the Didache has many coincidences of language, but expresses the thought so awkwardly as to be scarce intelligible without the commentary of Hermas. It begins, " Blessed is he that giveth according to the commandment, for he is blameless : woe to him that receiveth." The words "for he is blameless," as they stand, are puzzling ; for we should expect the " for " to introduce something stronger than merelv an acquittal of blame. By comparison with Hermas we see that the case contem- plated is that of giving to an undeserving person. Then the receiver deserves the woe ; the giver obtains an acquittal. We conclude, then, without disputing the greater antiquity of the original Didache, that the interpolator who brought the work to the form published by Bryennius was later than Hermas, and drew from him. Clement of Alexandria was certainly ac- quainted with the Didache in some form. He expressly quotes one sentence as Scripture (Strom, i. 20, p. 377), " My son, be not a liar, for lying leads to theft." This saying is not quoted by Barnabas ; but the Church Ordin- ances attest that it belongs to the earlier form of the Didache. Even the later form of the Didache may well be considerably older than Clement ; and he might easily have met with a copy during his travels in the East. He uses {Quis Dives Salv. 20) the phrase " vine of David," found in one of the benedictory prayers of the Didache. He shews a know- ledge (Strom, vii. 7, p. 854) of the W^ednesday and Friday fasts (c. r2, p. ^77), but does not seem to attribute to these institutions the authority which belongs to the name Scripture bestowed by him on the Didache. Origen was later than Clement and must have been well acquainted with the literature current in Egypt and Palestine ; so that we might naturally expect him to be familiar with the Didache. Yet no satisfactory proof of his knowledge of it has been produced. "TEACHING OF THE TWELVE" Place of Composition.— l\\f Church Ordi- nances, at the basis of which lies thr Dulaih/ in some form, are with good reason reK.inlotl as of Egyptian origin ; Clement, one of the earliest to quote the nidachf, wrote in ICgypt, and so very possiblv did B.irnabas. Hence, it was natural to think th.jt the Ihdachi also is of Egyptian origin. Hut attention was called to the petition in the prayer of Ix-ne- diction of the bread, that as it had been scat- tered on the mountains, and collected together had become one, so the church might 1m- collected together from the ends of the earth into the Lords kingdom ; and it was pointed out the words " on the uioinitains " could not have been WTitten in Egypt ; and. moreover, the proper inference froni the use made of the Didachi in the Church Ordinances is that when the latter work was put together, the former was almost unknown in Egvpt. There is nothing to contradict the inference suggested by the intensely Jewish character of the book, that it emanated from Christian Jews who, after the destruction of Jerusalem, had their chief settlements E. of Jordan. Time of Composition. — The theory set forth is that the original, alike of Barnabas and of all the forms of the Dtdachi. was a Jewish manual for the instruction of proselytes. If Palestinian Christians had habitually used such a manual while still Jews, it would be natural for them to employ it, improved by the addition of some Christian elements, in the moral instruction of converts before admission into the church. The document, being a formula in constant practical use, would be added to and modified ; and we seem to be able to trace three stages in its growth. (1) Barnabas represents for us the original Jewish manual ; probably quoting, not from any written document, but from his recollec- tion of the instruction he had himself received or had been given to others. Barnabas's quotations do not proceed beyond the section on the " Two Ways," corresponding to cc. i.-iv. of the Didache. (2) In the Church Ordinartces and in the Latin Doctrina we have the manual as it was modified for use in a Christian community. The Latin book may have been the first pub- lication of this catechetical manual of I'ales- tinian Christians, brought to the West by one himself instructed in it. It was probably called the Teaching of the .Apostles, because the authorized formulary of a church founded by apostles and claiming to derive its institutions from them. We are without evidence whether this manual contained more than the " Two Wavs," though it probably did. The only clue to the date of this publication is that the Church Ordinances contain that prewpt about almsgiving which we have alrcadv not«rd as the solitary instance of use of the N.T. in this section of Baniabas. Reasons have been already given for thinking that Barnabas was not here employing a Christian document, and we find it hard to believe that the phraM-s in which coincidences (xrcur are older than N.T., so we seem forced to conclude that the first editors of the Teaching of the Apostles knew Barnabas. This would not be inconsistent with a date before the end of ist cent. TEILO ti3fl (U In the Diduih/ published t>v nrvrimiut wi- h.ive the nialiu.il riilargrd by fiirthrj ( hll»- tian additions ; the nrrcrpts in (hr i>ri»:in4l manual U-ing e\p4n<le<l, others addrd (roin N.T., and also vmie wholly new MH-tion%. \'vl the whole character of the HiJach^. and in particular the lively rx|xTt4lion of our I Lord's S<coiid C OiniiiK in c. xvi.. <Iisjm»m-s n^ to give It III its present forui as rarlv a dale a« we can ; and since we place Hrrinas at thn beginning of in<l cent., we have no difficulty in d.iting (he l>ida(h^ as e.ulv as a.i>. ii». ( Literature. JUv publication of the lUiUnki bv Brvenniiis produced an eiiorinuus crop of liter.itnii'. The list- in SchafI s and in Mar- n.irk's editions m.iv be siippleinetned bv *n article of n.irnack's Theol. Literatur:. iHHf,. p. 171. Mere we only mention, of rditions. thos« I by I)e Koniestan (I«H4). Sprncr (iHHs). Schaf! ; (iSSs and iS«f)). Sabatier (iH.H.s). Hilg-nfeld in a .:nd ed. of pt. iv. of his Sov. le\t. ett. Can. (i«S4). .ind by (.ebh.irdt and Marnack. IfxU \ und Inlersuchuncen, vol. ii.(iH84). Bp. Light- foot's paper at the Church Congress «»l 1H84, ] pub. in the Expositor, Jan. iHHs ; Zahn'* discussions in his FnnchunRen, pt. iii. p. J7* I(iHS4). and Taylor's Lectures at the Hoy.il ; Institution. iKH<i, in which the Didachi \% \ illustrated from Jewish literature. A new led. with a fasciinile (autoty|>e) text and a commentary from the MJi. of the Molv Sepulchre, Jerusalem, ed. by J. K. Harris, it pub. bv Camb. I'niv. Press, as is alv» an Enjc. trans, from the Svriac bvPr. Margaret (Wbvin; while S.P.C.K. pub. an Eng. trans, with intro. and notes bv Dr. C. Bigg. See also Bigg's Sotes on the lUdachi m Journ. of Theol. Stud., ]u\v I't'H- [i..s.] Tello, bp. of LlandafI and one of the prin- cipal saints of Wak-s. was son of Enlleu ap Mvdwn Dwn and cousin to St. Davi.l. He was born ne.v Tenby, and educated with St. David and other celebrated Welsh s,unts. He opened a school near LlandafI. called Bangor Deilo. and on account of his proficiency in the Scriptures is said to have received the name I Elios or Eliud. His withdrawal to .\rmorica on the outbreak of the vellow plague in Wale* lis counted bv Prvce {.4nc. lint. Ch. i6i) one ( of the few incidents in his life which can l>e considered historical. In the Chmn. Series of the Bpp. of l.landaO (Lib. l.andav. bv Uecs.f.j I he is said to have become bp. of Llandart in 512. so that Kees (Welsh .S.S. ny) \s prol>« ; ably safest in saving that his pericnl in thai see ended in its first stage with the ap|>«araiice of the plague. (Di iiKU Its.) Ketuniing from Armorica after a stay. *» l» said, of 7 years and 7 months, he found SI. ! David dead and the see of Menevia vacant. I St. Tcilo IS said to liavc l>een elected to the vacant chair as archbp. of Mrnevia. but, pre- 1 fcrring his old see. he consecrated Ishniael, ' one of St. David's earliest «lisfiplr%. !•> I>r hl» ' suffragan at Menevia, rai^-d tither* t<> the same rank in different part* of South W ale*. ■while he hiiiisjlf removed to I landafi, and. carrying with Iniii the primacy. iK-came arch- bp. with the title of the inferii.r m-c (Stubhs Ree. 154, 15'.; Haddan and Stubl>*, ( ounc. i. 115 seq. ; Kers. WeUk SS. 174. 14} *^1- i , Pryce, Anc. Br. Ch. 15H tcq.). The date ..J i his death is variously fixed from 563 (Li*. 940 TELESPHORUS Land. 623) to 604 (Ussher). He is said to have died at a very advanced age. The chief authority for his Life is Vita S. Teliavi Episcopi a Magistro Galfrido Fratre Urhani Landavensis Ecclesiae Episcopi dicata, belonging to 12th cent., and printed, with trans, and notes, in Lib. Land, by Rees, 92 seq., 332 seq. For MS. and other authorities see Hardy, Desc. Cat. i. pt. i. 130-132, pt. ii. 897, app. ; Haddan and Stubbs, Counc. i. 146, 1 app. C. 159. [J.G.] Telesphorus (2), bp. of Rome, accounted the 7th from the apostles. According to Euse- I bius {H. E. iv. 5) he succeeded Xystus in the I2th year of Hadrian (a.d. 128), and suffered martyrdom in the nth year of his episcopate and the ist of the reign of Antoninus Pius ! (iv. 10). Lipsius (Chron. der rom. Bischof.) I considers his earliest probable dates to have been 124 to 135 or 126 to 137 as the latest. If so, Eusebius erred in placing his mart>Tdom in the reign of Antoninus Pius instead of Ha- drian. For the fact of his martwdora he alleges the authority of Irenaeus ; the assertion of the date is his own. Telesphorus is remark- able as being the only one of the early Roman bishops, afterwards accounted mart\Trs, who ' appears on the early authority of Irenaeus as such (Iren. //a^r. iii. ; cf. Eus. /.c). [j.b — v.] Tertulllanus (1), Quintus Septimius Florens. I. Life. — The earliest of the great Latin Fathers, their chief in fire and daring, [ and the first to create a technical Christian j Latinity, is known almost entirely through his writings. It can only be conjectured that he j was born between a.d. 150 and 160, and died between 220 and 240. with preference for the [ later dates. He was born at Carthage (Hieron. 1 Catal. Script. Eccl. 53 ; cf. Tertull. Apol. c. ix.) \ of heathen parents {de Poen. c. i. ; Apol. c. xviii. " de vestris sumus "), his father being a proconsular centurion (Hieron.). Tertullian received a good education (Apol. c. xiv. ; adv. Prax. c. iii.). In after-life he recalled his school studies in Homer (ad Nat. i. ex.); but poetry attracted him less than philosophy, history, science, and antiquarian lore. He spoke and composed in Greek, but his Greek writings are lost. He studied the systems of the philosophers if he mocked and hated the men (cf. de Anima, cc. i.-iii.). Possibly de- stined for state-official life, he was celebrated for his knowledge of Roman law (Eus. H. E. ii. 2), and the legal fence and juridical style of the advocate are observable throughout his apologetic and polemical writings. He was probably attracted to Christianity by complex irresistible and converging forces : " Fiunt, non nascuntur Christian!" {Apol. c. xviii.). The constancy of the Christians in times of persecution staggered him. He knew men who began by denouncing such " obstin- acy," and ended in embracing the belief which dictated it (Apol. c. 1. ; ad Scap. c. v.). De- mons confessed the superiority of the new faith (Apol. c. xxiii.), and Tertullian, in common with his heathen and Christian con- temporaries, was a profound believer in demons (cf. Reville, La Religion a Rome sous les Sevires, pp. 44, 46, 130 seq.). These facts led him to examine the faith which seemed to promise a foothold which no philosophical system furnished. It was illustrated by a life TERTULLIANUS of holiness and humility — that of its Founder, the Just One — in contrast with which the life of the Cynic and the Stoic sickened him. His conversion took place c. 192, in Carthage more probably than in Rome. Carthage was his home and usual dwelling-place (de Pallio, c. i. ; Apol. c. ix. ; Scorpiace, c. vi. ; de Resur. Camis, c. xlii.) ; Rome he had visited (de Cultu Femin. i. c. vii.), and he was well known there for his abilities (Eus. I.e.), but critics are by no means agreed whether he ever went there as a Christian (cf. Baron. Annul. Eccl. ii. 476, ed. Theiner). He was married but childless (cf. the two treatises ad Uxorem), and became a priest of the church. He probably exercised his presby- terate at Carthage and not at Rome. In middle age (c. 119-203), says Jerome, Tertullian became a Montanist, his constitu- tion and temperament predisposing him to a rigour opposed to the laxity prevalent at Rome, and so finding the austere doctrines and practices of Montanus perfectly congenial (Kaye, Account of the Writings of Tertullian 3 p. 34). He became the head of the Montanist party in Africa — a party which existed till the 5th cent, under the name of " Tertullianists." II. Times. — The golden age of the empire died with Marcus Aurelius (161-180) ; the age of iron began with his son Commodus (r8o- 193). The golden age of the church began [ with that iron age of the empire (Aube, Les j Chretiens dans I' empire romain, a.d. 180-249, pp. iii, 495-498). Expiring polytheism and j ancient philosophy were confronted by a new philosophy and a nascent faith. I From one quarter only of the empire was ! the comparative peacefulness noticeable else- i where absent. In Africa persecution, sharp, short, fitful, and frequent, marked the reign of Septimius Severus and the most active period of TertuUian's life. It is stamped in letters of blood upon his pages. The church in Africa has no historian before Tertullian, though its foundation is placed, with much probability, at the end of cent. i. or the beginning of cent. ii. By the end of cent. ii. the Christians in Roman Africa were to be counted by thousands (cf. Aube, p. 152) if not by millions (cf. Apol. c. xxxvii. ; ad Scapulam, cc. ii. v.). They were fully organ- ized and had their bishops, priests, deacons, places of assembly, and cemeteries. Immunity [ from the wholesale decimation which had : befallen, by imperial command (cf. Apol. c. j v.), other Christian bodies of the East and I West, allowed in Africa growth and develop- ment, accelerated by occasional suffering and martwdom. But the tempest broke upon the ; African church at last. Facts connected with the persecutions can I be followed in those wTitings of Tertullian I which all critics place between a.d. 197 and 2T2, I from the ad Martyres to the ad Scapulam. I The tract ad Martyres depicts men and women in prison, visited and relieved by the \ brethren, exhorted to unity, and prepared by ; fasting and prayer for the death which should j be a victory for the church. Vigellius Satiu:- I ninus was the first proconsul to draw the 1 sword against Christians (ad Scapulam, c. iii.), I and his date is not apparently earlier than 198 (see Aub6, p. 191, etc.). The martyrology TERTULLIANUS of Africa had begun in iSo. In a time of peace the Scillitaii inartvrs hail died at lar- thage (Gorres, Jahr. f. Prot. iheol. 1K.S4. pts. ii. iii.); but after that there is a blank till 198, when Naniphanjo \%as the new " archi- martNT " of the church. A few months' respite followed. It was disturbed bv an event which is with some plausibility alleged to have taken place at Carthage. .\ certain soldier refused the doiuitivum of Sevcrus and Caracalla, publicly declined the laurel crown accepted by his fellow-soldiers, and pro- claimed himself a Christian. The incident is described in the de Corona ; Tertullian, making it a test case, debated whether the Christian could accept military service. His advice, and the conduct founded upon it, infuriated the heathen. Under Hilarian (202-203) per- secution broke out again. It took the special form of refusing the Christian dead their usual place of burial ; the cry invaded the pro- consul's tribune, " .\reae non sint ! " (" No cemeteries for the Christians ! "). Just then the decree issued in 202 by Severus indirectly if not directly gave sanction to all measures of repression. It forbad proselytizing by either Jew or Christian. It was easy, were the African proconsul so minded, to read into this purely prohibitive measure a licence to persecute. The " fight of martyrdom and the baptism of blood " which ensued is perhaps to be traced in Tcrtullian's de Fuga and Scorpiace (between 202-212). These treatises are fiercely scornful against the flight once counselled when persecution raged. The de Fuga (c. V.) denounces, not less angrily, a growing practice — purchase of immunity. Of sterner mould and of more loving faith were the brothers Satyrus and Saturninus, the slaves Revocatus and Felicitas, and the nobly- born and nobly-wedded Ferpetua. The .\cts of their passion, by some (e.g. Bonwetsch and Salmon) attributed to Tertullian himself, have preserved a picture of the times — a reluctant proconsul, all-willing martyrs, and a scoffing crowd saluting their baptism of blood with the mocking cry, " Salvum lotum " (see the .\cts in Migne's Patr. Lot. iii., and .Aube's collation, op. cit. pp. 221-224, 509, etc.). Again there came a respite, and again must the character of the proconsul have been instrumental in securing it. Of Julius Aspcr (proconsul in 205 or 206) it is told that not only did he refuse to force a Christian to sacrifice who under the torture had lapsed from the faith, but publicly express<'d regret to his assessors and the advocates at having to deal with such cases (ad Scapulam, c. iv.). For five or six years persecution was stayed, years of literary activity on the part of Tertul- lian. In 211, for some unknown reason, the religious war broke out afresh, and its cruel if brief progress is told in the aJ ."icupulam. Tcrtullian's last "Apology" is worthy of the Christian gladiator. Stroke upon stroke he deals his ponderous blows against the procon- sul. "We battle with your cruelty," he cries; but his weapons are the "offensive" weapons which Christ had put in his hands- prayer for the pers«-cutors, love for enenues (Matt. V. 44). (iod's judgments, he warn* them, were abroad. Drought, fires, eclipses, declared His wrath ; the miserable deaths of TERTULLIANUS lUI perseruting i.ri>r..niuU Iwtokmrd it. " Thi» our soct sli.ill iirvrr I41I." 1% hi* triiiinphant shout. " Strike It iltiwn. it will ri%c the more. We recompense to no man evil (or evil, but we warn you— Fight not again%t (iinl 1 " In 212 the blessing o( |>racr rmtrd attain upon .\frica and continur<l (i>r vmie yearn. III.WHiTiMiS.— Trrtullian'slitrraryactivilv is by sKiiie roiihncd to i"<7-ji2 ; by other*, with f.ir greater probability, it is extended to at least c. 223. A gener.il chroiiologirjl arrangement only is possible, the dates given being few and uncertain. The only work which siippli«-s positive evidence of date 1* the first b<M>k adv. Marctonem (3rd ed). In c. XV. Tertullian says he is writing in the 15th year of Severus. now considered to l)e a.i>. J07 (Bonwetsch, Die Schriflen lerlulliam nath der Zett threr .ibfassung. p. 42). Tertullian wa» then a Montanist, but his i>eii h.id for some years been employed in In-half ol the church. Tertullian's wiitings represent him v.»rioUH- ly as layman, priest, and schismatic ; and divide broadlv into works written in the Catholic or .Montanist p<-ricKls of hi* life. The latter must further be subdivided into treatises in which Catholic or schismatic ele- I ments are respectively prominent. In j character they are thrwfold : (a) AtM)logetic ; I (b) Dogmatic and polemical ; (c) Moral and I ascetic. The arrangements of Up. Kaye and I Bonwetsch have in the main suggf-sted that ! which follows ; though the dates attached ; are in almost all cases conjectural. (1) Works written while still in the church ; \ (a) .\pologetic writings (c. i<j7-i<)H) ; ad .Marty res ; .A pologetuum . de Te\ttmonio .-inimae : ad Satione'i, i. ii ; adv. Judaeo%. (b) (ither w.irks of this period, but of le-.s certain date : de Oralume : de Haptumo . de Poenitentia ; de Stifctaculi'i . de Cuitu Feminarum, i. ; de Idololalria : de Cullu Femiftarutn, ii. ; de Patienlm ; ad I' lorem. 1. ii. (the last live c. i97-><>'») ; lif Prae^crip- ^tione Haereticorum (c. 199); adv. .Marcionem ii. (ist ed.), c. 200. (2) .Montanistic writings: - I (a) Defending the church and her te.iching* {c. 202-203) : de Corona . de Fuga in Ptr- , secutione : de Exhorlattone CaWi/j/n. (b) Defending the Paraclete and His dis- i ciplinc : de I'trginibus \'etandif (c. 203-204. ] a transition work) ; aJv. .Marcion. (2nd ed. ; c. 206) ; 16. (3rd ed. ; c. 207). lietween 2ou- 207 or later: adv. Hennogenem ; adv. Valen- tintanos , adv. Starcxon. (iv.); de Came ChriUt : de Hesurrecttone Carnt\ . adv. .Maroon, (v.). De Pallto and de .Anima (c. 2oM-2o<)) ; Scorp»a<t (c.211; «/. 203 tjr 204); adSiapulam(<. i%i). Three c. 217. <«/. 203-207; de .Monogamiu . de Jefunio ; de Puduitia . and adv. Praiean (C. 223. al. C. 2oH.20<>). A. iertulhan. Layman and .Apolo(til.—Ad .Marlyrei. -Two thoughts (c. ill.) fthuuld animate the martyrs. (1) «t.r.vi..i.. ^rr^ s*»ldicr». "called to the militjr living (jod " by a sacramental ' they must l>c true. (2) They . i athletes whose privm was their traiiiiu,; -ih -)l (palaestra), where " virtus duritia evtruitur, ' mollitia vero destruitur." The w..rd» of Christ (.Matt. xxvi. 41) should help Ihein !«• mbjcct the flrih to the npirit. the weaker to 942 TERTULLIANUS the stronger ; the example of the heathens, Lucretia and Mucins. Heraclitus and Pare- grinus, Dido and the wife of Hasdrubal, would teach them to count their sufferings trifling if, by enduring them, they might obtain a heavenly glory and a divine reward. In their own day many persons of birth, rank, and age had met their death at the hands of the emperor. Should Christians hesitate to suffer as much in the cause of God ? Apologeticum. — This Apology — the greatest of his works — was a cry for bare justice. (i) A heading to c. i., " Quod religio Chris- tiana damnanda non sit, nisi qualis sit prius intelligatur," sums up its protest : The rulers of Carthage were persecuting and condemning a " sect " which forthcoming evidence proved unworthy of condemnation. Their conduct was the reverse of that enjoined by the em- peror Trajan — that Christians were not to be sought out ; but if brought before Pliny were to be punished. Tertullian reminds the rulers (c. v.) that the laws against Christians had been enforced only by emperors whose memory men had learnt to execrate : e.g. Nero and Domitian. Not such as these was Tiberius (cf. Eus. H. E. ii. 2), in whose day Christ came into the world (cf. c. vii.), and who had desired the senate to admit Him among the Roman deities. Marcus .\urelius was a protector. Not even Hadrian, Vespa- sian, Pius, nor Verus had put into force the laws against Christians. The men who were demanding this were daily and contemptuous- ly infringing laws of all kinds. In proof he draws a sad picture of luxury and immorality. The good old laws had gone which encouraged in women modesty and sobriety. (2) Chaps, vii.-ix. What were the charges against the Christians ? " We are called miscreants" — and the evidence was only rumour ! " Fama malum, quo non aliud velocius uUum." It was, Tertullian retorts, the existence (secret or open) of evil practices among the heathen which explained their belief in similar deeds among Christians. (3) Chaps, x.-xxvii. Tertullian faces the first of the two great charges, " sacrilege and treason." His "apology" as regards the former consists, briefiv speaking, of (a) " demon- stratio religionis eorum " (cc. x.-xvi. xxiv.- xxvii.) and of (h) " demonstratio religionis nostrae " (cc. xvii.-xxiii.), a most valuable evidential passage. (a) You Christians, said the heathen, do not worship our gods. No, said Tertullian, and we won't, because we do not recognize them to be gods. They were nothing but men of long ago, whose merits should have plunged them into the depths of Tartarus. How much better would it have been if the deus deificus had waited and taken up to heaven in their place such men as Socrates, Aristides, The- mistocles, and others. The images excite Tertullian's intense scorn, as " the homes of hawks and mice and spiders." Caustically does he describe the heathen treatment of their household gods. " You pledge them, sell them, change them. They wear out or get broken, and you turn your Saturn into a cooking-pot and your Minerva into a ladle ! You put your national gods in a sale-catalogue; and the man who will sell you herbs in the TERTULLIANUS herb-market will sell you gods at the Capitol. Or what could be more insulting than the company you give them ? You worship Larentina, the prostitute, together with Juno or Ceres or Diana. You erect (at Rome) a statue to Simon Magus and give him as in- scription the title of sanctus deus (see Kaye's Tertull. p. 542, and Oehler's note here). You turn into a god a sodomite like Antinous " (see Kellner's note). What then, it was asked, did Christians worship if not the gods ? Tertullian answers, "Take in this first of all : they who are not worshippers of a lie are worshippers of truth." From this might be deduced the whole of the Christian religious belief. But before Ter- tullian proceeds to do this, he refutes some very false, but common, opinions about the Christians, e.g. the vulgar belief that the god of the Christians was an ass's head, that they worshipped the cross, or the sun. Lately a bestiarius (see Semler's and Kellner's notes) had exhibited a picture at Rome inscribed Deus Christianorum ovoKoiTrjs. The figure had the ears of an ass, one foot was hoofed, in his hand was a book, and he was dressed in a toga (see D. C. A. s.n. '" .\sinarii"). The name and the form only made us laugh, says Tertullian ; and then he retorts : " But our opponents might well have worshipped such a biformed deity : for they have dog-headed and lion-headed gods, gods with horns, gods with wings, gods goat-limbed, fish-limbed, or serpent-limbed from the loins ! " {b) Tertullian turns from what Christianity was not to what it was, and the main lines of the evidences of Christianity in the 2nd cent, are still those of our own. These chapters (xvii.-xxiii.), so valuable in the history of religious belief, deserve the student's close attention. The eloquence, fervour, humility, and devoutness of the writer will be felt to be contagious. Irony and passion are com- paratively absent. The section details (fti) the nature and attributes of the Creator, (bj) the mission of the prophets, men full of (inundati) the Holy Spirit, (b^) the character of the Scriptures, and (b^) the history of the Lord. Under 63 Tertullian notes two things. These Scriptures were marked, first, by that antiquity which his opponents rightly valued. The most ancient heathen writings were far less ancient than those of Moses, the contem- porary of the Argive Inachus, and (as some thought) 500 years older than Homer. Nay, the very last prophet was coeval with the first of the (heathen) philosophers, lawgivers, and historians. " Quod prius est, semen sit necesse est." Secondly, the Scriptures were marked by majesty. " Divinas probamus {scripturas), si dubitatur antiquas." This in- ternal evidence was a proof of their antiquity, while the external and daily fulfilment of pro- phecy was a reason for expecting the verifi- cation of what was not yet fulfilled. 64 is in answer to the questions. Why did Jews and Christians differ ? Did not these differences argue worship of different gods ? Tertullian's reply (c. x.xi.) is a history of the origin of the Christian sect and name, and an account of the Founder of Christianity, such as we have in the Gospels. His account is interspersed with most interesting statements, TERTULLIANUS f-g. the Ji'wisli im\Tfi»cc iroin tin- liuiiulitv ol Christ that He was oiilv man. ami from Mis miraculous power that Me was a magician, and not the I.oros of (.".od ; the record ol the darkening of the sun at the crucihxion pre- served in the si-cret archives of the empire ; the reason for the seclusion of the Lord alter the resurrection, viz. " that the wicked should be freed from their error, and that faith de- stined for so glorious a rewaril should he estab- lished upon difftculty '" ; his own opinion that Caesars (such as Til>erius) would have believed in Christ, if they could have been Caesars and Christians at the same lime ; the sutTerings of the disciples at the hands of the Jews ; and at last, through Nero's cruelty, the sowing the seed of Christianity at Rome in their blixid (cf. c. 1.). He concludes : " Deum colimus per Christum." Count Him a mere man if you like. By Him and in Him Clod wishes to be known and worshipped. One more point remained. Romans con- sidered their position as masters of the world the reward of their religious devotion to their gods, and affirmed that they who paid their gods the most service flourished the most. Tertullian traverses this " assumption " in ironical terms, or meets it with positive denial. (4) Chaps, xxviii.-xxxvi. — The charge laesae auguatioris majeslatis is now reached. The evil spirits stirred up the heathen to conjpel Christians to sacrifice pro salute impfratoris ; and that compulsion was met by resistance not less determined. Ironically does Tertullian commend in the heathen the dread with which they regarded Caesar as more profound and reverential than that which they accorded to the Olympian Jupiter. Christians were counted publici hostea, because they would not pay to the emperor vain, lying, or unseemly \ honours ; and because, as verae nligionis homines, they kept the festival days not las- civiously, but as conscientious men. Truly if public joy was to be expressed by public , shame, the Christians deserved condemnation. | (5) Chaps, xxxvii.-xlv. — This section, deal- ing with minor points of objection to the ' Christians, opens with an impassioned protest i on behalf of men who, actuated by the prin- TERTULLIANUS • 43 ciple " Idem sumus imperatoribus qui et Carthage, this \icinis nostris," never took vengeance for the wrongs done to them. Mob-law had attacked less prolonged, them with stones and fire, or with Bacchan- " alian fury had torn their dead from the graves to rend their bodies asunder. Had Christian- ity tolerated repaying evil with evil, what secret vengeance could have been wrought in a single night with a torch or two ! Or, had they determined to act as open enemies, what numbers and resources would they have had ! "We are but of yesterday," is Tertullian's proud boast (cf. c. i.), "and yet we have filled your cities, fortresses, towns, assemblies, camp, palace, senate, and forum : sola vohis reliquitnus Umpla. Should we determine to separate from you and betake ourselves to some remote corner of the globe, your loss of so many citizens would cover you with shame. The solitude, silence, and stupor as of a dead world would fill you with fear. \'»n would have to seek subjects to govern. Vour enemies would be more numerous than your citizens. At present it is your Christian citi/eiis whii ni.ik.- v.iiir .•ii.iiiii-> s.> lew," Tirtiilliaii lherel..re .isks Ih4t ChrlMi4n« should U- adiiiltlid ••iiit.T lirit.»s larlionr^." The " s<Tt ' was inc.itiablr ol any %urh 4Ct« as were dreadetl m {.ifliiddrn vtcietm. H thev h.id indeed their own orrupatlon« [ne^.Uiii). whv should that give .iflcncr > Foe what were the " iirgoti.i C hristutur fac- tionis " ? (c. xx\ix.). Trrlulli^n's jiiswrr 1* 4 touching picture of the simple Christrndoni o| his day. " We are a IhmIv Imkrtl together by a common religious profrsMon, by unilv of discipline, and bv a common ho|H-. Wr mr«-t as a congregation and prav to (umI hi united supplication. Hatc in Deo grata <•»/. We pray for the emperors, their miiiisierv and those in authoritv, for the welfare of the worUl, for peaceful times, and f«>r the driaviiig of the end (see c. xxxii.). We come togrthrr to listen to our Holv Scriptures (cf. Just. .Mart. Apol. ii.); and bv holy words we nourish faith, raise hope, stablisli coiitulence, and stretigthrn discipline. Our preMdeiits are rider* of approved character, who have obtained thi» honour not bv purchase but by d»-sert. On the monthly d.iv appointed each gives to the chest what he liki-s ; tlx* inoiiev is disbursed not in feasting iiid drinking, but in siip|>ortiiiK and burying the po<ir. in providing for de-.ti- tute orphan bovs and girls, in supporting the aged, liie intinn. and the shipwrecked, and in succouring those sent to the mines or incar- cerated in prisons e\ (Ummj l>ei seclue." (t») Chaps, xlvi.-l. .\ccusations had U'en met and the case of the Christian stated. What rem.tined .' One last jH-rversion on tlie part of unbelief : " Christianity was no divine institution, but simply a kind of philosophy." The refutation of this closes the Apoloo'. Tertullian. if fre(juentlv satirical, is at hrst grave and dignified, sober and patient, more than is his wont ; but the smouldering fire bursts out at last ; his last chapter is a climax of withering scorn and impassioned ap(>cal. A J .\aliones (i. ii.) is practically a short form of the Apology. It covers the same ground, uses the same arguments and largely the same language. But the ApuUigv was addressed to the rulers and magistrates of the people. Its whole cast IS consequently more popular, its argummit llustratioiis less ri-M-rved (cf. I. cc. iv. viii. xvi. ; il. c. xi.). De Jesltmonio Animae was written very so<jn after the Apology, to which it refers (c. v.). Some have thought it the most oriKinal and acute of his works (s«-e Neander. Aniignoi- licui, p. 251*). Many of his pretlcccsstirs, MV* Tertullian (c. i.), had ransacked heathen literature to discover in it sup|>ort of the Christian efforts to ex|H'l error aiui admit eipiity. The attempt was. in his opinion, a mistake and a failure. He would not rr|K-j| it. Neither would he adduce Christian writings when dealing with heathrn. for no- b<Kly consulted them unless already a I hn%- tiaii. Therefore he turns to anolhrr and a new testimony, that of the »4)ul. AjHntro- phizing It, he crie*, " Thou art not, vi far as I know. Christian. The m»uI i* not b<>rn Christian (rf. AfnA. xvin.l, but brcomr* Christian. Vet Christian* beg now for a te>timony from thcc, as from oue uui\td« 944 TERTULLIANUS them ; a testimony against thine own that the heathen may blush for their hatred and mockery of us." The testimony of the soul to God is found in popular phrases indicative of knowledge and fear of God ; then it is adjured to speak about immortality and the resurrec- tion of the body (c. iv. ; of. Apol. xlviii.). Adversus Judaeos. — The authenticity and integrity of the treatise, as usually printed, have both been disputed ; the latter with justice, the former needlessly, and principally on account of the discredit attaching to the latter portion. Chaps, i.-viii. are certainly Tertullian's, written while still a church- man. The latter chapters are different, both in character and style. The treatise was occasioned by a dispute between a Christian and a heathen converted, not to Christianity but to Judaism. Practically, the question between them was the exclusion or not of Gentiles from the promises of God. But there was a preliminary question. Was any one expected, and if expected, had any one come, " novae legislator, sabbati spiritalis cultor, sacrificiorum aeternorum antistes, regni aeterni aeternus dominator," or was His advent still matter of hope ? (c. vii.). The fulfilment of prophecy rightly understood was the answer. TertuUian does not need to prove that the Christ should come. Every Jew believed and hoped it. Is. xlv. i was sufficient proof of it. [He renders the passage different- ly from the present Hebrew text, and with one especially interesting variation, reading, " Thus saith the Lord God to my Christ the Lord (Ki/p/o;)," etc., instead of "to Cyrus Kt''p(f)) His anointed," etc. So also in adv. Prax. cc. xi. xxviii.J In the then fulfilment of this prophecy he sees the proof that the Christ had come. Upon whom but upon Christ had the nations believed ? — nations such as (int. al.) Moors, Spaniards, Gauls, Britons, " inhabiting places inaccessible to the Romans but subjugated to Christ " (in the same chapter he speaks of them as " shut up within the circuit of their own seas "), Ger- mans and others, unknown to him, and too numerous to mention. Christ reigned every- where, was adored everywhere : " omnibus aequalis, omnibus rex, omnibus judex, omni- bus Deus et Dominus est." B. TertuUian the Pr^•es^— TertuUian had hitherto written as a layman. The writings now to be considered indicate more or less directly that he had become a priest (cf. de Baptismo, cc. xvii. xviii.). Persecution was for a time suspended. It is highly probable that about this time a synod of African bishops met at Carthage to discuss matters affecting the organization, discipline, and teaching of the church ; and the occasion may have been used to ordain one who, as an " apologist," had proved himself so fearless a champion of the church. Questions concern- ing heretical baptism, and the attitude of the church towards the heretical sects, were very probably discussed, and Tertullian's lost treatise on heretical baptism was written in Greek to circulate the synod's decisions beyond the confines of the African church. Other points, however, dealing with Chris- tian life and ethics, came before him in hiswork in Carthage as a priest. The flock looked to TERTULLIANUS their pastors for guidance : prayer, baptisnti, repentance, and the discipline connected with them ; woman's dress and woman's life, married or unmarried ; pleasures, amuse- ments, how far lawful or unlawful, — all were matters upon which direction was desirable, and to all does TertuUian apply himself. Roughly divided, the treatises were practical and doctrinal, but the division must not be pressed too closely. (i) Practical Treatises. — De Oratione. (a) Of the Lord's Prayer specifically (cc. i.-xi.) ; (b) of prayer generally — times, places, and customs (cc. xii.-end). (a) As Christ was Spirit, Word, and Reason, so His prayer was formed of three parts : the word by which it was expressed, the spirit by which alone it had power, the reason by which it was appropriated (the reading is disputed) ; and the practice of prayer was recommended with three injunctions : that it should be offered up in secret, marked by modesty of faith," and distinguished by brevity. It was in very truth " breviarium totius evangelii." It is reckoned as containing seven clauses, the doxology not being given ; and each clause is considered separately. The comments are reflections rather than interpretations ; and if unequal and sometimes fanciful, they are very beautiful and can never be read without profit. His own summary (c. ix.) is a mine of spiritual thought. He approves of other prayers being used corresponding with the special circumstances of him who prays, but never to the omission of this, the regular and set form of prayer. (b) Certain ceremonies, " empty " {vacuae) TertuUian calls them, but illustrative of many an interesting point of ritual and practice of the time, are next considered : Washing the hands before prayer ; praying with the cloak taken off ; sitting after prayer ; the kiss of peace ; the " Stations " (c. xix. ; see Oehler's note) ; the dress of women, and veiling or non-veiling of virgins ; kneeling in prayer ; place and time of prayer ; prayer when brethren met or parted ; prayer and psalm. The closing chapter, dealing with the power and effect of prayer, is one of the gems of Tertullian's writings. " Never," he cries, "let us walk unarmed by prayer. Under the arms of prayer guard we the standard of our emperor ; in prayer await we the angel's trump. Angels pray ; every creature prays. 'Quid amplius? Etiam ipse Dominus oravit.'" De Baptismo. — One Quintilla, " a viper of the Cainite heresy," had sought to destroy baptism. " What good could water do ? Was it to be believed that a man could go down into the water, have a few words spoken over him, and rise again the gainer of eter- nity ? " (see c. vi.). Quintilla was apparently a Gnostic, and the very simplicity of the means of grace repelled her. " Miratur sim- plicia quasi vana, magnifica quasi impos- sibilia." Her sneers had corrupted some ; others were disturbed by such doubts as. Why was baptism necessary ? Abraham was justified without it. The Christ Himself did not baptize. No mention was made in Scripture of the baptism of the apostles ; St. Paul himself was bidden not to practise it. TERTULLIANUS Answers had to l)e given, lest catechumens should perish through lack of right in- struction. (a) The foundation for the sacrament (rf- Ugfoni^m) of baptism Tertullian finds in (cc. i.-ix.) the history of the creation. The hover- ing of the Spirit of God over the waters was typical of baptism ; and water still, after invocation of God. furnished the sacrament of sanctitication. Shortly but beautifully he describes the baptismal ceremonies (cf. de Sped. c. iv.), notes the types and figures of baptism in O.T., and the testimony to baptism in the life and passion of the Ixjrd. (b) Larger questions acquiescing in the necessity of baptism awaited consideration. (i) Heretical B<j/>/i.sw. —Christians held firmly to a belief in one God, one Baptism, one Church. This unity was, as regards baptism, imperilled by heretical baptism. ThQ ademptio communicationis (by some-» deprivation of communion ; by others=- excoramunication) stamped heretics as stran- gers. " We and they have not the same God, nor one [i.e. the same] Christ. Therefore we and they have not one [i.e. the same] baptism. What [baptism] they have, they have it not rightly, and therefore have not baptism at all." On these grounds he rejected heretical baptism. On the whole subject consult Libr. of the Path. x. pp. 280 seq. (ii) Second Baptism. — The belief and prac- tice of the church Tertullian states thus : " We enter the font but once ; our sins are washed away but once, because they ought not to be repeated." The Christian had. nevertheless, a second baptism, viz. the Baptism of Blo<id (cf. Luke xii. 50). Two baptisms had Christ sent forth from the wounds in His pierced side, that they who believed in His Bl<x)d might be washed with water, and that they who had been washed with water might also drink His Blood. This was that Baptism which stood in the place of the font when it had not been received, or restored it when lost (cf. Scorp. c. vii.). (c) The remainder of the treatise deals with points of church practice and discipline as regards baptism (cc. xvii.-xx.). Laymen as well as clerics could administer it, but only if disciples and in cases of necessity. " Lay- man " was not taken to include women. Baptism was not to be administered rashly (cf. Matt. vii. 6). Tertullian, like the teachers of .Alexandria, recommends delaying it in the case of children, till they had passed " the age of innocence." and in the case of the unwedded and widowed. The times most suitable for baptism were the Passover and Pentecost ; but not to the exclusion of other opp«jrtunities. When about to receive baptism, candidates should prepare themselves by prayer, fasting, vigil, and confession of sins (cf. .Matt. iii. 6) ; and after baptism they should rejoice rather than fast. Tertullian suggests to them a prayer : " When you rise from that holy font of your new birth and spread your hands (<>r the first time in the house of your mother Church with your brethren, ask of the Father, ask of the Lord, special grace [" t>cculia fratiae "] and the divers gifts of the Holv pirit [" distributiones charismatum "j. And, he adds with touchiog humility, " I TERTULLIANUS 945 ; pray you that whm v.u uA. v..u remcmlKT in your pr.ivrrs TiTtullun the Miinrr." I l>e l'oenilmtni.-~\irj>rul»ncr of oui l>r(<)re , baptism (re. i.-vi.). Irui- rr|H<iit4nrr had it* measure and its limit in thr Ir^r of (»<hI. (kmI Hims.lf initialed repentance, when lie rr- I scinded His srntrnro on AcLun. Me c«h.*tr.l I men to it bv His I'Tophrtn ; by St. John Hr . pointed out lis sign and s<-,il in hapti*ni. It« aim was the salvation of man llirou«h the abolition of sin. Therr was 4 trmlrncv lo j say "(mhI was sali*fir<l with Ihr drvoii.iii of I heart and mind. Kven if men did \in in act, ' they could do v> without prejudice to their faith and fe.ir." With an intensity of mt- cisin Tertullian n-nlirs. " Vou »hall b« thrust down into hrll without prejudice to your p.irdon." Such Antinonuani\ni ex- j plained another frr<pient and laiiientable pr.actice. The Christians of the dav mmt I finnly beliived in the washing awav of \u\% 111 Holy B.iptisin, and in the nrct-sMty of true repentance as preparatory to the reception of it ; but this lea " novices " (" inter auditorutn I tirocinia ") not to a willing and holy eagernrvt to receive baptism, but to a presuiiiptuou^ and unholy spirit of delay, that they (the vtldier^ of the Cross) might steal the intervening time as a furlough ( ' commentum ") for «inninx rather than for learning not to sin. Tenderly and wisely di>es Tertullian plead with them. " H a man who has given himself to (iod is not ' to cease sinning till he be bound by baptism. I hardly know whether he will not feel, after baptism, more sorrow than joy." De Spectacults. — .\ period of tem|>orary peace after persecution (cf. c. xxvu.) had ! fallen upon the church in Carthage. Si>ec- tacular shows and g.imes were being given. ' possibly in commemoration of the victory of Severus over .\lbinus. and the grave question had to be faced — Should Christians attend j them ? The seal (sigtuiculum) of baptism \ supplied the reason ag.iiiist attendance. All j the preparations coiuuctcd with the s|>ectacle< were based upon idolatry, and idolatry wa« I renounced at the font. In cc. v.-xiii. fertul- lian draws out in detail the origin of the spectacles, their titles, apparatus, localities, and arts ; and the reader can realize to the very life the places and scenes he descril)c* in impassioned but ofti-n one-sided invective. 1-Iverywhere in the circus were imager and statues, chariots dedicated to gods, their thrones, crowns, and equipments. Keligiou« rites preceded, intervened, ami succee»led the games ; guilds, pri«-st». and altemUnts served the conventui daemontorum. Consecrated to the sun. the solar temple rose 111 the initUl, the S4>lar elTigv glittered on the suininil. The chariots of the circus were de(iiratr<l lo the gods, the charioteers wore the colours (white, I red. green, and blue) of idoUtrv. The I desiKtialor and the karuspet were two m.»»t befouled masters of the ceremonies connected with the funereal and tarriticial rite*. The thtatrum was the home of Venus and Itarchu* ; the |>erformances there claimed their patron- age. The very artistic gilt« employe*! in prmlucing the s|>ectacW were the inspiralloit of demonn, glozcd over by a fallacion* con- secration. Men pleaded, " We cannot live without pleasure." Well, Chritliant had 60 946 TERTULLIANUS pleasures many and noble. What greater pleasure could be conceived than reconcilia- tion to God and pardon of the many sins of a past life ? What delight should exceed the trampling idolatry under foot, the expulsion of demons, acts of healing, a life unto God ? These were the pleasures and spectacles of Christians, holy, perpetual, and free. In the Christian circus they might behold immodesty hurled down by chastity, perfidy slain by fidelity, cruelty bruised by mercy, wantonness overcome by modesty ! These were the contests in which to gain the Christian crown. "Or do you wish to see the blood shed ? Behold Christ's ! " Then Tertullian closes his eyes to the spectacles of earth. There looms before him (c. xxx.) the spectacle close at hand of the Lord coming in His glory and triumph. He depicts angels exulting, saints rising from the dead, the kingdom of the just and the city of the New Jerusalem, the hell of the persecutor and scoffer ; and there were spectacles even more glorious still. Man could not conceive them ; but they were nobler than those of the circus, the amphi- theatre, or the racecourse. De Culiu Feminarum, i. and ii. — The luxury and extravagance of the women of the time is matter of notoriety. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria do not express one whit more strongly than Seneca their ambition, cruelty, and licentiousness. Therefore, when women became Christians, and matronly and wifely virtues or virgin purity and modesty char- acterized them, it extorted the admiration of some and the impatient scorn of others. But luxury began to creep in and overrule the daughters of the church. Tertullian saw it, and the above works were among other efforts to recall Christian women to the Christian life. De Idololatria is a protest against serving two masters — Christianity and heathenism. Many Christians had in adult age come over to Christianity from heathenism, and many Christian craftsmen gained their living by distinctly heathen trades, and would not or could not see that they were wrong. Many " servants of God " had official or professional engagements which brought them perpetually in contact with heathen customs, legal forms, sacrificial acts, and social courtesies. They drew sophistical distinctions between what they might write but not speak, or the image they might make but not worship. To Tertullian such contact and collusion, and therefore such professions and trades, were radically wrong. Heathenism in all its shapes was idolatry. Two professions connected with idolatry were especially obnoxious to him, (a) the astrologer (c. ix.), arguing that " astrology was the science of the stars which affirmed the Advent of Christ " ; (6) the school- master (ludimagister) and other professors of letters (c. x.), who had to teach the names, genealogies, honours of heathen gods, and keep their festivals from which they derived their income. On festival-days, in honour of emperors, victories, and the like, the doors of Christians were more decorated with lamps and laurels than those of the heathen (cf. Apol. c. xxxv.), men quoting Christ's command, " Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" (Matt. xxii. 21). Private and TERTULLIANUS social festivals stood on a different footing (c. xvi.), e.g. the natural ceremonies connec- ted with the assumption of the toga virilis, espousals, nuptials, and the naming of children. It was a more important question (c. xvii.) what was to be the line of slaves or children who were believers, of officials in attendance upon their lords, patrons, or the chief magis- trates when sacrificing ? Tertullian answers all such questions in detail. From idolatry in act Tertullian passes to idolatry in word (c. XX.), forbidding ejaculations such as " By Hercules ! " " By the god of truth " (Medius- fidius, see Andrews's Lex. s.n. Fidius). Lastly a yet subtler form of idolatry is considered (c. xxiii.). Christians borrowed money from the heathen, and by giving bonds in security avoided taking an oath. " Scripsi sed nihil dixi. Non negavi, quia non juravi." In- dignantly does Tertullian protest against such sophistry : faults committed in mind were faults in deed (Matt. v. 28). De Patientia, one of the most spiritual of Tertullian's compositions, is a sermon preached to himself quite as much as to others. His experience as a priest had taught him the need of patience every time he confronted pettiness not less than pride, frivolity not less than idolatry. Ad Uxorem, i. and ii. — Among the questions discussed in, and disturbing, the Christian church at Carthage was that of second mar- riages. These were evidently numerous. Tertullian gave his advice in a treatise in two books addressed to his wife, which he hoped might be profitable to her and to any other woman "belonging to God." He does not go here beyond the position taken by St. Paul. If he evidently considered celibacy the higher state, though himself married, he does not forbid marriage. But second marriages were different, and he argues strongly against them. (2) Doctrinal Treatises. — Three positions laid down by Tertullian (de Praes. Haer. cc. xxi. xxxii. xxxvi.), [a) apostolic doctrine, (b) episcopal succession from the apostles, (c) the apostolic canon of Scripture, were rocks on which the church was then firmly fixed. (a) His Regula Fidei (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. xiii. ; de Virg. Vel. c. i. ; adv. Prax. c. ii.) is the form given by Irenaeus {contr. Haer. 1 c. X. ; cf. the two in Denzinger's Enchiridion, pp. I, 2), expanded upon points which had come to the front during a lapse of about 30 years. But it had become something more than a mere regula ; it had risen to a doctrina ; and in the brotherhood of Carthage it was the contesseratio (cf. de Praes. Haer. cc. xx. xxxvi.) which reason and tradition united in approving. (6) The regula had come down to them through bishops " per successionem ab initio decurrentem " (cf. ib. c. xxxii.), and those bishops had received " cum successione charisma veritatis certum" (Iren. iv. c. xxvi. 2). The former fact gave historical value to the regula, the latter dogmatic credibility. The unworthy life of many a successor of the apostles (cf. de Pudicitia, c. i.) did not annul the validity of the doctrine. For (c) it was supported by the Scriptures. In the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian the Law and the Prophets, the Gospels and the Apostolic Epistles (cf. de Praes. Haer. c. xxxvi.) TERTULLIANUS formed an uiulisputfci canon. Tertullian's nomenclature for the Bible (see Konscli. Ihii \. 7". rcrtiilUdH's, pp. 4 7-4<)) is alone snUicient record of the high value attached to the writings in the custody of "the one Holy Catholic Church." The sacred Scriptures contained the solution of every difficulty (cf. de Idolotat. c. iv. ft pas^.). It was the armoury of weapons offensive and defensive which the church permitted her children alone to use (cf. df Pra^s. c. xv., etc.), for she alone had taught them to use them aright. With such an equipment and in defence of "mother " church (u</ Mart. c. i.; d^Orat. c. ii. and aliter). Tertullian went forth to attack the " heresies " of men who, c.illing them- selves Christians, yet abandoned the .ipostolic tradition for doctrines whose parent. ige he attributed to the devil, and whose precepts he scorned as derived from non-Christian religious systems and speculations, or as the offspring of self-willed wickedness. De Praescriptione Haeretkorum. — This treatise, with its title drawn from the language of jurisprudence, consists of (i), an intro- duction (cc. i.-xiv.), (ii) the main division of the work (cc. xv.-xl.). It is more than probable that it originated in the desire to emphasize the doctrinal stability of the African church in the face of some fresh tendency towards Gnosticism in general and the views of Marcion especially, (i) Persons of weak faith and character (c. iii.) were un- settled because some once accounted firm in the faith were passing over to heresy ; and it was not sufficient simply to refer to Scripture, which the Gnostic teachers could apply as much as the orthodox. I-or the time Tertul- lian conceived no better way of meeting their diflicultv than by positive injunction to re- fuse appeal to Scripture to their would-be seducers, to note the character of the heretics, and to surrender themselves entirely to the guidance of the church. The authority men advanced for their deviations from the faith was nothing less than the words of the Lord, " Seek, and ve shall find " (Matt. vii. 7). Ter- tullian argues that Christ's words could bear no such interpretation ; they contained advice to search after definite truth and to rest content with it when found. There was safety only in the belief that " Christus instituit quud quaeri oportet, quod credi necesse est." Parables (Luke xi. 5. xv. 8, xviii. 2, 3) taught the same lesson — " finis est et quaerendi et pulsandi el petendi." There- fore Christians were to seek " in their own, from their own, and concerning their own ; and onlv such questions as might be dr- liberated without prejudice to the rule of faith. This mention of the regula fidei leads (c. xiii.) to the statement of it. This passage is there- fore one of the m<jst important in Tertullian's writings as an index to the articles of the Christian faith believed and accepted in his dav (consult Pusev's notes in l>co]. This "rule" the Christians held to have »>een taught by Christ. Tertullian is quite willing (c. xiv.) that it should be examined, discussc<l. and explained to novices by some " doctor gratia scientiae donatus." But he giv<-s a caution. It was not Biblical skill (" excr- TERTULLIANUS 1*41 citalio scriptur.irum ") but l.iith which *aved (cf. Luke xviii. 41). Faith Uv deposited in this " rule " ; it had a law, and In thr krrpinf of that law came salvation. " Cc<lat cuiioiitat fidei, cedat gloria saluti." (ii) Chaps, xv.-xl.— Meresv wa* vnnrtimn deiendetl on the ground that hrrrtir* UM*d and argue»l from the Scriptures. But. an^wrrcd Tertullian, their use of thrin was " audacKnii " and not to be admitted. None but thrv who** were the Scriptures h.id a right to u>r thcin. Tertullian ad.ipts this position not from anv distrust of his c.tuse. but in accordance wiili apostolic injunctions (c. xvi. ; cf. I. Tim. vl. 3. 4 ; Tit. iii. 10). Heretics did ii.>t deal fairly with the Scriptures ; one passag"- they ' perverted, another they interpreted to «uit their own purpjwes (cf. c. xxxviii.). A man might have a most .idmirablr knowledge of I the Scripture, but yet make no progress with I heretical disputants. Hverything he niain- I tained they would deny, everything he denied ' they would maintain. As a result, the weak [ in faith, seeing mither side had decidedly the better in the discussion, would go away con- firmed in uncertainty. Certain questions , had therefore to be settled. Where was the ' true faith ? Whose were the Scriptures ? From whom, through whom, when, and to ! whom had been handed down the " discipiina i qua fiunt Christiani " ? It might Ik- assumed I that wherever the true Christian discipline and faith was, there would be also the true Scrip- lures, true exposition, and all true Christian j traditions (c. xix.). In Christ, Tertullian I finds Him Who first delivered the faith oj>cnly to the people or privately to His divriples, of whom He had chosen twelve " destinatos nationibus magistros." These twelve (St. .Matthias having been chosen in the place o( Judas) went forth and founded churches evervwhere ; and from them other churches derived then, and still derived, the tradition i of faith and the seeds of doctrine. Hence j their name of "apostolic churches." Though so many, they sprang from but one, the i)rimitive church founded by the ajxistles. I Thus all were primitive, all apmtolic, all one ; 1 and this unity was proved by their peaceful inter-communion, by the title of brotherhood, and bv the exercise of hospitality— all of which owed their basis and continuance to one and the same sacramental faith. From thi» was to be deduced the first rule (c. xxi.) : .N'one were to be received (cf. Matt. xi. 17) a* preachers but those (aposil.'>) whom the Lord Jesus Christ api>ointed and sent. A srcond rule was that what the ap.rstles preached I could onlv be proved bv thi^ churches which ' the apostles thems«-lv.'s foun.led. to which they I preached, and to which they afterwards %<-nt I epistles. All doctrine therefore which agreed ' with these aiMi^tolic churches (" inatriribus et originalibus fidei") was to \yr c.iunte«l true. i and firmlv held as having been received by the ; church from th.- ap.Mtles bv ihr ap .sllr^ from ' Christ, bv Christ from «..hI ; aii.l all doctrine 'must Im- pronounced falsr which ciitamed anything contr.iry to the truth tirclared bv the churches and a|H)%ile<» of ( hrist an.l --f God. Thev- ruU-s Tertullian and hi". c..religf>nl»t» afhrmed to Iw held bv the Holy Church to which they belonged : " Coramunicamui cum 948 TERTULLIANUS ecclesiis Apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa. Hoc est testimonium veritatis." Heretics advanced two " mad " objections to these rules : (a) The apostles did not know all things (c. xxii.). (b) Arguing from I. Tim. vi. 20 and II. Tim. i. 14, the apostles did not reveal everything to all men. Some doctrines they proclaimed openly and to all, others secretly and to a few (c. xxv.). Ter- tullian addressed himself to both these points. C. Tertullian and Montanism. — About the end of 2nd cent. Montanism invaded Africa. Tertullian would seem to have embraced it wholeheartedly. It suited his temperament ; it furnished the logical solutions to problems practical and theological which had been disturbing him. But his Montanism was not the Montanism of 172-177 or of Asia Minor ; it had come to him through the purifying medium of distance and time. He knew or remembered nothing of the extravagances connected with the first de- liverances of the " new prophets." Montan- ism was in truth to Tertullian little more than a name ; development and restoration rather than novelty underlie the intention, and are stamped upon the thoughts, of every treatise which follows those hitherto considered. The practices Tertullian favoured and advocated, the doctrines he loved and enforced, had alike their roots in the existing practices and doc- trines of the church. It is the manner in which he has insisted upon the one which has so much discredited it ; it is the juridical fence with which he has driven home the other which has angered opponents. He defended his practice and teaching as necessary for his day. New fasts, protests against second marriages, a sterner accentuation of discipline, were conceived as absolutely necessary by the man who, beginning by tightening bonds which the church had wisely left relaxed, ended by the Pharisaic assumption that he and his were irvevixariKol and his opponents xpi'XiKol. But if he drew his descriptive lan- guage from Gnostic codes, he burned in the spirit to depose Gnostic heresy. The merit he assigned to ecstasy, dream, vision, new prophecy, and special endowment by the Paraclete, were expansions of simpler but Scriptural teaching, with something of Phari- saic lordliness, but ever directed against the Sadduceeism, the materialism, the Patripas- sianism, and the Monarchianism of his day. The career of Tertullian, his whole being and character, left him no choice when he had to make his decision. He was bound to side with the sterner party, and he did. If at first he retained his position in the church, that position before long became intolerable. The breach took place of which the de Virg. Vel gives the ostensible cause ; and the passion which animated the apologist in defence of the church was presently employed to revile, discard, and injure her. Few treatises are more painful to read than the de Monogamia, de Jejunio, and de Pudicitia. It is a relief to turn from them to the adv. Praxean. If the heart of the ascetic has been alienated from the church, he can still defend her faith with all his old loving energy, and, by his last existing writing, command respect from those whose affection he had lost. TERTULLIANUS (i) Practical Treatises. — De Corona is usually counted the first treatise which in- dicates traces of Montanism (cf. c. i. ; Hauck places the de Virg. Vel. before it), and it was written after the de Spectac. (cf. c. vi.). Opinions were divided as to the soldier's conduct. Some blamed him as rash, as eager to die, some as bringing trouble on the Chris- tian name about a mere matter of dress. Tertullian, with one word of laudation of the man— -''solus scilicet fortis inter tot fratres commilitones, solus Christianus " — turns furi- ously upon his decriers. De Fuga in Persecutione. — It may well have been that excitement threatening persecution was aroused against Christians by the conduct of the soldier specified in the de Corona. In Carthage (c. iii.) the question was anxiously debated, " May Christians flee from persecu- " tion or not ? " The clergy answered " Yes," and set an example (c. xi.), which they prob- ably defended by Christ's words (Matt. x. 23), and by the practice of a Polycarp and others. A few years before [ad Uxor. i. c. iii.) Tertullian himself had conceded that flight was " better " where the Christian was likely to deny the faith through the agony of tor- ture ; but now he thought differently. Mon- tanistic severity had laid its spell upon him. His work deals with the two modes by which the timid and doubtful sought to evade per- secution : (a) flight (cc. i.-xi.), and {b) bribery (cc. xii.-end). De Exhortatione Castitatis. — Some years had elapsed since Tertullian had written ad Uxoretn, deprecating for women a second marriage. The death of a friend's wife gave him an opportunity of urging upon men a like continence ; and he did so in language de- claratory of views far more exaggerated. De Virginibus Velandis. — The veiling of virgins was a burning question among Chris- tians at Carthage ; and partisans in Carthage took sides according as they argued from what St. Paul (I. Cor. xi.) had said or had left to be inferred. Did his term " women " include virgins ? Christian married women appeared veiled everywhere, in the church as well as the marketplace ; their veil was the mark of their status. The Christian virgin did one of three things : she went everywhere unveiled, or veiled in the streets but unveiled in the church, or everywhere veiled. Of these the first was the oldest and local custom — it was the mark of the virgin and the practice of the majority. But a strong minority had adopted the last of the three practices. This Tertullian approved (cf. de Oral. cc. xx.-xxii.). (2) Doctrinal Works. — The majority of these were written when Tertullian had be- come a Montanist. They present more or less the catch-words of the sect, and refer to the Paraclete and the new prophecy, if the doctrines inculcated and defended are those of the church Catholic. To be a Montanist was not with Tertullian to be a seceder from the church in points of faith, though the church found it necessary for the sake of her unity in life and doctrine to count him and his outside her. Adv. Hermogenem. — For the nature of the opinions of this heretical teacher and of Ter- tullian's treatise against him see Hermogbnes . TERTULLIANUS The treatise contains two verv beautiful passages, (a) the eulogy of wisdom (c. xviii.). and (6) the description of the development of cosmical order out of chaos (c. xxix.). Adv. I'alenliniatu^s. — For a review of the opinions of this schtxil (" frequentissimura plane collegium inter haereticos ) sec Valen- TiNUS. Tertullian's treatise dix-s not so much discuss these opinions as state them ; it is not so much a refutation as a satire, intended to provoke mirth (c. vi.). It claims no origin- ality, but to be a faithful ret^inrtion of the teaching of Justin. Miltiades (cf. Eus. H. E. V. 17) Irenaeus, and Proculus. Df Carne Christi. — This is Tertullian's principal contribution to the Christological problem of the time : Was the flesh of Clirist born of the Virgin and human in its nature (c. XXXV.) ? In his de K(surrfcttone Carnts (c. ii.) he himself specifies the tenets he opposes here to be those of Marcion, Basilides, Valen- tinus, and Apelle5. These " modem Saddu- cees " (c. i. ; de Praes. Haer. c. xxxiii.) were apprehensive lest if they admitted the reality of Christ's flesh, they must also admit Hi> resurrection in the flesh, and consequently the resurrection generally. It was necessary to discuss, therefore. His bodily substance, (i) (a) Marcion's views are examined (cc. ii.-v.) ; then (b) those of .\pelles (cc. vi.-ix.) ; then (c) that of the N'alentinians (cc. x.-xvi.). (ii) The second part of the treatise deals more especi- ally with the single point — " Did Christ re- ceive flesh from the N'irgin " (cc. xvii.-end) ? The treatise fully responds to the intention of the wTiter. It examines the arguments employed and the Scriptures advanced (see esp. c. xviii.) ; and does so, on the whole, in a style moulded by the recollection that the subject was a grave and solemn one. There are bursts of irony (e.g. cc. ii. iv.) ; paradoxes (see c. v., perhaps the most famous of Tertul- lian's many paradoxes) and retorts ; but the total result is a valuable contribution to the literature of the subject. His line of argu- ment and his statement of the rhurch's doctrine is that of Irenaeus. For a general view of the opinions attacked see Apelles, Marcion, and Valentists. De Resurrectione Carnts. — Tertullian wTote this (c. ii.) in fulfilment of the intention ex- pressed in the dt Carm Chnsli (c. xxv.). against those who allowed that the soul would rise again, but refused resurrection to the flesh on account of its worthlessness. It was a logical sequence to their fundamental position that the works of the Demiurge, or the god who created the world and was opposed to the supreme God, were marked by corruption and worthlessness, and that the flesh of man was consequently so aUo. Tertullian grants that his subject was invested with uncertainty ; but it was too important to be passed over. The question affected the very Oneness of the Godhead. To deny the resurrection of the flesh would be to shake that df>ctrinc. to vindi- cate the resurrection f.f the flesh would estab- lish it. In contrast to the uns<-emly language {spurciloquium) of heathen and heretic, he will adopt a more honourable and mo<lest style (rf . de .Amma. c. xxxii.) ; and he has kept hi- word. There are few sentences which grate upon the ear, while there are many passage* ol TERTULLIANUS U9 considerable beauty and profound Chrl«(lAa faith. .4Jv. Mariiofum. bk*. i.-v.— Thi* weirk in its jiresrnt form is 4s^iRned to the isth vr4r of Severus (bk. i. r. xv.) or c. ioH . .md comet to us as a work tourhr<l .ind rrtoiirhrd cluriiiK many years (cf. i. c. xxii). Trrtullian h^d m other cavs felt diss.iti\farli«ii with hi* wrilinir« of .m e.irlier periiwl. or altrrr«J hi* arcumrnit to meet the evrr-altering phases of (4l«« belief. Thus in the earlier work, d* I'rart. Haer. c. xix., he declines to allow appeal to the Scriptures in the discussion of hrrrsv ; in a later treatise, de Kesurr. Camn, c. iii., he demands of heretics that thev should sup|Mirt their inquiries from Scripture alone (rf. aJv. Prax. c. xi.). So now, his rarlirst rdilion n( this treatise, if placed (ronjecturallv) c. j<hi. would have seemed to hitn vrrv drfrrlivo when wTiting c. 20H. He had separated from his old friends, now branded as the " iSy. chics" (iv. c. xxii.), to find among the .Mon« tanists the true church (1. c. xxi. ; iv. c v.). To him " thr new prophecv " was now the highest .luthority, thf I'ararlrte the vile guide , unto all truth. The doctrinal controversy between Tertullian and .Marcion turnrd prin- cipally on questions of anthro|>o|ogv and Cfiristology. .Ml that Tertullian has to say upon it has been summed up undrr MABrioy. De .An\ma.--\i\ the treatise df t'eUimonto .Antmae Tertullian had sought to prove that the soul of man bore natural testimony to the truth of the representations given in Holy Scripture of the unitv, nature, and attribute* of (iod, and of a future state. In the treatise de .intma. written some ten ye.irs or so latrr, he deals with the soul itself. Between thes« surviving treatises is to l>e placed one now Imt, de Censu .Animae, in which he had coinl)ated the opinion of Hejinogenes that the origin of the soul was to In- found in matter by the counter-opinion that it was formed by the afflatus of (;<k1 (cf. de .inima, cc. 1. lii. xi. ; a<iv. Marc. ii. c. ix.). The attributes of the soul (ammae naturalta) |><>inted, in his opinion, ' to propinquity to (;<xl and not to matter (cl. de .Amma, c. xxii.), an opinion supported by the views of Plato, who had taught the dtvtnaitn antmae (cf. de .Anima, c. xxiv.). The discussion of its origin is followed by a general inquiry respecting the nature, power*, and destinv of the soul. .\n admirable analysis is that of Mp. Kaye (pp. irl^-soy : cl. also Neander, the careful analysis of Bohr- I inger, and Hauck). In c. xxii. Tertullian gives his definition of the soul as deriving il« origin from the breath of G.kI (iv. xi.). The soul is immortal, cor|><>real (v.-viii.), and I end'twed with form (ix.) ; simpir in its sub- stance- (X. xi.) ; p<>ssessing withm it«-ll the principle of intelligence (xii); working in diffi-rent wavs or channrU (»iii.-xv.) ; rndtied ' with free will ; aflertrd bv external rircum- stances, and thus pr'Mluring th-- it^^^ttr vari- ety of disposition observaf>l' i:id ; rationaKxvi.); supreme ovn t); and iM>ssrssing natural iti ;. :ily (xix.). Thr (,.«iK-U. in («• ^ r i.,. ■,..,.., ol the rich m.in in lormrnt (l.iike xvi. jy 34 ». prove«l thr cor|H.riitv ..f thr vmiI (c. vii. ; alto 1 Stoic opinion), and medical srirnrr, "the [•ister oi pbilusopby," in the vulumei of a 950 TERTULLIANUS contemporary physician, Soranus (c. vi.), also attested this belief. The invisibility of the soul was no disproof of its corporeity ; witness St. John, who, " when in the spirit," " beheld the souls of the martyrs " (Rev. vi. 9) ; wit- ness also the testimony of " the sister so endowed with gifts of revelation " (c. ix.). This latter testimony is of interest as exhibit- ing Montanist religious observances. Revela- tions used to come to her in the church on the Lord's Day. While the solemn services were being performed, she used to fall into an "ecstasy in the spirit." In that state she conversed with angels, sometimes even with the Lord ; she saw and heard mysteries (sacramenta) ; she read men's hearts ; she prescribed remedies to the sick. Sometimes these visions took place when the Scriptures were being read, or when the Psalms were being chanted, or at the time of preaching or of prayer. On one occasion Tertullian thinks that he must have been preaching about the soul. The "sister" was rapt in spiritual ecstasy. After the people had been dismissed, she told him, as was her habit, what she had seen. " The soul was shewn to me in a bodily form. It seemed a spirit ; not, however, an empty illusion, but one which could be grasped, ' tenera et lucida et aerii coloris, et forma per omnia humana.' " Such testimony was to the Montanist Tertullian all-conclusive. The main purpose of cc. xxiii.-xxvii. is to prove that the souls of all mankind are derived from one common source, the soul of Adam. In cc. xxviii.-xxxv. Tertullian ridicules the conclusions necessitated by metempsychosis and metemsomatosis. As a preliminary to the consideration of the manner in which the soul encounters death, Tertullian considers the subject of sleep — the image of death (cc. xlii.-end). He adopts by preference the Stoic definition of sleep as the temporary suspension of the activity of the senses (" resolutionem sensualis vigoris "), and limits the senses affected to those of the body ; the soul, being immortal, neither requiring nor admitting a state of rest. While the body is asleep or dead, the soul is elsewhere. Death, to which Tertullian now turns (c. 1.), was to be the lot of all, let Epicurus and Menander say what they would. The voice of God (Gen. ii. 17) had declared death to be the death of nature. Independent of heathen examples of this truth, Tertullian finds one in the translation of Enoch and Elijah. Their death was deferred only ; " they were re- served for a future death, that by their blood they might extinguish Antichrist " (Oehler refers to Rev. xi. 3). Where would the soul be when divested of the body (cc. liii.-lviii.) ? Tertullian answers. In Hades ; but his Hades is not that of Plato, nor his answer to the ques- tion that adopted by philosophers. To Hades, " a subterranean region," did Christ go (Matt. xii. 40 ; I. Pet. iii. 19) ; therefore Christians must keep at arms' length those who were too proud to believe that the souls of the faithful deserved to be placed in the lower regions. From Hades shall men remove to heaven at the day of judgment. But what would take place while the soul was in Hades ? Would it sleep ? No, Ter- tullian replies ; souls do not sleep when men TERTULLIANUS are alive. Full well the soul will know in Hades how to feel joy or sorrow even without the body. The " prison " of the Gospel (Matt. V. 25) was Hades, and "the uttermost farthing " the very smallest offence which had to be atoned there before the resurrection. Hence the soul must undergo in Hades some compensatory discipline without prejudice to the full accomplishment of the resurrection, when recompense would be paid to the flesh also. This conclusion Tertullian affirms to be one communicated by the Paraclete, and there- fore accepted by all who admitted the force of His words from a knowledge of His promised gifts. De Pallio. — This, a treatise intentionally extravagant, is a vindication of the philoso- j pher's mantle (pallium) ridiculed by the people of Carthage. It might be called a juridical ! plea, couched in witty and forensic language, 1 in an imaginary case of Pallium (see descrip.- i tion s.v. in D. C. A.) v. Toga. Some have seen ! in Tertullian's assumption of the pallium an i indication that he adopted it to show his separ- ation from the church. The conjecture has nothing to prove or disprove it. The mantle had virtues of its own (cc. v. vi.). Did it not j illustrate simplicity and capacity, economy and I austerity, in protest against the follies and effe- minacies, the gluttony and extravagance, the impurity and intemperance of the togati ? "Grande pallii beneficium est." It was the garb not only of the philosopher, but also of those benefactors of the human race — the grammarian and the rhetorician, the sophist and the physician, the poet and the musician, the student of astronomy and the pupil of national history. In face of such facts, why mind the sneer, "The pallium ranked below the toga of the Roman knight," or the indig- nant question, " Shall I give up my toga for the pallium " ? There was no indignity in the matter. " ' Gaude pallium et exsulta ! ' Thou art honoured by a better philosophy from the time that thou didst become a Christian garment." Scorpiace. — A defence of mart>Tdom strong- er than is found in the Montanist works of his previous period, perhaps c. 211. Ad Scapulam. — Probably at the beginning of the reign of Caracalla, a.d. 211, the African proconsula Scapula authorized the persecution to which this work refers. He was a fierce opponent of the Christians, and permitted his fanaticism to override his sense of justice (c. iv.). This treatise uses the arguments of the Apology, but with a change in tone. Tertul- lian's passion is still strong, but gravely and soberly expressed. There is the same appeal for justice, but defiance has given place to prayer, and hatred of the persecutor to love for the enemy. The treatise may fairly take rank among the best and most interesting of all which have been preserved. Scapula is told frankly that they who had joined the " sect " of Christians were prepared to accept its conditions. The persecutions of men ignorant of what they were doing did not alarm them or make them shrink from heathen " savagery." Against the charges usually brought against them (cf. c. ii. ; Apol. cc. vii.- ix.) Scapula should set one plain fact — the behaviour of Christians. They formed the TERTULLIANUS majority in cvtry city, yit their conduct was always marked by m Icnce and inoilest y. Tlieir "discipline" enforced a patience which was divine : if they were known at all among men, it was for their reformation of the vices which once degraded them. Tertullian dors not WTite to intimidate, but to warn— /irj t)^o^ax^i''■ " Perform your duties as proconsul, but remember to be humane." If the Christians of Carthape should see tit to come to Scapula how many swords and tires would he iin-d for such multitudes of everv sex, age, and rank ! He would have to slaughter the leading persons of the city, and decimate the noble men and women of his own rank, friends and relations of his own circle. "Spare thyself. Scapula, if thou wilt not spare us. Spare Carthage, if thou wilt not spare thyself. Sp.ire thy province, which the mere mention of thine intention has subjected to the threats and extortions of soldiers and of private foes (cf. de Fuga, cc. xii. xiii.]. As for us, we have no Master but God. Those whom you reckon your masters are but men, and must one day die. Our community shall never die. The more ymi pull it to the ground, the more it will be built up." De Monogamia. — Some years passed, of peace from without but not from within ; and a third time (c. 217) Tertullian returns to that question — marriage — which had occupied him in the ad Uxorem and de Exhortaltone Casti- tatis. The third treatise is the bitterest. Tertullian now claims for his party that they and they alone were guided by the Paraclete. From Him they had received their teaching on monogamy. He had come to supersede the teaching of St. Paul by yet higher counsels of perfection. Much of Ter- tullian's argument— <-.g. from Scripture— is repeated from his former treatises, and much of it is strained and conjectural, as he felt it would be said to be (c. ix.) ; but no one will dispute Tertullian's earnestness. Immorality was prevalent and contagious, and in mono- gamy — supposing celibacy and widowhood to be impossible — he saw a counteracting agency. Discipline and spirituality would be at least practicable to those who would rally round the standard of monogamy. De Jejunio Adversus Psvchicos (al. de Jeju- niis). — Another great subject of difference between churchmen and Montanists had refer- ence to fasts. Tertullian's paper is most distressing to read, scanty in argument, plentiful in abuse. Both sid»>s indulged in unmeasured invective ; both had lost their temper. The charges of luxury, gluttony, and immorality unhesitatingly and almost exultingly brought by Tertullian against church ecclesiastics and laymen arc so gross as almost to refute themselves by their very exaggeration. They are more than the retort of a man infuriated by unjust accusations and meeting them by counter-charges. The ascetic has becf)me a fanatic, and in his mad hatred besmirches and calumniates the church he had once so tenderly loved. De Pudictha.—Jh\9, work has been placed before the dt Monngamia and the de Jejunto, but internal and negative evidence, if slight, seems to assign it a place after them. An edict (c. i.) of the bp. of Kpmc (Zcphyrinus, TERTULLIANUS OAI Joi-ii8, c^r (.allistu«.. ji,H..'.-u U'.hrd IVfiul- lian into furv, and romplrtrlv di<.M<lvr<l ihn last links of union l>rlwmi hiiii .ind Ihn ISychics. The treatise is m.irkrd by inlrnM) bitterness from Ix-ginning to riid. AdversHs I'raxran. For the hi«tnry of IVaxcas. the nature of hi'* view* and Tcrlul' lian's answer, see I'hax^as. Tertullian was the first whi>. in the cnnlro- versv against the Mon.uchian\ introdurrd prominently the <loctnne of the H<ilv Spirit. Waxeas did not loiirh it. Heiirr the value of siirh ch.ipters as viii. ix. xxv. xxx. Ha fully maintains the |>«rs<>iialitv of the Third Person of the Trinity (cl. ad Matl. c. 111.) if his language is occasionallv ambiguous (c(. c. xii.. Ills cxniment <>n den. 1. H^). \\r bawn as Usual his arguments on Scripture (cc. xxi. to end), and if not .ilwavs free from his well- known tendency to read into them what he wants, the passages are as a rule well and wisely handled either in defence of the I athohc position or in refutation of that of I'raxeas. He gives (c. xx.) the \ text* especially valued by this teacher in support of his heresy (Is. xlv. 5 ; John X. 30. xiv. r>, 10), and refute* his views at length (cc. xxi.-xxiv.). IV. SiMMARV.— The brief sketch here pre- sented of these powerful wTitings will have indicated the investigation of many a doctrine and the record of contemporaneous practice* heathen and Christi.in. as well as illustrated the mind, character, and style of their writer. (a) Tertullian and Healhenusm.- On its moral side, extravagance, luxury, immorality, ' and cruelty were to all external appearance as rampant in his day as ever. Tertullian knows heathenism only in its coarseness and repulsivcness. \el a reformation was pro- ceeding, religious in origin and intention, which must not be forgotten in any true estimate of the age. Tertullian liv<<l when old pagan traditions and new tendenci« were co-operating ; when there had rison that religious movement which, fiwing its impulse to the eclecticism of a Julia |)omna, passed through the stirring phaM-s successively represented in the net)-Pythagore.mism of her salon, in the subordination by Kl.igabalus of everv other cultus to that of the Oriental sun-god, and in the equalization bv .\lexander Severusof all worshipful beings in his common cultus of the hiToes of humanity- That move- ment was the prfxiuct of a real awakening. The main centre of these change* and developments w.is l<i>me, but Tertullian't WTitings against heathenism j>r<>ve that l ar- thagc at le.ist felt the effects of this great tulal wave of religiousness. They are as full of attack as of defence. He strikes at a vigofu* paganism as much as he beats of! the charge* alleged .igainst Christianity. lAery page teems with allusions which reflect without effort the firm f.M.tli.-ld .icquirrd bv all form* of heathen cultus. Ridicule ..f thr w.ifship of the ancient dr|tii-s ..f (.rrerr 0.1 K ..., ,,( the cultus <■! thr rinp<ri.rs, ..ft and of dein-.ns is l..uiid allird u of the g.Kis ..( Alrx.mdria (Is|s of I'hrvgiadhe M.igna Mater and B-1! ua). "f Syro-Ph-Tnicia (the I)ea Syra). and of Car- thage (the Juno ( .«-lc*tls). The very fierce- ncss of his invective and »<:om againit the 952 TERTULLIANUS polytheistic revival, the ridicule he pours upon gain and flamines, priests and priestesses, itinerant and mendicant propagators of this or that cultus, guilds, processions, festivals, evidences the success and popularity of heathenism. The Apology of Apuleius (end of 2nd cent.) is illustrated by the Apology of Tertullian, and the statements of Dio, Spar- tian, Herodian, Lampridius, etc., can be com- pared with those of our writer. Were those heathen works lost, it would be almost possible to reproduce from his pages, shorn of their extravagance, a picture of the religiousness of the age such as they have given. (b) Tertullian and Christianity. — In passing from heathenism to Christianity, Tertullian believed himself to be passing from darkness to light and from corruption to purity. He embraced it with all the strength of a matured mind and life. All the more intelligible, therefore, is his vehement anger with any form of Christian precept and practice, whether at Rome or Carthage, which fell short of his ideal. The church was to him the Virgin and spotless Bride of the Ascended Lord, and her children — bishops, priests, and people — must worthily reflect her purity and faith. He would permit no shortcomings because he would admit no failure. A writer of the 4th cent, has left on record that the Africans as he knew them were " faithless and Cunning. There might be some good people among them, but they were not many " (quoted in Mommsen, The Provinces of the Roman Empire, "ii. p. 340). This estimate is reflected a century earlier in TertuUian's pages. It is a summary of his opinion of the spurious devotion which marked the Christian fop {de Poenit. c. xi. ; cf. de Cultu Fern. ii. c. viii.), the would-be penitent (dc Poenit. c. ix.), the rich Christian lady (de Cultu Fern. i. c. ix., ii. cc. v.-viL ; de Virg. Vel. c. xvii.), the fashionable virgin {ib. c. xii. ; in contrast with her holy sister, c. xv.), the drugged and petted mart\T (de Jej. c. xii., in contrast with the willing and happy martyr, ad Martyres, cc. i.-iii.) ; and it explains that final revulsion of mind which, spurning every kind of compromise, heaped indiscriminate abuse on what was best as well as what was worst in the life of the Christians of the church, and turned to find in asceticism and Montanism a seriousness and elevation impossible to him elsewhere. Paradoxical as it may seem, it was the same impulsive spirit which kept him staunch to the faith of that church whose discipline and ritual he abjured or carried with him to a schismatic body. Gnosticism was to Tertullian the embodiment of theo- logical corruption, darkness, and falsehood, and he fought it with all his natural vehem- ence. His theology, if developed by Mon- tanism, is in substance that which the church accepted, and accepts. The admiration felt for his wTitings by his countryman Cyprian (200-258), bp. of Carthage, should never be forgotten. Cyprian, says St. Jerome, never passed a day without reading a portion of TertuUian's works ; he frequently asked for them with the words. " Da mihi magistrum " ; and it is impossible to read Cyprian's existing treatises without seeing how largelv the thoughts of Tertullian have been absorbed by TERTULLIANUS him, if the language has been softened and deepened. In our own country Bp. Bull (Defensio Fidei Nicenae) and Pearson (On the Creed) have used many an argument which the Montanist of Africa had prepared for I them, and Bp. Kaye's illustrations of the I Articles of the Church of England from Ter* I tullian's writings (pp. 246, etc.) concur in ; establishing the force of Mohler's description I of his dogma as " so homelike " (Patr. i. p. 737). It is based on the teaching of Christ as handed down by apostles and apostolic men, and formulated in the " regula fidei una, sola, immobilis et irreformabilis " (cf. de Praes. Haer. cc. viii. ix. ; de Virg. Vel. c. i.). Theology owes practically to him such words (int. al.) as Trinitas, satisf actio, sacramentum, substantia, persona, liberum arbitrium, trans- ferred (some of them) from the Latin law courts to take their definite place in the j language of Latin divinity (cf. the index verborum at the end of Oehler, vol. ii.). I (c) Tertullian, the Man. — Of no one, says Ebert, is Buffon's saying truer, " the style is 1 the man," and the best illustration of his ' style he finds in the Apology (Geschichte der I Christlich-Lateinischen Literatur, pp. 34-37). I Tertullian cared nothing for form save as it I best expressed his thought. He said right out from his heart what he had to say about ] friend or foe, without attempt to clothe his : speech with the graceful charm of the Greek cr the dignified periods of the Roman. A- brupt and impetuous, eloquent and stern, his sentences follow one another with the sweep- ing, rushing force of storm-waves. The very exceptions do but prove the rule. Such tender or beautiful passages as those which i depict the life of Christ on earth (de Pat. c. j iii. ; Apol. c. xxi. ; were these written with any acquaintance with the Life of the pagan Christ, Apollonius of Tyana, edited by Philo- I stratus at the command of Julia Domna?), the power and effect of prayer (de Oral. c. xxix.), the virtues and portrait of patience j (de Pat. c. XV.), contemporary civilization j (de Anima, c. xxx.), the happy marriage (ad Uxor. ii. 8), and faith, the barque of the church (de Idol. c. xxiv.) ; or the impressive I analogies of the resurrection he finds in nature j (re Resurr. Carnis, c. xii.), and the illustra- tions of the Trinity (adv. Prax. c. viii.), come , upon the reader as a surprise, as something '■ so unlike one who is more in his recognized j element when describing the place-hunter (de I Poenit. c. xi.), the traitor (.Apol. c. xxxv.), and I the knowing Valentinian (adv. Val. end), or ! painting that ghastliest of his portraits, I murder and idolatry crooning over adultery ! (de Pud. c. v.). His paradoxes are charac- teristic : To him the unity of heretics was schism (de Praes. Haer. c. xlii.) ; and heresy itself " tantum valeat quantum si non fuisset " (ib. c. i.). "God is great when little " (adv. Marc. ii. c. ii.) ; " Lie to be true " (de Virg. Vel. c. xvi.), contain thoughts only a shade less startling than the " Mortuus est Dei Filius ; prorsus credibile est quia ineptum est ; et sepultus resurrexit ; certum est quia impossibile est " (de Came Christi, c. v.), or the well-known " the blood of martyrs is the seed of the church " (Apol. c. i.). His right i appreciation of the methods of Scripture TERTULLIANUS exegesis {de Pud. c. ix. ; cf. df /?«. Cam. c. xxi.) is found side by side with such siRnal examples of perverse interpretation as those which disfigure the Jf Jejunio and df I'udt- Cftta, or such fanciful expositions as his view of the cross {adv. Marc. iii. c. xviii. ; cf. <i«/f. Jud. cc. x. xiii.), St. IVter and the sword {dt Idol. c. xix.). God's \oice to .-Xtlaiu (adv. Marc. ii. c. xxv.), and the phoenix {df K/s. Carti. c. xiii.). Such paradoxes, contrasts, and contradictions are cliaracteristic indica- tions not so much of a want of comprehensive- ness as of a determination to occupy himself with but one idea or one aspect oif a great truth, and subjugate to that the wider bear- ings of the question. His great acuteness. power, eloquence, and causticity are concen- trated for the time being upon a single prin- ' ciple ; and whatever will illustrate it, prove it, and drive it home, is drawn into its service, often regardless of its fitness (see this drawn out in Pusey's pref. to Libr. of the Path. vol. x.) Tertullian's style is strongly marked by the early training of his life : it is juridical in thought, language, and exposition— a fact which explains so much of its difficulty. The advocate is always present. His conduct of the contest between Christianity and heathen- ism is that of a law-court contest, dod v. the devil ; his conception of the contest between Montanist and Churchman is that of one who asserted and developed Christianity v. one who surrendered it or left it defective, Ter- tullian was often wrong, and the < hurch has, with sorrow, so adjudged him ; but the charac- ter of the man explains everything. What that character was he has himself told : " Miserrimus ego, semper aeger cal'<ri- bus impatientiae " (dt Pat. c. i.). The sentence, caught up by Jerome, explained to him the man ("homo acris et vehementis ingenii "), as it explains his secession to Montanism and his intellectual and moral defects. Perverse in the sense of wrong- headed he often was in his narrow estimates, but he was never wTong-hearted. His life and work, full of the shades and contrasts of one who loved well and hated well, were after all a life and a work from which more has been gained than lost. If Hilary can regret that his " later error took away from the authority of what he had written," Vincentius can remind us that those writings were " thunder- bolts " ; they were hurled forth in defence of faith and practice. It will be to his earlier life or less polemical treatises that the reader will turn with Cyprian by preference, and in the perverse impatience of his later life see at once " the fire which kindles and the beacon which warns" (Pusey). V. Literature. — Oehler's ed. of Tcrtullian is on the whole the best extant. A new and scientific ed. was commenced by Ruflerscheirl and Wissowa in the Vienna Corpus Scr. Ecd. Lai. XX. See a full ILst of recent litt. in IJar- denhewer's Palrologv (Freiburg im Hr. 190.H). Kaye is most serviceable in elucidating many points as to his life, era, teaching, and style. Translations into ling. r)f some of hi« ajxilo- getic and practical treatises are in I.ih. of tht Fathers, vol. x., and of alni.«,t all his works in Ante-Sicene Lib. vols. ii. vii. xi. xviii.; but the translations are very unequal. Recent cdd. THECLA 9.%3 are d« Praescnp. Hart , ad Ma,ly,tt. and «4 Scapulam in one vol. with inlr->. and n>,ir% and adv. Gentry Ix.th rd. bv T. 11. Mindlry (<>»|. I'niv. IVpss): de Uaplnmo, rti. with intro. and notes by J. M. l.upton (Camb. Iniv. IVp**) : de Pien. and de Pud. with Irrtirh tr Tr. ,n^ intro. bv Prof, dr I .ibriollr .: " , reprint of the bp. of |tri»to|\ 1 Kcrl.'siasticalHistorvtroinTrrtu. \\\\\\f A.atid M. /7i<-<i/. /.iftr. ((.riii.i,,. ,, m , , ThaddMUS. lai^rbius (Hi\l. I ai. 1. 1 jncivc* a storv, which he savs hr (.>iind in the archixr* of i:des>a. that attr-r the asrrn»|oii ,,f ,,i,r Lord, the ap.>st|e Judas I homas M-nt Ihail. darus, one i>f the srventv .llscipks. |o IMrsva. to king .M.g.irus the Hlack. and that hr rured the king of a serious illnrsv ct>nvrrtrd hira with all his people to Christianity, and died at Kd<'ssa after inanv vears of <turrr»s|ii| labours. The name •■f this apt.>tlr of the Ldessenes is given bv the Syrians as .\di|aru« {Doclhna Addat. ed. Phillips, p. ^. l-ng. trans. iHyh), and it is jx^sibl-- that Liisrbiu* misread the name as Thaddaeii^. Thaddariu was at a later date confiisr<| with the 4[><^^^|e Judas Thaddariis. The documrnls givm by Husebius contain arMrrr,|M,iidrnrr Ix-l wren .Ab- gar and our LortJ. which of course is sixirioiis. t f. K. .\. I ipsius. Die Edewentstht .ihiiar\ate krtttsch untenucht (Mraunschwrig, i«Ro|, and in I). ( . Ii. vol. iv. ; alvi, bv the ■v.unr. lUt apnkryphen ApostelgeschtthteH, vol. n. 2, I7rt- 201, and Suppl. p. 105; aUo Ipxrfont. /./i Oripnes de I l:RU\e d'Pdei,e et la Ifgendt d'Ah^ar (Paris, l«HH). (11. w.) Thats, St., a penitent courtesan of llgypi, converted c. 344 by r'aphniitius of Sidon. Her story illustrates her age. Hrr laiiir rrach«"d to Paphnutius's monastery, whereupon hr «lr. lermined to make a great effort to convert hrr. though she was evidently a nominal Christian. He assumed a secular dress and put a Mngtc coin in his pocket, which he offered to Thai* on arriving at her house. Kecogni/ing hi» true character, she cast herself at his feet, destroyed all her precious dr«-ssrs. and entered a female monastery, wlicrr Paph- nutius shut her up in a cell, sraimg the door, and leaving only a small window, ihrouich which to receive f<H>d. .After j years she received abstilution, and died 15 days after ( I'l/. /'/*. in .Migne's Pair. Lot. Ixxiii. <.6i). ((..t.h.) Theela (l), the heroine of a romantic st<ify which from a very early date h.is h.id a »tron«; hold on the imagination of thr 1 hurch. anti which, though under the form in wliich it it now extant it tan only br recnvnl as a tirlion. has enough appearance of a fi>undat|on in fart to warrant us in treating of hrr as a r< •' ' son. She was. as wr rra<l in thr .ict\ ■ and Theela. a contemporary of St. 1 virgin of Iconium. ilatightrr of a won...;. .1 rank (apparently a widow) named Thrt«:lria, and affianced to Thamyris. a youth who wa« first among thr noblr^ of that city. .\\ tlir time when the narrative o|>ens St. 1 represente<l as l)eing on hit wav t'> \< after having Iwrn driven from Anii Pisidia ; but whether his flight from \ related in .Acts xiil. I ^. Is meant, 41 M-<piriitly whrlhrr thr rlisuing rvriit be taken a« l>elonKing to his hrst vimi !•■ Iconium. U nut clear. One One»ipburu> o\ 964 THECLA Iconium, whose house adjoined that of Theo- cleia, hearing of his approach, went with his wife and sons to meet him, and recognizing him by a description he had received fiom Titus, invited him to his house with joy. Two persons named Demas and Hermogenes, who under a hypocritical guise of seeking instruc- tion in the gospel had attached themselves to the apostle on his journey, were at their urgent request admitted along with him by Onesiphorus (though not without demur). In this house Paul began at once to preach " the word of God concerning temperance and the resurrection " ; his discourse consisting of a series of beatitudes, in form like those of the Sermon on the Mount, but in substance taken up with the commendation of asceticism and celibacy. Thecla, sitting at a window in her mother's house, heard his words and became filled with passionate faith and zeal for virginity. Being restrained from satisfy- ing her longing to see him and hear his doc- trine face to face, she remained listening at her window, despite her mother's remon- strances. The tender entreaties of her be- trothed Thamyris, whom Theocleia sum- moned, proved equally unavailing. The lover, thus repulsed, hurried into the street and watched the house where the stranger was preaching, whose eloquence had cast this deplorable spell over Thecla. Observing Demas and Hermogenes among those going in and out, he questioned them, invited them to a rich banquet at his house, and offered them money for information concerning the preacher. They disclaimed personal know- ledge of Paul, but represented him as urging on the young abstinence from marriage, under the threat of forfeiting their part in the resur- rection, which (they said) he promised to the celibate only ; whereas the true resurrection (as they professed themselves ready to explain) was already past for those that have children in whom they live anew ; and men rise again when they fully know the true God. They also advised him to bring Paul before Castelius the governor on the charge of teaching " the new doctrine of the Christians," which (they assured him) would ensure his execution. Accordingly, next morning Thamyris, with other magistrates, and a great multitude, repaired to the house of Onesiphorus, and dragged Paul before the tribunal of Castelius the " proconsul," accusing him merely of dissuading maidens from marriage ; though Demas and Hermogenes were at hand prompt- ing him, " Say that he is a Christian, and thus shalt thou procure his death." St. Paul, being called on by the governor for his defence, de- livered a speech, not answering the specific charge of Thamyris, but declaring his gospel message and pleading his mission from God. The governor committed him to prison until it was convenient to hear him more attentively. Thecla made this imprisonment her opportunity. That very night, by bribing her mother's doorkeeper with her bracelets and the jailer with her silver mirror, she visited St. Paul's cell ; and there, after a night spent at his feet in hearing his doctrine, was found next morning by her mother and lover. At their instance St. Paul was immediately dragged again before the governor, pursued THECLA by the multitude with the cry, " He is a sorcerer ! Away with him ! " Thecla was summoned likewise, and followed him exult- ingly to the tribunal. Castelius was at first disposed to listen favourably to Paul, as he declared the works of Christ ; but afterwards, finding that Thecla would give no reply to his interrogations, but remained silent with her eyes fixed on Paul, and being wrought on by her mother, who demanded that her daughter should be burnt alive as an example to warn other women, he scourged Paul and cast him out of the city, and sentenced Thecla to the stake. When the pyre was ready, she mounted it undismayed. A deluge of hail and rain quenched the fire, the people fled, and Thecla escaped. Meantime St. Paul, with Onesiphorus and his family, on their way to Daphne, had taken refuge in a tomb, where he continued in prayer for Thecla, and sent one of the lads back to Iconium to sell his outer garment and buy bread. The youth met Thecla, who was seeking Paul, and brought her to the hiding-place. There they found Paul praying for her deliverance, and a scene of joyful thanksgiving ensued. The apostle with Thecla went on his way to Antioch. As they entered Antioch her beauty caught the eye of Alexander the Syri- arch (this seems to prove that the city here meant is the capital of Syria), who sought to obtain possession of her by offering money to Paul. Baffled and enraged the Syriarch brought her before the Roman governor, who condemned her to be cast to wild beasts ; committing her meanwhile to the care of Tryphaena, a widow lady (afterwards de- scribed as a queen, and kinswoman of the emperor), who, having lately lost her daughter Falconilla, found comfort in the charge of the condemned maiden, who converted her to Christ. After a series of marvellous escapes from the beasts, Thecla, interrogated by the governor, made profession of her faith : "I am a handmaid of the living God, and I be- lieve in His Son in Whom He is well pleased ; and therefore it is that none of the beasts hath touched me. . . . Whoso believeth not on Him shall not live for ever." Amid the jubilations of the women she was released. To rejoin St. Paul was her first thought, and hearing he was at Myra in Lycia, she disguised herself in man's attire and set out with a train of attendants, male and female. There she found him preaching the word. After relating to him in the house of Hermaeus (or Hermes) the wonderful story of her deliverances, she proceeded to Iconium, receiving from him the parting charge, " Go and teach {5l8acrKe) the word of God." Arrived at Iconium, she first visited the house of Onesiphorus, and there prostrating herself on the spot where St. Paul had sat and taught, she thanked God and the Lord Jesus Christ for her conversion and preservation. There was no longer anything to fear from the importunities of Thamyris, who had died. She found her mother still living, and endeavoured, but apparently without success, to bring her to believe in the Lord. Finally, she departed to Seleucia, where she " enlightened many and died in peace." Thus the story ends in its oldest form, as preserved in ancient Syriac and THECLA Latin versions ; but th«- four extant Greek copies represent her as livinR an anchorite's life in a cave, on herbs and water, antl thev subjoin a marvellous account (certainly of more recent composition) of her latter years. She (accordiuR to three of these conirs. A, B, and C) went to Rome to see St. Paul again, but was t(Xi late to find him alive. She died there s<Hin after, aged go, and was buried near his tomb 72 years after her martvTd^>m. Thouph the storv was undojibtedlv wTitten originally in Greek, the oldest <;reek MS. is not earlier than loth cent. But ample proofs of its high antiquitv are forthcoming. The so-called Decree of C'.elasius, de l.ihns h'eci- piendis et non RecipienJis, which is pr.il)ablv of the early yearf of the 7th cent., formally excluded (c. vi.) from the list of "scrii'ttires received by the church " the " book which is called the Ads of Paul atul Thecla." The S>Tiac version, extant in four MSS.. one of 6th cent., contains internal evidence that the (ireek text had been long in existence and frequently copied before the Syrian translator did his work. We have also an expanded Life of Thecla. composed before the middle of 5th cent, by Basil, bp. of Seleucia (in Isauria). professedly framed on the lines of a prt\ious work then ancient. A comparison of our Acts of Paul and Thecla with this Life leaves no doubt that the former is the basis of the latter. These Acts (as we shall now call them") were thus "ancient" early in the 5th cent., and can haidly therefore be later than 300. In the 4th cent. Hilary (the Arabrosian) has several clear references to these Acts (Comm. on L Tim. i. 20 ; IL Tim. i. 15, iv. 14 ; cf Ads i : also on IL Tim ii. i.S; cf. Acts 14) ; and even, as it seems, cites them in connexion with the last passage, as " alia Scriptura." Jerome, then or a few years later, mentions {de Vtr. III. c. 7) but rejects a book called Ufpiohoi UaiXov xal Hf»\»7t, which he says was discredited by startling marvels ; probably Jerome is here inaccurately describ- ing the book as we have it. The very early currency in Christendom of a wTitten narrative of the life of Thecla is proved by the much earlier, more exact, and more authentic evidence of the writer whose authority Jerome here appeals to, Tcrtullian, in his treatise de Baptismo (c. 17), written c. 200. Tertullian refuses to admit the authority of certain writings falsely assuming the name f)f Paul, which some alleged in support of the claim of women to teach and baptize after " thi- example of Thecla " ; for these (he says) were the production of a certain " presbyter of Asia," who was. on his own confession, proved to have composed them " through love of Paul " (as he said) and who for this fraud was degraded from the presbyterate. Jerome represents this degradation as fKrcurring in St. John's time, which seems to t)e merely an addition of his own, and is inconsistent with our Acts, for they, in the ag<- to which they prolong Thecla's life, imply that she survived St. John. Tertullian is our earliest witness that a storv of Thecla existed ; but whether the extant book of her Acts is identical with the .Asian presbyter's pnxluction is a question. The balance of probability distinctly favours THECLA 0A5 the identification. il *<>. 11 would tx- the oldest of ihr rxtani N.T. A|xicjv|>h«. The slorv thus Irarnl lijrk. rrrtjinlv 4% regards its substance and protublv 4» reitariit Its existing writlrn form, to jnd rrnt.. W4% widely current in the rhwrch. Last and \NVst. thereaftrr. Hut Ihoiich she i\ trrqumily mentioned bv the Kaiherv none <i( thrin. except H.isil of Seleuria. rite our Atl% of «ny written narrative. Hut of j|| ihc relrrrnr*-* to Thecla in ecclesustiral wrilrr%. not ime (except that alr«-a<lv noticrd in Irmnir) lir« distinctly outside thr rangr of thr inridrni* which the Ads rrlatc- ; so that 4 hist.<v of Thecla reconstructed out of the rrfrrmcrs to her in early C hristian writers would W in fart an abriilgment of these Ad*, roi!' ■ • ■ 'iv all its chief points and addi them. (»f these WTiters, the • be Methodius, in his .S> m/vun. • . I^tnum (written c. 300 ; srr Mum. / x:». <,k. xviii.). The inciiirnt of Thecla* samhrini; her ornaments to purchase access to Paul i« turned to account by C hrvsostom. " Thrcla, for the sake of seeing Paul, gave hrr jewels ; but thoii. for the sake of seeing I hrist. wtft rt-.t give an obolus " [Horn. 2S in Ada >"• Isidore of Pelusium (lib. 1. h.p. 87) is .1, ly the first to style her by the glon ever since appropriate<| to her. ol , . mart\T — that is, as Basil of Seleucia explain* (p. 232). first among women as Stephen among men. Themlore of .Mopsue>tia is staled by Solomon of Bassora. a ijth-cent. Ne>t<iri4n (cf. Assem. /?. O. iii. p. 323). to have com- posed an oration on Thecl.», in which it appears that her prayer for Falconilla was men- tioned. Kpiphanius {Haer. Ixxviii. i6. Uxix. 5) praises her for sacrificing under St. Paul 1 teaching her prospects of pros|>erous marriaKe, and reckons her near to Llias, John the Bap- tist, and even the \'irgin Mother. In the West her name is similarly joined with that of .Agnes as a virgin worthy to rank with .Mary herself, by .Ambrose {dt l^psu I'trf. p. 307) ; and by Sulpicius Sevcrus (r. 400). who relate* (Dial. ii. 13) how St. Martin of Tours was favoured with a vision, in which M.iry. .Agnn. and Thecla apiware*! and conversed with him (Migne, Pair. iMt. t. xx. col. 210). V likewise associates her with Mary tli' mother, and Miriam, Mo»e*' sister ad Vercell. Fed. t. ii. pt. i, p. 10 »o) 1 ■ and in de \'trRinthu\ (ii. if), p. iWi) A her deliverance from the wild beasts. in one of his /•;/>/>. (xxii ; ' ■ her with Marv and M; 1 they shall welcome Kii ■ writf-s, into the virgin 1 I in his ChrtmtcU (i.a. 3;;; he trlU uf one Melania, a K'unan lady who by her »anctay earned the name of Ther! « That the IxM.k as we 1. * will doubt ; but it IS a : r it has been f firmed on .1 I if so, how f.ir we CAW 1 ficti'-n. The incident..l < by Kusebius proves th .• * real prrvin ; and if .Atln. ■ -■>, he niu»t be recki>ne<l on the same >i.lr. Ter- tullian, e\in in rejecting her written hist.*y. raise* no doubt a» to her existence, 4% he certainly would if be had »u»pected her to b« 956 THECLA a creature of the Asian presbyter's imagina- tion. Jerome, while still more emphatic in condemning the book, expressly names her as a virgin saint. It is hardly likely that if Thecla had not existed, her history and example could have so powerfully impressed themselves on the mind of Christendom for so many ages and been honoured by so many generations of the devout faithful, including some of the foremost intellects of the church. The monastery that marked her place of retreat and bore her name, which, as we learn from Gregory of Nazianzum {Oral. xxi. p. 399, t. i. ; Poemata Hist. s. i. ir, p. 703, t. ii.), had made Seleucia a place of pilgrimage before he retired there (c. 375), is a further evidence of her reality, and also confirms the localization in that city of the traditions concerning her. It thus appears that our Acts probably grew out of a true tradition, handed down from the later apostolic age, of a maiden of Asia Minor who was converted to the Gospel and for its sake renounced all and braved death that she might remain a chaste virgin for Christ, and, having escaped martyrdom, lived and died in sanctity at Seleucia. The Asian presbyter whom Tertullian makes known to us, casting about for materials for a story in exaltation of virginity, would naturally choose for his hero St. Paul, as an unmarried apostle and the only N.T. writer from whom the doctrine of the superiority of the celibate over the married state could claim any support. The tradition which we have supposed current in the church, of a Christian who incurred the peril of mar- t^Tdom for virginity and ended her days as an anchorite near Seleucia, would supply his heroine and leading incidents. Her name was probably part of the traditional story ; for an invented name would no doubt have been either a Scriptural one or one of obvious Christian significance. II. Tim. iii. 11 might suggest the scene, " at Antioch, at Iconiiim." Being of no critical turn, and writing for un- critical readers, the author would not inquire to what stage of St. Paul's course this Epistle belonged, or which Antioch was meant. The history of Thecla, as we have it, whether this account of its origin be accepted or not, is not without literary merit. It has many touches of pathos, its incidents are striking and effectively told, and here and there the speeches (never of tedious length) rise nearly to the height of eloquence. De- fective as we have seen it to be in structure, yet even here, as well as in interest of narra- tive, it compares advantageously with the clumsy dullness of the Clementine literature ; its marvels, however startling, are less extra- vagant than those of the apocryphal Gospels and Acts ; and on the whole it is distinctly above the level of the class of writings (most, if not all, of later date) to which it is usually referred. Its chief defect is the failure to realize and reproduce the spirit and personality of St. Paul. Schlau's opinion (p. 17), that the local knowledge displayed in the work is such as might naturally belong to a resident in Asia Minor, is not to be accepted without qualification. It might, on the contrary, be said that if the author had more carefully studied the canonical Acts with a view to local and chronological knowledge, he might THECLA have assigned the scene and date of his narrative with much more definiteness and accuracy. For instance, he seems uncertain how Lystra lay relatively to Iconium (cc. 1,3), and his idea of the position and distance of Daphne seems equally indistinct (c. 23). So too in his records of Thecla's journeys he is content to name the starting-point and the terminus, never noting any place on the way. His knowledge of political geography is shewn to be lacking when he represents the chief magistrates of Iconium (c. 16) and Antioch (c. 33) as addressed by the title of proconsul (dvdvrraTe), thus betraying that he supposed these cities to belong to proconsular provinces, whereas Iconium, though territorially in- cluded in Lycaonia, was in St. Paul's time extra-provincial, as the head of an independ- ent tetrarchy (Pliny, Nat. Hist. v. 25), and Antioch was the capital of Syria, an imperial province governed by a propraetor. Even if we regard Iconium as of Lycaonia, and the Antioch meant to be the Pisidian, in neither city would so high an official as the proconsul of Asia be resident, as the Acts represent. The author, being of Asia^ — that is, of the Roman province — supposed a proconsul to be found at Iconium and at Antioch, because he had himself been accustomed to see a pro- consul at Ephesus or Smyrna ; and thus Tertullian's statement that he was of Asia (taken in that limited sense) is borne out, not by his exact knowledge, as Schlau supposed, but by his mistake. He has such knowledge of places and political arrangements, and only such, as would naturally belong to an untra- velled ecclesiastic of the Roman province of Asia, possessing a familiar but far from critical or precise knowledge of N.T. in general and the book of Acts in particular. The contents of these Acts serve indirectly to confirm the authenticity of the canonical Acts by shewing how difficult — it may safely be said how impossible— it would be for a fal- sarins, even if writing at no great distance in place or time from the scene and date of his fictitious narrative, to avoid betraying himself by mistakes ; and the history of the reception of his work proves that such attempt to palm off pseudo-apostolic documents for genuine was not difficult of exposure, nor passed over as a light offence. The Asian church of the 2nd cent, was quick to detect the pious fraud and severe in punishing it ; and in her dealing with the case there is no trace of uncritical promptitude to receive whatever offered itself as apostolical, or of the lax morality that would accept as true whatever seemed edifying- — such as some writers have imputed to the early generations of Christians. Dr. Lipsius, indeed, maintains (p. 460) that the work and its author were condemned, not because of the fraud attempted, but because of the Gnostic doctrine which he supposes it to have originally embodied. But this is mere conjecture ; and, moreover, one which, while professedly based on Tertullian's au- thority, substitutes for his express statement an essentially different one. Tertullian, writ- ing of a matter on which he was apparently well informed, and which was recent, is surely a competent witness ; and his testimony is express, that the author of the Acts was de- THEMISTIUS THEODORA I. M7 posed from the prcsbyler.Uo, not b«caus« the MerovinRiun kiiiKH. Mjriu* cM% him " lh« teaching of his book was heretical, but because c;rcjt " {ChroH. ^d mui. ^4.H) ■ 4ii<l 4cc.i*.lnn( its narrative was an imposture. to CrcKory of V»»r\ when hr had omir to the Of edd.the best isTischendorrs{inhis .■Icfa throne "ho »hrwrd hiin*4-l| KovrrniiiK with Apost. Apocrypha, p. 40; 1851). For Hng. justice, honouriuK the prir»l%, doinK good to translations see Hone's .4 />t>Cf>7>Aa/ .V.r. p. 83, the churche^ »ucei>unnx the |m»< and di»- andCKirk's Antf-.Xufnf Libr. vol. xvi. p. i7g. tributu»K benrhtt charitablv and librrallv • The principal authorities on which this article (//ij». Fraiu. iii. ly \(,). In«l4urr« ••( hit is based have been specified. To Dr. Schlau's Rood ()ualitie<t ap|>rar in \u% lit>crj|iiv «.. ihr work it is largely indebted for its materi.ds, churches at the .AuvrrKue, which hi ' " - and in some cases for its conclusions. For further discussion of the story see Tillem. Mchn. t. ii. p. 60 (^nd ed.) ; Spanheim Hut. Christiana, i. 11 ; IttiR, d^ HibliotHfcn, c. xx. p. 700 ; Kitschl, Die Entstehunc tUr altkath. Kirche (2 .\ufi.), pp. 2q2-2(i\ ; Harn.ick, Zett- schri/t /. Kirchcngesch. ii. pp. qo-qi ; Ramsay. Church in Rotnan Empire be/ore 170 (ind ed. Lond. 1893), pp. 37.S-428 ; and by the same, Sept. 5. 5<)o, .Vuth.iri died («trr«. l-.pp A Lost Chapter of Early Christian Hist. (.\cla Theodelin<la, taking couu'^l with her wi Pauli et Theclae), in Expositor, i<)02, pp. chose in Nov. .\K>lulf, the duke of I 27!<-2')5. [jiiw.l kinsman of hex late husb.ind (IViul. I ThemlstiUS. [.\gnoetae.] SS). who in the following Mav wa-. arr- TheootistUS (2), bp. of Caesarea in P.alestine, ail the l.omb.irds as kinx in Milan. I : who on Oriseus visit to Palestine received bards, like the other Teut'inic iiati'in him at Caesarea and, like .\lexander of Jeru salem, permitted him, though still a layman. had plundered (iii- i^h ami hi« t^rnn thf impoverished city of Verdun, at i of their bishop (ill. 34). .Src, i.mi. .\iii. . 2S, and tlie leiiir of .\urelianuv art 111 , I .\rles. Ill Hou.|u<t. iv. t>\. (s * " , TheodelintU. «iueen of the l.otiit...i.U. daughter of (i.iribaltl, king of the llava{iaii«. married to king .\uth.iri probably in ^H.f. On tiie Franks, had received Ihristiami an .\ri.in form, to which thev still to preach before him (Phot. Coii. 1 18). On the Further, ne.irly all who hrld the remonstrance of Origen's bishop, Uemetrian- us, he joined with .\lexander in a letter defend- creed in the temtorw5 comjurre*! I Lombards were in schism from thnr r< !> ing their conduct (Eus. H. E. vi. 19). Later, to accept the fifth general council which had c. 230, Theoctistus and .\lexander ordained condemned the Three Chaj>ter». In thu Origen {ib. \i. 8, 23). Theoctistus probably complication the p.rsition of Thr-Klrlinda wa» died when -Xystus was bp. of Rome 257-25<j. peculiar. By her influence king .\giluH br- and was succeeded bv Domnus (16. vii. 14). came eventually a Catholic, though apparently Clinton. Fasti Rnmani. i.245. 271, 287, No. 83; not till after a.u. <>oj (i.r.-g. Epp. xi. 4. «iv. Le Quii-n. Or. Christ, iii. sti. [ev.] 12), gave munihcently to the church, and Theoctistus (3) Psathyropola('l'atfi7)o»-i:»\>;f). restored the orthodox bishops to ihi-ir i>osi- or the cake-seller, the head of a sect among tions (Paul. Diac. iv. 0). On J^he other hand. the Arians of Constantinople c. 390. His fol lowers were called, from his occupation she continued to supjmrt the Three Chapten threatened to withdraw from communion with Psath>T s. Led bv a certain Marinus fr.un Constantius. archbp. of Milan, and refuie*! to Thrace, thev maintained that the First Person accept the fifth council (tireg. Epp. iv. 2, i, of the Trinity was in a proper sense Father, 4. 3». 39; cf. Columbanos, Epp. 5 "> Migiie. and so to be styled before the Son existed; Pair. IM. Ixxx. 274)- ('rcgtiry touche* thi» while their opponents, the followers of the diflerencc m.^.t delicately, and was. "J-tJ?^*'"- Antiochene Dorotheus, maintained that He standing, on most friendly terms with fheo- was only a Father after the existence of the delinda. Mainly by her influence Agilull wa» Son. Alarge party of the .\rian Goths, taught induced to m.ike peace (Paul. Diar. iv. 8; by their bp. Selena, adopted the Psathvri.in (;reg. Epp. ix. ^i. 43). -"'J '"regory con- view which continued to divide the ( hurch gratulated her upon thr birth of her w.n Ada- of Constantinople for 35 years, till in the reign loald in (x>2. and s<-nt him a ct>,^-. < i.t utoii.- a of Theodosius Junior a reconciliation was piece of the true cross and a 1 effected (Socr. H. E. v. 23). [ct.s.] gos^S a|'J thrre rings to lu Theodebert (1) I., king of the Franks (534- perga. Theodelinda built an . i- 548), the most capable and amb bitious of the ilica of St. John Haptist at M Merovingian line after Clovi For thi- extent th.- death of Agilulf in (>ii>. Ad.doald %ucccrdcd of the kingdom inherited from his father m with Fhe-Klelmda as regrnt. 1 he datr o| l.rr s^^ see TiiEODOKicus I. It was increased in death was i.robably l>rl.*c t,iU (laul. I >iac. 534 by a portion of the now finally cr.nquered iv. 41)- "'T "n^*\ «»'^. •»"^* aiirimt m Burgundy (Marius, Chron. ad ann. 534)- I" existence except the Iron Crown, her an, her 538 an artnv of The^nleberfs Burgundian comb, the golden hen and chickens she gave subjects entered Italy with his connivance and to the church, and the cr.^* vent >'V -reg-^v helped the(ioths to conquer Mil.m (Pr.--op. are still preserved in the treasury of the deBell. Ootth. ii. 12 ; Marius, Chr.m. ad ann.). cathedral at M;""'- In 539Theodebert, invading Italy at the head Theodor* (10) I., einpre of 100,000 Franks, overran a great part be ml %. wife of Justini- ( an I., daughter of Acrius. a Iw-ar kee|K-T at the VenVtiari-iKuria, and the Cottian Alps, till amphitheatre at t .M.stanlinople, who died m hunger and disea^ dr..ye the remnant of his the reign of Ana»taMu% when she was 7 ye*» army back to France ( Marius. ann. 539 : MarccU. old. When old enough, she ■'I'l-^'^. ''« !j? Chron ann S3g Pr.K:op. «.s. 25). Death st.»ge, as her elder Ulster had done. Though ?ut short his^a'.nbitious pmjects in'548. from the whole animu. o« hi» w.xk ^d^ Theodebert was perhaps the be«t «•( the absolute mIcom oI all other writer. »« m«y 958 THEODORETUS infer that Procopius exaggerates, yet we may well believe that her life was an abandoned one, without believing all his scandalous stories. Reduced to great distress, she in appearance or reality changed her mode of life, and supported herself by spinning wool. Justinian, nephew of the reigning emperor Justin, married her, and succeeding his uncle in 527, caused her to be crowned as empress regnant, but not till 532 does she appear to have exercised a preponderating voice in public affairs. She died of cancer in June 548. Unlike her husband, she was an ardent Monophysite. Her influence was unbounded, her cruelty insatiable. She assumed an especial jurisdiction over the marriages of her subjects, giving the daughters of her former associates to men of high rank, and marrying noble ladies to the lowest of the people. Her portrait in the mosaics at St. Vitale at Ravenna has been well engraved in Hodgkin's Invaders of Italy, vol. iii. 606. Sources. — The three works of Procopius, esp. the Anecdota ; Evagr. H. E. iv. 10, ii ; Victor. Tunun. Chron. ; Liberat. Breviar. 20-22 ; Lib. Pont., Vitae Silverii et Vigihi. Literature. — Gibbon, cc. 40-41 ; Dahn, Prokopius von Cdsarea ; Hodgkin, Invaders of Italy, iii.-iv. ; Prof. Bryce, in Contemp. Rev. Feb. 1885 ; M. Debidour, Thesis (pub. in 1877), who tries to make the best of Theodora, [f.d.] Theodoretus (2), bp. of Cyrrhus, or Cyrus, in the province of Euphratensis, was born at Antioch probably c. 393 (Tillemont). His parents held a high position at Antioch. Hjs maternal grandmother was a lady of landed property (Relig. Hist. p. 1191, vol. v. ed. Schulze, Halae, 1771). His writings indicate a well-trained and highly cultivated mind, enriched by complete familiarity with the best classical authors. But his chief study was given to the Holy Scriptures and the commentators upon them in several lan- guages. He was master of Greek, Syriac, and Hebrew, but unacquainted with Latin. His chief theological teacher, to whom he never refers without deserved reverence and admiration, was Theodore of Mopsuestia, " the great commentator," as he was called, the luminary and pride of the Antiochene school, but one who undoubtedly prepared the way for the teaching of Nestorius by his desire to provide, in Dorner's words, " for a free moral development in the Saviour's manhood. ' ' Theodoret speaks also of Diodorus of Tarsus as his teacher, but this can only have been through his writings. The parents of Theodoret were both dead when he was 23 years old. Being their sole heir, he immediately proceeded to distribute his inheritance among the poor (Ep. 113), taking up his abode in a monastery, one of two founded in a large village called Nicerte, 3 miles from Apamea, and about 75 from Antioch (Ep. 119). After some 7 years in the Apamean mon- astery, he was drawn to assume the cares of the episcopate. Of the circumstances of his consecration we are entirely ignorant. The see was that of Cyrus, or more properly C>Trhus, the chief city of a district of the province of Euphratensis, called after it Cyrrhestica, an extensive fertile plain between the spurs of THEODORETUS the Amanus and the river Euphrates, inter- sected by mountain ranges. His diocese was 40 miles square, and contained 800 distinct parishes, each with its church. It was singu- larly rich in monastic houses for both sexes, some of them containing as many as 250 in- mates, and it boasted of a large number of solitaries. All of these enjoyed Theodoret's unremitting and affectionate solicitude and frequent visits. Cyrrhus was equally fertile in heretics. The East has ever been the nur- sery of heresy. Lying, as it were, in a corner of the world, not reached by the public posts, isolated by the great river to the E. and the mountain chains to the W., peopled by half- leavened heathen, Christianity there assumed many strange forms, sometimes hardly recog- nizable caricatures of the truth. Eunomians, Arians, Marcionites, and others who still more wildly distorted the pure faith abounded. To the recovery of these Theodoret devoted his youthful ardour and still undiminished strength, at personal risk. "Often," he writes, " have I shed my blood ; often have I been stoned ; nay, brought down before my time to the very gates of death." Nor were his labours fruitless. Eight villages polluted by Marcionite errors, with their neighbouring hamlets com- prising more than a thousand souls, one village filled with Eunomians, another with Arians, were brought back to the sound faith. He could boast with all honesty to pope Leo L in 449 that by the help of his prayers not a single plant of tares was left among them, and that his whole flock had been delivered from heretical errors (£/)/j. 81, 113, 116, vol. vi. pp. 1141, 1190, 1197). He carried his campaign against error, which embraced Jews and hea- then as well as misbelieving Christians, beyond his own diocese. He was unwearied in preach- ing, and his acquaintance with the Syrian vernacular enabled him to reach the poorest and most ignorant. His care for the temporal interests and material prosperity of his diocese was no less remarkable. The city of Cyrrhus, though the winter quarters of the tenth legion, could boast little dignity or architectural beauty. He calls it " a small and desolate city," with but " few inhabitants, and those poor," whose ugliness he had striven to re- deem by costly buildings erected at his own expense (Ep. 183, p. 1231). From his own ecclesiastical revenues — which cannot have been small — ^he erected public porticos, two large bridges, and public baths, and, finding the city without any regular water-supply, constructed an aqueduct, and by a catchwater drain guarded the city against inundation from the marshes (Epp. 79, 81). These works attracted architects and engineers to the city, and afforded remunerative employment to many people, for whose benefit he secured the help of presbyters skilled in medical science (Epp. 114, 115). Finding that the severity of the state imposts caused many to throw up their farms, leaving the civil authorities to make good their deficiency, a liability they were seeking to avoid by flight, he wrote to the empress Pulcheria, entreating her to light- en so intolerable a burden (Ep. 43, p. 1102), as well as to the patrician .A-natolius (Ep. 45, p. 1104). With considerable trouble he obtained from Palestine relics of prophets, apostles, and THEODORETUS THEODORETUS mart>Ts, for the nr.-atcr glory of a chiirrh hf ' anticipatinR thr Orinu.il brrlhrm. who** had built (AV/ij;. Hi.s7. c. xxi. p. lisi ; /•7>. «•(>). arrival ho. with (>.s hishoii%, V4inly urn«l So threat was his /.mI (,.r orth.xloxv that should Ur wail.-d lor Im-|.*o the r.ninril having discoverid in the churches of his ! opened (Halu*. c. vii. «m,7.(iv4). «)n the diocese more than 200 copies of the />m/«- j arrival of John and hi-. <>nrni4l brnhrcii. saron of Tatian, which he regarded as tainted 1 Theodoret at once unite<l hinisrM to ihnn. with heresy, he destroyed them all, and I and gave his voice lor the dr|H>Miioii and substituted the ordinary text of the four ! oxconiinunication ol (. vtiI. Meinnon. and Gospels (//a<T. Fuft. lib. i. c. JO). His life as their adherents (Labln-; ni. vr^ri) »e bishop differed as little as possible Iroin that took part also in the proceedings « ' he had lived in his nionasterv. State and when the " conciiiuiu " and U official routine were very distasteful t.i him, ' bulum " launched thiinderbolls and he avoided them as far as possible, de- voting himself to the spiritual side of his office (Epfy. 16. 71), ,Si, 14^). The critical period in the life of Theodoret was in connexion with the Nestorian contro other, <lepo^ing and exconiiiiuiiu .iim, 1 ,i- ■•■ doret was one of the Oriental Ci'ininis»ionrr» to the emperor rhe<Hl<rsiws II. at (dn^taiiti- tiople, representing his ineiro|hilit4n Alex- ander (16. 7J.S). The ileputK-s not Ix-inn versy, through which he is chiefly known to ' allowed to enter Constanlinople, audirncn us. His personal share in it began towards | with the emperor were held at t halceiloii, the end of 430, with the receipt by John, the Sept. 431. TheiKloret's name ap|>rar« in the patriarch of .\ntioch, of the letters of Celestinc 'letters and other documents passing Wtwerti and C\Til, relative to the condemnation of the Oriental p.irty at llphesus and their the doctrines of Nestorius obtained by the representatives in i halccdoii. in which much Western bishops in .\ug. 419. The high- j was said and written in a bitter spirit (I. abl>r, handed behaviour of the patriarchs of Koine I vol. iii. 7 2 4-7 4(1 ; Theod. ed. Schiil/e, v.il. iv. and .\lexandria towards the bp. of the new j pp. 1336-1354). Of the five s<-sMofis held at Rome, a personal friend of long standing to Chalcedon the proceedings of the hrst alone both of them, was no less offensive to Theo- doret than to John. When these documents arrived, Theodoret was at .\ntioch with other bishops of the province. The admirable letter (see Labbe, iii. 3<)o seq. ; Baluz. col. 445, c. xxi.) despatched in the name of John le proceeilii are recorded. \Ve have also a lew scanty fragments of speeches and homilies of Theo- doret at this perioil, characterized by dis- tressing acrimony (The«Kl. ed. Schul/e, vol. v. pp. 104-100), and a letter of his to .Alexander if llierapolis, whom he was reprt-seiiting. and his suffragans to Nestorius, exhorting ! informing him how matters were going on at him to give up his objections to the term "The otokos," seeing that its true sense was part of the Church's faith, and entreating him not to throw the whole of Christendom into con- fusion for the sake of a word, has been with great show of probability ascribed to the practised pen of Theodoret. The controversy Chalcedon. telling him of the |M>pularitv of the deputies with the people, who, in spite of the hostility of the clergy and monks bv whom they had been rej>eatedly stoned, Hitcked to hear them, assembling in a large curt sur- rounded with porticos the churches iM-ing closed against them ; but Theodoret laniriit« was speedily rendered much fiercer by the their ill-success with the emperor. Helore tlie publication of Cyril' .Anatheinatisms celebrated twelvi .\rticles." Designed deputies fin.illy delivered addre ft t halcedon. the Orientals he adherents ol the to crush one form of heretical teaching as i deposed Nestorius who had cross<-d the B<r,- regards our Lord's personal nature, these "articles" (detached, against Cyril's inten- tion, from the letter on which they were based) hardly escaped falling into the opposite error. The (iodhead of Christ was asserted with such emphasis that to some readers His manhood might seem obscured. John was shocked at what he deemed the p.witive affinity to .Apollinarian doctrine of some of tht-se articles, and applied hr^t to .Andreas of Samo- sata and then to Theod>)ret to confute them. Theodoret readily replied to theanathematisins seriatim. So completely at variance with or phorus from Constantinople. The hrst of these was by Theodoret. He and his com- panions, he said, were shut out from tlie nival city on account of their hdelitv to C hrist, but the Heavenly Jerusalem was still .n>eii to them. On their way home Iroin liphesus the Orientals. Theodoret among them, held a synoil at Tarsus and renewed the seiilriice of deposition on Cyril in conjunction with the sevin orthodox deoutirs to ThetHl.n.iu% II.. which they published in a circular letter. They eng.iged al-i never to abandon Nes- t<irius. Theodoret returned t.. his di<ice^. thodoxv did he regard them, that in the letter i and devoted hims«-l! to comi>.«ing a Iresh to John (reckoned as lip. 150) prefixed to his work assailing the obnoxious anathematiMUt. observations upon them, he expresses a sus- entitled PentaloKui. Iroin its division into picion that some " enemies of the truth " had I five iKwks. Onlv a lew lr.igiiients remain, beensheltering themselves under C>Tirs name. Other treatises he wrote then are |..st. Hut For the nature <jf these documents and for the ! we have, in a Latin version, a Imn letter objections urged bv Theodoret and his friends, ad.lressed to the lollowrrs ..I Nrsi.<ius at which with much' that is illogical and incon- , C.mstantinople, declaring his a.lherence to the sistent, contain much that is prima fiuie orth.nlox laith. although he had Irit unable Nestorian see Cvriilis. The documents to acquiesce in the ronilemnatioii -.1 Nrstoriu* were prior to the council of Lphi-sus and to n-.t believing that the d.K-trine^ ascribed to the formal condemnation of Nestorius then him were actuallv held by him (llaluz. >viwJ. passed. At that gathering Theodoret, ac- | c. 40. 7*i)- OtiI found it imjtHnslblc to companying his metropolitan. Alexander ol accept the terms orojxned In The.Kj.icel % Hierapolis was among the earlier comers. | article*. He explained bis objection* In • 960 THEODORETUS long letter to Acacius, which, however, opened a way for pacification by interpreta- tions of some questionable points in his anatheinatisms which he refused to withdraw. This letter Theodoret regarded as orthodox, but irreconcilable with the anathematisms, which he still regarded as heretical. He was, however, precluded from accepting the terms of peace which John and others were in- creasingly inclined to acquiesce in, by the demand that he should anathematize the doctrine of Nestorius and Nestorius himself. To do this (Theodoret writes to his friend Andrew of Samosata) would be to anathema- tize godliness itself. He is ready to anathe- matize all who assert that Christ was mere man, or who divide Him into two Sons, or who deny His Godhead. But if they anathematized "a man of whom they were not the judges, and his doctrine which they knew to be sound, en bloc, "indeterminate," they would act im- piously (ib. 766, c. 61). At this epoch, as Hefele remarks {Hist, of Councils, vol. iii. p. 127, Eng. trans.), the Orientals were divided into two great parties : the peace-seeking majority, with John of Antioch and the venerable Acacius at their head, ready to meet C\Til half-way ; the violent party of irreconcilables, with Alexander of Hierapolis as their leader, opposed to all reconciliation as treason to the truth ; while a third or middle party was led by Theodoret and Andrew of Samosata, anxious for peace, but on terms of their own. Theodoret and his scanty band of adherents failed to secure the confidence of either of the two great parties. His inflexible metropolitan, Alexander, vehemently de- nounced as treason to the truth any approach to reconciliation with C\Til. Against this reproach and against the suspicion that he had given in to escape persecution or to secure a higher place Theodoret sought to defend himself (ib. c. 72, 775)- Though still hold- ing back from reconciliation with C\Til, he was virtually the means of bringing about the long-desired peace. The declaration of faith presented to C>Til by Paul of Emesa, as representing the belief of John, and accepted by Cyril, had been originally drawn up by Theodoret at Ephesus. The paragraphs directed against C>Tirs twelve articles were slightly modified, but the main body was unaltered (C>Til. ed. Pusey, vi. 44 ; Baluz. c. 96, 97, 804 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xiv. 531 ; Hefele, op. cil. iii. 130 ff.). The reconciliation, however, was by no means acceptable to Theodoret. For it demanded acceptance of the deposition of Nestorius, the anathematiz- ing of Nestorius's doctrines, and the giving up the four metropolitans of his party who had been deposed at Constantinople. Theodoret's protest was in vain. Theodosius insisted on the deposition and expulsion of all bishops who continued opposed to union. Finding his growing isolation more and more intoler- able, Theodoret invited the chiefs of the fast- lessening band of his sympathizers, Alexander, Andrew, and others, to take counsel at Zeug- ma, in reference to the union with C\Til, which had been accepted by John and' earnestly pressed upon them by the combined weight of the ecclesiastical and civil power. Alex- ander refused to attend the synod except THEODORETUS on his own terms. The bishops who met, as Theodoret informed John (Baluz. c. 95, 662, 801), accepted the orthodoxy of Cyril's letter and regarded it as a recantation of his obnoxious twelve articles, but would not pronounce an anathema on Nestorius. John, now hopeless of peace otherwise, applied to the secular power. His method proved generally effectual. One by one the recalcitrant pre- lates yielded, except Alexander and some others. Theodoret was one of the last to yield. The coldness arising between him and John after John's reconciliation with Cyril had been much increased by John's uncanon- ical intrusion into the province of Alexander in the ordination of bishops. Theodoret, with the other bishops of the province, on this, withdrew from communion with him, and published a synodical letter charging him with ordaining unworthy persons (ib. 831, 850). Long and painful controversy ensued, only crushed at last by John's appealing to the imperial power. All eventually yielded to combined entreaties and menaces save Alex- ander and a small band of irreconcilables, who were banished from their sees. Theo- doret was assailed on his tenderest side by harassing his diocese. The unhappy renewal of strife, concerning the doctrines of Diodorus and Theodoret, brought Theodoret and Cyril once more into collision. For the details' of the conflict see Cyrillus of Alexandria ; Proclus ; Rabbulas; Ibas. The long and bitter controversy, in which both parties did and said many regrettable things, was closed by the death of Cyril, June 9 or 27, 444. The succession of Dioscorus to Cyril's patri- archal throne led to fresh trials for Theo- doret. Dioscorus was resolved to bring about Theodoret's overthrow, as Theodoret was one of the first to discern the nascent heresy of Eutyches, and directed the powers of a well- trained intellect and great theological learning to exposing it. The ear of the emperor was gained, and Theodoret was represented as a turbulent busybody, constantly at Antioch and other cities, taking part in councils and assemblies instead of attending to his diocese ; a troublesome agitator, stirring up strife wherever he moved (Ep. 79, p. 1135, etc.). He was also accused on theological grounds. Dioscorus, who seems to have regarded him- self as " the lawful inheritor of Cyril's guard- ianship of anti-Nestorian orthodoxy," wrote to Theodoret's patriarch, Domnus, who c. 442 j had succeeded his uncle John in the see of I Antioch, informing him that Theodoret was creating a crypto-Nestorian party, practically teaching Nestorianism under another name and striking at " the one Nature of the In- carnate." These accusations were accepted at court, and Dioscorus obtained an imperial edict (dated by Tillemont Mar. 30, 449) that as a disturber of the peace of the church Theodoret should keep to his own diocese. Theodoret submitted, leaving the city without bidding his friends farewell (Ep. 80, p. 1137). From the " Latrocinium " or "Robbers' Synod," at Ephesus (449) [Dioscorus ; Euty- ches], Theodoret was excluded by an imperial edict of Mar. 4, unless summoned unanimously by the council itself (Labbe, iv. 100). Theod- oret's condemnation was evidently the chief THEODORETUS purpose in suinmonini? this iiifanious <vncxl. From his "interiu-meiu" at Cvrrhiis Thi-oJorat calmly watched his eiicmics' pr.KrwiliiiKs. Mr had not long to wait for the conftnnation of his worst fears. Hioscorus and his n.irtisAns. having by brutal violence obtained the ac- quittal of liutyches and the deposition of Flavian, Ibas. Irenaeus. and other sympath- izers with Theodoret. proce.-ded on the third session to deal with him. The indirtment was formulated by a presbyter of Anti.H-h named Pelaijius, who in language of the most atro- cious violence, proceeded to demand of the council to take the sword of (;od and. as • Samuel dealt with Agag. and F.lijah with the priests of Bial, pitilessly di*strov those who had introduced strange doctrines into the church. Those who adhered to the poisonous teachings of N'estorius deserved the flames- "Burn them! — burn them!" he cried. Pelagius was allowed to lay bef.jre the sviiod the proofs of his accusation, contained in "The .\pology of Theodoret, bp. of Cyrrhus, in behalf of Diodorus and Theodorus, cham- pions of God." The council exclaimed that thev had heard enough to warrant the immediate deposition of Theodoret, as the emperor h.id already ordered. The unanimous sentence was that he should be deposed from the priesthood and deprived of even lay communion. His books were to be committed to the flames (i7>. 125, 126, 129 ; Le Brigan.la^e, pp. iqj-kjs). Dioscorus was now master of the whole Eastern church ; "il regne partout." The.i- doret knew that deposition was usually fol- lowed by exile, and prepared for the worst. He was allowed to retire to his monastery near .-Vpamea {Ep. 119, p. 1202). An appeal to the West, forbidden him in person by Theo- dosius, was now prosecuted by letter, which, though addressed to Leo individually, was really meant for the bishops of the \V«-st assembled in the synod, to which he begs his cause may be submitted (.Ut'm. eccl. xv. 294). " In this remarkable letter," writes Dr. Bright {Htst. of Church, p. 395). "he traces the primacy of Rome to her civil great- ness, her soundness of faith, and her possession of the graves of the apostles Peter and Paul. He eulogizes the exact and compnhensive orthodoxy with which the Tome of I.eo con- veys the full mind of the Holy Spirit." He entreats Leo " to decide whether he ought to submit to the recent sentence. He awaits his decision. He will acqui<?sce in it, whatever it be, committing himself to the judgment «f his God and Saviour." Theodosiu* continued to pay no heed to the remonstrances of l^o, asserting that everything had been deci<led at Ephesus with complete freedom and in accordance with the truth, and that the pre- lates there dep'^>sed merited their fate for innovations in the faith. The inter|><rsitii>n of Pulcheria and of the Western princess<-s was employed in vain. On Jiilv 29. 4^'». Theo- d.»ius IL was killed by a fall from his h<>rs<-, and the imperial dignity passed to the ri-v>l»ite hands of the orthodox Pulcheria and her soldier-husband Marcian. All was now changed. Eutychianism became the losing cause, and the orthodox sufferers were tpeniilv recalled. Theodoret appears to have been mentioned by name in the edict of recall. THEODORETUS on I The «tigm4 of hrtrro«|oxv W4« «|vr<s|ilv n»- ni.ived from him. Thrrr \% n.i rravm to iloubl that he wa* oa.- •! l!i. Li ..'i : . «;. . i.nr.l tho Tome of 1^., , h,, own faith r<v . (|,4| i>n thi* I^.i : Miilk: bishoptTillnu XV J.., . liu .;. jv. II ;j-J4». Though now at lilxrlv to g.i whrrr he plraiwl. rhe.Hlorrt prrfrrrrd \., rr;niiii ri »!!. n, .rui- tervCKp. IV). His. • the complete Inuiii. vino* olhrrs of Ihr ; This desire h- - . ' .,....., I. ,v I .1 his Complet. 411 orriimPtilCAl council was n , bring that about he lalxiured \v i,'lit. The council .1 U»ul..d-.n met on ()cl. «. 45'- Thc<»doret'* entrance wa\ ihr digital for outrageous violcncr on the part ..f the adhrr- ints of I)ioscoru<>. The hall rrrchriod with cries and Ct>uiiter-rrii-N whirh interruplrd 4II proceedings. The<Hloret sat df.vTi " m the midst." not among his br ' Me c.ntiniied t-> attend tli the roiiiicil. but Wlthnllt voli .; no p.irt in the ile|x>Mli • 1 ■ iwn ciuse came on at t!. • j6. Although his ortli mw ledge<l bv I.<'.i .ind li; , I bv the enHM-ror. the anti-.Ni st=.u.*ii ... u .ii w.iuld not hear of his recognition a« a bishop until he ha»l in express terms an.ilti" m iti.-. 1 Nc*- toriiis. This step he had !• 1 <re«l he Would never take, an I I to satisfy the remonstrants wr liorl of it. but in vain. Wear. ! he yielded to their clamour .1 i the lest words, " .\nathema t I to every one who dem-- " rgiii Mary is the mother idr* the one Son, the ' two Sons." The impeii now declared that all doubt ha^l b. i :i f.;u ...d and that Theodoret should now receive back hi« bishopric. The wlmle ass.iiiM\ r.i.d the cry that Thetxloret was w : .me, and that the church inii i . her orth.xlox teacher. The I. . .(rd for his restoration, the i their assent bv acclamation, aii.l iier% gave sentenci- that bv th. (n.lv council The«Hl.>ret should . ^ ...i the church of t yrrhus (I.abiM-, iv. (.i.,-(.j«». But few years reinaine<l to rhr.K|..rrt. and of thestr verv little Is kn"i\*ii ll is u •! even certain whether he return. : ..ipal ilutii-s at Cvrrhus or rein luirl Ap.imean monasters >l 1 !•> literary lalniurs. I .1 he probably did not li. I Ihr , statement "f (;fiiii . that his d. ." • ' ' i*M. fie m His 'Aa f. hi(..: and N. T. 11. ' »«•• atheinati\li> 'e»y, and, in 4 w..i , ! ^i« life, with herrsi. 11 including the '.m/. . OfO/cms on l>ivin< oratioiit and levvr I1.4I1.. . w iii 1 'i. u, and V. EpuloUry. 01 362 THEODORETUS I. Exegetical. — These include works on (i) the Octateuch, {2) the books of Sam., Kings, and Chron., (3) the Pss., (4) the Canticles, (5) the Major Prophets, (6) the Twelve Minor Prophets, (7) the Fourteen Epistles of St. Paul, including that to the Hebrews. The work on the Octateuch consists of answers to difficult points, for the most part characterized by the sound common-sense literalism of the Antio- chene school, with but little tendency to alle- gory. Heoften, instead of his own opinion, cites that of his great masters Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Origen. In Leviticus and Numbers he naturally adopts more of the allegorical method, regarding the whole Levitical ritual and the moral ordin- ances as tv^pical of the sacrificial and media- torial work of Christ, and of the new law He came to inaugurate. The commentary on the Canticles was his earliest exegetical work. He controverts the opinion that this book contains the story of the earthly loves of Solomon either with Pharaoh's daughter or with Abishag, or that it is a political allegory, in which the bridegroom represents the monarch and the bride the people, and adopts the spiritual interpretation by which the bridegroom stands for Jesus Christ and the bride for the church. From one passage in the very interesting prologue we learn that Theodoret held the then current opinion, that the whole of the O.T. books having been burnt under Manasseh and other godless kings, or destroyed during the Captivity, Ezra was divinely inspired to rewTite them word for word on the return from the Captivity. He denounces the iniquity of the Jews, who had excluded Daniel from the prophets and placed his book among the Hagiographa, because no prophet had so clearly predicted the advent of Jesus Christ, and the very time of His appear- ance. The only portions of the N.T. com- mented on by him are the Epistles of St. Paul, including that to the Hebrews. Of these bp. Lightfoot wTites, " His commentaries on St. Paul are superior to his other exegetical writings, and have been assigned the palm over all patristic expositions of Scripture. For appreciation, terseness, and good sense they are perhaps unsurpassed, and if the absence of faults were a just standard of merit, they would deserve the first place ; but they have little claim to originality, and he who has read Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia will find scarcely anything in Theodoret which he has not seen before. It is right to add, however, that Theodoret him- self modestly disclaims any such merit. In his preface he apologizes for attempting to interpret St. Paul after two such men who are 'luminaries of the world,' and he pro- fesses nothing more than to gather his stores 'from the blessed Fathers.' " (Gal. p. 220). II. Controversial. — (i) The Refutation of the Twelve Anathematisms of Cyril. (2) Eranistes or Polymorphus, " a work of remarkable in- terest and of permanent value for theological students, to be read in connexion with the Tome of Leo and the definitions of Chalcedon " (Bright, Later Treatises of Athanas. p. 177). It consists of three dialogues between the "Mendicant " 'EpavlcTr/i who represents Euty- chianism, and Theodoret himself as 'OpOddo^ot. THEODORETUS Their respective titles indicate the line adopted in each. These are 'ArpeTrros, Immutabilis, 'A(Ti''7x'''''05> Inconfusus, and ' AiraOri's, Impati- bilis. (3) Alp€TiKrj^ KaKO/j.vdiai iiriTOfxri, Haereticarum Fabularum Compendium, a work directed against heresies in general, in five books. The fourth book, the most important as treating of matters with which he was more or less personally acquainted, begins with the heresies of Arius and Eunomius and comes down to those of Nestorius and Eutyches. His disgracefully violent language with regard to his former friend Nestorius — whom he stigmatizes as an instrument of Satan, a man who by his pride had plunged the church into disorders, and under the cloak of orthodoxy introduced the denial of the Divinity and of the Incarnation of the Only-begotten Son, and who at last met with the punishment he de- served, a sign of his future punishment- would warrant the charitable hope that this chapter has been erroneously ascribed to Theodoret. Of this, however, there is no evidence, and we are, though most reluctantly, compelled to accept it as his work, together with the equally atrocious letter to Sporacius on the Nestorian heresy. It is accepted by Photius (Cod. 56) and Lenntius of Byzantius (art. 4, de Sectis) (cf. Neander, iv. p. 246, note, Ceillier, .Aut. eccles. x. 84). III. Theological. — The chief is an apologetic treatise, intended to exhibit the confirmations of the truth of the Christian faith contained in the philosophical systems of the Gentiles, under the title 'Eki]VLKQiv depaireiTiKT) iradr}- fxcLTwi', Graecarum .Affectionum Ctiratio, seu Evangelicae Veritatis ex Gentilimn Philosophia Cognitio. It is in 12 discourses, and furnishes a very able and eloquent defence of Christian- ity against the ridicule and ignorant accusa- tions of pagan philosophers, WTitten probably before 437. It was followed by another of a similar character, in ten orations, on Divine Providence, regarded by the best critics as exhibiting Theodoret's literary power in its highest form, as regards the careful selection of thoughts, nobility of language, elegance and piu-ity of style, and the force and sequence of his arguments (Ceillier, p. 88, § 10). To these may be added a discourse on Charity, -rrepl Beiai Kai aylas dyd-n-qs (Schulze, 14, 1296 seq.) and some fragments of sermons, etc., given by Garnier {Auctarium, ib. t. v. pp. 71 seq.). IV. Historical. — This class contains two works of very different character and of very different value : (i) the Ecclesiastical History and (2 ) the Religious History, (i ) The former, in five books, was intended to form a continu- ation of that of Eusebius. It commences with the rise of Arianism under Constantius and closes with the death of Theodore of Mop- suestia, A.D. 429. From his opening words he has been thought to have had in view the histories of Socrates and Sozomen, and to have WTitten to supply their omissions and correct their mistakes (Valesius). This is questioned by some, and must be regarded as doubtful. He gives more original documents than either of his brother-historians, but is very chary of dates, and wxites generally without sufficient chronological exactness. Photius finds fault with his too great fondness for metaphor, while he praises his style as " clear, lofty, and THEODORETUS free from redundancy" (CoJ. ^i). The his- 1 tory is learned and generally impartial, " though it is occasionally one-sided and runs ' off into a theological treatise." An Kng. trans, was pub. by Haxter in 1847. {2) The Religious History, <t>i\6<ito^ iaTo^a. is devoted to the lives of 30 celebrated hermits and ascetics, his contemporaries, and was wiitten from personal knowledge and popnl.ir report before his Ecclfiiastical History. It excites our wonder at what Dr. Newman calls the " easy credence, or as nioderns would sav large credulousness." which appears more astonish- ing as he had been brought up in the most matter-of-fact, prosaic, and critical school of ancient Christendom. "What." writes Ur. Newman, "made him drink in with such relish what we reject wuh such disgust ? Was it that, at least, some miracU-s were brought home so absolutely to his sensible experience that he had no reason fur doubting the others which came to him second-hand ? This certainly will explain what to most of us is sure to seem the stupid credulity of so well- | read, so intellectual an author " (//is/. Sketches, iii. 314). The whole subject presents a very curious intellectual problem. V. Epistolary. — No portion of Theodoret's ' literary remains exceeds in interest and value the large collection of his letters. .\s throw- ing light on his personal history and character, and as helping us to understand the perplexed relations of the principal actors in that stormy ^ period of theological strife and their various ] shades of theological opinion, their import- ance cannot be over-estimated. They give us a heightened esteem of Theodoret himself, his intellectual power, theological precision, warm-hearted affection, and Christian virtues. An Eng. trans, of this remarkable series of | letters, arranged according to date and subject, is much to be desired. I The .4uctarium of tiarnier also contains the j following : (i) Prolegomena and Extracts of \ Commentaries on the Psalms, probably derived from Catenae. (2) .\ Short Extract from a Commentary on St. Luke. (\) Sermon on the Nativity of S. John Baptist. (4) Homily spoken at Chalcedun in 431. (5) Fifteen 1 additional letters of Theodoret. (6) Seven dialogues composed a little befcjrc the council of Ephesus, 2 each against .inomoeans and Apollinarians, and 3 against .Macedonians. Their authorship is doubtful ; they have been ascribed to Athanasius or Maximus, but Garnier claims them for Theodoret. Editions. — There are 2 edd. of his complete works in Gk. and Lat. ; the first in 4 vols. ful. (Paris, 1642), by the Jesuit jac. Sirmond. to which a 5th vol. was added after Sirmoiids death by his fellow-Jesuit, J. Garnier (I'aris. 1684), containing an auctarium, compris- ing fragments of commentarii-s and mt- mons and some additional letters, together with Garnier's 5 learned but most one- sided dissertations on (i) the life, (2) the writings, (3) the faith of The.Kioret, (4) on the fifth general council, and (5) the cause of Theodoret and the Orientals. This was succeeded by another ed. based on it, with additions and corrections bv l.ud. Schul/e and J. A. Noesselt (Halae Sax. i76o-t774). in 5 vols, and in 10 parts. To this eduion our THEODORICUS MS rcferencM arc made. The cd. of T. Gditfurd is pub. bv the Cl.ireni|i>ii l»rr%«. Thrf* t« a Irani, of ThcKloret's w.irk* in Hohn't Ub. (iiell), and bv lUomltrUI Jarkvn tit l.tb. of P,nl-.\,(ene latherK. i (. \ (,lulx>ko«r%ki. I he Hle^'^e.i IheoJorel. bp. of (yrm (M..«;iiw. iS.,n. .• v.. Is); Harnack in tktot. LUrralmr Zeitunt: (is.,o). p. 502. l«v.| ThftOdorlouS (I) I. {ThfttdfTKux). chiMcn king of the Visi);oih<i on the ciralh o| ValU. A.l>. 4l<). tie was the real loundrr oj the Wrmt liothic kingdom. On hi» acmsioii the Vi»i- goths held nothing in Snain, but ocruptrd in Gaul .'Vquitania Sccumla. the region lyinjt. roughly speaking, between the I.oire ami the G.ironne, with somr lu-ightxiurinK cille*. of which roulouse, their capital, wm the mmt important. This lerrit'irv had Ixrn crdrtl to Valia as the price of the ' ' ■ ■■•'■ '^ .me. The history of Theo»I..ric- ; >t a series of endeavours to c\: tiry when the Romans were ot .'te<l. with intervals of rencw.d ul thi ;.>(Ju\. the Goths, however, ret.iining wh.«t thev hail Wi>n. In the great battle of the Mauriac |iuin% Theti- doric, who was advanceil in life, fell from hit horse and was trampled to death l>v hii own troops (a.d. 4SI). Salvian (i^ dub. ttet. vil. 154) praises him for his piety, to which be attributi-s the defeat of the self-confident l.itorius. Though, like the rest of his rac. an .\rian. he did iKit j)ersecute the Catholicx. Prosper and Idatius, (.hronica; Jordanr*, titt. 34-40 ; Isidorus. Hist, (ioth.. Hist. Suev.. Dahn. Die Konit;e der (iermanen, v. 71. (ri>-l TheodorlOUS (3) (Iheoderum). the IKtro- goth, king III Italy. The second is th«- s|>ellini( of .ill inscriptions (Miimiiis«-n, Jordants, 144). He was the son of i'liiudimer by his concubine I Erelieva. and was born proiiably in ^*t^. His father was the second brother of Valamir, I king of the Ostrogoths, Vidimer l>eing the j third. The three lived in amity. occupviiiK I N. Pannonia, the part of the tril>e under Thiudimer b«-iiig settled near Lake PrUo at Theodoric's birth. Ht- succeeded his father in 474 or 475, and assisted in 477 in /eno'» restoration. In 4H7 /eno induced Thr.Klofic j to undertake an expedition to Italy for the purpose of overthrowing odoacrr. Thet.- I doric willingly consente«l ; his |>e»iple, who in the course of their wanderings had mmtlv settled in Ij>wer Moesi.i. Nova near Kilstchult ' being his capital, were discontented with thnr ! settlements ; and in the autumn of 4«,'< they started. It was not the m.»rch of an arinv. but the migration of a who|r i--..plr Their progress bv Sirmiutn and I' " low. imiKde.l by the winter ! the opposition of the (.epi.l , ■:4n«; not lill the summei of 4«<i : . : their wav through the Julian Alps 11. t.. I1.4K. F«* the events of the w.ir, terminated in Mar. 4'ij bv Thi-mloric's complete viclorv. srr />. C. li. (4 vols. Ic><x)). art. "Oiloarer " .Mtrr The..- doric had shut up Odoacef in Kavenna in autumn 4'>o, h- ■ i.t Fiu.fi the ehtrf -!(»,•• senate, and I: to ask his rolnrs. Zen having Colin- ii in i.i ■ I'' • >».■•> ■* the (all of Kavrnna the armv |>ficJ4UiirU .Tbcodoric king (.An. Vol. jj J7). Alrr*dy 964 THEODORICUS king of the Ostrogoths, he was thus recognized as king over his new conquests ; but, like Odoacer, he assumed the title without any territorial definition such as " king of Italy." Gregory of Tours (iii. 31) indeed styles him "Rex Italiae," but this is merely a description, not a formal title ; cf. the parallel of Odoacer and Victor Vitcnsis. This independent as- sumption was regarded at Constantinople as a usurpation, and not till 498 was a recognition grudgingly obtained by the embassy of the senator Festus, and the imperial ornaments returned which Odoacer had sent to Con- stantinople (.4m. Val. 64, Theodorus Lector, ii. 16, 17, in Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. i, 189). Theodoric, while really independent, was ready to pay the emperor marks of respect, such as submitting for approval the name of the consul he nominated. But there was no real cordiality between the two. At Con- stantinople Theodoric was regarded merely as de jure the lieutenant of the emperor who had commissioned him to recover Italy, and the Byzantine claims were only kept in abeyance for a convenient opportunity. His first care after the overthrow of Odo- acer was to arrange the settlement of his followers in Italy. A third part of the lands was distributed to them. The Goths were very unequally distributed. In Calabria and Apulia there were none (Procop. i. 15) ; they began to appear in Samnium, and then in- creased to the N. and E., the settlements being thickest in the Aemilia and Venetia. The Goths were probably settled by families and tribes (Var. v. 27), and did not, like the Vandals, clear out and occupy the whole of a continuous province. Their dispersion among the previous inhabitants had many important consequences, the most important perhaps being the increase of the royal power, which was further strengthened by Theodoric uniting to his hereditary kingship the derelict pre- rogatives of the Western emperor. He governed the two nations — the Romans and the Goths — who lived side by side without intermingling, in a twofold capacity : the former as the successor of the emperor, the latter as the king of immemorial antiquity. The Roman forms of government were kept up ; the senate met, and Theodoric submitted his appointments of patricians, consuls, etc., for their ratification. The Roman systems of taxation and administration were maintained. The Goths, like the Romans, had to pay taxes, but their special obligation was that of mili- tary service. Theodoric's care for his domin- ions is shewn by the multifarious subjects of the Variarum — e.g. drainage of marshes, regulations of the posting service, repairs of harbours, roads, and public buildings, such as Pompey's theatre and the cloacae at Rome, fortifications, searches for mines, etc. Under his firm rule Italy enjoyed 33 years of peace and prosperity such as she had not kno\vn for nearly a century, and was not to know again for generations. The state of affairs in Gaul after 507 de- manded Theodoric's interference. When his negotiations failed to prevent a breach be- tween Clovis and his son-in-law Alaric, and when the rout and death of .Alaric threatened that all Gaul, and perhaps Spain, would pass THEODORICUS into the hands of the Franks, he felt compelled to interpose. The result was the preservation of Spain and the district of Narbonne or Septi- mania for the Visigoths, and the acquisition by Theodoric of a territory corresponding with the modern Provence, including Aries and Marseilles. He was thus placed in immediate communication with the Visigoths, among whose kings he is reckoned by Spanish historians as guardian of his infant grandson. Though, like his countrymen, an Arian, Theodoric for most of his reign acted not only with impartiality but favour to the Catholics, some holding high offices under him. On his one recorded visit to Rome in 500, where he spent six months (An. Val., Cassiod. Chron.), he gave magnificent presents to St. Peter's as if he had been a Catholic ; he was on friendly terms with the most eminent bishops, such as Epiphanius, whom he employed on an em- bassy to the Burgundians to obtain the release of the prisoners taken in their inroads into N. Italy during the war with Odoacer ; and in his interference in the troubles following the disputed election of Symm.\chus and Laur- ENTR-s he seems to have acted solely with a view to benefit the church. Nor did he object to the nullification by the synod, under Symmachus, of Odoacer's law against the alienation of ecclesiastical property, on the ground that it rested only on lay authority. He was careful also not to infringe on the privileges of the church, and extended his protection to the Jews. During most of hir reign the difficulties of his position were much lightened by the schism between the Eastern and Western churches. To the pope and the orthodox party a Euty- chian emperor was as hateful as an Axian king. But when in 518 .Anastasius was succeeded by Justin and the 37 years' schism was ended by the complete triumph of Hormisdas, whose I negotiations with the East had been conducted by Theodoric's permission (Vita Hormisdae), the obstacle to the desires of the orthodox Romans for reunion with the empire was removed. On the Eastern side the breach was widened by the persecution of heretics, com- menced by Justin in 523. By the law of that year (Cod. i. v. 12), heretics were subjected to many civil and religious disabilities. The Goths serving in the army (foederati) were exempted from its provisions, but must, like the rest of their co-religionists, have felt the next measure, the seizure of all the churches belonging to heretics. Theodoric appears to have intended to occupy the churches of the Catholics and hand them over to the .\rians as reprisals for the similar treatment they had experienced in the East, when he was seized with illness, and died Aug. 30, 526. He apparently never had a son. His only sur- viving daughter Amalasuintha he had given in marriage in 515 to Eutharic, a descendant of the Amals, whose consulship in 519 was celebrated with great magnificence at Rome. He died before Theodoric, leaving one son, Athalaric, whom his grandfather, shortly before his death, declared king, under the regency of his mother. Theodoric was a great builder. He restored the aqueducts at Verona and Ravenna, built palaces at Verona and Ravenna, and baths THEODORICUS there and at I'aM.i. Hut his Kreatfst «..ikv are at Ravenna, his own niausolciiin, wiih its marvellous dome, (ornx-d o( otir block of Istrian stone, and what is now St. .ViHillmarr Nuovo, the church he built for his Arian fellow-worshippers, of which thev rctainrtl possession till the time of bp. Akik-IIus (Ac- nellus. Lib. Pont, in Kfrum Sinf>l. I atQ. 31,4). Almost our only source of information as to his internal administration is the riiri<irii»i of Cassiodorus (i»</. Mr. Hod»;kin"s preface to this work). Of modern writinss. Dahn's Konige der Gennanen. ii.-iv. is the most valu- able. Du Koure h.is published a Life of Theodoric, and there is a brilliant sketch in tiibbon. c. 3>), of his rule in Italy. (f.h.) TheodorlCUS (5) I. (//irr-rri. Iheud(rt(h). king of the Franks (511-533), one of the four sons of Clevis, by a concubine. He was con- siderably older than his three b.ilf-brothers, the sons of Clotilda, and had a grown-up son, Theodebert, when his father died ((irei;. Tur. Hist. Franc, ii. 28. iii. i) in 511. The four sons divided the kingdom, nominally into equal portions, but reaJly Theodoric, owing probably to his greater age and cipacity. obtained the largest portion. His capital was Metz, and his kingtlom comprised the Ripuarian Prankish territory, Champagne, the eastern portion of .Aquitaine and the ohl Salian Frankish possessions to the Kohlen- wald (Richter, .■iniialen, p. 46). Fauriel says that besides Frankish Germ.iny he had so much of Gaul as lies between the Rhine and the Meuse and, as his share of Aquitaine, the Auvergne with the Velai and G6vaudan. its dependencies, the Limousin in part or whole, and certain other cantons of less importance (Hist, de la Gaule Merid. ii. 92). Theodoric died in 533. He was a strong and capable king, but to the ferocity and lawlessness of his race he added an unscrupulous cunning of his own (ib. iii. 7). His attitude towards the church seems to have been one of indifference, influenced neither by fear nor superstition. Orthodo.xy had been so useful a political weapon to his father that the son was pre- sumably a professing Christian, though he is not mentioned among the members of Clovis's family baptized by St. Remigius. He did not shrink from involving churches in his army's pillage and destruction in the Auvergne (iii. 12). and though he exalted St. Quintian, bp. of Clermont, it was not as a priot. but as a partisan who had suffered in his cause (iii. 2). while he bitterly persecuted Desiderius. bp. of Verdun (iii. 34). He has the credit of re- ducing to wTiting and amending the l.iws of the Franks, .Xlamanni. and Havarians (Migm-, Patr. Lot. Ixxi. 1163). Is.A.B.) Theodoras (6) Askldas (o 'AamSii), archbp. of Caesarea in Ca|>p.idc.cia. the chief sup|>orter of Origen's views in the first half of cent. vi. and the originator of the celebrated contn»- versy concerning the " Three Cha|>ters."' The general history of his life belongs to that sub- ject ; we now give merely a brief outline. Hr was a monk of the convent of Nova I^ura in Palestine, and made. c. 537, archbp. of Caesarea under Justinian. ICe siipj.orted the views of Origen when they were persecuted in Palestine. He secretly favoured .Monophy- site views, and, when J ustinian condemned 1 TMFODORUS B«A < 'I it;rii. ^.i\v .1 rh.i! . ; aiitht»ritirs on thr rhrt«|..rr. and I Ihroiik'h thr nnpt Justini.ui to altn; phvMtP party; I issuitii; hiN crlrbr.i" the great rontrov Chapters. At thr . Iinopir archbp. 1 1.- drmnation of Ori^rn ■n id'- ■n ThrtHlorrt. Thr<K|orp, 4nd \h»-. Mr dirfl pr-biMv r ^^^ it » The / . -■ • the ; nop, , Slan.i, ; ., , ■ , ,. . ,,. v. ,. Hefclc s < nuntii\, ) isr^]. |<,.t ».| Theodorus (26). bp. of VopMirsiM ; aiw* known, from thr pl.icc <•( his birth and |>rt»- byterate. as Thoxlorc of ,\ntioch. thr nimt prominent rrpri^rntativc of the middle Antiochcnr schtnil of hermrnrulicA. L Liff aiui M'or*.— ThejMlorr wa» bom at Antioch (. 350 (»re Fnl/vhr d* Ik. M. I', fl .Scr. pp. 1-4. for the chroiio|o|{y : cl. Kihn. Thfodnr u. Juniliu\, p. »o. n. 1 1. Hit father held an ottinal (>o^i(|on at .^n^l•>ch. and the family was wrallhv (Chrv. «./ fk. iMps. li. in Mignr, /Wf. Gk. -'• ■ • v Theodore's cousin, I'aranius, to of Chrysostom's letter* are ad ( 05, 193, 204, 220, III Migne. 111.). 1 tant post of civil govrrniiirnt Polychroiims l>ecame bp. of Ih- s«'e of .\pamea. Thro<|orp first 1 early companion and friend of t (u . .!■ tn. his fellow-townsman, his equal in rank, 4nc| but two or three vr >r-. ht- -'-nt'T in .ir**. Together with th. i; afterwards bp. of 1 tom and The<Klori- sophist I.ibanius (S... .. .. ,. .i -■. ..,. ... then at .■Kntioch in th*- /niith of fiis tame. We have the assurance of So/oinni that he en- joyed a philosophical ecluriti n w' i 1. 1 hiv- sostom credits his frieml • but the luxurious life of ; to have rj-ceived an equal When C hrysostom himsrlt h il ' from the pliasurrs of the worM ence of Il.isil, he siircerdpcl tn • nius anil Thefnlorc to tJi- 1 'i** three frirnds left I ibai .hi a retreat in the !n<>fi i»(ir . .<•»"! Carteriiis an ><■'-■ ■■ - already ati ' been previ, sostom. howi . . wards in tmns ^ baptism (ad Th. I the new Iranui!.: His da vs. .. reading, hi' lay on the ' form of a'^' withal of li. the srrv\rt. His c niar\- rra' ; of hi. : . : kigned bmiicii lu a ccIiImIc U(« wUu ha 966 THEODORUS was fascinated by a girl named Hermione (Chrys. tb. i., Migne, xlvii. p. 297), and contemplated marriage, at the same time returning to his former manner of life (Soz. viii. 2). His "fall" spread consternation through the little society. Many were the prayers offered and efforts made' for his re- covery. " Valerius, Florentius, Porph^,Tius, and many others," laboured to restore him ; and the anxiety drew forth from Chrysostom the earliest of his literary compositions — two letters " to Theodore upon his fall." The second letter reveals at once the strength of Chrysostom's affection, and the greatness of the character in which at that early age (Theodore was not yet 20) he had already found so much to love. Theodore remained constant to his vows (Soz. I.e.), although the disappointment left traces in his after-life. Chrysostom's connexion with Diodore was probably broken off in 374, when he plunged into a more complete monastic seclusion ; Theodore's seems to have continued until the elevation of Diodore to the see of Tarsus a.d. 378. During this period doubtless the foun- dations were laid of Theodore's acquaintance with Holy Scripture and ecclesiastical doc- trine, and he was imbued for life with the principles of scriptural interpretation which Diodore had inherited from an earlier genera- tion of Antiochenes, and with the peculiar views of the Person of Christ into which the master had been led by his antagonism to Apollinarius. The latter years of this decade witnessed Theodore's first appearance as a writer. He began with a commentary on the Psalms, in which the method of Diodore was exaggerated, and which he lived to repent of (Facund. iii. 6, x. i ; v. infra, § III.). The orthodox at Antioch. it seems, resented the loss of the traditional Messianic interpretation, and, if we may trust Hesychius, Theodore was compelled to promise that he would commit his maiden work to the flames^an engagement he contrived to evade (Mansi, ix. 284). Gennadius {de Vir. III. 12) represents Theodore as a presbyter of the church of Antioch ; and from a letter of John of Antioch (Facund. ii. 2) we gather that 45 years elapsed between his ordination and his death. It seems, therefore, that he was ordained priest at Antioch a.d. 383, in his 33rd vear, the ordaining bishop being doubtless ' Flavian, j Diodore's old friend and fellow-labourer, whose " loving disciple " Theodore now be- came (John of Antioch, ap. Facund. I.e.). The epithet seems to imply that Theodore was an attached adherent of the Meletian party ; but there is no evidence that he mixed himself up with the feuds which for some years after Flavian's consecration distracted the Cath- olics of Antioch. Theodore's great treatise on the Incarnation (Gennad. I.e.) belongs to this period, possibly also more than one of his I commentaries on the O.T. As a preacher he seems to have now attained some eminence in the field of polemics (Facund. viii. 4). Theodore is said bv Hesvchius of Jerusalem (Mansi, ix. 248) to have left Antioch while yet a priest and betaken himself to Tarsus, I until 392, when he was consecrated to the see I of Mopsuestia, vacant by the death of Olvm- j pius, probably through the influence and | THEODORUS by the hands of Diodore. Here he spent his remaining 36 years of life (Theodoret. I.e.). Mopsuestia was a free town (Pliny) upon the PjTamus, between Tarsus and Issus, some 40 miles from either, and X2 from the sea. It belonged to Cilicia Secunda, of which the metropolitan see was Anazarbus. In the 4th cent, it was of some importance, famous for its bridge, thrown over the P^Tramus by Con- stantine. It is now the insignificant town Mensis, or Messis (D. of G. and R. Geogr.). Theodore's long episcopate was marked by no striking incidents. His letters, long known to the Nestorians of S>Tia as the Book of Pearls, are lost ; his followers have left us few personal recollections. In 394 he at- tended a synod at Constantinople on a ques- tion which concerned the see of Bostra in the partiarchate of Antioch (Mansi, iii. 851 ; cf. Hefele, ii. 406). Theodore preached, probably on this occasion, before the emperor Theo- dosius I., who was then starting for his last journey to the West. The sermon made a deep impression, and Theodosius, who had sat at the feet of St. Ambrose and St. Gregory of Nazianzus, declared that he had never met with such a teacher (John of Antioch, ap. Facund. ii. 2). The younger Theodosius in- herited his grandfather's respect for Theodore, and often wrote to him. Another glimpse of Theodore's episcopal life is supplied by a letter of Chrysostom to him from Cucusus (a.d. 404-407) (Chrys. Ep. 212, Migne, Iii. 668). The exiled patriarch " can never forget the love of Theodore, so genuine and warm, so sincere and guileless, a love maintained from early years, and manifested but now." Chry- sostom {Ep. 204) thanks him profoundly for frequent though ineffectual efforts to obtain his release. No titles of honour, no terms of affection, seem too strong to be lavished on his friend. Finally, he assures Theodore that, " exile as he is, he reaps no ordinary consolation from having such a treasure, such a mine of wealth within his heart, as the love of so vigilant and noble a soul." Higher testimony could not have been borne, or by a more competent judge ; and so much was this felt by Theodore's enemies at the fifth council that they vainly made efforts to deny the identity of Chrysostom's correspondent with the bp. of Mopsuestia. Notwithstanding his literary activity, Theo- dore worked zealously for the good of his diocese. The famous letter of Ibas (Mansi, vii. 247 ; Facund. vii. 7) testifies that he converted Mopsuestia to the truth, i.e. extin- guished Arianism and other heresies there. Several of his works are doubtless monuments of these pastoral labom-s, e.g. the catechetical lectures, the ecthesis, and possibly the treatise on " Persian Magic." Yet his episcopal work was by no means simply that of a diocesan bishop. Everywhere he was regarded as " the herald of the truth and the doctor of the church " ; " even distant churches received instruction from him." So boasts Ibas to Maris, and his letter was read without a dissentient voice at the council of Chalcedon (Facund. ii. i seq.). Theodore "expounded Scripture in all the chiurches of the East," says John of Antioch {ib. ii. 2) with Oriental hyperbole, and adds that in his lifetime Theo- THEODORUS dore was never arr.nKned hv anv o( the i^rtho. dox. But ill a letter to Nestorius (ih. %. i) John beRs him t<> retract. iir^MiK the exainpir of Theodtiro, who, when in a sermon at Aiitux-h he had said something which nave great and manifest offence, for the sake of pearr and to avoid scandal, after a few davs as puMirlv corrected himself. Leonlius tells us (MiK'ne Ixxxvi. i3t)3) that the ciuse of offence was a denial to the Blessed Virgin of the title ff(0T6K0t. So great was the storm that the people threatened to stone the preacher (l vril. Alex. /•:/). f>q ; Micne. Ixxvii. 340). The hereti- cal sects attacked bv Theodore shewed their resentment in a wav less overt, but perhaps more formidable. Thev tampered with his writings, hoping thus to involve him in hetero- dox statements (Facund. x. i ). Theodore's last years were perplexed bv a new controversy. When in 41 H the Pelagian leaders were deposed and exiled from the West, they sought in the East the svmpathv of the chief living representative of the school of Antioch. The fact is recorded bv Manns Mercator, who makes the most of it {Pra//. ad Symb. Thend. Mop. 72). With Theodore they probably remained till 422. when Julian returned to Italy. Julian's visit was doubt- less the occasion upon which Theodore wrote his book Against the Defetuifrs of Ortf;inal Stn. Mercator charges Theiidore with having turned against Jtiiian as soon as the latter had left Mopsuestia, and anathematized him in a provincial synod (0/1. cil. 3). The synod can hardly be a fabrication, since .Mercator was a contemp<irary writer ; but it was very pos- sibly convened, as Fritzsche suggests, without any special reference to the Pelagian question. If Theodore then read his ecthesis, the anathema with which that ends might have been represented outside the council as a synodical condemnation of the Pelagian chiefs. Mercator's words, in fact, point to this explanation. A greater heresiarch than Julian visited Mopsuestia in the last year of Theodore's life. It is stated by Evagrius (//. K. i. 2 ; Migne, Ixxxvi. 2425) that Nestorius, on his way from Antioch to Constantinople (a.d. 42H), took counsel with Theodf)re and received from him the seeds of heresy which he shortly after- wards scattered with such disastrous results. Evagrius makes this statement on the author- ity of one Theodulus, a person otherwise unknown. We may safely reject it, so far as it derives the Christologv of Nestorius from this single interview. The germ of the Nestorian doctrine was in the teaching of I)|o- dore and in the earliest works of Thet>dore ; it could not have been new to Nestorius, as a prominent teacher of the church of Antioch. Towards the close of 428 (Thco<loret, //. K. V. 39) Theodore died, worn f>iit bv so vear* (Facund. ii. 2) of literary and pastoral toil, at the age of 78, having been all his life engaged in controversy, and more than once in conflict with the popular notions of ortho<loxy ; vet he departed, as Facundus (ii. i) triumphantlv points out, in the peace of the church and at the height of a great reputation. The storm wa» gathering, but did nf>t break till he was gone. II. Posthumous //is/on'.— The popularity of Theodore was increased by hi» death. TMEOnORUS 0»»7 Mrlrtnis. his Mirre*vir ;it M'>I te%tr<l th.it hi* life w.nitfl havr t . if he had nl(rre<i 4 w.nd 4j!4in%t sor ( Tilleni. M/m. xtt. p. 44 j). \\r |.r;ir\r as Thr.Klorr Iwllrvrd ; l..n« ||vr the fjllh of ihrtMlorr ! •■ wa\ 4 try ..ftrn he,rd in tSe churches of thr |.a»t (I Vril. AI. ' ■ " We had rathrr l>c burnt tK Theodore." was the reply •>( il SxTia to the parly ragrr (..r his . iPp. 72). The flanir wa* Ir.l b who had been disnplr* of thr It,' Theodiiret. who rrgardrd him .1 of the universal rhiirch " (//. /■. v i,) , l,v Ibas (if Edessa. who in 4 H wrote hit lamou% letter to Maris in praise i.f Thr.KlofP . by John, who in 4.''l surrrr.lrd to thr sfr nt .Antioch. Net Th«-.Ml<.rr s ashrs wrtr srarrrlv cold whrn in other fjn irtTs ni«-n Ix-^An to hold hini up to .'I ' • ' irlv perhjpt as 431 Marius Mer. 1 him 4* the real authi>rof the I'. ./.|A. im/>h<V. iM irf>i<i Juhani. /•, ... PtUt. 1,mI. xlviii. no) ; and not l..ii^ ad. 1 ward* prrfacr-d his translation of Themlorc's ecthe^is with 4 still more violent attack on him as the pre- cursor of Nestorianism {th. pp. inH, 104^. 1048). The council of Ephrsus. however, while it conrlemned Net this bv name, con- tented itself with • Theod<ire'« cree<l without ineiili e ; 4t,d the Nestorian partv f : ; b^rk ui>on the Words of Theixi..!. ... ■ -. mUi^ them in several l.ingiiages , Iw^t available exposition of t!: Tat. Brn'. 10). This circum-i i: . , .1 the mistrust of the orth.wlox. ami ewi» m the East there were not wanting some who pr'X-e«Kle<l to con<leinn the teaching of Th<-<M|ore. He»v- chiiis of Jerusalem, alwiut 4 u. alt.irkrd him in his EccUsnislKal Hi\li>r\ ; Kablxilas. bp of Edessa. who at Ephesus had sided with John of Antioch. now publicly analhcmatixed Theodore (Ibas. F.f<. ad Matin.)- Proclu* demanded from the bishops "f 'i\Tin a con- demnation of certain pr^; ; •>*e<l to have l>een drawn from t' Theo- dore. (^Til. who h.id oni • jf>lv of some of Theodi'res work . . 111. ^). now under the influence of Kabbtil^a look a decided attitude of omvtsition ; he wrote to the svno<l of Antioch (Ep. 67) that the opinion* of l>io<lore. ThefKlorr, and others of the unte sch'M.ls had " lM>rne down with full sail upon the glorv of ( hrist " ; to il,.- ni.i-ri.r lEp. 71). that DifHlore and I •- th«« parents of the blaspheinv |o Procliis {Ep. 72). that ha-l . , tllll alive an<l o|>rnlv approved .1 i ■ r ir „ runit o| Nestorius. he ought lindoiil)te<llv to h*\e been anathemali/ed : but as he was ilead. it W4» enough to roiidenin the >■•'■■•■- •■< t •• >"<ok«. having regard to the |. me*^ more extreme nie.isMres u th»» East. Me rollefted an<l ir les of proposiiitins gathered from the Mutiny n| Pirxlore and TherKlore (MiKne. itvt. 14 (N se<|.). a w«»k to which The.«|.ifel reddled short- ly afterwards. The ferment then subsulnl for a time, t>t|t the dlsriples of The'xlofe. fe. pulsed in the West, pushe.l their W4V from Eastern S\Tia to Persia. Iba*. who •urere«lr<I RabbuUt in 4 1). resitted tb« tchral ol Kci<>iMi. 968 THEODORUS and it continued to be a nursery of Theodore's theology till suppressed by Zeno, a.d. 489. At Nisibis Barsumas, a devoted adherent of the party, was bp. from 435 to 489. Upon the suppression of the school of Edessa, Nisibis became the seat of the Antiochene exegesis and theology. The Persian kings favoured a movement distasteful to the empire ; and Persia was henceforth the headquarters of Nestorianism. Among the Nestorians of Persia the writings of Theodore were regarded as the standard both of doctrine and of interpretation, and the Persian church re- turned the censures of the orthodox by pro- nouncing an anathema on all who opposed or rejected them (cf. Assem. iii. i. 84 ; and for a full account of the spread of Theodore's opinions at Edessa and Nisibis see Kihn, Theodor u. Junilius, pp. 198-209. 333-336). At a later period the school of Nisibis reacted on the West, and the influence, though not the name, of Theodore appears in the Instituta Regularia of Junilius Africanus, and in the de Institutione Divinarum Literarum of Cassio- dorus (Kihn, pp. 209 seq.). The 6th cent, witnessed another and final outbreak of bitter hatred against Theodore, The fifth general council (533), under the in- fluence of the emperor Justinian, pronounced the anathema which Theodosius II. had re- fused to sanction and which even Cyril shrank from uttering. This condemnation of Theo- dore and his two supporters shook the fabric of the Catholic church. This is not the place to enter upon the history of the "Three Chapters," but we may point out one result of Justinian's policy. The West, Africa especially, rebelled against a decree which seemed to set at nought the authority of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and also violated the sanctity of the dead. It was from no particular interest in Theodore's doctrine or method of interpretation that the African bishops espoused his cause. Bp. Pontian plainly told the emperor that he had asked them to condemn men of whose writings they knew nothing (Migne, Patr. Lat. Ixvii. 997)- But the stir about Theodore led to inquiry ; his works, or portions of them, were translated and circulated in the West. It is almost cer- tainly to this cause that we owe the preserva- tion in a Latin dress of at least one-half of Theodore's commentaries on St. Paul. Pub- lished under the name of St. Ambrose, the work of Theodore passed from Africa into the monastic libraries of the West, was copied into the compilations of Rabanus Maurus and others, and in its fuller and its abridged form supplied the Middle Ages with an accepted interpretation of an important part of Holy Scripture. The name of Theodore, however, disappears almost entirely from Western church literature after the 6th cent. It was scarcely before the iqth cent, that justice was done by Western writers to the importance of the great Antiochene as a theologian, an expositor, and a precursor of later thought. III. Literary Remains. — Facundus (x. 4) speaks of Theodore's " innumerable books " ; John of Antioch, in a letter quoted by Facun- dus (ii. 2), describes his polemical works as alone numbering " decem millia " (i.e. fivpia), an exaggeration of course, but based on fact. THEODORUS A catalogue of such of his writings as were once extant in Syriac translations is given by Ebedjesu, Nestorian metropolitan of Soba, A.D. 1318 (J. S. Assem. Bibl. OrienLiii. i. pp. 30 seq.). These Syriac translations filled 41 tomes. Only one whole work remains. (a) Exegetical Writings.— (i) Old Testa' ment. (a) Historical Books. — A commentary on Genesis is cited by Cosmas Indicopleustes, John Philoponus, and Photius (Cod. 3, 8). Fragments of the Greek original survive in the catena of Nicephorus (Lips. 1772). Latin fragments are found in the Acts of the second council of Constantinople, and an important collection of Syriac fragments from the Nitrian MSS. of the British Museum was pub. by Dr. E. Sachau (Th. Mops. Fragm. Syriaca, Lips. 1869, pp. I -21). Photius, criticizing the style of this work in words more or less applicable to all the remains of Theodore, notices the writer's opposition to the allegori- cal method of interpretation. Ebedjesu was struck by the care and elaboration bestowed upon the work. The catenae contain frag- ments attributed to Theodore upon the re- maining books of the Pentateuch and of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, and Kings (Mai, Scr. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. praef. p. xxi.). Theodore is stated by Leontius (Migne, Patr. Gk. Ixxxvi. 1368) to have rejected the two books of Chronicles, and there is no trace of any comments upon them bearing his name. (b) Poetical Books. — Theodore's commentary on Job was dedicated to St. Cyril of Alex- andria. Of all his works it seems to have been the least worthy of this dedication. Only four fragments survive (Mansi, ix. pp. 223 seq.), but they are sufficient to justify the censure pronounced upon the work by the Fifth council. Theodore regards Job as an histori- cal character, but considers him as traduced by the author of the book, whom he considers to have been a pagan Edomite. The Psalms were the earliest field of Theo- dore's hermeneutical labours. The printed fragments, Greek and Latin, fill 25 columns in Migne. More recently attention has been called to a Syriac version (Baethgen), and new fragments of a Latin version and of the ori- ginal Greek have been printed. That his first literary adventure was hasty and pre- mature was frankly acknowledged by Theo- dore himself (Facund. I.e.). His zeal for the historical method of interpretation led him to deny the application to Christ of all but 3 or 4 of the Psalms usually regarded as Messianic. No fragments have hitherto been discovered of the commentary of Ecclesiastes, which Ebedjesu counts among the Syriac transla- tions. From the remains of the commentary on Job it appears that Theodore expressly denied the higher inspiration of both the sapiential books of Solomon. Of the Canticles he writes in terms of positive contempt (Mansi, ix. 225). He repudiates imputations of im- modesty on it, but denies its spiritual charac- ter. It is merely the epithalamium of Pharaoh's daughter, a relic of Solomon's lighter poetry, affording an insight into his domestic life. For this reason, he adds, it had never been read in synagogue or church, (c) Prophetical Books. — A commentary on the four greater prophets is in Ebedjesu's list ; I THEODORUS but one or two incditrd fr.iijincnts .»l'<nr remain. The coininentarv on the iniiinr prophets has boon prosor\od and pul)lisho»l ui its integrity by Mai (Konio. iS^s-iS^j) ami Wegnern. Its exoRelical value is dimin- ished by Theodore's absolute conlidence in the LXX, excessive independence of earlier her- meneutical authorities, and reluctance to admit a Christoloi;ical reference, as well as by hi* usual defects of stylo. It is. neverthe- less, a considerable monument of his exposi- tory power, and the best illustration we possess of the .\ntiochene method of inter- preting O.T. prophecv. (ii) .V.r. {a) The ' Gospels. —Ebediesii re- counts commentaries on SS. Matthew, Luke, and John. Fragments of these, with the remaining NT. fragments, wore collected and ed. by O. F. Fritzsche (Turici. 1847). and reprinted by .Migne. The commentary on St. John exists in a S\Tiac version, and has been pub. by J. B. Chabot (Paris, 1897). {b) .icts and Catholic Epistles. — One frag- ment only remains of the commentary on the Acts ; we owe it to the zeal of Theodores opponents at the Fifth council. Notwith- standing Mai(/.c.p. xxi), it is more than doubt- ful whether Theodore wrote upon the Catholic Epistles. With the rest of the .\ntiochians he probably followed the old S\Tian canon in rejecting II. Peter and II. and III. John. (c) The Epistles of St. fdfi/.— Fbedjesu dis- tinctly states that Theodore WTOte on all the Pauline epistles, including among them Hebrews. The commentary on Hebrews is cited by the Fifth council, Vigilius and Pela- gius II. ; that on Romans by Facundus (iii. 6). A fortunate discovery last century gave us a complete Latin version of the commentary on Galatians and the nine following epistles. The Latin, apparently the work of an African churchman of the time of the Fifth council, abounds in colloquial and semi-barbarous forms ; the version is not ahways careful, and sometimes almost hopelessly corrupt. But it gives us the substance of Theodore's inter- pretation of St. Paul, and we have thus a typical commentary from his pen on a 'con- siderable portion of each Testament (pub. by Camb. Univ. Press, 1880- 1882). (b) Controversial Writi.st.s. — (a) Chief amongst these, and first in point of time, was the treatise, in 15 books, on the Incarnation. According to (iennadius {de I'ir. III. 12) it was directed against the .Apollinarians an<l Eunomians, and written while the author was yet a presbyter of .Antioch, i.e. a.d. ^Hz-yii. Gennadius adds an outline of the contents. After a loi^ical and scriptural demonstration of the truth and perfection of each of the natures in Christ, Theodore deals more at length with the Sacred .Manh'H>d. In bk. xiv. he approached the mystery of the Holy Trinitv and the relation of the croalure to the Divine Nature ; in xv. the work w.is con- cluded, teste Gennadius, with an appeal tn authority : " citatis etiam patrum traditioni- bus." Large fragments of this treatise have been collected from various quarters. None of the remains of Theodore throw such import- ant light upon his Christologv. (ft) Books agatnU A pnllinariantsm. — Facun- dus (viii. 2) says that Theodore wrote several THEODORUS l»fl9 f»nr. distiurl tr- r rnlitlrd df writ ton, .IS I cvlv- ing Ir.tgmnit. ,,. s. ,, , .,, i i-.. i:. ,:■. r ..„ |ho Inranntion (F.icund. x. i ). A numl^rr of im- portant fragmrntH i>rrs<-rvr<l m thr Coti«i4nli- nopolitan .\rt* ami '•• "■ ..•..,., .1 t-inm. dus, Justinian, I.r. , ,| j,, bks. ill. .ind IV. " \ (f) ThrcHlorewp.t. ,Mln»t Hunomius, and a ^in^;ll rh.irji i< n.tu trj^mmt has survived (F.»cunil. ix. \). The work pro- fessed to br a defrncr of ^( II , il In the original it re.iched the pr- ' of J5 (Phot. Cod. ^) or even of K>k*. Photius complain-i bittn; i» o| style, and doubts thr ..it;i..|,,v ..( the wTitor, but admits its rlr.»riirs<i of arftumrtil and wealth of scriptural pr.wif. id) I-:bedjcsu includes in his li»t " two tnmct on the Holy Spirit " ; orobaMv a work directed against the heresy of tne Pnetimatomachi , hut see Klener, Svmh. I, iter. p. 7<>. (<") Three books on " Persian Ma^jic." We le.ini from Photius that bk. 1. was an ex|Hnure of the Zoroastrian svstnn ; bks. h. and ill. cont.iined a comprehensive sketch of the history and d'X-trines of Christianitv, Iwnin- ning with the Biblical account of the Cre.»tion. In this portion, especiallv in bk. lii., Theodora botraved his " Nestorian " views, and even advanced the startling theorv of a final re- storati<m of all men. One cannot but regret the utter loss of so remarkable a volume, especially as it se<'ms to have been wTitten in the interests of Christian missions, an earnest of the missionary snirit which was afterwards so marked in the Nestorian church. (/) .According to Kl>edjesu. Theo<|<ire wrote " two tomes against him who ass<rts that sin is inherent in human nature." The heading, as given in .Marius .Mercator, who published Latin excerpts from this book shortly after The<xlore's death, is merely an ex parte de- scription of its contents : " t Ontra S. .Angus- tinum defendcntem originale j»eccatum rt .Adam per transgrossionem tnortalem tarluin catholice rlisserontem." Mercator, a friend and disciple of .St. .Augustine, n<>t unn.ilurallv imagined Thetnlore's work to be directed against the great Western assailant of JVIa* gius ; but The<Hlore sr«-fns ariuallv to have selected Jerome as the representative of the principh's he attacks. Such as Ihev are, the remains of this Ixnik form our l>e\t guide to the anlhro|X)logv of The<H|ore. (C) PkACTItAL, PaST<»MAI, and l.lTtlHilCAL Wkitisc.s.- -Fbe<l)csu mention* a Ireatiw (>» the I'rieithood, which w;-- • 1. •- - > .-i extensive one, probably u ' of the Sarrailients as b.i- of the Incarnation. It chius tells us. In The«K|..r< , ..i.l a^r. .A more popular treatment of the same «iib)rct seems to havel>ecn alt<ni| |. I in \hr t lir, d^i. ical Lectures (" ( .1' Marius Mercator; : " Allfw-titi.nr- nrl (ix. The viii.. of the .,....■„.■> A .. ^ ■• Syriac exists in the library ot the Americao 970 THEODORUS College at Beyrout. Fritzsche thinks that to some copies at least of these lectures Theodore appended (i) an explanation of the creed of Nicaea, a fragment of which, preserved by the Fifth council, suggests that its object was to interpret the creed in harmony with the bishop's teaching upon the Person of Christ ; and (2) the ecthesis afterwards produced at the Third council by the Philadelphian pres- byter Charisius, and condemned, but without mention of the author's name (Mansi, iv. 1347 seq.)- The document corresponds closely with Theodore's teaching, reveals his style in both its weakness and strength, and was attributed to him by his contemporary Mer- cator, who bases on it his attack upon Theo- dore's Christology. The ecthesis was probably composed in good faith, and intended to serve the interests of the Catholic doctrine. Lastly, Leontius intimates that Theodore wrote a portion of a liturgy ; " not content with drafting a new creed, he sought to impose upon the church a new Anaphora " (Migne, Ixxxvi. 1367). A Syriac liturgy ascribed to " Mar Teodorus the Interpreter " is still used by the Christians of Assyria for a third of the year, from Advent to Palm Sunday. The proanaphoral and post -communion portions are supplied by the older liturgy "of the Apostles " (so called), the anaphora only being peculiar. A Latin version of this anaphora is in Renaudot, pub. in English by Dr. Neale (Hist. H. E. Ch.) and Dr. Badger {Eastern Ch. Assoc, occasional paper, xvii., Rivingtons, 1875). Internal evidence confirms the judg- ment of Dr. Neale, who regards it as a genuine work of Theodore. IV. Doctrine. — We deal with the peculiari- ties of Theodore's teaching under: (a) An- thropology, (b) Christolog3', (c) Soteriology. (a) His whole doctrinal system hinges, as Neander and Dorner rightly judged, upon his conception of man's relation to the Universe and to God. (i) The L^niverse (6 K6(Tfxos = r] <r^lJ.ira(Ta Kritris) is an organic whole {iv (TCifta). consisting of elements partly visible and material, partly invisible and spiritual. Of this organism man is the predestined bond {<pi\las ivix^'pov, <TiV5e(r/xos, ffvva.4)(La, copula- tio), and therefore made a composite creature, his body derived from material elements, his spiritual nature akin to pure spirits, the vorjTai (phceis. He was also to be the image of God, i.e. His visible representative, and as such to receive the homage of all creation. Hence all things minister to him, and even angelic beings superintend the movements of the physical world for his benefit. Man is thus the crowning work of the Creator, and the proper medium of communication between the Creator and the creature. (2) In the history of all intelligent created life, Theodore distinguishes two stages {KaracTTdireis), the first a state of flux, exposed to conflict, temp- tation, and mortality ; the second immutable, and free from all the forms of moral and physical evil. From the beginning God pur- posed that the second of these conditions (17 /LieXXoi'cra KaTacrTacns) should be revealed through the Incarnation of His Son. Man was created in the former state, his nature being from the first liable to dissolution. " Earth to earth " — the human body natur- THEODORUS ally returns to the element from which it was taken. (3) The fall therefore did not intro- duce mortality, but converted the liability into a fact. It was not said, " Ye shall become mortal," but " Ye shall die." As a matter of fact, " death came by sin " ; and the dissolution of soul and body was followed by the still more serious dissolution of the bond which in the person of man had hitherto knit together the visible and invisible crea- tions. The fall of the first man gave sin a foothold in the world. The same result fol- lowed in the case of each descendant of Adam who sinned ; and since all sinned, death " passed upon all men, for that all sinned." (4) As our mortality was no after-thought with God, so neither was the sentence of death a vindictive punishment. The present life, with its vicissitudes and probationary trials, is a wholesome discipline, affording room for the exercise of free will and the attainment of goodness, which without our efforts would be destitute of moral worth. Although human nature is free, yet in its present condition of mortality and mutability it is insufficient to conquer the forces of evil and attain perfect virtue without supernatural aid. A new creation is needed to abolish sin and death. (b) We are thus brought to Theodore's doc- trine of the mission and Person of Christ, (i) The mission of Christ is primarily to restore the shattered unity of the Kdafios and gather up all things to Himself, by realizing in His Person the position of man as the visible Image of God and the head of the whole Creation ; secondarily, to restore mankind by union with Himself as the Second Adam and the Head of the Church to a condition of per- fect deliverance from sin and death. (2) To fulfil this mission it was necessary that God the Word should become perfect man. The perfection of His manhood required Him to possess a rational human soul, capable of exercising a real choice between good and evil, although persistently choosing good ; and to attain the perfection of human experience it was necessary for Him to take human nature in its mutable state, to pass through a period of growth, and to enter into conflict not only with the Evil One, but with the passions of j the human soul. (3) Though perfect man, the man Christ surpassed all other men. He was absolutely free from sin, and His life was a continual progress from one stage of virtue to another, a meritorious course of which the end was victory over death and an entrance into the immortal and immutable state. This sinlessness and ultimate perfection of the manhood of Christ was due {a) to His super- natural birth and subsequent baptism of the Spirit, which He received in a manner peculiar to Himself, i.e. in the fullness of His grace ; but yet more (6) to His union with the Person of the Divine Word. This union he had indeed received as the reward of His foreseen sin- lessness and virtue, for with Him, as with the rest of mankind, divine gifts depended upon the action of the human will. The union, however, necessarily reacted on the Man, with whom the Word was made one ; the co- operation of the Indwelling Godhead rendered it morally impossible for him to fall into sin. (4) But after what manner did the Word unite THEODORUS Himself to the Man whom He .insuiucI a priori there mv thror conceivaMe m.«lr> ol divine indwelling : it nujcht l>e essrnli.il, effectual, or moral (icor' oiViar. Kar «'r,,i->f ,ar. Ka.T (vboKia¥). An ejwciuial indwrllmn i God is excluded by every adequate idea of lli Nature. The indwelliuK of liod in (. hrist an.! in the saints is genfrtcally the vame. but there is an all-important sputfic difference, bv which Theodore strives to retain the conception of a true incarnation of dod. " I am not so ntail." he says, " as to affirn* that the indwi-llniK of God in Christ is after the same manner as m the saints. He dwelt in Christ an in a Son {J, iv ii<^) ; I niean that He united the assumed man entirely to Himself and httrd him t<. partake with Him of all the honour of which the indwelling Person. Who is Son bv nature, partakes." Further, the union of the \V(.rd with the man Christ differs from the divine indwelling in the saints in two other im(v>rtant particulars. It began with the first f<irmalion of the Sacred ManhiM>d in the Xirgin's womb (" a prima statim plasmatione . . . Creator . . . occulte eidem copulatus existens non aber.ii cum formaretur, non dividebatur cum nasce batur '■). .\nd once having taken effect, the union remains indissoluble (axt^piaror ■wp6\ •njf OfioiV <t)V(Tiv l^wv TTji- (Tvvaf tiav). So close was the union, so ineffable, that the Word and the man He assumed may be regarded and spoken of as One Person, even as man and wife are " no longer two but one fl<'sh " ; or as " the reasonable soul and flesh are one man." Hence in ScrijUure things are often predicated of one of the natures which belong to the other. Hence the question whether the Virgin is rightly called avepu}-roT6\m or 0(ot6- Ko% is an idle one ; for she was both. She was the mother of the .Man, but in that Man when she gave Him birth there was already the indwelling of (iod. On the other hand, every idea of the Incarnation which tends to a con- fusion of the natures is to be jealouslv ex- cluded. When St. John says that " the Word was made flesh." we must understand him to speak only of what the Word apparently be- i came ; not that the flesh He t<M)k was unreal, but that He was not really transformed into flesh (t6 ' lyhxro "... «cari t6 ioKU¥ . . . ov i ■)dp ix(TCKoir)9r\ fit aapxa). (5) There are not two Sons in Christ, for there are not two ; Christs ; the unity of the Person must be as ' carefullv preserved as the distinction of the 1 Natures; the .Man is Son only by virtue of His indissoluble union with the Divine Word ; when we call Christ the Son of <.od. wr think principally of Him Who is truly an<I essentially Son, but we include in our conception the man who is indissolul)ly One with Him. and iherr fore shares His honours and His Name. (c) Lastlv, what arc the elements, condi- tions, and iiltimate results of the restorative ^ work which the Incarnate Son came to do ' (I) Theodore pl.ired the redemptive virtue of the death of Christ chieflv in this, that it was the transition of the S«cond .\dam from the mutable state into the immutable, the nerrs- sary step to the resurrect ion -life, in which death and sin are finally abolished. (2) Bap- tism, which represents the death and resur- rection of the I.ord, unites us to the ris«i Christ by a participation of His Spirit, to that I THEODORUS iii.'ul.l th- 11 J I! ,c-nt li\ci Uit" I the life o| the r»%rii i hfi»l. <>nd ' of the future »tjtr I i\ lu^ • juslified bv faith. : in somr virt to ai • ness. (4) M(i( SI- ■ , can onlv be ' ■ 1 [,« ParouMa 1 t th* church, as Krr4l results of t: ^. ,.,^^r^i% and the a^/'aprtia ..t the |i.¥lv f>» t hfl»l. Nothing short ..f the final %lJte ..| t>rf frrll.ti which will l>e then inaugurated can ethauti lh« meaning of sueh terms 4« " redemption." "forgiveness of sin*.' and " »alv«tioo." (^) Altll .iu-t> III. S.-. ..,> I \.Kr,,t «,1| t,,,„c ttirv* pared to be ho|>e|ess. The ptini condi-nined will inder<l Iw |•^ etern.il. Iwing such as W ■ not to time ; but both f shew that thev will Iw rn ; ance. Where (he .vU,, ; I of a resurrection t ii ihrv wrte raised onlv to f>e | :t remedy «r I end ? What woul : .- meaning nf such texts as Matt. \. ih, l.ukr xii. 47. 4K ? Moreover, Thefnlore'* fundamental ermcepKon of the missi<in and Person of t hri»t enmpeU him to l>elieve that there will b« a An«l re> storation of all creation. V. Method of Interprrtatiom. ~A* a M'hnUr and success^ir o( DicMlore (cf. S<»rr. vi. \ ; Sox. viii. 2). The(Mlore inherited the Aniiorhrne system of gramm.it iral and historical inter- pretation, and denounced the licence o| the .Mexandrian allegori/er*. The recovery of the commentary on Gal. iv. 24 shews that Theo- dore convinced himself th.it the jtlei;<iriral meth<»d was essentially raliotiaiisiie. under mining the hist<^ical truth "f the O.T. narra- tive. St. P.iul's use of d\Xir>«r<' wa» different in kind, since it presupi*osed the fact* of the historv ami employed them onlv bv way n| illustration. In his own 11 irr ; rrt .tl n -f both the historical and | t it was a first principle wii' t.Tin the intefi'i'»n "f the ^• 1 car- !fln- 'ions. such as (1) V •f nr of the indiM e f>| the COM. r„ Mtrr». the f • 401. The 1 > 1 1<^ (a) l( ' lh« propar.lrutf > thai the divine 1 . Ih* whole of Its . ^ma- lion and the «...,[h-i ,. < l.fMt llii ' tnmenl- ary on the minor prophet* ap|>*ar» lo have 972 THEODORUS been written to counteract the allegorists. The God of both Testaments, being one and the same, worked out His purpose with a single aim. Hence the events of O.T. were so ordered as to be typical of those which were to follow. Consequently the histories and prophecies of the older revelation are suscep- tible of an application to the facts and doc- trines of the Gospel, to which they offer a divinely foreseen and instinctive parallel. The words of the Psalmists and Prophets are constantly Christological, because the events to which they relate find a perfect counterpart in Christ {in Ps. xvi. xxii.). Their language is often hyperbolical or metaphorical, if viewed in reference to its original object ; exhausting itself only in the higher realities of the king- dom of heaven {in Joel ii. 28I. (b) Except- ing some few passages in which he recognizes direct prophecies of the Messiah and His times, Theodore holds that the language of O.T. is applied to Christ and the Christian dispensa- tion only by way of accommodation. This accommodation is, however, amply justified by the fact that in the divine foreknowledge the earlier cycle of events was designed to be typical of the later. Thus Ps. xxii., Theodore says, is clearly a narrative of David's conflict with Absalom, yet rightly used by the Evan- gelist to portray the passion of Christ, in which the words found a complete, and even to some extent a literal, fulfilment. Again, the words of Joel ii. 28 cannot possibly have been a prediction of the coming of the Holy Ghost, since the O.T. writers knew nothing as yet of a personal Spirit of God ; "I will pour out of my Spirit " meant only " I will extend to all the divine favour and protection." Yet St. Peter rightly quotes the prophecy as finding its accomplishment in the Pentecostal effu- sion ; for its fulfilment to the Jews of the Restoration was a pledge and type of the descent of the Spirit upon the universal church. This view (so Theodore argues) at once secures for the prophecy a historical basis, and magnifies the Christian economy as that which converted into sober fact the highest imagery of the ancient Scriptures. If Theodore's N.T. exegesis is less charac- teristic, it is certainly more satisfactory than his interpretation of the Hebrew prophecies. His mind and education were Greek ; in expounding the O.T. he trusted entirely to the guidance of the LXX ; in commenting on the Evangelists and St. Paul he found himself face to face with an original which he was competent to handle upon his own prin- ciples. In the remains of his commentaries of the Gospels we notice the precision with which he adheres to the letter of his author {e.g. on Matt. xxvi. 26), his readiness to press into the service of the interpreter minor words which are commonly overlooked (John xiii. 33, dpTi), his attention to the niceties of grammar (iii. 21) and punctuation (ix. 27), his keen discussion of doubtful readings (i. 3), his acuteness in seizing on the iSiW/uara of Scrip- ture (i. 14), and in bringing out the points of a parable or discourse (Mark iv. 26 ; John iii. 5, X. I seq., XV. 4, 26). Yet we note a want of spiritual insight (John xi. 21, 6 5^ X^yei K.T.X.) and feeling (xi. 35), and detect an occasional departure from the author's own THEODORUS first principles under the pressure of theo- logical prejudice (xx. 22, 28). The com- mentary on the Pauline Epistles seems on the whole worthy of its author's great name. It manifests in yet greater measure his care and precision, and, in addition, an honest and unceasing effort to trace the sequence of St. Paul's thought. Its principal fault is the continual introduction of theological disquisi- tions, which break the course of the interpre- tation and not seldom carry the reader into speculations entirely foreign to the mind of the Apostle. But even these digressions have their value as expositions of Antiochene theo- logy and as shewing the process by which so acute an intellect as Theodore's could elicit that theology from the Epistles of St. Paul, or reconcile the two systems where they appear to be hopelessly at variance. The worth of Theodore's contributions to the exegesis of Scripture has been very variously estimated. He is for ourselves the best exponent of Antiochene exegesis. Diodore has left too little to be representative ; Chry- sostom was a homilist rather than a scientific expositor ; Theodoret is little else than a judicious compiler from Chrysostom and ; Theodore. Theodore is an independent writer, yet influenced more deeply than either Chry- sostom or Theodoret by the Antiochene traditions. He had no audience to propitiate, no council to dread, and treads with the firm- ness of a man conscious that he represents a great principle and is fully convinced of its truth. His expositions, especially of N.T., possess intrinsic value of no common kind. Except when led astray by theological pre- possessions, his firm grasp of the grammatical and historical method and a kind of instinctive power of arriving at the drift of his author's thought have enabled him often to anticipate the most recent conclusions of exegesis. Be- sides, however, being deterred by his unwieldy style, the reader misses the devotional and spiritual tone which recommends most Pat- ; ristic commentaries. His abundant theo- logical discussions and moral teachings do not compensate for this. Yet after every fair deduction on these and other grounds, we may still assign to Theodore a high rank among commentators proper, and a position in which he stands among ancient expositors of Scrip- j ture almost alone — that of an independent inquirer, provided with a true method of eliciting the sense of his author and consider- able skill in the use of it. Life and Writings. — O. F. Fritsche, de Theod. Mops. Vita et Scriptis Commentatio Hist. Theologica (Halae, 1836); J. L. Jacobi in Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Christl. Wissenschaft (1854) ; F. J. A. Hort in the Journal of Class. I and Sacred Philology, iv. (Camb. 1859) ; ! Bickell, Conspect. Rei Syror. Liter. (Monast. j 1871) ; H. Kihn, Theodor. v. Mops. u. Junilius Africanus (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1880) ; F. .Loofs,art. "Theodor. v. Mopsuestia" inHauck- Herzog, Realencyklopddie, xix. (1907) ; O. Bardenhewer, Patr. pp. 301 ff. ; F. Barthgen, " Du Psalmenkommentar d. Theodor. v. Mops in Syrichen Bearbeitung," in Z. A. T. IV. v. (1889), " Sichenzahn Makkabaische Psalmen " in Z. A. T. W. vi. (1887); J. B. Chabot, Commentarius Theod. Mops, in Evang. D. THEODORUS Johannis i. {//i/us S\ru^cH^) (Paris. iS.j;) ; J. Lietzinann, Dfr PsaltiirnkoiumftUar. S.li.A. (190;). I'or doctriiif aiul iiiftlnKl ol in- terpretation see Neaiult-r, Allgftn. (ifschichu, II. iii. ; DoriUT, l.fhre v. dfr VeT\on Chrislt. n. i. ; art. in Ch. (^^uart. Krv. Oct. i8;5. entitU-d " Thooil..ro and M.«lrrn Thought " ; Prof. Sanday in /-.t/oKi/or. j iino 18.S0 ; A. Harnack, art. " Antii>chi-nisrh»- Schule " ill Hauck-Horzog. l\falfncykl«f>iulu, i. (i8q6) ; History 0/ />oi;»»ws (Hng. trans.), iii. 279 ff.. iv. 165 ff. : J. H. Soarsby. art. " .\n- tiochene Theology " in Hasting, KhcycIo- paedia of Religion and Ethics, i. (1908) ; j. V. Bethune- Baker, Early History of Christian Doctrine, pp. 256 ff. ; Sestorius anJ his Teach- ing. pa<:sim (1908). Migne's useful hut un- critical od. (vol.66, 1864) of all the pub. works and fragments is in his Patr. <ik. In 1S69 Ur. E. Sachau piiblished the inedited Svriac fragments scattered throufih the Nitrian SlSS. of Brit. Mus., with a reprint <>f tlu- Theotlore.ui matter already collected by 1'. de I.agarde in his Analecta Syriaca (Lips. 1858). The an- cient Latin version of the comnientari'.'s on some of the Epp. of St. Paul, with a fresh colla- tion of the Greek fragments, was issued by the Camb. Univ. Press in 1 880-1882. A complete critical edition of all the literary remains of , Theodore is still a desideratum. Of. Zahn, Das N.T. Theoiiors von Mops, in Seue Kirch. Zcitichr. 1900, xi. pp. 7HS f. [n.n.s.] I Theodorus (50), bp. of Tyana, a fellow- countryman and correspondent of Cireijory Nazianzen. He was a native of .\ri.inzus. Accompanying Ciregory to Constantinople in 379, he shared in the ill-treatment received there horn the .\rian monks and rabble. He subsequently became bp. of Tyana. but not before 381. .After Gregory returned to .Arian- zus many letters of friendship passed between him and Theodore. On the attempt of the .ApoUinarians to perpetuate the schism at Nazianzus. by appointing a bishop of their own. Gregory wrote verv earnestly (a.d. 382) to Theodore, calling on him. as metropolitan, to appoint a bishop to replace him, as age and ill-hea'.th forbad his efficient superintend- ence of the church there {Ep. 88). After being compelled reluctantly to resume the care of Nazianzus, Gregory felt reason to complain of Theodore apparently siding with hi' enemies, and expressed his feelings with vehemence (Ep. 83). Their friendship, how- ever, was not weakened, and on the comple- tion, in 382, of the I'hilocalia — the collection of extracts from ()ri;,'en made by him and Basil many years before— Gregory sent Theo- dore a copy as an Easter gift (Ep. 115 al. 871 Theodore was one of the bisho;)s attending tin council summoned against Chrysostoiii b\ Theophilus at the end of 403. Palladium describes him as a man of much wisdom and authority, who, when he disC(jv<Ted the malicious intention of Theophilus and his partisans, retired to his diocese soon after hi* arrival (Pallad. p. 23). The Theodoru* to whom Chrysostom addressed his Ep. 112 has been identified with Theodore of Tyana by the second council of Constantinople (Labbe, v. 490). Tillemont decides (xi. 608) for Theo- dore of Mopsuestia. (k.v.| Theodorus (53), priest and abbat of Tab- THEODORUS 973 enna in the Thrbaid. Hifn * t». J14. of noM« parents in the I'piH-r Thrbjul. he l<i«M«.k. 4t .Ml early age, hl% worlllv i r..,| r, t . 411. 1 ! utul asylum with Palam. in the nioiustrry .1; under whom he )" Pachoniius dird I abbacy, but with!: on whiisp retireiii. I, reforms. visiir<l tli^ . ,...; founded 5 new ones ul >>i Hvf mothis, Cains. Obi. and H t .S.S. Mai, iii. 327-328). liuii iiiir of Pachoniius Theodorus met M. AihauaMu* in the Thebaid, and is sanl to have announrnl lo him the ileath of thr rtiip.r.r Inli.n t^. n occurring in Persi 1 .Athanasius had a . and bewailed his ! in I'atr. (ik. xxvi. j 1. -i >n i-. .»r 'r.u. c. 8) giv«>s an anecilote "t hiin. Me »lird a.o. 307 (Tilleni. //. A. vii. 22s) or ^i.H (Boll. mi. 2<)i). (iennadius {de Script. Enl. 1. «) calls him presbyter, and aivn the ^ub^lancn ui j epistles he is s.iid to have addrrv»e<l to other monasteries Boll. m.<. 287-362, give the mo*l elaborate acrountof Pachomiusand Thmdora*. Fabric. Hibl. Grace, ix. 318; Tillem. H. E. vii. 469 seq. 758 MMj. ; Cave. Hi\t. Lit. i. 20.S ; Ceill. .AiU. Sacr. iv. i\\ s«-i|. \<)\ [j.«<.| Theodorus (S4) Lector. rr.i<i<T of the church of Const. uitinople. He roiii|x>sed in two b(V)ks a tripartite lii>t<>rv out of Socralc*. So/oinen, an»l Theodoret. extant in .M.S. at Venice. It was cooieil by Leo Allatiu«, bul not published. Vah-sius used his .MS. in h»« edition of those authors. He alvi coin|MtMxl a history which extends from the last da\-« o( Theodosius the younger to the reign of the elder Justin, a.d. 518 ; some i>ortions of which remain, and are in Migne's ratr. (ik. Ixxxvi. col. 157-2280. They have been collected oul of Nicephorus Callistus, John of Damascus, and the fifth action of the vventh grnrral council. His history abounds with wonder- ful stories in defence of orthodoxv. He lelU that Tiniotheus, bp. of Constantinople, a.o. 571. was the first to ordain the recitation of the Niceiie Creed at all celebration* of the Holy Communion. It was p^eviou^lv only recited once a ve.ir. at the end of l^nt. llvidently the .\rian p.irty must have Iweii *till ^^^^»^f at Constantinople in cent. vi. .\ question h«t been rais«-d whether our ThetMlore did ni>t live in cent. VIII. rather than cent. vi. CointM-h* in his Originum Kerumque Conxtant M amp. and Baudurius in his Imper. t>nfnl. have I'ivrii -Mriir -jnot.itioti-. ir-in ^ Dif-l'-f 11* p. 1 1 ; iiautl. p. nn); bul twoiiimoi titr %atue name niav have occupletl the value atbcr. Ceiii. XI. IoJ.«o^, I ii. /(.•; '.f.i<^. •• I > I Theodorus i83) who itudered III tl mian and Gahriu a recruit. Our auili nt ' of (iregory Nv»»efi (t. in , « le\\ trustwiifthv Acl». 1 • ijcigin (wrcic^irv %av» "■ (x-t fr.iun > j.. 1 a coiitcript. In wlnlrr quarter* at AmaM-a ih« 974 THEODOSIUS capital of Pontus, his refusal to join his com- rades in sacrifice declared him a Christian. His trial was deferred some days to offer him time to recant. This interval he employed in firing the temple of the Mother of the Gods on the banks of the Iris in the midst of the city- The building and the statue of the deity were reduced to ashes. At the judgment-seat Theo- dore boldly acknowledged and gloried in the act. From prison, where he was visited at night by angels who filled the cell with light and song, he passed to death in a furnace. No fewer than three churches were dedi- cated in his honour at Constantinople (Du Cange, Constantinop. Christ, vol. iv. c. 6, Nos. 100-102). He had also a martyry at Jeru- salem (Cyr. Vit. S. Sab. ap. Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. iii. No. 78) and Damascus (Johan. Damasc. de Sacr. I mag. Or. iii.). The little circular church of San Teodoro. popularly known as St. Toto, at the base of the Palatine Hill in Rome, is well known. Zonaras, Annal. lib. .xvii. c. ^, p. 213 (ed. Par. 1687) ; Credenus, Hist. Compend. pars. ii.p. 681 (ed. Par. 1647) ; Greg. Nyssen. Oratio de Magno Martyre Theo- dora, t. iii. pp. 578-586 (ed. Par. 163S); Surius, Nov. 9, p. 231, § 7 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. t. v. PP- 369-377, notes 732-735 ; Ruinart, Acta Martvritm, pp. 505-511. [e.v.] TheodosIUS (2) I., the Great, born a.d. 346 at Cauca, a Spanish town upon a small tributary of the Douro ; died Jan. 17, 395. His father, an eminent general serving under Valentinian and Valens, was treacherously executed in 376. For the secular history of Theodosius see D. of G. and R. Biogr. We shall here set forth his ecclesiastical polity and his powerful influence on the fortunes of the church. His accession was the turning-point which secured the triumph of Trinitarian orthodoxy over the Arianism dominant in the East for at least the previous 40 years. Theo- dosius turned what seemed in many places an obscure and conquered sect into a triumphant church, whose orthodoxy, on this point at least, never afterwards wavered. In 378 the Roman empire was in great danger. Valens, the emperor of the East, had been defeated and put to death by the Goths on Aug. 9 in the fatal battle of Hadrianople, and the whole empire was depending on the young Gratian, then less than 20 years old. Gratian per- ceived that the crisis demanded the ablest general the empire possessed ; he boldly summoned the deeply-injured Theodosius from his retirement, and invested him with the imperial purple, Jan. 19, 379, allotting him the government of the East with Illyricum in Europe. Theodosius fixed his residence at Thessalonica, skilfully selected as the head- quarters of his operations against the Goths. Constantinople was just then the centre of the conflict between the Catholics and Arians. About July 379 Gregory of Nazianzus, coming there, assumed the care of its one orthodox church, the Arians having possession of the see and all the other churches. Meanwhile at Thessalonica, during the winter of 379-380, Theodosius had a severe illness which led to his baptism by Ascolius, the local bishop, a devoted adherent of the orthodox party. This was fol- lowed by his first edict about religion, issued at Thessalonica, Feb. 28, 380, and addressed THEODOSIUS I. to the people of Constantinople. It orders that the religion which St. Peter taught the Romans and which Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria profess, should be believed by all nations ; that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost should be equally adored ; that the adherents of this doctrine should be called Catholic Christians, while all others were to be desig nated heretics, their places of assembly refused the name of churches, and their souls threat- ened with divine punishment. On Nov. 24, 380, Theodosius made his formal entry into Constantinople, and at once took action against the unorthodox. He turned the Arian bp. Demophilus out of the churches, and personally installed Gregory in the great church. But he does not seem to have satisfied the orthodox zeal of Gregory, who in his Carmen de Vita Sua, 1279-1395, speaks very slightingly of him, finding fault with his toleration, and complaining that he made no attempt to heal the wounds and I avenge the wrongs of the Catholics. Theo- ! dosius, however, soon improved under Gre- gory's tuition, direct or indirect. Gregory's tenure of the bishopric of Constantinople was only for 7 months. He retired about the end of June 381, yet continued to exercise a most active influence over the emperor through his successor Nectarius. Gregory in the East and Ambrose in the West must be largely credited with the intolerant ecclesiastical legislation of the Theodosian Code, lib. xvi. We may take the ecclesiastical legislation under two heads : (i) against heretics; (2) against pagans. Theodosius's first laws against heretics were issued immediately after the council of Constantinople, and rapidly increased in severity. In June or July, 381, he issued a law which must have been directly inspired by the council {Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. v. leg. 6), prohibiting all assemblies of Arians, Photinians, and Eunomians, and ordering the surrender of all churches to the orthodox. A few weeks later two edicts {ib. tit. i. leg. 3, and tit. v. leg. 8) prohibited Arians, Eunomians and Aetians from building churches to replace those taken from them. In law ix., Mar. 382, first appeared the word inquisitor in connexion with religious contro- versy, officers being appointed to detect and punish the Manicheans. Law xi. of July 383 prohibited any kind of heretical worship, while in Sept. law xii. prohibited heretical assemblies for worship, building of churches and ordinations of clergy, and confiscated to the fiscus places where they met. Evidently the heretics had many official supporters, and manv magistrates were lax in proceeding against them, as stern penalties were threat- ened against such. Yet the heretics main- tained their ground. So in Feb. 384, law xiii. was directed against the Eunomian, Mace- donian, Arian, and Apollinarian clergy who had ventured back again and were concealed in Constantinople. The Apollinarians especi- ally erected a regular church organization and established an episcopal succession. Gregory of Nazianzus, much troubled by the Apollinarian party, addressed Ep. 77 to the prefect, telling how they took advantage of his absence at the hot baths at Xanxaris to ordain a bishop at Nazianzus. He calls on THEODOSIUS I. the prefect to puiiisli tlu-iu for di'^olirvinR the edict, hut re.iiiests a li^lit peii.iltv. His influence, too. seems to have caused the orifjinai issu.- of this edict uf Feb. 384. for in ihtit. 40. .uidresseil to Nectarius, patriarcli of Coiist.iiitm..|)le. he calls for it as necessary, and in his Kp. to Olvnipius praises it. ai>olo- gizing for his own toleration which had le.l the heretics to act with incre.ised boldness. Nectarius. Ambrose, and Ascolius of Thessa- lonica, who baptised Theod.isius. also urged persecution (cf. esp. Fp. x. of St. .\mbrost\ written in the name of the council of Aouileia, demanding the suppression by force of here- tical assemblies and ordinations (Opp. Am- bros. in Migne's I'atr. I.at. xvi. 1)40)). In Mar. 388, when marching against the usurper Maximus. he issued for the Kast. and in June caused the younger X'alentinian to issue for the West, a still more stringent edict, specially directed against the Apojlinariaiis (Cn.l. Thfoii. xvi. tit. V. 14 and is), .iiul against chrgv and laity alike. It banishes all Apollinarians, deposes and degrades their bishops, forbids new consecrations, and denies them all approach to the emperors. liven this does not seem to have satisfied his advisers or to have stopped the progress of heresy. The Eunomians were very troublesome at Con- stantinople, where Hunomius himself had long lived, and whence Theodosius had ban- ished him. Theodosius, in May 389, issued a law rendering him and his followers incapable of making bequests and confiscating to the public treasury all bequests made to them. Theodosius sought to suppress paganism also. The ruins of many temples, st.itues, and fountains may be traced to his legislation, which went far beyond that of his predecessor. Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. x. " de Paganis. Sacriticiis et Templis," enables us to trace accurately his progress. The policy of Constantine and his sons may be said to have abolished sacrifices as madness and essentially connected with immorality and crime, specially those cele- brated at night, while at the same time pro- tecting the temples. Constantius was the severest legislator in this respect. The temples were closed, but preserved as public monu- ments and caretakers appointed at the public expense. Had this policy continued, the world would have been now much richer in artistic treasures. It continued, with the short interval of Julian's reign, till the accession of Theo- dosius. Even he retained the a[)|>earance of it. He issued no decree for the destruction of the temples. But anew force, the monks ha<i now become a power throughout the liast. They began the destruction in the very teeth of imperial edicts, trusting for protection to the influence of Ambrose, Nectarius, and other bishops with the emperor. In 3H2 Theodosius issued a rescript to I'alladius. dux of the pro- vince of Osrhoene, which was marked by a wise and tolerant spirit. There was a magni- ficent temple in Edessa. useful for popul.ir assemblies, festivals, elections, and other public meetings. Thef>dosius seems to have been specially anxious to use such temples for his provincial councils, a form of l<»cal government he largely developed and strengthened (cf. Cod. Theod. xii. tit. xii. legg. 12, 13). The local bp. Eulogius wished, however, to shut up Ibe THEODOSIUS I. 075 temple romi.Klelv. \W pleaded Ih4l Ihr Uw was clear. All .irrrss |.i irnipirs wa* lon< since forbidden, and lhi< one wa» i|><vmIIv dangerous l»ring richly furnKhrd with uk.U of rare l>,Muty. The 4<lv.K-4tr% o| (..Irruli.Hi for once gained the iipiM-r h.in.l \1I „nnc<^ were strictly f..rbiddrn. but ^j* to be us<-<l (or piililir piirp. .lyc* retained as ornamrnis anl iin«%. Five years, however. eLips..i i i,, . u.iH-f,.r was taking sterner measures ag.uiist Orirnlal paganism, and h.id just sent I vne^iu* a* hi« deputy into l.gvpt and the Fust to m^ thai his orders were strictly carried .ml ; whrrr- uiKin the monks, as l.ibaiiius exiirrssly »i4lr* r<Ke up and utterly d.-stroyrd ihr trinplr! The rage (or destruction spread. The iiiob in another part ol the same pr.ivinrr, headed by the bishop, .it tacked and burned 4 |rwi»h sAiiagogue .ind a \ale11tln14n liiretiiig.hoiiM'. Theodosius was ront,iin.|.,ti„^. ||„.,r .,m,Kh- ment when .Ambrose iniervenetl. 4tlilres%iii|| a letter (F.p. xl). which frightme.! theciiUKTuf from his purp.>se. He issue.!, however, a decree in 3.»i to the count of the i;a>t. pro- hibiting all iiiter(erence with Jutlaisui and specially forbidding attacks on their syna- gogues ; but he significanllv oiniKrd all such protective measures as regar.ls pagan Iriiiplrs. Uestniction and coiiliscatioii raged <mi every side, and the destroyers found jwrfect im- punity. The most notori'iits acts of destruc- tion were in llgvpt. and s,K-cially at Alex- andria, as described by Six rates (//. /•.. v 10, 17) when the celebrated S«-ra|)fum wa* de- stroyed. S.»crates asM-rts, indeed, thai llu« destruction t«M>k place at the iiii|H-ri4l order. a special decni- having iM-eii issued at the desire of the patriarch Theophilus, but of ihi« there is no trace in the Code. .\\ Kome the same |>olicy was pursued, either directly k indirectly, by Thonlosius. In 382 (, rattan issued an order abolishing the altar of Victory, as hitherto retained in the s<>nale hous«-. and the other traces of paganism which still re- mained. He confiscated the pro|><-rly of the vestal virgins and probably seized their college. Ill 3H3 an eflort to rescind this .irilef was defeateii by the vigorous action of |m>|>« Damasus. Svmin.ichus renewed the allriiipt in 384 and appe.ded to tin- voimg eiii|>rrur \'alentinian. .VmbroM-. nplving with extreme intolerance, warned \'aleiiiiiii4ii to consult Thi'odcrsius before coinplvili); with the s<-n4lr't prayer. For this letter of .Ambrose and lh« Relatxo of Symmachus, see St. .\iiibr<>«. hp. t lassis i. Epp. xvii.. xviii. The protect of .Am- bros<- was successful. The usur|M-r Fiigeniu* r<>stored the pagan embleiiit and ritual, but The<Mli>sius, on his victory, again alM>ll«he<l thein, and adopted sterner iura%ure« 4K4tii»t the vestal college. ThetKlosius was 4 |H»sitive a« well as a negative legislator. His IrKl^lalioii alMnii |be clergy and the internal \l ii- ' ■' ' -r(, W4« minute and far-re.irhiiig . |H(a, a stringent edict for lh< t Iha Lords |)ay. siis|hii.Iw..' in>-%« and branding as s.i< tiing its sanctity (Cud. I < \\. .Another edict. a.D >; the I annual holiday* the -• ilj\ ^ U (.rr usd allef I Easter (16. U. tit. viii. leg. i), (cl. "Lord's 976 THEODOSIUS II. Day" ia D. C. A. p. 1047), and another (ib. xvi. ii. 27) lays down most minute rules for deaconesses ; while the previous law exempted guardians of churches and holy places from public duties. Cod. xi. xxxix. 10 exempted bishops and presbyters from tort ure when giving evidence, but left the inferior clergy subject to it. Theodosius was appealed to on all kinds of subjects by the bishops, and we find decrees dealing with all manner of topics. If, e.g., religious controversy burst forth with special violence in Egypt or Antioch, the bishop ap- plied for edicts imposing perpetual silence on the opposite factions (cf. Cod. xvi. iv. 2 and 3). Theodosius was devout to superstition, passionate to an extreme. Two incidents, the insurrection of Antioch upon the destruction of the imperial statues, and the massacre of Thessalonica, illustrate his character in many respects. [Ambrosius ; Chrysostom.] [g.t.s.] Theodosius (3) II., emperor, born early in 401, the only son of the emperor Arcadius by EuDO.xiA (2), had four sisters, Flaccilla, Pul- cheria, Arcadia, and Marina. Pulcheria exercised a predominant influence over Theo- dosius throughout his life. He was appointed Augustus Jan. 402, and succeeded to the throne at the age of 7 on his father's death in 408. For the secular history of his reign see D. 0/ G. and R. Biogr. ; we deal here only with his actions and legislation so far as they bore on the history of the church. His reign was very long, covering the first halt of 5th cent., and embracing the origin and rise of two great heresies, the Nestorian andMonophy- site. His education was conducted by Pul- cheria, who acted as Augusta and his guardian, from July 4, 414, when she was herself little more than 15 years old. Sozomen (ix. i) tells us that she " superintended with extraordin- arj'- wisdom the transactions of the Roman government, concerted her measures well, and allowed no delay to take place in their exe- cution. She was able to write and to converse with perfect accuracy in the Greek and Latin languages. She caused all affairs to be trans- acted in the name of her brother, and devoted great attention to furnishing him with such information as was suitable to his years. She employed masters to instruct him in horse- manship and the use of arms, in literature, and in science. He was also taught how to maintain a deportment befitting an emperor. . . . But she chiefly strove to imbue his mind with piety and the love of prayer ; she taught him to frequent the church regularly, and to be zealous in contributing to the embellishment of houses of prayer. She inspired him with reverence for priests and other good men, and for those who in accordance with the law of Christianity had devoted themselves to philo- sophical asceticism." Socrates (vii. 22) tells us about his training that " such was his fortitude in undergoing hardships that he would cour- ageously endure both heat and cold ; fasting very frequently, especially on Wednesdays and Fridays, from an earnest endeavour to ob- serve with accuracy all the prescribed forms of the Christian religion. His palace was so regulated that it differed little from a mon- astery ; for he, together with his sisters, rose early in the morning and recited responsive hymns in praise of the Deity. By his training THEODOSIUS II. he learnt the Holy Scriptures by heart, and would often discourse with the bishops on scriptural subjects as if he had been an eccle- siastic of long standing. He was an indefati- gable collector of the sacred books and of expositions written on them, while in clem- ency and humanity he far surpassed all others." Pope Leo L, in one of his letters to Theodosius, which is intended to be very laud- atory (Mansi, v. 1341 ; cf. Socr. vii. 43), de- scribes him as having " not only the heart of an emperor but also that of a priest." Theo- dosius delighted in that magnificent cere- monial which gathered round the cultus of relics. He brought the remains of John Chrysostom back to Constantinople, laid his face on the coffin, and entreated that his parents might be pardoned for having per- secuted such a holy bishop. He assisted at the discovery and removal of the relics of the Forty Martyrs (Soz. ix. 2), and felt his reign honoured through the simultaneous discovery of the relics of the proto-martyr St. Stephen and Zechariah the prophet (ix. 16, 17). Dur- ing the latter portion of his reign, terminated by a fall from his horse July 28, 450, his sister lost her power, a comparatively healthy influence, and Theodosius fell completely under the guidance of selfish and tyrannical eutmchs. Pulcheria had vigour and deter- mination. Theodosius seems to have taken refuge from her sway by yielding himself completely to a rapid succession of favourites. He had 15 prime ministers in 25 years, the last of whom, the eunuch Chrysaphius, retained his power longest, a.d. 443-450. Under Theodosius H. paganism became in itself a disability. Some of the highest ser- vants of the state towards the end of cent. iv. had been pagan ; now by a law of Dec. 7, 416 (Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. x. 21), pagans were pro- hibited from entering the military and civil services or attaining any judicial office. This law was followed by 4 others within the next ten years, following closely upon the lines of Western legislation in the same direc- tion as contained in the previous laws ; law 25, for instance, passed at Constantinople Nov. 426, orders the cross, " signum \'eneran- dae crucis," to be placed on such temples as were allowed to remain intact, while the materials of those pulled down were to be used in repairing bridges, roads, aqueducts, etc. (ib. t. v. lib. XV. tit. i, leg. 36). These meas- ures seem to have produced an apparent uni- formity, as Theodosius, in law 22 passed in 423, refers to the " pagans who remain, though we believe there are none such." The law, however, as yet protected them if they lived peaceably ; thus law 24 forbids Christians making attacks on Jews and pagans living among them. Heretics scarcely came off so well. The Novatianists still, as throughout cent, iv., were specially favoured, though occasionally a law was aimed against their rebaptisms and unorthodox celebrations of Easter (lib. xvi. tit. vi. leg. 6, passed on Mar. 21, 413) ; but severe measures of exile, con- fiscation, and other penalties were dealt out against Montanists, Eunomians, etc., and their employment in the army or civil service was prohibited except apparently in the local militia (xvi. v. 58 and 61). Law 65 (tit. xvi.) THEODOSIUS is the most sweeping passoil m tlu< n-JKn. N'estorius was its author, aiul law 06 is a severe one against himself and his part v. The Jews were protected, as hithertu, but certain restrictions were by deKTeini pl.iced upon them. Their svnagO({u<>s were not t<} be seized or destroyed, and if destroyed were to be restored, but no new ones were to be built (xvi. tit. viii. 25). Thev were forbidden to serve in the anny, but permitted to be physicians and lawyers (lex 24). Their eccle- siastical and civil organization under their patriarchs was protected. The patriarchs, indeed, c. 415. seem to have advanced so far as to exercise jurisdiction over Christians and to force them to receive circumcision, while the Jewish people mocked the Christian religion and burned the cross (Socr. H. E. vii. 10). Under the induence of Nestorius. however, severer laws were enacted against Jews. In 429 we tind one forbidding and confiscating the usual tribute to the patriarchs. This law with Gothofred's commentary is very im- portant as regards the organization of Judaism in cent. v. (cf. the whole series of laws in lib. xvi. tit. viii. leg. 18-29). [g.t.s.] Theodosius (20). a celebrated solitary of S\Tia contemporary with Theodoret, born at Antioch of a rich and noble family. Aban- doning his worldly possessions, he dwelt in a hut in a forest on the mountain above the city of Rhosus, where he practised the severest self-discipline, loading his neck, loins, and WTists with heavy irons, and allowing his uncombed hair to grow to his feet. He speedily gathered a colony of ascetics, whom he taught industrial arts, as weaving sack- cloth and haircloth, making mats, fans, and baskets, and cultivating, setting an example of laborious diligence, and carefully superin- tending every department. He was an object of reverence even to the Isaurian banditti, who on several predatory iiuoads left his monastic settlement uninjured, only request- ing bread and his prayers. Fearing, however, that the Isaurians might carry him off for ransom, Theodosius was persuaded to remove to Antioch, settling near the Orontes and gathering about him many who desired to adopt an ascetic life, but not long surviving his removal (Theod. Hist. Keh^. c. x.). (k.v.| Theodosius (21), a fanatic;il Monophysite monk. Having been expelled from his mon- astery for some crime, he repaired to Alex- andria, where he stirred up strife, was scourged, and paraded round the city on camelb.-ick as a seditious person (Kvagr. H. E. ii. 5). We attended the council of Chalccdon in 451, apparently as one of the ruffianly followers r.f Barsumas. On the termination of the synod Theodosius hastened to lerusalem, complain- ing that the council had betrayed the faith, and circulating a garbled transl.ition of Leo's Tome (Leo Magn. Ep. 97 («?)»■ H's protes- tations were credited bv a large number of the monks and people, and having gamed the ear of the empress dowager Kudocia, the former patroness of Eutvches. who had settled at Jerusalem, he so thoroughly iK)iv.ned the minds of the people of Jerusalem against Juvenal as a traitor to the truth that they refused to receive him as their bishop on his return from Chalcedon, unless he would TMEODOTION W77 anatheiu.iii/r till- 1! rmtv joined in dirl.irmK iiial- contents attcinptr<i ! hf barelv escape«l with in iii .\fter Juvenal's flight Ihr.. bp. of jerils.ilriii ill the r!. rection, and at once i>i >,,,> bishops (or I'aleslme, rhi. ni«~» whose bishops h.id not uom Chalcedon. \ reign of t. ,ri III Jerusalem. The public |i rown ooen and the liberated 1 : rm- ployed to terrify by their '. ■ who refused cniiimuiiion with Ihr ..i.mim I'huv who refused to atiatheniati/e the council were pilLiged and insulted in the most law|i>«« manner. Fiiiallv, the rmprror MarcMii inter- posed, and issued or.lrrs to I)..rothru» to apprehend riie.xloMus. win., howrvrr. man- aged to esc^ipe to the inountam fasliir%««<i of Sinai (l^blw,, iv. 87.)). What ultimalclv became of him is unknown. Kvagr. //. E. ii. 5; Coteler. .Won. Grafc. i. 41^ scq. ; Theophan. Chron. p. qj ; Leo Maxn. Ep. lib [157]; I-abbe, Concil. Iv. «7<) seq. ; Niwph. H. E. XV. : Fleury. H. E. livre 3H ; Tillrm. Stftn. (Cil. XV. 731 scq. ; Le Qiiicn. Ot. Chnsl. HI. ir.4). [«-V.l TheodoUon. otherwise Thfndotui (»o Suidan s.i'. Ai'tfwK). author of the (ireck version of the O.T. which followed, as those of Aquila and Symmachus preceded, that of the L.\.\ in Origen's columnar .irrangemeiits of the versions. Of his personality even lr*s i* known than of either of the other two trans- lator'-. The earliest author to mention him is Irenaeiis, in a passage which, bv rravm of its higher antiquity and authority, must be our standard to test the accounts of later writers, who probably d<Tive<l their account* partly from it. Irenaeus (111. xxi. i, p. 215), referring to the word '* t'lririw " (»a^/r©f) in Is. vii. 14, affirms that the passage is to Ix? read " not as certain of th<»se who now venture to misintej-pret the Scripture, " Be- hold, the damsel (¥ta.n\) shall Ix- with child and shall be.ir a son ' ; as Theo<lotion of l-4)hesus interpreted it ami .\qtiila of I'onluv both Jewish proselvtes ; following whom tb« Kbioiiites preteiirl that he w.is l>egnttcn ol J.^eph." Fiisebiiis cites this (//. E. v. «). .idding nothing to it. In attempting to fix the time when Theo- <lotion flourish<-d, the one r. rtain .md i..Icr4bly determinate datum we \»<. • iv l'i.«l hi« version must h.ive Iwen ii> i < om* l>osition of the ab >ve tn- '» — therefore In-fore |K,i-|8.,. le*« available d.itum is th.- (.iri. ..iiiUM.i i.v all. that he calm- after A<|uil.i. Thus we con- elude that his work cannot h.ivr \>rrn mi Ule as iHo "r earlK-r than Mo. ^ • ''-rthat the expres-iioii of Irni.ieus ' ■ «u>«r venlurmt" impli'-H th.it I! thru oiilv just r.«iiipl<ir<l his tr . • «hi» puts uiidur (i.rre oil the W-ifd-. 1 he nprr*- sioii mrnlv r..Ill^.l^ls omparalivrly remit translations with the anri.-iit .ui.I (tiiiiarv aiithorilv of the l..\.\. H. i-^nc* Icails us to pUcr Thc«Mloti vm- inarhus from \s to yt %■ \A\r* which agree well with the lr%v m...«ii lacl%. Indirect evidence ol aa eorlirr d-ile Ui€ 62 978 THEODOTION Theodotion has been claimed as found in the apparent use of his version in the Trypho of Justin Martyr, a work written not later than 164, perhaps some 20 years earlier. But the fallacious character of this evidence is shewn in D. C. B. (4-vol. ed. 1887). Theodotion's work was not so much an independent translation as a revision of the LXX, with its insertions usually retained, but its omissions supplied from the Hebrew — probably with the help of Aquila's version. Theodotion's was the version Origen usually preferred to the other two for tilling omissions of the LXX or lacunae in their text as he found it ; and from it accordingly comes a large part of the ordinary Greek text of Jeremiah, and still more of that of Job. Thus in these books we have fuller materials for learning the character of his version than that of either of the others ; and still more in his version of Daniel, which has come down to us entire, having since before Jerome's time (how long before we are not told) superseded that of the LXX so completely that the latter was lost for centuries, and is now extant only in a single Greek copy, the Cod. Chisianus, and in the Syro-Hexaplar translation contained in Cod. Ambrosianus (C. 313 Inf.). Any one who compares this version with Theodotion's which is usually printed in all ordinary edi- tions of the Greek O.T. must agree with Jerome (Praef. in Dan.) that the church chose rightly in discarding the former and adopting the latter. Indeed, the greater part of tliis Chisian Daniel cannot be said to deserve the name of a translation at all. It deviates from the original in every possible way ; transposes, expands, abridges, adds or omits, at pleasure. The latter chapters it so entirely rewrites that the predictions are perverted, sometimes even reversed, in scope. We learn from Jerome (in Dan. iv. 6, p. 646) that Origen himself ("in nono Stromatum volumine ") abandoned this supposed LXX Daniel for Theodotion's. Indeed, all the citations of Daniel, some of them long and important passages, in Origen's extant works, agree almost verbatim with the text of Theodotion now current, and differ, sometimes materially, from that of the reputed LXX as derived from the Chisian MS. He seems, moreover, to have found the task of bringing its text to conform to the original by the aid of Theodotion's a hopeless one, as we may judge by his asterisks, obeli, and marginalia in the two MSS. referred to. Yet that this is the version which Origen placed as that of the LXX in the penultimate column of the Hexapla and Tetrapla is certain. Theodotion, though not an independent translator, was by no means an " unlearned " one, as Montfaucon (Praelimm. in Hexapla) calls him. The chief, and apparently the only, ground for this is his practice of fre- quently transliterating words of his original. Dr. Field, however, has well shewn (Prolegg. in Hexapla, IV. iii.) that he guides himself mostly by definable rules — the words so dealt with being names of animals (as devvlv for (Tiiprives), plants (as dx' for jiouroiuof), vest- ments (as (ia55ii> for wob-qp-qs), or articles used in worship (as depacplv for Kei'ordfpia or [Aq.] fxop<puj/j.aTa). In such cases, his chosing to transliterate, rather than adopt a conjectural THEODOTUS Greek rendering from a former version or hazard a new guess of his own, indicates scrupulous caution, not ignorance. He proves at least that he diligently consulted the original, and often shews a wise discretion in forbearing to translate a word whose meaning cannot be determined, or for which the Greek language has no equivalent. As well might the English translators of 161 1 be called " un- learned " for retaining such words as " tera- phim," " Belial," or the revisers of 1881-1884 because they replace the "scapegoat" of A.V. by "Azazel," and for "hell" give "Sheol " in O.T. and " Hades " in N.T. Theodotion's version included all the canonical books of O.T. except, probably, Lamentations. Of the apocryphal books, he is only known to have included Baruch and the additions to Daniel. [J-gw.] TheodotUS (4) of Byzantium. Eusebius (//. E. V. 27) has preserved extracts from a treatise directed against the heresy of Arte- mon, who taught that our Lord had been mere man. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii. 5) says that this treatise was called the Little Labyrinth ; and the author was doubtless Caius of Rome, and its date the end of the first quarter of cent. iii. [Hippolytus Romanus.] These heretics claimed to hold the original doctrine of the church which, they alleged, had con- tinued incorrupt till the episcopate of Victor, the truth being first perverted by his successor Zephyrinus (c. 199). Their antagonist replies that, on the contrary, it was in the episcopate of Victor that this God-denying heresy had been first introduced, that Theodotus the shoe- maker (oKVTfvs) was the first to teach that our Lord was mere man, and he had been excommunicated for this by Victor, and had then founded an organized sect, with a bishop j (Natalius) to whom they paid a salary. Its leading men in the time of Victor's successor were Asclepiades and another Theodotus, a banker. These two undertook to clear the text of N.T. of corruptions, but our authority describes what they called " corrected " copies as simply ruined, the two not even agreeing as to their corrections. Our sole other primary authority for this Theodotus is Hippolytus. The section on Theodotus in the lost earlier work on heresies by Hippolytus may be partly recovered by a comparison of the corresponding articles in Pseudo-TertuUian, Epiphanius, and Philaster ; and Epiphanius, whose treatment (Haer. 54) is the fullest, almost certainly drew his materials altogether from Hippolytus. There is an article on Theodotus in the later treatise of Hippolytus (Ref. vii. 35). The influence of Theodotus did not extend much beyond his own generation ; later church writers appear to have only known him from the two nearly contemporary authorities we have named. The place in which the article on Theodotus came in the lost work of Hippolytus exactly corresponds to the date assigned to him in the Little Labyrinth. He comes immediately after Blastus, whom we otherwise know to have caused schism in Victor's time by endeavour- ing to introduce the Quartodeciman usage in Rome. Hippolytus stated that Theodotus was a native of Byzantium, who denied Christ in time of persecution — a fact which accounted THEODOTUS for his heresy, since lie couUl thus lu.iiiit.iiit that he had only denied man. not (mhI. Hip- polytus reports'that as to the Deitv and the work of creation the doctrine of TheiHlntus was orthodox, but as to our Lord's jx-rson he agreed with Cinostic speculations, espi«ciallv in distinguishing Jesus and Christ. The miraculous conception of Jesus he w.is willing to admit ; but he held Mini a man like others, though of the highest virtue and pietv. He taught that at the baptism of Jesus, Christ descended on Him in the form of a dove, and that He was then able to wi)rk miracles, though He had never exhibited any before : but even so He was not God; though some of the sect were willing to acknowledge His right to the title after His resurrection. Theodotus chiefly relied on texts of Scrip- ture, specimens of which are given by Epi- phanius (Haer. 54). He evidently acknow- ledged the authority of St. John's Ciospel. for one of these texts was John viii. 40. He appealed to the prophecy Deut. xviii. 15, of the prophet who was to be like unto Moses, and therefore man, and quoted also Is. liii. 3, Jer. xvii. g (LXX), and other texts in which our l.ortl is called man. [o.s.l TheodotUS (5) the banker, distinct from Theodoti s (4), as asserted both in the Little Labyrinth and by Hippolytus. For the speculations which this Theodotus added to the heresv of (4) see Melcmizedkk. [c.s.) Theodotus (9). May i«. martyr at .\ncvra in Cialatia in Diocletian's persecution. The narrative of his mart>Tdom is intermingled with that of the Snen Virgins of Ancyra. Theodotus was a devout dealer in provisions. Theotecnus, the apostate from Christianity, was sent with ample power to enforce con- formity to the imperial edicts, and began by ordering all provisions sold in the market to be first presented to the gods. This would render them unfit for use in the Holy Com- munion. Theodotus supplied the Christians with bread and wine free from jiollution. The persecution waxing hot, he was compelled to fly from Ancyra to a place, distant some 40 miles, where a cave, through which tlie Halys flowed, was a refuge for some fugitive Chris- tians. The narrative shews us how quietly Christians in country districts pursued their occupations and enjoyed daily worship, while those in the cities were sufTtring tortures and death, and is most valuabh- as illustrating the general condition of the Christians in Asia Minor during the earlier years of I)i«Kletian's persecution. In the cave Theodotus found certain brethren who had overturned the altar of Diana, and were being carried by thi-ir relations for judgment to the prefect when Theodotus had brilxjd the accust^rs to let them off. Thev were delighted to s«re their drliver- er. and invited him to a meal, of which we have a graphic picture : the fugitives reclining on the abundant grass, surrounded with trei--.. wild fruit, and flowers, while grasshoppers, nightingales, and birds of every kind mad.- music around. In this pass;ige (f 11) we find one of the few instances where an early Chris- tian author seems capable of appreciating the beautv of nature. We then have a glimpse of the religious life of the time. Before he would eat, Theodotus sent »ome of Ihcir THEODOTUS 07» numl>cr to tununon the pirsbvter Irmn Ihc neicht>oiiring village n( Mahi% li» dme with them, prav wit'i tf.nn (. f re thry %|jrlci| afresh on th. 1: , li|r«%inK €»n thnr f.xHl. f. : s^int nrvrr t.H.k f.Hxl un! I l( " The |)resbvtr>r. wli..-. u.i.M. « 1 - -icd' mg to (he MollaiKtist l'.i; r(o. was just leaving thr rliur^ l.iay hour of pravrr. The vill . >' kr<l the mess<-ngers, and the ; Irjvp them awav. askr<l if thev vv 4nd informed them that he h > ' in 4 vision the night bf-fore. brin^in*; a i imoiw treasure to hiin. Thev told him Ihrv had the most precious of treasurr<i with thrm. the martyr Thetulotns. to whom the ore^bvlrr at once departed. During the inral Thr<Miotu* suggested the spot as a fit place lor 4 mart Ntuim or receptacle for relies, and exhorle<l thr pne«l to build one. When he said he |his\«-s»«h1 no r«-lics. The.nlotus gave him a ring oil hit finger in token th.it lie wiuiM provide Ihrm. He then returned to .\nc\Ta. which he founil greatly disturl>e<l by a violent |>rrseculioii. [■\ncvra, Skvks Martvks of.| A writer in the Kn>. archM. (t. xxviii. p. \o\) n>>les 4 passage in the .Acts of th«-se siiflrrers (| 14) as a valuable illustration of the paganism o( (iaiatia. TlK^Hlotus having resriird the liodies of the nuns from the lake into which Theotecnus ha«l cast them, prepared t<i 4u(ler. He prave<l with th<- brethren, and told thrm to give his relics to l-Vonio if he brought a ring as a token. Then hi- went to the tribunal, where the priests of Minerva were deinaiidmK his arrest as the leader of the ChriMian opposition. The Acts now offer *4>nie of the most striking illustration* use<i by I.e Itlant in his Acta dti Martyrs (cf. pp. 2$. b2, 7H. Ho). They illustrate evi-rv detail of Koman crimmal procedure, especially the offer made to the martvrs of high promotion and im|>erial favour if thev recanted. Theodotus was offered the high-priestlKMxl of Aju'llo. now esteemed the k-reatest of all the gmis. but in vain, till at latt the president ordered him to be lK-h<jdr<l and his biKly burned. He was eterutrtl and hu binly placed on a pvre. whrii sudilenlv a bright light shone around it, so that ni> oiir dared appro.ich. The president ordrrrd It to be guar<lrd all night, in the place of common execution, bv S4ildirr» whom he had )u«t flogged for sulfering the bo.lip* of the nun* to be carried ofl. Fronto, who was a farmer, and kept a vineyard where he made wine, came to Ancvra to sell his wine. )>rini;ing the ring of The-Hl.tii' with hitn «tvl ir'iving al the phice of ' ! W4« falling and ■ ^'^a rl.^-d. fouipl ^'l'"* br.iiirlu-s wl. ...... i • ., "■' soldiers invite«l linn to ) did. Disrovering what 1 !,.• >.. .,!.• i!..iii drunk will. I .• iiiarlvr'» UmIv, |4aiun: it iii the !us had iiiarke.! 4» the %lte »t 4 111.- \. ts lurf .ft I • l.-»ve hem wriU'-ii l.v rh«"V soeak of Ih. fV of Theodotus. V. d'Oe when peace w.i. rr.i..tr.i 1 . 11. -• . ;,>ir<.. Fher are ia Kuioort, AcU Stmt. p. 354. uxd tr*i»»- 980 THEODOTUS lated into English as an appendix to Mason's Persecution of Diocletian. [g.t.s.] Theodotus (11), bp. of Laodicea in Syria Prima, claimed as a zealous advocate of Arian doctrines by Arius in writing to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theod. H. E.i. 5; v. 7). Eusebius gives him a high character for skill as a physician of both body and soul, remarkable for kindness, sympathy, sincerity, and zeal to help all who needed aid, reinstating the church in its prosperity which had suffered much by the cowardice of its last bishop, Stephen, who seems to have renounced the faith in the persecution of Diocletian (Eus. H. E. vii. 32). Theodotus was at the council of Nicaea in 325 (Labbe, ii. 51) ; before which he is coupled by Athanasius with the Eusebian party (Athan. de Synod, c. i. § 17, p. 886). On the visit of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Jerusalem in 330 or 331, ostensibly to see the newly built church, he formed one of the Arian" cabal which, proceeding to Antioch, succeeded in deposing Eustathius (Theod. H. E.i. 21) and electing Eusebius of Caesarea in his room (Eus. Vit. Const, iii. 62). He also took part in the council of Tyre in 335 (Labbe, ii. 436) and of the Dedication at Antioch in 341 (ib. 560), and is mentioned by Athanasius as having been at Seleucia in 359 (Athan. de Synod, c. i. § 12, p. 880). The two ApoUinarii, father and son, were e.xcommunicated by Theodotus for being present at the recitation of a hymn in honour of Bacchus, composed by a sophist of Laodicea with whom he had interdicted an intercourse. He restored them on their repentance (Soz. H. E. vi. 25 ; .Socr. H. E. ii. 46). Gelasius of Cyzicus (bk. iii. c. 3) gives a letter from the emperor Constantine to Theodotus, warning him to return to the orthodox faith (Labbe, ii. 284). It is quoted as genuine by Benignus of Heraclea at the fifth general council {ib. v. 481). According to Gams, Theodotus was bishop 30 years. [e.v.] TheodotilS (18), patriarch of Antioch, .\.d. 420-429 (Clinton, F. R. ii. 552). He suc- ceeded Alexander, under whom the long- standing schism at Antioch had been healed, and followed his lead in replacing the honoured name of Chrvsostom on the diptychs of the church. He is described bv Theodoret, at one time one of his presbyters, as " the pearl of temperance," " adorned with a splendid life and a knowledge of the divine dogmas " (Theod. H. E. v. 38 ; Ep. 83 ad Dioscor.). Joannes Moschus relates anecdotes illustrative of his meekness when treated rudely by his clergy, and his kindness on a journey in insist- ing on one of his presbyters exchanging his horse for the patriarch's litter (Mosch. Prat. Spir. c. 33). By his gentleness he brought back the Apollinarians to the church without rigidly insisting on their formal renouncement of their errors (Theod. H. E. v. 38). On the real character of Pelagius's teaching becoming known in the East and the consequent with- drawal of the testimony previously given by the synods of Jerusalem and Caesarea to his orthodoxy, Theodotus presided at the final synod held at Antioch (mentioned only by Mercator and Photius, in whose text Theo- philus of Alexandria has by an evident error taken the place of Theodotus of Antioch) at which Pelagius was condenoned and expelled THEONAS from Jerusalem and the other holy sites, and I he joined with Praylius of Jerusalem in the j synodical letters to Rome, stating what had been done. The most probable date of this j synod is that given by Hefele, a.d. 424 (Marius 1 Mercator, ed. Garnier, Paris, 1673, Corn- monitor, c. 3, p. 14 ; Dissert, de Synodis, p. 207 ; Phot. Cod. 54). When in 424 Alex- ander, founder of the order of the Acoemetae, j visited Antioch, Theodotus refused to receive \ him as being suspected of heretical views. His I feeling was not shared by the Antiochenes, who, ever eager after novelty, deserted their own churches and crowded to listen to Alex- ander's fervid eloquence (Fleury, H. E. livre XXV. c. 27). Theodotus took part in the ordination of Sisinnius as patriarch of Con- stantinople, Feb. 426, and united in the synodical letter addressed by the bishops then assembled to the bishops of Pamphylia against j the Massalian heresy (Socr. H. E. vii. 26 ; •• Phot. Cod. 52 ). He died in 429 (cf . Theodoret's ! Ep. to Diosc. and his H. E. v. 40). Tillem. t. xii. note 2, Theod. Mops. ; Theophan. Chron. p. 72 ; Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 720 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 405. [E.v.] TheognostUS (l), a priest of Alexandria and I a writer of about the middle of cent, iii., whom ' we only know from quotations in St. Athan- I asius and Photius. He composed a work called Hypotyposes in seven books, still extant when Photius wrote (Cod. 106). He used lan- guage in bk. ii. of very Arian sound, speaking of the Son as a creature, and in bk. iii. of the Holy Ghost in a style as little orthodox as that of Origen. In bk. v. he attributed bodies to angels and devils. In bks- vi. and vii. he discussed the doctrine of the Incarnation in a more orthodox manner than in bk. ii. Yet St. Athanasius regarded him as a useful wit- ness against Arianism. Philip of Side says that he presided over the school of Alexandria after Pierius a.d. 282 (cf. Dodwell, Dissert, in I Irenaemn, p. 488). The fragments of Theog- j nostus are collected in Routh's Reliq. Sac. t. iii. 407-422, and trans, in Ante-Nic. Lib. Cf. j Migne, Pair. Gk. t. x. col. 235-242 ; Ceill. ii. 1 450 ; .\than. Ep. 4 ad Serap., de Decretis Nic. ' Svn. [G.T.S.] Theonas (1), 15th bp. of Alexandria (whom Eutychius absurdly calls Neron), succeeded .Maximus in 282. His episcopate, says Neale {Hist. Pair. Alex. i. 86), was a time of much suffering to the Egyptians, owing to the revolt of Achilleus. Diocletian besieged Alexandria in 294 ; and after eight months' siege the city, " wasted by the sword and fire, implored the mercy of the conqueror, but experienced the full extent of his severity " in the form of "promiscuous slaughter" and sentences "of death or of exile " (Gibbon, ii. 76). Yet Theonas has left a very interesting and attrac- tive picture of the relations which the emperor earlier in his reign maintained towards his Christian servants. Eusebius's testimony that those imperial domestics who held the faith (three of whom he afterwards names, Dorotheus, Gorgonius, and Peter) were al- lowed perfect freedom therein, and were even peculiarly valued bv their master (viii. i), is singularly illustrated by the " letter of Theo- nas the bp. to Lucian/praeposituscubiculari- orum or high chamberlain," published in cent. THEOPHILUS xvii. by D'Achcry. It is obviouslv a trans- l.Uiiin from a (Ireck ori^iii^, which i(i» mir will now hesitate to ascrit>e to I'heoiias of Alexandria. (See it in Kouth's A'W. Sac. iii. 439, and an Eng. version in Mason's I'frsfcu- Uon of Diocletian, p. 348. and see ih. p. 3<)). After some opening; words on the duty of so using the peace which the church was then enjoying " by means of a kindly sovereign " that Ciod might be glorified bv gcntiinrlv Christian lives, Theonas urges I.tician to th.iiik Him for a signal opportunity of thus promot- ing His cause by fidelity to " an emperor who was indeed not yet enrolled in the Christian ranks," but who might be favourably im- pressed in regard to Christianity by the loyalty of the Christians to whose care he had " entrusted his life." Thus it was a primary duty to avoid everything that was " base and unworthy, not to say flagitious," lest the name of Christ should thereby be blasphemed. The Christian chamberlains were not to take monev for procuring audience, must be clear of all avarice, duplicity, and scurrility, acting in all things with modesty, courtesy, affability, and justice, must discharge their several duties in the fear of God. with love for their prince and with exact diligence, regarding all his orders which did not clash with God's as coming from God Himself, and taking care in their minis- trations to put away all gloom or bad temper, and to refresh his weariness by a cheerful manner and glad obedience. [e-v.] Theophilus (4), bp. of .\ntioch (Eus. H. E. iv. 20 ; Hieron. Ep. <ui Ali;as. quaest. 6). succeeded Eros c. 171, and was succeeded by Maximin c. 183, according to Clinton (Fasit Rotnani). but the dates are oidy approxima- tions. His death may probablv be placed c. 183-185 (Lightfoot, S. Ipnalius, vol. ii. p. .\(if>). We gather from his wTitings that he was born a heathen, not far from the Tigris and Eu- phrates, and was led to embrace Christi.mity bv studying the Holy Scriptures, especially the prophetical books (*/ .^ «//>/. i. 14, ii. 24)- He makes no reference to his office in his existing writings, nor is any other fact in his life recorded. Eusebius, however, speaks of the zeal which he and the other chief shep- herds displayed in driving away the heretics who were attacking Christ's flock, with special mention of his work against Marcion (//. E- iv. 24). He was a fertile writer in different departments of Christian literature, polemics, exegetics. and apologetics. \)r. Sandav de- scribes him as " one of the precursors of that group of writers who, from Ircnaeus to Cy- prian, not only break the obscurity which rests on the earliest history of the Christian church, but alike in the East and in the West carry it to the front in literary eminence, and distance all their heathen contemporaries " [Sltuiia Btblica, p. 00). Ilusebius anrl Jerome mention numerous works of Theophilus cur- rent in their time. They arc fi) the cxistinc Apology addressed to .Autolycus ; (2) a work against the heresy of Hcrmogcnes \ (■\) against that of Marcion: (4) some catechetical writ- ings ; (5) Jerome also mentions having read some commentaries on the gfwpel and on Proverbs, which bore Theophilus's name, but which he regarded as inconsistent with the elegance and style of his other works. THEOPHILUS t>K| The one uiidoubte<l rxtant work o| Theo philiis i> hi« ApfU-cia ad AttU^'^tum, in Ihrra b(M>ks. Its ONlmviblp objifl lo In rotiMiirr • he.ithrn friciwl. .\iitolvcii«, 4 tii4n o| grral learning and an c.irnest \erKrr iiflrr truth, f>( the iliMiir authority of tlir t hri«(i4n rrliKion. whili- .It the same time hr rthll>ll« ihr (4IW hu<Hl and absurdity of p.tg.iniMn Hi* «ritu- ineiits. drawn almost piitirrly from O.T.. with but very scanty rrfrrrncr to N.T.. are larKrIy chronoloj^iral. Mr lu.ikrs tlip truth of ( hri»- ti.uiitv depend on Ills dfinon^tration Ih4l thf books of O.T. wcrr It-- .Ml,t, r I . !! w i»^rU- ings of the Grerks .1 ir««d. Whatever of truth • 'on- tain he regards as I and the prophets, who .il..u. il'i lif i..! trvela- tion to man. He contrasts thr |HTfr<-| con- sistency of the divinr oraclrA. which hs reg.irds as a convincing proof of thdr inspira- tion, with the incoiisistmcirs of hralhrn philosophers. He contrasts the acroimt n( th'- creation of thr iiiiiversr and o( m.»n. on which, together with the history c«.ntainrd in the earlier chapters <A Grm-sis. hr commrnts at great length but with singiil.irlv little intelliKence, with the slat'inrnts of fMato, "reputed the wisest of all the (.rrrks" (UK iii. cc. 15, 16), of .Vr.itus, who had the hardi- hood to assert that the e.irth was spherical (ii. 32, iii. 2), and other <irrek wTiters on whom he pours contempt a^ m- rr i,ri r uit rrtailer* of stolen goods. H' \ lies, beginning with M > irciis Aurelius, who h.«) >!. lote. i.e. early in the t,-i^,x ... . . ,m, 1 o. \\t> regards the Sibylline verses as aiithrnlic and inspired productions, quoting them I.irgelv as declaring the same truths with the pr<». phets. The omission by the Greeks of all mention of O.T., fnun which they draw all their wis<loin, is ascribed to a soH-ch<»srii blindness in refusing to recogiii/e the only God and in pers'-cutins the follower, of lliin Wh-» is the only fountain of truth (ill. v>. •d fin.). He can recogni/e in th<-ni no aspira- tions after the divine life, no rani'st «P«pings after truth, no gleams of the allilbiiiuning light. The heathen religion w '- worship of idols, Ix^aring the 11 r men. .Almost the only point in allow the he.ithen writers to b< ; with revealed truth is in the diH-triu. .>| tdn- bution and punishment after death (■¥■ «in« committed in life (ii. 37. I**). The Iiterarv character of the Apolo^v <lrs«TVc» conunrn- dation. The style i» characteri/rd bv diicnitv and refincni.M.t. It i> clear and |.*cible. The diction v, II ch-.vn. Thro- philns also and nnillifarioitt though sue ■ 'I"' » «4mili4r acqu.iintancr uir. . 1 1 . ... 1 .,,p,|j writers. His <1U'' *»'• y.irird. Hut I)on> <'■ !••• i>lunders. 111! 6, 16), raiu (iii. 20). ail'! . only run a ruk ol ■>Ij!\ lU'H n .ictually starved to dr.iih in 1 Minerva (i6.). His critical !»'>" above hU age. He »lopl» fur m i u . derivation (Ii. 5a) "< *•*« '»«» ''*'*^' •''»*• 982 THEOPHILUS God set all things in order, comparing with it that of Plato {Crat. 397 c) from d^etv, because the Deity is ever in motion {Apol. i. 4). He asserts that Satan is called the dragon {dpaKuv) on account of his having revolted {d-TrodeSpa- K^vai) from God (ii. 28), and traces the Bac- chanalian cry " Evoe " to the name of Eve as the first sinner (/&.)• His physical theories are equally puerile. He ridicules those who maintain the spherical form of the earth (ii. 32) and asserts that it is a flat surface covered by the heavens as by a domical vault (ii. 13). His exegesis is based on allegories usually of the most arbitrary character. He makes no attempt to educe the real meaning of a pas- sage, but seeks to find in it some recondite spiritual truth, a method which often betra^'s him into great absurdities. He discovers the reason of blood coagulating on the surface of the ground in the divine word to Cain (Gen. iv. 10-12), the earth struck with terror ((t>oprj6f7<ra i) yr)) refusing to drink it in. Theophilus's testimony to the O.T. is copious. He quotes very largely from the books of Moses and to a smaller extent from the other historical books. His references are copious to Ps., Prov., Is., and Jer., and he quotes Ezek. Hos. and other minor prophets. His direct evidence respecting the canon of N.T. does not go much beyond a few precepts from the Sermon on the Mount (iii. 13, 14), a possible quotation from Luke xviii. 27 (ii. 13), and quotations from Rom., I. Cor., and I. Tim. More important is a distinct citation from the opening of St. John's Gospel (i. 1-3), mention- ing the evangelist by name, as one of the inspired men (ivvevna.TO(p6poi) by whom the Holy Scriptures (al ayiai ypacpai) were wTitten (ii. 22). The use of a metaphor found in II. Pet. i. 19 bears on the date of that epistle. According to Eusebius {I.e.), Theophilus quoted the Apocalypse in his work against Hermo- genes ; a very precarious allusion has been seen in ii. 28, cf. Rev. xii. 3, 7, etc. A full index of these and other possible references to O. and N. T. is given by Otto (Corp. Apol. Christ, ii. 353-355). Theophilus transcribes a considerable portion of Gen. i.-iii. with his own allegorizing comments upon the success- ive work of the creation week. The sun is the image of God ; the moon of man, whose death and resurrection are prefigured by the monthly changes of that luminary. The first three days before the creation of the heavenly bodies are types of the Trinity — tvttoi t^s rpiaSos — the first place in Christian writings where the word is known to occur (lib. ii. c. 15) — i.e. " God, His Word and His Wisdom." The silence regarding the Apology of Theo- philus in the East is remarkable. We find the work nowhere mentioned or quoted by Greek writers before the time of Eusebius. Several passages in the works of Irenaeus shew an undoubted relationship to passages in one small section of the Apology (Iren. v. 23, i ; Autol. ii. 25 tnit. : Iren. iv. 38, i, iii. 23, 6 ; Autol. ii. 25 : Iren. iii. 23, 6 ; Autol. ii. 25, 26), but Harnack (p. 294) thinks it probable that the quotations, limited to two chapters, are not taken from the Apology, but from Theophilus's work against Marcion (cf. Mohler, Pair. p. 286 ; Otto, Corp. Apol. 11. THEOPHILUS viii. p. 357 ; Donaldson, Christ. Lit. iii. 66). In the West there are certain references to the Autolycus, though not copious. It is quoted by Lactantius (Div. Inst. i. 23) under the title Liber de Temporibus ad Autolycum. There is a passage first cited by Maranus in Nova- tian (de Trin. c. 2) which shews great similar- ity to the language of Theophilus (ad Autol. i. 3). In the next cent, the book is mentioned by Gennadius (c. 34) as "tres libeUi de fide." He found them attributed to Theophilus of Alexandria, but the disparity of style caused him to question the authorship. The notice of Theophilus by Jerome has been already referred to. Dodwell found internal evidence, in the reference to existing persecutions and a supposed reference to Origen and his fol- lowers, for assigning the work to a younger Theophilus who perished in the reign of Severus (Dissert, ad Iren. §§44, 50, pp. 170 ff. ed. 1689). His arguments have been care- fully examined by Tillemont (Mem. eccl. iii. 612 notes), Cave (Hist. Lit. i. 70), Donaldson (M.S. ii. 65), and Harnack (u.s. p. 287), and I the received authorship fully established. Cf. i W. Sanday in Stud. Bibl. (Oxf. 1885). p. 89. I Editions. — Migne's Patr. Gk. (t. vi. col. 1023- I 1168), and a small ed. (Camb. 1852) by the I Rev. W. G. Humphry. Otto's ed. in the Corpus Apologet. Christ. Saec. Secund. vol. ii. (Jena, 1861, 8vo) is by far the most complete and useful. English trans, by Belty (Oxf. 1722), Flower (Lond. i860), and Marcus Dods (Clark's \ Ante-Nicene Lib.]. [e.v.] Theophilus (9), bp. of Alexandria, succeed- ing Timotheus in the last week of July 385. He had probably been a leading member of the Alexandrian clergy. Socrates states that ; Theophilus (probably two years later, Clinton, i Fast. Rom. i. 522) obtained from Theodosius a I commission to demolish the pagan temples of Alexandria (Socr. v. 16). Sozomen corrects this by saying that Theodosius granted to Theophilus, at his own request, the temple of Dionysus, on the site of which he proposed to build a church (vii. 15). Socrates says that Theophilus "cleared out the temple of Mith- ras, and exposed its bloody mysteries." Socrates adds that the foul symbols used in the worship of Srrapis and other gods were, by the archbishop's order, carried through the agora as objects of contemptuous abhorrence. The votaries of Alexandrian idolatry arranged a tragically successful onslaught on the Chris- tians and then took possession of the vast Serapeum, in the N.W. quarter of the city, which had been the popular sanctuary of Alex- andrian paganism, and now became their stronghold of " furious despair " (Oral, of Athan. against the Arians, p. 5, ed. Oxf.). They made sallies from its precincts, cap- tured several Christians, dragged them within, and inflicted torture or death on those who would not sacrifice. The general in com- mand at Alexandria and the Augusta! prefect summoned them to surrender, but in vain. Olympius, a philosopher, sustained their obstinate resolution until the arrival of an edict ordering the destruction of all the temples. Terrified by the shouts which pro- claimed this mandate, the desperadoes abandoned the Serapeum ; and Theophilus, with a great body of soldiers, exultant Chris- THEOPHILUS tians, and astuuiulrd p.iK.ms. ascriuird thr hundred steps Ic.idiiiK up thr in.uMul. .lud penetrated into the f.untiv lithtrtl s,inclu.irv. from within which the Christians altrrw.ir.ls believed that Dhinpius, on the nij;ht Ixl^rr the evacuation, had heard a voice chanliin: "Alleluia" {S.u. vii. is). There was the huge seated statue of Serapis, constructed <»( various metals, now dusky with age. and inlaid with various precious stones (llem. Alex. Cohort. 48). The successor of Athan- asius gazed on this visible concentration of the power of Eg\-ptian idolatry, no doubt the symbol to nianv .Me.xandrians of the piinciple of life and of the powers that ruled the under- world. It was .\ supreme moment ; at last the church had her foot on the neck of her foe. Mutterincs of super-titious fear were heard ; to draw near the linage was to cause an earthquake. The archbishop turned to a soldier who held an axe. and bade him " strike hard." The man obeved. A shriek of terror burst from many ; another and another blow followed, the head was lopped off, and there ran out a troop of mice, which had " dwelt within the god of the Egyptians." Misgiving and alarm gave way to noisy triumph ; the body of Serapis was broken up and burned ; the head was made a public show. At Cano- pus, 14 miles from Alexandria, temples were immediately laid low. The images were melted down into cauldrons and other vessels required in the eleemosynary work of the Alexandrian church. The one exception was an image of an ape, which Theophilus set up in a public place " in perpetuam rei memo- riam," to the vexation of the pagan gram- marian Amnionius, who lived to teach the young Socrates at Constantinople, and used to complain seriously of the injustice thus done to " Greek religion " (Socr. v. 16). During the demolition of various temples there were found hollow statues of bronze and wood, set against the walls, but capable of being entered by the priests, who thus carried on their impostures, which Theophilus ex- plained to his paean f<ll.,w-citizens (Thefnl. v. 22). But when the Nile-gauge was removed from the Serapeum to the church, the pagans asked. Would not the god avenge himself by withholding the yearlv inundation his power had been wont to effect ? It was, in fact, delayed. Murmurs swelled into remon- strances ; the state of the city was becoming dangerous ; the prefect had to consult his sovereign. Theodosius's answer was : " If the Nile would not rise except by means of enchantments or sacrifices, let Kgypt remain unwatered." Forthwith the river l>egan to rise with vehemence ; the fear was now of a flood (Soz. vii. 20). We know not the nature of those concessions to the pagans which, according to a letter from Atticus to Thro- philus's nephew C>Til, Theophilus made at this time for the sake of peace (C>Til. h.f>p- p. 202), but they did not prevent a pagan like Eunapius from abusing him. To Eunapius the temple-breakers were impious men who " threw everything into confusion. boaste<I o( having conquered the gods," enriched them- selves by the plunder, " brought into the sacred places the so-called monks, men in form but swinish in life," deified the " bonc< and THEOPHILUS hra.l bv II the l.lMi th. Iitir ,.| |„.,.tw. .11.1 Mll^,.r^^.,^ With the s.mK." In \<}t or joj Th«n»htl<i« «»•• n«m»«»1 hv the council of 1 4p'M ■' '" ' — l>etween Klavian. .. succession to the -, wh<»Ne riaimv lik' Paulinus, were uph«M 1.. il»r .'. philus undertook to examine thr . aiti of his suffragans. I \ n-n but Flavian was not rer. , until I hrvsostoin prima: secon<Iarilv. ellected th.«i viii. ^; ct. Tillem. x. s\>^) In A.o. \<)4 we find The<iphilii* («w the hr»t time at ( <>no|anlino|>l» at a r»iinr(| in lh« bapti-texy of the ;•- • ''••-'■ • -- • Me sat next to N' and there were yt- of Nvssa, and 1 Theophilus was in tl-.^: xlati'it- «il!t lUe solitaries of Kgvpt. In the Savtmgx of lh« FathfTi he appears as inviting *ome of ifiem to be present at the destructi'Wi of the temples, and again as visiting those of the famnu* Nitrian settlement, and prnrfr.itinr f- tSf more distant Seel is. Sii" t was his intimacv with ( known as " the Tall Hr.' were the best in Theophil .1 if it had lasted only ten \ Uavn left the name, if not of . • -if a good as well as an able .r • Ut'-. But in 3gs the storv ol liu h: character. He begins to justif'. tion afterwards given of him bv .1 " Naturally impulsive, headlong- iiiI.-iik. Iv contentious insatiable in grasping at hi* objects, awaiting in his own r.isc TiHthfr tnil nor inquiry, impatient • f mined to carry out his nw Dial. p. 7')). In yts. ai John of Jerusalem, he s. • said to have l>een an On into Pal«>stine. to al)at' John and Jerome. Isi.l three times, but would 11 't ^r.. !.i:u 4 1- ttrr which The«iphilus had written him (\h. \<t) ; and his so-called median. n •■ I 1 • bire<l « soreness on The<iphiluss i 'tome, whose letters for viine ti 'At last he wrote, coldiv .- ••- to resnect the authorltv of i ' "•. and again in vn (a<"< urgiiii; Ii-rofiif to romr I Tf, •'■•■• '■■' ' ■ Ant' th.- ill-i> .1.1. ai>te<l to the O.I him t»eel. . . nature {llafr rn. •; and 7h ■ W " ' scriptural - hands of < . examinatiofi . -i .... .-• Tbrophilu*, in hi» Fmc1»*1 Ullc* «»< iw. 984 THEOPHILUS sisted peremptorily on the immateriality of the divine nature, a storm of wrathful zeal broke out among the solitaries ; one of them, indeed, named Serapion, was candid enough to be convinced by argument, but the pain which ensued was such that when his brethren were engaged in their devotions, he exclaimed with tears, " They have taken away my God, and I know not whom to adore ! " (Cassian, Coll. X. 3 ). Many others were of fiercer mood : was the " image of God " to be thus nullified ? They hurried from their deserts to Alexandria and menaced the " pope " whom they had been wont to honour. " Impious man ! thou deservest death ! " He saw that they were not to be defied, but a smooth prevarication might disarm them. " In seeing you I see God's face ! " It was enough : he had appeared to accept the imperilled phrase : they asked more calmly, " If you admit that God's face is like ours, anathematize the books of Origen ; for some people contradict us on their authority. If you will not do this, be prepared for the treatment due to those who fight against God." Theophilus uttered the fateful words of compliance : " I will do what you think fit ; do not be angry with me, for I object to Origen's books, and blame those who approve them." Here he was using "economy"; he stooped to propitiate the Anthropomorphists by using their phrase in a sense of his own and letting them think that he condemned Origen absolutely. About the end of 399 or beginning of 400 he held a svnod at Alexandria, at which " Origenism " ' was condemned. He then wrote to Anastasius of Rome and Jerome, informing them of this. At the beginning of 401 he attacked Origenism in his Paschal Letter (Hieron. Ep. 96), a re- markable document which anticipates the Christology of his nephew and successor Cyril, while excluding all Apollinarian ideas. Theo- philus traces to Origen the (Marcellian) notion that Christ's kingdom would have an end. He goes on to denounce Origenistic Univer- salism, and the notions that Christ would suffer again on behalf of the demons, and that after the resurrection human bodies would again be subject to dissolution. Fortified bv an imperial edict forbidding all monks to read Ongen (Anastasius, ad Joan. Jems.), he ordered the neighbouring bishops to banish the chief Nitrian monks from their own moun- tains and from the farther desert. Some of ' the monks came to remonstrate with him. They probably disclaimed the special errors associated with the name of Origen, and urged that they ought not to be treated as heretics because they opposed the degrading literalism of the Anthropomorphists. Palladius repre- ' sents him as glaring at them in a furv, throw- : ing his scarf or omophorion over the neck of Amraonius, one of the Tall Brothers, and with a blow on the face drawing blood, and fiercely exclaiming, " You heretic, anathematize Ori- gen ! " (Dial. p. 54). Palladius adds that fie induced five of the Nitrian monks (" men unworthy even to be doorkeepers"), whom he '■ had promoted to ecclesiastical office to sign accusations against three of their chief bre- thren, who were accordinglv excommunicated in a council. At his request the Augustal • prefect decreed their expulsion from Egypt • | THEOPHILUS and Theophilus is said to have attacked the Nitrian settlement by night at the head of a force which was to execute this order. A wild scene, according to Palladius, ensued (Dial. p. 57). Against this account is to be set Theophilus's own statement in what is called , the synodical letter to the bishops of Palestine and Cyprus (trans, by Jerome, Ep. 92), [ intended to be read by them when assembled I for the Dedication Festival at Jerusalem in Sept. 401. Theophilus says that, having been memorialized by orthodox " fathers and 1 presbyters," he went to Nitria with a great number of neighbouring bishops, and there, in presence of many fathers who come together from nearly the whole of Egypt, some of Origen's treatises were read, and the adherents of Origenism condemned. The Origenist monks i were now going about in foreign provinces, i " seeking whom to devour with their im- piety " ; their mad impetuosity must be restrained. Theophilus protests that he has done them no hurt and taken nothing wrong- fully from them. It is clear that Theophilus did' personally visit Nitria, and that its " Origenist monks " were put under ban, and I driven forth, probably in the early summer of I 401, and that their places were filled by others ; of whose " docility " Theophilus could rely. The persecuted " Brothers " found a tem- ' porary refuge with many other fugitives (Dial. i p. r6o) at Scythopolis, on the slope of mount Gilboa. Sonie bishops of Palestine who shewed them countenance were peremptorily warned by Theophilus (ib. p. 58). Hunted from place to place, the Nitrians determined to seek redress at Constantinople. Here the current of the Origenistic controversy flows suddenly, and with momentous consequences, into the stream of Chrysostom's episcopate. Towards the close of 401 some 50 elderly men of the Nitrian party fell at his feet as suppliants (ih. p. 58). The bishop, moved to tears, asked who had accused them. " Sit down, father," thsy answered, " and j provide some remedy for the harm that pope Theophilus has done us. If out of regard to him you will not act, we shall be obliged to '• apply to the emperor. But we beg you to induce Theophilus to let us live in our own country ; for we have not offended against I him or against the law of our Saviour." [ Chrysostom promised to do his best. " Mean- ' while," he said, " until I have written to my brother Theophilus, keep silence about your affairs." He assigned them a lodging in the precincts of the church of Anastasia, and pious ladies contributed to their support. He wrote to Theophilus, " Oblige me as your ! son and brother " (alluding to his own con- secration by Theophilus), "by being recon- ciled to these men." Theophilus saw his way to a blow, not only at the Origenists, but at Chrysostom, whom, according to Palladius, he had disliked from the first. He wTote to Epiphanius, urging him to get Origenism con- demned by a synod of his suffragans in Cyprus. Epiphanius obtained from a synod of his insular church a decree forbidding the faithful of Cyprus to read Origen's works (a.d. 402). Meantime the " Brothers " had laid before the emperor Arcadius their charges against Theo- philus, and requested the empress Eudoxia THEOPHILUS to promote a formal hrariiiR of the case, ami evpn to cause Thoiphilus to Uc broiiKht to Constantinople to l>e trioil l>v its lushop. Arcadius ordered Theophilus to be summoned. Tfieophilus delayed to ol>ey the imperial cita- tion. When at last he set forth, as he pas-ied through Lycia he is said to have luMstetl that he was " going to court to depose John " (i/>. p. 72). It was not a mere braj; ; he knew his own diplomatic ability, and that Chrvsosti>m's unworldly strictness had alienated Kudoxia and some people of rank, and even not a few ecclesiastics. The great nan»e of the sw of .\thanasius would also go for much, and the watchword of " No Origenism " for yet more. He felt that he could exchange the position of a defendant for that of a judge. Theophilus landed at Constantinople at midday on a Thursday in the latter part of June 403 (l^. p. 64). Not one of the clergv went to meet him or pay him the usual honour (S4KT.). Chrysostom invited him to the episcopal resi- dence (Chrys. Ef>. i. to Innocent ; Pallad. p. 12), but he ignored all friendly messages, would not enter the cathedral, and bet<H)k himself to lodgings without the city. The emperor now urged Chrysostom to sit as judge in the case ; he refused, for he " knew " (so he says) "the laws of the Fathers, and had a respect for the man." Theophilus had no such scruples. Proceedings against Chrysostom were taken at the council of "the Oak." a suburb of Chalcedon. and a sentence of deposi- tion passed. [CHR^ sosTOM.] Theophilus was afterwards pleased to take up the almost forgotten question of the Nitrian exiles. They were persuaded to ask their pope's forgiveness, and Theophilus restored them to his communion. Returning to Constanti- nople he boldly entered the cathedral with an armed following to enforce the installation of a successor to " John," but finding that he had undertaken too much, and that the people were resolutely loyal to Chrysostom. he went on board a vessel at midnight and (led with his followers {Dtal. p. 16). It was high time, for, savs Palladius drily, " the city was seeking to throw him into the sea " (16. p. 7S). Theo- philus did not attack Chrysostom in his Paschal Letter for 404. but returned to the subject of Origenism as an error which de- ceived " simple and shallow " minds. He informed pope Innocent that he had depos<-d Chrysostom ; and Innocent, disposed to censure his " hasty arrogance " in not com- municating the grounds of the condemnation (16. p. 9) wTote. " Brother Theophilus, we are in communion with you and with our brother John. . . . Again we write, and shall do s*' whenever vou write to us, that unless that mock trial'is followed by a proper one, it will be impossible for us to withdraw from com- munion with John." Theophilus seems to have written a work of great length against Origenism ({;ennadius. de Vtr. III. 33), from which C>Til quotes in his treatise, ad Arcadiam el .\tannam (P. Pusevs Cyril, vii. if.6). in supt«.rt of the " Personal Union," and Theodoret in his second dialogue on the distinction between Christ's soul and the Word. Theophilus affirmed that Origen had been condemned (m.t only by Demetrius, but) by Heraclas. Either •nlv !h4l. •^nlit tho ^ nf who THKOPMILUS in thit w.H-k (.IS IillriMii.t • in another, he ^trov^ to »ii. seeme<l to Anirr »iih fhr \ for " he »hewed. according to the 1 i " neijue iilli* ornmi^ compositum '• eccentric pi ; sirs to the I th.inked him 411. and wtshtd lull) rf ; age (Svnes. hf'. <}). In 1 sins, after professing his i as a law whatever the tlifn- 1 Al- ijultia might ordain." asks the archbishop what thould be done in rr^rinl t < fhr jr.; 1.- ..f I'll irburji and Hydra \ t . Iw placed, as 11 hop of their own tidrr Paul. bp. of I i % i ji t)ie«« " villages " had alu Ahlle Siderins was thru had also asked him to i- . ; , ; l.ry. thrum and Hardanis to i^tU oiliet U f>. b;). Th«>ophilus died "of lethargy " on Oct. 15. 412 (Socr vii. 7). after an episropate o( 37 years an<l ne.irlv 3 months. The m<*al of ht« life is the deterioration which too icreat power can prtnhice in .mr wh '^e real in the cau«<- o| religion, altli ind active, if not combined «:• t heart. .Ml his i\ are collected in Gall.indius iHi .. 1 .. '.."1 v. I. vii. pp. 60} f|.); his "canons" in heverid»;e i I'anJ. Cam. li. 170). The sense of the^e ranoi»% i« ^iven in Johnson's lade Meium, 11. i\s. Ser alv) Zalin. Fnr^chungen, 11. 2uti. (w.n.) Theophilus (13). a Christian who diviis^ed Christianity with Simon, a Jew. in a treati\e published by a (iallir writer named KvAt.mi » in sth cent. The title as given by <>ennadiiu (de I'ir. III. c. Si) is Allercalio S»moHi\ JuJaet et Iheophtli ( hn\liani. This work lay hid till Zacagni. the \'atican librarian, iioiirrd it in 169H in his Colled. .U<>»i. pp. ^i. M. W4- It was printc<l by Migne {Pair. l.al. t. xx. r. ii6s) andbv (iebhardt and Haniack {Itilfu. Vntersuch. tut Gesch. der .ilUhttU. I %t. lid. 1. Hft. 3 ; I.eipr. 1«K3). with . » I, ..isi ,•. r n.i.v and dissertations. It has 1 on the controversy <luriii. tween the cJuirch ami J ud 1 discuss various arguments .(*;.ii! t !!.• Uixs • ( Christ drawn from O.T.. Throphilu* niaklnji a very lilx-ral use of th.- nvtir,! n:rth v1 .-f ex|v>sition. The J- ■ Christ cannot Im- ( . it is sai«l " There i and Isaiah says. ' I and l>eside .Me th. r then defends his ; o( .Abraham towar 1 ; ship|>ed at the 0.1k ..( N! ■• tJio Psalms. He ()llote* U. Id. « virgin »hall r<inceive." that the virgin wa» the daugt,t.-r • t JrruNjIrin. whom Isaiah reprrwnt* ai de^puinK .Sh«l> mane/er, while th.- uu-rl w». . .mtr the Assyrians is the i contained in the was for them II The<.philu% retr<ts ti...i .^.- ^..K.M .....fc...^. -i Jerusalem hud broufht forth no »«». Th« 986 THEOPHRONIUS difficulties of the Incarnation are then dis- cussed, and Christ's descent from David maintained by Theophilus, who argues that conception by a virgin was no more difficult to God than bringing water out of a rock. Simon then raises the favourite difficulty of the Jews from 2nd cent, downwards, drawn from Deut. xxi. 23, " He that is hanged is accursed of God " [Aristo Pellaeus], which introduces the subject of Christ's passion, where Theophilus urges that Ps. xxii. describes all the circumstances of our Lord's sufferings. Harnack {I.e. ) has a learned monograph on this, and discusses the Jewish controversy as it was maintained by the Fathers. He devotes 50 pages to stating the relation between the Alter- catio and Tertullian's Tract, adv. /wrf., Cyprian's Testimonia, Lactantius's Institutiones, and Jus- tin's Dialogus cum Tryphone, and skilfully uses the AUercatio to determine the nature and con- tents of the similar 2nd-cent. work, AUercatio Jasonis et Papisci, which he considers the groundwork of the jth-cent. document, [g.t.s.] Theophronius. [Ar.NoiiTAE]. Theophylactus (1) Simocatta, an Egyptian by birth, related to Peter, who was viceroy of Egypt at the death of the emperor Maurice in 602. His Oecumenical History, or Historiae Mauricii Tiherii Imperatoris, is very impor- tant for Byzantine history at a critical period, just before the rise of Mahomet, and during the beginning of the struggles with the Turks and Slavs. For church history his historical writings are interesting, as giving a vivid picture of the rites, superstitions, and ideas of the close of cent. vi. They shew, e.g. that the emperor Maurice was in many points superior to his spiritual teachers. Thus in lib. i. c. 11 we have the story of a sorcerer named Paul- inus, whom the patriarch of Constantinople brought before the emperor, pressing for his capital punishment. The emperor suggested that instruction, rather than punishment, was required. Many other points of interest occur, e.g. the frequent use of a miraculous image (dxetpoTTotTjTos) of our Lord (ii. 3 ; iii. i) ; the conversion of Chosroes (v. 15), and of a woman of noble birth among the Magi of Babylon, named Golinducha, her escape, pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and life at Nisibis (v. 12) ; the con- tinued existence of the Marcionists (viii. 9) ; the church in honour of St. Paul at Tarsus (viii. 13) ; the incredulity of the emperor about the liquefaction of the blood of St. Euphemia (viii. 14); his overthrow and murder by Phocas, and the miraculous announcement of it by his statues at Alexandria the same night (viii. 13). The History of Theophylact is included in the Bonn series of Byzantine historians, but the most complete and convenient ed. is bv C. H. Fabrottus in Labbe's Corpus Hist. Byzani. (Paris, 1648). [G.T.s.l Theosebas, a deacon of the Thirian (? Tyrian) church, ordained priest by bp. John of Jerusalem. Jerome takes this ordination as a justification of the ordination of his brother Paulinian by Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis. He describes Theosebas as an eloquent man, and believes John to have ordained him in order to employ him to speak against himself and his friends (Hieron. Cont. Joan. Hierosol. 41). [w.h.f.] Theotimus (2), bp. and metropolitan of THOMAS EDESSENUS Tomi, the capital of Scythia Minor in Lower Moesia. By birth a Goth, he was educated in Greece, where he took the name by which he is known. Adopting strict asceticism for himself, he kept a liberal table for the savage Goths and Huns who visited Tomi as the great central market of the province, endeavouring by hospitality, gifts, and courteous treatment to prepare them to receive the Gospel. In some instances the seed was sown in good soil, and the Hunnish strangers returned to their distant homes as converts, eager to convert their fellow-barbarians. Theotimus is with much probability identified by Baro- nius {sub ami. 402) with the successful mission- ary to the Huns mentioned by St. Jerome. He was regarded by the Huns with super- stitious reverence, and was styled by them " the God of the Romans." The long hair of a philosopher flowed over his episcopal attire. He was a frequent and much revered visitor at Constantinople. In 403, during the visit of Epiphanius of Salamis, he refused to affix his signature to the decree of the council of Cyprus condemning the teaching of Origen, denouncing the attempt to cast insult on a justly honoured name and to question the decisions of wise and good men before them. He supported his refusal by publicly reading passages from Origen. He was an author of some note. Jerome ascribes to him some treatises in the form of dialogues. Fragments of his are in John Damascene's Parallel. Sacr. (vol. ii. pp. 640, 675, 694, 785, Le Quien's ed.). The archimandrite Carosus at the council of Chalcedon boasted that he had been baptized by Theotimus and charged by him to keep the Nicene faith inviolate (Labbe, Concil. iv. 530). Socr. H. E. vi. 12 ; Soz. H. E. vii. 26, viii. 14 ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xi. 190; Le Quien, Or. Chist. ii. 1217 ; Cave, Hist. Lit. i. 288. [e.v.] Thomas (8) Edessenus appears in the Life of Mar Abas. The latter, originally Magian by religion, was converted to Christianity, learnt Syriac at Nisibis, and Greek at Edessa from Thomas a Jacobite, whom he afterwards took with him to Alexandria and there with his help translated the Scriptures {or, the books) from Greek into Syriac (Gregory Bar-hebr. Chr. Eccl. ii. 22, t. iii. col. 189). Amrus {ap. Assem. iii. 75) gives a similar history of their relations ; but only ascribes to them the translation of the works of Theo- dore of Mopsuestia. He relates how they went to Constantinople, and finding their lives in peril in consequence of their refusal to " anathematize the Three Fathers," fled to Nisibis. There Mar Abas became a teacher, and an eloquent assailant of Zoroastrianism. Gregory says that he was at one time taught by John Grammaticus, the Tritheite ; but the facts alleged by Amrus lead us to conclude that he lapsed early into Nestorianism. He was elected catholicus of the Chaldeans in 536, and persecuted by the Magians. Chos- roes called on him to return to his original faith or to conform to Christian orthodoxy. Refusing to do either, he was exiled, and venturing to return to his see without the king's permission, was cast into prison, and died there, 552. Among his disciples Amrus (Assem. ii. 411) reckons " Thomas of Edessa," no doubt his former teacher drawn by him THOMAS APAMEENSIS from the opposing sect into Nrstori.tni^m. ' Of their joint work, the version o| Theo<|orrs liturgy survives (Brit. Mus. 7181. Rich.. R.-F. Calal. p. 5<)— see .ils<i Ken-uulot. l.ilurf. Or. t. i. p. 616) ; and the litur^v of N»'st<»riu> (16. p. 6i6). still in use in the Nestorian churches, is probably their version mentioned by Ebedjesu {Catal. .Assem. iii. ^f.). who .^Iso savs they translated the O.T. (ift. 7s). and adds a list of the \\Titinf;s ,.( Mar .\bas. ' ( j.r.w.] Thomas (9) Apameensis, bp. of .Apanua. the metropolis of S\Tia Secunda ; one of the bishops sent t'> invite pope \ii:ilius to the second council of Constantinopie. Me him- self attended it. Two contempor.iry histo- rians, Procopius and Kvagrius (the latter praises Thomas as a " man most mightv in word and in deed "), record his tact and courage when a great peril threatened his citv. In 540 Chosroes. at the head of his Persians, after burning Antioch. was reported to be marching on .\pamea. The panic-stricken people entreated their bishop to strengthen them to meet their fate bv displaying a piece of the true cross, a cubit in length, which was treasured in their church in a casket richly decorated with gold and gems, and usually shewn to the faithful but once a year. Thom- as fixed a day for its exhibition, to which the people of the neighbouring towns also eagerly repaired ; among them the parents of Evagrius, bringing with them the future historian, who vividly describes the crowds pressing to see. and seeking to kiss, the sacred wood. The bishop (as both narrators relate) took it out of the casket, and raising it up in both hands proceeded round the church, according to usage. " .\ flame of fire shining, but not consuming," around and above the relic, moved as he moved, lighting up the roof. This was repeated several times. The people greeted with joy this visible token of divine protection, and drew from it confident hopes of deliverance. As Chosroes approached, the bishop met him, and assured him that no resistance was contemplated by the citizens, on whose behalf he engaged that the king with a limited guard should be admitted within the gates. Chosrf>es accordingly, leaving his army in camp, entered with 200 men. In violation of a compact he had recently entered into with the emperor (to receive 5.000 pounds of gold paid down and 500 annually, and make no further demands), he exacted from the bishop more than 10,000 pounds of silver, and all the gold and silver ornaments in the church treasury. Thomas produced last of all the casket that enshrined the cross, and, shewing its contents to the king, said, " This alone is left ; take the gold and genLs— I grudge them not ; only leave us the |>recious wikkI of sal- vation." The king granted his petition. Thomas conciliated Chosroes by as-idiiously courting his favour. It would be unfair to judge him hardly under circumstances of such great responsibility and peril, tlx'iigli he shews politic sut)pleness and tact rather than the higher virtues of a prelate and patriot. () '■\* 1 Tiberius (2) II., emperor of Constanii 57S-582. Fi.r the secular history of I. see D. of G. and fi. Hwgr. We shall • ourselves to the religious historv of the [►.n..!. for which the church history of the Monophy- TICHONIUS 987 »lte John of Kphr»u» (I>r. I', trans.) nffiirdrfl |rr%h main: presented a «trikini; ex4fnp|r ..| ■ an intolerant age. The palrurrl. 1 1 ...1. stantiiiople were ardent <>pi>onenl« o| ih« MonophvMtrs. The palrurrh |..hn Vho- lasticuv »<K(ii after the eiii ,.,n lo the (MMttion of ( arNar 1 < .| on him to IMTsecilte the " Thi- cmprr.r t> .V 111 • . ^ f ..!. ... I. an .1' actet tian !• Kutychi'.is. rcsi.tid altrr J..I111 : urged Til>rri(i» in the same <\r again Til>eriiis refused, win ifM; of his iiwn motion, vt th- in o|>eration (cf. John <>( i 72. joi). On p. 107 J. ill only act of persecution. n. n m tumi jii army of (...ths (Arians) to light aRaunt the Persians. Thev left thnr laniilirs at « Hn- stantinople, stipulating l-r '•■ ■• ' ..>....». for .Arian worship. Til • patriarch, whereu|M>n int- • the mob to hoot the emt • of Arianism. To clear hiiuvill hr irmjitird the mob to attack the houses of all heretic^. A book concrrning the nature of the resur- rection, published by Kutvchiuv taught that the body would be impalpable like a pure spirit, (iregory, afterward* ;^*:'<- 'rrre-irv the dreat, then a deacon and 1" at the imj>erial court, at in the patriarch's tear) lieing appealed to. decul' ...■ gory, while the patriarch t>um the obnoxious Iwxik. 1 ". P iqz, says that Til>erius -u ■%« on his coins for a female figure, lik< \(iius which Justin introduced. Sw-e al»o Kvagr. H. F.. v. tt-22; Paul I»iac. Hut. MtutU. lib. xvil. ; Theophan. ( hrotuigr. i. 3H0-387 ; Baron. Anmml. A.I). S^j-sH^ ; Clinton'» /-Asfl, p. 840. ((..T.B.| TiburtllU. (Cakcilia.) TichonilU (/vrAnniuO, an African t><>na> list, whose personal historv 1^ verv little known, but who wa* conspicuous in the |)onatist ronlrover-' - i...<i- i.- - v tine meiiti Ills hiin and els*' where. H' iM'tween iHo and \. niont his date may be a* rail> .ii i;a. Mr was apparently a layman with a ttrong Him for church matters. inclu<link' lli<-"I kv »4» well versed in Scripture. ■ . tist, revolted from the r\ sect, and occupied a jv>mi. Neander savs, l>etween it .mi in«- r.iurn (( h. Hal. III. 2»<o. ed. Hark, ct. IH. Sparr-.w Simpvin. SI. Aug. and .4tr < k. />iiiiiw<ii [l<»|o]. p. M). FarlV 111 •■ . .r^^r .^.V.i.s ?7o-17V he published 1 the universality of thr no miscoiidm t • 1 .1 1 promise of eli.t'where. Ill .Africa »' : I, but ^tIll . • Mr ..1 cut the 1 ••' the ilisl test of h. .. '" th« < 1 ii;r.immatic phra*'-. 'lu-i \ninui» Mne- turn r»t " (Aug. r. Panm. t. 1 ; It. IJ. 5« ; •*• 988 TIMOTHEUS I. also ii. 21, 40, and 22, 42 ; iii. 3, 17 ; Ep. 93, 43). In support of his argument he quoted the decision of a council at Carthage of 270 bishops, who, having debated for 75 days, con- cluded, as the words of Augustine seem to imply, that traditors ought to be invited to receive rebaptism, but if they declined to do i so ought to be admitted to communion. He | adds that down to the time of Macarius, a.d. 348, communion was not refused to Catholics by Donatists (Aug. Ep. 93, 43). Of this council no other record exists than the state- ment of Tichonius, who gives it no date. His book has perished, but is probably the same either as the one in three books mentioned by Gennadius under the title Bellum Intestinum, or the one entitled Expositiones Diveraarum Causanim, unless these two titles refer to one book only, in which, says Gennadius, Tichonius mentions some ancient councils (de Scr. Eccl. 18). Though denounced strongly for his incon- sistency by St. Augustine, he appears to have continued his allegiance to the Donatists (Aug. de Doctr. Chr. iii. 30 ; Gennad. u.s.), and while still belonging to them wrote another book entitled The Seven Rules or Keys of Christian Life, which was discussed by Augustine in his work de Doctr. Christ, iii. 30-42. Its main heads are : (i)The church is the Lord's body, indivisible from Him, so that in Scripture lan- guage applicable to Him is applied also to the church. (2) The two-fold Body of the Lord. i.e. the distinction between bad and good people in the church. (3) The promises and the law. (4) Genus and species. Readers must be careful not to ascribe to the one what belongs to the other, e.g. in explaining Ezek. xxxvi. 23, which must be compared with N.T. and the promise of baptism there contained. The " new land " is the church to be gathered from all nations, but not yet revealed. (5) Concerning Jewish expressions denoting time, as " three days and three nights," etc., and also such numbers as 7, 10, 12, etc. (6) Concerning what he calls Recapitulation. (7) The personality of Satan. Tichonius also wrote a commentary on the Revelation, which, Gennadius tells us, he interpreted entirely in a spiritual sense — that the human body is an abode of angels (" an- gelicam stationem corpus esse"); that the Millennium in a personal sense is doubtful, that there is only one resurrection in which human bodies of every sort and age will rise, and that of the two resurrections mentioned, one is to be understood of the growth of grace in the soul of man and in the church. The Seven Rules are printed at length in the Bibl. Max. Patr. (Lyons, 1677), vi. 49, andBibl. Patr. Galland. (Venice, 1765), viii. 107. Prof. F. C. Burkitt pub. a critical ed. of them in the Camb. Texts and Studies (1894), iii. i. [h.w.p.] Timotheus (7) I., archbp. of Alexandria, unanimously elected, as Theodosius I. affirms (Cod. Theod. t. vi. p. 348 ; Tillem. vi. 621), on the death of his brother, Peter II., in the latter half of Feb. 381. He was an elderly man of high character, who had sat at the feet of .A.thanasius ; and his distinguishing epithet of ciKT-qfxwv (Coteler. Eccl. Gr. Mon. i. 366) indicates that he had parted with all his property. The council of Constantinople met in May 381 ; he and his attendant suffragans arrived late, and did not contribute to the TIMOTHEUS peace of the assembly (Greg. Naz. Carm. de Vita Sua, 1800 ff.). They were annoyed at finding Gregory of Nazianzus established in the see of Constantinople ; their jealousy of the " Oriental " bishops who had " enthroned him " broke forth in angry debate. They assured Gregory that they had no objection to him personally ; but they probablj' resented the disgrace of Maximus, who had attempted, by the aid of some Egyptian bishops, to possess himself of the see. Gregory was glad to take this opportunity of resigning it, and Timotheus perhaps presided over the council during the few days between this abdication and the appointment of Nectarius (Tillem. ix. 474)- The third canon gave to the see of Constantinople the second rank throughout I the church ; Neale says that Timotheus "refused to allow" its "validity" (Hist. Alex. i. 209). The council of Aquileia alludes to some annoyance given to him and Paulinus of Antioch by those whose orthodoxy had previously been suspected (Ambr. Ep. 12) ; yet that he did not break off openly from the majority is proved by the law of July 30, 381, in which Theodosius names him as one of the centres of Catholic communion (Soz. vii. 9 ; cf. Tillem. ix. 720). His episcopate was brief and uneventful. Facundus transcribes a I letter of his to Diodore of Tarsus, referring to Athanasius as having spoken highly of Dio- dore, and professing his own inability to do justice to his virtue and orthodox zeal (Pro Defens. Tri. Capit. iv. 2). Timotheus \\Tote an account of several eminent monks, which Sozomen used (vi. 29). His 18 " canonical answers" to requests by his clergy for direction are interesting, and became part of the church law of the East (see Beveridge, Pand. Can. ii. { 165 ; Galland. vii. 345). He died on Sun., July 20, 385 (see Tillem. vi. 802), and was suc- ceeded bv Theophilus. fw.B.] [ Timotheus (18), commonly called Aelurus, a Monophysite intruder into the see of Alex- andria. He had been at first a monk, then a presbyter under Dioscorus, and soon after the deposition of the latter at the council of , Chalcedon had come into collision with his successor Proterius. Deposed from office and banished into Libya (Mansi, Concil. vii. ' 617), he awaited, as his opponents afterwards said, the death of the emperor Marcian (ib. ; 525, 532). When that occurred in Jan. 457, I he returned to Alexandria, and practised the ' artifice which apparentlv procured him the j epithet ai'Xoi'pos, "cat." "Creeping" at night to the cells of certain ignorant monks, he called to each by name, and on being asked who he was, replied, " I am an angel, sent to warn you to break off communion with Proterius, and to choose Timotheus as bishop " (Theod. Lect. i. i). Collecting a band of turbulent men, he took possession, in the latter part of Lent, of the great " Caesarean " church, and was there lawlessly consecrated by only two bishops, whom Proteiius and the Egyptian ' synod had deposed, and who, like himself, had been sentenced to exile. Thus, without the i countenance of a single legitimate prelate (see I Mansi, vii. 585), "he enthroned himself," as , 14 Egyptian bishops express it in their mem- , orials to the emperor Leo I. and to Anatolius 1 of Constantinople {ib. 526, 533), while the real TIMOTHEUS TIMOTHEUS SAI.OFACIOLUS .iiv.wii>iKii' was MtHilK m Ills p.il.icr .uUiiHK his l si. "Ilir I jt " »4» clergy. He instantly proceeded to j)cr<orn» nhrwrd hi* wonlnl acut • piscopal acts ; but after tluis playing the (xTnusMon in ounx i<« anti-patriarch for a few days, he was cs|>cnrd prctnul that h.f '■ t ' • ' ■ ■ tiy the "dux " Diunysius ; and it was appar- doctrinr. a^ ii eiitly in revenge that his adherents {ib. jici. (.mlt. an<l v. 5j.i) hunted I'roterius into a baptistery and hope to ret.n;. murdered him (liastor, 457). Thereu|>on Juno t;, 4(m>, t.> tti- Timutheus returned and acted as archbishop, nadiuv the new p.it He declared open w.^r against the m.iintainers urKing that Tiiiioti.' of " two natures " as being in elTect Nesto- conversion sinrrre. w.ti .|i riani/ers. and on this ground boldly broke ofl communion with Uome. Constantinople, and Antioch, denouncing bishops of the .\\v\- andrian patriarchate who had accented the formula of the council, and some of whom had held their sees before the acci-ssion of Cyril ; he also sent to cities and monasteries a pro- hibition to communic^ite with such bishops or to recognize clerics ordained by them. The liul and >i«n •nly Uhl KTcat a vu-. hu vinic iinir " invaded so of Its bi.h'p liinul! broth, on hl^ on th<- -. i ill- ' .1. 1 •.... ..I . .- >>!< chius rails .Mar^uphia (ct. t.vaicr. Liberal. Hm\ ih ; Throphan. Ckritrntfr. I. iSd ; Mutvchius, 11. io\) ; aiut duruiK 16 vr«rt > hi. i.pti. i.uty- 14 prelates who supply our most authentic the church over which he had t>-ranni/r<l wa* information on these events were forced by at i>eacc under ihe rule of hi« nainrvikr, the storm thus raised to abandon their homes, Timothcus, called SalofarioUu. Hut when «hr travel to Constantinople, and present me- next ctn|>oror. Zeno. fled from the uturt>rf morials to the emperor and archbishop. Uasiliscus, towards the clov «>( 47^, 4 new These are extant in Latin versions (16. 524 fl.). scene o|>ene<l It Arlnnn Mr wis ^ innnincl Timotheus .\elurus seut some bishops and to Constantiu ' e|rt| clerics to plead his cause with the emperor, him with "1 . the We possess a fragment of their i>etition name of the I : vii. (ifc. 536), to the effect that under their " most g70). The (.i, ,..,.., ^ the pious archbishop, the great city of the .\le\- churches .igainst him. bin «-» in andrians, with its churches and monasteries, private houses (Maasi. /.<■ . •<■'>«• was bv Ciod's favour enjoying complete nized him as rightful bp. 1. and peace,"' and that they and their archbishop by his advice put forth a cinulur tu the cpi*- held firmly to the .Nicene Creed, refusing to copate, condemning " the innovation m the admit anv alterations in, or additions to, its faith which was made at Chalcr.lon " (Kvaxr. text. The document, as we now have it, iii. 4). But when the Hutvchiann of t oa*tan- breaks off abruptly with the words, "for the tinoole, deeming his arrival a g«Klvnd, ha*t- church of the great citv of the Alexandrians ened to pav court to him, he diKap|H>intr<l does not accept the council of Chalcedon " ; them by d«'cl.iring that hr for his part accpptcU but it appears from other evidence (l^o, Ep. the statement which ( vril had in cflrct 149 ; -Mansi. vii. 522) that it went on to ask adopted at his reunion with John of Anti.--h. that the sanction given to that council might that " the Incarnat be recalled, and a new council summoned asserting that the .\lexandrian people, the civil dignitaries, the municipal function.iries, and the company of transporters of corn- Wor. with us. according to tli< his wav home he vi^lted I its clergy and laity bv d> . (the fifth in Christendom iii \^>im ■•! .bniittv) freights desir.'d to retain Timotheus as their to be fr.-*- from that subjection to (...ntlan- bishop. The emperor Leo refused thcrenuest tinoplc which had Ixrrn inuH»«-d .>n it bv the of the emiss.aries of Timotheus for immediate 28th canon of t h.ilccd")n (16. «.). V\hen he action against the authority of the council of reached Alexandri.i, the kindlv and iH.pular Chalcedon, which he had .already constructive- Salofaciolus was all.,wr,| t.i rrtirr t . hh mm- ly upheld by confirming the ecclesi.istical acts of his predecessors (cf. pope I^-o's Ef>. I4'> with Mansi, vii. 524), hut vet deemed it expedient to send copies of both meinori.iN t.. the bishops of Rome. Constantinople, .Xiiti-i li and Jerusalem, and to 55 other prelat-s ml three leading monks (one of them b. ing .isterv at the suburt did not long sur\i iiituinn <if 477 (Nt 1 Tlmotheiu (i9i. factolus, I'.itnarch o( .Air' til.- .viuNi.in of Timoii xniniiig of .\uK. 4'" tificd with the " Timothruv prr^bytrf. and a 4trWard of the .Mrxaii.li 1 4:1 r!>u:. !i " »?.• igned thr memorial h! 1 Symeon Stvlit-s), requesting their opinion as the Chalced. .nun dogma to the case of Tim..theus and as to the auth..r. •'■- '^ "- "^ ' ity of the council (Lvagr. ii. 9; .Mansi. vii 521). Of the prelates consulted, all but one, ... the inconstant Amphil-K-hius of Side, accepted Catholic bishops pre*rtit the council of Chalce.lon (I-:v,igr. li. 10). and 11. 4'.7 'M .a 1 «-i. all condemned Timotheus in more or Ics energetic terms, although some with " a salv.. if the statem'.nts of the exiles were true (Mansi. vii. 537 tt.). In the early suiniiirr o* 460 Leo L sent orders to Stilas, the " dux commanding at Alexandria, to cx|>rl Iimo. theus from the church, and to promote the couki election of an orthwlox bishop (Liberal, brev. ed Calb^Uc I6^ , t.. I bt*tn<f 990 tiMOTHEUS church " to root out all remains of Kestorian as well as of Eutychian error (Ep. 171, Aug. 18, 460). Ten orthodox Egyptian bishops had also written to Leo that the election had been unstained by " canvassing, sedition, or unfair- ness of any kind," and that Tiinotheus was approved as worthy of so eminent a bishopric for purity of character and integrity of faith (£^.173). "In his episcopal administration," says Liberatus, " he was exceedingly gentle, so that even those who were of his communion complained of him to the emperor for being too remiss and easy-going towards heretics, in consequence of which the emperor wrote to him not to allow the heretics to hold assem- blies or to administer baptism ; but he con- tinued to treat them gently, and while he thus discharged his office the Alexandrians loved him, and cried aloud to him in the streets and in the churches, ' Even if we do not com- municate with thee, yet we love thee.' " This gentleness became weakness when, in the hope of conciliating the Monophysites, he reinserted the name of Dioscorus in his church diptychs (Mansi, vii. 983), and so gave occasion for the blundering Eutychius to rank him with the other Timotheus as a "Jacobite" (Ann. ii. 103). When Timotheus Aelurus returned in 476 and took possession of the archbishopric, Salofaciolus was allowed to reside in the mon- astery of the monks of Tabennesus, situated in a suburb of Alexandria called Canopus (see Le Quien, Or. Christ, ii. 415). He remained there when Aelurus died, fearing to cause a " tumult " if he shewed himself in the city ; whereupon the Monophysites took the oppor- tunity of electing and enthroning Peter Mongus, who had been archdeacon under Aelurus ; but the Augustal prefect Anthemius, acting on a mandate from Zeno, expelled Peter from the church, and reinstated Timotheus Salofaciolus (Evagr. ii. 11). This step was followed up by rigorous edicts, intended to overawe the numerous clerics, monks, and laymen who refused to communicate with the restored patriarch (Brev. Hist. Eutych. in Mansi, vii. 1063). Peter Mongus was lurking in corners of Alexandria, " plotting against the church " ; the patriarch wrote to Zeno and Simplicius, begging that he might be removed to a distance (Liberat. Brev. 16; Mansi, I.e.). Simplicius pressed the point in letters to Acacius ; but Zeno could not be induced to take this step against Peter, and probably Acacius was at least lukewarm in the cause. At last, according to the Breviculus, Timotheus sent John Talaia again to Con- stantinople, and obtained a promise that he should have a Catholic successor. Soon after- wards he "died undisturbed" (Liberat.), about midsummer 482, as we learn from letters of Simplicius dated July 15, 482 (Mansi, vii. 991). fw.B.] Timotheus (24), patriarch of Constanti- nople, appointed in 511 by the emperor Anastasius the day after the deposition of Macedonius (3). He had been priest and keeper of the ornaments of the cathedral, and was a man of bad character. He apparently adopted the Monophysite doctrines from ambition, not conviction. Two liturgical innovations are attributed to him, the prayers on Good Friday at the church of the Virgin, and tiTUS the recital of the Xicene Creed at every service, though the last is also ascribed to Peter the Fuller. He sent circular letters to all the bishops, which he requested them to subscribe, and also to assent to the deposition of Mace- donius. Some assented, others refused, while others again subscribed the letters but refused to assent to the deposition of Mace- donius. The extreme Monophysites, headed by John Niciota, patriarch of .Alexandria, whose name he had inserted in the diptychs, at first stood aloof from him, because, though he accepted the Henoticon, he did not reject the council of Chalcedon, and for the same reason Flavian 11. of .\ntioch and Elias of Jerusalem at first communicated with him. With Severus of Antioch he afterwards assembled a synod which condemned that council, on which Severus communicated with him. Timothy sent the decrees of his synod to Jerusalem, where Elias refused to receive them. Timothy then incited Anastasius to depose him (Lib- erat. 18, 19 ; Mansi, viii. 375). He also induced the emperor to persecute the clergy, monks, and laity who adhered to Macedonius, many of whom were banished to the Oasis in the Thebaid. His emissaries to Alexandria anathematized from the pulpit the council of Chalcedon. Within a year of his accession Timotheus directed that the Ter Sanctus should be recited with the Monophysite addition of " Who wast crucified for us."' On Nov. 4 and 5 this caused disturbances in two churches, in which many were slain, and the next day a terrible riot broke out which nearly caused the deposition of Anastasius. Timothy died Apr. 5, 517. Vict. Tun. Chron. ; Marcell. Chron.; Theod. Lect. ii. 28, 29, 30, 32, 33 ; Evagr. iii. 33 ; Theophanes ; Tillem. Mem. eccl. xvi. 691, 698, 728. [F.D.] Titus, emperor. [Vespasiasus.] Titus (2), bp. of Bostra in Arabia Auranitis, c. 362-371, of very high repute for learning and eloquence. He is named by Jerome among the many distinguished Christian wTiters of great secular erudition and knowledge of Holy Scripture (Hieron. Ep. 70 [84]). Jerome mentions his works, dwelling especially on three written against the Manicheans (Hieron. de Vir. III. c. 102). He is also enumerated by Sozomen (H. E. iii. 14, ad fin.) with Euse- bius of Emesa, Basil of Ancyra, C\Til of Jeru- salem, and others, as writers of the highest celebrity, whose learning is proved by the many remarkable writings they left. The appearance of Titus in such company, and his being distinctly reckoned among the Acacians by Socrates (H. E. iii. 25), makes his ortho- doxy doubtful. He is chiefly known to us from the attempt made by the emperor Julian to induce the citizens of Bostra to expel him as a calumniator of their city. The pagan inhabitants made the authoritative revival of their cult by Julian the signal for organized attacks on their Christian fellow-citizens. The Christians retaliated. Julian, choosing to assume that the Christians were responsible for these disturbances, threatened to call Titus and the city clergy to judicial account if any fresh outbreak occurred (Soz. H. E. v. 15). Titus replied that though the Christian popu- lation exceeded the heathen in numbers, in obedience to his admonitions they hadremained TRAJANUS. M. ULPlUS quiet iiiKitr st-vi-n- provixMtioiis. aiul tlu-n- was no te;ur of the peace of the citv bem^ dis- turbed by them {ih.). Julian then issued a rescript to the citi/ens of Nostra. Auk. «. J<>i. charging Titus with caluiuniatinn them bv his representations that thev onlv abstained fr.mi violence in obeilience to his monitions, and calling upon them to drive him out of their city as a public enemy (Julian Imp. /•/). sj. p. 437)- The death of Julian found Titus still bp. of Bostra (Keiidell, Emf^fror Juhan, pp. 188, 222). On the accession of Jovian. Titus is enumerateti by Socrates (//. f.. iii. 25) as a member of the .\cacian p;u-ty. .According to Jerome, he died in the reign oi Valens. c. 370. Of his works (Soz. //. E. lii. 14) we have onlv very scanty remains. Of that against the Manichees in four books (" fortes libros." I.e.) commended by Jerome and referred to bv Epiphanius (Haer. Ixvi. c. 21) and TheiKlore't {Haer. Fub. lib. i. c. 26). three books exist in MS. in the library of the Johanneum at Ham- burg. Tillem. yinn. eccl. vii. 385 ; teill. .Aul. eccl. vi. 43 flf. ; Cave, Ht^t. Lit. i. 228 ; Migne, Fair. Gk. x\-iii. 1069 flf. ; Fabr. Btbl. Grate, vi. 748, viii. 084, ix. 320; Clinton, Fastt Rom. No. 141. [K.v.) Trajanus d). M. Ulpius (Nerva), emperor. belonged to a laiiiily ut It.iliaii origin settled in the colony of Italicj in Baetica. He was born on Sept. 18, probably in a.d. 53, and passed his early life in the army undi-r his father, a distinguished otticer who had risen to the consulship. In Oct. 07, being then in command of the army t)f Lower Ciermany, he was adopted by Nerva, with whom, till his death on Jan. 27, he reigned jointly, and then became sole emperor. He remained i>n the Rhine, placing that frontier in a state of defence, till in the latter half of «jq he made his entrance into Kome. being received with the greatest joy. He died at Selinus in Cilicia, probably c. .\ug. 7 or 8, 117. For us the interest of his life centres in the famous rescript, addressed to his friend I'liny in reply to his letter detailing his procedure towards the Christians in Bithvnia. I'lmy had arrived in his province immediat<lv befon- Sept. 18, no, or more probably in (.Moiiim- sen, Hi-rmes. 1869, 59). and the letter was probably written in the year after his arrival. The rescript is one of a series of replies to inquiries on the most various subjects— p«ilice, baths, sewerage, precautions against fires, water supply, public buildings, etc.— and neither Fliny nor Trajan seems to have con- sidered the subject one of special imp<irtancr. Pliny's letter is the earliest heathen account of the services and behaviour of the Christians, and Trajan's reply is the earliest piece of legislation about Christianity that we p<r,s«-ss. After stating that, having never been pre- sent at trials of Christians, he was ignorant of the precise nature of the crime and the usual punishment, and also how far it was the practice to pursue the inquiry, I'liny asks the emperor whether any distinction should be made on the ground of age ; wluthi-r thoM- who abjured Christianitv should Ix- pardoned, or a man who had embraced Christianity gain by renouncing it ; whether the mere name apart from anv crime or the crimes associated with the nanie should be punished ? Pro- j TRAJANUS, M. ULPIUS Ml visi..n.illv h.- h.i.l t ikrii thr l..ll..*ini{ r»ur«« in the rase of ihov rhantnl lw(.<r him with l>eing Christians. " I druiandrd. " he »4y%. "of the acriisr<l thrliisrl\r% t( Ihcv wrr«> I hristians. and il Ihrv 4<lniiltr«l ii. I rr|>«-4lrti the qiH-stion a srciid and 4 thtnl timr. threaleuing tlirtii wHh puiiishniriil . tl ihrv persisted. I ordered them l<i Ik- Ird (o rtrrulKMt. r"or I felt convinre.l that. Hhalrvrr il iiukIiI \— they ronlessed thrv wrr<- .1 .iu\ r iir ihcir unyielding obsliii.irv dr ' uriil. S<ime others who wrrr I i». I decided should Ih- ^iil to I In the ctiurse of the procrr.li [4llv the cast-, the nunilMr •■! Ivwl incjeasr«l and several van- i An anonymous doriiment was | r. .mi.i i,i nM> which contained the nameN of many. rh»«« who denied that they were or ever had l»rrn Christians I thoUKht should Ix- rrlraso*! when they li.id. after mv example, mvokrtl the Kott« and otferrd incense ami wme to vour iniat;e, which I had ordered to Im- brought lor lh<> piirpos*- along with thi>se of the K'hU. and had also blasphemetl t hrist, nolle of which thuiK%. it is said, can those who are really t hrtslunt be coniixlled to do. Others, wh^i were accus«'d by an informer, hrst said they were Christians and then denied it. saving that Ihev had be«>n, but had re.ised to l>e. v>me Ihrr* years, some s<'veral. ami one twenty years jko. .\\\ adored your image and those of the g'"'*. and blasphemed I hrist. Thev drrlarrd ihal all the wrong they had committed, willingly or unwittinglv, was this, that thev had itrni accustomed on a fixetl dav to inerl befi^r dawn and sing aiitii>honally a hymn to C hrul as a god. and biiul theinselvrt bv a v>lrtun pledge [\acramenlo] not to commit anv enormity, but to abstain from theft, brigand- age, and adultery, to keep their wont, and not to refuse to re>tore what had Imtii entrusted to their charge if demaUiled. .After tUesr ceremonies tln-v used to disperse and assemblr again to share a common iii<>al of lunorml fo<Kl. and even this th.-y hi' i'trf I had issued the edirl bv w : lo Vour m^lruelioiis. I pr-ihil . ■ iie^ [hetaeriaf]. I therefore TiH, lu'ifr necessary, in onlrr to asreitaiit mI.^I truth there was in this acrotint. t'> examine two slave-girls, who were called dearonrsM-* lmini\lraf\. and even to U'v«- lorlure. I found nothing except a |x-rvertr<l and unlMiundetl superstition. I therefore h ivr i |j .tirnr.l ihr investigation and hasteiird t 1 lor I thought the inatlrr w.i iiiiic Vou about. es|>eciallv oil .1 uni- (>ers who iire mvolvrd l<-i ,,.,,.. .i ■ ..i* aK« and rank, and '»f l»>th sexes, are already aii«l will Im- siiminonol to stand thrir trial. F<ir this superstition ha« infected not only lb* towns, but alvi thr villages and ciunlrv , vet It apparent I V can l>e cherke«l and CtiCTrctril. At any rate it is rni.iu.l'. i!.r > 4 .«• ili.l (he temi>l«-s which werr . !'• to l>e Irequeiitril. thr .'ilch had loi.^' t... h ir.t.i ' and there . ;>in» [••past ^•h^• f.«it). : **« tolM-loWMl t .MM i... .,...-. lUa* what a number ol people iu«y b« rviuraMd, 992 TRAJANUS, M. ULPIUS if they are given a chance of repentance." Trajan replied with the following rescript : " You have followed the right course, my dear Secundus, in investigating the cases of those denounced to you as Christians, for no fixed rule can be laid down for universal adoption. Search is not to be made for them ; if they are accused and convicted they are to be punished, yet with the proviso that if a man denies he is a Christian and gives tangible proof of it by adoring our gods, he shall by his repentance obtain pardon, however strong the suspicion against him may be. But no notice should be taken of anonymous accusations in any kind of proceeding. For they are of most evil precedent and are inconsistent with our times " {Plini et Trajani Epp. 96, 97). Besides the interesting information thus afforded on the belief and practice of the early Christians (hints are apparently given of the existence of some formula of prayer, of the Eucharist and Agape), what light does it throw on the legal position of the Christians ? That trials of Christians had to Pliny's know- ledge already taken place appears by it, and the allusion cannot be to the Neronian per- secution when he was scarcely three years old, and hardly can be to that which was com- menced and almost immediately discontinued by Domitian, assuming that the objects of it were Christians and not Jews. Pliny's lan- guage points rather to proceedings of a regular kind against Christians. On the other hand, the fact that a man who had attained dis- tinction at the bar, and who had held all the high offices of state, had never witnessed a trial of this kind, proves that they were rare. Again, no statutory enactments as to Chris- tianity existed, or Trajan would have referred to them in his rescript according to his usual custom, when senatus consulta or edicts of pre- ceding emperors bore on the subject on which he is writing (cf. Ixvi. and Ixxiii.). Pliny's action was therefore based on the fact that Christianity was a religio illicita, its professors members of a collegium illicitum, at what might be termed the Roman common law. While Christians were regarded by the Roman government as a mere variety of Jews, they shared in the toleration enjoyed by Judaism as a religio licita. When the separation be- tween the two religions became apparent to Roman eyes, Christianity lost this shelter and its professors fell under the ban that extended to all unlawful associations. The exact time when the Romans became aware of the dis- tinction has been the subject of much contro- versy ; at any rate, it had become apparent by the end of the ist cent. Nero does not appear to have issued any edicts against Christians in general, and if Christianity, either apart from or along with Judaism, suffered under Domitian (Dion, Ixvii. 14). all the measures on the subject were repealed by Nerva on his accession (ib. Ixviii. i). What, then, was the effect of Trajan's rescript ? Formally it made the position of the Christians worse. It confirmed, by a positive enactment, the view Pliny had taken of their status at common law. Practically, however, the qualifications that they were not to be sought for, and anonymous accusa- tions ignored — qualifications due to Trajan's TROPHIMUS abhorrence of delation in all its forms (cf. Juv. iv. 87 ; Tac. Ann. iv. 30 ; Pliny, Pan. 34, 35), and from which it was his especial pride to be free — must frequently have been a boon i to the Christians. This secondary bearing of the rescript was first insisted on by Tertullian {e.g. Apol. c. 5, in Migne, Pair. Lat. i. 276) and the primary thrown into the background. From Tertullian this view of the rescript passed to Eusebius and from him to other Christian writers, till at last it came to be taken as an edict of toleration terminating a general persecution (Sulp. Sev. ii. 31 ; Orosius, ' vii. 12, in Pair. Lat. xx. 146, xxxi. 1091), a theory excluded by the words of the rescript itself, " That no fixed rule could be laid down for the whole empire." It was not from favour to the Christians that these limitations were introduced, and Trajan's chief objection to them was his dread of secret societies, which ■ were especially prevalent in Bithynia (Epp. ■ xxxiv. xciii. cxvii.). Overbeck (Studien zur Geschichte der Alten Kirche) maintained that the rescript was the law that regulated the position of the Chris- tians till the beginning of the persecution of Severus in 202, and that from Tertullian down- wards a thoroughly mistaken view of it had been taken. He asserts that during this period it regulated the practice of the em- perors, and that they did not deviate from it either in favour of the Christians or against them. He supports his position by pointing out that Justin Martyr under Antoninus Pius, I Athenagoras under M. Aurelius, and Tertullian I under Severus (.Apol. I. 4, Legatio pro Christ. 1 and 2, in Pair. Gk. vi. 333, 892-893, and Apol. \ 1-4, in Patr. Lat. i. 259-289), all agree in j stating that the mere name of Christian was I punishable. The trials of Ptolemy and Lucius ; before the prefect of the city are conducted i precisely in the manner laid down by the rescript (Justin, Apol. II. in Patr. Gk. vi. 445). M. Aurelius, on the occasion of the persecution of Lyons, issues a rescript following the same rule, that those who abjured Christianity should be released, those who refused should be executed (Eus. H. E. v. i). Overbeck, I therefore, rejects not only the protection edicts I ascribed to M. Aurelius and Antoninus Pius, ! which are now generally considered to be forgeries, but also, following Keim, argues (134-148) for the spuriousness of Hadrian's letter to Minucius Fundanus, which has usu- 1 ally been thought to be genuine, and which is not really inconsistent with Trajan's rescript. The only martyrs known by name as having suffered under Trajan are the bishops Symeon of Jerusalem and Ignatius of Antioch. For Trajan's relations with the Christians consult also Eusebius (H. E. iii. 32, 33, 36), Tillemont, Mem. eccl. (ii. 167-212), and Gibbon (c. 16). The ancient authorities for his reign are singularly meagre, and the dates, and even the order of many important events, have been determined only by the evidence of inscriptions and coins. [f-d-] Trophimus (1) (Cyp. Ep. 55, n), an Italian bishop (sacerdotii) who with all his flock offered incense in the Decian persecution. He was restored to lay-communion by Cornelius, bp. TROPHIMUS of Rome. It is iu)t lUiiird that his j>eoi>lp'-s attachment to liim, ami thi- as>iur.nicr that they would follow his rptiirn. casci\ the rrcrp- tiou of Trophimus. The Novatiamsts for- warded to Africa the misstatrmriit that I or- uelius had restored him to his episcopal orders, and so shiv.k the cmlidencc of some in him ; but Cvprian of his own knowlwlRr denies the statement. It is improhaMe that a lapsed bishop would be obliged or allowed to do public penance. The expression that Trophimus with " penance of etitrfalv con- fessed his own fault '" is itself against it. and although it is said that he m.idn " satisf.ic- tion," it is presently added that "the return of the brethren m.idc satisfaction for him." The restoration seems to have been made at the Roman council of June (or julv) a.d. 251. from the words (Ep. 55. ix. (<>1. H. 11), "Tractatu cum coUegis plurimis habito sus- ceptus est." Ritschl (Cyprtan von Karlkafo, p. 79) calls Trophimus a " sacriticatus," though the case of the sacrificati is treated separately in the next section of Ep. ss. and the words "Trotimo et turiticatis" do not make it certain that he was even a ■ Turificatus." [e.w.b.) Trophimus (3), St., ist bp. of .\rles. a subject of eager controversy, .\ccordmg to the tradition of the see. he was the disciple of St. Paul mentioned in .\cts and II. Tim., and was sent forth as a missionary to .\rles by St. Peter or St. Paul, or both. As early as 417 pope Zosimus, in a letter to the bishops of , (^laul, speaking of the city of .\rles, says. " -Ad quam priraum ex h.ic sede Trophimus summus antistes, ex cujus fonte totae (jalliae tidei rivulos acceperunt. directus est " {Ep. i, Fatr. Lai. xx. 645); and in the same popes letter to Hilary, bp. of N'arbonne. Trophimus was *' quondam ad .Arelatensem urbem ab apostolica sede transmissus " {Ep. 6. Pair. Lat. ib. 667)- .\gain, the 19 bishops of the province of .-Vrles. writing to pope Leo about the middle of 5th cent., assert that it is known to all Gaul and to the church of Rome " prima intra Gallias Arelatensis civitas missum a beatissimo Petro apostolo sanctum Trophi- mum habere meruit sacerdotem, et exinde aliis pauJatira rcgionibus Galliaruin bonuin 6dei et religionis infusum " {Fair. Lai. liv. 1880), though it should be mentioned that the genuineness of this letter has been questioned. So, too. Ado. in his .Marly rologtum (Dec. n/) and Chronicon. On the other hand, Gregory of Tours, apparently quoting from the .■iciu of St. Satuniinus, says in eflect that Tro- phimus arrived in Gaul with the first bishops of Tours, Paris, and other cili«-s in the con- sulate of Decius and Gratus, t.e. after the middle of 3rd cent. ; and in a very old cata- logue of the archbishops published by .Mabil- lon, VeUra .Analecta. p. 220 (Paris. 1 721). he is preceded by Dionyiius, as though he were the second bishop. The <|uestion. to which some bitterness has been imparted as being closely connected with the hotly rc*cnte<l claims of the early archbps. of Arlr* to a stirt of primacy i'l (iaul, is elalxiratcly du- cussed by Trichaud [Hisl. de lEgliu JArU\. i. 21-143). The cathedral church at Arlc. was dedicated to Trophimus, with St. Stephen {Gall. Christ, i. 519). [».A.i.J 'I ***. *l lb* ULFILAS W»3 u UlOIti {Irf'hiU^ >u ri.il .^i.irKiu*), ib« aix.stlp of the 1...1L . cml. Hit carp«-r IS involved 1 nHy. The sthrent. church \>. our uoljr sourer until Walt/, in i-i .. ..i.. .\rfrd 4 M!». o| the l.oiivrr, rotitaiiiiiiK an in<t<'|>«<ii(Val account, written bv oiir o| l'lhla«°* o«m pupils. .\u\ri.liMs \.i.i, I,, ,.( ->.:, I,,, who IS thus an '>: : . ivr« details whii l> iity. l-'rom these i« • wAt born earlv in (tli • <ut . i t l.ill. m m He was coiisrrralc<i bishop whm \n vror* po^Mblv bv In .(,.1, ,,f \„ .T...,tl,. • oiincil o( til. ti.ich Ml. In <S" and <lle«l there l!. »«l. The circuinsl.«ii. . ^ .. ti<»n of the origin ot iioihic t i|»- storgius tells us that, in and Gallirnus in the socond hi.: the (ioths from N. of the I>ainiU- li.va.l.d tb« Roman trrritorv. laid waste the province o| Mocsia as far as the HIack Sf-a. rf»sM-*| tnio .\sia and ravaged Cappadocia and GaUtU. whence they took a vast number oj captive«, including manv ( hrt'iti.ui rr.-|r-.i4«ti«. ■ These pioii- ' iir»« with the bar! im- lK>rs to the ti . a to embrace the v.,..-;..... , • ol heathen superstitions. «': ol these captives were the ai. Ml*« himself, who were of (.a;. . rnt. deriving their cKigin from a villo^it- callr<i Sadagolthina, near the citv of Parnassus" (Philost. //. E. II. 5). The ('...ths r.ini. d back these Christian captiv»-s lilt i they were settled, ami where C'l A>et% embraced C hri^ti init v th- .^iru- mentality. ' ' • 'i thr%« Christi.iii cai i Christian principles. > he was a disciple of .. -•■■ wat present at N rrr<l. He wa-. at tii Fho king of the ' . tan- tinople as ai iiui-ci.^, t. 140. when he w , bishott. He re- turned to III !(i'i. ft- vcorv and then nugr.it. .1 liii • M troiu his original home bv a yn .blv f.rf.vrrtl U' -^'I'l ^^" •^' ' '»• .iinK I the ! the thrv i r^ are a : the '. war, w. thrir llillltal . i a- , i. them on U> deeds ot war IH vl !,...r .( Ir-' . 1- I of !.rck itM9 t . f ' a«t It «« the poMtiou ol UUtU*. 994 URBANUS runs thus : "We do not despise the An- tiochian formula of the synod in Encoeniis, but because the terms 'Onooicnos and ' O/uotoiyo-ios occasion much confusion, and because some have recently set up the di'6/Aotos, we there- fore reject 6fxoo6(nos and 6tioiov<nos as contrary to the Holy Scriptures ; the dudfioios, however, we anathematize, and acknowledge that the Son is similar to the Father in accord- ance with the words of the apostle, who calls Him the image of the invisible God. We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, Who was begotten by Him before all ages without change, the oniy-begotten God, Logos from God, Light, Life, Truth, and Wisdom. . . . And whoever declares anything else outside this faith has no part in the Catholic church " (see Hefele, ii. 265, Clark's ed. ; and Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, pp. 180-182). The sub- sequent history of Ulfilas is involved in much obscurity. Sozomen (vi. 37) intimates that Ulfilas and his converts suffered much at the hands of Athanaric, a lively picture of whose persecution, a.d. 372-375, will be found in the Acts of St. Sabas (Ruinart's Acta Sincera, p. 670) and of St. Nicetas, Sept. 15 (cf. A A. SS. Boll. Sept.), both of which documents are full of most interesting details concerning the life and manners of the Goths. Mr. C. A. Scott, of Cambridge, published an interesting and full monograph on Ulfilas, in which he dis- cusses his history and that of Gothic Chris- tianity during this period. Arianism seems to have specially flourished during the first half of cent. iv. in the provinces along the Danube. Valens and Ursacius, who lived there, were the leaders of Western Arianism, and Sulpicius Severus expressly asserts (Chron. ii. 38) that almost all the bishops of the two Pannonias were Arians. This would suffi- ciently account for the Arianism of the Goths who were just then accepting Christianity. The literary fame of Ulfilas is connected with his Gothic translation of the Bible, the one great monument of that language now extant. It does not exist in a complete shape. The fragments extant are contained in (i) the Codex Argenteus, now at Upsala ; (2) the Codex Carolinus ; and (3) the Ambrosian fragments published by Mai. A complete bibliography of these fragments, as known till 1840, will be found in Ceillier (iv. 346), and a complete ed. in Migne (Patr. Lat. t. xviii.) with a Life, Gothic grammar, and glossaries. Scott (Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths, 1885) gathered together the literature after 1840, and gave a long account of the MS. of Waitz. He also discussed (p. 137) some fragments attributed to Ulfilas. The best German works on the life of Ulfilas are those of Waitz (1840), Kraff t ( 1 860 ), and Bessel (i860). Works on the Gothic Bible are by E. Bernhardt (Halle, 1875). and Stamm (Paderborn, 1878) ; Bosworth's Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels (1874); Skeat, Gospel of St. Mark in Gothic (Oxf. 1883) ; An Introduction, Phonological, Morphological, Syntactic, to the Gothic of Ulfilas, by T. Le Marchant Douse (1886). The chief ancient sources for the life of Ulfilas are Philostorgius, H. E. ii. 5 ; Socr. ii. 41, iv. 33 ; Soz. vi. 37 ; Theod. iv. 37. [g.t.s.] Urban US (1), bp. of Rome under the emperor Alexander Severus, from 223 (or 222) URBANOS to 230. The Liberian Catalogue gives 8 years II months and 11 days as the length of his episcopate. Nothing certain is known of his life. The Acta S. Urbani cannot be relied on. The discovery by De Rossi in the papal crypt of the cemetery of St. Callistus of a broken stone (apparently once the mensa of an altar-tomb), bearing the imperfect inscription OVRBANOC E . . . has raised an interest in the question of his burial-place and alleged connexion with St. Caecilia. Lipsius inclines to the view that the Urban of the papal crypt was some other Urban, not necessarily a bishop, since the letter E after his name might have begun some other expression than iirlaKowo^, e.g. iv elprivri. De Rossi, however, thinks that the slab in the papal crypt must have been that of the pope, who was actually buried there ; and he attributes the contrary tradition to a confusion between him and the earlier Urban, whom he supposes to have been contemporary with St. Caecilia and buried in the cemetery of Praetextatus. [j.b — v.] Urbanus (6), bp. of Sicca Veneria, a town of proconsular Africa (Kaff) 22 miles from Musti (Ant. Itin. xli. 4 ; Shaw, Trav. p. 95 ; Aug. Ep. 229). Apparently a member of Augustine's monastic society at Hippo (Aug. Ep- 139- 34), he had occasion to remove from his office for grave misconduct a pres- byter named Apiarius. Apiarius appealed to Zosimus, bp. of Rome, who ordered his restoration. In a council which met May i, 418, the African bishops decreed that no priest, deacon, or inferior clerk should pro- secute any appeal beyond sea. Zosimus then sent a commission to Africa, headed by Faustinus, bp. of Potenza, with instructions as to four points they were to impress on the African bishops: (i) That appeals from bishops of other churches should be made to Rome. (2) That bishops should not cross the sea unnecessarily (importune) to visit the seat of government (comitatum). (3) About settling through neighbouring bishops matters relating to priests and deacons excommuni- cated by their own bishops. Zosimus quotes a decree purporting to be one of the council of Nicaea, enjoining appeal to the bp. of Rome in case of bishops degraded by the bishops of their own province. (4) About excommuni- cating Urbanus, or at least summoning him to Rome unless he revoked his decision against Apiarius. This was in the latter part of 418. The African bishops were willing to accept provisionally the first and third propositions, until the canons of Nicaea, on which they were said to be founded, should be examined, for they were not aware of the existence among them of such rules. But at the end of 418 Zosimus was succeeded by Boniface, and no further action was taken until May 419, when 217 bishops met in council at Carthage (Hardouin, Cone. vol. i. p. 934 ; Bruns, Cone. i. 156, 157 d). Faustinus and his colleagues attended, and stated the conditions proposed by Zosimus. The bishops insisted on seeing them in writing, and the documents were accordingly then produced and read. On this Alypius, bp. of Tagaste, remarked that the decree referred to as one of Nicaea and quoted by Zosimus did not appear in the Greek copies with which the African bishops URSACIOS were acquaiiUod. He [roposrd lh.it rrfcrouco should be madi- by ttuiii>flv»-> .uid bv lioiiit^cr to the bishops of eoiistaiitiuople. Alexandria, and Antioch, to obtain in(orn>.»tion as to its genuineness. Pending these consultation's the council determined that .\piarius shoulil be allowed, under a circular letter, to exercise his office in any place except Sicca. No mention is made of any action taken in this matter by Boniface, who died a.d. 42 j. and was succeeded by Celestme I.; but in 4i(> the question was revived by further iniscondiict on tlie part of .\piarius at Tahraca. and, when removed from his oflice by the .\frican bishops, he again appealed to Koine. .\t a council summoned for the purpi>se Faustinus ap- pealed again and behaved with ^r^'at insolence, demanding on the part of the Roman pontiff that Apiarius should be restored. The bishops refused. .\ strenuous dispute lasted 3 days, and was ended by .\piarius confessing his guilt. The assembled bishops took the opportunity of requesting the bp. of Rome to be less easy in receiving appeals, and not to admit to communion persons excommunicated by them ; all appeals ought to be terminated in the province in which they begin, or in a general council. Rolu-bacher says some good theologians thought the whole history of Apiarius a forgerv (//is/, de I'Eglise, vol. iv. pp. 34S-37I)- ' [ii.w.p.] UrsaoillS (l), bp. of Singidunum (Belgrade). He and N'alens, bp. of Mursa, appear at every synod and council from 330 till c. 370, as leaders of the .-Vrian party both in the East and West. They seem to have imbibed their Arian views from .\rius himself during the period of his exile into Ilhricum immediately after the council of Nicaea. They are de- scribed by .\thanasius [aJ Episc. Afgypl. 7. p. 218) as the disciples of .Arius. This could scarcely have been at Alexandria, but they may easily have come in contact with him during his exile, which seems to have been very fruitful in spreading his views, as almost all the bishops of the Danubian provinces, together with L'llilas and the Gothic converts, appear as .\rians immediately afterwards (cf. Sulp. Sever. Chron. ii. 38). L'rsacius must have been born, at latest, c. 300, as we find him a bishop, actively engaged in conspiracy against .\thanasius, when .■\rius was recalled, c. 332. From Socrates we gather the leading events of his life. In H. /•:. i. 27 we find hiin united with Eusebius of Nicoinedia, Theognis of Nicaea. .Mans of Chalcedon, and Valens, in getting up a case against .Athanasius and fabricating the scandalous charges of theft, sacrilege, and murder, investigated at the council of T>Te in 335. L'rsacius and Valens being present there. They must have bren very active and influential members of the party even at that early period, for they were sent to Egypt, as deputies of the syn.nJ, to investigate the charge on the s|)ot, notwith- standing the protests of .\thaiiasius [I.e. i. 31). In 342 they assisted at Constantinople at the consecration of Maccdonius as patriarch. Upon the triumph of Athanasius in 34'^ they made their peace with Julius, bp. of Rome, accepted the Nicene formula, and wrote to Athanasius, professing their readiness to hold communion with him. At the »yD.»d ol URSINUS 005 Siriniiiin iti - ■ .,. - inrinbrrs «>( ; the Dated < prrsentctl t!. nuin a few vstik. lain, mUiiIi ii.auitl)' rejectetl It, dr|>i>siti|{ rrvacitit and V4lrn% irum thrir sr. s •■.,. Wrll f.r ll.rlt llr.rl.t ...„• spiral . sion 1 thrir ; and \ I < prexi. -.ide. The . . lh« eni|Hi .. The emperor ulusevl 1 ! Ih«» council, and sent t "• at Hadriaiiople first, .li tACr; where l'rsacius aii>l \aliii iiil;"! thr*# s.ime deputies to sign, on t)ct. lo, \yi. » re- vised version o( the CTec«l, which thr council had rejected. Sn-rate-* tells us that Nice in Thrace was chosen in ordrr that it nilcht impress the ignorant, who would confound It with Nicaea in Bithvni.i. whrre the i>rlho<lui symbol had been framed. If. S..«. //. /•.. lv. 14; Hieron. oJi . /.i«<-i/. p. iH.) , Sulp. S«v. Chron. ii. 44 ; and dwatkins SluJte* of Ananism, pp. «S7-I78, for the history o( Ibu period, l'rsacius and Valens seem to have remained influential with the court till the end of life, for the last notice of either of them in history tells how Salens obtained the recall of the .\rian Eunoiuius from exile in 307 (Phil.hitorg. H. E. ix. «). The writmit* of .\thaiiasius and Hilary frequently mention them. i;watkins Studtt\ is very full o| information, and Hefele's ComiutU (t. 11. Clark's trans, s.nn.) gives abundant re(ereoc« to the svikmIs in which they l.x.k part ; »«• also Tillein. Stfm. vi. (t,.!.*.) UrslntU (2) (l'tu(tnui), antijH)|>e, elected after the death of IjIhtius in Sept. 366. tn opp(n,iiion t<i DsMA'^i >. F..r tli. ...r.flirti during the life of I r ents and thos*- of I • into the see by tin I.iBtRirs(«)aiid 1 1 ■^ •'■ up bv the partv «t ; jt oj I.iU-rius, Conrtirti '..the circumstances. St. J.. ■ " 10), and Socrates (IV. 24? was elected hrst. and lay i! who after this election IS -. with his followers of thr i : • if Sicininus), and to have b. . ^>«o- men(vi. 22) and .Nicephon. "itlar accountv A council at i afterward.*, and an influei.' A.D. 381, in wfiirh '^t A minriit part Usurprr, ali'l (•rattan alit Cun<tl.Homu.. II. p. mH7 . /•/.. y. i .'«.. .^v-i. -.1 i"j-'- ^"•f ■ lb. p. iiHi). M. Ainbr.Fsr {tf in speak. o| I)amasush.iviiiKlK-enrlrctr.n % il.r iitKiurtil of (kmI. The em|«rror'> flvil auth<iritirs at Roinr, thr iil»%l supported I >Jln.i u . .. t' Hut a diC' cellinus an<t i who, being ■ UU», prcvrutrl 4 I'lliisi ,,.-..-. ....-., 996 URSlNUS to the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius (c. 383). They had been supporters of Ursinus, and in the preface to their petition assert that he was elected before Damasus by the people who had been in communion with Liberius in the church of Julius beyond the Tiber, and was ordained by Paul, bp. of Ti- voli ; and that Damasus had subsequently, with a mob of charioteers and other low fellows, broken into the church of Julius, massacred many persons there, and after seven days had, with his bribed followers, got possession of the Lateran Basilica, and been there ordained. The balance of evidence appears decidedly in favour of Damasus, the only witnesses against him, the two Luciferian presbyters, being partisans whose veracity we have no means of testing. After the two elections all accounts agree that the rival parties disturbed Rome by continual con- flicts, in which lives were lost. At length Juventius, the praefectus urbi, and Julianus, the praefectus annonae, concurred in banish- ing Ursinus, but the disturbances continued. Ammianus Marcellinus, the historian, throws light on the Roman church at this time from the point of view of an intelligent and im- partial heathen. "The ardour of Damasus and Ursinus to seize the episcopal seat sur- passed the ordinary measure of human ambition. They contended with the rage of party ; the quarrel was maintained by the wounds and death of their followers, the pre- fect . . . being constrained by superior violence to retire into the suburbs. Damasus pre- vailed: . . . 137 dead bodies were found in the basilica of Sicininus, where the Christians hold their religious assemblies ; and it was long before the angry minds of the people resumed their accustomed tranquillity. When I con- sider the splendour of the capital, I am not astonished that so valuable a prize should inflame the desires of ambitious men and produce the fiercest contests. The successful candidate is secure that he will be enriched by the offerings of matrons ; that as soon as his dress is composed with becoming care and elegance, he may proceed in his chariot through the streets of Rome ; and that the sumptuousness of the imperial table will not equal the profuse and delicate entertainment provided by the taste and at the expense of the Roman pontiffs. How much more rationally would those pontiffs consult their true happiness if, instead of alleging the greatness of the city as an excuse for their manners, they would imitate the exemplary die of some provincial bishops, whose temper- ance and sobriety, mean apparel and downcast Jooks, recommended their pure and modest virtue to the Deity and His true worshippers!" (Ammian. 27, 3, Gibbon's trans, c. xxv.). In 367 the emperor Valentinian permitted those who had been banished to return, but threatened severe punishment in case of renewed disturbance. (Baronius, ad ann. 368, ii., iii. iv., gives extracts from these rescripts.) Ursinus returned, and is said to have been received by his followers on Sept. 15, 367, with great joy (Lib. Precum), but was again banished by order of the emperor (Nov. 16), with seven of his adherents, into Gaul. Yet peace was not at once restore'* His followers valens continued to assemble in cemeteries, and got possession of the church of St. Agnes without the walls. Thence they were dislodged ; Marcellinus and Faustinus say by Damasus himself with his satellites, and with great slaughter. We may doubt the pope's per- sonal complicity. After this the prefect Praetextatus banished more of the party, and the two presbyters allege cruel persecu- tion, having been themselves among the sufferers. Rescripts of the emperors Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian (a.d. 371) again release Ursinus and his friends from their confinement in Gaul, allowing them to live at large, but away from Rome and the sub- urbicarian regions (Baron, ad ann. 371, i. ii. iii.). A Roman council (a.d. 378) addressed a letter to the emperors Gratian and Valentinian II., representing that Ursinus and his followers continued their machinations secretly (Labbe, t. ii. pp. 1187-1192). After this we find Ursinus at Milan, where he is said to have joined the Arian party, who promised him their support (Ambrose, Ep. 4). But St. Ambrose, bp. of Milan, having informed the emperor Gratian of what was going on, the latter banished Ursinus from Italy, and confined him to Cologne (Ep. I. Cone. A quil. U.S.). No more is heard of Ursinus till after the death of Damasus (Dec. 384), when he opposed Siricius, who, having been a supporter of Damasus against him, was elected with the general consent of the Roman people. Ursinus appeals not to have then had suffi- cient support in Rome to cause conflict and disturbance. [j.b — v.] Ursula, a famous British virgin and martyr, celebrated as having suffered with 11,000 other virgins at Cologne. Her notice in the Roman Martyrology is simple : "At Cologne, the natal day of SS. Ursula and her com- panions, who, being slain by the Huns for their Christianity and their virginal constancy, terminated their life by mart>Tdom. Very many of their bodies were discovered at Cologne." On this foundation the new Bol- landists have raised a prodigious edifice of 230 folio pages, where they discuss (A A. SS. Boll. Oct. t. ix. pp. 73-303) every conceivable fact, topic, or hypothesis concerning these prob- lematical martyrs. Their story, which is purely medieval, is briefly this. Ursula, the daughter of Dionoc, king of Cornwall, was sent by him with her numerous companions to Conan, a British prince, who had followed the tjTant Maximus into Gaul, c. 383. They were somehow carried up the Rhine to Cologne by mistake, where the Huns murdered them ail. The enormous number of her compan- ions has been explained as a mistake of the early copyists, who found some such entry as " Ursula et xi. M. V.", which, taking M. for millia, not for martyrs, they read Ursula and 11,000 virgins instead of 11 martyr virgins. Such mistakes frequently occurred in the ancient martyrologies. [Ma.ximus (2).] [g.t.s.] Valens (4), Arian bp. of Mursa in Pannonia, and together with Ursacius the leading Western opponent of Athanasius. He must have been born c. 300, as we find him ' most VALENS VALENTINIANUS I. Thr, ValtOttllUllBS (I) I.. rmt^r< AD. ifni7\, 4 nativr •>( I iti4li« In I'4nn'>ni4. Il«vtn« MTvr<| in thr Arni\ »i!!i .1 li;,.- -1 ' «• »i» C4pl4in o( thp K' ' liun. whrn hr IraxUxrt IrlU li iulun W4» ■>nr .1 r I •iirtiinr wilh icT<- ^ w»« marrhinc In thr i • T»n prir»t* wrrr 4l tt pntrrr.l with |ii%lt Vjlrntinijn'* r.ilw hr W4^ <lr»:l' " ririrst 4n<l ' Vhrn J. Arian* and othrr hrrri; lishrd an edict at thr s. r<'i>;n. Kiviin; ri>Tnplr|^ i..:^: ,•, •■ -. ■,, .>(>II11.'I1. To this (.irt »r hA\r Xhr in influential bishop (rmn a.p. 3w (cf. Rocr. H. F. i. 27). Thr actjvitv .ind iiiflurncr' of Valrn^ was confined to the Mast. The W«t W4« always hoslilr to him. and (rrnupntlv rxcnm- municatfd him, the last ix-rasion hnnR at a council held at Rome in ^h.j. He probaMy died some time prior to 375. (r..T.».l Valens (5), emperor, a.d. .■\64-378. the brother of Wilentinian 1. and born c. Jj8. Ky his wife, .Mbia l>oininira. he had a -jin. Cialates, and two daughters, .^nasta^ia and Carosa. Made emperor of the Ivast in Mar. 364, he immediately displaye<l sympathy with Arian di>ctrines and was actively hostile to the Athanasian party. For his secular histnrv see D. of G. and R. Bwgr. He was baptized Feb. a'l. 3 in 368 by the .A,rian Eudoxius, patriarch of I 17. 375. Fi>r an jcciiiiil Constantinople. In 370 he is credited by all ' ser h. of G. amJ R. /?i<ifr the historians (Socr. iy. 16; S<iz. vi. 14 : 1 rare phennmemm of an emi Theod. iv. 24) with an act of atrocious cruelty. ' attached to orthodotv. w , Eighty ecclesiastics, led by L'rbanus, Theo- dorus, and Mendemus. were sent by the orthodox party of Constantinople to protest against the conduct r)f the Arians there. Valens is said to have sent them all to sea, i.pj>..siir trstini.>tii»^ ordering the sailors to set (ire to the ship and it in l oJ. 1 hfoJ. n. ifi <>. in i 1 ■ ' '■■•■■ '^'1 then to abandon it. They all i^rished of! the | against the practices of th coast of Bithynia, and arc celebrated as .Ammianus Marcrllinu* [\\x. ■, mart\Ts on Sept. s (Mart. Rom.). In 371 he j for it, and St. Ambrose, in h i' made a tour through his Asiatic province. ; 0^^/tl I'a//^/. /MHiofU, implicillv cruiu-^. turn At Caesarea in Cappadocia he came into con- (cf. Hilar. I'ictav. i'nnt. .iuimt. Opp. t. III. flict with St. Basil, whose letters (Migne, /'a/f. ! p. 64). Hi^ t.>ler4ti.in .11.1 n f h-.wri-vrr. Gft. t. xxxii.) afford a very lively picture of the 1 extend to practices. Tti persecution of Valens. He proposed to send j i^sue<1 a law (C'tJ. ThrrtJ St. Basil into exile. Just then his •>nly son j nocturnal sacrifices and < fell sick. Valens had recourse to the saint, and further eiif.>rce<l it ' who promised to heal him if he received I uf the same title. Tliev orthodox baptism. The Arians were, how- 1 been issued m.ifr fr»m a ; ever, allowed to baptize the young prince, who I religious point of view. .. 1 thereupon died. Basil and the orthodox , against imni'iralitv. not paK-tiii>iii. ** u attributed his death to the judgment of 1 evident from the fart, which Ambro*/' (It.) heaven on the imperial obstinacy. In 374 laments that he tolerated the public profe*. Valens raised a persecution against the neo- j sion and practices of paganism in the K.mtan Platonic philosophers, and put to death senate-house. One circumstance drm.»n- several of their leaders, among them Maxims . strates his tolerance towarlv rhr f ') wrr-, ^f (25) of Ephesus, the tutor and friend of the ] the ancient reliKion. TV emperor Julian, Hilarius, Simonides, and ; edict in the Theo<l.»sian . Andronicus. His anger was excited at this 1 the crlebrii-d tnl«" W< /'; period against magical practices by a con- with • — • ' ■ spiracy at .\ntioch (Socr. H. E. iv. 19; ^*- brt« vi. 35) for securing the succession of Theo- will dorus, one of the principal court officials. tU flu.- , Numerous acts of persecution at l-.drssa, and viii. Mir ..nr r*cri.ti..ii 1 . ■ Antioch. .\lexandria, and Constantinople are | here»y. which he sirirtiv prohi' attributedto Valens, in all of which Moi.KSTf*. of 372 {CoJ. Theod. \\\ -■ the pretorian prefect, was his most active punishment of their tea- ' agent, save in Egypt, where Lucius, the .Arian tion of the hous*-s wherr successor of Atha'nasius. endeavoured in vain pupils in H-m.- ; f -t '^' to terrify the monks into conformity. The th.it • ' last year of Valcns's life was marke<l by a phil striking manifestation of monkish courage, thi • In 373 he was leaving Constantinople for his ; t-i » fatal struggle with the Coths at Adrianople. iiii'!' As he rode out of the city an anchonte, Isaac. Ik- who lived there, met the cmprr<»r and t»oldlv t .. predicted his death. The em|>er<iT ordered I.' imprisonnunt till his return, when he won: punish him— a threat at which the moi.^ laughed. Sec Clinton's Faxti, \. 47'>. •>• «• ' for the chronology of Valen*. Tillemont Emp. (t. V.) and He Broglie'ii LEkUu n ■ ■ V Empire Romatn (t. v.) give good account* of law tir^- . the career and violence of Valen*. (o.i » ) 1 olj Home. leritv (I*, tv. 11. 17 . ..{ ti.?. in-n t-. t . ^crlpuoo *' l>« VH«. 998 VALENTINIANUS II. Honestate, Conversatione Ecclesiasticorum et Continentium," which was the model for much subsequent legislation. (Cf. the commentary of Godefroy, Theod. Cod. t. vi. p. 54, where all contemporary notices of this law are collected.) The legislative activity of Valentinian in every direction was very great, as shewn by the Theodosian Code. Other modern authorities are Clinton's Fasti, i. 460, and appendix, pp. 110-119, where is an exhaustive statement of all his legislation, together with notices of medals, coins, etc., bearing on his reign, and De Broglie's L'Eglise et VEmpire Roinain, pt. iii. c. i. [g.t.s.] Valentlnlanus (2) XL, emperor, A.D. 375- 392, son of Valentinian I. and of Justina, his second wife. For his secular life see D. of G. and R. Biogr. His name is celebrated in church history in connexion with two matters : (i) An attempt in 384 by the Roman Senate to restore the altar of Victory and the pagan rites connected with the Senate. We possess the document Relatio Symmachi Vrhis Praefecti on the one side and the Epp. xvii. and xviii. of St. Ambrose to Valentinian on the other (cf. St. Ambr. opp. Migne, Pair. Lat. t. xvi. col. 962-982). St. Ambrose carried the day, and the senatorial petition was rejected, as again in 391 (see Tillem. Emp. v. 244, 300, 349)- (2) The other matter concerned the necessity of baptism. Valentinian died at Vienne in Gaul, being then about 20, and only a catechumen. Being anxious to receive baptism, he sent for St. Ambrose to baptize him. Before the sacrament could be admin- istered, he was found dead. St. Ambrose's treatise, de Obitu Valentiniani Consolatio, §§ 51-56, shews how Ambrose rose superior to any hard mechanical view of the sacraments and recognized the sincere will and desire as equivalent to the deed (cf. Tillem. Emp. v. 356 ; De Broglie, L'Eglise et VEmpire, pt. iii. CO. v. and viii.). At one time Valentinian was inclined to support the Arian party at Milan, influenced by his mother Justina, who was bitterly hostile to St. Ambrose. Sozomen (H. E. vii. 13), followed by Ceillier (v. 386), represents Valentinian and the empress as persecuting St. Ambrose and the Catholics of Milan in 386, referring to Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. i. leg. 4. [Ambrosius ; Justina.] [g.t.s.] Valentinianus (3) III., emperor, 425-455, the son of Constantius III. by Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius the Great and con- sequently great-grandson of Valentinian I. For his civil history see D. of G. and R. Biogr. His reign was signalized by several laws bearing on church matters. At its very beginning (July 17, 425) there was issued at Aquileia in his name a decree (Cod. Theod. lib. xvi. tit. V. 1. 62), expelling all heretics and schismatics from Rome. A special provision ordered the adherents of Eulalius, elected anti-pope in 419, to be removed to the looth milestone from the city. This law has been illustrated at great length by Gothofred, t. vi. 204. Identical laws (tit. v. 11. 63, 64) were issued for the other cities of Italy and for Africa in 425, and also edicts (lib. xvi. tit. ii. II. 46 and 47) renewing clerical privileges and reserving clerical offenders to the tribunal of the bishops alone, a rule which he abrogated later. In tit. vii. of the same bk. is a law against VALENTINUS apostates dated Ravenna Apr. 7, 426, depriv- ing them of all testamentary power. On the next day a law was enacted (tit. viii. 1. 28) preventing Jews from disinheriting their children who became Christians. The most interesting portion of his ecclesiastical legisla- tion is in his Novels embodied in Ritter's appendix to Gothofred's great work (Lip. 1743, t. vi. pt. ii. pp. 105-133). Thus tit. ii. p. 106, A.D. 445. treats of the Manicheans and gives particulars as to the action of pope Leo the Great against them; tit. v. p. ui, a.d. 447, of the violations of sepulchres, with severe penalties against such crimes, of which the clergy themselves were frequently guilty. Tit. xii. p. 127, A.D. 452, his most celebrated law, is an anticipation of medieval legislation ; it withdraws the clergy from the episcopal courts and subjects them to lay judges. Baronius (Annals, a.d. 451) heartily abuses Valentinian for this law, and considers Attila's invasion a direct and immediate expression of Heaven's anger. [g.t.s.] Valentinus (1) (OvaXevT'tvos), founder of one of the Gnostic sects which originated in the first half of 2nd cent. I. Biography. — According to the tradition of the Valentinian school witnessed to by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom, vii. 17, 106, p. 1 898, Potter), Valentinus had been a disciple I of Theodas, who himself, it is very improbably said, knew St. Paul. Valentinus cannot have begun to disseminate his Gnostic doctrines I till towards the end of the reign of Hadrian j (i 17-138). Before this he is said to have been I a Catholic Christian. It must have been, therefore, at most only shortly before his appearance as the head of a Gnostic sect that Valentinus became a hearer of Theodas and ! received, as he said, his doctrines from him. j The Gnostics were fond of claiming for their secret doctrines apostolic tradition and tracing them back to disciples of the apostles. To this otherwise unknown Theodas the Valen- tinians appealed as an authority in much the same way as Basilides was said to have been a disciple of Glaucias, and he, in turn, an "interpreter of Peter." Irenaeus (i. 11, i) speaks of Valentinus as the first who transformed the doctrines of the Gnostic " Heresy " to a peculiar doctrinal system of his own (et's Wiov xo.pa.KTrjpa SiSacr- KaXeLov). By the expression yvwariK^ aipeais we understand a party which called them- selves " Gnostics," whom we may recognize in the so-called Ophites, described by Irenaeus (i. 30), when he remarks that the Valentinian school originated from those unnamed heretics as from the many-headed Lernean Hydra (i. 30, 15). Concerning the home and locality of these so-called " Gnostics " Irenaeus tells us nothing. But we know from other sources that those Ophite parties to whom he refers had their homes both in Egypt and S>Tia. Concerning the fatherland of Valentinus himself Epiphanius is the first to give accurate information, which, however, he derived simply, it appears, from oral tradition (Epiph. Haer. xxxi. 2). According to this his native home was on the coast of Egypt, and he received instruction in Greek literature and science at Alexandria. Epiphanius, who makes him begin to teach in Egypt, relates VALENTINUS further that he also wmt to K,>mr, and appciupd as a rolipioiis teacher thrrr, but that, both in ligvpt ami at Komr, hr was rrgartlrd as orthodox, and first made shipwTcck <>( (aith in Cyprus and bo^an to dissrniinatr hrrrtiral i>pinions. Hut this statcnirnt rrsts nirrrlv on a combination of dillrrcnt accounts. .\ccording to Ironacus, Valcntinus "flour- ished " at Rome in the times of Pius and .\nicetus. Epiphanius. on the other hand, read (as we learn from Philaster. Harr. \S) in the <rOvTa-)ma of Hippolvtus. that \alentmus stood once in the communion of the church, but being drawn by overweening pride into apostasy had. during his residence in Cvprus. propounded his heretical diKtrine. But we cannot doubt that when Irenaeus speaks of Valentinuss flourishing at Rome during the times of Pius and Anicetus. he refers to the fact that his chief activity as a religious teacher was then displaved. and that undej Anicetus he stood at the head of his own (inostic school. With this there is no diffi- culty in reconciling Tertullian's statement, that Valentinus no more than Marcion separated himself from the Church on his arrival at Rome (Praescnpl. Haerrt. 36). For the Gnostics, for the very sake of disseminat- ing their dix;trines the m<»re freely, made a great point of remaining in the Catholic church, and made use for that end of a twofold mode of teaching, one exoteric for the simpler sort of believers, the other esoteric for the initiated, as is shewn in the fragments which have come down to us, the most part of which purposely keep the peculiarly Gnostic doc- trines in the background. We mav, then, conclude that Valentinus. towards the end of Hadrian's reign (f. 130). appeared as a teacher in Kgvpt and in Cyprus, and earlv in the reign of Antoninus Pius he came to Rome, and during the long reign of Antoninus was a teacher there. He had probably developed and secretly prepared his theological svstem before he came to Rome, whither he doubtless removed for the same motive as led other leaders of sects, e.R. Cerdon and .Marcion, to go to Rome— the hoj>e to find a wider field for his activity as a teacher. From a similar motive he attached himself at first to the communion of the Catholic church. II. History of Ihf S^'cr— Valentinus had numerous adherents. They divided them- selves, we are tftld. into two scho-jls— the anatolic or oriental, and the It.ilian schcH.I (Pseud-Orig. Philosnph. vi. 35, p. uiS. Milh-r. of. TertuUian, adv. Valentinian. c. 11. and the title prefixed to the excerpts of Clemens K. Tov dtohirrov /tai r^« 'Ai-aroXiirVji naXovnirm Ma<TKa\ia%). The ff)rmer of these sch.oN was spread through FRvpt and S\Tia, the latter in Rome. Italv. and S. < .aul. Among his disciples. Secundus appears to have »M-en one of the earliest. TertuUian (adv. Valrnhntan. 4) and the epitomators of Hippolvtus men- tion him after I'tolemaeus (Pseudo-Tertull. Haer. 13 ; Philast. Haer. 40) ; the older work, on the other hand, excerpted bv Irenaeus is apparently correct in naming him first a* Valentinus's earliest disciple {Hart 1. 11 J). Then follows, in the same original work m quoted by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 11. 3). another VALENT1NU.S fM illustrious teacher > ■ 'i,<(«. \oi). of whom 4 • 4iof heresiolo^ists has 1 ,.J«-». nametlllpiphanrs; .■ hr» was is inatirr of .li ..,|,. able ronjerturc is •' i:(lk« SwUmf, p. ifv)) .» o II wa» Mauci s (17). " ,r||v corresjxinds to thai ^ hrr (rf. Harr. 1. i>, 1. • 1 ' .icu» hiniM-li will, in anv rasf , 1 • lM-*t of Valentinus's dlsriplrs d M d«t itlUslfH SfUrrcf^ih p »i in Asia were pfobablv rini- with \alentinus's residence an I me, and there a " r-kIIv eldri . t (ha truth." whom Irenaeus qn tr i: ti a» an older authority, made him the sub)eci of metrical ob)urgati >n as the " (tirerunnrr ol anti-C hristian malice" (Iren. Hart. 1. t\. 6). I'toirxAKi s. on the other hand. wa% a contemporary of Irenaeus hiinsell, and one o| the leaders of the Italian srho-)! (Iren. //•/». Prarl. 2, Pseud-«»riK. Phtlo\. vi \\\, whom Hippolvtus in the ts\nta(i%n*, and probably 00 the basis of an arbitrary combination o| Iren. i. «. ^ with 1 1. 2. puts at the head of all other disciples of Valentinus. Hr.iiA< 1 toy was tlill younger than Ptolemaeuv aiul the »r<-nnd head of the Italian school. His dxtrinal svstem appears to l)e that mainlv kept in view in the Philcophumma (c(. vi. :<> iM. Ire- naeus names him as i( ''■ •• '■■ ■ . .•., n ,,,, u. 4. I), while Tertulli .ii<in to his predecessors \'. 'inu» shewed the wav. Pi ■\a II, Heracleon struck out viiiir ulr laiti* (itdv. VaUnttHian. 4). He inake^ alvt the like remark concerning Secundus and Marcuv. Clemens sj>eaks of Heracle<Mi (r. i'))| a« the most distiiiKuished among the disriplrs ol Valentinus (Slmm. iv. 0. 73. P- .\'>>>. nieanlnn. of course, among those of his own lime. OriKen's statement, therefore, that he had a personal aojuaintance with Valentinus (Ori- gen. in Jnann. t. ii "1 '- ••• '• '<. .ivr.i with caution. In part ^Hh him ap|>ear to ha\> •■ the anat<ilic (oriental) ■^' '• Har- desanes ("Apfln*"*"?'. i'hiU^i.\>. isi. »»liolx>lh lived into the hrst deremua o| crnt. III. Axionik.»s was still w.^king at Aniiorh when TertuUian comiH.se<| his N-ik axaintt lh« Valentinianv theref.K^e c. iiH (Tertull. I.f-U We cannot here dl»russ how f.ir th»- r^!.-».f aled Kdessene Gn<rstir HabI'I * ' Ml 1% ri«htlv acr..unte<| a Vain llian iii.1ir.itf~. Ationik.rw as thr . hit .'.. ..n .< -I.- K ol Ife. .. lo . 'irr» ol the I..* A. «a.. It hrr. The same was als • *»«*> Alesander, the Valr. -itin» TertulUan had in his ban. Is [if < t'tr ' intlt cr. |f> s<j<| ). ( onrerning the Uter hfl'f tiiiian sect w- ' TertuUian. » liniaiis III ! " (reiiurnlis.i! ..- r"v Thu u cool»rm«J by -bat u t«>W u» of Um .( ihc Vatm- len- 1000 VALENTINUS local extension of the sect. From Egypt it seems to have spread to Syria, Asia Minor, and to Rome. Its division into an oriental and an Italian school shews that it had adherents even after the death of its founder, in both the East (Egypt, SjTia, Mesopotamia) and West (specially at Rome). In Asia Minor the doc- trine appears to have been mainly dissemin- ated by Marcus, who was so vigorously attacked (c. 150) by the " godly elder," quoted by Irenaeus (Haer. i. 15, 6). Disciples of Marcus were found by Irenaeus in the Rhone districts (Haer. i. 13, 7), where also he appears to have met with adherents of Ptolemaeus (Haer. Praef. 2). In Rome, c. 223, an impor- tant work of the Italian school came into the hands of the writer of the Philosophumena, who speaks of both schools as being in exist- ence in his time (Philos. vi. 35, p. 195). Ter- tullian also mentions the duae scholae and dtiae cathedrae of the party in his time (adv. Valent. 11). Remains of the sect were still found in Egypt in the time of Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 7). Theodoret, on the other hand (H. f. Praef.), can only speak of the Valentinians as of other Gnostic sects (whom he deals with in his first book) as belonging to the past — iraXatas aip^creis — of whom he possesses a mere historical knowledge. III. Writings. — The fragmentsof thewTitings of Valentinus have been collected by Grabe (Spicilegium, ii. 45-48), and more completely by Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, pp. 93-207). They consist of fragments of letters and homilies preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom, ii. 8, 36, p. 448 ; ii. 20, 114, pp. 488 seq. ; iii. 7, 59, P- 538 ; iv. 13, 91, p. 603 ; vi. 6, 52, p. 767), and of two pieces contained in the Philosophumena, the narrative of a vision (6pa/j.a) seen by Valentinus (Philos. vi. 42, p. 203), and the fragment of a psalm composed by him (Philos. vi. 37, pp. 197 seq.). Psalms of Valentinus's authorship are mentioned by Tertullian (de Came Christi, 17, 20). Remains of the writings of the school of Valentinus are more abundant. Beside the numerous fragments and quotations in Ire- naeus and the Philosophumena, and in the excerpts from Theodotus, and the anatolic school, which seem yet to need a closer investigation, we may mention : the letter of Ptolemaeus to Flora (ap. Epiphan. Haer. xxxiii. 3-7), numerous fragments from the comment- aries (vTrofj.vr)jxaTa) of Heracleon on St. Luke (ap. Clem. Alex. Strom, iv. 9, 73 seq., pp. 595 seq. ; excerpt, ex prophet. § 25, p. 995), and on St. John (ap. Origen in Joann. passim), collected by Grabe (Spicil. i. 80-117) and Hilgenfeld (Ketzergeschichte, 472-498) ; lastly, a rather large piece out of an otherwise un- knowTi Valentinian writing preserved by Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6). IV. Account'^ given by the Fathers. — State- ments concerning Valentinus and his school are very numerous, but many are so contra- dictory that it is difficult to distinguish the original doctrine of Valentinus from later developments. Even in his day Tertullian made the complaint (adv. Valentiman. 4), " Ita nunquam jam Valentinus, et tamen Valentiniani, qui per Valentinum." Among those who before him had controverted the Valentinians, Tertullian enumerates (ib. 5) ; VALENTINUS Justin Martyr, Miltiades, Irenaeus, and the Montanist Proculus. Of the writings of these four on this subject one only has been pre- served, the great work of Irenaeus in five books, entitled 'EXeyxoi Kal dvaTpoiri^ rijs xl/evSwuvfiou yvwa-eui, which has come down to us in great part only in the ancient Latin version. This work was written (see iii. 3, 3) in the time of the Roman bp. Eleutherus, c. 180-185. The greater part of bk. i., which Epiphanius has preserved to us almost com- pletely, deals exclusively with the Valentini- j ans, and the refutations in the following books I are principally concerned with them. The sources which Irenaeus used are of sufficient variety. In the preface to bk. i. I (c. 2) he refers to the writings of those who call : themselves disciples of Valentinus, adding ' that he had met some of them himself and heard their opinions from their own mouths. Immediately afterwards he indicates that the contemporary Valentinians, whose doctrine \ he promises to describe, are those of the school of Ptolemaeus. In bk. i. (c. 8, 5) he intro- duces into a detailed description of the Valentinian method of interpreting Scripture a large fragment which undertakes to prove the truth of the higher Ogdoad of the Valen- tinian Pleroma from the prologue of the Gospel of St. John. The concluding notice (found only in the Latin text) expressly ascribes the authorship of this fragment to Ptolemaeus. Irenaeus likewise obtained his information as to the doctrine and practices of the Marcosians partly from a written source, partly from oral communications. We can hardly assume that Marcus was still alive when Irenaeus wrote, but it is not unlikely that adherents of Marcus may have appeared then in the Rhone districts. The section which specially treats of Marcus (i. 12-15) is apparently from a written source ; but what he brings to light for the first time (cc. 16-18) concerning the mysteries celebrated by the Marcosians is from oral information. Next in importance to the statements of Irenaeus, as a source of information con- I cerning Valentinus and his school, are the ; fragments preserved among the works of I Clemens Alexandrinus, and entitled 'Ek tCov QioSbrov Kai riji dcaroXtK^s Ka\oviJi.^vr]s 5i5a<TKa\ia^ eTnTOfiai, The text has come down to us in a somewhat forlorn condition. The best ed. is Bunsen's, in Analecta Antini- caena, vol. i. (Lond. 1854), pp. 205-278. The I general character of these excerpts is similar to others in other writings of Clemens Alex- andrinus, and does not justify the assumption that their present abrupt fragmentary form j proceeded from Clemens himself. Very little is obtainable from the Syntagma \ of Hippolytus, preserved in the excerpts of [ Pseudo-Tertullian (Haer. 12) and by Philaster ! (Haer 38), as also partly by Epiphanius (Haer. ' xxxi. 8 ; cf. Quellen d. alt. Ketzergesch. p. 166). 1 Hippolytus combined Irenaeus (cc. 1-7) with ; some authority belonging to the older jmatolic system. Pseud-Origines, now almost universally assumed to be Hippolytus, gives us in the Philosophumena (the larger "EXevx"' KaTo. iraawv alpiffeuv) a quite peculiar account of the Valentinian system, one more uniform and VALENTINUS synoptical than that ni Ironaru*. Thr original authority on which this description IS based caiincU have been the same as that in the Syntagma which Ix-longed to the anatolic scho<i|. the former being a prcxliict of the Western or Italian. The doctrinal svstrtn reproduced by Pscud-Oigines is in general akin to the Ptolemaic presented bv Irenaeuv But his original authority is entirely inde- pendent of the sources used bv Irenaeus. Tertullian's tractate a,ltfrsus Valmtinian^'i IS not an independent aulhoritv. Apart from a few personal notices concerning him and his disciples which he mav have taken from the lost work of Proculus (c. 4. cf. c. ii ), his whole account is a paraphrase of Irenaeus. whom he follows almost word for word, and more or less faithfully from c. 7 onwards. Epiphanius (Haer. xxxi. 9-32) has incoqior- ated the whole long section of Irenaeus (i. i-io) in his Pananon. Haer. xxxii. and xxxiv. (Secundus. Marcus) are simply taken from Irenaeus. He follows Irenaeus also in his somewhat arbitrary wav in what he savs about Ptolemaeus, Colarbasus, Heracleon (Haer. xxxiii. xxxv. xxxvi.). On the other hand, Haer. xxxi. 7, 8, is taken from the Syntafima of Hippolytus : Haer. xxxiii. 3-7 contains the important letter of Ptolemaei's to Flora. Haer. xxxi. 5 and 6 gives a frag- ment of an unknown V'alentinian WTiting, from which the statements in c. 2 are partly derived. This wxiting, with its barbarous names for the Aeons and its mixture of Valentinian and Basilidian doctrines, shows anatolic Valentinianism as already degenerate. Later heresiologists, r.p. Theodoret, who (Haer. Fab. i. 7-9) follows Irenaeus and Epi- phanius, are not independent authorities. V. The System. — A review of the accounts given by the Fathers confirms the judgment that, with the means at our command, it is very difficult to distinguish between the ori- ginal doctrine of \'alentinus and the later developments made by his disciples. A description of his system must start from the Fragments, the authenticity of which (apart from the so-called S(>oi OiaXtyrivov in iJial. de Recta Fide) is unquestioned. But from the nature of these fragments we cannot expect to reconstruct the whole system out of them. From an abundant literature a few relics only have been preserved. Moreover, the kinds of literature to which these fragments belong — letters, homilies, hymns — shew us only the outer side of the system, while its secret Gnostic doctrine is passed over and concealed, or only indicated in the obscurest manner. The modes r>f expression in these fragments are brought as near as possible tf> thos<_- in ordinary church use. \\V see therein the evident desire and effort of V'alentinus to remain in the fellowship of the Catholic church. f)f sj>ccific Gnostic doctrines two only appear in their genuine undisguised shape, that of the celestial origin of the spiritual man (the Pneumatico^), and that of the Demiurge ; for the docrtic Christology w.as not then, as is clear from Clemens Alexandrinus, cxclusivrlv peculi.ir to the Gnostics. All the more einphaticallv is the anthropological and ethical side of the system insisted on in these fr.igments. As the world is an image of the living Aeon VALENTINUS loot iroi' fu'rr<H o/Jrof ). so is man «n Im4«r of iho pre-existent man of the Af^pwot wpojf ValeiUiniiv according to ( Irmen* Airland- rinii* ( I <i;4^/tNi //r>Hti/. 4,,. (Urn. Slr^m. iv. H. OJ), s|»,.ke of the S.iphi4 «« an artM ({uTfpd^oi) making thi\ vuit.'r I .urr » fM « Picture of the glori-.u* A; ■ th^ he.wer or reader would a^ ; • ,„,! theheavrnlv WimIoiu <>f Id. rfj,, to lie meant bv thi^ Soph,., ,. , ,r , . , ., 4,,^ fallen .\eon. I'nder her (.«rr.«-»tiii,. |,, Valrn- tinus) stand the worldcrrativr angrU, wh"w< head is the Demiurge. Hrr f.v^jti.m {v\d<rna) is Adam create<l in thr name ..f the 'Ar^pwrot wpouf In him thu« made 4 higher power puts the seed of the heavenly pneuma- tic essence (trr^pua rrft ArutOtr otViai). Thu» furnished with higher insight. Adam excHr« the fears of the angels ; for even at toam^oi Aytfpwwot are seized with fear of the ima«et m.ide bv their own hands t<» l>ear the name of God. i.e. the idols, so these angel* cauM- the images thev have made to dis.ip|var {Ff>. *d .Amtcos. Ait.Ciem. AUi. Strom. 11. 8. 36). The pneumatic seed {wrn^^ia i<a<t>^ixm ih >/r*t 3(o0//>oi') nevertheless remains in the world, as a r.ace bv nature capable r>f Iteing \ave«l (^I'trn <tu(6fniror "y/rotl, and which ha* come down from a higher sphere in or»ler to put an end to the reign of death. IVath originates from the Demiurge, tr) whom the word (Ex. xxxiii. 20) refers that no one can see the face of God without dving. The members of the pneumatic church are from the first imm0rt.1l, and children of eternal life. They have onlv assumed mortality in order to overcome death in themselves and bv themselves. They shall disv.lve the world without themselves suffering dissolution, and be lords over the creatifui and over all tran- sitory things {I'ateni. Horn. ap. CUm. Strom. iv. 13. 91 SCO.). But without the help of the only good Father the heart even of the spiritual man (the pneumaticos) cannot (>« cleansed from the many evil spirits which make their abode in him, and each accom- plishes his own desire. Hut when the only good Father visits the soul, it is hallowed and enlightened, and is called tilessed In-cause one day it shall sec (iod. Thi» cleansing and illumination is a consequence of the revelation of the Son {ib. ii. 20, 114). We learn from the fragments only {I'mlenL Fp. ad .Agathopoda ai>. ( lem. Strom, iv. 7, )<)) that Jesus, by steadfastness and «l»stinenc», earned for Himself Deity, and l)y virtue ol His abstinence did not even suffer to b« corrupted the f.nxl which llr rr,.,.^,! , / it did nr)t undergo the natural .rn- tion). because He HimseH rrt to eorru|>tion. It must rrii: , ni how V'alentinus definetl thr ' .lu to the vi6i If the text of t! ■•-<] almve l>e »oiinc|, Icsut put Hi <-%• sion of GiKlfiead by His own ii (iiiri„r. « notion we should rxpe<-t In Ibionite rather than in (inostic rirclrt. Hut the true reading may be tUd{tTo (not flfi^id{fre), and In that case the meaning will l>e that by an ei- traordinarv aseetirum Jr^us «Vf>ide<J every kind of material |Millution. and *n bocaroe HinueH the Image ol the Incorruptible and 1002 VALENTINUS imperishable Godhead. At any rate, this fragment does not tell us whether, according to the teaching of Valentinus, the body of Jesus was pneumatic or psychical. According to another fragment attributed to Valentinus, and preserved by Eulogius of Alexandria (ap. Photium, Bibl. Cod. 230), he appears to have treated with ridicule the opinion of the " Gali- leans " that Christ had two natures, and to have maintained that He had but one nature composed of the visible and the invisible. Hilgenfeld {I.e. pp. 302 seq.) supposes the Valentinus of this fragment to be the Gnostic, while others take him to have been the Apollinarian. But we have no other instance of any Gnostic giving to Catholic Christians (as did the emperor Julian later) the epithet "Galilean." Further, although Tertullian(arfi'. Prax. 29) and Origen (de Princip. i. 2, i) may have spoken of two natures or two substances in Christ, we can hardlvimagine Valentinus pro- nouncing a doctrine ridiculous, and yet it find- ing acceptance in his school. For we find the Occidental Valentinians actually teaching in very similar terms, that Soter, the common pro- duct of the whole Pleroma, united himself with the Christus of the Demiurge the Man Jesus. Could we otherwise assume that the fragment is genuine, it would serve to prove that the doctrine of the Oriental school concerning the pneumatic body of Christ was in fact the original teaching of V^alentinus. How Valen- tinus thought concerning the origin of matter and of evil cannot be made out from existing fragments. When, however, we find him designating the Demiurge as author of death, we can hardly suppose that he derived the transitory nature and other imperfections of the terrestrial universe from an originally evil material substance. The view, moreover, which underlies the psalm of Valentinus, of which the Philosnphumena have preserved a fragment (Philos. vi. 37, pp. 197 seq.) is decidedly monastic. He there sees in the spirit how " all things are hanging {Kpend/ieva) and are upborne (oxovneva), the flesh hanging on the soul, the soul upborne by the air, the air hanging on the aether, from Bythos fruits produced and from the womb the child." An interpretation of these sayings current in the Valentinian school is appended. According to this interpretation, flesh is the i'Xt; which depends upon the soul (the psychical nature) of the Demiurge. Again the Demiurge hangs from the spirit which is outside the Pleroma, i.e. the Sophia in the kingdom of the Midst, the Sophia from Horus and from the Pleroma, and finally the world of Aeons in the Pleroma from the abyss, i.e. their Father. If this interpretation be, as we may assume, correct, Valentinus must have conceived the whole universe as forming a grand scale of being, beginning with the abysmal ground of all spiritual life, and thence descending lower and lower down to matter. The whole scale then is a descent from the perfect to ever more and more imperfect images ; according to the principle expressly laid down by Valentinus, that the cosmos is as inferior to the living Aeon as the image is inferior to the living counten- ance (ap. Clem. Strom, iv. 13, 92). This view of the nature of the universe exhibits a much nearer relationship to Platonic philosophy VALENTINUS than to the Oriental dualism which underlay the older Gnostic systems ; and Hippolytus is therefore completely right, when dealing with the psalm of Valentinus, to speak of Platonizing Gnostics {Philos. vi. 37, p. 197). The fragments do not give us any detailed acquaintance with the doctrine of Valentinus concerning the Aeons. The narrip or Bvd6s stands at their head ; but what place in the Vadentinian Pleroma was assigned to the 'AvOpuTTos TTpodii' in whose name Adam was created, is difficult to determine. Of a two-fold Sophia, a higher and a lower, we read nothing. Sophia is the artist (forypd^os) who forms the world after the archetype of the living Aeon, in order to be honoured by his name. The world as formed obtains credit and stability through the invisible nature of God {Strom, iv. 13, 92). To what authority Valentinus made appeal as the source of his doctrine cannot be made out from the fragments. From the Homily to the Friends Clemens Alexandrinus has preserved a sentence which defines " many of the things written in the public books " {SrjfjLocrloii /3//3\ot5 : he means doubtless the writings of the O.T.) as " found \vritten in the church of God" — "for," he adds, " those things which are common " {i.e. not merely found in books — read, with Heinrici Koivd instead of Kevd) " are words from the heart " ; and proceeds, " The law written in the heart is the People of the Beloved One, both loved and loving " (Grabe was wrong in proposing to emend Xa6s into X67os). The meaning is that this " People " is in virtue of the inward revelation of the Logos a law unto itself (cf. Rom. ii. 14). But this inward revelation has reference only to " that which is common " {to. Koivd), i.e. to the universal ethical truths written in the heart which " the chm-ch of God " needs not first to learn from " the public books." But this passage tells us nothing about the sources whence Valen- tinus derived his Gnosis. For these we must go back to the statement of Clemens {Strom. vii. 17, 106), according to which the Valen- tinians spoke of their leader as having learned of a certain Theodas, a disciple of St. Paul. But the actual statement of Irenaeus is more to be depended on, that Valentinus was the first who transformed the old doctrines of " the Gnostics " into a system of his own {Haer. i. 11, i ; cf. Tert. adv. Valentinian. 4). The fragments, moreover, give a series of points of contact with the opinions of these older " Gnostics." We may therefore regard as an axiom to be adhered to in our investi- gations that of any two Valentinian doctrines, that is the older and more original which approaches more closely to the older and vulgar Gnosis (Iren. i. 30). Yet the system of Valentinus had a peculiar character of its own. He was the first to breathe a really philosophic spirit into the old vulgar Gnosis, by making use of Plato's world of thought to infuse a deeper meaning into the old Gnostic myths. Baur, therefore, was quite right in emphasizing the Platonism of Valentinus {Christliche Gnosis, pp. 124 seq.), to which the Philosophumena had already called attention {Philos. vi. 21 sqq.). Irenaeus completes the information afforded VALENTINUS by the frafrmrnts ODcrrning ValfntiniiVn doctrine of tho Aeons. At the head o( them stands a JiAt arofrf^affTot, the 'A/l,')»|Tot (called also Bi'*>(5^ and llorJi^i d-)«Vnfrot) and his (Xi'inot the Ij-)»> From this Oy.id pro- ceeds a s««cond Hvad. Ilar^p and 'AXnf'fia. which with the first Pvad forms the hiRhrst Tetrad. From this Tetrad a second Tetr.id proceeds — .\6yo% and Zoji) 'Ai^pwwot and E<^\^><r(a. and these complete the First (^jjdoad. From .\<5-)ot and Za)>) proceed a neca<i, from Avdpwrat and 'E*<\»j<t<o a Podecad of .\e<ins. In this the number .^o of .\eons forming the Pleroma is completed. The names of the Aeons composing the Pecad and the PiHleead are not given. We may. however, venture to assume that the names elsewhere given bv Irenaeus (i. i. 2). and literally repeated bv Pseud-Origenes(PAi/(i.'i. vi. 30). and then again by Epiphanius (xxxi. 6) with some differences of detail, in his much later account, did really originate from Valentinus himself. They are as follows : From Aiyot and 7,w^ proceed Bi'$ios and M/^i*. ' Ayytparof and KruKrit. AvTcxpyrjs and HSoi'i), 'AxlyijTof and ~fyfpa fftj, MovoyfvTii and Ma»op/o. From 'Af(>ptJwoi and 'EKK\ri(rla proceed ; WapdtXrrrof and UiffTii, UarfKudi and EXirit. MtjrptKdf and A7djr7j, 'Advovt and lictac?, 'V.KKXrftriaaTiKM and yiaKapi&TTjt, Of\TjT(4j and -cxf'ia. How- ever arbitrary this name-giving may seem, it is evident that the first four masculine Aeons repeat the notion of the First Principle, and the first four feminine the notion of his syzygy, in various forms of expression. The names Movoyfvrj^ and Nofj (here 'AtcVoit) meet us again among the Valentinians of Irenaeus as expressions for the secend Mas- culine Principle, and Ilapd^Xvrot as that for the common product of all the .Aeons — the Soter. TiarpiKd^, M-rjrpiKdf, 'KKK\v<ria<TTiK6i are names simply expressing that the .Aeons which bear them are derived from the higher powers within the F'leroma. The feminine names Maxapia. rn^Ttt, 'EXirit. 'Aydwif. SiiVc ffii, 71o<pia, describe generally the perfection of the Pleroma by means of I»redicates bor- rowed from the characteristics of the perfect Pneumaticos. So that all these inferior .\eon names are but a further and more detailed expression of the thought contained in the names of the first and second Tetrad. The first Tetrad expresses the essence of the I'pper Pleroma in itself, the second Tetrad divided into two pairs of Aeons expresses its revelation to the Pneumatici and the Pneumatic World. The last of the 30 Aeons, the Sophia or Jdfr-np, falls out of the Pleroma. In her re- membrance of the better world she gives birth to Christus with a shadow t^Lrra (rxtai rd-ot). Christus, being of masculme nature, ciitsaw.iv the shadow from himself and hastens l>ark into the Pleroma. The mother, on the other hand, being left behind and alone with the shadow, and emptied of the pneumatic sub- Stance, gives birth to another Son the Prmi- urge, called also llcwToupdri^p, ^n<\ at the same time with him a sinistrous arrhon (the Koano- Kpirwp). So then from these two eirmentv "the right and the left." the psychical and the hylical, proceeds this lower world- Thi» VALENTINUS the nriitinal doctrine nf \'y. have had in ct>mmon with ; (Iren. i. y^\ tti.t t . rh .t • ■ one Sophia, I hristUN Ir..\. hiin>.rl( into '. Thr notion .., , : from the rierotna. .< tion of this lower « fall. IS new ,ind r>r< rec<instr\ietion of i! set his Pl.ite>nic M. Oriental Pualism. I the souls fall anil lon>;!ii of light he combined with the other Platonic thought of the thin;:- ' t fVi- Iw-rr w^r" i \^mt . *nt\ '■m% -VI I. . ht» too looa .% in i|e« nly in«- that hU ll« the I ol ll>r I .( world tvpes and ini.i. so obtaine<l .1 of the worl<r The stateii.. (.;. , teaching are, alas • too ix > uncertain to supplv a cot: svstem of Valentiniiv. Hi- Clemens .Alex, taken from ri;r.«l.;t..^ iiid the anatolic sch<»ol contain a doctrine In H ••«». which at anv rate standi mucii nearer to (he views of Valentinus than the detailed account of Ptolemaic dcKtrines which Irenaenv give* in i. 1-8. We have in thi-^<- >-Tr.-TT-f- .1 •"m<-what complete whole, diH^ •'4nt re*.pect-i from the d>" • • ilic sch>M)|. and agreeint; - tn that it knows of on:. , .. .ifj- spring Christus, leaving hisniothrr. rnlrr* the Pleroma. and sends d-'wn Jesus fof the re<lemp" tion of the forsaken One. The doctrine of the .Aeons stands as much behind the anthropological and ethical pro- blems in these excerpts as it do«^ in the fragments. We find something about the FHeroma in an interpretation of the prologue of St. Johns Cospel [Exerrfl. H f<. 7) By the ipX^ of St. John i. I, in which the I.ognt " was," we must understand the Moroytr^ft " Who is also calle<l dod " (the readmit i uoroytr^ 0t6i John i. i« l>einK followril). " The I,og(»s was <»- ifiXV " "leans that lie wa» in the Monogenes, in the No<"t antl the 'AX4<*»i« — the reference l>eing to the svzvgv <.| AA>«i and Zwti which is said to have procmlrd (riin» Not'f and 'AX^no. The I.og.-s is calle,! <;od because He is in (',<y<\. in the Not'i. Hut when it is said 4 yfyortr i* aimj) (uit V. the refer- ence is to the 7.un> a« tfi'^-^oi ol (he I n«i««. The fnknown Father (warrp iyrttrrot) willed to be known t-> the Ae»ms. On knowing Him- self through His own '¥>9i-uvti which was indeed the spirit ■< u- .»ui.-,- rrtCt* yruKitut), \lr. by kn ite (he Monogenes. I xng emanated from thr 'fiv mesis of the Fathrr. I. i:i ' < *. S->n. for It Is through the ^ 'her is knoVI*. The Vr'iMO i'l • - '^e|( with the »r»iM<« 7rjtf«un 4^ ll-- I jt.'iri with the S<in (IV. thr Monoiceii'^ t* No»-i) and lh« Knthvmesis with ■AV<><»««». |»roeer«lMU Unm thr Aletheia as the «.nml» pf.«rr«l» bom the Mnthvmr^ts. The >i«»ir>«rltf ri^l. Who abides in the b«is<>tn ol (h<> Father. etnanalM Irom the Father's bosom and th«rrbv dccUi** yiffyiirat) (he Kn(hyn«»i» throufh GoosM to 1004 VALENTINUS the Aeons. Having become visible on earth, He is no longer called by the apostle Monogenes (simply), but d)S fiovoyevifii. For though remaining in Himself one and the same, He is in the creation called irpwrdroKos. and in the Pleroma MovoyevT)^. and appears in each locality as He can be comprehended there. The preceding survey shews that in the first 42 paragraphs or sections of Clemens's frag- ments from Theodotus we really have a well- connected and consistent doctrinal system. The scattered notices in §§ 1-28 fit tolerably well into the dogmatic whole, and doubtless we have here an account of the so-called anatolic school, and in substance the oldest form of the Valentinian system. The historical development of the Valen- tinian doctrine can be traced with only approx- imate certainty and imperfectly. The roots of the system are to be found in the old vulgar Gnosis. For even if the original dualistic foundation is repressed and concealed by a Platonizing pantheism, it still gives evident tokens of its continued existence in the back- ground. The v\-n and " dark waters " into which the Ophitic Sophia sinks down (Iren. i. 30, 3) are here changed into the K^vw/xa or v<Tripi)ixa, which in antithesis to the wXripuifjia is simply an equivalent for the Platonic /xr] Sv. The notion of a psychical Christus who passes through Mary as water through a conduit (Iren. vii. 2) is to be found everywhere in the Italic school (Philos. vi. 35, pp. 194 seq.). The centre of gravity of the whole system lies undoubtedly in its speculative interests. The names alone of the 30 Aeons are a proof of this. It deserves notice that the designa- tions NoOs and 'S\.ovoy€vr)% applied to the first masculine principle emanating from the supreme Father do not seem to have been used by Valentinus himself. It was called simply JlaT-qp or 'Avdpuwoi {vlbi avdpdiwov). It is a genuinely speculative feature that the know- ledge of the Father through the Son is derived from a union of the Spirit of Love with the Spirit of Knowledge. Since the doctrine of Valentinus concerning the Aeons originated in the cosmogonic and astral powers of the old Syrian Gnosis, one cannot doubt that the Aeons were originally thought of as mythological personages and not as personified notions, although Tertullian (adv. Valentin. 4) would refer the former view to Ptolemaeus, and not Valentinus, as its first author. A yet more widely different conception of the Valentinian doctrine of Aeons is found in the fragment given by Epiphanius (xxxi. 5-6). Here, too, the speculative interest is manifest in the endeavour to follow up in detail the process of the emanation of individual Aeons within the Pleroma from the Ai'roTrdrwp. But the whole description, bathed as it is in sen- suous warmth, with its peculiar plays with numbers and its barbarous names for individ- ual Aeons, appears to be merely a degenerate Marcosian form of Gnosis. Finally, we have a quite peculiar trans- formation of the Valentinian system in the doctrine of the so-called Docetae, as preserved in the Philosophumena (viii. 8-11). From the irpurros deds, who is small as the seed of a fig- VALERIANUS tree but infinite in power, proceed first of all three Aeons, which by the perfect number ten enlarge themselves to thirty Aeons ; from these proceed innumerable other bisexual Aeons, and from these an infinite multiplicity of Ideas, of which those of the third Aeon are expressed and shapen in the lower world of darkness as (pwreivcd xapafXTjpes. The Platonic foundation of the Valentinian system is very perceptible in this its last offshoot, though mixed up in a peculiar way with Oriental Dualism. At the same time j these Docetae endeavour to reduce the meta- physical distinctions which they maintain to merely gradual ones. No part of Christen- dom therefore is entirely excluded from the knowledge of the Redeemer, and participation I in His Redemption : all, even those of the j lower grades of the spirit-world, participate [ at least iK fi^povs in the Truth. The way in which all, and each according to his measure, attain knowledge of the truth, is, as in the doc- trine of the church, Fafife. Since the Redeemer's advent — so we read expressly — " Faith is an- nounced for the forgiveness of sins." Beside working out philosophical problems, the disciples of Valentinus were much occupied I with seeking traces of their Master's doctrine in Holy Scripture. The excerpts of Clemens and abundant notices in Irenaeus tell of an j allegorical method of scriptural exposition I pursued with great zeal in the Valentinian I schools, not limited to the Gospels or the Pauline Epistles, but extending to the O.T., and attaching special significance to the history of creation in Genesis. Valentinian expositors shew a special preference for St. John's Gospel, and above all for its prologue. j Some allegorical expositions have been pre- served belonging to the anatolic school (Exc. ex Theod. §§ 6, 7) and others derived from i Ptolemaeus (Iren. i. 8, 5). But before all we I must make mention of the laboiurs of Hera- j cleon, of which Origen has preserved numerous specimens. From Heracleon proceeded the first known commentary on St. John's Gospel. I VI. Literature. — Valentinus occupies a dis- 1 tinguished place in all works on Gnosticism, e.g. in Neander, Baur, Matter, Lipsius, Mohler I (Geschichte der Kosmologie in der Christlichen Kirche), Mansel (The Gnostic Heresies of the \ First and Second Centuries — a posthumous work, ed. by Bp. Lightfoot), and in the Prole- I gomena of Harvey's ed. of Irenaeus. The best i monograph is by Heinrici (Die Valentinianische Gnosis und die Heilige Schrift, Berlin, 1851), with which cf. the review by Lipsius (Protes- tantische Kirchenzeitung, 1873, pp. 174-186). [Heracleon ; Marcus (17).] [r.a.l.] Valerlanus (1), C. Publius Llcinius, emperor. A.D. 253-260. Before the close of 253 Valerian I was proclaimed emperor by the legions of Rhaetia and Noricura, and he associated his son Gallienus with him in that dignity. Their reigns were the most disastrous period in the history of Rome until that of Honorius. The empire seemed on the verge of dissolution. Every frontier was menaced by barbarian attacks, and even the interior provinces were invaded and ravaged. A German host entered Italy itself, and penetrated to Raven- na. The Franks, now first appearing under this name, assailed the Rhine frontier. The VALERIANUS CiDths ami tlifir kimlr.-.l lrit>«-s ivmrcil acxo^^ tlie Danube into Illvricuiii .uul M.trttioiiu. The IVrsidus took N'isihis, aiul. iHMirtratiiiK into Syriii, captured AiUukJi (? a.i>. 2\'t). Worse even than all these wars was the Kreat plague which had be>;un in the rei>:n o< D.-cius and which ra^ed h>r 15 years (/on. xii. n). To these citaniities was added the nuot terrible persecution the church had vet experienced. In the early part of his reiK'n Valerian was exceedingly favourable to the Christians, and his palace was hlled with them. But in 2S7 a terrible chauKe t<H>k place. Valerian fell more and more under the influence of the pretorian prefi>ct Marrianus. an llgvp- tian, chief of the " magi " of that country. Under his influence \'alerian ordered those who did not belong to the religion of Konie at least to render outw.ird signs of cunforinitv to it under pain of exile. By the same edict. Christians were forbidden, under pain of death, to assemble for worship i>r enter their cemeteries. The cases of St. Cyprian {Acta Procons. c. i, in Migne, Pair. Lai. iii. i4<»g) and St. Dionysius of .\lexandria (Hus. H. K. vii. ri) shew how uniform the procedure was under this edict. St. Cyprian was apparently , the first to suffer in Africa, and the date of his exile (.Aug. 257) shews when the persecution began. His sentence was simple banishment, but a great number of .\(rican l)i>hops. priests, deacons, and some of the laity, were sent to the mines and endured gieat hardships (Cypr. Epp. 77-So in Pair. Lat. iv. 414). This edict was followed in 258 by a rescript of tremendous severity from Valerian, who, in the interval, had probably set out to the Hast to take command against the Persians. (Early in the year he had held a council of war at Byzantium [Vopiscus, I'll. AureUani, 13).) The punishment for the clergy of every grade was death. .Apparently even recantation was unavailing. Senators, fin es^re^ti. and knights were punished with degradation and con- fiscation of property, and with death if they refused to recant. Noble ladies were to forfeit their property and be exiled. .Members of the imperial household suffered a similar forfeiture, and were to be sent in chains to work on the imperial possessions. It is remarkable that mention is only made of the clergy and the higher classes of the laity. The emperor's policy was apparently to strike at the leaders. The first victim of this rescript was poi^- Xystus, put to death on Aug. o as he s.it in his episcopal chair. Four of his deacons sulfifed with him. This was the beginning of a violent persecution at Rome (Cypr. Ep. «2) in which four days later the famous St. Lawrence fol- lowed his master. Cyprian was beheaded on Sept. 14. Both in Home and Africa a great number of Christians suffered. The Iw-st proof of the violence of the pepM-cution is the long vacancies (about 11 months) of the v-«-s of Rome and Carthage. In Spain Friirtuosu*. bp. of Tarragona, with two deacons, was burnt alive in the amphitheatre (Jan. 21. iS'»)- In Palestine the names of three martyrs are pre- served by liusebius (//. /•-. vii. 12). I hrv came before the governor and tleclared thrm selves Chri'-tians. \ woman who was a f..l lower of Marrioii sh.ired thnr fate. But the reign of Valerian wa» not de%tiued VERECUNDUS lOOd to be ..I long .luratlon. |>,,..n his iHTseculloii as laolliii; the ^i ■ tii>ne»l in thr \ivH-.ilv",r || against Sap • ■ \- __ , which was t: , w«« disastrous. .: <> m 2(H.. How 1 . un- known, (lalliriiii^. iiiuH' hi% lathers raptiviiv. »top| . .u.i«. but It probably lasted iti ( ■ .r Ull of Macrianus, who hail av^umrd lUr purpi* in 3f.j. Z.n,. I. iH-\t,; /..n. «U. li, Ji , Ifcem- hartlt, (ifichuku Komi vom Ciii/rMM , Tillrm. Emp. lii.. M^m. Hfl. iv. i ; Vict<«', d* t«#i. ^2 ; Epa. M ■ the Life of Valerian In the Augustan history; (iiblxm. re. n», ih). (r.u.| ValerlaniU, martvT. ICAnniiA.l Valerius (6). bp. ol llipiH. Krgiuv |>rr<lec<-»- s.ir .•( .AiiK'ustine. whom lie ha<i adiiillletl lu lnillle«l lu < lh« • 1 in TlU* the priesthood at H" •■„,,, ivople. against An.- a letter to Valerius thought. t«> hi» owi, *i ; PiKsidius. \'tl. Au( 4. jj 4...alrarv lu .\frican. but in accordance wiih Kaslrrn, usage. Valerius cause«l Augustine to preM:h lit his presence when he himv-lf Ix-eaine unable to do so. When Valerius felt his own in- tirmities increase, he obtaine<l the r-msriit of the other bishopy but at first not thai ol .Megalius of Calama, primate of S'uinidia. to ordain .\ugustine as ciiailjulor to hiniselt, contr.iry to the usual pram.. .1 ti.. .hurch and to the express wi»h who refused nn this ground t ihce. though, as he said afterw.ir : t tbrit aware of the canon of the i .im il t S\c*eJk, forbidding two bisho|>« in the uine plarr. (C«>nc. Sic. can. H. Uruiis, Cone. \>. 10 ; Auk. c. Pftil. iii. 16, ) II). c. Crete, iv. 64. | 7v ; Brevtc. Coll. iii. 7, | 9). His objection wa* overruled bv the earnest detire of all con- cerned, and by similar instancei in .\lriea and elsewhere (.\ug. Epp. 31. 4 ; 2 1?. 4). Valeriu*, better ac<iuaiiited with <.rerk than with Latin, was rejoiced to have one s.i able at .Augustine to teach and preach in the Latin language. He is %p<iken of in the hinhmt terms by .\ugustinc, Pmsidius. and PaultniM of Sola (.Aug. Epp. ji. 4; 12 ; P<i*»*d. i'tl. Aug. i ; Paulinus. Ep. )|. Alter .\ui(ustinv'« apiKiintmenl. Valeriu* Kave him • pierr o| Und for his monastery (.\ug. Sftm. J^^. 1. 2). He died A.D. 396 (.Aug. Ep. )t. 4). Prxuletanu* was bp. of the Doiialists at Hip|M> duriiiK hit lilrtimr (Aug. I p. n). r.. u. f I VerMundttt (S). d. j^i. bp. . ; Junceiisis III Hv/acma. He w. to ( olistatilinoptr in ^4<<. lourlir tloll ol the ■■ Threr t hajitrts." Ilr lIi. J at C h.ilcedon the year l>r|orc the »r<-ond rounrti ol Constantinople. In tt.r .. utiAr,.., j. ihr •• Three lhaj>trr% ' until his death wi! W'ifks III i|u«-iti'(i in hit cms. if Menat ..II. presbyter \ • -■J J 1006 VERONICA printed in vol. iv. of the Spicilegium Soles- mense, with other works attributed to Vere- cendus. It shews some philosophical learning and historical knowledge, and some illustra- tions are drawn from his own experience. His manner of referring to the Vandal per- secution in Africa and the unsettled state of affairs seems to fix its date before 534, when the persecution ended. The poems attributed to him, and also published in the Spicilegium, are (i) " Exhortatio Poenitendi," (2) " de Satisfactione Poenitentiae," (3) " Crisias." The spirit of the first two poems is alike : both express a strong sense of the need of repentance and an earnest anticipation of the Judgment. The poems are hortatory rather than penitential. The third poem, concerning the signs of the Judgment, is probably not by the same hand. It has much more artificiality and much less earnestness. A Breviarium Concilii Chalcedonensis, drawn up so as to favour the supporters of the "Three Chapters," is attributed to Verecun- dus. It is very possibly his, but may have been composed by a more extreme partisan and issued under his name by one who re- garded him as a confessor and wished to obtain the influence of his reputation. Pitra prints this also in the Spicilegium. [h.a.w.] Veronica (Haemorrhoissa, t) aiuoppoouaa), the woman cured of a bloody issue (Matt. ix. 20). Eusebius (H. E. vii. 18) relates that she was a native of Caesarea Philippi, and adds that " at the gates of her house, on an elevated stone, stands a brazen image of a woman on a bended knee, with her hands stretched out before her, like one entreating. Opposite to this there is another image of a man erect, of the same materials, decently clad in a mantle, and stretching out his hand to the woman. Before her feet, and on the same pedestal, there is a strange plant growing which, rising as high as the hem of the brazen garment, is a kind of antidote to all kinds of diseases. This statue, they say, is a statue of Jesus Christ, and it has remained even until our times, so that we ourselves saw it whilst tarrying in that city. Nor is it to be won- dered at that those of the Gentiles who were anciently benefited by our Saviour should have done these things. Since we have also seen representations of the apostles Peter and Paul and of Christ Himself still preserved in paintings, it is probable that, according to a practice among the Gentiles, the ancients were accustomed to pay this kind of honour indiscriminately to those who were as saviours or deliverers to them." Legendary tradition about Veronica flourished during and after 4th cent. Macarius Magnesius says she was princess of Edessa, and that her name was Veronica or Berenice (Macarii Magnet, ed. Blondel, Paris, 1876 ; Tillem. Mem. i. 20 ; Hist, des emp. iv. 308), following whom Baronius (Annal. xxxi. 75) makes her rich and noble. A late tradition represents her as a niece of king Herod and as offering her veil, or a napkin, as a sudarium to the suffering Christ on the Way of the Cross, Whose pictured features were thus impressed upon the linen. This tradition has found no acceptance since the nth cent. ; the " veronicas " often shewn, and accredited with miraculous powers of VETTIUS EPAGATHUS healing, are face-cloths from the catacombs on which Christian reverence and affection have painted the features of the Saviour (see Wyke Bayliss, Rex Regum, 1905), and the legend has arisen from the finding of these ; the name of the saint being clearly formed from the description of such a face-cloth as a vera icon. The Gospel of Nicodemus introduces her as one of the witnesses on behalf of Christ at His trial by Pilate; (Thilo, Cod. .4pocryph. N. T. p. 560 ; Acta SS. Bol. Jul. iii. 273-279). [g.t.s. and ED.] Vespasian US, Titus Flavins, emperor July i, 69, to June 24, 79, and his son TituS, emperor June 24, 79, to Sept. 13, 81. As a great part of the imperial power was exercised by Titus during his father's reign, of which his own short reign may be regarded as the continua- tion, it seems convenient to treat them to- gether. The influences of these princes on Christianity was wholly indirect. The de- struction of Jerusalem and the temple tended to hasten the complete separation of Judaism and Christianity. This distinction, however, had not as yet become apparent to the Roman authorities, and as far as they had any know- ledge of the existence of Christians, they regarded them as merely a Jewish sect. A long and almost unbroken chain of Christian authorities bear witness to the favourable condition of Christianity under these emperors. Melito of Sardis, writing in the reign of M. Aurelius (Eus. H. E. iv. 26), knows of no imperial persecutors except Nero and Domi- tian. Tertullian (Apol. 5) expressly denies that Vespasian was a persecutor. Lactantius (Mortes 2, 3) knows of no persecution between Nero and Domitian. Eusebius (//. E. iii. 17) expressly asserts that Vespasian did no harm to the Christians. Hilary of Poictiers, writing after 360, is the first to make any charge of persecution against Vespasian. In a rhetori- cal passage (contra Arianos, 3, in Migne, Patr. Lat. X. 611), contrary to all previous Christian testimony, he couples Vespasian with Nero and Decius. Sulpicius Severus (//. E. ii. 30 in Patr. Lat. xx. 146), in a passage whose style suggests it was borrowed from one of the lost books of Tacitus, states that the motive of Titus in destroying the temple was to abolish not only Judaism but Christianity, but he does not mention any hostile act on the part of Vespasian or his son against the Christians. We may consider that the reigns of these first two Flavian emperors were a period of tranquillity for the church. For their relation to the church see Tillemont, Mem. eccl. ii. 102, 152, 555 ; Aube, Hist, des persec. c. 4 ; Gorres, Zeitsch. fitr wissent. Theol. xxi. 492. M. Double (L'Empereur Titus) ingeniously that maintains, contrary to the usual opinion, he was a monster of wickedness. [f-d.] Vettius Epagathus. In the early persecu- tions the Christians felt it to be a gross injus- tice that a man should be put to death merely because he acknowledged himself to be a Christian, and without any investigation whether there was anything contrary to morality or piety in the Christian doctrines or practices. It not unfrequently happened [Lucius] that a bystander at a trial would press on the judge the necessity of such an investigation, whereupon the magistrate VICTOR 1007 \ul>|r<-t in v^loll* Thr^iphiliu .>r I .. Jrruvulriii. Ill i'liiii uiulrr lrrnarii«. in Huclulliiv M (KrI. rlsrwhrrc, by all wrrr u%ur<l. iinann .1 11(11) •>( thr I ..ri| I: phxhr,! .1.1.. CI..S. Hut t of th' Hlliticirlil K'"U">1 '"< l'l>'.tikiitM ■ ;: wUh thcin. Nirlor al'Mir wa% . iliflrrmrr. Ilr hj«l i*«urtl a In; of thr Koinuii rinirrh !<> thr hkr nirri ...(h th«>sr i>f thr »vmHU hrlil rl^rwhrrr Fr.>iu 4 rrplv to It Wr IU4V r'.TtrliiiJr tt »•> hivr f«rm III Its t rillN rrplv wjs li. : sus, as lirj(i ■>( til' N'irtiir's ilc^irr. hu.l . l>|sli<>|>s which roiinirtnl with i hl> rrjoliulrr. Hr rrvilulrU Asi.m tr.uliti>>ii. Mi|>|M>rtiiiK it \<\ • VICTOR Would say. 1 think youiiui>ll>r .» C'hristi.U) aUo yourseU, and oii the ddv.H-.»tc» cvmi(«-s%iiij5 that he was, would srnd hiiii to sharr thr tatr ol thi>se whom hi- had attriuptrd to drlnul. Thisbrfell N'rttius lioaf^athus. a distiiiKUtshcd Christian citi/rn of Lyons in thr prrsrciitioii of A.D. 1 77. Me came forward as thr advoratr of the Christians first apprrhrndrd. and in Asian rust< consequence was himself " taken up unto thr I .uds Pax- lot of the martyrs." The word " inartvT. ' as at first used, did not necessarily iinpiv that hr who bore witness for Christ seaUxl his tr>li- mony by death; and Kenan {.Uarc AurfU. p. 307) is of opinion that \'rttius had " onlv the merits of martyrdom without thr rralitv." since no mention is made of Vrttius in thr subsequent narration of the suflrrinKs of Christians tortured in the ainphithratrr. and, what Kenan thinks decisive, the epistle of thr churches says of Vettius that "he was and i< a genuine disciple of Christ, followiiit; thr |><rrmpt Lamb whithersoever he mnth." Hut the This rrp addition " following the Lamb, etc." indicates that the "is" does not refer to the life of Vettius in this world, but rather to that whuh he enjoyed in company with «. hrist. \tttnis was probably a Roman citizen, and as such was simply beheaded instead of undergoing »' I'hiliP thr a|x>stlr, who. with In. ti»>< -i«;rj the tortures of the amphitheatre. (<;.s.) virgin daughters. wa« burinl at llirrai>.>li« . Vletor (1), bp. of Kome after Eleuthcrus, of another saintiv .1.4ii»;fit. r f fn »!. ■ Ia-. jt in the reigns of Commodus and Severus. The Hph«~%us ; of St. /■ l Eusebian Chronicle assigns him 12 years, of Tolvcari' "< Si . ending 198 or 199 ; Eusebius (W. £. v. 28) 10 of Thraseas of 1 years, and says that Zephvrinus succeeded martyr, who sirpt at -mumh.i. him about the 9th year of Severus, i.e. a.d. others who had kept thr 14th '. 202. Lipsius(C/irow. </<^f ruw.fiisfAu/.)suppt>ses to thr li«r.|vl, he s|>rak« of \r\ ■ his episcopate to have been from iHq to 198 kiiisinrn. all bishops, who had n or 199. Soon prt)bably after his accession he vainr usagr. Mr aililv, ' I th-i excommunicated Theodotus of Byzantium (o Imth fi* f>5 vrars in thr L<<.l OKVTti-\\ who had come to Kome. and taught conferred with thr brrtlirrn It that Christ was a mere man (Eus. H. F. v. 28 ; world, and having iK^usrd all t: cf. Epiphan. Hafres. liv. i). Eus«'bius is ture, am not scared with th.iM- . quoting from an opponent of the sect of stricken. For tho*r who arr >i 1 Artemon. who afterwards under pope Zephv- have said, ' It is right to oIk-v «..-! r..ih.r t!,4u rinus maintained a similar heresv. It appear* mm." " Aftrr rrcnving thi% reply Vlrl.K from the qu.itation that the Artemonitrs cndr.ivntirrc1 to ituJtirr thr rh„rrh ,1 l^rpr alleged all the bps. of Kome l>efore Zephy- to . \ ■ rinus to have held the same views with them- Wli. selves; and the allegation is refuted by thr nov)i. fact of Victor, the predecessor of Zephyrinus. of tli. iv having excommunicated Theod.itus, "thr langu.«gr of hus«-i founder and father of the (;od-drnving savs hr did ; an: apostasy." Montanism also was rife in .\su (dt I'lr. Ill c. \\ Minor during the reign of Victor, who is sup- have thrin gnin . posed bv some of have been the bp. of Koine thr judgmrnt <• alluded to bv Tertullian (adv. Hrat. c. i) as that agr rjir. having issued letters of peace in favour of its upholders, though afterwards fxTsuadcd bv Praxcas to revoke his approval. But other-; think it more probable that Eleuthcrus w.i referred to. See. however, .Mostasih. Victor's most memorable action was wit regard to the Asians on the Easter qursti x.. ■• > ThevstiilpersistedinthrQuartrHlecimanu^agr, rJiurrh ol t.aul 1 pleading the authoritv of St. John for krrping off wh-lr churrhr* their I'asch on the 14th of Nlsan. on whatever tradition ..( ..1. 41.. day of the week it fell. So far intrrcommu- cilr» " thr . niiin between them and the church of Konir other rht u« that bthMT". had not been broken on this acr. time of Victor the usage of the A according to Eusebius, thev st. all the churches of Christen ; general attention. Synod* wcr. In tl KumAn cl. 1008 VICTOR, CLAUDIUS MARIUS other apostles with whom John lived," he had always observed, and though himself not persuaded to renounce the custom of the elders in his own church, had still honourably accorded the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, and parted from him in peace (Eus. H. E. V. 24). Jerome (u.s.) alludes to several letters written by Irenaeus to the same purpose. The Quartodecimans seem to have maintained their usage till the council of Nicaea, which enjoined its discontinuance. The intolerance of Victor evidently neither won general approval nor effected his_intended purpose. Victor is mentioned by St'. Jerome (op. cit. c. 34) as a writer of a treatise on the Easter question and other works. [j.b — v.] Victor (39) (Victorius, Victorinus), Clau- dius Marius, the author of three books in hexameter verse, containing the narrative of Genesis down to the destruction of the cities of the Plain ; author also of a letter to " Salmon," or Solomon, an abbat, in hexa- meter verse, on the corrupt manners of his time. He is probably the Victorius, or Victorinus, mentioned by Gennadius (de Vir. III. 60) as a rhetorician of Marseilles, who died " Theodosio et Valentiano regnantibus " (i.e. 425-450), and who addressed to his son Aetherius a commentary on Genesis. Genna- dius says "a principio libri usque ad obitum patriarchae .ibrahae tres di versos edidit libros." This does not accurately describe the work we have under the name of CI. M. Victor. But there is a diversity of reading in the passage of Gennadius. In Erasmus's ed. of St. Jerome the passage stands " quatuor ver- suum edidit libros." If this be the right reading, it seems almost certain that the three books we have of CI. M. Victor, ending as they now do at a point which seems to call for some j explanation, are the first three books of those mentioned by Gennadius, and that a fourth book, now lost, carried on the narrative to ] Abraham's death, where a natural halting- j place for the work is presented. The three | books correspond very well with what Genua- j dius says of the work of Victorius ; they are written in a pious and Christian spirit, but ! without depth or great force of treatment. ; They are, mainly, a paraphrase in verse of ' part of Genesis with but few reflections ; the narrative, with one or two exceptions, keeping closely to that of Scripture. The most notable variation is the introduction of a prayer by Adam on his expulsion from Paradise, which is followed by a strange episode. The serpent is discerned by Eve, who urges Adam to take vengeance on him. In assailing him with stones, a spark is struck from a flint, which sets fire to the wood in which Adam and Eve had taken shelter, and they are threatened with destruction. This ! mishap is the means of revealing to them I metals, forced from the ground by the heat, and of preparing the earth, by the action of the ; fire, for the production of corn. The style | of the poem and its language are in no way remarkable ; its versification is generally tolerable, but there are instances of wrong quantities of syllables. The Ep. to Salomon is a poem of about 100 hexameters, and more ! original, though not of special interest. Both are in De la Bigne's Bibl. Pair, viii. 278, and VICTOR VitENSiS Appendix ; and in Maittaires' Corpus Poet- arum Lat. ii. 1567. [H.A.W.] Victor (44) Vitensis, a N. African bishop and writer. The known facts of his life are very few. He was called Vitensis either after his see or after his birthplace. He seems to have been numbered amongst the clergy of Car- thage c. 455. His Hist. Persecutionis Pro- vinciae Africanae is very interesting, as he appears to have been with safety an eye- witness of the Vandal persecution for more than 30 years. He was actively employed by Eugenius, metropolitan of Carthage, in 483. Early in that year Hunneric banished 4,966 bishops and clergy of every rank. Victor was used by Eugenius to look after the more aged and infirm of the bishops. The History gives us a view of the religion of the Vandals. It also relates many particulars about Carthage, its churches, their names and dedications, as those of Perpetua and Felicitas, of Celerina and the Scillitans (i. 3). It shews the persistence of paganism at Carthage, and mentions the tem- ples of Memory and of Coelestis as existing till the Vandals levelled them after their capture of Carthage. This temple of Coelestis existed in the time of Augustine, who describes in his de Civ. Dei, lib. ii. cc. 4, 26 (cf. Tertull. .Apol. c. 24) the impure rites there performed. Its site was elaborately discussed by M. A. Castan in a Mem. in the Comptes rendus de I'Acad. des Inscript. t. xiii. (1885), pp. 118-132, where all the references to its cult were collected out of classical and patristic sources. Victor's History contains glimpses of N. African ritual. In lib. ii. 17 we have an account of the healing of the blind man Felix by Eugenius, bp. of Carthage. The ritual of the feast of Epiphany is described, while there are frequent refer- ences to the singing of hymns or psalms at funerals. In Hist. lib. v. 6, we read that the inhabitants of Tipasa refused to hold com- munion with the Arian bishop. Hunneric sent a military count, who collected them all into the forum and cut out their tongues by the roots, notwithstanding which they all retained the power of speech. This remark- able fact has been discussed by Gibbon, c. xxxvii., by Middleton in his Free Inquiry, PP- 313-316, and by many others. The History of Victor is usually divided into five books. Bk. i. narrates the persecution of Genseric, from the conquest of Africa by the Vandals in 429 till Genseric's death in 477. Bks. ii. iv. and v. deal with the persecution of Hunneric, a.d. 477-484 ; while bk. iii. contains the confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius of Carthage and presented to Hun- neric at the conference of 484 (cf. Gennadius, de Vir. III. No. 97). In the Confession (lib. iii. II) the celebrated text I. John v. 7, con- cerning the three heavenly witnesses, first appears. (See on this point Porson's letter to Travis, and Gibbon's notes on c. xxxvii.). The life and works of Victor have been the subject of much modern German criticism, which has not, however, added a great deal to our knowledge. Ebert's Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande (Leipz. 1874), t. i. 433-436, fixes the composition of the History at c. 486. In A. Schaefer's Historische Unter- suchungen (Bonn, 1882), ."^ug. Auler (pp. 253- 275) maintains, with much learning and VICTOR acutfiiess. that \irt..r w.is t-.m iii \ ita. that his sec IS uiikiu>wii. thai he was roiivrrrjtrti bishop aUt-r the prrsrcutum. aeul wr.>tr \\\* History UvioTe 4.S7. and that this Union is 4 piece of tendency-WTitinj: ami untriistwiirthv. He cannot recoKni/e in the actum •>( (.cnsrric against the Catholic party anvthinR hut a legitimate measure of state repressi-.n. The best of the older editions of the Hnlon is that of Kuinart, reprinted with its elalxiratr dissertations in Mignes I'ulr. l.al. Iviii. Michael I'etschenig. in the Vienna ("(>r;>iiJ Scrtpil. EccUstasl. Lai. t. vii. (Vindob. iHHi) abandons the old division of the text. datinK from t'hirtlet in irth cent., and divido it int.. three b.voks. In all the editions will Ix- found the .\otilia Frov. tt Ctxit. Africae. a valuable document for the geographv and eccU-siastical arrangements of N. .Africa. Ceill. (x. 44S. 405) gives a full analysis of \ictt)rs History. It was translated into French in 1563 and 1664, into English in 1605. (ii.T.s.) Victor (47). bp. of Capua, apart from his writings is known only by his epitaph, which states that he died in .\pr. 55,4. after an episcopate of about 13 years from Feb. 541 (L'ghelli, vi. 306). H'rihfigs. — I. He is best known from his connexion with the CoJei Fuldensis (F). after the C. Amiattnwi the most ancient and valuable MS. of the Vulgate, transcribed by his direction and afterwards corrected by him. The MS. is remarkable for containing the Gospels in the form of a Harmony. In his preface he relates that a MS. without a title had come into his hands containing a single Gospel composed of the four. Inquiring into its authorship, he concludes, though with some doubt, that it was identical with the works of Tatiants (T), which by a blunder he calls Diapentt instead of Dialfssarott. So little was known till 1876 of the Diatessaron that it was generally supposed that Victor was mistaken. It was known that the Dtateaaron began with John i. i. whereas F begins with the preface from Luke. But .Mosinger's ed. in 1876 of .\ucher's Latin trans, of the .\rmeiiian version of Kpmraim Syrus's Commentarv on the iJiatessaron (t). followed by /ahn's Fon- chuni^en tur Geichichtf des S'fut^stamfHtltchfn Aiin-ns, i. (Z). made known the contents and arrangements of the Dtateisamn suthcientiv to show that the archetyj>c of F was formed by taking T and substituting for each Svtuc fragment in Tatian's mf>saic the correspond- ing fragment from the Vulgate, the aclapter occasionally altering the order and inserting passages missing in T. The dlscr^pallc|p^ between the index and text in F shew that it underwent further changes after assuming a Latin shape, but it is im|H»ssiblr to vay how far the differences between it and T proccrd from such subsequent alterations of are due to the original adapter. The date of the adaptation is unc<Ttain, the limits being jHj. the date of the Vulgate being brought out. and 545, the date of F. The discrepancies Ixr- tween index and text deiiiaii'l a date con- siderably before the latter limit, but it must have been made after the Vulgate had brromr well known and |H>pular. which was not till long after it appeare<l. The most probable dale, therefore, seem* to be midway between tb« VICTOR 1009 4V t, lit). • (lb r.lrf : r.m. \un% limits, or II.. 47o- The II who wrote /ahn \.\\3. was a Syi : with one . , Lgvpt and 1 subslituir I fragliiriils much less It. an inde|H-ndrii( u^ F alwi roiiiaiiis ! the Fp. to the I Pauline I pistlrsd : II Tl.rss.. ( .,!.. I , Tit.. I'hllrii...n. aii.l ; t athohr Fi'istirs 41, 1 \- whole conrluding with t |)am.isus on St. I'aiil. I the LaiHlice.iiis. is )•■ ». . . ' heatlings. ami |o r , Hebrews, and to tl ■ a short preface. I al«> prefixed a table ■! , general preface or arguni' si>ecial argument of the 1 • ■ .n oirdance of the Ilpistlrs . the various passages treali: doctrine. T.i the .\cls is , of the burial-places of l! is a short general preface •. Fpisllrs. and also the pur|K)rting to be St. Jeroiij. the accusation, referred to bs S^rsicil auJ Hort ((•. T. II. .V..//1 on SfUd K/aJimt*. la^^. against the Latin translal>>rs of i>mitlin« lh« " Patris Filii et Spiritiis lestiimxiium " tn I* John v. 7. «. while the text Itself |% fre* lr«>in the interpolation. Besides this there ar« other places where, as in the (•.>»|>e|. th« te«l and supplementary matter no longer ctirre- spond exactly, shewing that ehanr-» h*v» i>ccurred since the former w.i ' F.g. the (ieneral .\rgunirnt t" Fpistles reckons but 14 •» -»". ' Hebrews, and thrrrforr rvrlitdliu - -^ l.a.Kliceans, though it stamls lii ll.c l<-»l. .\gain. the prrlacr |.. thr ( ..{..ssians. ■' ( ok»« senses rt hll ^I'lt I i !:'I'Iim-s sUIiI A»l*nl," must have L' '><-n the l.aiHiKr«n« preceded ih- I the irantpottlioQ may l>e dur t 't The whole Ms ! and c<»rrecte<i by Victor '.(ire* notes, one at the n. . ■ > »t the end of the .Ajwi. u , cording that he had hnisi on May i. ^4'>. Apr. ft time <•., V. - I • *.' I: .iccaM '"•< the ex '« •«» the !• W*» ed. in f-'-r^ I..;. 1- H^ukr. (ullr drscrilN-k It *n<l H» hist 'JOy only Is III Mi>;i"- /'j.'' / • n Victor mentaries oi: • inir "f -\tf • some on < >• I , ciKilainrd in in HffUlfMtkmm bv J<MiniM-« i.,_. \uulbcr Wu»k IS the Krtumlmt. i* On Ad^ * Afk (p. mB7). oaolalnloc ut viirt- 6i 1010 VICTOR TUNUNENSIS ordinary calculation to shew that its dimen- sions typify the number of years in the life of our Lord. On N.T. Victor wrote a commen- tary, II fragments of which, preserved in the Collections of Smaragdus, are collected by Pitra (Patr. Lat. cii. 1124), according to whom a St. Germain MS. of Rabanus Maurus's Commentary on St. Matthew marks numerous passages as derived from Victor. Fragments of Capiiula de Resurrectione Domini are given in Spicil. Sol. i. (liv. lix. Ixii. Ixiv.), in which Victor touches on the difficulties in the genealogy in St. Matthew and on the dis- crepancy between St. Mark and St. John as to the hour of the Crucifixion. Of the last he gives the explanation of Eusebius inQiiaestiones ad Marinum, and also one of his own. III. Victor's most celebrated work was that on the Paschal Cycle mentioned by several chroniclers and praised by Bede (de Rat. Tempa. 51), whose two extracts are in Patr. Lat. Ixviii. 1097, xc. 502. The rest was sup- posed to be lost till considerable extracts from it contained in the Catena of Joannes Diaconus were pub. in Spicil. Sol. (i. 296). It was written c. 550, to controvert the Paschal Cycle of ViCTOKius (2), according to which Easter Day would have fallen that year on Apr. 17, while Victor considered Apr. 24 the correct day in accordance with the Alexandrine computation which he defends. [f-d.] Victor (48) Tununensis, an African bishop and chronicler. He was a zealous supporter of the "Three Chapters," enduring much per- secution after 556 and till his death c. 567, both in his own province and in Egypt. Of his Chronicle, from the creation to a.d. 566, only the portion 444-566 remains, dealing almost exclusively with the history of the Eutychian heresy and the controversy about the " Three Chapters." It also gives details about the Vandal persecution, the memory of which must have been still fresh in his youth, and various stories telling against Arianism. The Chronicle is very useful for illustrations of the social and religious life of cent. vi. It is printed in Migne's Patr. Lat. t. Ixviii. with Galland's preface. Cf. Isid. de Vir. III. c. 38 ; Cave's Hist. Lit. i. 415. A treatise On Peni- tence, included among the works of St. Ambrose, is attributed to Victor ; Ceill. v. 512, X. 469, xi. 302. [g.t.s.J Victorlnus (4), St., of Pettau, bishop and martyr. He was apparently a Greek by birth, and (according to the repeated state- ment of Cassiodorus) a rhetorician before he became bp. of Pettau (Petavio) in Upper Pannonia. He is believed to have suffered mart>Tdom in Diocletian's persecution. St. Jerome (our chief authority concerning him) mentions him several times, and with respect even where his criticisms are adverse. He enumerates among his works {Catal. Script. Eccl. 74) commentaries on Gen., Ex., Lev., Is., Ezek., Hab., Eccles., Cant., Matt., and Rev., besides a treatise "adversus omnes haereses." Jerome occasionally cites the opin- ion of Victorinus {in Eccles. iv. 13 ; in Ezech. xxvi. and elsewhere), but considered him to have been affected by the opinions of the Chiliasts or Millenarians (see Catal. Script. 18, and in Ezech. I.e.). He also states that he borrowed extensively from Origan. In con- VICTORINUS sequence, perhaps, of his Millennarian ten- dencies, or of his relations to Origen, his works were classed as " apocrypha " in the Decretum de Libris Recipiendis, which Baronius (ad ann. 303) erroneously refers to a synod held under Gelasius. Little or nothing is left — nothing, indeed, which can be said to be his with any certainty. Poems are attributed to him with no authority better than that of Bede ; while the two lines Bede quotes as his were clearly written by some one with a tolerable know- ledge of Latin. [h.a.w.] Victorinus (6), called Caius Marius (Hieron. Comm. on Gal. Proleg.) and also Marius Fabiiis (see Suringar, Hist. Scholiast. Lat. p. 153, note) ; known also as Afer, from the country of his birth. He is to be distinguished from two Christian writers called Victorinus mentioned by Gennadius (de Scriptor. Eccl. cc. 60 and 88), and from Victorinus of Pettau, the commentator on the Apocalypse. He was a celebrated man of letters and rhetorician in Rome in the middle of 4th cent. His conversion is the subject of the well- known narrative in St. Augustine's Confes- sions (bk. viii. cc. 2-5). In extreme old age zealous study of Scripture and Christian literature convinced him of the truth of Christianity. He told Simplician, afterwards bp. of Milan, that he was a Christian, and when Simplician refused to regard him as such till he saw him "in the church," asked him in banter " whether walls, then, make Chris- tians ? " — a characteristic question from one disposed to regard Christianity rather as another school of philosophy than as a social organization. The fear of his friends, how- ever, which kept him from making profession of his faith, was removed by further medita- tion, and after being enrolled as a catechumen for a short time, he was baptized, and by his own deliberate choice made his preliminary profession of faith with the utmost publicity. St. Augustine gives us a vivid account of the excitement and joy his conversion caused in Christian circles at Rome. This was at least before the end of the reign of Constantius, A.D. 361 ; but he continued to teach rhetoric in Rome till 362, when Julian's edict forbad Christians to be public teachers (Aug. Conf. I.e.). Then, " choosing rather to give over the wordy school than God's Word," he withdrew, and as St. Jerome emphasizes his great age before conversion, it is not surprising that we hear no more of him. He lived, how- ever, long enough to write a number of Christian treatises and commentaries, and it is possible that Jerome alludes to him as alive on the outbreak of the disputes con- nected with the name of Jovinian in 382. (See Proleg. to Victorinus in Migne's Patr. Lat. vol. viii. p. 994 for question of reading.) The following is a list of his Christian writings: (i) The anti-Arian treatise, de Generatione Verbi Divini, in reply to the de Generatione Divina by Candidus the Arian. (2) The long work adversus Arium, elicited by Candidus's brief rejoinder to the former treatise. Bk. ii. must have been written not later than 361 (see c. 9), bk. i. c. 365 (see c. 28). (3) The de ofioovalqi Recipiendo, a summary of (2). (4) Three Hymns, mainly consisting of formulas and prayers intended to elucidate VICTORINUS the relations of tin- Tunitv. (s) i Oiii- menturii-s on Gal.. Phil., ami Kph. Though larking; continu»u'« merit (s4-<- l.iKhlftxit. (iai. p. 227), these are jirobahlv the lirst l.atin commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles (vr Hieroii. Comm. tn ('„tl. ProUg.). («.) An anti-Manichean treatise, with reasonahle rrr taint V ascril^d to him (MiRne, ProUg. f _\). (Ui Juatinum .\taHichtifum. is the earliest ext.uit treatise against the Manirheans, and in-^isi* with considerable insight on the inronMstenries of their dualism. (7) .\ verv -.tran^'e little treatise, de I'frbis Scrif>turaf " hailum /•%/ vfspfre ft mane difs mmms." I'or an I-hk- trans. i>f the fraKinents see AnIfStcrnf l.th. Besides these we mav i\otire the df Pkysins, ascribed to him by tardinal Mai (see his re- marks in Migne prefixed to the treatise, p. 1295). It is an ablv written treatise on the Creation. Fall, and Recovery of Man. But the style does not suggest the authorship of \ic- torinus. and the character of the ipiotations from N.T. seems to argue a different author. We have some allusions in his exUint works to others which have perished, f.g. on Kph. iv. 10 (lib. ji. inil.) there is an allusion to a com- mentary on Cor. Cardinal Mai refers to a commentary on Leviticus by \'ictorinus extant in the Vatican (see Ceillier, Aulfurs sacres. vol. iv. p. 328, note 2). All these wxitings of Victorinus (except the commentaries, which approach more nearly ti> lucidity) are very astonishingly obscure for one of Victorinus's reputation as a rhetorician. This, together with the recondite nature of the theological subjects he treats, the extremely corrupt condition of the text as hitherto edited, the barbariius mixture of (ireek and bad 1-atin in which he often writes, and his prolixity and repetitions, have caused him to be ignored more than his substantial merits dt-scrve. There is one notable exception to the us\ial severe judgments on his style and matter. Thomassin. whose theological judgment is weighty, sj^eaks of him as "inferior to none in the profunditv of his insight into the inmost mysteries" of the Divine Being, and the relation of the Persons of the Trinity to one another (dt Incarn. Verht, bk. ii. c. i. | 6). This judgment will put us on the right lines for estimating his position and |>owers. He has no special merits as a commentator, nor the capacities of a dogmatic theologian in the ordinarv sense. He d<>.-s not manipulate skilfully the stock anti-Arian arguments. He combats, generally as badly as |x>s-.ible. the objection to the ouootVriot as an unscriptural term (adv. At. i. 30. p. 1063 b, c • ; and 11. P. 9. PP- 'o94-io<)5)- He has none of the controversial |M)Wer and vividness of .\thana- sius or .Augustine. .Almost all his im|Nirtance lies in his metaphvsical and »|>eculative capacities, and in his belief in the jxiwer of the intellect to give a rational presentation of the Trinitarian Creed, etc. He d<K-<t. indeetl. feel the danger of such sjjeculation. " It i* mad- ness," he sa>-s (adv. Jutlin. 2. hjoo c), "to suppose that while we are alm<»st unknown to ourselves, we should have either •' • ' ■• " " or the leave to investigate wh." ourselves and the world." H<- didus for writing al>out f«od " t.i:.. • Referenca are to voL rlU. of M%iic'* *'*!>. Ok. VICTORINUS ami not k' tuain intell a%ks. -l), Hut tlii U^ 114^(1..). feeU to the full. and. on t that thev are within thr niinale«l Chrivtian intrlleri, | ,!t uj. thv M-lf, niv spirit!" he rtie*. "and rr«-<>(nif<> that to tiTi Irr-tind (mnI t% diflirull. but n<»« l>evoii ' ■ Ar. tit. i\ iiui v). Tti ..-ter «>l hl« the<i|ii((v may •>e (> ,| bv two e^.ith^f. It) Thoi^,. , ... in dale. It I- :-■■ * —.' in character. 1 he doctrine n| I! tion of the S<in is eniphasi/etl fiv very sulMtrdination dortrine it .Arianisni without the lea«i *u«piti.>4i ■•! t(* l>eing Itself o|>en to the charKe of anv .Arian- izing tendencv. He sees. a« boldiv a* the earlier thei>logianv anticipation* of the In- carnation in the Theophanirt of O.T. isJv. .4r. iv. 32, 1 1 36 r). He rrt iin-> thr ante- Nirene interprrtali<H>s of , : "My Father is greater than I ' etc. " What has coiue into fwi life * (John i. 3). He K-- • 1 the Incarnate in thee! •. • the Cosmic function of : rj. (2) His throlo^v tone. Here !•< the s|>ecial intrust attatluuji to Vic- torinus's works. He had grown old in the neo-Platonist schools l>efiife hl« rl»ll\rr^i .11. Whi-n coiivi-rtetl. he applied in.ii. • of the Plotiiii.in phil<>v>phv to th of the (hri-.fi)!! mv tf-Tt<-. M in th; ... in th' Pm-u ! deal 1:. . . .... .. iKHi-Platonist than 1* no liouid due in p.u-t to th>- .id attaint l>efore studving t In We deal with. I. Ju. : lem ; II. its relation to neo-Il.ii ■ :rthrr ixtints in his theology wh; tice; IV. his lin|Mirtancr in relati'ii i-> 4iii<- H»ef<>- nymi in versions of the I.alin Ullde. I. The following Is a summary <if his nvid* of conreiving the relations of the TriiiHv and the processes of rrr.itloii .iikI rrilrmptlon. I aiidtdus had ob)retrd to the .irth'Hlot d'>cu.- •'• ■ ■- " ". '.-I. It a ■ \Ht iniit i: I th» essriit: .; llie idea of a ^tiiit . sulntantia " i« in • !■ plirilv ' ..f hr ■ HI III' . blllts hghtn . Contrti.ln,.- infinite. i>i< able the iviblc tiUUuO tj aa)thiii4 1012 VICTORINUS beyond Himself. To become a creator at a I certain moment in time — to act in creation as I much involves change as the act of generation. If you admit, as you must, that God can i create without change, you must admit equally that He can generate. You have admitted a [ " motus " which is not " mutatio " (de Gen. 30, ! 1035, A, b). But this proceeding forth of God in I the action of creation is only not a "change" I in the Divine Essence, because it has its origin j and ground there. It has been the eternal j being of God to proceed forth, to move, to live. 1 This eternal motion, eternal transition in God, | it is, that we, speaking in the necessarily in- adequate terms of human discourse, call the " eternal generation of the Son " (de Gen. i, 1019 D ; de Gen. 29, 1034 b ; adv. Arium, i. ; 43, 1074 A, B. The "esse" of God is equi- valent to "moveri," " et moveri ipsum quod est esse "). This " generatio " is expressed as the eternal utterance of the Divine Will, moving eternally into actuality ; the will of God not for one instant failing of its absolutely self-adequate effect. " Every act of will is the progeny of that which wills." Thus of the Father's will, the Word or Son is the summary or universal effect. As the Son is thus conceived of as the eternal object of the Divine will, so He is the eternal and adequate object of Divine self-knowledge. As the Father eternally wills, so He eternally I knows Himself in the Son. The Divine know- ] ledge, like the Divine will, must have its adequate object. God knows Himself in the Son ; for the Son is the expression of His own being. The Son is thus the " forma " of God and His limitation. This thought constantly recurs. It is not that God is limited from | outside, but that the infinite and the indeter- minate in expressing Himself limits or con- ditions Himself. He knows Himself in the Logos or determinate, definite Utterance ; and thus the unconditioned, the absolute, the Father, limits or conditions Himself in that eternal utterance by which He knows Himself. ] Knowledge is thus conceived of as limitation or form ; it is an eternal abiding relation of subject and object. Once for all the Father knows Himself as what He is in the Son. It is only stating this same principle in broader terms to say that the Son is to the Father as effect to cause (adv. .Arium, iv. 3, 1115 a), that is to say, He is the revelation of all the Father is. What the Father is, the Son expresses, exhibits, manifests. As outward intelligence and life express our inner being, so the Father, the inner Being, is expressed in the Son. The Father is the esse, the vivens, the Son the vita, the actualized life (i. 32, 42). Substance can only be known by its mani- festations in life (iii. 11, 1107 b). The Father is the " motio," the Son the " motus." What the Father is inwardly (" in abscondito ") the Son is outwardly (" foris "). The passages in which the distinction between the fpSidderos and the irpo<popiKbi A 670? are implied are not many nor emphatic in Victorinus, as, e.g., in Tertullian. The Son is eternally Son and self-subsistent. That " effulgentia " " Filietas " is out of all time, absolute (i. 27, 1060 d). " Catholica disciplina dicit et semper fuisse Patrem et semper Filium " (in Phil. 12 10 a). Yet Victorinus VICTORINUS admits a sense in which he may be called " maxime filius " in Humanity (1061 a), and speaks of Him as getting the name of Son, the " Name above every Name," only in His Incarnate exaltation (1210 c, d, " ita ut tantum nomen accesserit, res eadem fuerit "). His thought expresses itself thus naturally in the doctrine of the generation of the Son and His co-essential equality with the Father. But it does not so easily adapt itself to for- mulae which express the Being, Procession, and Substantiality of the Holy Ghost. He intends to be perfectly orthodox. He accepts the faith, even though he finds it difficult to formulate. He teaches emphatically that the Holy Ghost proceeds " from the Father and the Son." He is subsequent in order to the Son. But as " Spirit of the Father " there is a sense in which He precedes the Son ; that is, as that which God is — Spirit — He is that in which the Father begets the Son. He conveys the Father's Life to the Son. The distinction of Son and Spirit is carefully maintained, but yet the essential duality which is in God — the distinction of that which is from that which proceeds forth — the dis- tinction expressed in all the antitheses referred to above, is clearer to Victorinus than the Trinity of relations. The Son and the Spirit seem to him more utterly one than the Father and the Son. They are " existentiae duae," but they proceed forth " in uno motu " and that " motus " is the Son ; so that the Spirit is, as it were, contained in the Son (aiiv. Ar. iii. 8, 1105 a). Thus Victorinus sometimes speaks as if the Spirit were the Son in another aspect (he even says " idem ipse et Christus et Spiritus Sanctus," see ib. iii. 18, 1113 D and i. 59, 1085 b). He has also a subtle mode of speaking of the Spirit as the " A 670s in occulto," and Christ Incarnate as the " A6yoi in manifesto " ; Logos and Spiritus being used interchangeably ■* ; or again Christ is the " Spiritus apertus," the Spirit the "Spiritus occultus " (iii. 14, 1109 b, c). Again, the Spirit is the " interior Christi virtus " (iv. 17, 1125 c) in Whom Christ is present (1109 c). The confusion seems to spring from the use of " Spiritus " as meaning the Divine nature. But in intention and generally the two persons are kept distinct. If Christ is the " vox," the Spirit is the " vox vocis " (iii. 16, nil c, i. 13, 1048 a), or again, as the Son is Life the Spirit is Know- ledge ("vivere quidem Christus, intelligere Spiritus," i. 13, 1048 b), or again the rela- tions of the Trinity are expressed in formulas such as these: " visio, videre, discernere" ; " esse, vivere, intelligere," expressing three stages of a great act (iii. 4, 5 ; the latter chapter should be studied). Victorinus is the first theologian to speak of the Spirit as the principle of unity in the Godhead, the bond or " copula " of the eternal Trinity, complet- ing the perfect circle of the Divine Being, the return of God upon Himself (i. 60, 1085 c, d, "sphaera," " circularis motus"). • So the words " genitus," " procedens," are not kept strictly to the second and third Persons of the Trinity respectively. The Spirit is said once {adv. At. iv. 33, 1138A) to be "genitus," and the " pro- cessio " of the Son is frequently spoken of, e.g. i. 27, 1060 d; i. 14, 1048 B. VICTORINUS Wf pass on to his cucrpUon »( thr rrlation of Cod to Crp.Uion. All thinfr* arc conmvrd 4\ prpexi>ting in CM - p..triitullv iii thr l-athn. actually in cs>pncr in thr Son. In Hiin <l»vrlU all thr fullness Ixxiilv. that is (.icconlinj; |.> V.) in the Kternal \V,»rii dwells all existence sub- stantially— owria.u't. Whatever came into being subsequently in time, in Mini was eternally life. Thus the A<r>ot is the • AA>o« of all things "—the universal I.oijos the see<l of aJl things, even in His internal Being, con- taining all things in Himself in orchetvpal reality. {AJv. Ar. i. zs. i<>s<)a ; ii. \. i<m)i b . iii. 3. iioo c, and iv. 4. 1 1 1(> c. where the Word is almost identified with the Platonic "ideas"; at least. He contains the ideas in Himself, as "species" or " jxitentiae principales.") It follows that the Son is verv mainly considered as existing with a view to Creation. He exists as the " .\6^ot of all that is " with a view to the being of whatever is ("ad id qutnl est esse iis quae sunt "). It is His essence to move, as it is the Father's to repose. The " motus " in virtue of which He is. is still pressing out- ward, so to speak, from the " fontan.i vita " of the Father. .\ll this is somewhat neo-Platonic in tone. What follows is almost pure and undiluted neo-Platonism, f./;. his description of the process of Creation, as a drawing out of the plenitude of God into a chain or gradation of existences. He adopts the neo- Platonic con- ception of " anima " as something capable of spiritualization, but not yet "spirit" — inter- mediate between spirit and matter. He follows neo-Platonism in his conception of the " return of all things " into God {a4iv. Ar. in. I, 1098 b; iv. II, II2I A. B ; de Gen. to, 1026 A, b; adv. .4r. iii. 3. 1100 c ; Hvmn i, 1141 A ; tn Eph. i. 4. 12308, r ). He is simply neo-Platonic in his conception of matter and the material wt)rld. " Matter " has no existence independent of r,o<i ; m itself it is "non-existent" — an abstraction. .Man is regarded as a mixed being, a spiritual "anima ' (see i« Eph. i. 4. 1230c) merged in the corruption of matter. He call* the human race " animae seminatae saeclis " corrupted by the material darkness in which they are merged (Hvmn i, 1142A; adv. Ar. i. 26. 1060 A ; i. 62. 10H7 b). .Misled bv this ineradicable misoinception of material life, he thinks in a Platonic and non-( hristian spirit of men as existing in an unlallrn con- dition, in a pre-nHindane slate t.f Iwing, an<! being born into the corruption nf ni.itm.il life at their natural birth. Moral evil, from this point of view, must be phvsical .ukI i.- 1 • o •. The other main effect of I'l ^• Victonnus's anthropology is ' profound and unmitigated l*rc'l' His ideology leads him (in his ( 'mm i« / ' h at least) to assert not only the pre-existencr of the abvilute " anima " in the I- jtti il W-.rd but the pre-cxistenre of all j <" All the history of the v)ul in i- matter, and its recovery thrr. the Incarnate Christ, is • • ' ' of the idea of the soul v, nallv, individually, an.l Mindand Willof G<k1. (i . 1239 b, 1242 B. What cxuu lu OuJ » ;Uuuihl must exist substantially.) nut Ihtne I VICTORINUS loia ing do not - side l«v sidr I hristian tri/ than the PI.- ■^ It* view of 1:1 , of evil empli > 1(1. I the 1. Viet.: he is: rf. i; . see in iHti. I iii ». sfqufrmtur " , m Eph. 1.1 restaurant ur wti iiuae in • 1274 c. "quae vilvari p<>»u^iit. prets such pa%sagr« «« I2^2 1 ) .■\Rain. thoii>;fi ..i. ..;ir H. 4 given of th- ' notion of I! {a.ti-. .ir. \ ■. tion tearhitin i^ diates by antirinat heresy. c;.k1 the of real humanity, whole and coinplrir ini.t Person (It Is an ' arrr; ■ proper " griieration " of lives, G.xl in Manh'xwl ( /'--m (homo - manh'Mid I «./!■. Ar. 1. 4.S. 1075 ■ ; •»• /'*'■' '- "* ■" however, uses an A I. io. mis r.) Tl Is emphasized a* 1. univ-Tsali* annua . 1:1 1 erant. ■ iii. j. not a). I which He suffers f.* man versal, Iveeausc He tuf1er\ -. . the rare He is to re-crrale d" \zz\ 11. *i\t\adv. .ir. I.e.). The. taking humanity u to make thr which He assume<l -v>nl and fir new capacities of life. The flesh " makes the flesh He t w v Him Who is the life (" est vita aeterna est." etc language al>out hurhari"! humanity —siMfit. ' Christ t.N.k. He i. . tiiH b . cf. *H hi ^ " Of''"' 'li- rn..ir • in H is, t' ( hn • c, I) . cl U 'I ti;. aiil «•■ •«f • botlv and v>ul. in I hrui Urn l'> I...' s rf in hr*< '••" «». : f«i lima . cl. inl«v- view I ho *Hrt , in >:jmiHt 14. I04A O . i. disillar in ( hrttio .f a-/'. ♦» . 1... ,l> I-XJ S.,l.-.( Mitl I h- r:X Mtir ,.4,,,-. and relcrrvd (•> (b« EuciMrtM. •od. U> lb« 1014 VICTORINUS same way, " populus irepiovcnos " is given an Eucharistic reference, as meaning "populus circa Tuam Substantiam veniens." See quotation from old African Liturgy, p. 25 ; and (on ministry) in Eph. iv. 12, 1275 c. II. It is necessary further to explain in what general relation Victorinus's teaching stands to the neo-Platonic system, since his chief claim upon our attention is that he was the first systematically to convert the results of that system to the uses of Christian theology and that he developed in one or two cases as against Arianism the really higher philosophi- cal truth latent in Catholic doctrines. The idea of a being or beings mediating between the supreme God and the lower world was common to almost all the later schools of ancient philosophy (see Zeller, pp. 219, 220). Eusebius of Caesarea had already seen in this a common ground tor philosophers and Chris- tians. (See Gwatkin's Studies of Arianism, p. 22. Cf. Athan. de Incarn. c. xli.) It appeared in Plotinus's theory of the vods and anima, which with the One, the God, make up what is called "the neo-Platonic Trinity." Now, a good deal of Victorinus's language, in which he seeks to express the relation of the Aoyos to the Father, is based on Plotinus's language about the relation of the vovi to the One. But as a Christian, Victorinus is able to fill the neo-Platonic formulas with the powers of a new life. Again, Victorinus's formula for the Trinity, the " status, pro- gressio, regressus," is the reflex of a neo- Platonic idea — an idea first definitely for- mulated by Proclus but implied by Plotinus — the idea of all progress and development of life involving (i) the immanence of the caused in that which causes it, (2) the issuing of the caused out of that which causes it, (3) the return of the caused into that which causes it. This threefold relation of immanence, pi ogress, return, the neo-Platonist regarded as essential to the development and unity of life both in general and in detail (Zeller, pp. 787-789). This conception in its earlier stage Victorinus, whether consciously or not, adopts, and what new force it gains when it is seen to find its highest expression in the very life of God Himself ! This threefold relation is seen to be the very being of God. The Son is eternally abiding in the Father, eternally proceeding from the Father in His eternal Generation, and eternally pouring back into the bosom of the Father that which He receives, in that Holy Ghost Who is Himself the life of Father and Son, the love and bond of the Holy Trinity. It isindescribingtherelationof the A6705 to the world, in His function as Creator, that, as we have seen, Victorinus allows himself to be too entirely moulded by neo-Platonic ideas. His "development of the plenitude " (Gwatkin, p. 20), his pre-existing " anima " and " animae," his corporeal demons, his matter the seat of corruption — all these have their source in the Plotinian system, and are only very imperfect- ly adapted to Christianity (see Zeller, pp. 543- 557, 570-575)- We may wonder that he did not use even more emphatically an element of right-minded inconsistency in neo-Platon- ism and with that system' emphasize the freedom of the will (Zeller, pp. 585-587). This brief account will help us to recognize VICTORINUS ' the " divine preparation " for Christianity involved in the independent growth of the neo-Platonic system — so many philosophic ideas needed for the intellectual presentation j of Christianity being made ready to hand — : and shows Victorinus as a pioneer in claiming for Christianity the products of philosophy, a pioneer whose name has well-nigh passed into undeserved oblivion. III. A few other characteristic points in Victorinus's teaching still deserve notice. He is cm intensely ardent follower of St. Paul, devoted to St. Paul's strenuous assertion of justification by faith. Indeed, he uses very strongly solifidian language and (by anticipa- tion) very strongly anti-Pelagian language. This element in his teaching is most remark- \ ably emphatic in his commentaries, e.g. in Gal. iii. 22, 1172 ; in Phil. iii. 9, 1219 c, d. This solifidian tendency led him, like Luther, to a disparagement of St. James and a somewhat minimizing tone as regards the efficacy of good works. (See some very remarkable passages in Comm. in Gal. i. 19, 1155 b, c, 1156 a, b, cf. 1161 B, 1162 D.) It is worth while calling attention to the evidence, suggested by a good deal of Vic- torinus's theology, of a closer connexion than has been yet noticed between him and St. .\ugustine. His strong insistence in his Trinitarian theology on the double Procession of the Holy Spirit — his conception of the Holy Spirit as the " Bond " of the Blessed Trinity \ — his emphasis on the unity of Christ and His church — his strong predestinarianism — his J vehement assertion of the doctrines of grace — his assertion of the priority of faith to intelligence (p. 16, note n), — all reappear in St. Augustine, and it may be that the (hither- I to unsuspected) influence of the wTitings of the old philosopher whose conversion stirred him so deeply was a determining force upon the theology of St. Augustine.* IV. A word must be said on the Latin text of the Bible used by Victorinus. No adequate use seems yet to have been made of the very large bulk of quotation in his writings. Sabatier (Bibl. Sacr. Lat. Versiones Antiq. I t. iii. Remis 1749) occasionally refers to him, but omits some of his most remarkable quota- tions, and wrote before Mai's publication of the commentaries, etc. Some quotations, not noticed by Sabatier, may be given : St. John i. I is quoted as " A6yos erat circa Deum," and it is added, " Romani apud Deum dicunt," Libri de Gen. 20, 1030 c. Elsewhere he uses " circa Deum " and " ad Deum " (adv. Ar. I, 3). These do not seem to be merely his own renderings. (" Ad Deum " is noticed by Sabatier.) In Phil. ii. 30 (p. 1216) " ex- ponens in incertum animam suam " is a better * There are one or two contributions to the history of heresies, made by Victorinus, which are worth noticing. In Gal. i. 19, we have an account of a Judaizing or Ebionite sect called the " Symma- chians " (see pp. 1155 B and 1162 d). They made a point of the apostolate of James, the Lord's brother. See also for heresies in regard to Christ's person an interesting passage, adv. Ar. i. 45, 1075 b,c; cf. i. 28, 1061 B, c. He calls the definition of Nicaea " a wall and a defence " (ii. 9, 1093 d). We notice also that he probablv is the first to use " paganus " for the heathen [d^ Rec'ip.biJiOovaiu,!.; in Gal. 1158c). For the origin of the term godfather see in Gal. 1184 a. VICTORIUS rendering than the Viilg.itr " tr^dens " and the St. Cienujin " p.ir.ibol.itus de .iniiiij su4." Ih. iii. JO (p. ijjs) he iise> " Salut^ris '• (..r Saviour, a term mu found in other aulhurilies in this place (cf. Konsch. llala unJ I'Hlg.Ua. p. loo, 1875). /''■ iv. 3 (p. ijjR) " unijuge " is a reni.irkalile rendiring of <T»-rj-i-)t, Ih. iv. 6, 7 (p. i.'ji,) reads ; " Nihil .id v.lliritud- ineni redigatis. sed in onini prrcatn'iie et oratione cum bona gratia iH-titmno votrae iniiotescant apud I'euin. lit pax l>ei quae habet oinneiu intellectuin custiHliat crda vestra, item corpora ve^tra in jesu thri>l>>.' St. Luke ii. 14 : " Vd\ in terra homiHthui honi iUcreli" (p. 130b). These words, from the, de Physicis, conclude a long ijuotation thoroughly independent of any known vrrMoii. Eph. iv. 14 {wp6i TJtr nt(fo6fl(W T^5 rXoi'iTti, "ad rtnifiiium ermns " (p. nyh p). a riMding found also in other authorities, lb. vi. 14. " et omnihus fffettis stare," sup|>orts the, correct reading of Ji-rome's text, " et omnthus perlectts stare." Tit. ii. 14 : beMde> the version " populum abundantem " (p. ii><)4 i>). a remarkable rendering of the worcl rf^nui^rior is given as occurring in a Eucharistic office ("the prayer of the oblation ") to which he more than once refers (see <uiv. At. i, 30, 1063 1 B. and ii. 7, 1094 d). It is as follows : " Munda tibi populum circumvttalfm emulatorem bon- i orum operum, circa tuam substantiam ir«ir»- ] trm " (p. 1063 B). (c.G.l Victorias (2) of Aquitaine. During the pontihcatc of Leo the (ireat in 444 and 4^3 diflerences arose between the Western churches headed by Rome, and the Eastern headed by Alexandria as to the correct day for celebrating Easter. Pope Lko yielded <in both occasions, but to avoid such disputes in ^ future, directed his archdeacon Hilarhs. who succeeded him, to investigate the question. I Hilary referred it t>i his friend Victorius. who in 457 drew up a cycle to determine the date of Easter in past and future years. The cycle of 532 years, consisting of 28 Mctonic (28 X 19) or rather 7 Calippic (7 • ?(>) cycles, was adopted or independently dis- covered by \'ictorius. He began it with the year of the crucifixion, which he |>laced on Mar. 26, in the consulship of the two (iemini. As the year in which he composed his cyclr, the consulship of Constantinus and Kufm, which corresponds with a.d. 457, was thr 430th of his cycle, its first year correspondrd with A.D. 28. He made his earliest Eastrr limit , .Mar. 22, the same as the .\lex.indrians ; his | latest Apr. 24, while theirs was thr 25th. 1 The cycle of Vict«)rius was widrlv, th-u^h not universallv, acceptecl in the Wrsi cspeciallv in (iaul. In 527. howrvrr. I' sius published a new peri'xl of the t \ ; . qj-year cycle, which would terminate m ^ u , and Victor of Capua, c. 5^o, wrotr ag.iiiist Victorius's cycle and in favour of thr Alrx- andrian mrthml of computation \i. t.rm cycle seems thereafter to have I- in Italy, but lingered much lat< Gaul. It has brrn edited with ■ sertations by Kuchcriuv dt Dudnrui I ft porum. where all notices of Victorius Mr col- lected. The only additional information thr^ give is Gennadius's statement (d* I'lr. lU. M«) that he was a native of Aquitaine, As Hilary ' •urn. frieod /».<«/ nt r ; VICTUHINUS cjilU him "l>ilr. sanclu« fralrr." h- A full .irr .M„t ,f • [Hani out I' thr •)■. that If MM Ihc fact ih..! rvrlr Itrcjti ; vrar "t .1 n. • thr l.f birth h.td()> cycle, .11). 1 t.iit'.l .1 ur.» j Victofius is l>v Liter writ' Victorinusan<l\irt..r th- to roiifusMn wHh \ > Vietrloliu. St . M of St. M.»rtiii of r.iw; Holl. .4(la .s.s. AtiK 1. 1 ,« ' .■. 1 • " • of ,\ola, to wllov Irtlrrs Wr iiwr of his life. Hr iMfamr Jip of I 190. and ocrupird 111'" • !' ■»''*' ' ;»f the heathrn M'>ii and Hraliant. Ilr 39.S to Dritam to .1 re-establishing pracc, j i ■lu! l> m t!ii 11 uui- test with Pelagiani%m (Virtriciuv /•*. ds iMudf .S.S.. Migne. I'aO. [.if w 4111 \t\ accusation of hrrr%v. .i» it viii. 70), brought him to I 403 to defend him^rlf tw' inus, f>. XXV .. m 3.S3). Whil. r to* request for 1 1^ "I Innocrnt I. c.t.. of various hr.ifis Ml disriplinr (Ttilr. ImI ii».J Thr church at K- r hu care. The rrlics hr .I'tauirl, t!ir tiunlral services hr instituted, and thr drvo(i.>n undrr his guidance of thr virgin* ami widow*. caused the city, hitherto unknown, to \mi spoken of with reverrncr m distant liiulv and countr<l among cities fame*! for Ihrir v«crrd spots (Paulmuv Ep. xviii. f s, Pali. ImI. c«4. 219). In 4'X) *»«" *** apparrntiv dead (f>. xlviii. col. v)"*)- (.Micnr, I'tlr. IjU x«. 4 17. 438; HtU. l.tU. ii. •"^- -■^t I r Hrun m ttcill. Acta SS. M.J. ; (Mtil An rxtant trrali calW th* l.ther de lutud* San.: ■ •-■1 -n lb« occasion of thr receipt .( ii Si. Ambrose of Milan. wa« ! I to St. Geriiiiii'i. -f \'i\frr^ .-M. 750). ' in th- to Vf I o| Ihr chtucb at -^rbain read Ihit '^ * n 1 VIclurliiu-. 1 nobl. itmc and be coatullcd tbe aiciiU»bo|>. 1016 VIGILANTIUS the bishops present at the council of Agaunum, in 515, if it is to be accepted as genuine, and also at Epaon and Lyons in 517. [s.a.b.] Vigilantius (1), a presbyter of Comminges and Barcelona, known by his protests against superstitious practices in the church. He was born c. 370 at Calagurris, near Comminges (Convenae), a station on the great Roman road from Aquitaine to Spain (Itiner. Antonin. quoted in Gilly's Vigilant, p. 128). His father probably kept the statio or place of refresh- ment there ; and Vigilantius was apparently brought up as an inn-keeper and wine-seller (" Iste Caupo Calagurritanus," Hieron. cont. Vig. i), but had from the first an inclination to learning. Sulpicius Severus, who had estates in these parts, took him into his service, and probably baptized him. It is certain that in 395 he was sent with letters from Sulpicius to Paulinus, then recently settled at Nola (Paul. Ep. i. 11), by whom he was treated as a friend. Paulinus speaks of hm as " Vigilantius noster " (Ep. v. 11), and reports the care with which he had watched him during illness, refusing to let him depart till well. On his return to Severus, then living at Elusa in Gaul, he was ordained ; and, having a desire for learning and a wish to visit Jerusalem, set forth by way of Nola. His father, it seems, had died, since he was wealthy enough to have many notaries in his employ (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. 4), and he was the proprietor of the inn at Convenae (ib. Ixi. 3 ; cont. Vig. i.). Paulinus gave him a very honour- able introduction to Jerome (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. 3), then living at Bethlehem, where he was received with great respect (Iviii. 11). He remained there a considerable time, staying partly with Jerome, but partly, it is supposed, with others, possibly with Rufinus (Hieron. Apol. iii. 11). The schism between the mon- asteries of Bethlehem and the bp. of Jerusalem was at its height ; and probably in connexion with this Vigilantius had his first disagree- ment with Jerome (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. i ; Apol. iii. 19). Origenism, which had caused the schism, and with which Vigilantius afterwards connected Jerome's name, was, no doubt, the subject of this disagreement. But Vigilantius was brought to confess himself in the wrong and to ask pardon (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. end). He was an inmate of Jerome's monastery on the occasion of a tremendous storm with earth- quake and eclipse (cont. Vig. ii.). He was for a time favourably impressed by what he saw at Bethlehem, and on one occasion, when Jerome was preaching upon the reality of the body at the resurrection, sprang up, and with applause of hands and feet saluted Jerome as champion of orthodoxy (Ep. Ixi. 3). But the extremes of asceticism, the corruption pro- duced by indiscriminate almsgiving, and the violence, perhaps the insincerity, of Jerome's dealing with the question of Origen [Hieronv- Mus, § Origenism] produced a reaction against Jerome. Vigilantius begged to be dismissed, and left in great haste (Ep. cix. 2) without giving any reason. He bore Jerome's reply to Paulinus at Nola (Ep. Ixi. 11); but his journey home was first by Egypt (ib. i ; cont. Ruf. iii. 12), "by Hadria and the Cottian Alps" (Hieron. Ep. cix. 12). He landed probably at Naples, and, after visiting Nola, VIGILANTIUS went home by the land route, staying a con- siderable time at various places. His account of what he had seen in the East, which was related to Jerome either by report or by some writing of Vigilantius to or about Jerome, pro- voked a reply (Ep. Ixi.), wherein Jerome shews a jealous sensitiveness for his own orthodox reputation, and treats him with contempt, declaring that he had never understood the points in dispute (Ixi. i). On his return to Gaul, Vigilantius settled in his native country. His work against superstitious practices was written c. 403. We may presume that his intercourse with Severus, Paulinus, and Jerome furnished the principal motives and materials for it. Similar practices no doubt arising in a grosser form in his own neighbour- hood among a population emerging from heathenism provoked his protest against the introduction of heathen ceremonial into Chris- tian worship. The work is only known to us through the writings of Jerome, of whose unscrupulousness and violence in controversy we have many proofs. Nothing of the kind appears in the quotations from the book of Vigilantius, which, considering the extreme difficulty of his position in the rising flood of superstition, we must presume to have been a serious and faithful protest. It was not written hastily, under provocation, such as he may have felt in leaving Bethlehem, but after the lapse of six or seven years. His own bishop (Hieron. Ep. cix. 2) and others in his neighbourhood (cont. Vig. ii.) approved his action, and he was apparently appointed after the controversy to a church in the diocese of Barcelona (Gennad. ut infra). The points against which he argues are four : (i) The superstitious reverence paid to the remains of holy men, which were carried round in the church assemblies in gold vessels or silken wrappings to be kissed, and the prayers in which their intercession was asked; (2) the late and frequent watchings at the basili- cas of the martyrs, from which scandals constantly arose, the burning of numerous tapers, which was a heathen practice, the stress laid on the miracles performed at the shrines, which, Vigilantius maintained, were of use only to unbelievers ; (3) the sending of alms to Jerusalem, which might better have been given to the poor in each diocese, and generally the monkish habit of divesting oneself of possessions which should be admin- istered as a trust by the possessor ; and (4) the special virtue attributed to the unmarried state. Vigilantius held that for the clergy to be married was an advantage to the church ; and he looked upon the solitary life as a cowardly forsaking of responsibility. The bishop of the diocese (possibly Exu- perius of Toulouse, known to have had com- munications with pope Innocent about this time on points of discipline) strongly favoured the views of Vigilantius, and they began to spread widely in S. Gaul. The clergy who were fostering the practices impugned by him found their people imbibing his opinions, and two of them, Desiderius and Riparius, wrote to Jerome, representing the opinions of Vigilantius and asking for his advice. Jerome answered Riparius at once (Ep. 109, ed. Vail.), expressing chagrin and indignation but with- VIGILIUS THAPSENSIS VIGILIUS out sober arsuiiunt. He dccUrr-. ih^t no ' vj later thrv ! ■ adoration was paul to martyr*, but that their lii»n a* thr in relics were hum.urrtl as a means <>| w<<r>hi|<piiiK xwall..wr<l up , God. He expresses wonder that the bishop to this In bk. i a. of the diiKTcse should ac«juirs<-e in Vit:ilaiiliu« % not by all. In bk |\ madness. It was a case (or such dealiiii; a* of St. I r.. jul t».r ;■ that of Petej- with Anani.ts and Sapphira. He « 1 offered to answer more fully if the w.irk of i Vigilantius were s<>nt him. This ..fler was >• accepted. Through their friend Sismniu*. '. Kiparius and Hesiderius sent the Ixmk in the t latter part of 40h {Prrt. to C^mm. en /a<A.). . Jerome ^jave little attention to it at first, but ui hnding Sisinnius obliged to leave Hethlehein in haste, sat down, and in one night wMte his treatise contra X'tf^tlanltum. This treatise has less of reason and more ul mere abuse than any which he wrote. He throughout imputes to his advers.iry extreme views, which it mav certainly be assumed he did n.>t hold. What effect was produced bv this philippic is unknown. r<»siblv Kxiiperius. if Vigilan- tins was in his duK«-se. bv degrees change<l towards him. and that it was <>n this account that Vigilantius passed into the diocese of Barcelona, where Ciennadius places him. Jerome in his Apology (iii. iq) expressly re|H'ls the imputation of having asserted that the character of Vigilantius had l)een stained bv communion with heretics. But the official lutely i. ■ leaders of the church came to reckon as (bk. \ enemies those wh>>m Jerome had so treated, eis libr: and X'igilantius was by degrees ranked among et .Xri.tiiMiu heretics. The judgment of (iennadius [de simus." thr' Sc. Eccl. 35) is: " \igilantius the presbyter, against Pall i a Gaul by birth, held a church in the Spanish among the ■ dir>cese of Barcelona. He wTote with a cer- dreg^v Na/i tain zeal for religion ; but was led astray by rouiicil of A ; the praise of men. and presumed beyond his St. .\nilr . strength ; and l)eing a man of elegant si>eech been .i" but not trained in discerning the sense of the the cr^ Scriptures, interpreted in a perverse manner the uti: the second vision of Daniel, and put forth forward (. hllilel. Mil.. i«.«>4) •>! his dialogue in I ; among the work against an .^rlan uii.t-^r Th.^ V. -.ni. course confer" in tw.. ; alone apjxar . which Sal>elliu His autli.r>h,| other works of no value, which must W placed natures in in the catalogue of heretical writings. He was thltflr ^hirli answered by the blessed presbyter Jerome." This judgnient lasted long. In 1H44 '^- reprin- Gillv. r^nor. of Durham, published a work on Vlflili: Vtgilanttus and hn Times (Set'ley), bringing together all the known facts, and shewing the ) true signitirance of his protest bv <lev3nt>ing 1 the life of Severus, Paulinus. and Jerome ftoiii 1 their own writings. (w.H.r.) wlxii ' VlgllllU (4) Thapseiuls. an .\frican bishop \\h ..• mentioned in the Ao/i/iu [)ublished at the end tion . • of the Hislona of Victor Vitensis. wa* present and t» at the conference convened by the Vandal The W Hunneric in 484. He belonged t > th. nv.vi- rhr- \ cene province, and was b.inishe<l I. king. He seems to have fled t nople, where he wrote against 1 and .\rianism. He publi-!. ' under his own name. viz. Ii Eutyches, stating verv r|. mcnts against the Kutvi: extremely good and copious an ■ in Ceillier (x. 47i-4»5)- It i» •• specimen of sih and 6th cent ' and shews the evolution of thouglit the Eutychians wh-i in his <lav had n^' Dieted or thought out their s\-stem. 1 hadnot fixed, rf., onadatc f'»r the dl»ap:-r..r- uni it rj,:,.r t.j.. , .t.r ;,. ance of Christ's human nature. A cent, of le«*t »eveo m»ntb» bU potlllna Me '•w>. ted of ol Il»l. • 4rv. <. I* T.| the by '.fa- had 1018 VIGILIUS an unlawful antipope, his predecessor never having been canonically deposed. However, as pope he was accepted, the deposition of bishops and the ordination of others in their room under imperial dictation being at that time, however irregular, common enough elsewhere ; and the ancients seem to have dated his episcopate from his intrusion. Through Antonina, the wife of Belisarius and the real agent of the empress throughout, Vigilius sent without delay letters to Anthi- mus, Theodosius, and Severus, in fulfilment of his secret promise, expressing his entire agreement with them in matters of faith, but charging them to keep his avowal in the dark, that he might more easily accomplish what he had undertaken. He added a confession of his own faith, condemning the Tome of pope Leo (in which the orthodox doctrine of two Natures in Christ was enunciated), and anathematizing Paul of Samosata, Diodorus of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and all who agreed with them. Binius and Baronius, jealous for the credit of the Roman see, argue that this letter was forged by the Monophysite party. But no valid ground has been adduced for suspecting it. It is given by Liberatus and Victor Tununensis; and Facundus (c. Mocianum), like them a con- temporary, seemingly alludes to it. Pagi (Baron, ad ann. 538) refutes all the arguments of Baronius, while alleging that the Roman see was not compromised, since Vigilius was not the true pope when he wrote. Justinian was evidently kept in the dark about these secret proceedings, since, after the death of Silverius, he wrote to Vigilius, sending a confession of his own faith and recognizing him as pope without any suspicion of his orthodoxy. In his reply, dated 540, Vigilius declares himself altogether orthodox, accepts the Tome of Leo and the council of Chalcedon, and condemns by name all abettors of the Eutychian heresy. In 541 began at Constantinople the new theological disputes which led to the 2nd council of Constantinople (called the 5th oecumenical), in the course of which Vigilius came in conflict with the emperor. Peter, the patriarch of Jerusalem, who was opposed to the Origenists, sent two abbats to Con- stantinople, with a letter to the emperor, and extracts from Origen's writings, complaining of the commotions excited by the Origenistic party and praying for their condemnation (Vit. S. Sabae). The emperor, readily acced- ing, issued a long edict, addressed to the patriarch Mennas, setting forth and confuting the heresies attributed to Origen ; command- ing the patriarch to assemble the bishops and abbats then at Constantinople for the purpose of anathematizing him, his doctrine, and his followers, and to suffer no bishop or abbat to be thenceforth appointed except on condition of doing the same. There seems to have been no resistance to this imperial command. Justinian was engaged, we are told, after his condemnation of Origen, in composing a treatise on the Incarnation in defence of the council of Chalcedon and in refutation of the Eutychians. But there were two Origenistic abbats from Palestine, resident at his court, in great credit with him, Theodore of I VIGILIUS Ascidas and Doraitian, who suggested that he might better serve the cause of orthodoxy by procuring a condemnation of certain writers accused of Nestorianism but acquitted by the council of Chalcedon, viz. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas, the alleged author of a letter to Maris. It was represented to the emperor that, if these were now authoritatively condemned and the council of Chalcedon freed from the imputa- tion of having approved their errors, the Acephali would no longer refuse to accept that council. The emperor, who warmly desired this reconciliation, readily fell into the snare. The writings thus prepared for condemnation are known as the "Three Chapters " ("Tria Capitula"). The imperial edict against them [irfpl TpiQv K€<pa\aiwi'), issued probably c. 544, anathematized their deceased authors and all defenders of them, with a saving clause to guard against any inculpation of the council of Chalcedon. But the edict was re- garded as disparaging its authority. Mennas, at first refusing, at length gave his acquiescence in writing. The three other patriarchs of the East also yielded to threats of deposition, as did the rest of the Eastern bishops, except a few who were deposed and banished. In the West, less accustomed to imperial despotism, there was more difficulty. Vigilius, from his antecedents, might have been expected to obey, but shewed considerable independence of spirit, being probably influenced by the prevailing feeling at Rome and in the West generally. He refused his assent to the emperor's edict, and being thereupon sum- moned peremptorily to Constantinople, un- willingly obeyed. He sailed first to Sicily, where he was joined by Datius, bp. of Milan, a resolute opponent of the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Arrived at Constantinople (a.d. 547), he per- severed for a time in the same attitude, but before long gave a secret promise to condemn the Chapters (Facund. c. Moc), and presided over a synod with the hope of inducing it to do what the emperor required. Meeting opposition there, especially from bp. Facundus of Ermiana, who requested leave to argue the question (Facundus himself tells the story), he suspended the proceedings, requiring the bishops separately to send him their opinions in writing. Seventy bishops were thus induced to declare for the condemnation of the Chapters, including many who had previously refused. Vigilius, supported by these 70 sig- natories, issued the document known as his Judicatum, addressed to Mennas, on Easter Eve, 548 {Ep. Vigilii, ad Rustianum et Sebas- tianum), condemning the Chapters, though dis- avowing any disparagement of Chalcedon. The Judicatum provoked serious opposition. At Constantinople Facundus continued resolute, protesting against bishops who betrayed their trust to win favour with princes. Vigilius's own deacons, Rusticus and Sebastianus, declared against him, but were deposed and excommunicated. The bishops of Illyricum condemned the Judicatum in synod ; those of N. Africa did the same, and even formally excommunicated Vigilius (Vict. Tunun. ad ann. 549, 550). Alarmed by these conse- quences, Vigilius now recalled his Judicatum, VIGILIUS and srems to luvr rrprrsrntfd tn the \Vr*tem» that hr had is-iu-d it uiiwillm^lv. KacundiH attribute. hi> wholr actmii to drMfc nl court favour and |H>Mtiou, a.s his rarlirr secsrt pro. mise to Theodora had Ixvn due Ut anUu- tion. V'i);ilius could not now undo what he had done, lor the JuJicmtum was known far and wide. II anv lurther nnxil wrrr needed i>l his double dealms we should h.iv. a siKiial one in the lact (li it l>e one) th^t while thus trviiiK to |H>r>uade the \\ . that he was on their side, he was indue the einiH-ror to take a secret 0.1th l>e|..i. uuu to do all he could to bring alniut the con- demnation ol the Three Chapters. The oath, dated the 23rd vear ol Jusiinian. is Rivrn among the Acts ol the 7th session ol the uh council (Labl>e. vol. vi. p. kh). There srenis to be no sufficient reason to doubt its genuine, ness. In it he swore to unite with the emperor to the utmost ol his jxiwer to causr the Chapters to be condemned and anathe- matized, and to take no measures or counsrU with anv one in their lavour against the emperors will. The result o| his cr-n.ked policy was that neither party trusted him. In the ye-ar in which the JuJualum was issued Thet>dora died ; but the emperor continued resolute in carrying out his pr<»ject for the condemnation ol the Three Chap- ters by lull ecclesiastical authority. N'igil- ius, hampered by the repudiation ol his Judicatum in the VVest and by his own secret understanding with the emperor, would gladlv have lelt the scene ol action. But his presence was still reouired at Constantinople by the emperor. The plan he now adopted was to persuade the emperor to >ummon the bishops, both ol the East and West (including especi- ally those ol .Ulrica and Iil>Ticum who had shewn themselves so stronglv op|><.sed to the J udtcatum), to a council at Constantinople, and meanwhile to take no further steps. Justin- ian acted on his advice ; but th<uigh the obsequious Easterns oln-yed the suniinons, very lew ol the Westerns came— a small number Irom Italy, two Irom Ill>Ticuni, but none from Airica. Justinian would have had Vigilius proceed at once with such bishoj>s as were in Constantinople. N'lgilius, with con- siderable spirit, refused. Thereujxin the emperor issued a new edict against the Chapters, which he caused tr) be jx>sted in the churches. Vigilius protested against this as a violation ol their agreement, calird an assembly ol bishops in the palacr .>| 1'l.icidia where he lodged, cjnjured them to usr thnr efforts to prf>cure a revi«cation ol the edict till the episcopate ol the Wrst should have an opportunity ol pronouncing its opinion, and in virtue ol the authority o| the a[-' t lir <■<■ declared all excoimnunicatrd meanwhile sign or recrivp it. J the praetor whf>se office it w.t» ' common malelact'irs, with seize the i>opc in his i)lac« escaped to Chalcrclon, sanctuary in the church >■( days belorc Christ ma», 551. •**■ made to violate thi» sanctuaf. was able Irom it to dictate trrm would take part in the locthconiihK < 'innl The emperor, anxiotu to tccure his concurrence VIGILIUS at the ctfuncil, at lennth dllKMis. and ie\.ikiHt the niki \'lgllllU frti... .^ I I . . . .. the end o| I'.uphriiua. to nirrt ■!! " in nu: I•:ul^. Mr;,:, . ol 'h nt ••f. a^aiitsl (ti. . tm- sell as a hrt' had n..t »>e.-n V. . ha.1 died in Ci'lii 4nd also against . : u*tf d..ret or ■ ( V '•r*n aojuit" .l«. don. was M -h d.K-SI. •Af4\ It to ' "O May . h«d once 1 ; had pledgrd liiii.>4li 1...I.. ,.. 1.. 4n.l s-.lemn oath, and had l.<^ Ibr council .11'. 1 f f ; r.\ ( , 'tn*» were 1 M.V- suesti 1 .te*l writiii. : <rt and l»... . r to delrnd the if ecclrsMstir> . or lavinr" -■ Vu-i «e. assriil and thus »;; >. the Koinaii ^4 . 1 iijt ..»4e. and acceding t.. 1 «i in wiling. O->^0wi . 1 aJld reason to doubt thr ^r;. two written documents In wh: xUrm IS declarc<l. Th- fir t f • f to the patriarcli ^M. It. SIX moil- th« council. Th- »». \S4) Is enltli". I^o dainnatione Iriuni ^ In lab»>r. vj. VI p . (He agre».iuriit «it!i t;. »ciU and r: .. »^d lor word I') • ! hi. rnd. Mil t . !.4\r \^ru 4 J-.f riral pitiaMy uoav«iiui(. To lu* 1020 VINCENTIUS to Justinian's will is due the important fact that the Fifth council, the origin, purpose, and conduct of which had so little to commend them, came at last to be universally accepted, in the West as well as the East, though not without prolonged resistance in some parts of the West, as oecumenical and authoritative. For, though its anathemas against the dead and their writings were passed under imperial dictation in defiance of the pope and of the Western church, Vigilius's eventual approval of them was endorsed by his successors. There is no lack of contemporary authority for the history given above — viz. the Brevi- artum of Liberatus, archdeacon of Carthage ; the Eccl. Hist, of Evagrius ; the Chronicon of Victor, bp. of Tununum ; the Pro Defensione Trium Capitulorum, and the Liber contra Mocianum of Facundus, bp. of Ermiana ; and the Hist. Bell. Goth, and the Anecdota, or Hist. Arcana, of Procopius. The writings of Facundus are peculiarly valuable in giving an insight into the state of parties, and the course of events in which he was himself implicated, having been, with Victor Tununensis, a pro- minent opponent at Constantinople of the condemnation of the Three Chapters. We have also the letters written by Vigilius, of great historical value, and the Acts of the Fifth council, with contemporary documents preserved among them. [j.b — v.] Vincentius (8), presbyter of Constantinople, intimately attached to Jerome, through whose writings we hear of him throughout the last 20 years of 4th cent. Jerome became acquainted with him when he came to Con- stantinople in 380, from which time Vincentius shared his interests and pursuits. To him, with Gallienus, Jerome dedicated his trans- lation of Eusebius's Chronicle in 382 (Hieron. cont. Joan. Hieros. c. 41). We may therefore suppose he was ordained early in 382. But he never fulfilled the office of presbyter. That he knew Greek and Latin and was interested in general history is shewn by Jerome's preface to the Chronicle of Eusebius. He shared Jerome's admiration of Origen, then at its height, and asked Jerome to translate all his works into Latin. In 382 he accompanied Jerome to Rome, but without intending to stay there. We do not hear of him during Jerome's stay, but they left Rome together in 385 and settled at Bethlehem (cont. Ruf. iii. 22). He shared Jerome's studies and his asceticism and controversial antipathies. He was severe in his judgment upon Vigilantius (Hieron. Ep. Ixi. 3, a.d. 396), and co-operated eagerly in the subsequent condemnation of Origenism. In 396 or 397 he went to Rome, for what cause is unknown (cont. Ruf. iii. 24). No doubt he took part in the proceedings against Origenism, in which Eusebius of Cremona and Jerome's Roman friends were actively engaged. On his return to Bethle- hem in 400 he was full of the subject. All Rome and Italy, he reported, had been de- livered ; and his praise of Theophilus of Alexandria as having by his letter to the pope Anastasius procured this deliverance is com- municated to that prelate in Jerome's letter (Ep. 88, ed. Vail.) to him, the last mention of Vincentius which we have. [w.h.f.] Vincentius (11) Lirinensis (Vincent of VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS Lerins), St., a distinguished presbyter of Gaul in 5th cent. Date of birth uncertain; must have died in or before a.d. 450. Authorities. — Gennadius, Vivoruyn Illus- trium Catalogus (c. 64). References to himself and to his times in his chief (most probably his sole) work, the Commonitorium. Life. — Concerning the events of Vincent's life we are almost entirely ignorant. He was a native of Gaul, possibly brother of St. Loup, bp. of Troyes [Lupus (2)], involved in the turmoils of worldly life before his retirement into a monastery near a small town, remote from the stir of cities. This was that of Lerins (Lerinum), situated in the island of that name near Antibes, now known as L'lle de St. Honorat, from the founder of this celebrated institution. Here he wrote adversus Profanas Omnium Novitates Haereticorum Commoni- torium, almost 3 years (as he tells us in c. 42) after the council of Ephesus, i.e. in 434. Writings. — The only one universally ad- mitted to be the genuine and authentic pro duction of Vincent is briefly known as Com- monitorium. In the form in which we have it it extends, even in a i2mo ed., to only 150 pages, and consists of 42 short chapters. Peregrinus (as Vincent called himself) begins by stating that he thought it might be useful and in accordance with scriptural precepts (Deut. xxxii. 7 ; Prov. xxii. 17, iii. i) to write down certain principles which he had received from holy Fathers. His tests to discern the truth of the Catholic faith from heresy will be sought first in the authority of the divine law, and next in the tradition of the Catholic church. The second source of information would not be needed had not all the leading heretics claimed the support of Holy Scripture (cc. i. ii.). We must hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all ("quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est ") ; in other words, we must follow Universitatem, Antiquitatem, Consen- sionem ; understanding by the last the agree- ment of all, or almost all, bishops and doctors (c. ii.). A small portion of the church dis- senting from the rest must be cut off like an unsound limb ; nay, even a large portion if it does not abide by antiquity. Illustrations are afforded negatively by Donatism and Arian- ism ; positively by the teaching of St. Am- brose and other eminent confessors (cc. iv.- viii.). Antiquity was on the side of pope Stephen, bp. of the apostolic see, and against the excellent Agrippinus, bp. of Carthage, who desired to rebaptize heretics. True, the rebaptizers claim the sanction of the holy Cyprian ; but to do so is behaving like Ham towards Noah, for on this point that pious martyr erred (cc. ix.-xi.). Apostolic warrant for what has been advanced may be found in St. Paul's writings, e.g. in Tim. and Tit. (passim), Rom. xv. 17, and Gal. i. 7-10. Those who would make accretions to the faith stand thereby condemned for all time. The Pelagians are such (cc. xii.-xiv.). Valentinus, Photinus, Apollinaris, and others are similarly condemned by the warnings of Moses (Deut. xiii I -11). Even good gifts, such as those of Nestorius, or useful labours like those of Apollinaris against Porphyry, cannot be plead- ed against their novelties (cc. xv. xvi.). He ex- VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS plains Willi somr iiiiiiuteiifb.s wluTiiii consisted the heresies of Fhotiniis, Apollinaris, and Nestiirius, and the true doctrine of the church as opposed to them (cc. xvii.-xxii.). The danger of ignoring the principles here laid down, more especially the test of anti- quity, is painfully exhibited in the case of Origen, whose acute, profounii, and brilliant genius (fully recognized by imperial disciples and the church at large) has not saved his writings from becoming a source of tempta- tion ; though it is just possible, as some think, that they may have been tampered with (c. xxii.). A very similar judgment must be passed upon Tertullian, of whom Hilary (of Poictiers) too truly said that " by his errors he had diminished the authority due to his approved writings " (c. xxiv.). The true and genuine Catholic is he who loves Christ's body, the Church ; who puts Ciod's truth before all things, before any individual authority, affection, genius, eloquence, or philosophy. Many who fall short of this standard, when ni^it slain, are yet sadly stunted in their spirit- ual growth (c. XXV.). .\dditions to the faith or detractions from it are alike condemned by Holy Scripture, especially by St. Paul (I.Tini. vi.). The deposit is the talent of the Catholic faith, which the man of tiod must, like a spiritual Bezaleel, adorn, arrange, and display to others, but not injure by novelties (cc. xxvi. xxvii.). Certainly there is to be pro- gress ("profectus religionis "), but it must resemble the growth of the infant into man- hood and maturity — a growth which preserves j identity. The dogmas of the heavenly philo- 1 sophy may by the operation of time be j smoothed and polished, and gain, by greater fullness of evidence, light and elucidation (" distinctionem "), but they must retain integrity and all essential characteristics (cc. xxviii.-xxx.). Such has been the church's task in the decrees of councils, which have simply aimed at adding clearness, vigour, and zeal to what was believed, taught, and prac- I tised already (cc. xxx.-xxxii.). St. John, in i his 2nd epistle, is as emphatic as St. Paul against the teacher of false doctrine. Such an one cannot be encouraged without a virtual rejection of saints, confessors, and martvTs — a rejection, in short, of the holy church throughout the world. Pclagius (with his disciple Coelestius), Arius, Sabellius, Nova- tian, Simon Magus, were all introducers of novelties (cc. xxxiii. xxxiv.). The heretics use the Scriptures, but only in the way in which bitter potions are disguised for children by a previous taste of honey, or poisons labelled as healing medicines. The Saviour I warned us against such perils by His words i concerning wolves in sheep's clothing. We ' must attend to His subsequent advice, by ■ their fruits ye shall know them. His apostle i bids us beware of false ap<jstles (11. Cor. xi. I3-I5), the imitators of Satan, who transform | themselves into angels of light. Their em- [ ployment of Scripture resembles that of Satan : in the temptation of our Lord. They pre- I sume, in the teeth of the teaching of the church, to claim a special illumination for their own small conventicle (cc. xxxv.-xxxvii.). Catholics must apply to the interpretation of Scripture the tests of universality, antiquity. ' VINCENTIUS LIRINENSIS M)-2I and cnusrnt. U hi-r.- tli.v cm, Irt tlimi adduce the decrees of general counriU ; IjiIiiik th«>>e, the consistent rulings of grr.it doclufk. This does not apply to small questions, but only to whatsoever aflrcts the rule o( (.nth. Inveterate heresies can genrr.illv l«- met bv Holy Scripture alone, or by cle.ir t|.-ciMi>n>> of oecumenical councils. Now ones often present at first greater difliculty. and wc must be careful to cite those Fathers only who lived and died in the faith. What all or the majority clearlv and p»'rseveriiitlv recrivrd, held, and taught, let that be hi-ld as undoubted, certain, and ratified. Hut anv nirrely private opinion, even of a saint or mart\T. must l>e put aside. This again agrees with St. Paul (I. Cor. i. lo, xii. 27. 2«, xiv. vv 1<> ; l-ph. iv. 11). That Pelagian writer Julian neglected these cautions, and broke awav from the senti- ments of his colleagues (cc. xxxviii.-xl.). Bk. ii., as (iennadius informs us, was mostly lost, having been stolen from its author, who gives a recapitulation of its substance, which occupies 3 additional chapters. The tirst of these (c. xli.) simply re-states the main proposition of the earlier b(M>k. The author then, to shew that his view is no offspring of private presumption, adduces the example of the council of Kphesus, held nearly 3 years before the time of writing, in the consulship of Bassus and .\ntiochus. Great pains were taken to avoid an unfortunate issue, such as th.it of the council of Kimini {Cutuil. Artminen^e); and the testimonies of martyrs, confessors, and orthodox doctors were considered by an assemblage of nearly 200 bishops to prove Nestorius an irreligious impugner of Catholic truth, and Cyril to be in accordance with it. Amongst the saintly doctors present in person, or whose works were cited as authoritative, were Peter of .\lexandria, .\thanasius, Theo- philus, Cyril, C.regory Nazianzen. Basil and his excellent brother (Iregory of Nyssa. The West was represented by letters of Felix and of Julius, bps. of Rome; the South bv the evidence of Cvprian of Carthage ; the .North by that of .\inl)rose of Milan. The whole of the bishops, for the most part metropolitans, acted upon the principles maintained in this treatise and censured .Nestorius for his unhallowed presumption — that he was the first and only man who rightly understood the Scriptures (xli.). One element must be added, lest to all this weight anything seem lacking, namely, the authority of the apostolic see, which was illustrated by the twofold testimony of the reigning j|>ope, Sixrrs III., and of his pre- decessor CcK-lestine. It was on the principle* herein set forth that pope Sixtus condnniird Nestorius ; and Cix-lestine wrote in the same spirit lo certain priests in <iaul who were fostering noveltit-s. It is, in (act, an accr(»t- ance of the warning of St. Paul to Timothy to keep the depo\it (I. Tim. vi. 20. K.V. niarg.) and to the (ialatians, that he w.iuld be atut- thema who should preacii to theiii any other gospel ((Jal. i. 8). Justly ui>on thi-s<" grounds are Pelagius and Coelestius as well as Nes- torius condemned* (xlii.). • It miMl Ik' ijwiird thai there U a crrlain amount of difficulty, one may almont wy mystery, omnectcd with these last two chapters. In the first pUcr, thry 1022 VINCENTIDS LIRINENSIS It may safely be asserted that few theo- logical books of such modest bulk, published within our period, have attracted so large a share of attention. It has been included in all the best known collections of the Fathers (e.g. in the Maxima Bibliotheca Patruni, Lug- duni, A.D. 1677 ; and in that of Migne), re- peatedly published separately in many lands, and not unfrequently translated. A Scottish trans., dedicated to Mary Queen of Scots, was issued by Kncx's opponent, Ninian Winzeit, at Antwerp, in 1563*; an Engl, one in Schaff and Wace's Post-Nicene Lib. by Dr. Heurtley, and another by Rev. W. B. Flower (Lond. 1866). The Commonitorium has gathered around itself a literature. How far its leading prin- ciples have been accepted, either explicitly or implicitly, in the past ; how far they made a line of demarcation between those who accepted or rejected the Reformation ; to what extent they are available in the contro- versies between the various Christian com- munions, or in the contest between Christian- ity and unbelief — these questions have all been keenly discussed. To review these con- troversies would far exceed our limits, but it seems right to call attention to one or two features of the debate which have not received elsewhere the notice which they deserve. That the Commonitorium lays down a broad line of demarcation between the Protestant and the Roman churches is an obvious over- statement. The Magdeburg Centuriators distinctly pronounced in its favour as a work of learning and acuteness ; as a book which revealed and forcibly assailed the frauds of heretics, supplied a remedy and antidote against their poisons, set forth a weighty doctrine and displayed a knowledge of antiquity with skill and clearness in its treatment of Holy Scripture. The praise given by Casaubon to the principles of the English Reformation, the challenge of Jewel, and a large consensus of I7th-cent. divines, all rest, more or less explicitly, upon the famous dictum of Vincent — which, indeed, derives considerable support from certain portions of the Prayer-Book, Articles, and Canons. It is, of course, equally true that Roman Catholic divines, especially at the epoch of the Reformation and long after, also professed to take their stand upon the principles asserted in the Commonitorium. There is no reason to doubt their sincerity in so acting. They introduce a newelement into the discussion — namely, theauthority claimed for the Roman see. Theauthor appears to assume that this authority will always be manifested on the side of his great maxim of the "quod semper, quod ubique, quad ab omnibus," and makes no provision for the possibility of a divergence between the teaching of Rome and that of antiquity. Secondly, while the language concerning Nestorius and his opponent Cyril is clear and emphatic, there does seem to be a certain degree of reticence about some of the opponents of Augustine, e.§. Julian. The name of Augustine is not even mentioned, and though this is equally true of Jerome and Chrysos- tom, there was no special reason to introduce their names, while the repeated mention of Pelagius would have rendered the introduction of that of his chief opponent only natural. * " A richt goldin buke writtin in Latin about xi c jeris [years] passit and neulie translated in Scottis be Niniane Winzet a cathoUk Preist." (Original title.) VITALIUS were not in a position to judge the evidence on behalf of this and that portion of medieval doctrine and practice, and they appealed with confidence to such stores of learning as lay open to them. A day came when this confi- dence was rudely shaken. The Benedictine editions of the works of the Fathers appeared, with honest and discriminating criticism ap- plied to their writings. Not only was it seen that a considerable portion of their works, long accepted as genuine and authentic, was in reality spurious, but also that while dis- tinctively Roman tenets and practices received much support from the sermons and treatises relegated into the appendix of each volume, the case was widely different when reference was made to genuine Patristic remains. A new school of Roman Catholic divines arose, of whom Father Petau (Peta- vius) may perhaps be considered the earliest, as he is certainly among the greatest. The process of development in the church of Rome has widened the breach between her teaching and the principles of Vincent of Lerins. The church which set forth the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother, not merely as a lawful opinion but as a dogma, has broken with the maxim, " Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus." A new ed. for academical use was ed. by Jiilicher, Sammlung . . . Quellenschrifter (Freiburg i. Br. 1895). [j.G.c] Vitalius (Vitalis), bp. of the ApoUinarian congregation at Antioch. Vitalius was a man of high character, brought up in the orthodox faith at Antioch, and ordained presbyter by Meletius (Theod. H. £. v. 4 ; Soz. H. E. vi. 25). Jealousy of his fellow-presbyter Flavian caused a breach between him and his bishop, deprived of whose guidance Vitalius fell under the influence of Apollinaris and em- braced his theological system. Tidings of his unsoundness having reached Rome, Vitalius made a journey thither in 375 to clear him- self before pope Damasus, and to be received by him into communion. By the use of equivocal terms he convinced Damasus of his orthodoxy. Damasus did not, however, re- ceive him into communion, but sent Vitalius back to Antioch with a letter to Paulinus, whom, during the Meletian schism, Rome and the West recognized as the orthodox and canonical bishop of that see, remitting the whole matter to his decision. Shortly after Vitalius had left Rome Damasus des- patched a second letter to Paulinus, contain- ing a profession of faith, which, without naming Apollinaris, condemned his doctrines, desiring Paulinus to require signature to it as the terms of admission to communion (Labbe, ii. 900 seq. ; Theod. H. E. v. 11). Vitalius refused, and the breach between him and Paulinus became complete. Apollinaris or- dained Vitalius bishop of his schismatical church, his holiness of life and pastoral zeal gathering a large number of followers, the successors of whom were still at Antioch under the name of Vitalians when Sozomen wrote (Soz. H. E. vi. 25). The unsoundness of Vitalius on the point on which Apollinaris diverged from the orthodox faith did not prevent his receiving much esteem and affection from leaders on the orthodox side, VITUS With whom, this »in- p..iut c\rr|>tr«l, hr f..in- pifti-ly aKrcfd. It must hjvp Ih^ii vrrv shortly a(t«T Vit.ilius's rrlurn to Aiitioch ihjt Epiphaiiius, ur^rd thrrrto l.v Hasil (IU». t p. 25« [3^51). viMLil AntUMrh to try to hrjl the dinfrcnc«*s then n-iuhiiK thjt chiirrh. Thrrr he iiu't " Vitaliiis the l>isho|»." ol whom hr speaks in Ih.- hij;h.-st terms. Mr rarnrstlv b«^ouj{hl him to rcunitr hiiusolf to the Catholic church. l-'iiuliiiK thjl thr misumlrr- standin(( was chiellv a |xTN.in.il onr lirtwrrn him and I'aulinus. each rh.irt;inK thr other with unsoundue<vs m the laith. i piphainiii invited both to a coiWen-nre. .\t first \ita- lius's lannuajje ap|>eared |>errertlv orthiN|..x. He acknowledged as (iilly as Pauliiuis ih.it Christ was perdrt man with a human UhIv and soul (1^1 X';) ; luit when pressed as to whether lie also had a human mind (ro«'t), he said that His divinitv was to Hini in its place. Neither party could jM-rsuade the other, ami Epiphanius had t») give up theho|>eless attempt (Epiph. Ixxvii. cc. 20-23). (I)imoi HiTAr.) The schism of Vitalius added a third or. counting the .Ariaiis. a fourth church at j Antioch, each denouncing theothers. Melelius, | Pauliiuis, and Vitalius each claimed to l>e the orthiKlox bishop. The |»erplexity cj^eated is graphically described by Jerome to [>*>\>r Da- | niasus (Hieron. £>/>. 57. 5«)- Tilleni. M^m. eccl. vii. 617-022; Dorner. I'mon of Chml. div. I. vol. ii. pp. 386 (I.. Cl.irks trans. (f:.v|. Vitus (1) {(iuy). St.. a youthful niart>T in Diocli tian's persecution ; the s«in of a pagan gentleman in Sicily, but s«-cretly trained in ' Christianity by his nurse C r<-scentia and her husband Modestus. .After the Xntj had en- countered much cruel suffering, they sue- ' ceeded in carrying him over to Italy, where all 1 three fell victims, either in I.ucania or at Koine I (Boll. Acta SS. 15 Jun. iii. 401. ed. 1867). He is invoktxl against sudden death and hy- | drophobia (tb. .App. p. 21 •). and against I prolonged sleep and the complaint known as ! the chorea or dance of St. Vitus ((iuf^rin. Ln \ tet. bull. vii. 30). He is also, says (.u<^rin, j the patrtjn of comedians and dancers. Twi> 1 (iernian medical writers, (iregory H«>rst and | John Jun<ker, of the i;tb and iHth cent*. res|)eclively. relate how the malady rame to ' take his name (se* K«-<-4"s Fruycloprdia. i.f. "Chorea"). There sprang up. they s.iv in Germany in the 17th c*iit.. a su|>rrsti'. belief that by pn-M-ntiiig gifts to the n of St. N'ltus, and dancing l>rf»*r U di- night on his festival, pi-ople ensur< ! • ' good health through the year. I two cha(H-ls at I'lin an<l Havens) more f--i.»Tj illy noted for the ji... o( tl.' •• 1 ilirih,^ f.iii.ilir.. (. Ml Voluslaniu Hy C. VIbliu Aflnliu Callus VeldumnlanUS, joint emi-er.ir with his lather (jallus, A.b. 251-254. At the end of 251 (iallus was proclaiinetl emi>eror after the defeat and death of l>eriuv which he i% void to have caus<-d by his treachery. He »%%»■ ciated \'olusian with himself in the rtiipire, and, after making jTace with the doth* on the shameful terms of allowing them to ket-p their prisoners and paying them tril>iite. the emj)erors prtjcerdetl to Korne. Their thori reign was marked by the dreadful i>cttilrncr which began in Ethiopia and tpreaa over Ibe ZfPM YHINUS Wholr the s. with ( iiunirt t A,H.||0 the air and (1 rk III*; \'> ..|.r\ ll,. ( 1,11 IMI. of the (MipiiUrr. In Alli< pnaiium ad Ir.timi" w^ the outbreak of Derius H . •'<5N, ^».l| I reall/e,l, fl.. . ,.^ we crrtainlv know ■ The outbreak »aN aiul I orneliiis, bp smgle.l out b* a! bravelv round him. awav III tlie Pectali , theinselvr* bv their lnn.i ti32). tie with some of t: to ienlum Cellar, whrrr a natural death. |uii> Jrr firm. Hiuh. 2<. was awpareiitlv el. allowed to return, probably owing to t There is no clear pr- nieiit than exile in t' thr worst llientlonrtl by It-- Cyprian and St. iM.mvsiu Eus. //. t. vii, I). I.. (' .Aeinilianiis wa« i>r -< s<»ldlerv and (■ let. . were inurdrretl by ll. i. 23-2M ; /on. an. 21 1. XystOS. (SixTr% 11.) Z«nO(te). em|>rror ••! th IS famous III church btst>4\ ..f tr..- Id S..TI. ..'. ..i..i t .. loss iKl. ;n>f» im4 lli#. .Ilv i»eU .ilrtt l.e»| •A. I.ed .My V It HI .tMJO .ml lb* Z«ph)rir,ijs. thr r>.. ralh. 1 ■^ have ben. ritl,-i 1^ I 1 J •, r 41 .. (r . .<li 1 '^H iw «o 217. Ml frljn W4» mjikrti ■..rrl u ,tl ti.rt.anr. jt P ti.r wtnr t . <V k^Mtt* wt lit* ttu** «l H^Aue 1024 ZEPHYMNUS The two notable heresies of the time were Montanism and Monarchianism. The see of Rome, when occupied by Zephyrinus, declared against Montanism (Eus. H. E. ii. 25 ; iii. 28, 31 ; vi. 20). [Caius.] Thus Zephrinus, though no action of his in the matter is recorded, may certainly be concluded to have been no favourer of the Montanists. But neither he nor Callistus, who succeeded him, is free from the imputation of having countenanced one school of the Monarchians, that which Praxeas had introduced into Rome. Montanism and Monarchianism represented two opposite tendencies. The former was the product of emotional enthusiasm, the latter of intellectual speculation grounded on the difficulty of comprehending the mystery of the Godhead in Christ. Those called by the general name of Monarchians, though differing widely in their views, agreed in denving a divine personality in Christ distinct from that of the Father, being jealous for the Unity, and what was called the Monarchy of God.' One school was also called Patripassian, because its position was held to imply that in the sufferings of Christ the Father suffered. "They taught that the one Godhead, not one Person thereof only, had become incarnate, the terms Father and Son with them denoting only the distinction between God in His Eternal Being, and God as manifested in Christ. Such views were obviously incon- sistent with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, and their outcome was the Sabellian heresy. Praxeas appears to have been the first to introduce this form of heresy at Rome, and, if Tertullian is to be believed, the popes of the time supported Praxeas and his doctrine rather than otherwise. In addition to this testimony of Tertullian (whose treatise against Praxeas, written in the time of Zephyrinus, has been supposed, not without reason, to have been directed against the reigning pope as much as against the original heresiarch) we have that of the Refutation of all Heresies, attributed to HiPPOLVTUs, a learned \vriter of great note in his day, whose real ecclesiastical position is still open to discussion. He probably was bishop over a community at Rome which claimed to be the true church, out of com- munion with the pope, after the accession of Callistus, and possibly also under Zeph\Tinus. Callistus, in the time of pope Victor, had been residing under suspicion at Antium. Zephyrinus, the successor of Victor, seems to have had no misgivings about him, recalled him to Rome, gave him some position of authority over the clergy, and " set him over the cemetery." Zeph>Tinus is described as an unlearned and ignorant man, entirely nianaged by Callistus, who induced him, for his own purposes, to declare generallv for, but sometimes against, the Patripassians. The picture of the Roman church during the episcopate of Zephyrinus, as given in the Refutation of Hippolytus, discloses a state of discord and disruption not recorded by the historians. The picture, indeed, may be somewhat overcoloured under the influence of odium theologicum, and Callistus may not be the unprincipled adventurer, or Zephyrinus altogether the greedy and ignorant tool, that the writer describes. Dr. Dollinger (Hip- ZEPHYRINUS polyt. und Callist.), who attributes the whole work to Hippolytus, takes this view. He defends Callistus against the libel on his character, which, however, he allows may have had some ground, but acquits Hippolytus of wilful misrepresentation, supposing him to have been partly misled by false reports and partly by prejudice, being himself a strict maintainer of ancient discipline, while Callis- tus was a liberal. It is difficult, however, to acquit the writer of deliberate and malignant slander unless the picture given of the popes was mainly a true one. There remains the idea of Dr. Newman, that "the libellous mat- ter " in the Elenchus of Hippolytus was not his ; but for this there is no foundation beyond the supposed difficulty of believing it so. If Hippolytus wrote it, it is to be remembered that he was undoubtedly a divine of greater learning and repute than his rivals, and that he seems to have left a name without reproach behind him. All three (like some others who were bitterly at variance during life) are now together in the Calendar of Saints. ZephvTinus is further accused of undue laxity in matters of discipline. Our informant, Tertullian, WTiting in his time, speaks indig- nantly of a papal edict allowing admission of adulterers, after penance, to communion. There was yet another school of Monarch- ians at Rome in the time of Zeph\Tinus, adding to the discord. Its teacher, Theodotus the banker, who held that Christ, though con- ceived by the Holy Ghost, was a mere man, and even inferior to Melchizedek, had his sect apart and out of communion with the church (Eus. H. E. V. 28 ; Tertull. de Praescript.). Eusebius (I.e.), quoting from an unnamed writer of the time, tells a story of Natalius, a confessor for the faith, having been per- suaded by Theodotus and his colleague Asclepiodotus to be made bishop of their sect, of his having subsequently thrown him- self in sackcloth and ashes with many tears at the feet of Zeph\Tinus, and been thereupon received into communion. Another of the same school, .\rtemon or Artemas, taught at Rome under ZephvTinus, and apart from his communion. He alleged that his own doc- trine was that which the apostles had handed down, and which had been accepted by the Roman see till pope Victor's time, Zephyrinus having been the first to falsify the ancient creed. To this bold assertion his opponents replied that the fact of Victor having excom- municated Theodotus the currier, who was " the leader and father of this God-denying apostasy," was proof that Artemon's doctrine had not been formerlv that of the Roman church (Eus. H. E. v. 28 ; cf. Epiphan. Haer, Ixv. I, 4 ; Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 4 ; Phot. Biblioth. 48). During this episcopate the emperor Severus, a.d. 202, issued an edict which forbade anv person to become a Jew or a Christian (Aelii Spartiani Severus, c. 17), which was probably interpreted so as to include existing converts ; for in some parts it was followed by severe persecution, though there is no evidence that Zeph>Tinus or the Christians at Rome were then molested. Some time during this episcopate Origen paid a short visit to Rome (Eus. H. E. vi. 14). Zephyrinus is said (Catal. Felic.) to have ZOARAS been buried "in cimittrio suo jiixta ciiuite- rium via Appia" — i.f. apparently not in "the cemetery " itself, over which CaJlistus had been set {supra), but in one of his own adjoin- ing it. Lipsius supposes that the cemetery here meant was one which Zephyrinus had acquired, and that, Callistus having greatly added to it, the larger extension was after- wards called "the cemetery." Zephyrinus is said in Calal. Felic. to have ordered that no cleric of any order should be ortlaineil vxcept in the presence of the clerpy and faithful laity, and to have made a con- stitution, the purport of which, as it stands now in the texts of Cat. Fel., it is not easy to understand, but which is given in the Lib. Pontif. (Vtt. S. Zephyr.) as meaning that "the ministers should carry patens of glass in the church before the priests when the bishop celebrated masses, and that the priests should stand in attendance while masses were thus celebrated." There is other conclusive evidence that anciently, and to a date con- siderably later than that of Zeph>Tinus, glass patens as well as chalices were in use (see Labbe, p. 619 — nota Binii (c.) in Vit. Zephyr.). Together with most of the early popes, St. Zephyrinus is commemorated as a martyr ; "Aug. zb. Komae S. Zephyrinus Papae et martyris " (Martyr. Rom.). There is no ground for supposing him to have been one. Two spurious epistles have been assigned to him (see Labbe). [j.b — v.| ZoaraS (2). a turbulent Monophysite S>Tian monk, a zealous adherent of Severus, asso- ciated with him and Peter of Apamea in the petitions of the orthodox clergy of Syria to the council of Constantinople under Mennas, a.d. 536, as leaders of the Monophysite heresy, and condemned with them by the synod. He be- came a Stylite. On being driven after several years from his pillar by the orthodox party (the " Synodites "). he started for Constanti- nople with ten of his monks to complain to Jus- tinian, who hastily summontd a synod to give him audience. Ztjaras uncompmmisingly de- nounced " the accursed council of Chalcedon." This greatly irritated Justinian, who rebuked him for his presumption. Zoaras in no meas- ured terms denounced the emj^eror for his support of heresy. A monastery in the suburb of Sykas was assigned as a residence to him and his followers by the emperor, where he li\ ed quietly, exercising great liberality. The embassage of Agapetus, patriarch of Rome, with whom Zoaras held a very stormy en- counter which resulted in the deposition of the patriarch .Anthimus as a concealed Monophysite and the appointment of Mennas, A.D. 536, caused an outbreak of orthodox fury against Zoaras and his followers. In the various " libelli " presented to the synod under Mennas he and his heresy are denounced in no measured terms. He is described as a leader of the Acephali (Labbe, v. io«). He had been already condemned and excom- municated by Anthimuss predecessor lipi- phanius (ih. 251). Mennas and his synod repeated the condemnation, and Justinian banished Zoaras from Constantinople and its vicinity, and from all the chief cities of the empire, charging him to live in solitude. ^ According to the biography in Land, however, ' ZOSIMUS 1025 Justinian assigned him a niunasterv in Thrace, named Dokos, 30 miles away. Ilerc Theo- dorus.'the Monophysite patriiirch of Alexand- ria, was living and propagating his doctrines. The length of Zoaras's residence here is uncertain. After a time he left Thrace, and after some years died, leaving as liis successor his disciple the presbyter Ananias. A!«i>em. Btbl. Or. ii. 58, 235 ; Land, Anecdol. Syr. ii. 12-22; Bar-heb. Chron. Eccl. ed. Abbeloos, i. pp. 206-208; Labbe. V. 108, 2S4, 267. (e.v.) Zosimus (4), bp. of Home after Innocent I., from Mar. iH, 417, to Dec. 25, 418, under Honorius as the Western and Theodosius II. I as the Eastern emperor. CoELESTiis, having been expelled from Constantinople by the patriarch Atticus, went to Rome, a.d. 417, hoping for the support of Zosimus, who had newly succeeded to the Roman see. .Atticus had written letters about Coelestius to Asia, Carthage, and Thessalonica, but not to Rome ; the churches of Rome and Constantinople not being then in full com- munion, owing to the name of Jt>hn Chry- sostom not having been restored to the diptychs of the latter church. On the other band, Zosimus had before him, when Cotles- tius appealed to him, letters addressed by Pclagius to pope Innocent, but not received by him before his death. These letters had by no means satisfied St. .\ugustine (de Pecc. Orig. c. 17, 21 ; De Grat. x. 30, 31); but being expressed so as to evade the main points at issue, they may have seemed a sufficient exculpation to the pope, less sharpsiglited than Augustine in detecting heresy, and apparently less ready to find fault with it in this case. Thus Zosimus was disposed to receive Coe- lestius with favour, while the independent action of the .African bishops in the time of Innocent may have further inclined him to give the condemned persons a chance of clearing themselves. Coelestius appeared before him in the church of St. Clement, presented his defence, and was questioned as to whether he spoke sincerely and assented to what pope Innocent had written to the African bishops against the heresies imputed to him and Pelagius. This, Augustine tells us, he did, but refused to condemn the alleged errors imputed to him in the libellus of Paulinus (his original accuser at Carthage, A.D. 412), which had be* n sent to Rome. He further, according to Augustine, desired the pope's correction of any error of which he might through ignorance have been guilty (Aug. de Pecc. Orig. c. 607). Zosimus there- upon toiik up his cause, as that of one unfairly and improperly condemned. He wrote to this efTfct to Aurelius and the African bishops, desiring them either tf) send persons to Rome ti> convict the accused of heresy or to hold hira innocent, and inveighing against the two (iallican bishops, Heros and Lazarus, who had been the accusers of Coelestius. Zosimus wrote a second time to Aurelius and the Africans, having meanwhile received a letter in favour of Pelagius from Praylius, bp. of Jerusalem, and others from Pelagius himself. The-e last had entirely satisfied him of the writer's orthodoxy ; they had been iniblicly read at Rome, and received (says Zosimus) with universal joy ; and Zosimus wrote again 03 1026 ZOSIMUS to Carthage, declaring Pelagius and Coelestius to have fully vindicated themselves against the calumnious accusations of those "whirl- winds and storms of the church," Heros and Lazarus ; to have been condemned by unjust judges ; and to be still in the church's com- munion. He sent with his letter copies of those which he had received from Pelagius. By the same messenger Zosimus summoned Paulinus, the original accuser of Coelestius, to Rome. Coelestius had retorted on Paulinus the charge of heresy, and neither the latter nor any other accusers had come to Rome to prove their charges, and now Paulinus respect- fully refused to go, saying there was no need. He assumes in his extant reply that the pope's verdict had already been on his side, in that Coelestius had been called upon at Rome, however in vain, to condemn the heresies which he, Paulinus, had charged him with. Aurelius also, and the other African bishops, remained resolute. Several letters, no longer extant, appear to have passed between them and Zosimus, alluded to by Augustine {contra Duas Ep. Pelag. lib. ii. c. 3), and by Zosimus himself. Early in 418 they held a council of 214 bishops at Carthage, which confirmed their condemnation of Pelagius and Coelestius, and declared, with regard to Rome, that they must hold the verdict of Innocent against the heresi- archs to be still in force, unless the latter should recant. The decrees of this council were sent to Zosimus ; and he, in his extant reply, dated Mar. 21, 418, begins by a lengthy assertion of the authority of the Roman see inherited from St. Peter, which was such, he says, that none might dare to dispute its judgment. Still, he declares himself willing to consult his brethren, though not as being ignorant of what ought to be done or requiring their concurrence. Zosimus is further memorable for his ad- judication on the question of the jurisdiction of the see of Aries in Gaul, when some of the Gallic bishops were as little ready as the Africans to submit to his authority. Patro- clus had been elected and ordained metro- politan of Aries, a.d. 412, on the expulsion by the people of the former metropolitan, Heros — the Galilean bishop, above named, who subsequently, with Lazarus, accused Pelagius of heresy in Palestine and Africa. There had been a long rivalry and struggle for jurisdiction between the two ancient sees of Aries and Vienne. A recent synod at Turin had decided against the claim of Aries to general jurisdic- tion over other provinces. Consequently other metropolitans — Simplicius of Vienne, Hilarius of Narbonne, and Proculus of Mar- seilles — had claimed the right of ordaining bishops in their respective provinces ; and, notably, Proculus, acting on powers assigned him by the Turin synod as metropolitan of Narbonensis Secunda, had ordained Lazarus (the friend and associate of Heros) to the see of Aquae Sextiae (Aix). Patroclus appealed to Zosimus (a.d. 417), who at once wrote to the bishops of Gaul, to the Spanish bishops, and to Aurelius of Carthage and the rest of the African bishops, asserting the authority of the bishop of Aries over the provinces of Vienne and Narbonensis Prima and Secunda, and declaring all who should ordain bishops. ZOSIMUS or be ordained, within those provinces without his concurrence, to be degraded from the priesthood. He required that ecclesiastics of all orders from any part of Gaul whatever, pro- ceeding to Rome, or to any other part of the world, should not be received without letters commendatory (firmatae) from the metropoli- tan of Aries. This last privilege he rests, not on ancient right, but on the personal merits of Patroclus. The jurisdiction of Aries over the above-named provinces he rests on ancient right, derived from Trophimus having been sent from Rome as first bishop of the see, and all Gaul having received the stream of faith from that fountain. Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc, i. 28), referring to Passio S. Saturnini Episc. Tolas., speaks of seven missionary bishops, including Trophimus, who founded the see of Aries, having been sent from Rome to Gaul, " Decio et Grato consulibus," i.e. a.d. 250. But the see of Aries must have existed before then, since it appears from Cyprian (Ep. vi. 7) that in 254 Marcion had long been bishop of it. Possibly some Trophimus of an earlier date had been sent from Rome to Aries ; but if so, nothing is known about him. Zosimus WTOte also to the bishops of the provinces Viennensis and Narbonensis Se- cunda, disallowing the independent authority conceded to the metropolitans of those pro- vinces by the Turin synod ; to Hilarius of Narbonne, the metropolitan of Narbonensis Prima, forbidding him to ordain bishops independently of Aries, declaring all whom he should so ordain excommunicate, and threat- ening him with the same sentence ; and also to Patroclus, confirming to him the alleged ancient rights of his see, together with the privilege, above mentioned, of alone giving firmatae to ecclesiastics from all parts of Gaul. Simplicius of Vienne so far deferred to the pope's authority as to send a legate to him ; and Zosimus, writing to him on Oct. i, 417, allowed him, for the sake of peace, to go on for the present ordaining bishops in the neighbouring cities of the province in accord- ance with the order of the Turin synod. No such deference to Rome was shewn by Pro- culus of Marseilles, who continued to ordain, though the pope had pronounced his deposi- tion. Tumults ensued at Marseilles, where there seem to have been two parties. Con- sequently in 418 Zosimus wrote to the clergy and people there, warning them to oppose the attempts of Proculus, and to submit to Patro- clus ; and to Patroclus himself, enjoining him to assert his authority. Notwithstanding this, Proculus maintained his position as bp. of Marseilles and metropolitan of Narbonensis Secunda. The jurisdiction of Aries was long a bone of contention in Gaul. Zosimus died soon after writing the letters last mentioned, and was buried, according to the Lib. Pontif., on Dec. 26, " via Tiburtina juxta corpus beati Laurentii mart^Tis." The main authorities for his life are his own letters and other documents to be found in Baronius and Labbe, the works of Augustine, and Prosper (Chron.). [j.b— Y.l Zosimus (5), a Byzantine historian worthy of particular attention, not only for his general merits as an historian, but because, as a heathen bitterly opposed to Christianity, he ZOSIHUS pivei the heathen view of the ciiHes of the decline and fall of the Roman empire. There is con>iderable uncertainty a■^ to when he flourished. The middle of the 5th cent, is a probable date. Zosimus was not a polytheist, for in one passage at least of his history, when referring to an oracle which had predicted the greatness of Old Byzantium, he speaks of the Deity in highly worthy terms (ii. 37). He paid honour, however, to the heathen religious rites, as having come down from former generations (v. 23), complaining of the attempts of various emperors to extinguish them (ii. 29; iv. 59), lamenting that the oracles i of the gods were no Ioniser listened to (i. 57), j and finding in the abandonment of the old | religion one main cause of the decline of the | empire (iv. 59). He ridicules Christianity as an unreasonable conglomerate. dXoyoi <xvy- Kard^ecris (iv. 59), sneers at Christian soldiers ! as only able to pray (iii. 2 ; iv. 23), and wel- ! comes any opportunity of giving the most • false representations of the Christian faith (ii. 29 ; iv. 59). An historian of such a spirit can hardly be relied on for an account of the events of a time when the old superstitions he venerated were compelled to yield to the advancing power of a religion he abhorred ; and even his admirers are constrained to admit that he is not to be trusted where his religious prejudices come into play. Reitetneier, who ^ defends him on the whole, allows that he was ' too partial to the heathen, too unjust to Christians (Disquis. p. 26) ; and Gibbon speaks of his " passion and prejudice," '" ignorant and malicious suggestions," and " malcontent insinuations " (cc. xvii., xx.). His accounts of the conversion of Constantine, and of the character of Theodojius (ii. 29; iv. 26-33) suffer from this prejudice. To the former, as well as to many other of his most scandalous charges against that emperor, Evagrius replied in fierce language, addressing him as a "wicked spirit and fiend of hell" (iii. 41); and for the latter he has been condemned by Gibbon in hardly less emphatic language (c. xxvii.). De Broglie refers, for a full refuta- tion of the story regarding the conversion of Constantine, to the Mem. de I'Acad. des Inscrip. 49, p. 470, etc. The inference must not, however, be hastily drawn that Zosimus is an historian unworthy of our regard. On the contrary, he may be justly described as one of the best historians of these early centuries. liven his views on church matters are highly interesting, as shewing how they were regarded by the more intelligent heathen ; nor are they always wanting in truth. In estimating, too, his value as an historian, it must be remembered that he treats more largely of civil affairs than others had done, and we owe to him many facts connected with the condition of the military, their degeneracy, ex.actions, and dissoluteness, which contributed in no slight degree to the fall of the empire. There seems indeed no sufficient ground to ascribe intentional bad faith to his history. That he was mistaken in many of his conclu- sions, and especially in those relating to the influence of Christianity, is unquestionable. That he occasionally gave too easy credence to unfounded statements is not less so ; but ZOSIMUS 1027 it has never been i>roved that he wilfully per- verted facts to establish any theory. He was not in all respects an original his- torian. His//«s/orycloseswithA.D.4io. Hither he had been hindered by death from prosecut- ing it further or some porti<ins have been lost. He is thus occupied throughout with events before his own day, and in relating these he seems rather to epitomize works of predeces- sors than to write original narrative. Reite- meier finds that in the first part of his//i.?/ory he f'>llowed the Synop<iis of Denippus, in the middle and larger part the Chronicnn of liunapius, and in tiu- l.i^t part the Stlva of Olympiodorus (Disquis. p. 35). Photius charges him with extensive copying of liuna- plus (cf. Fabric, vi. p. 232, note). It seems to have been his admiration of I'olybius that led him to write. Th.it historian had de- scribed the rise of the Roman empire, and Zosimus, beholding everywhere around him its majestic ruins, would describe its fall. Nor will he merely describe the phenomena : he proposes also to investigate their causes. He begins, accordingly, with the reign of .Augustus, and, passing hastily over the time till the accession of Constantine, he occupies himself mainly with the reigns of that em- peror and his successors. He sets forth as the causes of the fill of the Roman empire : the change of government to its imperial form (i. 5) ; the removal of the soldiery into cities where they were debased by luxury and vice (ii. 34) ; the iniquitous exactions of successive emperors (ii. 38 ; iv. 28, 29, 41 ; v. 12) ; above all, the casting aside of the old religion, and the neglect of the responses of the oracles (i. 57)- There can be little doubt that he re- garded this last as the most important, so frequently does he allude to it (ii. 7; iv. 37, 59; V. 38, etc.). He expresses what was often thought and said at the time, and to the view thus taken we owe, in no small degree, St. Augustine's immortal work, de Civitate Dei. The style of the History of Zosimus has been praised by Photius as concise, perspicuous, pure, and, though not adorned bv many figures, yet not devoid of sweotness [Cod. 98). (Cf. Heyne, Corp. Ser. H.B., Zosimus, p. 16.) These commendations are deserved. Zosimus is generally free from the ambitious periods of most historians of his age. His narrative is circunistantial, but clear ; his language well chosen, and often very nervous and anti- thetical. He was not free from superstition ; and the fact that an historian, geu'-rally so calm and so far removed from the credulity of his day, should have put his faith in oracles and recorded without hesitation appearances of Minerva and .Achilles to .\laric, and various other miracles (see them in Fabric, vi. p. 610), shews how deep-seated such ideas were in the minds of his contemporaries, and may help to prove that the Christian belief in visions and miracles then prev.iiliii).; was nr»t inconsistent with sobriety of judgment and sound prin- ciples of criticism in other matters. The History of Zo>imus may be consulted for the lives and actions of the emperors between Augustus and a.d. .\io, more especi- ally for those of Constantine, Constantius, Theodosius the elder, Honorius, and Arcadius ; 1028 ZOSIMUS for accounts of the Huns, Alamanni, Scythians, Goths, and minor barbarous tribes ; the war in Africa in the time of Honorius, the cam- paign of Alaric in Italy, and the taking of Rome ; for the right of asylum in Christian churches, and the changes introduced into the army ; for an important description of Byzan- tium, old and new, and of Britain ; and finally, for an account of the secular games to ZOSIMUS I which, celebrated only once in no years, the people were summoned with the stirring yet I solemn cry, " Quos nee spectavit quisquam I nee spectaturus est." Some of the ancient oracles are preserved by him. The best ed. is by Reitemeier, in Gk. and Lat., with Heyne's notes (Leipz. 1784) ; Bekker's ed. (Bonn, 1837) has Reitemeier's notes. [W.M.] Printed by Huzell, Watson &■ Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury RETURN TO the circulation a^-sk of any University of Or.'" "j ' " '/ THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL UC DAVIS - CARLSON . HEALTH SQIENCES LIBRARY Bm\ by interHbrary Loatji _ UC DAVIS -CARLSON EALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY Jent by fnterfibrary Loan for 2 weeks' use CARLSON HEALTH SCIENCES LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS (916) 752-1162 r RtOkLl t V 1 KM. .„„ 1 1 1 CDMc^jLliDc i